Bickley: College football needs to change its money-grubbing ways before NFL steps in

per Bickley:

College football has a greed problem. There are too many accountants and not enough accountability. There is nobody in charge and nobody to blame.

The sport needs to change before their athletes and their gold mine disappear. Before the NFL decides to pay for its own feeder system of talent.

Start with the money swirling overhead, out of reach from the players who generate the product. ESPN is paying $7.3 billion to televise the College Football Playoff over a 12-year period. Three assistant coaches at the University of Michigan are making over $1 million per year. Nick Saban’s $11 million salary in 2017 far exceeds the compensation for any NFL head coach, and there are 24 schools that now earn at least $100 million annually from their sports teams.

These athletic departments are all tax-exempt because they remain under the umbrella of nonprofit universities and colleges. They profit from one of the most lopsided labor relationships in America.

Yeah, I know. Most football players receive academic scholarships, and won’t leave school burdened by grotesque student loans. But their athletic responsibilities come first, and many NFL players will tell you how their class schedule was dictated by their football coach. How some couldn’t pursue degrees of their choice because it interfered with practice. UCLA quarterback Josh Rosen simply says “football and school just don’t go together.”

In return for zero compensation and limited academic freedom, these athletes receive perks, privilege and special status. But instilling a sense of entitlement into college students isn’t exactly quality education. To the contrary, it’s extremely dangerous. It tilts the scales of meritocracy and undermines the school’s academic mission.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...-opens-door-for-nfl-league-bickley/649656001/

Go Gophers!!

Why would the NFL take on the financial risk of re-creating the "feeder system" that exists in college football? It is going to be up to college football to force the NFL's hand if that is ever to happen. College football would need to start voluntarily leaving out talented players because of academics or players would need to stop participating in the college system. Stranding those players with no place to display their talents is the only way the NFL looks at a minor league. As long as the pipeline keeps feeding the NFL, they have no incentive to start their own league.

Ski U Master said:

Why would the NFL take on the financial risk of re-creating the "feeder system" that exists in college football? It is going to be up to college football to force the NFL's hand if that is ever to happen. College football would need to start voluntarily leaving out talented players because of academics or players would need to stop participating in the college system. Stranding those players with no place to display their talents is the only way the NFL looks at a minor league. As long as the pipeline keeps feeding the NFL, they have no incentive to start their own league.

Click to expand...

This, exactly. The NFL has no real reason to make a feeder league, it makes no sense right now because the colleges are taking on all of that heavy lifting for them, at no cost to the league and owners. The argument that college football doesn't prepare players for the NFL is preposterous as well.

The only way change happens is if the colleges and universities decide they're not willing to participate any more, or only willing to participate in a massively reduced way (see: Ivy League; University of Chicago).

The other flaw in this is assuming that if you took the players out of the college setting and put them in a minor league system that the money would necessarily follow. There is zero evidence that would be true. Minor league baseball has it's fans, but there is little money there, small or no tv contracts and the talent is similar. No one will build a 50,000 seat stadium to see a minor league football game.

I would say that status quo is pretty good for football players relative to a A or AA baseball team, better food, better facilities way less travel AND the ability to get an education concurrent with the sport.

Football is entertainment. The director/producer of any production that generates the revenue of Alabama football would make the kind of money that Saben is making. A bigger question is how much should the players make?

Assuming the free enterprise system worked and athletes were not kept in an indentured servitude position, what would be the end result? A. Winfield would be on his way to a helmet school and make about a quarter of a mill. The football structure would change and we would have about 20-30 power schools making about 80% of all of the TV revenue, almost none of which would go to non-revenue sports. Women's rowing and men's lacrosse would cease to exist.

I cannot help but think that it will come. A group of footballers will, at some point, petition a court with the proposition that college football isn't voluntary. That statistically, it is a pre-requisite to playing professionally. In addition, by so doing they are subjecting themselves to the most singularly dangerous job in America. I'm not sure the value of a college education is even material, if the players can demonstrate that it is not of any value to them as they pursue a football career.

That article is dumb as a box of rocks.... the whole premise makes no sense.

The NFL really needs a minor league. Players should have the option (like baseball and hockey) to turn pro. For some there would be bonuses; but for other's...well the NFL minor league would eat them up and spit them out in a manner that makes college sports look benign.

But if NFL owners won't open their moth ridden wallets to sign high school seniors now, the spending even more dollars to create a minor league doesn't appear on the agenda. Like the NBA, the NFL prefers the restrictive power of a draft as opposed to actually recruiting players. And they both prefer an artificial age requirement rather than signing out of high school.

The NCAA need to share some of the wealth with non P5 programs and with the players. Kids should get a decent stipend including PWOs.

hungan1 said:

The NCAA need to share some of the wealth with non P5 programs and with the players. Kids should get a decent stipend including PWOs.

Click to expand...

The NCAA receives virtually no revenue from football. The revenue goes to the conferences. The Power 5 conferences have no reason to share revenue with the Group of 5 conferences - nor should they.

dpodoll68 said:

The NCAA receives virtually no revenue from football. The revenue goes to the conferences. The Power 5 conferences have no reason to share revenue with the Group of 5 conferences - nor should they.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Hasn't some version of this article been written every year for about 20 years?

It would be interesting to take a survey of D1 college FB players (assuming they would answer truthfully) to see which path they would take: the traditional college FB experience, or the "NFL Developmental League."

Let's not kid ourselves - there are players at virtually every D1 school - at least all the Power 5 conferences - who have little or no interest in being a college student. they are there to play football (or basketball), and they do what is necessary to maintain academic eligibility.

So again - if you surveyed all football players at Power 5 Conference schools, how many would opt for an NFL developmental league instead of the current college structure? 10% - 20% - 30% - 40%? I honestly don't know - but I suspect the number would be higher than a lot of people think.

Of course, it would all depend on how the Developmental league was set up, including salaries, time requirements, etc. would players have to get off-season jobs?

And - if there was a Developmental league, would the NFL still scout and draft players from the remaining college system- whatever shape it would take?

Ignatius L Hoops said:

The NFL really needs a minor league. Players should have the option (like baseball and hockey) to turn pro. For some there would be bonuses; but for other's...well the NFL minor league would eat them up and spit them out in a manner that makes college sports look benign.

But if NFL owners won't open their moth ridden wallets to sign high school seniors now, the spending even more dollars to create a minor league doesn't appear on the agenda. Like the NBA, the NFL prefers the restrictive power of a draft as opposed to actually recruiting players. And they both prefer an artificial age requirement rather than signing out of high school.

Click to expand...

But how is that the problem of the NCAA? That is on the NFL. And the NFL doesn't need to do anything. Why would they incur more costs that give them no revenue and would be a money pit.

And why stop at signing out of high school. Why shouldn't a 15 year old get paid to develop into an NFL player like soccer clubs in Europe?

The reality is, playing football is a privilege, and not a right. These kids aren't entitled to anything. They choose to take that scholarship. If they wanted to, they could train with Tyrone Carter or other training facilities for 3 years until they were eligible to be hired by the NFL as an employee. Nothing stopping them. But they obviously prefer to play college sports.

short ornery norwegian said:

It would be interesting to take a survey of D1 college FB players (assuming they would answer truthfully) to see which path they would take: the traditional college FB experience, or the "NFL Developmental League."

Let's not kid ourselves - there are players at virtually every D1 school - at least all the Power 5 conferences - who have little or no interest in being a college student. they are there to play football (or basketball), and they do what is necessary to maintain academic eligibility.

So again - if you surveyed all football players at Power 5 Conference schools, how many would opt for an NFL developmental league instead of the current college structure? 10% - 20% - 30% - 40%? I honestly don't know - but I suspect the number would be higher than a lot of people think.

Of course, it would all depend on how the Developmental league was set up, including salaries, time requirements, etc. would players have to get off-season jobs?

And - if there was a Developmental league, would the NFL still scout and draft players from the remaining college system- whatever shape it would take?

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how many would like both as well. Lots of hockey players go to the development league for a year or two, then go to college prior to going pro. Two very different sports obviously, but a similar thing could happen.

Ignatius L Hoops said:

The NFL really needs a minor league. Players should have the option (like baseball and hockey) to turn pro. For some there would be bonuses; but for other's...well the NFL minor league would eat them up and spit them out in a manner that makes college sports look benign.

But if NFL owners won't open their moth ridden wallets to sign high school seniors now, the spending even more dollars to create a minor league doesn't appear on the agenda. Like the NBA, the NFL prefers the restrictive power of a draft as opposed to actually recruiting players. And they both prefer an artificial age requirement rather than signing out of high school.

Click to expand...

The owners love their money too much. I often wonder if they will ever expand the 53-man roster. Especially towards the end of the season like the year the Viking played New Orleans in the NFC championship. The Vikings did not have enough guys to cover certain positions.

How the 53-man roster works: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1640782-the-anatomy-of-a-53-man-roster-in-the-nfl

This whole notion is lunacy. The NFL tried the feeder league in Europe and it failed.

Never going to happen.

Not enough players. Way too expensive. No reward for the risk. No audience. Nothing for NFL to gain. Can't use hockey as an example at all. There are forwards, defenseman, and goalies. 3 positions. In football there are 10-12. Roster size is 20 for hockey, 40 or more for football.

Even if NFL teams shared dev clubs, which teams get to send a QB, or a WR, or a RB? Who decides how many throws or carries a guy gets? Who starts? Who plays? Or doesn't play?

It's a numbers game. The old NFL Europe was about marketing not development.

Can't see this ever happening.

highwayman said:

Never going to happen.

Not enough players. Way too expensive. No reward for the risk. No audience. Nothing for NFL to gain. Can't use hockey as an example at all. There are forwards, defenseman, and goalies. 3 positions. In football there are 10-12. Roster size is 20 for hockey, 40 or more for football.

Even if NFL teams shared dev clubs, which teams get to send a QB, or a WR, or a RB? Who decides how many throws or carries a guy gets? Who starts? Who plays? Or doesn't play?

It's a numbers game. The old NFL Europe was about marketing not development.

Can't see this ever happening.

Click to expand...

Truth to all this.