Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Hoo's That, post: 2068322, member: 3609"]
The two biggest problems facing football are CTE and the fact that more and more colleges and universities have majority-female student bodies.  It wouldn't surprise me in the least when football as presently played is eventually banned over CTE.  It won't happen next week or next year, but it will happen.  If football doesn't have a fix in place when it happens, it will be gone forever.  And remember, CTE is not just about "knocked out cold" concussions.  The bigger time bomb is the demographics of higher education today.  Ignoring the ugliness that Briles' son used as an incentive for recruits (the elephant sitting in the corner), will there be Sugar Mommies to replace the Sugar Daddies that finance the sport now?  Even if the Sugar Mommies give money to the general athletic department fund that's still less money for football than it gets now.

SU faces an obstacle that UVa currently does not, the recent rulings that players at private schools are employees.  USC-w can afford to have a football team under that set-up and is probably willing to do it.  Stanford and ND can afford it, but their administrations will not go along with any set-up that does not require their players to attend class.  Baylor and TCU probably would like to continue playing under the new set-up, but the question they face is whether they have the money to do it. That ruling could eventually force every private school (not just those in the P5) to dial back football to what amounts to a D-3 level of existence.  A separate board in the Labor Department would have to take up the issue for it to become a problem for public schools.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?