I personally hate all of this. These are college kids, not professionals (though with NIL, it's getting harder to tell), but they should not be flying all over the country, from one coast to the other. The conferences should be regional.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2023/2024 NCAA College Football
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed, At some point college football was more about the money - for colleges, the NCAA, conferences and even the players. I liked college football over the NFL because these kids were raw talents, trying their best. Now its all about play me now, or I'll enter the transfer portal, or pay me now with a giant NIL contract. For conferences its much money can they make in one conference over another.
Sources: ACC to begin discussing Cal, Stanford as additions
Surprised/not surprised. Given the rumblings that FSU published, I think the conference realized they could possibly be left behind, and the fate of the PAC 12 could befall them. With that said, how ridiculous would it be to have two colleges on the west coast of the US and most of the other conference schools on the east.
I've posted about my concerns about college sports but the more these antics occur, the less I'm excited about college football moving forward.
The portal is one of the absolute worst things about college sports, NIL made recruiting money grab, and now colleges wanting more money are leaving their regional conferences for a bigger slice of the pie.
Surprised/not surprised. Given the rumblings that FSU published, I think the conference realized they could possibly be left behind, and the fate of the PAC 12 could befall them. With that said, how ridiculous would it be to have two colleges on the west coast of the US and most of the other conference schools on the east.
I've posted about my concerns about college sports but the more these antics occur, the less I'm excited about college football moving forward.
The portal is one of the absolute worst things about college sports, NIL made recruiting money grab, and now colleges wanting more money are leaving their regional conferences for a bigger slice of the pie.
Yeah, they were terrible last year. Can’t say that I’m surprised Coach Prime want a new slate of players.
It will be interesting to see what happens this year at CU.
The ONLY redeeming part about NIL is that it legitimizes paying players for all schools, and takes the advantage away from those who were paying players before NIL and getting away with it. So, it levels the playing field to some extent, but IMO it's still a horrible thing for college athletics.
SportsCenter put up a list of the longest trips for a BIG 10 team involving the schools coming in from the PAC 12 along with now established BIG 10 schools Rutgers and Maryland. All of those trips are over 2,500 miles, I think (if not, close to that) and one was about 2,800 miles.
I looked at the 18 members of the BIG 10 in terms of geography and with the assumption that a West Division and an East Division would be created. Going strictly by their locations, having 9 teams in each Division would put Northwestern in the East, and Illinois in the West, but it's really close.
Not sure what the B1G will do. They have had 2 divisions for football for years, but have scrapped it in favor of what they are calling "Flex Play Protect" scheduling. This will guarantee that every team will play every other conference opponent at least twice in a four-year period, once at home and once away. This was done, in part, to accommodate scheduling changes with the addition of UCLA and USC... with Washington and Oregon, no clue what happens, but aside from the bigger payoffs (greed), I don't see an upside, especially for either the fans or the players.
The bar was set pretty damn low last year, so I expect Sanders to exceed the single win. I think it was Paul Finebaum who said that he doesn't expect Sanders to last long at Colorado. He'll either fail spectacularly and the Deon experiment will end quickly or he'll succeed and another college will poach him. I'm not a Deon fan, he seems too full of himself, in an arrogant sort of way, but I won't take away he seems to be a good coach. the proof will be in the pudding.
I think the NCAA being greedy, avoided the whole paying college atheltes for so long that this blew up on them. Instead of protecting the billions they get from these games, they should have laid out a fair compensation program to pay these players.
Its laughable now that a college can promise millions to a player for NIL, but heaven help you if the coach buys you a cheeseburger
Yeah, I've voiced my displeasure on a different thread. I'm not naive enough to think that money wasn't always the focus for college teams (and the conferences of course), but I think we're now witnessing a transformation into what's essentially pro ball with 18-22 year olds. I understand why much of the south prefers this - Alabama, LSU, etc..is as close to pro sports as those fans get to see locally - but for the rest of us I hope teams outside the main two conferences can find solutions that keep some of the things we love about college ball alive.
Unfortunately I can't think of a way to make that work - big time football has always subsidized everything else. Stanford is learning that now - they're consistently one of the most successful top-down athletic programs in the country and certainly one of the most prestigious academically, but nobody cares. It's all about the money.
think of all the travel non football teams now will have to do on top of a academic workload.
football has what, 6 away games a year? baseball/basketball have 15-20?
football has what, 6 away games a year? baseball/basketball have 15-20?
I didn't even think about that. And a lot of non-football teams don't have the money to travel by airplane that many times in a year. It's gonna be a mess. I'd suggest they just split football off from the rest, but again you have the issue of football essentially subsidizing everyone else. Even at a big school like Texas, basketball barely breaks even financially. What's women's volleyball at say, Washington gonna do?
Well, it kind of serves them right... these schools and conferences want to grab all the cash they can, so now they're going to have to find ways to fund travel for all of the non-revenue sports - baseball, lacrosse, volleyball, soccer, wrestling, swimming/diving, track and field, etc. I am truly curious what the net gain may be.
Just saw this (referenced on another site)... and it kind of makes sense... hate that it came from Slick Rick, but maybe everyone has a redeeming quality or two. 
Also saw that some non-revenue sport athletes from Oregon and Arizona State are sharing their consternation over the potential travel scheduled... one report said that "non-charter travel from Ann Arbor (Michigan) to Oregon campus in Eugene takes longer than from Ann Arbor to London".
Also saw that some non-revenue sport athletes from Oregon and Arizona State are sharing their consternation over the potential travel scheduled... one report said that "non-charter travel from Ann Arbor (Michigan) to Oregon campus in Eugene takes longer than from Ann Arbor to London".
Just saw this (referenced on another site)... and it kind of makes sense... hate that it came from Slick Rick, but maybe everyone has a redeeming quality or two.
View attachment 2243165
Also saw that some non-revenue sport athletes from Oregon and Arizona State are sharing their consternation over the potential travel scheduled... one report said that "non-charter travel from Ann Arbor (Michigan) to Oregon campus in Eugene takes longer than from Ann Arbor to London".
Chip Kelly also said something similar. Be pragmatic and just skip straight to the football super-league.
While the non-revenue athletes will suffer from the new travel needs, the alternative would be to not travel at all, because schools aren't willing to bear the costs of those sports and that would leave no funding for those athletics.
Even schools with prominent football and basketball programs find it difficult to balance their budgets, and a school like Stanford, with a large endowment, well-run athletic department, and boasts about its great success on the field would rather cut those sports, rather than subsidize them.
Director's Cups don't pay the bills, TV contracts, the NCAA Tourney, and bowl games do.
If you trust the site (it came up on google) here's some numbers:
Here's how much each Power 5 conference made last year
This was from a couple of years ago, but its close enough. The amount each conference makes and what each school in the conferences get.
They're getting crazy amounts of money, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the power five conferences are unable or have trouble balancing the books. I also believe many (most?) have such an active booster program that they generate millions from that as well. I have no concrete proof - just my opinion.
I absolutely despise what college sports have become. Maybe it's because I'm a Stanford fan and the program has been left holding the bag from all the realignment fallout, but Stanford was already at a huge disadvantage with the advent of the transfer portal — athletes can easily transfer out of Stanford, but inbound is exceedingly difficult due to academics — and NIL.
The Bay Area is most decidedly not a college athletics market and never has been. Despite Cal and Stanford's academic prestige, they just don't draw enough TV viewership to entice the other conferences, but their programs are way too big for the Mountain West. The ACC is a very imperfect fit, but may be the only way forward unless they accept going to the Mountain West and greatly diminishing their programs.
All the emphasis on football is going to have negative effects on the other sports, and eventually on the US Olympic efforts, since Stanford and Cal produce a huge number of Olympic athletes across a wide variety of sports.
The Bay Area is most decidedly not a college athletics market and never has been. Despite Cal and Stanford's academic prestige, they just don't draw enough TV viewership to entice the other conferences, but their programs are way too big for the Mountain West. The ACC is a very imperfect fit, but may be the only way forward unless they accept going to the Mountain West and greatly diminishing their programs.
All the emphasis on football is going to have negative effects on the other sports, and eventually on the US Olympic efforts, since Stanford and Cal produce a huge number of Olympic athletes across a wide variety of sports.
I agree whole heartedly. For me as I've said before though its not just this one action. This is huge and I hate it, but its not the only thing that has taken away my enjoyment from college football.
Yeah, Stanford and Cal are the odd ones out, and it sucks. They were in conversations to join the ACC (early discussions) yet those seemed to have fallen apart. They have little choice but to find a new conference.
Don't forget college basketball.
I'm a big Oregon Duck fan and while I am not a fan of what is happening to College Football with NIL and moving conferences, I am excited to be free of the Pac-12. Their officiating has been absolutely terrible across the whole conference for years, and there was no accountability even when they admitted mistakes.
'SCO DUCKS'
'SCO DUCKS'
So much history and tradition gone just like that. It’s a sad state of affairs. The Rose Bowl game will never be the same again.
I think the $100,000 free college eduction was payment enough. As for the billions the colleges take in, on the hard work of the athletes...welcome to the real world, kids. We all work hard for the enrichment of others. Why should college athletes be treated different.
That's the excuse NCAA gives and it rings hollow when you consider how much the NCAA makes (in excess of a billion per year). That's a lot of money for what amounts to free labor.
As for the conferences - lets say for the sake are of argument - that a school gets 40 million from their respective conference. (some conferences pay more some less). 100,000 dollars represents .025% of that 40 million. So while the team generates 40 million dollars of income, the people responsible for making that money are only getting only getting .025% return on their investment. That doesn't seem payment enough for me
Because it isn't right? Doesn't matter if it happens in the real world or not. If a person works hard they should be rewarded with a fair wage.
Also lets be quite real about that 100,000 dollar education, with the exception of a handful of schools, the time away from class for football activities means they're not getting 100,000 dollars with of education. Stanford, Notre Dame, and others are those schools that have high academic standards.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but I am certain that NIL is not the answer.
Also, I think your math is short-changing the athletes... $100K amount for the education benefit is for a full 4-year stint. But the numbers you are using for the NCAA's contribution (how's that for a misleading word?) is per year... the $40M that you are using is PER YEAR... so the return the athlete is getting is significantly less than your math allows... in the time the student is getting $100K benefit ("payment"), the school is making $160M (4 years at $40M)... reducing the ROI to something like 0.00625%.
While the transfer portal and NIL do help in some situations, it's turned recruiting into all-out free agency in college sports. As as has been widely discussed, the benefactors are the college football and basketball players. It's true that both the transfer portal and NIL money are available to all "student athletes", the lions share, by a great majority go to the traditional revenue-generating sports - college football and college basketball.
What's the solution? For years, the discussion centered around providing each student athlete a "stipend" to help their living situation, as well as to ease the consciences of the schools. That never materialized, and was probably dead from the start. The other issue is that of "amateur athletics". As an amateur, should the players be paid (in any way, shape or form)? Should the universities and conferences be allowed to continuing to rake in millions of dollars off of the "free" labor? (And isn't a college education worth something to the athletes?).
I am torn... we could get a "pay scale" for all athletes, based on whatever criteria the powers that be set up... is a college quarterback worth more than a baseball right fielder? Where does a pole vaulter or woman's lacrosse player fit into the scheme? Is it fair to pay a lacrosse player less because their sport is not a lucrative to the school/conference as the college quarterback?
It's all a hot mess, and frankly, I do not see a way to bring sense back to this mess.
And then there's the rumblings about the P5 schools dumping the NCAA to create their own new governing organization... or splitting the football piece out of the NCAA control and leaving the NCAA with the rest of college athletics...
Last edited:
No argument here... but how do we determine what a "fair wage" is? (see my post above about the relative value of a college quarterback vs a women's lacrosse player.) While Stanford and Notre Dame do have high academic standards, we also have the North Carolina's academic fraud/not fraud investigation... and the paper tiger NCAA's cowardice.