College Playoffs - Did they get it right?

[Brian Fein]

Nope, not at all, I'm advocating that they add teams to the SEC like UCF and FAU.  And ACC and Big East and other conferences.  Add in 3 teams each to SEC East and West and make it 10 teams each.  You can find them.  Then give teams like FAU to compete against Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia every year.  Sure they may get beat up but maybe over time they start beating some teams and maybe over time the program grows.  And maybe 20 years from now, FAU wins the SEC East and plays in a playoff game.

I don't think its unreasonable.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not sure how it is written in the bylaws but this is not the first shared championship since the Big 12 dropped to 10 teams so there is precedence. I don't care to research any further but just want to point out that co-champions may already be accounted for because it has already happened.

When it comes to bowl selection, the first tiebreaker is supposed to be head-to-head record.  You can still see that on the tiebreaker page here (which has not been updated to reflect their current sham).

In this case, the article I linked earlier specifically states that the official first tiebreaker (head-to-head) will NOT be used unless both teams finish out of the top 4.  It's straight-up corruption.

[MikeO]

Nope, not at all, I'm advocating that they add teams to the SEC like UCF and FAU.  And ACC and Big East and other conferences.  Add in 3 teams each to SEC East and West and make it 10 teams each.  You can find them.  Then give teams like FAU to compete against Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia every year.  Sure they may get beat up but maybe over time they start beating some teams and maybe over time the program grows.  And maybe 20 years from now, FAU wins the SEC East and plays in a playoff game.

I don't think its unreasonable.

It's totally unreasonable and its borderline delusional (and I love ya Brian but I am sorry it is). Conferences aren't put together strictly for sports. More goes into than that. And to ask a conference to add schools that  have no business in a conference with schools of a different size and athletic department budget than them and its totally insane!

Why would the SEC split up, give up their millions/billions in TV money to help out small schools they don't care about who aren't on their level academically or on the sports end of things? The SEC is running a business not a charity. Why split the pie more ways? What's in it for the schools already in the SEC?

P.S...the Big East doesn't exist anymore for football

[Fau Teixeira]

It's totally unreasonable and its borderline delusional (and I love ya Brian but I am sorry it is). Conferences aren't put together strictly for sports. More goes into than that. And to ask a conference to add schools that  have no business in a conference with schools of a different size and athletic department budget than them and its totally insane!

Why would the SEC split up, give up their millions/billions in TV money to help out small schools they don't care about who aren't on their level academically or on the sports end of things? The SEC is running a business not a charity. Why split the pie more ways? What's in it for the schools already in the SEC?

P.S...the Big East doesn't exist anymore for football

what they should do is pay these players as employees of the school, which is what they are.

[Phishfan]

^^^And you will ultimately see more schools than UAB drop their football programs. These are not employees of the school, they are students (or at least should be).

[Spider-Dan]

Good.  Then maybe there will be a football equivalent of AAA or NBDL and we can drop this charade of "student athlete."

NCAA football and basketball exist almost exclusively to extort young athletes who have no viable alternative path to going pro.

[MikeO]

what they should do is pay these players as employees of the school, which is what they are.

That will never happen either. Check that, it will never happen until the time comes where the Power 5 conference split from the NCAA and cut their own deals with video game companies, TV companies, and when Nike/Under Armour/Reebok can just flat out sign college kids to long-term deals. When those schools in the Power 5 tell the NCAA to eff off and go straight into business for themselves, that's when kids get paid.  That day will probably never happen but if it does that's when players get paid. Until then its a pipe dream

[Brian Fein]

what they should do is pay these players as employees of the school, which is what they are.

What the F does this have to do with college football playoff system?

They are students who play a game as an extracurricular activity.  They aren't employees.  They are "supposed to be" there to get an education, and football is "supposed to be" secondary. 

Now, we all know that isn't reality, but that is what it is "supposed to be."

Players are getting paid right now, in the form of free education.  The same education that "normal" people pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain.  That is their payment, and given the "supposed to be" reason for them to be there, I think its fair.  Considering that about 2% of college football players make a living playing football professionally, the education is more than enough compensation.

[Dave Gray]

They are "supposed to be" there to get an education, and football is "supposed to be" secondary. 

Now, we all know that isn't reality, but that is what it is "supposed to be."

Supposed to, according to who? 

The high level players are not there for an education (at least not a college education).  They're there for a football education and a place to show off their skills to get drafted.  And the school has them there because they bring in LOTS of money.

They are absolutely employees.  You're pretending otherwise, or referring back to an era where the value of these players isn't millions of dollars.  And the fact that the players don't have other options is some bullshit.  If the NCAA was "my way or the highway" but THERE WAS A HIGHWAY, I'd have less of a problem with it.  But players realistically have no choice but to stay in school and make free money.  The NFL gets a free hype machine where their prospects can grow up.  The whole thing is a big sham and everyone is getting rich off it but the players, who can't get money for their own autograph.  The whole thing is a joke.

[Brian Fein]

Yes, I guess I'm referring to an antiquated model, where football wasn't a billion dollar business, and it was secondary to the education.  Considering the small amount of "high level players" that use football to be their career, you'd think that the majority of players who actually want to get smart and have a career not called football should be there to learn?  You can't single some out and you can't neglect the value of the classes.  Otherwise, fuck it and stop using students to play.  Stop the sham of sending them to joke ass classes.  Why send players to Basket Weaving 101 and pretend they're there to learn anything?  Why not just forget the entire college thing and call it a football league and hire players and pay them?

The thing that seperates college football from pro football (NFL, CFL, AFL, any league) is that the players are made up of the STUDENT body.  Note the word "STUDENT" derived from "STUDY" which is associated with learning.

Otherwise, college football is just another pro league and you can sign any old player you want.  Where's the differentiation?

[Phishfan]

Supposed to, according to who? 

The high level players are not there for an education (at least not a college education).  They're there for a football education and a place to show off their skills to get drafted.  And the school has them there because they bring in LOTS of money.

They are absolutely employees.  You're pretending otherwise, or referring back to an era where the value of these players isn't millions of dollars.  And the fact that the players don't have other options is some bullshit.  If the NCAA was "my way or the highway" but THERE WAS A HIGHWAY, I'd have less of a problem with it.  But players realistically have no choice but to stay in school and make free money.  The NFL gets a free hype machine where their prospects can grow up.  The whole thing is a big sham and everyone is getting rich off it but the players, who can't get money for their own autograph.  The whole thing is a joke.

I don't advocate a player not being able to make their own money but that is a world apart than saying schools should pay these athletes. There is a huge difference in someone taking advantage of their marketability and saying that these kids are employees. They are student-athletes not employees.

[Dave Gray]

That's the problem, though.

The NCAA rules have to be super strict or the athletes will get paid.  Boosters will start to pay $20,000 for an autograph.  Once you pull off the cap, though, you won't be able to get the toothpaste back in the tube. 

The whole thing is dumb.   Do you guys realize that Jameis Winston most likely didn't steal crab-legs?  He was given them by the employee at Publix.  But he has to say he stole them, because the penalty for being given them is far worse.  It's all upside-down.

They are not student athletes.  That's bullshit.  The vast majority of people playing sports are -- but Jameis Winston is not.  He's playing specifically to showcase his skills for the NFL and to make FSU a ton of cash.  Pretending that Winston is doing the same thing as some swimmer at FAU is just not being honest about what's going on.

[MikeO]

Is the field hockey player a student athlete or employee? If the football player is an "employee" then all athletes are employees right? I mean only 8 people might show up to watch the Field Hockey team play, but employees nontheless. If they are an employee and not a student athlete pay them the same or else they can sue for gender discrimination and unfair wages if its not on par with other "employees" who are athletes at the school. Can't cherry pick which ones are employees and which ones are student athletes.

Just sayin Dave. If all athletes are employees they ALL gotta get health benefits, the right to unionize, paid time off, would fall under FMLA coverage, Workers Comp, a 401K plan, vacation time, and all of the other perks and benefits a secretary in Admissions at the school or a professor get as "employees."

Can't open that can of worms!!

[Fau Teixeira]

why can't you open that can of worms .. sure you can! ..

It is what it is .. these "student athletes" have mandatory activities they must participate in during mandatory time periods .. to refuse to do so, will directly result in the loss of "pay"  ..

i agree with brian that scholarships should be considered pay .. they should just get the benefits that come from being employed by the school otherwise. By every definition in the book these students are employees. They should have the same rights and benefits as other employees.

[MikeO]

why can't you open that can of worms .. sure you can! ..

It is what it is .. these "student athletes" have mandatory activities they must participate in during mandatory time periods .. to refuse to do so, will directly result in the loss of "pay"  ..

i agree with brian that scholarships should be considered pay .. they should just get the benefits that come from being employed by the school otherwise. By every definition in the book these students are employees. They should have the same rights and benefits as other employees.

cause then most of these colleges and universities will say the hell with athletics and cut the sports programs. Having to pay that kind of money to "athletes" will be a financial loser. Schools like to make profits. That would bankrupt some and put others operating in the red and they will get rid of entire athletic departments. Not worth it financially.