If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   BCS to introduce new game into playoff format: Monopoly   (espn.go.com) divider line 96
    More: Asinine, BCS, playoff format, SportsBusiness Journal, Conference USA, Orange Bowl, Sun Belt, Big East, Big Ten  
•       •       •

2823 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Nov 2012 at 7:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 08:02:05 AM
For some reason, I'm not surprised.
 
2012-11-12 08:08:00 AM
Good
 
2012-11-12 08:15:09 AM
This is new how exactly?
 
2012-11-12 08:20:29 AM
No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?
 
WGJ
2012-11-12 08:20:45 AM
media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-12 08:28:54 AM

The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?


The SEC has no skill players.
 
2012-11-12 08:36:03 AM

Free Radical: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

The SEC has no skill players.


Not on offense it feels like
 
2012-11-12 08:36:10 AM

The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?


I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.
 
2012-11-12 08:36:33 AM
My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.
 
2012-11-12 08:39:01 AM

Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


Yeah, that was bittersweet. A&M knocks of the top dog in the SEC, but after leaving the Big 12. Oh well, it was still awesome.
 
2012-11-12 08:41:43 AM

meanmutton: My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.


Put the lower team at home in the QF round so that the 'little' team is guaranteed a home berth and more money flows d--CARRIER LOST--
 
2012-11-12 08:50:28 AM
Why not look at how NCAA's 1-AA division does their playoff format? Or does that make too much sense?
 
2012-11-12 08:57:01 AM

Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


Exactly, A&M increased in power magically just by entering the SEC.
 
2012-11-12 09:00:50 AM

Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


It's the sort of tautological circle jerk that SEC fans have come to rely on to get a hard on.
 
2012-11-12 09:02:30 AM

ManOfTeal: Why not look at how NCAA's 1-AA division does their playoff format? Or does that make too much sense?


FCS has a pretty horrible playoff format (and really, they just keep adding more teams every few years) and also, they don't have to worry about money - in fact, if you make the national championship game and lose, you're likely to lose your school a couple hundred grand. (If you win, you still lose that much, but you can make up for it with "National Champions!" gear.

/school won the Division I National Championship while I was covering them for the school paper my senior year
//the "pay-for-play" games against FBS teams pay for us to have a football team
///my school was ranked No. 1 in the country going into the playoffs and got the No. 5 seed the year we won it all
 
2012-11-12 09:17:13 AM

IAmRight: ManOfTeal: Why not look at how NCAA's 1-AA division does their playoff format? Or does that make too much sense?

FCS has a pretty horrible playoff format (and really, they just keep adding more teams every few years) and also, they don't have to worry about money - in fact, if you make the national championship game and lose, you're likely to lose your school a couple hundred grand. (If you win, you still lose that much, but you can make up for it with "National Champions!" gear.

/school won the Division I National Championship while I was covering them for the school paper my senior year
//the "pay-for-play" games against FBS teams pay for us to have a football team
///my school was ranked No. 1 in the country going into the playoffs and got the No. 5 seed the year we won it all


Furman?

/Proud Georgia Southern Alumni
 
2012-11-12 09:19:48 AM

Sargun: I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


Right, how dare the likes of Western Kentucky and LA-Lafayette fall short. The top six teams in the SEC combined have two marquee OOC wins -- Alabama's dismantling of an underprepared and then-overrated Michigan team, and Texas A&M's squeaker over a fairly legit Louisiana Tech. That's it. Florida just got exposed by a Sun Belt team, and middling one at that. Now, I don't expect teams to go out of their way to schedule punishment (it shuts out the smaller programs that can surprise now and then) but at least five SEC teams tried to ride the conference's overrated rep to bowl season without playing anyone. At least I don't have to look at Mississippi State ranked #11 anymore, but that should never have happened.

To be fair, K-State and Oregon haven't played anyone, either, but as long as no one's playing anyone you gotta win out to contend. You can't beat up cupcakes AND whine about how your conference is so hard when everyone's riding the same boat these days. ND tried to schedule a gauntlet (and damn near laid an egg against Pitt) but MSU, Miami and BYU disappointing isn't their fault. Georgia, on the other hand, is the #5 team in the country (according to the BCS) and I'd like to see someone try to convince me that they proved their might against. . . uh, Buffalo and Florida Atlantic. Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.
 
2012-11-12 09:25:20 AM

ManOfTeal: Furman?


Nope, EWU (2010).

/best part is coming back from a 19-0 deficit to beat Delaware with the VP in the house
//still got HFA throughout the playoffs because the seeds above us all got upset

dragonchild: Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.


In fairness, Georgia Southern is better than Pitt and BC. And they were the team that scored the most on Alabama last season.
 
2012-11-12 09:27:08 AM

dragonchild: Sargun: I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.

Right, how dare the likes of Western Kentucky and LA-Lafayette fall short. The top six teams in the SEC combined have two marquee OOC wins -- Alabama's dismantling of an underprepared and then-overrated Michigan team, and Texas A&M's squeaker over a fairly legit Louisiana Tech. That's it. Florida just got exposed by a Sun Belt team, and middling one at that. Now, I don't expect teams to go out of their way to schedule punishment (it shuts out the smaller programs that can surprise now and then) but at least five SEC teams tried to ride the conference's overrated rep to bowl season without playing anyone. At least I don't have to look at Mississippi State ranked #11 anymore, but that should never have happened.

To be fair, K-State and Oregon haven't played anyone, either, but as long as no one's playing anyone you gotta win out to contend. You can't beat up cupcakes AND whine about how your conference is so hard when everyone's riding the same boat these days. ND tried to schedule a gauntlet (and damn near laid an egg against Pitt) but MSU, Miami and BYU disappointing isn't their fault. Georgia, on the other hand, is the #5 team in the country (according to the BCS) and I'd like to see someone try to convince me that they proved their might against. . . uh, Buffalo and Florida Atlantic. Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.


And the SEC team that beat Alabama is comprised almost entirely of players who were in the big 12 last year, so it's not even like TT got the vaunted "SEC" recruitment push either.
 
2012-11-12 09:38:38 AM
Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.
 
2012-11-12 09:42:55 AM

dragonchild: Sargun: I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.

Right, how dare the likes of Western Kentucky and LA-Lafayette fall short. The top six teams in the SEC combined have two marquee OOC wins -- Alabama's dismantling of an underprepared and then-overrated Michigan team, and Texas A&M's squeaker over a fairly legit Louisiana Tech. That's it. Florida just got exposed by a Sun Belt team, and middling one at that. Now, I don't expect teams to go out of their way to schedule punishment (it shuts out the smaller programs that can surprise now and then) but at least five SEC teams tried to ride the conference's overrated rep to bowl season without playing anyone. At least I don't have to look at Mississippi State ranked #11 anymore, but that should never have happened.

To be fair, K-State and Oregon haven't played anyone, either, but as long as no one's playing anyone you gotta win out to contend. You can't beat up cupcakes AND whine about how your conference is so hard when everyone's riding the same boat these days. ND tried to schedule a gauntlet (and damn near laid an egg against Pitt) but MSU, Miami and BYU disappointing isn't their fault. Georgia, on the other hand, is the #5 team in the country (according to the BCS) and I'd like to see someone try to convince me that they proved their might against. . . uh, Buffalo and Florida Atlantic. Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.


I'm a realist, so I don't expect my Georgia Southern Eagles to win against the Dawgs on Saturday, but I do seem to remember, in 2007, when Appalachian State, who is Georgia Southern's chief rival, beat #5 ranked Michigan. What a cluster that caused...
 
2012-11-12 09:43:31 AM

Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.


What is the average tuition plus room and board at BCS schools?
 
2012-11-12 09:44:46 AM

Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.


I'll be sure to express my pity for them when they ride by in their new Escalade to "class" paid for by a free ride.
 
2012-11-12 09:47:26 AM

Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.


The players get paid. In addition to tuition and health care (which they're allowed to get but not every school gives them), they receive a cash salary that varies from institution to institution.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:42 AM
Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.
 
2012-11-12 09:50:25 AM

TheOther: Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.


Honestly, this is a stupid idea. If you have all the schools come from the same region of the country, you're going to have less national interest.
 
2012-11-12 09:53:10 AM

The Muthaship: Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.

What is the average tuition plus room and board at BCS schools?


And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?

And what student with better academic potential didn't get a scholarship so a player can display his "Rocks for Jocks" degree while he's bankrupt by the time he turns 25. If 78% of NFL players are bankrupt or financial destitute 2 years after retirement, what are a college players odds after school ends for them.

Just pay the players. They earn it. At least some will have a chance.
 
2012-11-12 09:55:39 AM

Gunderson: And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?


As many as put in the effort to.

Here's my answer. Get sports out of colleges.
 
2012-11-12 09:57:43 AM
I wonder how many farking lawyers were involved in coming up with that convoluted split of the money. Jesus, a 1st gradeer could have come up with something simpler, easier, and fairer.
 
2012-11-12 10:01:20 AM

The Muthaship: Gunderson: And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?

As many as put in the effort to.

Here's my answer. Get sports out of colleges.


This I agree with. Why bother with the charade that any of the top school's players are learning a damn thing.
 
2012-11-12 10:01:55 AM

redmid17: Free Radical: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

The SEC has no skill players.

Not on offense it feels like


Tennessee has Justin Hunter and Cordarrelle Patterson two of the top projected draft picks at receiver this year. Tyler Bray is putting up big numbers as well. Micheal Rivera is a great TE.

South Carolina had Marcus Lattimore.

Aaron Murray at Georgia is going to do well for himself on Sundays.

Ryan Swope at Texas A&M and Johnny Manziel.

James Franklin at Mizzou.

I would take any of the running backs at Alabama over any back in the country.

Philip Lutzenkirchen at Auburn.

Spencer Ware at LSU.

Jordan Rogers at Vandy.

/not an SEC homer, I just hate stupid statements
 
2012-11-12 10:03:50 AM

Free Radical: Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.

Exactly, A&M increased in power magically just by entering the SEC.


Firing their old coach, and getting a QB that is not a converted WR goes further than just joining the SEC, they would be at the worst 2nd in the big 12 and possibly ruin KSU's chance at a title.

And subby didnt explain how this is a monopoly, seems rather generous since most of those teams have never sniffed a NCG.
 
2012-11-12 10:07:04 AM

Billified: I wonder how many farking lawyers were involved in coming up with that convoluted split of the money. Jesus, a 1st gradeer could have come up with something simpler, easier, and fairer.


Fair would have been allowing lower conferences to continue going to bowl games and if they want to join another conference they can. I fail to see how its fair to give people money they never earned.
 
2012-11-12 10:07:30 AM

ManOfTeal: I do seem to remember, in 2007, when Appalachian State, who is Georgia Southern's chief rival, beat #5 ranked Michigan. What a cluster that caused...


It's actually that game that warmed me up to the idea of scheduling cupcakes at all, because sometimes a "cupcake" isn't really a cupcake and a ranked team is overrated. However, that same Michigan will also typically schedule at least one tough OOC game with or without ND. This season they played UMass. . . but they also played Alabama. So kudos to Alabama and Michigan for being fearless.

My point isn't that good teams shouldn't schedule any cupcakes. The problem is that right now we have the exact opposite, and the all-cupcake diets make evaluating teams more difficult than it should be. Out of the top ten BCS teams, which includes six SEC teams, the only teams that tried to schedule even one challenging OOC game were ND (by default as they're indy), Alabama (Michigan), Florida State (Miami) and maybe Texas A&M (LA Tech). It turns out Miami wasn't very good but I'll give FSU the grade for effort even if it's a tradition thing; LA Tech is pretty darn good but I get the feeling A&M scheduled that game expecting an easy win. Other than that, I have no idea how Clemson would do against Oregon or South Carolina would do against K-State because no one plays anyone anymore. I suppose that's the point of bowl season but everyone knows the bowls don't care about getting the right matchups.
 
2012-11-12 10:09:19 AM

Gunderson: And what student with better academic potential didn't get a scholarship so a player can display his "Rocks for Jocks" degree while he's bankrupt by the time he turns 25.


Zero. People always bring up this straw man and it's stupid. The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government, as baby boomers who got rich thanks in part to their subsidized education demand subsidized living as they grow old - since they vote in large blocs, politicians pander to them and make cuts to universities because the ROI isn't easily measured and the people they're f*cking over don't vote.

Furthermore, athletic scholarships come from a separate fund. Further beyond that, if you have any significant amount of academic potential, it's not hard to get some partial scholarships, at least. You have to put in some work for it, though - kinda like how the people getting athletic scholarships have to put in 20+ hours/week just on their sport.

/I suppose there would be some "academic" scholarships that might be slipping by the wayside in schools where they're not allowed to offer athletic scholarships, however. But that's not really what anyone here is talking about.

Gunderson: And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?


Thousands upon thousands every year? The people least likely to care about their education are the people most likely to be in the NFL - why worry about your degree when you're going to make millions playing the sport? But there are 80+ scholarship players just in football at every school. Even just at the FBS level, there are 119 or so (don't remember if there have been changes to this number - UTSA came on board recently, so is it 120 now?) schools. So that's nearly 10,000 student-athletes just on that level per year. Number of draftees each year? 250ish.

No one does stories about the thousands of student-athletes who go into regular fields and use their educational opportunities to actually learn while having a great time, because no one cares except for people who pretend to care so that they can get outraged at sh*t - and there's no point in trying to educate those people because they're going to hold on to their beliefs in the face of all evidence.
 
2012-11-12 10:13:50 AM

ModernPrimitive01: redmid17: Free Radical: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

The SEC has no skill players.

Not on offense it feels like

Tennessee has Justin Hunter and Cordarrelle Patterson two of the top projected draft picks at receiver this year. Tyler Bray is putting up big numbers as well. Micheal Rivera is a great TE.

South Carolina had Marcus Lattimore.

Aaron Murray at Georgia is going to do well for himself on Sundays.

Ryan Swope at Texas A&M and Johnny Manziel.

James Franklin at Mizzou.

I would take any of the running backs at Alabama over any back in the country.

Philip Lutzenkirchen at Auburn.

Spencer Ware at LSU.

Jordan Rogers at Vandy.

/not an SEC homer, I just hate stupid statements


It was a broad stroke. You'll have to admit that the skill players on offense pale in comparison to the number of defense
 
2012-11-12 10:28:13 AM

meanmutton: TheOther: Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.

Honestly, this is a stupid idea. If you have all the schools come from the same region of the country, you're going to have less national interest.


Honestly, that was sarcasm directed at the whole media rubntug of the SEC.
 
2012-11-12 10:38:20 AM
If TAMU was still in the Big XII, then they would have lost to Bama 33-0
 
2012-11-12 10:44:49 AM

SevenizGud: If TAMU was still in the Big XII, then they would have lost to Bama 33-0


No but they would have beaten KSU 33-17
 
2012-11-12 10:45:11 AM

IAmRight: housands upon thousands every year? The people least likely to care about their education are the people most likely to be in the NFL - why worry about your degree when you're going to make millions playing the sport? But there are 80+ scholarship players just in football at every school. Even just at the FBS level, there are 119 or so (don't remember if there have been changes to this number - UTSA came on board recently, so is it 120 now?) schools. So that's nearly 10,000 student-athletes just on that level per year. Number of draftees each year? 250ish.

No one does stories about the thousands of student-athletes who go into regular fields and use their educational opportunities to actually learn while having a great time, because no one cares except for people who pretend to care so that they can get outraged at sh*t - and there's no point in trying to educate those people because they're going to hold on to their beliefs in the face of all evidence.



My main argument is why aren't they players being paid. In ranked schools, everyone know that the academic side of a player-athlete is a joke. These players are being pushed through just to play football and are learning nothing. You ask a player to write a resume and he'll reply "I don't speak French". As for the poster who said they get free room and board...Well so does the AD and the head coach and they get a salary.

Everybody is making money off the players, especially the schools themselves. Why do you think the highest paid university employees are college coaches and ADs? Because they bring in the most revenue.

Behind all the smoke and charades, the NCAA is just pro sports, with just some rule-bending and double-talk to make it look like its non-pro. The majority of the players will not make any money from pro sports, many will end up with health problems, substance abuse problems, obesity issues as a result of their football tenure.

So let me ask you this, fellow farkers: Why don't you want to pay the NCAA athlete?
 
2012-11-12 11:04:08 AM

Gunderson: So let me ask you this, fellow farkers: Why don't you want to pay the NCAA athlete?


A) They already do make money.
B) Paying some athletes creates issues with other non-revenue sports, and probably Title IX.
C) A better solution is to enforce already-existing rules and require student-athletes to actually meet academic qualifications (though the pressure would always be there to admit dumbasses who are good at football).
D) There are not many programs that actually do make the money you think they do.
 
2012-11-12 11:04:47 AM

IAmRight: Zero. People always bring up this straw man and it's stupid. The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government, as baby boomers who got rich thanks in part to their subsidized education demand subsidized living as they grow old - since they vote in large blocs, politicians pander to them and make cuts to universities because the ROI isn't easily measured and the people they're f*cking over don't vote.


Wow, that's beyond ignorant. Colleges cost more now because of government funding. Good lord, do some farking research and learn something before you post.
 
2012-11-12 11:10:07 AM

SevenizGud: If TAMU was still in the Big XII, then they would have lost to Bama 33-0


Bullshiat. Everyone knows they'd be up 14-7 at halftime, instilling the fans with a sense of hope, before giving up four unanswered touchdowns in the third quarter.
 
2012-11-12 11:11:05 AM

Gunderson: The Muthaship: Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.

What is the average tuition plus room and board at BCS schools?

And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?

And what student with better academic potential didn't get a scholarship so a player can display his "Rocks for Jocks" degree while he's bankrupt by the time he turns 25. If 78% of NFL players are bankrupt or financial destitute 2 years after retirement, what are a college players odds after school ends for them.

Just pay the players. They earn it. At least some will have a chance.


THEY GET PAID. Honestly, why is it so tough for people to get this through? They've been getting paid for a long, long, long time. They get a cash salary paid out to them that is comparable to what minor league players in other sports get. This is in addition to their tuition. The big difference is that it's equal to all athletes in all sports who have the scholarship so the start running back is getting the same thing as the freshman women's diver.
 
2012-11-12 11:13:08 AM

Gunderson: My main argument is why aren't they players being paid. In ranked schools, everyone know that the academic side of a player-athlete is a joke. These players are being pushed through just to play football and are learning nothing. You ask a player to write a resume and he'll reply "I don't speak French". As for the poster who said they get free room and board...Well so does the AD and the head coach and they get a salary.

Everybody is making money off the players, especially the schools themselves. Why do you think the highest paid university employees are college coaches and ADs? Because they bring in the most revenue.

Behind all the smoke and charades, the NCAA is just pro sports, with just some rule-bending and double-talk to make it look like its non-pro. The majority of the players will not make any money from pro sports, many will end up with health problems, substance abuse problems, obesity issues as a result of their football tenure.

So let me ask you this, fellow farkers: Why don't you want to pay the NCAA athlete?


There are schools abroad that pay their soccer team.

What they've done, though, is they've made the soccer team an independent separate entity from the college itself, so that the team is little more than a professional club allowed to use university colors and livery. It'd be like snapping the Alabama football team off from the University of Alabama proper, but then putting them in the NFL while still allowing them to be the Alabama Crimson Tide, still allowing them to play at Bryant-Denny Stadium, and still permitting them to use any members of the student body they wish (in addition to the out-and-out pros brought in to fill out the roster).
 
2012-11-12 11:13:28 AM

meanmutton: the freshman women's diver.


She was just experimenting.....
 
2012-11-12 11:13:41 AM

IAmRight: The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government,


No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been. The costs are higher because they're paying more to professors, they're spending more on health care, they're spending more on retirement benefits, and they're spending more on facilities.
 
2012-11-12 11:15:13 AM

TheOther: meanmutton: TheOther: Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.

Honestly, this is a stupid idea. If you have all the schools come from the same region of the country, you're going to have less national interest.

Honestly, that was sarcasm directed at the whole media rubntug of the SEC.


Sorry, not you -- the bit you quoted from the story.
 
2012-11-12 11:21:15 AM

meanmutton: No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been.


Who is providing y'all with this "information"? Because every state I've read about over the past few years has been cutting higher ed spending by billions (including the ones I've attended school in).
 
2012-11-12 11:32:09 AM

IAmRight: meanmutton: No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been.

Who is providing y'all with this "information"? Because every state I've read about over the past few years has been cutting higher ed spending by billions (including the ones I've attended school in).


The Feds have more than made up for it. We've had a couple little blips but when you add it up, we're spending vastly more on higher education that we ever have:

Link

Also on total education spending (which costs US taxpayers more than does total defense spending, making those "hold a bake sale for a bomber" bumper stickers kind of stupid).
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report