https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...alignment/

I'm tickled pink with how well JMU is doing. And it's easy to draw a clear line between what we're doing and what Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, et al are doing. But these points are still valid, and I've never been able to completely shake them.

I don’t disagree with much in that article.

Maybe the answer is for the NFL to form a true minor league, and stop pimping the colleges for that purpose. If players want to go to college, fine. They do in baseball, but college baseball is not a farm system for the MLB like college football is.

We’re seeing this happen to an extent with pro basketball, with more kids going to the G League or overseas for a year before entering the NBA draft.

(08-13-2023 09:44 PM)Dukes94 Wrote:  Maybe the answer is for the NFL to form a true minor league

While this is the correct answer, the NFL is 0% incentivized to make this happen as they currently have a de facto minor league system which is free to them. XFL and USFL and the like continue to prove that there is no real challenger to the status quo. So, short of major shifts in athlete compensation requirements via government legislation, nothing’s going to change probably ever.

I agree with most of the article as well.
Perhaps one silver lining is that the Sun Belt has an opportunity to show what can be right.
The more conferences spread out, the more opportunity there is for casual fans to gravitate towards what the Sun Belt is doing.
I predict we'll see more and more talking about the Sun Belt and how more conferences should do what this conference is doing. If viewers increase, as does the money.

But for big time change, it will probably mean a lot of schools will have to be kicking and screaming along the way.

he makes good points, and nothing is wrong with them.
but it's way more complicated than that.

he seems to advocate for the big schools to just have players on the team that are "loosely" affiliated with the university.

Fact is, only 1.6% of college football players make the NFL.
What about the other 98.4%? Many of them actually DO value that free education they are getting. And go on to use it for the rest of their lives.
Are we going to be like MLS and have a few "designated player" spots where a school can bring on a Messi and bend the rules for him?
That won't go over well. Especially if the Messi turns out to not be a Messi.

Also, the free marketing these schools get is hard to measure, but i believe it is invaluable for the university. As a born and raised VA boy, without college football, i doubt i would even know what a "Clemson" is, much less where it is.
I'm sure people in other parts of the country would say the same for JMU.

Bottom line, these simple solutions sound great on paper. But again, it's more complicated than that.

Follow the money! It's always about the money.

I was listening to the JMU Sound Off podcast (first episode) and something said on there reminded me about something I love about JMU... that we get young men who come to JMU to get their education AND play competitive football, and it shows in the student's academic work ethic, the coaches commitments to growing them as well rounded people, and the leadership all the way up the chain - assistants to Cignetti to Bourne etc. JMU seems to be doing it right, and there are good people in our [football] program that will go on to do great things, and yeah make a few bucks and have a lot of fun along the way.

WRONG. Kevin Blackistone is an idiot and always has been.

so the argument is that athletes are being taken advantage of and so we should just call it for what it is and make it semi pro? Lets make the educational aspect optional? That is being more supportive of the athlete?

As DD points out, 1.5% ever play in the NFL and most of those, it is a short stint and they are not financially set for life.

So Blackistone's solution is to take away the educational aspect and let it just become a pro league? Most of those kids will be getting peanuts for comp. They will have an abundance of free time to find life issues. They will finish up there in 4 years and be even less prepared for life.

Lets be real here. there are probably 20 schools that make money off of football. All that money is shoved back into the athletic programs. Are there some kids being "used"? Sure. But with the NIL in place, that number is dwindling.

It if were not for football, would these kids have the opportunities that these universities are providing? For most of these kids, they are much better off for having the experience, education and life experiences that college football provides.

yes, the current set up needs reform, but a semi pro league with optional education opportunities is not it.

(08-14-2023 09:41 AM)PGJMU Wrote:  WRONG. Kevin Blackistone is an idiot and always has been.

so the argument is that athletes are being taken advantage of and so we should just call it for what it is and make it semi pro? Lets make the educational aspect optional? That is being more supportive of the athlete?

As DD points out, 1.5% ever play in the NFL and most of those, it is a short stint and they are not financially set for life.

So Blackistone's solution is to take away the educational aspect and let it just become a pro league? Most of those kids will be getting peanuts for comp. They will have an abundance of free time to find life issues. They will finish up there in 4 years and be even less prepared for life.

Lets be real here. there are probably 20 schools that make money off of football. All that money is shoved back into the athletic programs. Are there some kids being "used"? Sure. But with the NIL in place, that number is dwindling.

It if were not for football, would these kids have the opportunities that these universities are providing? For most of these kids, they are much better off for having the experience, education and life experiences that college football provides.

yes, the current set up needs reform, but a semi pro league with optional education opportunities is not it.

Let me be on record as 100% in agreement with you.

To the extent he's talking about the increasing absurdity which exists at the P5 (and some of the G5) he's absolutely right. But the overwhelming majority of college football players -- including many at the G5 level, most at the FCS level and nearly all at the D2 and D3 levels, make no serious pretense about being future NFL players. At those levels college football is still a collegiate sport, not the preposterous circus it is at Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, etc. etc.

(08-14-2023 09:41 AM)PGJMU Wrote:  WRONG. Kevin Blackistone is an idiot and always has been.

so the argument is that athletes are being taken advantage of and so we should just call it for what it is and make it semi pro? Lets make the educational aspect optional? That is being more supportive of the athlete?

As DD points out, 1.5% ever play in the NFL and most of those, it is a short stint and they are not financially set for life.

So Blackistone's solution is to take away the educational aspect and let it just become a pro league? Most of those kids will be getting peanuts for comp. They will have an abundance of free time to find life issues. They will finish up there in 4 years and be even less prepared for life.

Lets be real here. there are probably 20 schools that make money off of football. All that money is shoved back into the athletic programs. Are there some kids being "used"? Sure. But with the NIL in place, that number is dwindling.

It if were not for football, would these kids have the opportunities that these universities are providing? For most of these kids, they are much better off for having the experience, education and life experiences that college football provides.

yes, the current set up needs reform, but a semi pro league with optional education opportunities is not it.

(08-14-2023 07:33 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I agree with most of the article as well.
Perhaps one silver lining is that the Sun Belt has an opportunity to show what can be right.
The more conferences spread out, the more opportunity there is for casual fans to gravitate towards what the Sun Belt is doing.
I predict we'll see more and more talking about the Sun Belt and how more conferences should do what this conference is doing. If viewers increase, as does the money.

But for big time change, it will probably mean a lot of schools will have to be kicking and screaming along the way.

Sure, the Sun Belt is a good conference. But what are the graduation rates for football players? I'd guess better than Alabama, but probably not better than, say, the track team, or for football players at D3 schools.

(08-14-2023 01:49 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:33 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I agree with most of the article as well.
Perhaps one silver lining is that the Sun Belt has an opportunity to show what can be right.
The more conferences spread out, the more opportunity there is for casual fans to gravitate towards what the Sun Belt is doing.
I predict we'll see more and more talking about the Sun Belt and how more conferences should do what this conference is doing. If viewers increase, as does the money.

But for big time change, it will probably mean a lot of schools will have to be kicking and screaming along the way.

Sure, the Sun Belt is a good conference. But what are the graduation rates for football players? I'd guess better than Alabama, but probably not better than, say, the track team, or for football players at D3 schools.

Graduation rates are tracked and reported as APR scores (in all NCAA sports), which if below certain established thresholds result in penalties to the school whose players aren’t progressing academically to set standards.

Your point, which is legit, has been addressed and is seriously and carefully tracked.

(08-14-2023 03:34 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 01:49 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:33 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I agree with most of the article as well.
Perhaps one silver lining is that the Sun Belt has an opportunity to show what can be right.
The more conferences spread out, the more opportunity there is for casual fans to gravitate towards what the Sun Belt is doing.
I predict we'll see more and more talking about the Sun Belt and how more conferences should do what this conference is doing. If viewers increase, as does the money.

But for big time change, it will probably mean a lot of schools will have to be kicking and screaming along the way.

Sure, the Sun Belt is a good conference. But what are the graduation rates for football players? I'd guess better than Alabama, but probably not better than, say, the track team, or for football players at D3 schools.

Graduation rates are tracked and reported as APR scores (in all NCAA sports), which if below certain established thresholds result in penalties to the school whose players aren’t progressing academically to set standards.

Your point, which is legit, has been addressed and is seriously and carefully tracked.

Yeah the walk ons/trialists at most schools have great GPAs/APR scores to help get above the line.

(08-14-2023 06:27 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 03:34 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 01:49 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:33 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I agree with most of the article as well.
Perhaps one silver lining is that the Sun Belt has an opportunity to show what can be right.
The more conferences spread out, the more opportunity there is for casual fans to gravitate towards what the Sun Belt is doing.
I predict we'll see more and more talking about the Sun Belt and how more conferences should do what this conference is doing. If viewers increase, as does the money.

But for big time change, it will probably mean a lot of schools will have to be kicking and screaming along the way.

Sure, the Sun Belt is a good conference. But what are the graduation rates for football players? I'd guess better than Alabama, but probably not better than, say, the track team, or for football players at D3 schools.

Graduation rates are tracked and reported as APR scores (in all NCAA sports), which if below certain established thresholds result in penalties to the school whose players aren’t progressing academically to set standards.

Your point, which is legit, has been addressed and is seriously and carefully tracked.

Yeah the walk ons/trialists at most schools have great GPAs/APR scores to help get above the line.

I'm pretty sure the APR figure only considers scholarship student athletes. But to your point, I'd bet some of those open scholarships that are awarded to walk-ons as training camp ends (especially at the football factories), are given to players who can boost the APR. A little insurance never hurts.

(08-14-2023 06:27 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 03:34 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 01:49 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:33 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I agree with most of the article as well.
Perhaps one silver lining is that the Sun Belt has an opportunity to show what can be right.
The more conferences spread out, the more opportunity there is for casual fans to gravitate towards what the Sun Belt is doing.
I predict we'll see more and more talking about the Sun Belt and how more conferences should do what this conference is doing. If viewers increase, as does the money.

But for big time change, it will probably mean a lot of schools will have to be kicking and screaming along the way.

Sure, the Sun Belt is a good conference. But what are the graduation rates for football players? I'd guess better than Alabama, but probably not better than, say, the track team, or for football players at D3 schools.

Graduation rates are tracked and reported as APR scores (in all NCAA sports), which if below certain established thresholds result in penalties to the school whose players aren’t progressing academically to set standards.

Your point, which is legit, has been addressed and is seriously and carefully tracked.

Yeah the walk ons/trialists at most schools have great GPAs/APR scores to help get above the line.

I think you’ve made an assumption that by and large is inconsequential on a football roster. On a smaller squad (like basketball, tennis or golf) a couple overachievers might impact a team’s gpa, but the focus of APR is still a measure of an entire team’s academic progress towards graduation. A few walk-ons won’t change that number.

(08-14-2023 06:46 PM)olddawg Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 06:27 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 03:34 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 01:49 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:33 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I agree with most of the article as well.
Perhaps one silver lining is that the Sun Belt has an opportunity to show what can be right.
The more conferences spread out, the more opportunity there is for casual fans to gravitate towards what the Sun Belt is doing.
I predict we'll see more and more talking about the Sun Belt and how more conferences should do what this conference is doing. If viewers increase, as does the money.

But for big time change, it will probably mean a lot of schools will have to be kicking and screaming along the way.

Sure, the Sun Belt is a good conference. But what are the graduation rates for football players? I'd guess better than Alabama, but probably not better than, say, the track team, or for football players at D3 schools.

Graduation rates are tracked and reported as APR scores (in all NCAA sports), which if below certain established thresholds result in penalties to the school whose players aren’t progressing academically to set standards.

Your point, which is legit, has been addressed and is seriously and carefully tracked.

Yeah the walk ons/trialists at most schools have great GPAs/APR scores to help get above the line.

I'm pretty sure the APR figure only considers scholarship student athletes. But to your point, I'd bet some of those open scholarships that are awarded to walk-ons as training camp ends (especially at the football factories), are given to players who can boost the APR. A little insurance never hurts.

You apparently don’t understand how APR is calculated, or what it is measuring. It’s progress towards graduation, not a measure of gpa.

Edit: Hate to use wiki as a source, but this link will provide an accurate, quick read on what APR measures. It also points out that non-scholarship athletes (walk-ons) are not included in APR calculations, so have no bearing on the official APR scores reported to the NCAA. Hence walk-on’s are not added to a team in order to boost a team’s APR…for APR purposes non-scholarship athletes gpas and graduation rates simply don’t matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Progress_Rate

(08-14-2023 07:27 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 06:46 PM)olddawg Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 06:27 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 03:34 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 01:49 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  Sure, the Sun Belt is a good conference. But what are the graduation rates for football players? I'd guess better than Alabama, but probably not better than, say, the track team, or for football players at D3 schools.

Graduation rates are tracked and reported as APR scores (in all NCAA sports), which if below certain established thresholds result in penalties to the school whose players aren’t progressing academically to set standards.

Your point, which is legit, has been addressed and is seriously and carefully tracked.

Yeah the walk ons/trialists at most schools have great GPAs/APR scores to help get above the line.

I'm pretty sure the APR figure only considers scholarship student athletes. But to your point, I'd bet some of those open scholarships that are awarded to walk-ons as training camp ends (especially at the football factories), are given to players who can boost the APR. A little insurance never hurts.

You apparently don’t understand how APR is calculated, or what it is measuring. It’s progress towards graduation, not a measure of gpa.

Edit: Hate to use wiki as a source, but this link will provide an accurate, quick read on what APR measures. It also points out that non-scholarship athletes (walk-ons) are not included in APR calculations, so have no bearing on the official APR scores reported to the NCAA. Hence walk-on’s are not added to a team in order to boost a team’s APR…for APR purposes non-scholarship athletes gpas and graduation rates simply don’t matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Progress_Rate

I'd like to change the point just a little bit. I think that one of the reasons that people love the Army-Navy (and presumably Harvard-Yale) games so much is that there's an assumption that these guys are "college students playing football" rather than "football players enrolled here."

The issue is remaining competitive (and of course the pursuit of a national championship above all else.) I mean, if Ohio State and Michigan were both made of teams of 175-lb bookworms, but the game was close, they'd still pack the Big House. Where a lot of people get uncomfortable is the relentless pursuit of high-dollar everything, the academic rule-bending (if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'), the "you have to give X thousand per year to be eligible to buy season tickets", and the graduate-level accounting that goes into ticket prices vs booster donations, and that's not even starting to get into the question of "this guy is putting his ACL at risk 60 times every Saturday for the cost of a degree from Clemson, while Clemson is making $50M/yr"

If the whole point of going to college is to learn, I suppose you could be cynical and say "you're getting a great education in the way money drives everything", but it's also kinda not what we're supposed to be in this for.

(08-15-2023 11:05 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  I mean, if Ohio State and Michigan were both made of teams of 175-lb bookworms, but the game was close, they'd still pack the Big House.

Uhhh no. You're essentially describing Ivy League football.

(School, 2022 Attendance, 2022 % of Stadium Capacity)
Yale 6,299 9.8%
Penn 6,854 12.94%
Princeton 6,298 20.99%
Harvard 14,689 48.44%
Columbia 5,088 29.93%
Cornell 6,878 31.99%
Dartmouth 4,664 42.4%
Brown 4,423 22.11%

And no, I don't think their FCS designation really has an impact on the point here.

(08-14-2023 09:41 AM)PGJMU Wrote:  WRONG. Kevin Blackistone is an idiot and always has been.

so the argument is that athletes are being taken advantage of and so we should just call it for what it is and make it semi pro? Lets make the educational aspect optional? That is being more supportive of the athlete?

As DD points out, 1.5% ever play in the NFL and most of those, it is a short stint and they are not financially set for life.

So Blackistone's solution is to take away the educational aspect and let it just become a pro league? Most of those kids will be getting peanuts for comp. They will have an abundance of free time to find life issues. They will finish up there in 4 years and be even less prepared for life.

Lets be real here. there are probably 20 schools that make money off of football. All that money is shoved back into the athletic programs. Are there some kids being "used"? Sure. But with the NIL in place, that number is dwindling.

It if were not for football, would these kids have the opportunities that these universities are providing? For most of these kids, they are much better off for having the experience, education and life experiences that college football provides.

yes, the current set up needs reform, but a semi pro league with optional education opportunities is not it.

Agree with most of what you posted, but FWIW 4 year old article shows 60 of then 65 P5 football programs turned a profit.
https://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootba...o-top.html
Now I know most G5 programs don’t..

(08-16-2023 06:43 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 09:41 AM)PGJMU Wrote:  WRONG. Kevin Blackistone is an idiot and always has been.

so the argument is that athletes are being taken advantage of and so we should just call it for what it is and make it semi pro? Lets make the educational aspect optional? That is being more supportive of the athlete?

As DD points out, 1.5% ever play in the NFL and most of those, it is a short stint and they are not financially set for life.

So Blackistone's solution is to take away the educational aspect and let it just become a pro league? Most of those kids will be getting peanuts for comp. They will have an abundance of free time to find life issues. They will finish up there in 4 years and be even less prepared for life.

Lets be real here. there are probably 20 schools that make money off of football. All that money is shoved back into the athletic programs. Are there some kids being "used"? Sure. But with the NIL in place, that number is dwindling.

It if were not for football, would these kids have the opportunities that these universities are providing? For most of these kids, they are much better off for having the experience, education and life experiences that college football provides.

yes, the current set up needs reform, but a semi pro league with optional education opportunities is not it.

Agree with most of what you posted, but FWIW 4 year old article shows 60 of then 65 P5 football programs turned a profit.
https://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootba...o-top.html
Now I know most G5 programs don’t..

It perhaps might still be true, IF they simply pull the plug on ALL the women's and other non-revenue sports. Title IX problems with that though. And current NCAA/FBS rules don't permit that either.

If you are looking at entire college Athletic Departments, it is unlikely there are more than 10-20 "profitable" ones after including all sports.