Hypothetical/theoretical questions about college football ...

As a college football fan, of these two/three extremes, which would you prefer:

1. College football functions as a minor league for the NFL. Colleges "recruit" the best players they can afford. Drop all academic requirements, as the players would not be students an any sense of the word, but professional athletes who merely wear the colors of the university whose sponsors pay their salaries.

2. College football players are legitimate, full-time students, subject to the same exact academic standards and requirements as every other student. They would not be allowed to accept any money from the school, donors, sponsors, advertisers, etc.(no NIL). They would be actual, full-time college students first, actively pursuing a degree, who play football for your school.

3. Same as #2, legitimate college students who play football, but with NIL allowed.

Questions:

Which of these scenarios would you prefer?
Which is best for college football?
Which are we closest to right now?
Which is most likely to play out?

oh_its_JimmyHEYHEY®

All-In [27150]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 15705

Joined: 1/26/22

I think we are. There's no way to divorce the money from the game,

Dec 3, 2023, 9:57 PM

both in practicality and principle. I don't think even attempts at money splits would work because you're still dealing with the issue that some guys are going to be more valuable than others in marketing, so we're back at the question of why guys don't earn proportional shares of the value of their NIL.^*

So, it would seem the best way to do it is create the semi-pro league, and then a true amateur league for all schools that don't want any part of the new paradigm.

I do think schools/ADs/boosters would have to still be involved and function as owners. And, maybe they determine the level of involvement of athletes into education.

idk man. I'm still going to lay this all at the feet of the NCAA for being so dogmatic in their player pay stance that we missed an opportunity for putting them on salary and perhaps sidestep the NIL aspect, but that was probably an inevitability anyhow.

IMO, cracking down on the transfer portal and implementing some sort of penalty would probably have the most immediate, direct, and consequential impact than anything else, and would be relatively low hanging fruit.

^*One idea that might address this is NIL functioning less like an endorsement than a collegiate trademark, so you're not "sponsoring" the athlete but paying for the right to use his/her name. And, there would be one singular clearinghouse to player licenses, and players would collect when their NIL was licensed for use. So, the guys with the biggest names would still make the most money because their NIL's would be the most widely purchased. Then again, this would only work for like jersey sales and what not. I don't know how you get around (legit) corporate sponsorships like Dr. Pepper, unless you say guys can't be used for corporate purposes, which takes us back to the original ethics of how we got here.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

drunk at the putt putt.

too many words for me. sorry.***

Not surprising.***

Re: too many words for me. sorry.***

You already have all three

Re: You already have all three

NCAA is dead

And I say this as someone with no real NFL

I didn't realize I was suggesting that the player was the problem.

You have all 3 on a team right now

What schools have players that are not enrolled as students?

Off the top of my head, this year

C'mon man.

If Joe burrow wasn't at LSU

Again, I know there have always been college football players

Re: Hypothetical/theoretical questions about college football ...

Agreed, great ideas.***

#1.

Definitely solves a lot of problems

I'd hate to see that. I think it will be a sad day when the the players wearing

I think we are. There's no way to divorce the money from the game,

Looking at number 1

Good questions.***

Were close to (1) now - weve never been at (2)

TigerBoard POTD