Again - if they get top players over a period of time people will watch and tv will notice -
Trust me - that’s why schools fight so hard to keep players knowing what they can do
A p2 breakaway is what espn wants. The latest 16 teams format is exactly. It is there for everyone to be prepared when most acc schools will want to break away. They will want to break away because their new media rights contract will be minuscule to the p2’s. The same outcome is starring every BIG12 schools.
So no more multi-time zone conferences
I was playing with the Numbers per time Zones the P4 are currently
- EST- 31
- CST- 26
- MST- 5
- PST - 6
You COULD aim for 8 groups of 10, all round robins and the like. 3 EST Groups, 3 CST Groups and 1 each in MST and PST.
Yep. Saban wants about 40 in his super league, so that means ESPN wants 40.
40 would mean the the 34 P2 teams, plus ND, and perhaps a handful of the biggest ACC brands.
So much for a 48 team breakaway.
Has Co-Member Mr. Texas Tech commented on the proposed 40 teams? Texas Tech may get left out.
Not gonna happen with the 40
Lawsuits etc would happen
Saban etc just want the nil more regulated
Likely FSU, Clemson, Miami, but then I might guess one or two out west (Colorado, Utah, Arizona) and/or North Carolina.
Would be interesting to see how the billionaire justifies Tech in the final 40 over any of those other teams.
You’re forgetting about a huge part of this deal. They aren’t dragging Vandy and Mississippi State and Northwestern, etc., along for the ride.
Mississippi State doesn’t even have an indoor practice facility. Something hundreds of Texas high schools have.
1 Like
Sabin’s comments on a 40 are going no where. He’s catching heat from all sides. Plus Cody wants the opposite which is 1 big media deal for all and going back to regional conferences which is opposite of saban. The 40 team plan is never going to be bc lawsuits and viewership falling off the map when that many are left out.
You then have the ncaa bb tourney to deal with. Sabin has good pts are nil and transfer regulations but his 40 plan won’t fly.
What will happen is this:
As of July 1 st , they are moving to rev sharing and soon to follow a 16 team playoff with 4 auto bids for sec/big10 and 2 for big12 and Acc.
This will keep all happy bc they even have at large spots if another g5 is worthy so it’s prob what happens.
1 Like
Comments by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban on Wednesday raised doubts when he seemed to downplay the need for a potential commission during an appearance on ESPN’s “The Paul Finebaum Show.” Reports last week identified Saban as a likely co-chair alongside Texas Tech board chair and booster Cody Campbell for a commission that would be established by President
"Well first of all, I don’t know a lot about the commission. Secondly, I’m not sure we really need a commission,” Saban said
1 Like
Saban said he would be more comfortable in a consulting role than co-chairing a committee. Then he questioned the need for the committee.
I have never thought there is a need for a Presidential Committee.
2 Likes
1 Like
Saban realized that he wasn’t going to be able to dictate to his former offensive lineman billionaire co chair who is advocating for equity for his conference. That’s why he suddenly changed his mind on the commission.
1 Like
It’s not that coaches are bad guys. Most agree with you (or at least I do) that as an HC at a major college football program, you are the most visible face of the university and should be paid accordingly. The question or issue is to what extent that any money generated from such business should be put back into the hands of its workers? Like any business enterprise, labor costs are the highest expense. Why? Because it is labor that produces the product or service that people consume.
How that return to labor is constituted and the percentage is the key. As always once you start discussing amounts, you have already admitted that there is money to be paid; it’s just haggling over the price.
Fair answer, appreciated, and you hit upon my thinking point when you say “from such business”. Every major business out there has a ceo making a large multimillion dollar salary. On the other side, every major business also has workers that are getting maybe $15 an hour on the front lines doing the actual physical work. Where is the support for the cashiers and stockers at Target, Walmart, Best Buy, McDonalds, Taco Bell (including cooks), etc… to get $100,000 a year or a percentage of all revenue? Their ceo is making 10+ million too.
I don’t go to Target for a specific cashier and I don’t root for UH/TCU because of the specific player.
Yet it is always “the players should get a big cut because the coach (CEO) gets a big cut”.
College athletics are different animal than a regular business entity, and should in no way be compared to one.
Although the dynamics are different, in both the scope and the fact there are revenues generated (whereas many typical non-profits operated off donations), both businesses operate under the general premise that they do not exist to “generate profit”. The problem with college athletics is that college football coaches and basketball coaches, began to perverse and take advantage of the entities and the larger, more important “system”, they were a part of. And by merely being a college coach they AGREED to be part of that very system.
Most college sports are money LOSERS but still exist as there was a genuine idea that college athletics exist for a way for athletes to continue their craft, be sponsored by their schools and get a free education. At the same time, and really since (mostly) the beginning of time, everyone knows that college football and basketball “pay the bills”. Without those sports, the direct revenues generated, and the tertiary revenues generated by donors, the entirety of college athletics would cease to exist, at most schools.
I’m not going to argue football coaches should be paid more (more scrutiny and higher profile), but to the degree with which that has been perversed is extraordinary. As tv revenues went up, college coaches were able to demand more, which schools paid as they had more money. Over time that escalated and coaches became bigger than the system. The degree to which the public has accepted this is despicable. Eventually that transformed to players becoming larger than the system itself, and thinking they deserved to be paid. I’m all for stipends but this doesn’t work.
We can sit here and argue that football players (especially at certain schools) played by different rules since the beginning of time. The problem is that’s not the exception, and occurring with minimal players, but it’s pervasive, and with little in the way of rules. What’s more, is you…as a university, are placing greater monetary importance on individuals, and sports. If they are going there, then why do these other sports exist? If the idiots courts are going to fall for this garbage, how can they continue with Title IX, which necessitates female athletic subsidization for their very existence? The madness of this all threatens the very systems which made these large paydays even possible.
The truth is, theses players are only “worth” what they are getting BECAUSE of the schools, NOT really their talents. Free markets existed before these players were getting paid and guess what? None of them (college basketball specifically) were getting that much. The biggest irony in all of this nonsense is that players want to get paid but don’t recognize, nor PAY THE SCHOOL, the value the school has provided. College athletics gives them a platform to shine in that WOULD NOT EXIST without the schools and the alumni/fan support that follows.
It feels like the entirety of the latter is completely lost on people, as is the idea that college athletics is NOT an open job market. Now, do I think college athletes should get reasonable stipends, beyond room in board, that would compensate the extra time and the inability for those to get jobs in schools? Absolutely. But the issue was never about the players, it was about those…the coaches, ADS, and admins abusing the system. It’s also, IMO, on Congress as this is something that should have been taken care of (by at least) in the mid 80s, when the idiot football schools sued for contracts/revenues.
If you are for paying players, then I think you also need to be for the abolition (voluntary) of other sports, and that the greater entity of college athletics is secondary. If you are on the other side, that college athletics is DIFFERENT, was created to provide opportunities for student athletes, and that they survival and health of the whole is more important than individual entities, then I don’t think you can be for paying players. It simply can’t/won’t work. Who gets paid? Wait, if it’s all about demand, then why do women’s softball teams exist? Wait, why don’t those players get paid? How do you manage these agents and brokers. The list goes on and none of the legislation I’ve seen comes remotely CLOSE to solving all of these issues.
You want to go pro? Go pro. Want to go to college? Play by the rules and create systems that ensure the fairness and longevity of the entire system.
2 Likes
Latest is The ACC and Big12 are pushing back saying if The Sec and Big get 4 autos, we want 3. The negotiating could be if the Acc and big12 have a 3rd team ranked in the top 16 then they would get the 3rd spot.
He said there is a lot of congressional backlash against the sec and big pushing their weight around. One congressman said to the sec, “ you want our help with the nil yet you want 4 autos to their 2 auto bids, greed!”
Notre dame chimes in against the sec and big bc it seems they are trying to force ND into a conference even though ND would get a spot if ranked high enough.
2 Likes
But why is that a requirement? They obviously CAN have an indoor facility if they really want one, since they have SEC money. What does it matter that they have a facility for realignment? I can understand their other potential “flaws” for realignment but an indoor facility?
Every MSU coach for the past 20 years has complained about it. They haven’t had one because they couldn’t afford one.