Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

2022 NCAAF OFF-SEASON


EVA
 Share

Recommended Posts

NCAA officially voted to eliminate the requirement that you need divisions for a conference champions

The ink wasn't even dry on the signatures when the PAC-10 announced they were eliminated theirs

As noted earlier - expect the ACC to quickly follow suit

(The SEC said they are sticking with divisions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I’ll stop being glib and wade into this a bit, even though I know it won’t be popular:

The gist of what Saban is saying is accurate. NIL is completely off the rails right now and has essentially morphed into overt pay-for-play*, which is completely against the spirit of what NIL was supposed to be. The NCAA’s fence-riding on this issue has created an even wilder west than we’ve ever seen before in CFB, because nobody even has to hide it anymore.

(*Bear in mind, I am pro pay-for-play, but if we’re going to do that...let’s just call it that, set clear guidelines, etc., rather than have it exist in this shadow realm, as it does now. And I do think we’ll get there eventually, once the Super League, whatever it ends up being called, breaks from the NCAA in the next 10-ish years.)

The problem is the language he used and the targets he chose to name. Saying that the likes of A&M and Jackson State bought players implies that those schools did something illegal/unethical/untoward, when, in fact, those schools were operating squarely within the bounds of NIL as (very vaguely) defined by the NCAA. If we’re going to take shots at anyone, it should be at the NCAA, who created this mess because they’re so deathly afraid of paying players themselves.

Ultimately, I think this was another one of those Saban Warnings. He’s letting the world know that he doesn’t want to wade into this shit, and he’d really like some help avoiding that...but he will if he has to.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, EVA said:

At least Jimbo can start directing his anger towards someone other than Sliced Bread at Bro Bible now.

To be fair, Sliced Bread is still the more credible source here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actually bad part of what Saban said:

"People blame the NCAA, but in defense of the NCAA, we are where we are because of the litigation that the NCAA gets like [for] the transfer portal. If the NCAA doesn't get some protection from litigation -- whether we got to get an antitrust [exemption] or whatever it is from a federal government standpoint -- this is not going to change because they cannot enforce their rules. ...

So it problem was never the NCAA, it's that the NCAA doesn't have an antitrust exemption?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hammerva said:

I mean he isn't wrong but it is kind of rich as I am pretty sure you can build a bank with the money thrown around for get players under the table.  

 

Yeah, Nick is probably mostly accurate about schools buying players.  But he really has no moral high ground to stand on.  He oversigns, pays guys under the table, lies to players about staying in jobs, and on and on and on.  But he wins a lot, so he gets a pass from the media for being a hypocritical douchebag, much like a certain basketball coach whose fans call themselves "crazies".

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tabe said:

Yeah, Nick is probably mostly accurate about schools buying players.  But he really has no moral high ground to stand on.  He oversigns, pays guys under the table, lies to players about staying in jobs, and on and on and on.  But he wins a lot, so he gets a pass from the media for being a hypocritical douchebag, much like a certain basketball coach whose fans call themselves "crazies".

It's sour grapes because A&M outbid them (and other traditional SEC powers and their gentlemen's agreement) on a bunch of players this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this in bits and pieces.  He went full Swinney:

"Non-revenue sports [athletes] that have for years and years and years been able to create a better life for themselves because they've been able to get scholarships and participate in college athletics. That's what college athletics is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be something where people come and make money and you make a decision about where you go to school based on how much money you're going to make."

How about you, Nick?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Robert C said:

Reading this in bits and pieces.  He went full Swinney:

"Non-revenue sports [athletes] that have for years and years and years been able to create a better life for themselves because they've been able to get scholarships and participate in college athletics. That's what college athletics is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be something where people come and make money and you make a decision about where you go to school based on how much money you're going to make."

How about you, Nick?

I don't know a single person who went to college for any reason other than the potential money they could make from their degree. That's pretty much the deciding factor for every single person on Earth when deciding their post high school future. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stumbled across the Twitter feed of an ESPN employee who was live-tweeting Fisher’s press conference.  Pretty entertaining.  Jimbo wasn’t holding back.  If I was a lot more naive and a lot less cynical, I’d completely believe A & M was an innocent victim in all this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JLowe said:

It's sour grapes because A&M outbid them (and other traditional SEC powers and their gentlemen's agreement) on a bunch of players this year. 

Of course that's what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, supremebve said:

I don't know a single person who went to college for any reason other than the potential money they could make from their degree. That's pretty much the deciding factor for every single person on Earth when deciding their post high school future. 

I picked my college based off how much I didn't have to pay/borrow to go to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally, Ross Bjork was the Ole Miss AD during the Hugh Freeze era, where absolutely nothing untoward was going on, btw.

In fact, Freeze took the exact same approach to allegations as Jimbo did during his presser today, deflecting accusations by insinuating that accusing Ole Miss of paying for ‘croots was somehow slandering the players, which absolutely no one was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JLowe said:

I picked my college based off how much I didn't have to pay/borrow to go to. 

Kind of the same thing. Pretty much all college decisions are financial decisions. Implying that athletes shouldn't make decisions based on money is like saying people shouldn't pick romantic partners based on looks.  I guess,  but almost everyone tries to make the most financially viable decision on college just like people tend to at least try to date the best looking person they can attract. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, supremebve said:

Kind of the same thing. Pretty much all college decisions are financial decisions. Implying that athletes shouldn't make decisions based on money is like saying people shouldn't pick romantic partners based on looks.  I guess,  but almost everyone tries to make the most financially viable decision on college just like people tend to at least try to date the best looking person they can attract. 

I was being pedantic, sorry.

I do totally agree with you but when it comes to being a blue chip football player, you need to balance that immediate payoff with long term earnings. Getting $300k up front to go someplace where you might end up hurting your eventual draft position (and I'm pointing fingers at my Longhorns here) is something that should be considered. For college BBall, where you're one and done and would be drafted out of high school if that was still allowed, then definitely go where the biggest check is.

Evan Stewart "allegedly" got $300k+ in crypto to go to a team running an outdated offense, whose top receiver in 2021 was a TE who went undrafted, and whose leading receiver had 47 catches for 509 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem isn't so much letting the players have the $$$. Or having a liberal transfer window. It having both at the same time, so there is almost yearly free agency. I dont follow the college game very closely so I could be wrong, but there needs to be some mechanism to limit player movement or there are going to be more problems. Like maybe you cant do both at the same time?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kuetsar said:

I think the problem isn't so much letting the players have the $$$. Or having a liberal transfer window. It having both at the same time, so there is almost yearly free agency. I dont follow the college game very closely so I could be wrong, but there needs to be some mechanism to limit player movement or there are going to be more problems. Like maybe you cant do both at the same time?

I've seen floated an idea that you have to be at a school for 2 years before you can get your one "free" transfer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...