Pollard on Deadspin
- Thread starter HILL
- Start date
So hilariously misguided. You must really think that college athletes are dog **** if they can be replaced by anyone.
How about professional athletes? If we took away say the 50 best players at each position and replaced them with CFL or AFL players you think the product would be the same? The NFL would make basically the same amount of money even though they were fielding a far inferior product? You know there's a reason those players don't play in the NFL right?
Do you think it's a coincidence that the most popular leagues of any sport in the world are the leagues with the most talented players?
It isnt the travel but the reason behind it. More money. Not what is best for the students they care so much about. But more money.
And it isnt an open market. I dont feel sorry for the players. I just dont like the hypocrisy of the NCAA and its member schools.
So it is big business in a capitalistic pursuit of tax-free profit hinged on the backs of students? Sounds fair.
Not anyone, but the talent pool is extremely large. Competitiveness would be about the same, the games would be just as interesting to watch.
Itd have a different effect because having the top talent is a bit more of what the NFL is. Even then theyd still attract plenty who go to games because of the brand their fans are attracted to.
I think you have the causation backwards. Those leagues have the most talented players because due to their popularity they can provide the most benefits to players so they attract top talent.
Those students are free to quit and hand over their benefits anytime they want. There is a line of millions waiting to take their place.
And if athletes are irrelevant, what incentive do coaches have to recruit illegally?
My guess is it helps them win. And they are rewarded financially for winning. Why? Because winning increases revenue. So better talent leads to higher revenue.
The NFL gets the best talent because they can pay the most. However, the NFL is not the most popular league because they can pay their players the most. They're the most popular league because they have the most exciting, most talented players which makes for a more exciting product.
If another league started and was paying more and managed to poach all the best talent from the NFL do you think in 10 or 15 years the NFL is still the #1 game in town with subpar athletes? When all the best players are signing with the 3TrueFans Football League? Have you ever watched ****** teams play football? If I didn't have a personal connection with ISU I wouldn't have watched those first 2 games if you begged me, because why would people pay their hard earned money to watch a second rate product?
Why are coaches and boosters paying star college athletes under the table to play at their school if there are millions of others out there to take their place? Why is it an arms race to see who can land the best talent if talent doesn't matter?
They are free to play in other leagues that will allow them. They are free to not play and not receive the compensation offered if its not a fair deal. They are free to go to school on their own dime (and\or own loans).
But college ball is completely different than pro. Pro has that 'we have the best players' as its defining characteristic. College is something different entirely.
You illustrate the fact perfectly with the last lines of your post. Most college football fans DO have that sort of connection, so regardless of the players on the field, they watch because they are rooting for their brand.
But the system has been created so that the only way to play in the NFL is to play college football first. There isn't some magical knowledge you get only by playing college football that couldn't be learned playing somewhere else, but how many people have made it into the NFL without playing college football? Has it happened maybe 5 times ever? A few punters and kickers maybe, Antonio Gates played basketball in college and not football, so let's say it's virtually impossible for all intents and purposes.
Thanks for the debate. Philosophically we agree that paying players is a bad idea. In my opinion, ADs lost their credibility with conference realignment. And no amount of debate on here is going to convince either side to feel otherwise.
It's not different, it's still the best of the best that have not yet gone pro. Maybe it used to be different, but it's not now.
So if talent doesn't matter then why are people breaking rules and falling all over themselves to try to land the best recruits in the country? People are going to watch whether you win or lose you say because they have a connection to the team.
Major college athletes aren't being given a scholarship for an engineering degree. Anybody who is going to argue that the scholarship should be plenty of compensation needs to keep in mind all the useless degrees out there; and with the way times are, we should all be well aware of the fact that just having a college degree doesn't mean hardly anything anymore. Plus, athletic departments don't give a **** if an athlete learns anything during their time in school, so long as their graduation numbers aren't impacted. I wouldn't say that's setting anybody who doesn't make the pros up real well.
Should players be paid? I dunno. But the hypocrisy behind college sports organizations and everyone else involved in side businesses making BILLIONS from a product supplied by players who get no tangible compensation is a bit staggering.
At the very least, players should be able to profit off of their own names, rather than the disgusting way the NCAA pockets all of that money. College student or not, they're all still effing people and athletes who have names, and whose popularity is determined not by the fact that the NCAA exists but because of their own performance.
Should players be paid? I dunno. But the hypocrisy behind college sports organizations and everyone else involved in side businesses making BILLIONS from a product supplied by players who get no tangible compensation is a bit staggering.
At the very least, players should be able to profit off of their own names, rather than the disgusting way the NCAA pockets all of that money. College student or not, they're all still effing people and athletes who have names, and whose popularity is determined not by the fact that the NCAA exists but because of their own performance.
Because he's playing the game that's on the table, not the one he wishes were. However, he does outline the game he wishes were in these comments (if he's really being honest and not just blowing smoke)
The premises that frame the comments:
CBB and CFB are de facto development leagues for NFL/NBA.
Hence: If an athlete wants in those leagues, they have to go to college (for a little while, at least) whether or not they have any interest in getting an education.
Universities are first and foremost educational institutions.
However: By merging the 'developmental league' interest with Alumni interest in institutions, Universities have created a product that can get a lot of money flowing to support their primary functions (education/learning)....but with that comes all the gristly bits (you have to take kids and babysit kids and manage kids who have no interest in the university's primary function, and you have to damage control the failures, and manage all the infrastructure...above and below board...to garner that forbidden fruit).
Ultimately what I think he's saying is...stop treating universities as D-leagues...let the kids who just want in the pro leagues go that route some other way...we've gotten to the point that the reward is not worth the cost...yet I think he's saying he still thinks he can make a profitable product without that with the 'tweeners....you might not make the big leagues, but if you don't, you will still have an education that's of value, because we can trash can the 'university studies' majors that only exist to process our D-leaguers thru the system.
But that's not the current system, so as conference commissioner, he has an obligation to his member institutions to perform the best possible considering the game on the table. So they add Rutgers and Maryland because that's the best solution considering the game on the table and their willingness to compromise their core values to win that game.
I don't know, I've never been a Delaney fan, but if he's not just blowing smoke, I like it. If the product suffers a bit, I'm fine with it. For f'cks sake, if I was looking for a stellar product, I'd have switched from ISU to Alabama/North Carolina (eff Kansas) several years ago.
I also think he may be taking into account revenue streams that the B10 has seemingly been 'behind' on (or maybe ahead on, depending on how the future plays and who wins)...the streams of the 'fanatic' like a lot of us who will pay for the cyclones.tv subscription if the ESPN's and Foxsports1's stop paying the big bucks for college sports (but then push for the best and create 'hot seat' discussion for the teams that aren't delivering the red meat they want).
Again, IDK, but Delaney's undeniably a smart guy, and the B10 has done more as a top tier conference to chase that brass ring, and in doing so...more to compromise their lofty standards than any other league...maybe the heat is getting too hot and he has figured out a path...thus far, the athletics voices have been successful in telling the patch-sleeved educational types to STFU, so in my mind if he's changing his tune, maybe he thinks he's figured out a way to make the uptights happy while not compromising too much on the money-train front.
If so...good, in my mind.
whole thread is TL;DR
I'm sure those that disagree with Pollard have presented a reasonable plan for paying players that won't destroy the rest of the athletic department and won't be instantly 10x more corrupt than the system is currently. If someone could just repost that, TIA.
I'm sure those that disagree with Pollard have presented a reasonable plan for paying players that won't destroy the rest of the athletic department and won't be instantly 10x more corrupt than the system is currently. If someone could just repost that, TIA.
I thought Delany had great comments, but I agree with others, even the AD/commissioners are to blame in regards to going after the $$ for realignment and tv contracts...but, that is also their job, so it's kind of a weird spot to be in.
One thought I had after reading Delany, is that reminder that MOST college football players do not play pro ball. That idea of making a choice out of hs to be a ball player or go the college route. Yes, Jake Knott may have been able to do it, but think of some of the "stars" in college FB that don't get the shot? Collin Klein, currently NOT playing pro ball. SO much growth/development happen in college. Yes, some of that could happen via a personal trainer and some type of d-league, but I think we'd see a lot of great hs players being interviewed at the age of 25 or so saying, "i wish I would have just had fun, played college ball, and gotten a degree"
One thought I had after reading Delany, is that reminder that MOST college football players do not play pro ball. That idea of making a choice out of hs to be a ball player or go the college route. Yes, Jake Knott may have been able to do it, but think of some of the "stars" in college FB that don't get the shot? Collin Klein, currently NOT playing pro ball. SO much growth/development happen in college. Yes, some of that could happen via a personal trainer and some type of d-league, but I think we'd see a lot of great hs players being interviewed at the age of 25 or so saying, "i wish I would have just had fun, played college ball, and gotten a degree"