Jump to content

NCAA Makes 2 Huge Rule Changes


ellitor

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

The only reason we can't do the same is because we are expected to compete and there are other schools who will pay the good coaches a lot more. Declaring that you are putting a ceiling on your coach's salary is just a less direct way of saying that you are no longer planning to compete at a meaningful level. The only way it works is if everyone agrees to do the same thing... and follows through.

I understand your view.....but I see comments all the time about how many better coaches are out there than Gus....and if you go down the salary list, by the time you get very far, you will find salaries of less than a million a year.   And take the coach at Jax State.....Grass is considered a pretty good coach so why not double his salary to about $500K and give him the job ? Or the guys at North Dakota State or Eastern Washington....all with championship level teams in the FCS ?  

JMO …but college football...especially in the Power 5 is where salaries and coaching skill are barely related.  So who wants to be the first school to get off the tiger ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Too much overthinking going on in this thread. You can find reasons as to why some rule, regulation , law may or may not be productive. Nothing is ever perfect. What I want to see is how efficient  it will be in it’s intended goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DAG said:

Too much overthinking going on in this thread. You can find reasons as to why some rule, regulation , law may or may not be productive. Nothing is ever perfect. What I want to see is how efficient  it will be in it’s intended goal. 

Baseless fear of the unknown always comes with change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DAG said:

Too much overthinking going on in this thread. You can find reasons as to why some rule, regulation , law may or may not be productive. Nothing is ever perfect. What I want to see is how efficient  it will be in it’s intended goal. 

Truth!

That's why I don't have much to say in this thread....

Nobody ever accused me of OVERthinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna have to start checking the roster every couple weeks to see which players are coming and going....but wondering if that transfer rule change will be accompanies by a change in the number of recruits that can be signed each year.   I could see a coach leaving and a bunch of players transferring away at the same time leaving the incoming staff short handed ….though maybe in a situation like that the new staff will try to fill slots with incoming transfers.   

JMO but this has the potential to become somewhat messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, auburn4ever said:

I bet Saban is shooting fire out of his eyes since he can't block players from transferring from uat.

So THAT'S how he gets away with everything....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 1:55 PM, lionheartkc said:

I'm not sure why we have so much trouble communicating, but I'll try to explain.

When you pay players, they cost you money, therefor getting a return on your investment (i.e. winning games) becomes that much more important. To that end you are going to look for the easiest way to get from point a to point b in order to keep those kids on the field, because not having them out there is wasting money. When you have players who are just unmotivated, the easiest way is not to fight them, it's to make arrangements with those around them. Some coaches already play this game. More will when the bottom line becomes involved. 

On top of that, some players will become less motivated because a) they are already getting paid and b) they will know that having them on the field means a lot more to the school than it did when they weren't taking a cut of the revenues. 

Yes, the NCAA can wave their fist and say "academics is still important and you have to meet the standards", but they can't police that today, outside of recruiting, so it's all hot air.

That's what happens when it becomes about money.

I'm not as concerned with the impact on the players as 'student-athletes'.  That's already, in large part, a sham (although maybe not as bad as it was 30-40 years ago), and I don't think paying the players would have a huge impact on that.  I think a bigger concern would be in recruiting.  Would all players get paid the same or would star players get paid more?  Would there be bidding wars between schools recruiting the same player?  Would there be a salary cap?  Would the players be salaried or contract employees?  Would they be allowed to hire agents to negotiate contracts?  It could turn into quite a mess.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

I'm not as concerned with the impact on the players as 'student-athletes'.  That's already, in large part, a sham (although maybe not as bad as it was 30-40 years ago), and I don't think paying the players would have a huge impact on that.  I think a bigger concern would be in recruiting.  Would all players get paid the same or would star players get paid more?  Would there be bidding wars between schools recruiting the same player?  Would there be a salary cap?  Would the players be salaried or contract employees?  Would they be allowed to hire agents to negotiate contracts?  It could turn into quite a mess.    

My guess is, overtime, the answer to all of your questions would be yes, and yes, it could be quite a mess for the universities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...