Kansas Crimson

Ditto here. I am tired of the away game disparities too.

can't win on the road = soft

are they seriously considering going to 96? i know it’s been thrown around, but didn’t realize the top brass were legit talking about it

https://www.si.com/college/2024/02/25/e ... n-proposal

what a joke

Worse and worse.
I don’t even think BWW Chad wants 96 teams.

fuck that shit, go back to 32

Johnny (not Furphy) asked for 3mil for 2yrs LOL

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C30HdPuu ... hwNHdzcg==

I don’t think Johnny is a standard example of anything near a college athlete.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:19 pm I don’t think Johnny is a standard example of anything near a college athlete.

No, but definitely insightful into the extreme high end of the college football market. He was an elite QB a few years too early to fully cash in.

hes a manic personality that ruined his talent. Giving him even more money to throw away wouldn't have solved that.

I think you’re both right!

Johnny Manziel is not a standard example of an average college athlete. But he probably IS a very standard example of the extreme high end of the college football market.

And the fact that he was asking for something that is, now, not at all inconsistent with what we’re seeing…it indicates to me that the market is doing what it’s supposed to do (fully understand that many people feel that the market should not exist at all).

blah blah blah

because this jackass was doing it doesn't make it right or normal or something to strive for

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:42 pm blah blah blah

because this jackass was doing it doesn't make it right or normal or something to strive for

I appreciate that you feel that way, and I’m not trying to change your mind. I just think it’s evidence that the market already existed - which I fully understand does not mean that someone who hated it then needs to like it now.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:47 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:42 pm blah blah blah

because this jackass was doing it doesn't make it right or normal or something to strive for

I appreciate that you feel that way, and I’m not trying to change your mind. I just think it’s evidence that the market already existed - which I fully understand does not mean that someone who hated it then needs to like it now.

maybe the market existed for a select few.

Nigel Packs of the world weren't getting 800k

and just because a market exists doesn't automatically mean that it's the best interest of the entities to pursue said market.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:48 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:47 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:42 pm blah blah blah

because this jackass was doing it doesn't make it right or normal or something to strive for

I appreciate that you feel that way, and I’m not trying to change your mind. I just think it’s evidence that the market already existed - which I fully understand does not mean that someone who hated it then needs to like it now.

maybe the market existed for a select few.

Nigel Packs of the world weren't getting 800k

and just because a market exists doesn't automatically mean that it's the best interest of the entities to pursue said market.

I certainly agree on the last item. I have nothing new to say on the first two, and I have no interest in screaming at each other from corners on them.

Yes.
Doing what it’s supposed to do while ruining the sport.

"After another courtroom loss, the NCAA has told its enforcement staff to halt investigations into booster-backed collectives or other third parties making name, image and likeness compensation deals with Division I athletes.

In a letter to member schools on Friday, NCAA President Charlie Baker said the Division I Board of Directors directed enforcement staff "to pause and not begin investigations involving third-party participation in NIL-related activities."

The move comes a week after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia. The antitrust suit challenges NCAA rules against recruiting inducements, saying they inhibit athletes' ability to cash in on their celebrity and fame."

The whole collective thing is, in my opinion, something of temporary stop on the way to whatever this will all settle out to be.

Again in my opinion, what will be best for the sport would be a negotiated outcome between the players, on one side, and the organization representing the top level of the sport, on the other side. With logical and enforceable, and equitable, rules.

I don’t think every man for himself is the best outcome for the sport. And nor is a patchwork quilt of rules and guidelines on a conference by conference (or whatever) basis.

Pro sports with no actual academics or link to the university except using their branding to make money for them.

Not college sports. Not at all.

Best for the sport.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:53 pm Pro sports with no actual academics or link to the university except using their branding to make money for them.

Not college sports. Not at all.

Best for the sport.

I apologize - I should have clarified that I meant in the practical context of what’s going to happen. I understand you are not in favor of that generally.

Since this is inevitable I guess I agree.
Like all pro sports you need structure and rules for your players within the league.