menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Competitive Balance ?
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/31/2023 6:55 AM
There's an article in today's The Record by Ralph Russo of USA Today,
about "Competitive Balance" in college football.

The article won't link, but it is on USA Today's website.

Nick Saban is quoted as saying that, if the current trend continues "only the biggest spenders will compete for championships".

Mizz.'s coach said some players are making more from NIL's then his brother-in-law, who is a Pediatrician.

Interesting read.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/31/2023 7:29 AM
Here's the link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/05/30/sa... /

Here are the participants in the national championship game going back to 2014:

Ohio State
Oregon
Alabama
Clemson
Georgia
LSU
TCU

When was the last time there was competitive balance? And weren't the big spenders competing for national championships already? Seems like the difference is about where the money is going.
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/31/2023 8:47 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Here's the link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/05/30/sa... /

Here are the participants in the national championship game going back to 2014:

Ohio State
Oregon
Alabama
Clemson
Georgia
LSU
TCU

When was the last time there was competitive balance? And weren't the big spenders competing for national championships already? Seems like the difference is about where the money is going.
When I read the article, all I could think of was "kettle meet pot" :-)
mail
person
L.C.
5/31/2023 10:48 AM
That is exactly why the MAC is more fun to watch. The MAC has more competitive balance than anyone else. Occasionally there is one really good team, or one or two really bad teams, but most years there are a tremendous number of games decided by under 7 points.
mail
TWT
5/31/2023 10:51 AM
The problem for Nick Saban is the 100,000 seat stadium programs could be at a disadvantage to the smaller but larger market types like Miami FL. Destabilize the statewide T-Shirt fan monopolies.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
5/31/2023 1:17 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
There's an article in today's The Record by Ralph Russo of USA Today,
about "Competitive Balance" in college football.

The article won't link, but it is on USA Today's website.

Nick Saban is quoted as saying that, if the current trend continues "only the biggest spenders will compete for championships".

Mizz.'s coach said some players are making more from NIL's then his brother-in-law, who is a Pediatrician.

Interesting read.
Some guys are taking pay cuts to sign a rookie contract.
mail
person
Pataskala
6/1/2023 11:38 AM
"Competitive balance" has always been something of a farce. MAC-level schools have always been able to pull off the occasional upset but games against the more dominant teams generally have always been bloowouts. NILs haven't made it worse, just more open. Money has been flowing from backers to players at the more dominant schools (including, maybe especially, Bama) for decades. It's just above the table now.
mail
person
rpbobcat
6/7/2023 6:58 AM
There's a follow up article by John Zenor of the AP.
(Its on Muck Rack)

Apparently Saban and others from the SEC are headed to DC to lobby for
controls on NIL's.

Interesting read.
mail
person
Bobcat1996
6/7/2023 7:51 AM
BTC is correct about players taking a pay cut to sign with the NBA or NFL. Oscar Tshiebwe of Kentucky is a perfect example of that. He stayed in Lexington last season and made millions.
mail
M.D.W.S.T
6/7/2023 9:03 AM
Bobcat1996 wrote:expand_more
BTC is correct about players taking a pay cut to sign with the NBA or NFL. Oscar Tshiebwe of Kentucky is a perfect example of that. He stayed in Lexington last season and made millions.
Armando Bacot as well. Dominating C in college basketball. Absolutely has an NBA future... but probably not as a starter. That UNC money > NBA rookie deals.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
6/7/2023 11:23 AM
I'm probably alone on this one, but my feeling is that the Armando Bacot/Oscar Tshiebwe types are exactly the sort of player the NCAA should be building policy around.

They're great college players, but fringe NBA guys. If the NIL is putting real money in their pocket, that's a good thing for the quality of the NCAA game. I think the NCAA should very seriously consider extending the amount of eligibility players have. If the mission's about education, why not extend eligibility to align with graduate degrees, as well?

There's a lot of good college basketball players that have no pro future. What if all of them could play for 7 years and end up with masters degrees and earn 500k a year in NIL money?

Who is that bad for?
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
6/7/2023 1:17 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I'm probably alone on this one, but my feeling is that the Armando Bacot/Oscar Tshiebwe types are exactly the sort of player the NCAA should be building policy around.

They're great college players, but fringe NBA guys. If the NIL is putting real money in their pocket, that's a good thing for the quality of the NCAA game. I think the NCAA should very seriously consider extending the amount of eligibility players have. If the mission's about education, why not extend eligibility to align with graduate degrees, as well?

There's a lot of good college basketball players that have no pro future. What if all of them could play for 7 years and end up with masters degrees and earn 500k a year in NIL money?

Who is that bad for?
I also suspect you are alone on this.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
6/7/2023 1:19 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
There's a follow up article by John Zenor of the AP.
(Its on Muck Rack)

Apparently Saban and others from the SEC are headed to DC to lobby for
controls on NIL's.

Interesting read.
That is funny!
mail
OhioCatFan
6/7/2023 2:33 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
There's a follow up article by John Zenor of the AP.
(Its on Muck Rack)

Apparently Saban and others from the SEC are headed to DC to lobby for
controls on NIL's.

Interesting read.
That is funny!
Yes, it is funny in an ironic sort of way. But, it's not too surprising that those places where the excesses are most obvious are the first to see how the whole system could collapse in its current form.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
6/7/2023 2:35 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
There's a follow up article by John Zenor of the AP.
(Its on Muck Rack)

Apparently Saban and others from the SEC are headed to DC to lobby for
controls on NIL's.

Interesting read.
That is funny!
Yes, it is funny in an ironic sort of way. But, it's not too surprising that those places where the excesses are most obvious are the first to see how the whole system could collapse in its current form.
It's also funny, because as of right now Congress has done NOTHING on the NIL front, but most of the proposed bills would bring more chaos, not less.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
6/7/2023 3:09 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I'm probably alone on this one, but my feeling is that the Armando Bacot/Oscar Tshiebwe types are exactly the sort of player the NCAA should be building policy around.

They're great college players, but fringe NBA guys. If the NIL is putting real money in their pocket, that's a good thing for the quality of the NCAA game. I think the NCAA should very seriously consider extending the amount of eligibility players have. If the mission's about education, why not extend eligibility to align with graduate degrees, as well?

There's a lot of good college basketball players that have no pro future. What if all of them could play for 7 years and end up with masters degrees and earn 500k a year in NIL money?

Who is that bad for?
I also suspect you are alone on this.
In a world where people complain endlessly about how players are just in it for the money, seems silly not to explore options that actually align with the educational mission of the NCAA that people insist is so central to the whole enterprise.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
6/7/2023 3:32 PM
Maybe because those players, in this potential scenario of sticking around for 6-7 years, would not be doing so for any educational purposes. Instead, their decision to stick it out for an extended college experience would be motivated by finances, thus negating the argument that it is aligned with the educational mission of the NCAA.
Last Edited: 6/7/2023 3:34:54 PM by bobcatsquared
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
6/7/2023 4:04 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Maybe because those players, in this potential scenario of sticking around for 6-7 years, would not be doing so for any educational purposes. Instead, their decision to stick it out for an extended college experience would be motivated by finances, thus negating the argument that it is aligned with the educational mission of the NCAA.
Is an education only valuable if you don't make money while you're getting your education? If somebody was working on their MBA while also working in a job making $500k a year do you think that negates the value of the education?

I'm really not sure I understand how it came to be that so many people think earning money is inherently bad. Are there other realms of society where you feel that way? Or is it just college athletics?
mail
person
bobcatsquared
6/7/2023 10:44 PM
Not against college athletes making money. But you're the one using the "educational mission of the NCAA" as a reason for extending eligibility out to 6, 7, 8 years. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of that defense.

And why stop at 6, 7, 8 years of eligibility? Why not 9 or 10? Let's not concern ourselves with an 18 year old lining up across the line of scrimmage against a 26-year-old (28-year-old, perhaps?). Heck, forget about colleges even recruiting 18-year-old athletes out of high school with a roster full of grown men who've been around the program and in the weight room for 7 or 8 years.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
6/8/2023 7:51 AM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Not against college athletes making money. But you're the one using the "educational mission of the NCAA" as a reason for extending eligibility out to 6, 7, 8 years. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of that defense. [/QUOTE]What's hypocritical about it? We're talking about specific examples of players who went to school longer because of the NIL. If the NCAA's mission is to educate athletes, I'm having trouble understanding how more education is hypocritical. If the NIL can be used to incentivize student athletes to complete their education, that seems good to me.

It actually seems far more hypocritical to me to insist that an education is the most important thing, while imposing a wide range of restrictions on what athletes can earn. Basically everybody I knew at OU worked while in school, even if it was just a summer job. They did so because school is a big time commitment in and of itself, and they needed, you know, money for food and rent. Athletes not only have the time commitment of school, but also of athletics.

Basically all the data out there shows that the more financially secure somebody is, the more likely they are to complete their education. The NCAA spent decades making financial security more difficult for athletes. I don't think it's some wildly crazy idea to suggest that athletes who make NIL money may stay in school for longer.

[QUOTE=bobcatsquared]
And why stop at 6, 7, 8 years of eligibility? Why not 9 or 10? Let's not concern ourselves with an 18 year old lining up across the line of scrimmage against a 26-year-old (28-year-old, perhaps?). Heck, forget about colleges even recruiting 18-year-old athletes out of high school with a roster full of grown men who've been around the program and in the weight room for 7 or 8 years.
I'm not opposed to this, provided there is an educational justification. Want to stick around and get a PhD? Cool with me.

I also suspect more eligibility would help with the transfer portal. If your window to contribute is longer, you're probably less likely to leave if you're not getting playing time, and coaches would be less likely to bail on projects.
Last Edited: 6/8/2023 9:35:52 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Pataskala
6/8/2023 3:18 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Not against college athletes making money. But you're the one using the "educational mission of the NCAA" as a reason for extending eligibility out to 6, 7, 8 years. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of that defense.

And why stop at 6, 7, 8 years of eligibility? Why not 9 or 10? Let's not concern ourselves with an 18 year old lining up across the line of scrimmage against a 26-year-old (28-year-old, perhaps?). Heck, forget about colleges even recruiting 18-year-old athletes out of high school with a roster full of grown men who've been around the program and in the weight room for 7 or 8 years.
The notion of four years of eligibility is a bit of a joke because players can redshirt, retain a year if they play four or fewer games, or even get hardship extensions. Why not just make it a flat five years for everybody? Or even the number of regular season games in a four or five-year span (48 or 60) no matter how many years it takes unless they turn pro. Don't count conference championship, playoff or bowl games against the limit. Either makes more sense than the current situation where a player could lose a year of eligibility if he blows out a knee in his fifth game of the season. Also takes away some of the uncertainty about a player's eligibility.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
9/9/2023 7:02 PM
Last Edited: 9/9/2023 7:47:51 PM by bobcatsquared
mail
person
bobcatsquared
9/9/2023 7:09 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I'm probably alone on this one, but my feeling is that the Armando Bacot/Oscar Tshiebwe types are exactly the sort of player the NCAA should be building policy around.

They're great college players, but fringe NBA guys. If the NIL is putting real money in their pocket, that's a good thing for the quality of the NCAA game. I think the NCAA should very seriously consider extending the amount of eligibility players have. If the mission's about education, why not extend eligibility to align with graduate degrees, as well?

There's a lot of good college basketball players that have no pro future. What if all of them could play for 7 years and end up with masters degrees and earn 500k a year in NIL money?

Who is that bad for?
I also suspect you are alone on this.
Forget about 7 years of college eligibility, as BLSS advocates. NC St has a WR who scored a TD for the Wolfpack today in his 8th year of eligibility. Bradley Rozner played 3 years at a JUCO, followed by 4 years at Rice before joining NC St this summer. Sounds like a caricature of the NCAA basketball player BLSS mentioned above.
Showing Messages: 1 - 23 of 23
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)