DIVISION 4?

[Saint3333]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

[bcoach]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

[JCline0429]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

[ASUMountaineer]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

I agree. But, the players are the ones doing the heavy lifting and getting--by far--the lowest ROI. Coaches get paid 6+ figures, can sign endorsement deals, get cell phones, some get cars, and they can leave for another school without any repercussions. The student-athlete gets tuition, cannot sign endorsement deals, doesn't get a cell phone, definitely doesn't get a car (Ohio State notwithstanding), and cannot leave for another school without any repercussions.

With that said, I don't think paying players is the answer. But, I certainly see why players are miffed. They are doing the work, and others are making out like bandits--the schools included.

[huskie3]

I really do not think they are talking big sums of money to each player, just increase the stipend/allotment the players receive now. Even now the players choosing to live off-campus are given the amount it would cost to stay on campus. If they can find housing for less, they make money. I think they are also given money for food. I think it would more along the lines of academic schoolers like the Morehead and the new App is setting with Wilson's donation.

[bcoach]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

I agree. But, the players are the ones doing the heavy lifting and getting--by far--the lowest ROI. Coaches get paid 6+ figures, can sign endorsement deals, get cell phones, some get cars, and they can leave for another school without any repercussions. The student-athlete gets tuition, cannot sign endorsement deals, doesn't get a cell phone, definitely doesn't get a car (Ohio State notwithstanding), and cannot leave for another school without any repercussions.

With that said, I don't think paying players is the answer. But, I certainly see why players are miffed. They are doing the work, and others are making out like bandits--the schools included.

There is one group though that gets nothing at all for a lot more hours than anyone in the department and that is the trainers. Before I would start paying players I would offer scholarships the folks that keep the players on the field.

[AppSt94]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

I agree. But, the players are the ones doing the heavy lifting and getting--by far--the lowest ROI. Coaches get paid 6+ figures, can sign endorsement deals, get cell phones, some get cars, and they can leave for another school without any repercussions. The student-athlete gets tuition, cannot sign endorsement deals, doesn't get a cell phone, definitely doesn't get a car (Ohio State notwithstanding), and cannot leave for another school without any repercussions.

With that said, I don't think paying players is the answer. But, I certainly see why players are miffed. They are doing the work, and others are making out like bandits--the schools included.

While i understand your point, I do disagree with one premise. The players are getting a tremendous "opportunity" for a large ROI. These young men,and women, receive upwards of $100,000.00 in free education. Not to mention food, clothing and the resources to make them better at their sport. They are given tutors to assist them in their academic endeavours. When you sign that letter of intent, you are choosing to get your foot in the door of a better paying job after graduating from college versus taking an hourly wage, low end, slow upward mobility job after high school. The problem is that these kids, football and basketball players in particular, look at a signed NLI as a stepping stone to the pros and not what it truly represents. An opportunity to improve yourself.

[ASUMountaineer]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

I agree. But, the players are the ones doing the heavy lifting and getting--by far--the lowest ROI. Coaches get paid 6+ figures, can sign endorsement deals, get cell phones, some get cars, and they can leave for another school without any repercussions. The student-athlete gets tuition, cannot sign endorsement deals, doesn't get a cell phone, definitely doesn't get a car (Ohio State notwithstanding), and cannot leave for another school without any repercussions.

With that said, I don't think paying players is the answer. But, I certainly see why players are miffed. They are doing the work, and others are making out like bandits--the schools included.

While i understand your point, I do disagree with one premise. The players are getting a tremendous "opportunity" for a large ROI. These young men,and women, receive upwards of $100,000.00 in free education. Not to mention food, clothing and the resources to make them better at their sport. They are given tutors to assist them in their academic endeavours. When you sign that letter of intent, you are choosing to get your foot in the door of a better paying job after graduating from college versus taking an hourly wage, low end, slow upward mobility job after high school. The problem is that these kids, football and basketball players in particular, look at a signed NLI as a stepping stone to the pros and not what it truly represents. An opportunity to improve yourself.

I'll agree with your point, but the players' "large ROI" is no where near the sizable ROI the administrators and coaches are getting--and theirs is a contract/salary, not an "opportunity." The coaches also get food, clothing, and resources (large salaries, incentives, bonuses, contract negotiations, and endorsements). Again, I have not advocated to pay players, but it's asinine at worst and naive at best to act like the players aren't the ones making everyone but the players rich.

The answer isn't to throw more money at the players. It's to recognize that there is a money problem in college athletics, and it lies with the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and coaches.

[ASUMountaineer]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

I agree. But, the players are the ones doing the heavy lifting and getting--by far--the lowest ROI. Coaches get paid 6+ figures, can sign endorsement deals, get cell phones, some get cars, and they can leave for another school without any repercussions. The student-athlete gets tuition, cannot sign endorsement deals, doesn't get a cell phone, definitely doesn't get a car (Ohio State notwithstanding), and cannot leave for another school without any repercussions.

With that said, I don't think paying players is the answer. But, I certainly see why players are miffed. They are doing the work, and others are making out like bandits--the schools included.

There is one group though that gets nothing at all for a lot more hours than anyone in the department and that is the trainers. Before I would start paying players I would offer scholarships the folks that keep the players on the field.

Well, again I didn't advocate paying players. As for the trainers, I couldn't agree more.

[AppSt94]

While i understand your point, I do disagree with one premise. The players are getting a tremendous "opportunity" for a large ROI. These young men,and women, receive upwards of $100,000.00 in free education. Not to mention food, clothing and the resources to make them better at their sport. They are given tutors to assist them in their academic endeavours. When you sign that letter of intent, you are choosing to get your foot in the door of a better paying job after graduating from college versus taking an hourly wage, low end, slow upward mobility job after high school. The problem is that these kids, football and basketball players in particular, look at a signed NLI as a stepping stone to the pros and not what it truly represents. An opportunity to improve yourself.[/quote]

I'll agree with your point, but the players' "large ROI" is no where near the sizable ROI the administrators and coaches are getting--and theirs is a contract/salary, not an "opportunity." The coaches also get food, clothing, and resources (large salaries, incentives, bonuses, contract negotiations, and endorsements). Again, I have not advocated to pay players, but it's asinine at worst and naive at best to act like the players aren't the ones making everyone but the players rich.

The answer isn't to throw more money at the players. It's to recognize that there is a money problem in college athletics, and it lies with the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and coaches.[/quote]

I understand that you are not advocating paying players. You point was not lost on me and I apologize if it appeared that I glanced over it. To not debate you, but to make appoint to the escalating salaries. No one is making you play football. If a player feels exploited, then they are free to pursue other opportunities.

[ASUMountaineer]

While i understand your point, I do disagree with one premise. The players are getting a tremendous "opportunity" for a large ROI. These young men,and women, receive upwards of $100,000.00 in free education. Not to mention food, clothing and the resources to make them better at their sport. They are given tutors to assist them in their academic endeavours. When you sign that letter of intent, you are choosing to get your foot in the door of a better paying job after graduating from college versus taking an hourly wage, low end, slow upward mobility job after high school. The problem is that these kids, football and basketball players in particular, look at a signed NLI as a stepping stone to the pros and not what it truly represents. An opportunity to improve yourself.

I'll agree with your point, but the players' "large ROI" is no where near the sizable ROI the administrators and coaches are getting--and theirs is a contract/salary, not an "opportunity." The coaches also get food, clothing, and resources (large salaries, incentives, bonuses, contract negotiations, and endorsements). Again, I have not advocated to pay players, but it's asinine at worst and naive at best to act like the players aren't the ones making everyone but the players rich.

The answer isn't to throw more money at the players. It's to recognize that there is a money problem in college athletics, and it lies with the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and coaches.[/quote]

I understand that you are not advocating paying players. You point was not lost on me and I apologize if it appeared that I glanced over it. To not debate you, but to make appoint to the escalating salaries. No one is making you play football. If a player feels exploited, then they are free to pursue other opportunities.[/quote]

I see what you're saying. But, we can't act like the "opportunity" given to these players is the equivalent of what they make the coaches.

[JCline0429]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

I agree. But, the players are the ones doing the heavy lifting and getting--by far--the lowest ROI. Coaches get paid 6+ figures, can sign endorsement deals, get cell phones, some get cars, and they can leave for another school without any repercussions. The student-athlete gets tuition, cannot sign endorsement deals, doesn't get a cell phone, definitely doesn't get a car (Ohio State notwithstanding), and cannot leave for another school without any repercussions.

With that said, I don't think paying players is the answer. But, I certainly see why players are miffed. They are doing the work, and others are making out like bandits--the schools included.

They could skip the entire college scene and go straight to the NFL. Lots of luck.

[ASU-FTW]

Why don't these guys just form a new division within the NCAA? I don't see the need to do a full break.

[bcoach]

Why don't these guys just form a new division within the NCAA? I don't see the need to do a full break.

They don't want to be regulated by the NCAA and they don't want to share revenue.

[AppSt94]

While i understand your point, I do disagree with one premise. The players are getting a tremendous "opportunity" for a large ROI. These young men,and women, receive upwards of $100,000.00 in free education. Not to mention food, clothing and the resources to make them better at their sport. They are given tutors to assist them in their academic endeavours. When you sign that letter of intent, you are choosing to get your foot in the door of a better paying job after graduating from college versus taking an hourly wage, low end, slow upward mobility job after high school. The problem is that these kids, football and basketball players in particular, look at a signed NLI as a stepping stone to the pros and not what it truly represents. An opportunity to improve yourself.

I'll agree with your point, but the players' "large ROI" is no where near the sizable ROI the administrators and coaches are getting--and theirs is a contract/salary, not an "opportunity." The coaches also get food, clothing, and resources (large salaries, incentives, bonuses, contract negotiations, and endorsements). Again, I have not advocated to pay players, but it's asinine at worst and naive at best to act like the players aren't the ones making everyone but the players rich.

The answer isn't to throw more money at the players. It's to recognize that there is a money problem in college athletics, and it lies with the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and coaches.

I understand that you are not advocating paying players. You point was not lost on me and I apologize if it appeared that I glanced over it. To not debate you, but to make appoint to the escalating salaries. No one is making you play football. If a player feels exploited, then they are free to pursue other opportunities.[/quote]

I see what you're saying. But, we can't act like the "opportunity" given to these players is the equivalent of what they make the coaches.[/quote]


So with that logic, and there is nothing wrong with what your saying. But if the player performance is a catalyst to coaches salaries then would it be safe to say that poor player performance can cost a coach his job? Granted, unemployment with a six or seven figure buyout makes it easier to struggle. So should a coach get a piece of a player's pay from an NFL contract since that contract was offered due to the mastering of skills taught by that coach?

[ASUMountaineer]

The problem isn't that we need to play players, the problem is that we are paying bowl directors $800k a year, coaches $5M a year, and charging fans $75 for tickets.

People are focusing on wrong issues if they are trying to "fix" college football.

That is absolutely correct. Way too many people think the solution to collage football is more money when in reality it is the problem. A coach making the kind of money they do today is a travesty. The bowl situation is just plain ridiculous also. Why on earth should a school lose money by going to a bowl? The bowl makes out, the restaurants make out, the hotels make out, and in too many cases the school foots the bill. If collage football outside of the big boys is to survive, then things need to change. Paying players (more)is going in the wrong direction.

A good college education and the exposure to a positive team comraderie should be enough "pay". They often become popular on campus and are in high profile environment that often leads to connections for post graduation employment.

I agree. But, the players are the ones doing the heavy lifting and getting--by far--the lowest ROI. Coaches get paid 6+ figures, can sign endorsement deals, get cell phones, some get cars, and they can leave for another school without any repercussions. The student-athlete gets tuition, cannot sign endorsement deals, doesn't get a cell phone, definitely doesn't get a car (Ohio State notwithstanding), and cannot leave for another school without any repercussions.

With that said, I don't think paying players is the answer. But, I certainly see why players are miffed. They are doing the work, and others are making out like bandits--the schools included.

They could skip the entire college scene and go straight to the NFL. Lots of luck.

They have to sit out three years to do so.

Again, I'm not advocating paying players, but do you honestly not see the disconnect between offering players only tuition while their coaches make millions of dollars and can bail on them at the drop of a hat?

[AppSt94]

With all do respect, I do not see it a disproportional ROI or a disconnect. It is "life". Life is not always fair.

[JCline0429]

Of course I do, but paying college players would make them professional athletes and college sports professional sports. It would open up the sport to contract negotiations, players' unions and a myriad of other maladies. Like I said, the NFL could produce its own minor league institutions and skip using the colleges for its farm team leagues. I guess the next step would be to pay high school athletes since the coaches get paid and many schools make money off of high school athletics. Of course child labor laws would have to be changed. Just playing the devil's advocate.

As to the athletes having to sit out 3 years. That could be changed or let them find a job at MacDonald's for three years or pay their own way through college like most of the rest of us did.

[ASUMountaineer]

While i understand your point, I do disagree with one premise. The players are getting a tremendous "opportunity" for a large ROI. These young men,and women, receive upwards of $100,000.00 in free education. Not to mention food, clothing and the resources to make them better at their sport. They are given tutors to assist them in their academic endeavours. When you sign that letter of intent, you are choosing to get your foot in the door of a better paying job after graduating from college versus taking an hourly wage, low end, slow upward mobility job after high school. The problem is that these kids, football and basketball players in particular, look at a signed NLI as a stepping stone to the pros and not what it truly represents. An opportunity to improve yourself.

I'll agree with your point, but the players' "large ROI" is no where near the sizable ROI the administrators and coaches are getting--and theirs is a contract/salary, not an "opportunity." The coaches also get food, clothing, and resources (large salaries, incentives, bonuses, contract negotiations, and endorsements). Again, I have not advocated to pay players, but it's asinine at worst and naive at best to act like the players aren't the ones making everyone but the players rich.

The answer isn't to throw more money at the players. It's to recognize that there is a money problem in college athletics, and it lies with the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and coaches.

I understand that you are not advocating paying players. You point was not lost on me and I apologize if it appeared that I glanced over it. To not debate you, but to make appoint to the escalating salaries. No one is making you play football. If a player feels exploited, then they are free to pursue other opportunities.

I see what you're saying. But, we can't act like the "opportunity" given to these players is the equivalent of what they make the coaches.[/quote]


So with that logic, and there is nothing wrong with what your saying. But if the player performance is a catalyst to coaches salaries then would it be safe to say that poor player performance can cost a coach his job? Granted, unemployment with a six or seven figure buyout makes it easier to struggle. So should a coach get a piece of a player's pay from an NFL contract since that contract was offered due to the mastering of skills taught by that coach?[/quote]

How is that even a reasonable question? The coach was paid, in most cases very well, to assist the player in mastering those skills. That was his job, and he negotiated a contract to perform said duties.

Again, you talked about the "opportunities" being given to players as if it is somehow equal to the salaries, benefits, clothes, cars, phones, endorsements, and bonuses received by the coaches. I just can't buy that.

I think we all can agree that the system is flawed and needs to be changed. I do not think simply paying players is the answer. However, to refuse to recognize the disconnect is being dismissive of reality. College football has become a big business, and the players are reaping by far the least amount of rewards. I am simply suggesting that we begin by recognizing that a free tuition, while a great opportunity, is not the same as hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary, benefits, etc.

[ASUMountaineer]

With all do respect, I do not see it a disproportional ROI or a disconnect. It is "life". Life is not always fair.

Who asked that life be fair?

With all due respect, I see the disconnect as blatantly obvious.