Cowherd: "Screw Middle Tennessee State."

HarringtonFishSmeller · January 25, 2016

Just now, forevereagle said:

Not that long ago, the rule did change. They moved it in 03 or 04 for Fitzgerald. They moved it from 3 playing years to 3 years in school. I doubt that they move it much more.

True...and, you have to consider that, given the opportunity through collective bargaining, worker will protect their own jobs.

I'm just sayin': the NCAA and Universities get blamed for much of what is, really, out of their control.

forevereagle · January 25, 2016

45 minutes ago, HarringtonFishSmeller said:

True...and, you have to consider that, given the opportunity through collective bargaining, worker will protect their own jobs.

I'm just sayin': the NCAA and Universities get blamed for much of what is, really, out of their control.

All true, just wanted to get on the record that a rule change did occur.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · January 25, 2016

Back to the original subject of his argument, what is the argument that the NCAA as a whole should care that it hurts the MTSU's and UNT's of the world? Not coming from us as fans of a smaller school, but objectively? Genuinely curious.

forevereagle · January 25, 2016

5 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

Back to the original subject of his argument, what is the argument that the NCAA as a whole should care that it hurts the MTSU's and UNT's of the world? Not coming from us as fans of a smaller school, but objectively? Genuinely curious.

If the NCAA wants to continue to operate under the guise that they care about student athletes (not arguing that they do), then doing things to limit the number of schools offering scholarships hurts a lot of potential student athletes. To hurt those schools would do harm to the premise that they actually give a crap about students.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · January 25, 2016

19 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

If the NCAA wants to continue to operate under the guise that they care about student athletes (not arguing that they do), then doing things to limit the number of schools offering scholarships hurts a lot of potential student athletes. To hurt those schools would do harm to the premise that they actually give a crap about students.

What if they split off but still allowed the same number of scholarships to the G5 schools?

forevereagle · January 25, 2016

8 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

What if they split off but still allowed the same number of scholarships to the G5 schools?

Realistically, if that were the case, I would hope that the G5 banded together and did not schedule any games with the new division. I don't think that the P5 schools really want to only play each other. They would really beat each other up and wouldn't have the big runs we see now, especially for the Kansas type teams. If you think they struggle in W/L now, wait until they can't pad their schedule with games they have a chance at winning.

Also, not sure that it really helps the argument that they care about students since there would still be a difference in the amount those students were given, just changes the look.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · January 25, 2016

36 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Realistically, if that were the case, I would hope that the G5 banded together and did not schedule any games with the new division. I don't think that the P5 schools really want to only play each other. They would really beat each other up and wouldn't have the big runs we see now, especially for the Kansas type teams. If you think they struggle in W/L now, wait until they can't pad their schedule with games they have a chance at winning.

Also, not sure that it really helps the argument that they care about students since there would still be a difference in the amount those students were given, just changes the look.

I think we are already sorta going toward that way with the playoffs. P5's are scheduling less and less body bag games to ensure their strength of schedule is high enough to get into the playoffs. Kansas and the like would become the new body bag games. The G5's will never stop scheduling those body bag games though because, like Cowherd mentioned, we need them to survive.

The inequality thing is true, but they would say it is already no where near equal.

forevereagle · January 25, 2016

12 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

I think we are already sorta going toward that way with the playoffs. P5's are scheduling less and less body bag games to ensure their strength of schedule is high enough to get into the playoffs. Kansas and the like would become the new body bag games. The G5's will never stop scheduling those body bag games though because, like Cowherd mentioned, we need them to survive.

The inequality thing is true, but they would say it is already no where near equal.

Just because things are not equal now doesn't mean that they couldn't attempt to make things more equal for the betterment of everyone. Parity is prized in most sports, but not in college sports. It is the one place where parity is actively refused.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · January 25, 2016

30 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Just because things are not equal now doesn't mean that they couldn't attempt to make things more equal for the betterment of everyone. Parity is prized in most sports, but not in college sports. It is the one place where parity is actively refused.

That will never happen. Unlike pro athletics, the difference in attendance isn't 52,000 (St. Louis Rams) and 91,000 (Dallas Cowboys), it's 100,000+ to >13,000. Same with TV revenues.

forevereagle · January 25, 2016

17 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

That will never happen. Unlike pro athletics, the difference in attendance isn't 52,000 (St. Louis Rams) and 91,000 (Dallas Cowboys), it's 100,000+ to >13,000. Same with TV revenues.

I am of the opinion that it could be different if everyone was on an even playing field. But you are right, the oligopoly will be allowed to continue.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · January 25, 2016

6 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

I am of the opinion that it could be different if everyone was on an even playing field. But you are right, the oligopoly will be allowed to continue.

Pro sports rely on the player draft to help create talent parity. Unless we tell high school kids they can't choose where they go to College, there isn't much you can do.

forevereagle · January 25, 2016

27 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

Pro sports rely on the player draft to help create talent parity. Unless we tell high school kids they can't choose where they go to College, there isn't much you can do.

But you could give equal access to the championship, balance conferences, and regulate schedules. There are plenty of things that can be done to take away the massive advantages.

The other thing pro sports do to help create parity is revenue share, and good luck getting that to happen in college as well.

Arkstfan · January 26, 2016

You don't have to go to college to play professional basketball, soccer, baseball, volleyball, or turn pro as a skiier, hockey player, golfer, or track athlete. Now some of those, you won't make enough to live on in the US and in the case of basketball you have no choice but go outside the US if you aren't old enough for the NBA draft.

Only football players don't have a choice.

In any sport other than football, if you don't like what college offers in compensation for your time, don't effin go to college to play your sport, go pro.

My cousin is a pipe fitter and was sub on the construction of a major hospital in Jonesboro. Guy who wanted a job there then turned his nose up at the pay and said he could make three times that in North Dakota. My cousin told him, "I'm not stopping you from going." and the guy explained he didn't want to be up there working. My cousin explained he could work in Arkansas for the market rate in Arkansas or he could get the market rate for North Dakota by going to North Dakota.

That's basically the conversation for every NCAA athlete who isn't a football player. You can take what the rate is where you are expected to go to class and make progress toward a degree or you can pursue a different route to play your sport.

UNT is an educational institution, so UNT has to offer roughly equal opportunities to male and female athletes. The market value of their athletic abilities doesn't get to be a factor in determining if equal opportunities are afforded and as a member of FBS UNT has to offer not less than 16 sports. It doesn't matter whether football could be profitable but for say volleyball, the arena UNT operates in makes volleyball a cost of being FBS.

Cowt#rd is an agitator and I'm sure he's tickled people are mad.

Fact of the matter is non-high resource schools have performed quite well in post-season vs high resource schools.

Mike Jackson · January 28, 2016

He is wrong but it more complicated than MTSU and UNT of the world. It is about where the money is going and the mission of these schools. College football wasn't started to be a business. But unfortunately we are treating it like one. Student athletes miss way too much class time as it is. And many of these athletes are not even a part of the campus community because they are always gone. A shift needs to be made back to academics and regional conferences. Maybe get rid of athletic scholarships all together at the FBS level. Pay the players instead and make them pay for their education out of their salaries. I think more of them would take their educations way more seriously if they were paying the bill out of their pockets. (IE I am not paying for a bullshit "stay eligible" class) Get rid of transfer eligibility rules too.