New Amateur Conference

[anomander]

'Real' teams go out and buy their players?

Unfortunately that’s what it looks like. If we were ever to drop a level I’d never watch a game again. I’d stick to NFL and high level college football.

 

[SWC75]

Unfortunately that’s what it looks like. If we were ever to drop a level I’d never watch a game again. I’d stick to NFL and high level college football.

Why? Don't you think competing for championships at the lower levers is just as much fun?

 

[MSOrange]

Why? Don't you think competing for championships at the lower levers is just as much fun?

It's different if playing at that level is all you have ever known.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

I'd rather put on the big boy pants personally

 

[0.2 YNdeeR]

High level college football has never been amateur.

This continues to be a specious argument - that because there was corruption we should adopt a system that embraces and legitimizes PFP. People speed a lot too. I don't see local or state officials throwing up their hands, taking down all the speed limit signs and saying, "let's all speed it's freedom".

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

This continues to be a specious argument - that because there was corruption we should adopt a system that embraces and legitimizes PFP. People speed a lot too. I don't see local or state officials throwing up their hands, taking down all the speed limit signs and saying, "let's all speed it's freedom".

I think wanting to create a system of college football that embraces some pie-in-the-sky type of amateurism that has never existed is specious.

 

[Hoo's That]

Regarding the OP, the megaconference idea is coming. it's a question of "when", not "if".

How about a conference made up of current Power Five Private schools?

It could be constructed by whatever is left over of these after being left behind in the "rapture" of the mega-conferences:
Syracuse, Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Baylor, Texas Christian, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Brigham Young, Stanford. Maybe add in Tulane, Rice and Southern Methodist. I'll assume Notre Dame, Southern California and U of Miami might be 'raptured'.

It's not safe to assume Rapture for Notre Dame, as it would depend on the ground rules for the megaconference. The one I foresee won't require class attendance and that's a no-no for ND.

 

[McNabb2Brominski]

Ncaa needs to adopt the relegation model like European club soccer.

Start with all 129 FBS teams split into these 4 leagues:
Top league: P5 top 32 teams
2nd league: P5 bottom 33 teams
3rd league: G5 top 32 teams
4th league: G5 bottom 32 teams

Each year the top 3 or 4 teams in each league get promoted up a league, bottom 3 or 4 get relegated down.

 

[gmoney44]

That would be the last day I watched Syracuse football. I’ll watch the real teams play

Ya count me out too. SU would be equivalent to Colgate, Cornell, LeMoyne, etc to me. A local college that plays sports that I have little to no interest in.

 

[SWC75]

I'd rather put on the big boy pants personally

Ya count me out too. SU would be equivalent to Colgate, Cornell, LeMoyne, etc to me. A local college that plays sports that I have little to no interest in.

It's different if playing at that level is all you have ever known.

Again, it's not a demotion. It's a refusal or failure to rise to a new level that never existed before in which we would not be competitive.

 

[MSOrange]

Again, it's not a demotion. It's a refusal or failure to rise to a new level that never existed before in which we would not be competitive.

You're welcome to look at it like that. I think you'd be in the minority though.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think wanting to create a system of college football that embraces some pie-in-the-sky type of amateurism that has never existed is specious.

Yeah, I agree, and I'm not even totally sure what "specious" means.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You're welcome to look at it like that. I think you'd be in the minority though.

I think for most it is a legit question. Would you rather be in a 24 team national Big 12 conference and have 5 to 7 wins every year or would you rather be in a Northeastern conference with access to the Playoffs every year?

Yes, it is a lower level of football but you are playing like minded traditional rivals with close road games and actually make the playoffs occasionally.

It would be akin to the new Big East where we had BCS access. I rather have that than never be competitive vs teams like Arizona, Utah, Baylor, Kansas State. In the later case we are still in a lower level, have no marquee games, and have no chance at the playoffs. Oh and all the road games are far away.

 

[sufandu]

I think wanting to create a system of college football that embraces some pie-in-the-sky type of amateurism that has never existed is specious.

It existed. It was just a long time ago, before our lifetime. Sports didn't always make money for the universities. And on the lower levels it's still amateur.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

It existed. It was just a long time ago, before our lifetime. Sports didn't always make money for the universities. And on the lower levels it's still amateur.

George Gipp supported himself by gambling on his own Notre Dame teams in the late 1910s.

 

[sufandu]

George Gipp supported himself by gambling on his own Notre Dame teams in the late 1910s.

Are you going to use an isolated exception to say that most schools have always turned a profit on sports?

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Are you going to use an isolated exception to say that most schools have always turned a profit on sports?

I'm saying that "honorable amateurism" has never existed and to think "things used to be better" when it comes to college athletics is naive.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Amid college football’s 1920s boom, central questions about the sport arise

From Centre College’s upstart football program through the Carnegie Report, the 1920s raised several questions still being asked today.

theathletic.com

 

[sufandu]

I'm saying that "honorable amateurism" has never existed and to think "things used to be better" when it comes to college athletics is naive.

Who are you quoting? You said there was never amateurism. I insist there was. Now you're trying to qualify if by saying it wasn't "honorable."

When the subject of paying athletes comes up, whether or not the university is turning a profit is always what is referenced to justify paying the athletes. We both know the universities haven't always made money off of what became revenue sports. There was an era where they lost money, and most coaches weren't paid lucratively. So now you want to move the goalposts by saying an individual made money off of gambling.

 

[0.2 YNdeeR]

I think wanting to create a system of college football that embraces some pie-in-the-sky type of amateurism that has never existed is specious.

The fact that college sports never achieved 'zero corruption' doesn't mean we should embrace much more widespread and brazen corruption. That's what's going on ... it's a PFP free-for-all under the guise of NIL. It's unmanageable. It's turning people away from the sport. And it's advantaging the former cheaters - the dirtiest programs (B1G/SEC) offering "wink and a nod" degrees. It's the antithesis of the amateur athletic model that has allowed college sports to thrive for the vast majority of student athletes and fans. If there was room for reform, it certainly wasn't more lucre. It was for more semi-professional options for <1% of FB/BB players who are not interested in an undergraduate degree.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Who are you quoting? You said there was never amateurism. I insist there was. Now you're trying to qualify if by saying it wasn't "honorable."

When the subject of paying athletes comes up, whether or not the university is turning a profit is always what is referenced to justify paying the athletes. We both know the universities haven't always made money off of what became revenue sports. There was an era where they lost money, and most coaches weren't paid lucratively. So now you want to move the goalposts by saying an individual made money off of gambling.

Read the article I posted. This has been about profit for 100 years plus.

Edit: Also, the "honorable amateurism" is what you're making it out to be.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

The fact that college sports never achieved 'zero corruption' doesn't mean we should embrace much more widespread and brazen corruption. That's what's going on ... it's a PFP free-for-all that is turning people away from the sport and advantaging the factory schools that offer "wink and a nod" degrees.

LOL. It always has been, buddy.

 

[sufandu]

Read the article I posted. This has been about profit for 100 years plus.

I'm not subscribing to something so that I can do your assigned homework.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I'm not subscribing to something so that I can do your assigned homework.

K. The article is about how schools have been paying players through a variety of means as far back as the 1910s to boost enrollment - aka, make more money.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I'm not subscribing to something so that I can do your assigned homework.

Here's a similar story not behind a paywall: The endless argument at the center of college football