the have’s and the have nots
- Thread starter QChawks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- qcpizzasucks
So Bama gets somewhere around 22 - 23 percent of the total 5 stars. Was Eppy a 5 star for us. Who was the last one prior to Eppy we got
Eppy was a 5. The last before that was Doering and Richardson.
Wasn't Blake Larson a 5 star?
Momentum builds on itself. And when you can hire multiple ex head coaches as coordinators and analysts, etc that don't hurt either. I have never been to the state of Alabama, but c'mon it can't be that damn appealing compared to say Southern Cal or Florida????? As we just saw Tennessee was using McDonalds happy meals with cash in them.
Also realize that 5 stars are generally years ahead (talented and gifted) and are few and far between. Maybe we need to recruit Russia.
I don’t think Alabama systemically cheats by paying players. I don’t think any major program does anymore. Not to the point of coaches being involved and/or aware of it. Do overzealous boosters give kids money? Sure. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens at Iowa. Nick Saban isn’t involved in cheating with money though. He doesn’t need to be. He’s the GOAT in college football coaching. His program is the most high profile in the country. It sells itself to recruits.
I just think the NCAA needs to cut the number of scholarships by 5 or 10 and that will bring more parity to football. Yes, Bama and the rest will still get the Lions share of blue chippers, but that will free up a lot of 4* kids who would have gone to Bama to the next tier schools......Like Iowa
I was illustrating an example of a program like Tennessee which should not have a really really hard time of recruiting feeling like they needed to get the big recruits. Shows how hard good honest recruiting is to land the biggest fish.
Maybe you're right, but we know it happens a lot in basketball. Doesn't seem logical that a school would have a cheating culture in one sport while being squeaky clean in the others.
Totally separate offices and seasons. I am sure coaches run into each other, but not frequently unless they are out pole dancing for donors.
Guess I should have been ordering Happy Meals instead of Quarter Pounders w/Cheese.....
Kyle "Bonecrusher" Williams and before that....Blake Larson, I believe
I think I read somewhere that the NCAA is thinking about expanding the scholarship limit to 95, because of covid and the players that are entering the tranfer portal, b ecause schools do not have enough scholarships to give to some of the players in tranfer portal, b ut those transfer portal scholarships will count towards how many players you can legally have on scholarship. I can't remember how they said it would all balance out, but it's something they are looking at.
Also, it doesn't matter if they cut the ships by 20, Bama will find a way to get those 4 star kids into Bama.
If you’re a 5 star player, why wouldn’t you go to one of those 4 schools if they offered? The goal for players at that level is to get prepared for the NFL, and those 4 schools put a lot of players in the NFL
Not saying the NC does this, but I was against the NC before it started and I'm more against it now.
I am against players being compensated with cash too.
The golden goose ain't sharing its eggs evenly, and it ain't gonna get better. Stadiums are becoming harder to fill. Expect that trend to continue.
I am against players being compensated with cash too.
The golden goose ain't sharing its eggs evenly, and it ain't gonna get better. Stadiums are becoming harder to fill. Expect that trend to continue.
sounds like a stupid idea. Maybe some of these kids should just get a grip on things.
Expanding the schollies because of COVID?????? What bullshit is that? That's no different than saying measles or mumps. The transfer portal is no better excuse. Its all about network and conference revenue and nothing about health, transfers (the scholly opens when the transfer leaves, duh) or anything but money.
The reality is the networks like a few superstar teams around which they can build their marketing strategy. That would kill college football, or at least kill it for all but about 15 teams, tops. I think the networks misread their audience. A lot of people primarily watch just their own schools and maybe some national games, clearly the playoffs and big bowls.
At least the professional sports are relatively honest about their profit motives, since they are businesses. But colleges are something else entirely. The schools don't exist because of their athletic teams, the teams exist because of the schools. Making the money is great but is it really the point of college athletic competition?
If people want parity, they'd reduce to about 10-12 schollies a year and spread the wealth of talent more widely and thinly. The games would be closer and more exciting, more kids would have a chance and the B listers, like Iowa, would occasionally crash the party.
The reality is the networks like a few superstar teams around which they can build their marketing strategy. That would kill college football, or at least kill it for all but about 15 teams, tops. I think the networks misread their audience. A lot of people primarily watch just their own schools and maybe some national games, clearly the playoffs and big bowls.
At least the professional sports are relatively honest about their profit motives, since they are businesses. But colleges are something else entirely. The schools don't exist because of their athletic teams, the teams exist because of the schools. Making the money is great but is it really the point of college athletic competition?
If people want parity, they'd reduce to about 10-12 schollies a year and spread the wealth of talent more widely and thinly. The games would be closer and more exciting, more kids would have a chance and the B listers, like Iowa, would occasionally crash the party.
While I have no proof of this, I think that it's not entirely true. has a history of bag men. Those things do not go away, regardless of the coach.
Well money has become the point that's why the players want to get their chunk.
College sports have become a business, thanks to the tv contracts, the days of what's best for the college athelete is all but gone. Football runs most if not all Ath. Depts and a lot of schools have had an uptick in enrollment, just because of the football team, there was a study of that done for Alabama, Ohio State and I think Clemson, where after each team won the Natty, enrollment increased like 30 % and I think in Alabama's case 40 %, which brings more money to the University, College Presidents and Chancellors, know where their bread is buttered...and it's not with the Chemistry Dept.
Reducing scholarships will n ot bring parody to college football, you can't force kids to go to a school they don't want to go to , just to make it fair for everyone else. Some schools have built in advantages and some don't, that's not going to change and like I said before, even if they did reduce the scholly numbers, Alabama will still find a way to get those 4 and 5 star kids into their football program.
Quick question about athletes getting paid.....
How many players on a good team like Iowa or Iowa State do you think would actually benefit from getting compensated for their likeness in advertising in a given year?
I’m thinking it would only be a handful, like a top WR, TE, QB, RB, and maybe a DE, LB, or DB. Seems to me that it might lead to some resentment by other players on the team, those guys doing the “grunt” work, helping make those “stars” successful.
When you look at all the players in the NFL, only a handful get the ad gigs. There are only so many Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes out there.....
How many players on a good team like Iowa or Iowa State do you think would actually benefit from getting compensated for their likeness in advertising in a given year?
I’m thinking it would only be a handful, like a top WR, TE, QB, RB, and maybe a DE, LB, or DB. Seems to me that it might lead to some resentment by other players on the team, those guys doing the “grunt” work, helping make those “stars” successful.
When you look at all the players in the NFL, only a handful get the ad gigs. There are only so many Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes out there.....
Largely agree, but you can incentivize them. If 'ol Bammy has ten schollies to give, and the 4* lineman from Iowa doesn't get one, does he pay $25K a year to walk on at Bammy or does he go to Iowa for free? Lots of "runners up" in recruiting will get the kid they wanted and that kid's replacement moves back into the labor pool looking for a schollie.
I agree, eventually the greed will kill off college football in the sense we now know it.
Schools like Iowa aren’t targeting 5 stars and ‘Bama can’t sign all the 4-stars anyway.
Reducing schollies would at least put the Iowa’s of the world in a better position to sign an extra 4 star and more of their higher priority 3-stars.
That’s where it will even things out a bit.
Bama won’t have the capacity to stroll in late in the process and enamor those high 3 stars to take an offer to be their end of the line signee for that class...thus leaving an Iowa to quickly find a replacement.
Sports, believe it or not, pales in comparison to the rest of most public universities, money-wise. Grants from private foundations, research companies, government, etc., dwarfs the football budgets, let alone other team budgets.
The problem is, though, that it doesn't bring notoriety/publicity/fame. Nobody cares when Dow Chemical or Mr. McRich Foundation writes a check to XYZ University for $50 million, let alone goes to a news conference announcing it.
That certainly doesn't stop the government-grabbers and other leeches who think revenue-sharing and payment of players is the way to go, though.
Take it even further. Remember, this is supposed to apply to ALL athletes. How many do you think will head down to Ol' Red' Car Wash Emporium to see th catcher on the women's softball team, or the goalie on the women's field hockey team?
Meanwhile, there are people who think--actually think--there is no problem letting a dude thrown on a wig, run as a girl, "junk" and all. So much for Title IX...
