Isn't that how it generally plays out? Not saying I approve, just saying.
President to Sign Executive Order on College Sports - Changing transfer and redshirt rules
- Thread starter maxpain
- Start date
Thanks for the response. I was trying to say that this is a silly situation and a 10 year old could come up with a system that makes sense. Now that lawyers, bureaucrats, and other eggheads have gotten involved, I understand that it will take special wording and defining words and rights etc. and it is a sh$tshow (as you put it). My point is that it should not be so complicated and lawyers and good old fashioned greed have made it that way.
1. I can’t stand when politicians get involved with sports. There’s enough real problems going on, leave my escapism alone please.
2. 5 to play 5 sucks, completely re-writes record books and I’m a traditionalist so screw change.
3. No chance in hell this doesn’t go to court and get challenged and likely tossed out. So basically everything I wrote is a complete waste of time.
2. 5 to play 5 sucks, completely re-writes record books and I’m a traditionalist so screw change.
3. No chance in hell this doesn’t go to court and get challenged and likely tossed out. So basically everything I wrote is a complete waste of time.
If you’re a traditionalist, why haven’t you been campaigning to go back to 3 years of participation as it was in the Gable area and prior? When it went from 3 to 4, the world didn’t end. Records didn’t evaporate. It was fine.
Though I share your overall sentiment about the involvement of politicians, college sports cannot be “fixed” without policitians.
It’s not that simple. Only a few of these sports/teams actually generate revenue. However many of these athletes are worth more than their scholarship and the Schools have reaped the benefit for years. It’s tough to say who generates the money. The athletes ore the league that has the following of the school which is taxpayer subsidized so not a true business model. The NCAA has refused for years to create a model that allows the student athletes to collectively bargain. It’s on them.
Because I’m not that old of a traditionalist. In my history of watching college sports you played four years with an occasional redshirt as a freshman.
You may be right, but I still don’t like it. It seems like something politicians do just to get talked about.
I think we can all agree the current state of college sports is f’d. I’m not sure what can be done to fix it, maybe the revenue sports braking away from the ncaa.
So just kind of a traditionalist.
(I give you crap--I respect that you like 4.)They might be doing it to get "talked about" but without their help, nothing is going to get fixed. Courts have rendered the NCAA powerless.
As an ancient caveman, I really liked amateur athletics. You know, the time before huge media revenues distorted the whole system, and before athletes thought that they deserved way more than an education (plus expenses) for playing sports, and even before pros (b-ball) started playing in the Olympics, and especially before playoff tickets got so damn expensive. Maybe it wasn't perfectly fair, but at least almost anyone could afford it.
Frankly, it's getting more and more difficult to support mercenaries who care so little about the education part. One of the best (and maybe worst) things about OUR sport, is that no one with any sense would put themselves through that much suffering for so little money, unless they really wanted to prove something or really wanted the scholarships. There was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
And the NCAA isn't the only thing driving this push to monetize everything. The Chinese, Russians, and Europeans are pushing this too. There's big money in 18–22 year-olds sports, and everyone wants a taste of it. The genie is out of the bottle, and I don't see this ending well.
Frankly, it's getting more and more difficult to support mercenaries who care so little about the education part. One of the best (and maybe worst) things about OUR sport, is that no one with any sense would put themselves through that much suffering for so little money, unless they really wanted to prove something or really wanted the scholarships. There was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
And the NCAA isn't the only thing driving this push to monetize everything. The Chinese, Russians, and Europeans are pushing this too. There's big money in 18–22 year-olds sports, and everyone wants a taste of it. The genie is out of the bottle, and I don't see this ending well.
Is it your view that the schools and coaches should reap the lions share of the revenue? Many of these kids are worth millions. And previously if on scholarship not necessarily full their ability to earn normal become was limited. It’s not just nostalgia. The system was not fair.
If the kids were worth so much they wouldn't need the schools or it's fans. They really aren't worth anything. And there are lines of kids that would sign up for a free scholarship so the schools didn't need the ones who think they are worth more than the free ride.
They don’t need the schools. NFL could easily create a developmental league for guys to play at, but they like the free labor.
I’m sure the JV quarterback at your high school would take a full ride scholly. Doesn’t mean anybody wants to watch them.
Let’s take IU football the last two years. Are you saying those rosters don’t bring more value to the university than in years past when they were a door mat?
Point 2 is already ashes or did you miss the first 5 time champion in history? Guys are currently using every loophole possible to compete for more than 4 years. 5 for 5 gives those that need a year to develop, have medical issues etc... am opportunity to still compete for an extended period but at least caps it at 5 so no more ridiculousness.
Many still won't use all 5 for full 5 years of participation eeither.
Can’t blame a kid or anyone actually trying to get more years out of competing if they can. Amazing how so how many on here say they should just get 5 years for 4. Ask yourself, if you were in that position to get another year if possible by bending the rules you wouldn’t take it. Funny how so many boomers or traditionalists on here say this is what it should be,nothing more than what I’m used to. I imagine if ya’ll were in that spot you would tell your coaches “nope I should have only gotten 5 years to compete my 4, sorry coach I’m a traditionalist”
Do you have any statistics on that? I would be interested.
No, I didn't say that. I also didn't say that it was fair. I grant that when I said it "wasn't perfectly fair" was an understatement, but less back then than now. As I did suggest, big money distorts college sports.
That some of these kids are now worth worth millions is the problem. They're worth this much because of my great desire to watch them, fed by the internet, modern media, and my willingness to pony up. No one could subscribe to watch Dan Hodge wrestle in college. They had to go to the meets. Millions of people now watch Spencer Lee via streaming, and he's one of the good guys who most likely doesn't get his fair share of the money.
I also suggest something else. The "virality" of college sports makes college teams more volatile, more like corporate America, with bigger stakes for recruiting and transferring, and more prone to corruption through gambling. A Presidential edict won't help the fairness problem, and may only fatten the wallets of schools and coaches as you suggest.
As I said, the genie is out of the bottle. I may suffer from nostalgia, but there's no going back.
I don’t know how it should work. They are mostly public universities with tons of soft money coming in. Sounds like an account if nitemare to determine “profit”. Coaches salary, infrastructure upgrades without actual athlete contracts it’s just a mess.
Companies can determine profits by following generally accepted accounting principles. I’d think that a college can figure it out as well.
If they can’t, they shouldn’t be handing our diplomas.
What about athletic programs that lose money? Is it "fair" that athletes in sports that make money support athletes in sports that don't?
Most teams don't make money in any sports other than football and basketball, and even then most don't. Using the logic that kids worth millions are not getting their fair share, should kids in sports that cost money have to pay to play? I don't believe this, but I'm just playing the devil's advocate.
If it’s a non revenue sport most already pay to play…
The issue that started this was the NCAA not allowing athletes to use their NIL and limiting income from outside sources. So they’ve been taken to court and lost what seems like every time. Ultimately I think they need to have a model that allows for movement between teams that compensates those that are leaving a school where investment in the athlete are made.
The problem is that NCAA sports are built on a fiction. They want you to believe they are not a business, and the athletes are not employees.
Everyone knows they are a business - and a big one. The Big Ten alone signed a 7 year, $7 billion TV contract. Make no mistake it is business. Yet, this business with billions in revenue only has a handful of employees. Coaches and a few admins are the only employees. Unlike in professional sports, the athletes in this big business - the true product - are somehow not employees. And the NCAA, along with its member schools, have fought tooth and nail to keep it that way.
The problem with athletes being not-employees is that you cannot treat them like they are. You cannot sign them to employment contracts. You cannot restrict their movement. You cannot trade them. You cannot allow them to unionize. And so you cannot collectively bargain with them.
This is what has led to the mess with free unlimited transfers we have. The universities want all of the revenue of the big business without any of the responsibility to pay employees that generate the revenue. And this is why the courts keep siding with the athletes on matters of maintaining their economic right to their name, image, and likeness and maintaining the freedom of movement enjoyed by all non-employees.
Even in the House Settlement the universities want you to believe the athletes are not employees while they pay them directly.
Everyone knows they are a business - and a big one. The Big Ten alone signed a 7 year, $7 billion TV contract. Make no mistake it is business. Yet, this business with billions in revenue only has a handful of employees. Coaches and a few admins are the only employees. Unlike in professional sports, the athletes in this big business - the true product - are somehow not employees. And the NCAA, along with its member schools, have fought tooth and nail to keep it that way.
The problem with athletes being not-employees is that you cannot treat them like they are. You cannot sign them to employment contracts. You cannot restrict their movement. You cannot trade them. You cannot allow them to unionize. And so you cannot collectively bargain with them.
This is what has led to the mess with free unlimited transfers we have. The universities want all of the revenue of the big business without any of the responsibility to pay employees that generate the revenue. And this is why the courts keep siding with the athletes on matters of maintaining their economic right to their name, image, and likeness and maintaining the freedom of movement enjoyed by all non-employees.
Even in the House Settlement the universities want you to believe the athletes are not employees while they pay them directly.
Do u mean transfers or current athletes. I was meaning when wrestling had 9 scholarships most athletes were paying most of there eat through school. If there were transferred I would say schools need to compensate where the athlete originally came from
didn’t know they did the diploma thing anymore. it’s not ”student” athlete” anymore. who should get what in your definition? track athletes get as much as basketball, starters more than bench players, linemen as much as running backs? do we deduct for the athletes expenses?
I meant that not only did kids pay tuition, but that they would actually pay for uniforms, equipment, etc. Obviously that will never happen, but if football and basketball players are deserving of a share of revenue for their efforts, then should, say, rowers or lacrosse players pay extra out-of-pocket because they generate no revenue, and only cost money? Again, I find this absurd, but if sharing revenue is the fair thing to do, is sharing expenses also the fair thing to do? For example, I could care less about an equestrian or bowling team. Should my tax dollars go to support it?
My guess is that in a number of places, they feel that way about OUR sport. I believe that wrestling teaches life lessons that few other sports can do. I support these other "fringe" sports because they are good for students and good for the university culture, even if I don't appreciate them. I wish that they supported wrestling at colleges like UCLA, USC, and Oregon for the same reasons.
Last edited:
True. Completely duplicitous.
Compare athletic facilities of College and Pro teams. Not even close, then too consider that most college playing venue's are owned by the schools. Easy to see where that dough went.
TV ratings are way up for football, basketball and likely all the other sports (which is why the Big Ten wanted coast to coast representation). Yet Athletic departments are cash poor. Why else would the BigT want to sell a huge revenue stream for a high discount rate (low price). Good thing MI and others stopped it.
I do like the 1 transfer idea, but athletes should also be allowed another transfer if their head coach leaves for whatever reason.
If athletes were employees, they prolly would be getting treated worse. Athletes are 'paid'. The cost of school is fkn outrageous and borders on legal indentured servitude by way of student loans. Kids getting scholarships is a good thing but they definitely are not 'paid' enough with how much is being made off their talents. Worse still is not every student athlete receives a scholarship. Its all just a mess.
We could also argue that the athletes are taking advantage of a system that was designed to make them well rounded people by providing athletic opportunities while getting a college degree. We have come so far from the intended of sports in college and the college experience that it is hard to even make sense of it. However, I still have a hard time believing that the NCAA cannot put some sort of stipulation on eligibility of kids who transfer more than once or how the money is to be shared. Of course, this is the same organization that could not stop men from competing in women's sport. As I said - things are a mess.
GREED (Greed of the schools, the NCAA, the athletes, the agents, etc.) is a big factor in all of this and poor leadership just adds to the problem.
It is almost impossible to argue that the kids are worth more than they are being paid. And you are correct that the schools have benefitted. Maybe a collective bargaining model would solve this. However, the kids were lining up to play sports for little or no money and now that people are making money and the kids have a shot to get some of it, the system is all F$#ked up.
I do not know enough to have the answers as I watch college sports go to heck in a hand basket, I am just dismayed by it. We are seeing a bad side of people. People who only care about money and how can I get more for myself, instead of having any loyalty to those who made them valuable or helped to improve them as people and athletes. Sad to watch.
Last edited:
I think you’re looking at this through too narrow a lens. The vast majority of these scholarship athletes were not full ride athletes yet treated the same. Say I get a quarter scholarship but my ability to earn income in any way was restricted as well as my ability to transfer. Meanwhile still have to come up with the remainder of their tuition.
What makes them different from academic scholarship students or music scholarships. No restrictions on them. It is a fair trade for some but not all. If they made make sense rules for NIL 30 years ago we may not b in this situation
When Gary Beban won the Heisman trophy for UCLA in 1967, the head coach of the Bruins, Tommy Prothro, told his players that he wanted them for two hours every weekday and all day on Saturday. Otherwise, their time was their own. That was college football at the highest level in the late 60s.
Did fans of college football enjoy the game any less in 1967 than they do today. I doubt it.
One way out of this NIL mess could be to severely limit, across the board, the number of practice hours demanded per week and pay players a salary similar to what graduate teaching assistants receive which, in 2026, is about $40,000. Would that be legal? I don't know. It would probably not stop the mania for building Taj Mahal facilities or put breaks on the escalation of coaching salaries. But might cool down the transfer portal a little and restore some reality to the mostly hypocritical myth of the "student athlete".
Of course this will never happen.
My opinion here. Yours might be different.
Did fans of college football enjoy the game any less in 1967 than they do today. I doubt it.
One way out of this NIL mess could be to severely limit, across the board, the number of practice hours demanded per week and pay players a salary similar to what graduate teaching assistants receive which, in 2026, is about $40,000. Would that be legal? I don't know. It would probably not stop the mania for building Taj Mahal facilities or put breaks on the escalation of coaching salaries. But might cool down the transfer portal a little and restore some reality to the mostly hypocritical myth of the "student athlete".
Of course this will never happen.
My opinion here. Yours might be different.
I'm not a boomer, but I always feel like a person should get punched in the face for making that comment.
Why? Pretty succinct way of telling someone their ideas on a particular subject are outdated.
Also, you're more than welcome to try and punch me in the face!