PDA

View Full Version : College Sports - Football, mainly


Ivhon
06-10-2010, 10:02 AM
My reaction to the news of the day - Sanctions against USC and realignment of conferences - leave me feeling kinda gross.

Now, I despise USC - particularly now that their new coach is in place, I think they just passed Florida as most hated team. However, the punishment handed down to the program for the blatant cheatery that they committed punishes NOBODY that was involved in that cheatery. It DOES punish the kids who had nothing to do with it - and their coach (who deserves some punishment of his own for cheatery and on principle for being a whiney douchebag, but not related to this). Pete Carril (another douchebag...taught the aforementioned douchebag everything he knows about douchebaggery) jumped ship like a douchebag. Reggie Bush...whatever. AD...still in place. President...still in place.

As for the realignment, coupling that with the joke of a response to USC pushes me into the camp of saying college athletes are getting totally shafted. The NCAA is making soooo much money off these kids and the kids get NOTHING (less than non-athletes can make, due to the ridiculous restrictions on what they can do for money). Total slave labor. These kids are making BANK for their schools in some cases, and other than the small few that make it to the pros, they don't see a dime come back.

Make it what it is - a pro league. That way, the whole USC thing would have been moot in the first place. Pete Carril would not have needed to jump ship like a douchebag and his whiney bitch douchebag replacement would still be at Tennessee......errr.....waitaminit. Lemme think this through a bit more....

Sarevok
06-10-2010, 10:06 AM
Could you clarify/post a link about what's going on for those that haven't a clue? All I get is that someone cheated and you're not happy about the way someone else handles it...

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 10:23 AM
Here is a good write-up on the USC situation. I had momentarily forgotten that the new douchebag coach was indeed around when the cheatery was going on. Which makes him even more of a douchebag on top of being a cocky arrogant whiney bitch that takes pride in skirting the rules.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/403925-usc-sanctions-did-usc-and-lane-kiffin-get-what-they-deserved

The conference realignments and the implications arising from them might be confusing, but here is the clearest rundown on it I could find in a short period of time.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/6/10/1510468/the-great-conference-realignment

JSUCamel
06-10-2010, 10:25 AM
Could you clarify/post a link about what's going on for those that haven't a clue? All I get is that someone cheated and you're not happy about the way someone else handles it...

I don't know the details of the cheatery, but we have rules in the States that college players cannot be paid or otherwise compensated (aside from scholarships) for their participation in collegiate sports. At the same time, the top NCAA (college sports body) schools are making a TON of money off these kids. College football, especially in the South, is a huge, huge, huge deal. People drive hundreds or thousands of miles to see one game with their favorite team, they spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on merchandise and tickets for their favorite teams. For instance, in Alabama, you'd be hard pressed to find a family that doesn't own at least one Alabama or Auburn item, whether it be a T-shirt, a hat, a plush mascot or whatever. There are approximately 5 million people in Alabama, and if we assume half of those people have bought a $30 hat, that's $75 million dollars. And that's just one hat, not including ticket sales (hundreds of dollars), donations for schools (who doesn't want to give money to help their favorite team win?), and any number of other merchandise or other paraphernalia for their favorite teams. And these kids get, at most, a free ride in college and a championship ring. At least, monetarily speaking (there are other intangible benefits, of course, like pride and memories, but how much would you cherish a memory of a season where the rules stated you weren't allowed to win?).

A few years ago, a team in Alabama (Auburn University) got busted with cheating or something, and what happened was the SEC (Southeastern Conference) banned Auburn from televised playing for X number of seasons (which meant you could only see the games live, not on TV) and I think they were denied a shot at the championship because of it. Something similar is happening here -- but the cheating occurred at management levels, not at player levels. So all of these kids that are on the team are being denied the right to play a televised game (if that's one of the punishments this time) or to play in the championship game (assuming they win and that this is a punishment), when they didn't actually do anything wrong.

It's like if your parents robbed a bank, and you got thrown in jail because of it.

Part of Ivhon's problem is that they're essentially throwing the kids under the bus without any other sort of compensation. He's suggesting that we turn college football into a pro sport, so these kids can get paid a reasonable amount of money, considering how much money they're generating for their respective schools and communities.

And the rest of his problem is that the ones that actually did something wrong, aren't really getting punished. The people in charge of the football program are still there.

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 10:44 AM
I don't know the details of the cheatery, but we have rules in the States that college players cannot be paid or otherwise compensated (aside from scholarships) for their participation in collegiate sports. At the same time, the top NCAA (college sports body) schools are making a TON of money off these kids. College football, especially in the South, is a huge, huge, huge deal. People drive hundreds or thousands of miles to see one game with their favorite team, they spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on merchandise and tickets for their favorite teams. For instance, in Alabama, you'd be hard pressed to find a family that doesn't own at least one Alabama or Auburn item, whether it be a T-shirt, a hat, a plush mascot or whatever. There are approximately 5 million people in Alabama, and if we assume half of those people have bought a $30 hat, that's $75 million dollars. And that's just one hat, not including ticket sales (hundreds of dollars), donations for schools (who doesn't want to give money to help their favorite team win?), and any number of other merchandise or other paraphernalia for their favorite teams. And these kids get, at most, a free ride in college and a championship ring. At least, monetarily speaking (there are other intangible benefits, of course, like pride and memories, but how much would you cherish a memory of a season where the rules stated you weren't allowed to win?).

A few years ago, a team in Alabama (Auburn University) got busted with cheating or something, and what happened was the SEC (Southeastern Conference) banned Auburn from televised playing for X number of seasons (which meant you could only see the games live, not on TV) and I think they were denied a shot at the championship because of it. Something similar is happening here -- but the cheating occurred at management levels, not at player levels. So all of these kids that are on the team are being denied the right to play a televised game (if that's one of the punishments this time) or to play in the championship game (assuming they win and that this is a punishment), when they didn't actually do anything wrong.

It's like if your parents robbed a bank, and you got thrown in jail because of it.

Part of Ivhon's problem is that they're essentially throwing the kids under the bus without any other sort of compensation. He's suggesting that we turn college football into a pro sport, so these kids can get paid a reasonable amount of money, considering how much money they're generating for their respective schools and communities.

And the rest of his problem is that the ones that actually did something wrong, aren't really getting punished. The people in charge of the football program are still there.

More specifically, the USC football violations were for infractions in the 2004 championship season - all of those players have since graduated. The player in question is now making millions of dollars in the pro leagues so could care less. The coach of that team bailed last year as soon as the heat came on. He is now coaching a pro team and is hence untouchable by the NCAA (gotta love how we reward cheaters in this country, dontcha). The AD in charge during that time is still in place. As is the president of the school. The AD hired as a replacement head coach a man who probably was deeply involved in the violations in the first place and who additionally in his incredibly long 1 year tenure as an NCAA head coach has a host of other possible violations swirling around him and his staff.

Finally, the NCAA cannot take away the national championship that team won...the BCS awards that and they are not the NCAA....somehow. The NCAA cannot take away the heisman trophy (MVP for the league) from the player in question because that trophy again is not awarded by the NCAA.

So who loses?
The player? Has his NCAA championship ring. Has his Heisman. And even if they somehow got taken away, what does he care? He has a Superbowl ring and a huge contract in the pros
The coach? Nope. Making more money in the pros and totally escapes punishment
The AD? Maybe in the future, but not now.
The new coach (who was also an assistant at the time)? Maybe some, since he has to sit through the sanctions. However, he is making more money than any second-year coach in NCAA history...so whatever. This after causing serious damage at his 1st 1-year job with possibly more landing on that program because of what he may have done there (those sanctions won't follow him).

The real losers are the kids who came to USC, did nothing wrong and now lose the chance to a) keep their scholarships or b) win a championship. Particularly hurt are the juniors and seniors who get zero chance since they will have graduated by the time the sanctions are lifted. Assuming, of course, that there were no violations with them.

I say this in sympathy to the players on a program I don't like. I have long pulled for any team USC is playing...that feeling has only grown stronger with the addition of the new whiney douchebag coach and his dirty-rotten recruiter. Still, the kids are just kids and they (most of them, at the very least) don't deserve this.

Sinistrum
06-10-2010, 12:37 PM
Yeah, your's and Camel's post pretty much sum up the hypocricy of the NCAA. The programs, the admins, the coaches, and the NCAA officials all make tons of money. The players get a scholarship that many of them aren't really going to use for more than a year or two because they will jump ship for the NFL draft once they are eligible.

bowlwoman
06-10-2010, 03:27 PM
Well, as a Missouri alumnus who lives in Austin, I'd be thrilled to see MU join the Big 10. I've thought for a long time they shouldn't be in the same conference as the Texas and OK schools, and almost all of MU's non-conference games are played with Big 10 schools anyway.

Hubby is a USC alum, so he's mourning this afternoon.

Davian93
06-10-2010, 03:40 PM
Big News (if not unexpected):

Nebraska to the Big 10, Colorado to the Pac 10.

Good-bye Big 12...and good riddance!

Once they gobble up Notre Dame and a couple other schools, the Big 10 will offically be the most powerful entity in the NCAA.

Kimon
06-10-2010, 04:39 PM
Well, as a Missouri alumnus who lives in Austin, I'd be thrilled to see MU join the Big 10. I've thought for a long time they shouldn't be in the same conference as the Texas and OK schools, and almost all of MU's non-conference games are played with Big 10 schools anyway.

Hubby is a USC alum, so he's mourning this afternoon.

You can hope, but Missouri may well end up shafted the same way that Kansas is certain to be. The Big 10 (really 11), may take 1, 3, or 5 schools. The team we (I went to Michigan) really want is obviously Notre Dame. So if we could just get them to finally see reason, we'd probably happily shank Nebraska and everyone else that is praying for a Big Ten invite. For us to take Missouri the Big Ten almost certainly would have to expand to 16 teams.

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 05:16 PM
Having been a non-revenue athlete myself, what concerns me is how do "lesser" sports teams make conference competitions that are halfway across the country?

I was a swimmer, for example. Looks like Texas will now be Pac-10 and get Stanford in-conference - which is a lovely in-conference duel featuring the traditional top two teams.

Now, nobody pays to watch swim meets, so how are you gonna get the entire roster - men's and women's - from Austin to the Bay Area?

That's just one competition in one non-revenue sport. And a Marquee one at that...what about all the bullshit meaningless (for national championships) stuff that is halfway across the country? You know, when the teams that are 15th and 16th in the conference are 800 miles apart? Splitting into sub-conferences (like SEC E. and W.) solves some of it, but outside of football it is pointless - you are essentially back to 2 different conferences.

Zanguini
06-10-2010, 05:30 PM
hmm conference re alignment... football....

I would like to see...
Pac-10
+ CO BSU Utah UTST TCU CSU

SEC
+TX OK OSU TAMU

Big 11
+MO KS NE ND KS IST

ACC
+WV SUNJ Pitt USF

MWC
MWC+WAC+KSST

CUSA
+ remaining TX schools - Eastern Div CUSA+ Western division sunbelt

Big E
Eastern CUSA schools + Big E + Eastern sunbelt

MAC
+ independents other than ND

Yellowbeard
06-10-2010, 05:44 PM
As long as Notre Dame can be competitive financially as an independent, they'll stay independent. Their TV contract, plus they get to keep all the BCS bowl money and not share it when they make a BCS bowl (which means they only have to make one every 4-5 years to compete w/ teams in conferences) will keep them independent. Also, their alumni are hell bent on staying independent. if they were to join, all the rich contributors would band together to get the president/athletic director/etc. replaced.

If they lose their BCS privledge and/or TV contract, then they'll join a conference so they can keep up w/ the other major schools in revenue.

Kimon
06-10-2010, 06:01 PM
hmm conference re alignment... football....

I would like to see...
Pac-10
+ CO BSU Utah UTST TCU CSU

SEC
+TX OK OSU TAMU

Big 11
+MO KS NE ND KS IST

ACC
+WV SUNJ Pitt USF

MWC
MWC+WAC+KSST

CUSA
+ remaining TX schools - Eastern Div CUSA+ Western division sunbelt

Big E
Eastern CUSA schools + Big E + Eastern sunbelt

MAC
+ independents other than ND

PAC10:
With the exception of Colorado, there is no way that the Pac10 would take any of these others. They just aren't prestigious enough academically, which yes, is still an important component.

SEC:
I doubt Texas would prefer the SEC to the Pac10. Considering the sucker punch that USC just received, Texas will own the Pac10, just like they did the Big12.

Big 10/11:
There is NO way that we would ever take Kansas or Iowa State. The schools you've mentioned are all (except Notre Dame) essentially academically ineligible. We will probably hold our noses and take Nebraska, but not these others. Missouri at least gives us the possibility of two decent tv markets (St Louis and Kansas City). Kansas and Iowa State can't bring anything attractive to the table.

ACC:
Do I take it by SUNJ you mean Rutgers? They'll probably end up in the Big10.

MWC:
No one really cares about the MWC- well maybe Kansas and the other Big12 leftovers...

ConfUSA:
Who cares…

BigEast:
They better pray that the Big10 doesn't take Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

MAC:
The MAC better hope that the Big10 teams still need to schedule non-conference games after all of this insanity is done...

Mort
06-10-2010, 07:04 PM
I get the problem with the cheating on a manager level, all the rest? Pac10 and whatnot, have no friggin idea :)

You are too much in love with acronyms :) Or long names that forces you to use acronyms, maybe a little of both? :)

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 07:20 PM
I get the problem with the cheating on a manager level, all the rest? Pac10 and whatnot, have no friggin idea :)

You are too much in love with acronyms :) Or long names that forces you to use acronyms, maybe a little of both? :)

Think of those acronyms as sports leagues...just in college.

Pac-10: Pacific coast 10 conference
SEC: South East Conference
ACC: Atlantic Coast Conference

etc. Meaningless, really. Moreso now.

Mort
06-10-2010, 07:38 PM
Think of those acronyms as sports leagues...just in college.

Pac-10: Pacific coast 10 conference
SEC: South East Conference
ACC: Atlantic Coast Conference

etc. Meaningless, really. Moreso now.

But you were talking about teams getting into the leagues, what happens if some teams don't? Are they just playing in a lower division or what league are they thrown into?

Kimon
06-10-2010, 08:07 PM
But you were talking about teams getting into the leagues, what happens if some teams don't? Are they just playing in a lower division or what league are they thrown into?

Currently 5 conferences have automatic births into the BCS (bowl championship series)- those are the Big10, Pac10, Big12, Big East, and SEC. Inclusion means amongst other things access to much more tv time for games, better bowl births, and lots more money. The Big 10 (really 11 teams- we just didn't want to change the name) wanted to add a 12th team so that they could hold a conference championship game, which would give them more money, and a chance to play into december, rather than finishing in early november, and thus having a long layoff before the bowl games. Since the Big10 is the most prestigious and the richest conference (albeit not the best in terms of actual talent- that's the SEC), everyone not in the SEC, but especially teams in the Big East and the Big 12 (well everyone in the Big 12 but Texas) understandably had interest in jumping ship and joining the Big 10. This chaos created the situation we are in now, with the Big 12 on the verge of complete collapse, the Big East fearful of collapse, and Notre Dame wondering if it can continue in its ancestral pomposity. Clear?

Or, to be more blunt. Teams from the Big 12 that don't get an invite to either the Big10 or Pac 10 are completely screwed, as are, quite possibly, many of the teams in the Big East, if the Big10 decides to selectively raid them.

Davian93
06-10-2010, 08:31 PM
As long as Notre Dame can be competitive financially as an independent, they'll stay independent. Their TV contract, plus they get to keep all the BCS bowl money and not share it when they make a BCS bowl (which means they only have to make one every 4-5 years to compete w/ teams in conferences) will keep them independent. Also, their alumni are hell bent on staying independent. if they were to join, all the rich contributors would band together to get the president/athletic director/etc. replaced.

If they lose their BCS privledge and/or TV contract, then they'll join a conference so they can keep up w/ the other major schools in revenue.

Each Big 10 school makes more than ND does now through their tv contract....just sayin'.

DeiwosTheSkyGod
06-10-2010, 09:30 PM
I was a swimmer, for example. Looks like Texas will now be Pac-10 and get Stanford in-conference - which is a lovely in-conference duel featuring the traditional top two teams.

Since I'm probably the only other one that cares about swimming :D that's also gonna be a killer Pac-10 Championship on the men's side - Stanford, Cal, Texas, and Arizona. Texas women will likely get beat on by Cal, Stanford, Arizona and probably USC next year.

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 11:43 PM
Since I'm probably the only other one that cares about swimming :D that's also gonna be a killer Pac-10 Championship on the men's side - Stanford, Cal, Texas, and Arizona. Texas women will likely get beat on by Cal, Stanford, Arizona and probably USC next year.

Yeah, it would certainly make for the most imbalanced conference structure for any sport....other than water polo.

bowlwoman
06-11-2010, 12:08 AM
Yeah, it would certainly make for the most imbalanced conference structure for any sport....other than water polo.

I don't know about that. A friend's 15 year-old daughter (they live in San Jose) just got accepted to the national water polo team, and the coach for her team is the Stanford water polo coach. He also coached the U.S. Olympic water polo team during the past three games. So, the Pac-10 will still probably be imbalanced for water polo as well. :D

Ivhon
06-11-2010, 12:20 AM
I don't know about that. A friend's 15 year-old daughter (they live in San Jose) just got accepted to the national water polo team, and the coach for her team is the Stanford water polo coach. He also coached the U.S. Olympic water polo team during the past three games. So, the Pac-10 will still probably be imbalanced for water polo as well. :D

Yeah, that was my point. The NCAA tournament for water polo requires bids from other parts of the country (when I was playing, 1 from the east, 1 from the south, 1 from the midwest...may have changed). Otherwise the NCAA tournament would be only CA schools. I was on probation the year my team had the east coast bid. However, we played Cal and UCLA in a tournament the year before (essentially the same team) and lost 17-3 and 24-7 respectively.

bowlwoman
06-11-2010, 09:27 AM
Gotcha. I completely misread what you said the other way. :) Mea culpa.

I didn't realize that California had the monopoly on water polo, but I guess it makes sense. Considering that all the national team stuff I found online yesterday was based in SoCal, I'm not surprised.

Zanguini
06-13-2010, 12:56 AM
to explain it to our european friends... its like the bundisliga offering arsenal and liverpool to join ... so they can better compete in the UEFA cup... and since those teams left the french league decides they would like some english teams ... and all thats left is Man United who has to decide to go to the bundisliga, the french league or flip everyone out and go to the spanish league

Zanguini
06-14-2010, 09:11 PM
hmmm... how much for montreal canadians? Id be willing to go as high as 30 american for one