College football is ruined. What do you mean?

​@@Jerahzzratings and viewership say otherwise

​@@JerahzzWent to three games last year. The GameDay experience and product on the field were entirely unchanged.

RIP College Football.

It ain't good.

There has bee no need for the NCAA in CF for five decades. Its a corrupt organization.

If it's no NCAA college sports is now a pro sports

​@@tim81strachan Your not wrong these kids have agents telling them hey you may like it here but I can get you more money here or here just enter the portal

Its basically been a minor pro league for devades! Young adults just were getting paid under the table and fans wanted to be willfuly ignorant ​@tim81strachan

Well, there is a need for it for the other sports that aren't Football and Basketball

The way I see it, there is no revenue without the players. This is long deserved.

All of these schools are none profit. Yes the coaches make a ton of money, but the money the schools make goes into the facilities, staff, and most of all...funding a lot of other athletic programs. It used to be enough to get a college education, and room and board for free. But for those of you thinking "If the school makes money so should they" ... you really don't understand how it all works and has worked for many years.

@@jaybird9988 You hit the nail on the head. College football has been around for over 100 years and nobody had a problem with it up until now. People don’t understand that the money football generates goes towards other sports that don’t generate a lot of revenue. My question is if this applies to all college sports or just strictly football. This is ruining college football in my opinion.

Yep.

@@jaybird9988 These schools way over spend on so they can stay a "Non-Profit". If you don't know that you really don't understand how it all works and has worked for many years. The school and other sports lack of popularity or revenue should not punish those who actually earn the revenue.

Best I can do is a super league owned and operated by Fox, ESPN, and NBC. Hope you like advertising.

​@kcottone that's what more than 50% of thr broadcast is at this point. Why I just watch the highlights and not waste my time with hours and hours of ads on a Saturday.

Because they don't want to totally destroy the product of college sports. Fans still expect the college athletes to be enrolled in their university, even if it's a 3 to 5 year paid apprenticeship program to learn professional sports and earn on-the-job training for it. As long as they receive an official certificate for their profession that is recognized by the State.

They did that in 30s when they had “ ringers”

@@roris5882 Paying for / getting a certificate that gets you a 1.6% chance of playing in the NFL makes little sense.

The university presidents would have to sign off on any kind of changes to eligibility rules and any move to disassociate athletics from the universities. That is not going to happen as so much of universities’ marketing efforts includes showcasing their athletics performances. Presidents will not want to let athletics become independent of their universities.

Speaking of eligibility, what if people who went to college but didn't play a sport sue that they should be able to play? What about suing that that eligibility clock is unfair, and you should be able to play college sports as long as you want?

No doubt about it. He saw this coming for awhile, lol!

I just didn't want to coach in a level playing field..so he ran

@@ringostarrgazer2419 You are gonna see anything but a level playing field now. 85 scholarships per team. There were things you could and couldn't do. There were rules and guidelines. Yes he was right and you know he was. You can say, and I'm sure you do, oh he was paying players. yea, so was everybody else, your school too. This is nothing but a train wreck and anybody that can't see that is ignorant.

@@theknowitall4090 my point is that in the age of nil and the transfer portal not one team is going to hog all the talent..his job with stacked teams for a number of years was MUCH easier before those two were a thing

​@@ringostarrgazer2419too bad Alabama will still be one of the highest paying schools. You know nothing

...things change... especially after over 30+ years. 😊

SMU did get the death penalty.

@@donwilson1307 by death penalty I referring to abolishing the program. They are still in business.

@@jeangriffith8017 The death penalty was not mean to abolish a program in perpetuity. Rather it dealt with perpetually cheating programs (like SMU) by forcing them to quit playing for a season or two,

exactly. why do players need to go to school if employees?

By the way, thaes players got free room and board and educations. Plus a platform to develop for professional leagues. Those kids were really exploited.

Three more things that I never hear mentioned. The first is that by taking in 100 to 150 kids whose primary motivation is playing pro football and giving them admission advantages that exceed even what legacies receive you are essentially taking away those spots from other more academically-inclined applicants. Schools will argue it is not a zero-sum game, but indeed it is unless they are willing to build more housing and infrastructure to accommodate larger class sizes. People may take issue with my assumption that regular applicants are more committed to education than revenue sport athletes but the graduation rates and academic progress rates do not lie. All the while the value of admission to high prestige institutions continues to rise versus less high-profile universities in terms of the lifetime earnings premiums that graduates of high profile institutions receive over their lower profile peers. And we are giving these spots not people who want to take advantage of the education but want to use it as a vehicle into professional sports while necessarily turning away others that would better benefit from the primary educational competency of the institution in favor of people who want to pursue an ancillary path. Which leads me to the second point that it is the NFL that should finance and provide the vocational training for people that want to take that journey. They certainly have lucrative enough revenue streams to support paying for their own developmental programs. Instead, it is the public that is asked to subsidize the NFL’s endeavors, just as they do when NFL teams want new stadiums, tax breaks, etc. And finally, this notion of exploitation is absurd given that the players and their families are making a conscious and considered choice to pursue this path knowing full-well in advance the low odds of success and risks involved. No one is forcing them and yet they pursue it anyway because the upside is so high. God bless them. They should pursue their dream and we should root everyone on to succeed. However, making a choice with low probability of success does not equate to exploitation. An alternative choice could be made to look toward other professional endeavors just like virtually every other regular student. There are many walk-ons who first had to earn their way into school on the basis of the same criteria as other applicants and then in addition, had to also earn a spot on the team rather than be guaranteed a spot as a recruit. And they do it solely for the honor of representing themselves, the program, and the school. There is often no media attention, NIL endorsements, or guaranteed windfalls for these kids, just the joy of having the opportunity to participate and compete. These kids are the true epitome of college athletes and they likely would never think to consider themselves as being exploited.

@randrothify Interesting affirmative action argument. Universities giving disadvantaged kids an opportunity to succeed in a non football career. I guess more money will be the opportunity to buy a business, etc. You are very bright so you understand that there are tradeoffs in business and in life. Someone is going to come out on the short end. Winners AND lisers.

@randrothify- I assume when you say the money will come from tuition paying families you are referring to the smaller conference schools who this system will not benefit. A school like UofM makes more of its major sports than it does from tuition. This is a school specific situation.

I get both sides of the argument. The money has ruined the game but at the same time exploitation isn’t right either to me. The transfer portal is worse than NL because there’s continence changeover but then again my thought on it is if the players have better options at other universities, then they have the right to test the waters coaches have done that for decades. They would recruit players then leave for a more attractive job where we are in today’s college football. It’s basically semi pro football but it’s always been that. It’s just now the players are being rightfullyfinancially compensated, but things can be true at the same time. They deserve to be compensated, but at the same time the money has ruined the game the money has gotten in the way, but it’s just where we are now.

There was once a period of history in FB where the nfl was also referred to as "the postgraduate game." And players would stay in college because it paid better than pro ball. But it'd be hard to have a system with no eligibility requirements where teams couldn't openly cut players. Maybe put in place rules that allow a HS recruit 4 guaranteed years as a RFA with transfers subject to mutual agreement and there after they become UFAs where they can transfer by their own choice and be subject to being cut without consent.

Now are they "contracts"with term of years? High end players can't transfer each year to the highest bidder or coaching change?

Non revenue sports need to go back to Regional conferences. Maybe the Pac10 can return, but just in non revenue sports, and revenue sports is going to be the elite Big Ten & SEC as I see them dropping lower rankings teams. I see each conferences going to 16 teams for a 9 Conference team schedule. (3 rivals, 6 non rivals, flip non rivals next season)

Amen

who cares? tough nuts

If they don't get some protection, then the lawsuits will continue and the whole intercollegiate model collapses. It is the best option from a choice of not great options. -Joel

Some states’ high school associations already allow NIL

Congress will either give the football players 100% of the revenue from the TV contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise/gear, which would bankrupt the Athletic Departments, or they will give Anti-Trust exemptions to scrooge over all the athletes, from the revenue generating sports, pushing them to create their own Semi-Pro League that's completely separate from the universities.

Congress? Wth ? No

There are ways around this. Putting college athletes on the payroll and classifying them as university employees would be a foreseeable and tremendously costly mistake.

players should have to sign contracts to the schools. Scholarships and everything else should come out of the cap.

In college, it doesn’t. I played SEC football. 8 years ago. We had the number one womens basketball team. Womens basketball at the time brought in more money than Northern/Midwest hockey if I had to guess. Our football team funded our mens and womens basketball team. We had the number one equestrian team as well. They wouldn’t have survived without a football team. Ticket sales play a huge factor. Hockey in college won’t have 80,000 tickets sold per game ya know

@@Peppy869 Yeah but there are ALOT mroe games no? Have to do total season ticket sales. Ill admit A collegiate hockey ticket sounds cheaper than a bama football game.

​@Peppy869 it's not just about ticket sales, It's about tv contracts and rights. Hockey games in the Midwest and northeast are televised frequently and the tournament has television rights with ESPN. Also, basketball stadiums and hockey stadiums are roughly the same size, it's why they swap the floor out at certain stadiums. I would bet in the 2 regions I mentioned hockey tickets outsell women's basketball by a good margin. Again, I'm not comparing hockey to football, by any means, what I'm saying is that in those markets hockey generates revenue.

@@Peppy869 I didnt know the SEC even had Hockey teams, just like Wrestling. I thought your schools spent all that money on football.

Don't worry about the details citizen, just consume product! Fox Sports' #1 hype man just told you this settlement is only the "first domino to fall" and eventually the sport will be in a "better place" once unregulated capitalism is allowed to flourish out in the open. It'll all trickle down! If you can't trust a mouthpiece for one of the world's largest media conglomerates, who can you trust?

Too many people have been getting a free ride at the expense of college football players risking.their health playing a sport they love. The revenue football generates belongs to the players & everyone directly involved with college football. Smart folks & lawyers need to figure out how to make this happen, they also need to figure out how to get the football programs out from under the thumb of title 9. Females claim fhey dont need men, men are useless but they're quick to steal from the revenue the football programs generate. Figure out how to remove college football from title 9, perhaps figure out how football programs can donate a.portion of their revenue to their parent university to help fund non revenue sports.

This is a bad take. In theory this sounds nice but it's not reality. By this logic, being the number one cashier at Walmart and the number one CEO for a trillion dollar company should make the same amount because they worked just as hard to be at the peak of their position. The truth is the QB at Ohio State or Bama or Georgia is far more valuable than Susie the swimmer or Bobby the ping pong player

But the entire thing is about revenue sharing not pay to be an college athlete without revenue generated. College Football is generating 80 Millionen per season per Team in Big 10 and SEC i think from their new TV Deals alone. Like Klatt says in the video: "There should be an difference between revenue sports and non revenue sports." Sports leagues in the USA have CBAs and part of the CBAs are that the athletes get an% of the revenue. But when there is basically no revenue there is basically nothing to share with the athletes.

@SeanTheRuthless I concur with you 100%, but that's not going to stop them from complaining... look at the USA women's national team, they screamed loud enough, now they take money from men's soccer. I know it's not on the same level. I can still see law suits when there's millions on the line.

Well said, DeshCanter...well thought out post.

To be fair, regular season games still matter a lot. Just like in pro sports, we’re never certain of where the “cut line” will be each season in terms of record/resume needed for a team to make the playoffs. Teams would be unwise to rest players in a mid-season game when they have no idea how the rest of the season will play out; that 1 game (win or loss) could be the difference between making the conference title game and not making it. Also, winning a conference title carries even more weight as a team could get a first round bye if they win a conference title. It’s true that there will continue to be a lot of subjectivity in the selection process for the playoff, but unfortunately I see that as unavoidable in college athletics with so many teams in Division 1 and very uneven scheduling from team to team.

@@joeegan5992 It will be interesting, for sure. I'm just wondering if the real issues will come at the lower seed spots...10-12, for example. Seems to me you'll have a lot of 2, maybe even 3 loss teams. That's where the real fighting might happen....maybe. We shall see.

Schools are either all in or all out in the top division and, more precisely, in the power conferences. But, there’s no reason to assume the same mentality or approach from the fans.

@@zplapplap a lot of fans don’t have that same approach. However, I believe it’s imperative to get behind this new era because it’s not going anywhere.

Truth is CFB has evolved constantly throughout its history. The old model was never going to withstand the financial growth experienced in the last ten years. -Joel

@@JoelKlattShow very true, Joel. It seemed like this was coming for a long time. I love the show, Joel. Hope you’re having a Happy Memorial Day.

Womens teams will start whining they arent getting paid equally. This is women we are talking about here. Irrational, petty, jealous, women. It wont be enough they are getting a paid education and getting to play the sport they love. Most modern women are never happy.

Even the NFL has salary caps and revenue sharing. Guardails or rules are always necessary.

@@dimitri1515 This is what NIL is for. In years past players were not allowed to be in a Dr Pepper commercial, or get paid by any business for their name. Salary caps are fine, but I don't think any NFL player has a limit to how much money they can make thru endorsements.

@@Guythatsometimescomments Yes, but the unique problem is that those deals are still offered based on playing for the school. I'm just saying it all has to be addressed so that we can break away from only having six schools that can win championships.

@@dimitri1515 I'd agree with that. Competitive landscape always needs to be in check. I'm certain I don't have the answer for how lol

@@dimitri1515 They do, and they are not necessary. We could have 100%, universal, free agency - and it would be better for players, but not owners. The only rules we need are specified within the UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code, governing all business contracts. Imagine telling lawyers, who and where they have to work, and how much a law firm can pay. No worries, lawyers would NEVER stand for such a thing.

First of it had to happen in order for Conferences,Universities...not being sued to death. Off course there are plenty of questions to be answered but thats what happens if somebody ignores important topics for decades so it gets bigger and bigger. Atleast it gets finally addressed. I dont See why it shouldnt be possible in an System which already allows 50% college scholarships and 100% college scholarships to add 100% + college scholarships.

@@adrianbuck8772 I don't think this will solve conferences and universities getting "sued to death". This just opens the door for other types of OSHA and EEOC lawsuits..... Here's the thing. I'm for athletes getting paid. I just don't like the direction of how they are going to get paid. They will essentially become University employees, which means they are now state employees and opens these athletes up to a whole different world

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. There is too much money in college football for it to go away, and too many interest groups that want to see it maintained. Simply put, College Football Money > Title 9 money. Plus it benefits the universities to have a two tier model as well, as sports are marketing for them, even if not revenue generating, so its likely the universities want to keep around non-revenue sports anyway.

The fact they’re allowing males to compete in female sports tells me they don’t care too much about Title 9

Football and basketball will seperate from NCAA. That’s the direction this is ultimately going. College athletics cannot survive paying football and basketball players and not other sports.

They are owed something absolutely it just feels icky