Welcome to College Football 2024!

[will-you-shut-up-man]

I'll always be a Vol fan, but man I'm so glad I grew up when players were our heroes and they loved the ONE school they played for.

You really believe that, lol.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

You do realize that college football generally pays for all other sports? The only profitable sports are Football and at some places men's basketball. The impact will be less college sports and less opportunity for athletes from other sports to obtain a scholarship. You ready for no Tennessee baseball, Tennessee softball, woman's basketball, etc? The greed of the football players will remove the opportunity for other athletes.

Very few universities even with all the TV money, make money. Where is the money coming from to pay these players what some of you think they are worth?

And forget getting coaches for these sports - all the money will go to pay football players, many of whom will never make the NFL.

Greed? Is it greedy for you to work a job for fair market value?

 

[Jackcrevol]

True. That discussion has a place on the board and this isn't it.

As for basketball and football, the NCAA and schools can't keep this up legally. It sucks for way things have been but the seemingly crazy NIL deals clearly show how valuable some players are to college programs.

Something has to give.

I've advocated schools get out of the big business of football and basketball and let those that can (including UT) go pro. Get away from the huge TV deals and bring college ball back to college and let pro ball be pro ball.

The mistake, in my mind, was creating this enormous revenue cow business of college sports and marketing it like pro sports. What did we expect would happen?

I dont know about the TV deals. ESPN signed its soul to the devil for football and basketball, in return it got Women's Gymnastics, wrestling, and all associated content. It costs real $'s to televise those things. Massive overhead with televising every women's softball game, at a time where people are choosing content based on price. Not a great outlook for an entity laying people off.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

You do realize that college football generally pays for all other sports? The only profitable sports are Football and at some places men's basketball. The impact will be less college sports and less opportunity for athletes from other sports to obtain a scholarship. You ready for no Tennessee baseball, Tennessee softball, woman's basketball, etc? The greed of the football players will remove the opportunity for other athletes.

Very few universities even with all the TV money, make money. Where is the money coming from to pay these players what some of you think they are worth?

And forget getting coaches for these sports - all the money will go to pay football players, many of whom will never make the NFL.

Greed? Is it greedy for you to work a job for fair market value?

True. That discussion has a place on the board and this isn't it.

As for basketball and football, the NCAA and schools can't keep this up legally. It sucks for way things have been but the seemingly crazy NIL deals clearly show how valuable some players are to college programs.

Something has to give.

I've advocated schools get out of the big business of football and basketball and let those that can (including UT) go pro. Get away from the huge TV deals and bring college ball back to college and let pro ball be pro ball.

The mistake, in my mind, was creating this enormous revenue cow business of college sports and marketing it like pro sports. What did we expect would happen?

You are calling for the schools to give up the s of millions of dollars every year to attract fewer fans and less donations?

Yeah, that'll work.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

You do realize that college football generally pays for all other sports? The only profitable sports are Football and at some places men's basketball. The impact will be less college sports and less opportunity for athletes from other sports to obtain a scholarship. You ready for no Tennessee baseball, Tennessee softball, woman's basketball, etc? The greed of the football players will remove the opportunity for other athletes.

Very few universities even with all the TV money, make money. Where is the money coming from to pay these players what some of you think they are worth?

And forget getting coaches for these sports - all the money will go to pay football players, many of whom will never make the NFL.

Easy answers...

NIL money comes from the NIL collectives and from individual donors.

Coaches salaries come from the schools.

Two different sources. Why do people continue to conflate them?

 

[GetEmVols]

You really believe that, lol.

They only played for one school. Maybe held against their will but still.

 

[kcvols1]

Are yall aware archeologists/Egyptologists have found papyrus where the older generation of Egyptians are lamenting the respect level, work ethic, etc of younger Egyptians?
That's what yall are doing. The game hasnt changed. Athletes are now able to be paid openly rather than hidden. Every other scholarship type (academic, music, leadership) allows students to work and earn money if they want. Athletic scholarships should be no different.

This is the 1985 movie about teenagers quoting a 1971 song lyric.

Our parents said it about our generation.

Their parents said it about their generation.

I think the kids will be just fine, but their world will be different than ours.

Turn and face the strange, baby!

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I dont know about the TV deals. ESPN signed its soul to the devil for football and basketball, in return it got Women's Gymnastics, wrestling, and all associated content. It costs real $'s to televise those things. Massive overhead with televising every women's softball game, at a time where people are choosing content based on price. Not a great outlook for an entity laying people off.

ESPN deserves what they get. The Mouse makes stupid business decisions but they're so huge they can get away with it.

My issue is with the schools. Athletics, all of the things the schools do, should be about the education and enrichment of the students, not a cash cow for the school.

I am VERY familiar with the perks and latitude big academic grant writers get from admins and it's a similar problem.

At some point these things are no longer about the students or education or even meaningful research but are about pulling in revenue.

That's certainly true of big-time sports also. Much of UT football and basketball has become about the brand, the success, the revenue, and keeping "the machine" going.

That is essentially a pro franchise.

Schools can't have it both ways: we're all about the school experience for these kids but we're going to recruit and manage such elite talent that they are tutored, fed, etc almost completely apart from normal students AND paid very well (legally now, illegally previously.)

As I said, something has to give.

 

[volfan102455]

That's certainly true of big-time sports also. Much of UT football and basketball has become about the brand, the success, the revenue, and keeping "the machine" going.

UT has always had a brand. The color, the logo, everything was branded years ago. The power T is over half a century old - probably older than most on this board that post. None of that is new in college sports. Not sure why many of you think it is. The colors have been there since 1891. Most, if not all the traditions, date back over 50 years as well.

And earning money to support the student athletes for ALL sports has always been a thing as well. What has changed in the past several years is the "everyone" wanting their part of what is believed to be a lot of money while conveniently forgetting what they get from the university by being labeled a student athlete.

Let the athletes earn NIL, but based on who they are, not based on who they are playing for. They should not be allowed to use the official colors and logos (aka brand) of the college they play for. If they do, they should have to pay the university for using their brand. It should work both ways - just saying.

 

[volfan102455]

Easy answers...

NIL money comes from the NIL collectives and from individual donors.

Coaches salaries come from the schools.

Two different sources. Why do people continue to conflate them?

I know the difference - some on this board don't. They think the NIL should come from the schools as well.

The same donors who donate to NIL also donate to the stadium fund, general scholarship fund etc. There is only so much money. Something has to give.

 

[volfan102455]

Greed? Is it greedy for you to work a job for fair market value?

If they were employees, yes. And at that point they become an employee for what 4 years - because I can guarantee you they will sign a 4 year contract with stipulations of performance and such - so much for being able to transfer at will.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

UT has always had a brand. The color, the logo, everything was branded years ago. The power T is over half a century old - probably older than most on this board that post. None of that is new in college sports. Not sure why many of you think it is. The colors have been there since 1891. Most, if not all the traditions, date back over 50 years as well.

And earning money to support the student athletes for ALL sports has always been a thing as well. What has changed in the past several years is the "everyone" wanting their part of what is believed to be a lot of money while conveniently forgetting what they get from the university by being labeled a student athlete.

Let the athletes earn NIL, but based on who they are, not based on who they are playing for. They should not be allowed to use the official colors and logos (aka brand) of the college they play for. If they do, they should have to pay the university for using their brand. It should work both ways - just saying.

You misunderstand. Players were paid under the table for decades at the direction of the school and now are being paid via NIL at the direction of the school. Whether they're "officially connected" or not, the boosters or NILs don't "magically" pick who to pay and it's also "magically" who the coaches want.

You simply ignore THE REASON why these payments occurred and still occur: The players are more valuable to the program than just the scholarship. The scholarship is great and valuable but why did Nico end up a millionaire also? He's that valuable to UT.

As long as there's a huge difference between the scholarship value and the value to the school of the players, they'll be paid. That's not some big mystery but how things in America work. If you're worth a lot to someone for entertainment, sports, or via some skill, you get a lot of benefits and pay.

I know you don't like it, maybe you don't believe the players are that valuable, or whatever but you might as well argue the sun shouldn't feel so hot in August..... in America that's how things work.

You can't simply say to Taylor Swift or The Stones: you can't charge that much for a ticket. If you want that entertainment, you will pay for it. If you don't, they're still going to sell out.

If UT wants Nico, they'll pay him. They don't HAVE to pay him but they WANT to pay him to entertain UT fans because having a good football team matters a lot to a lot of fans.

You are welcome to stop supporting UT if you dislike the system. Many others will take your place because we like the entertainment and we'll pay for it. Your loss.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

ESPN deserves what they get. The Mouse makes stupid business decisions but they're so huge they can get away with it.

My issue is with the schools. Athletics, all of the things the schools do, should be about the education and enrichment of the students, not a cash cow for the school.

I am VERY familiar with the perks and latitude big academic grant writers get from admins and it's a similar problem.

At some point these things are no longer about the students or education or even meaningful research but are about pulling in revenue.

That's certainly true of big-time sports also. Much of UT football and basketball has become about the brand, the success, the revenue, and keeping "the machine" going.

That is essentially a pro franchise.

Schools can't have it both ways: we're all about the school experience for these kids but we're going to recruit and manage such elite talent that they are tutored, fed, etc almost completely apart from normal students AND paid very well (legally now, illegally previously.)

As I said, something has to give.

Schools absolutely have it both ways. They get that now.

There was no "illegally previously".
NCAA rules are not laws.
The previous NCAA rules were what was illegal.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

If they were employees, yes. And at that point they become an employee for what 4 years - because I can guarantee you they will sign a 4 year contract with stipulations of performance and such - so much for being able to transfer at will.

So you want fair market value for yourself but you want to deny it to athletes because they are already getting shafted?

That's more than a teeny bit hypocritical of you.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

UT has always had a brand. The color, the logo, everything was branded years ago. The power T is over half a century old - probably older than most on this board that post. None of that is new in college sports. Not sure why many of you think it is. The colors have been there since 1891. Most, if not all the traditions, date back over 50 years as well.

And earning money to support the student athletes for ALL sports has always been a thing as well. What has changed in the past several years is the "everyone" wanting their part of what is believed to be a lot of money while conveniently forgetting what they get from the university by being labeled a student athlete.

Let the athletes earn NIL, but based on who they are, not based on who they are playing for. They should not be allowed to use the official colors and logos (aka brand) of the college they play for. If they do, they should have to pay the university for using their brand. It should work both ways - just saying.

That's a crock. The athletes bring in tons of money to the University. If the school wants tbe athletes, they're going to continue the scholarships. No NIL collective is going to give an athlete the money and not know where the guy is going to play.

Your contention is ludicrous.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

If they were employees, yes. And at that point they become an employee for what 4 years - because I can guarantee you they will sign a 4 year contract with stipulations of performance and such - so much for being able to transfer at will.

Why just 4 years? What makes you think that will continue if players are deemed employees by the court?

At that point it is pro ball and all bets are off on "college eligibility" remaining a thing unless the schools want to be sued in some non right to work states for unlawful termination.

"Players are employees," despite it being the future, is the death of the college portion of college athletics. I've heard all the "but it's too important for them to let that happen" arguments and I'll point to the current lawsuits dismantling everything the NCAA does to maintain the status quo.

It's not too important for the courts to neuter the NCAA now and it won't be on the employee issue either.

 

[volfan102455]

So you want fair market value for yourself but you want to deny it to athletes because they are already getting shafted?

That's more than a teeny bit hypocritical of you.

Not what I said - if they want to be employees of the university then they can ask for a "fair market value". There is also the question of how to determine fair market value. Is that the value in the SEC or the value in the Tennessee area for a QB?

As for NIL, the basis of that is that it is an individual thing - so their NIL is based on someone being interested in their name, image etc. That is not set by a "market area" concept but set by how much a company is willing to pay them for use of their image. And that will be based on the perception of what that brings to said company.

 

[volfan102455]

Why just 4 years? What makes you think that will continue if players are deemed employees by the court?

So future world if a player like Hooker, Milton, insert any successful QB here, does not get a good offer from the NFL, they can just continue playing - blocking future players from getting a chance to play football? Those players that don't make it in the NFL can just play at the college level until they are in their 30's and retire. And why stop there, let the players just play at the high school level until they retire.

 

[volfan102455]

Some of you seem to be more set on the demise of the NCAA. Who would be the governing body or would it be the wild west where anything goes? Then the richest schools are the ones that will rule the world - and though we like to believe Tennessee is one of those - they really aren't.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

So future world if a player like Hooker, Milton, insert any successful QB here, does not get a good offer from the NFL, they can just continue playing - blocking future players from getting a chance to play football? Those players that don't make it in the NFL can just play at the college level until they are in their 30's and retire. And why stop there, let the players just play at the high school level until they retire.

And aging football stars moving down to the minors, previously known as college athletics, if they wish.

There's little to stop it if college athletes are seen as employees. Why should there be "timed employment" for athletes in a sport. As long as you can compete at that level and get a contract, you should be able to play.

As for high school, I'm doubtful there's a court ruling those players are employees of the schools. Few high schools have gone into big business like colleges with athletics.

The genesis of all this was the schools turning football and basketball into big businesses. You can't treat sports teams like a massive business and not expect the players to be seen as employees. It was doomed when the schools went after all the media revenue.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Some of you seem to be more set on the demise of the NCAA. Who would be the governing body or would it be the wild west where anything goes? Then the richest schools are the ones that will rule the world - and though we like to believe Tennessee is one of those - they really aren't.

Possibly the big players of the SEC and B1G in football align with the NFL as pro teams.

The major players in basketball align with the NBA.

Most other colleges, if painted with the same "players are employees" brush will be priced out of most or all athletics, which is awful.

As an alternative to the above, if Congress granted some kind of Antitrust Exemption, the schools may be able to form some kind of "NCAA 2.0" and maintain "amateur but compensated" play but, IMO, this shifts back into under the table payments to avoid any caps unless the revenue sharing is significant.

"Paid but not pro" athletics seems like a transitional move and just weird from the start but it's a much better alternative than pro alignment.

 

[SonOfGodVolforlife]

Ngl thought this was gonna be bout the new college football game

 

[Clad in Big Orange]

You really believe that, lol.

Yes, more of the players back in the 80s loved the University and not just because it was a gateway to the fortunes of the NFL. Did some just want to play for pay? Probably, but it was far different than what we have today. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with today’s athlete trying to get what they can while they can. I’m just glad I got to see it differently as a kid. So why the lol? Do you think there is no difference between what motivated most athletes back then versus today?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Not what I said - if they want to be employees of the university then they can ask for a "fair market value". There is also the question of how to determine fair market value. Is that the value in the SEC or the value in the Tennessee area for a QB?

As for NIL, the basis of that is that it is an individual thing - so their NIL is based on someone being interested in their name, image etc. That is not set by a "market area" concept but set by how much a company is willing to pay them for use of their image. And that will be based on the perception of what that brings to said company.

Wrong again. NIL is also based on fair market value.

"Market area"??? Strawman argument. Fair market value isn't limited to any one area.