Creating A Return to the Real College Football That We Love

[FishDuck Article]

There must be a return to real college football, yet while allowing for the progression that has occurred over the last two years. I present to you a solution to the developments that threatens to ruin the sport we all love. I am 75 years of age, I have listened to and watched college football (CFB) with some sort of ...

 

Read the full article here...

[Smith72]

Wow!  You stated so perfectly the conditions of college Football as it stands now. And, you proposed solutions that keep College Football as a student-athlete endeavor not a professional farm system for the NFL.

 

Order, ethics, and integrity are too important to do nothing!

 

I would nominate you as the Commissioner for this Run For The Roses Alliance.  The perfect leader to return Real College Football!

[EzDucksIt]

Jon,

 

That was an informative article.  You voice your concern with "Not Just Complaining" but one persons well thought out alternative solution to a complicated problem.  Things are getting out of control and NOT just in College Sports.  Love the people that come here to have a discussion and present some form of a solution.  I would agree with your "Take Back the Rose Bowl"  Alliance.  Nice job Jon, Well Done.

[Jon Joseph]

I would like to add that since composing this article playoff expansion appears to be stymied until the 2026 season. Before 2026 it takes a unanimous vote of the P5, G5 and Notre Dame to expand the field and the ACC in particular is not prepared to expand beyond 4 teams before the new NCAA constitution is in place (this has happened,) and NIL and player transfers via the portal are regulated. Regulation of NIL and the use of the portal has not happened and in today's climate of every conference for itself I don't know if it can or will happen?

 

I do know that revenue-wise the B1G and the SEC are leaving the ACC, B12 and Pac-12 far behind. Which way will the B1G go? CFB as professional sport without control; CFB regulated somewhat by the B1G and the SEC; or a Run For The Roses Tournament or something similar as suggested in the article? I believe for the most part B1G presidents do not want to be seen opting for athletics over academics. I also can see B1G ADs saying, "we need the money!" To date, the B1G is unwilling to expand the playoff field without all 5 P5 champions in the field. The Pac-12 wants expansion to 8 or 12 teams now. Regardless the Pac-12 has to be very happy that one of the two 'rich conferences' is looking out for more than its own interest in the case of playoff expansion and hopefully, otherwise.

 

FWIW - Pac-12 guru, Jon Winer, has released his preseason top 25. Using the Run For The Roses format discussed in the article and Jon's preseason top 25, the following would be the 2022 field.

 

Pitt at Ohio State

Michigan at Notre Dame

 

Semi-final played in Indianapolis

 

Oregon at Clemson

Wisconsin at Utah

 

Semi-final played in Las Vegas

 

I believe media would pay significant money to broadcast these games and the remainder of the games in the tournament.

[EzDucksIt]

Smith 72,

 

I was laughing as that posted.  You got a camera in my office?  Nice.

 

[Haywarduck]

The guiding principle has to be putting the student in front of the athlete in college football, as stated in the article. If the decision making process going forward is to benefit the students then this disaster can be mitigated.

 

For too long the NCAA, the coaches and really the fans have benefited more than the student athletes. The athlete had become a tool to make lots of money for the entities involved, and create great joy for the fans. The NIL we are seeing is a reaction to that equation. 

 

The equation is changing to where the athlete benefits more. The problem is they are really only benefiting financially, short term. Somehow the formula needs to create a way the student benefits as they leave the school better prepared for the life ahead. 

 

I think one of the secrets of the Oregon Football Program has been the Jacqua Center and the rehabilitation facilities. Students are impressed and parents impressed and it hits a parent right where they are with their child. We, as a program, need to continue to be right where the parent and student is. If we take care of the student and parents concerns better than other programs the athletes will come and the program will benefit. 

 

One thing we can not do is focus more on the athlete than the student going forward. Oregon will benefit from leading on this issue, and those who go the opposite direction may benefit in the short term, but they will lose in the long run. We need to play the long game on this one.

[Pocketchange]

You are advocating to a return to football that I have absolutely hated for years.  Compensation is how businesses compete with each other for employees.  We allow it for every other I employee hired by the school.  We are complaining about employees making $50,000/year? They deserve a salary where they can plan for future and plan a family.

 

Further, it is imperative that other sports programs to market their sports programs better in order generate more revenue to the school and athletes.  Collegiate sports is worse by restricting the free flow of labor, artificially lowering employees wages, and making employees play in in a bowl game that would lower their potential income.  It’s wrong on every level.  Give them a wage, benefits, and tuition waver.

[noDucknewby]

Interesting manifesto, Jon.  Don't see how this ever happens, especially since the "Alliance" doesn't really seem to agree on anything at this point.

 

Gotta say though, limiting the transfer portal window is a no-brainer.  It's only a matter of time before a playoff team that loses a star player to injury (or transfer for that matter) just buys one from another contender.  Mid-season transfers with immediate eligibility combined with new NIL "rules" absolutely have the potential to destroy the sport.

[Jon Joseph]

FYI - The NCAA Constitution 'Transformation Committee' is co-chaired by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey (I'm shocked!) and Ohio University AD, Julie Cromer.

 

What could go wrong?

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/21/2022 at 9:50 AM, Smith72 said:

Wow!  You stated so perfectly the conditions of college Football as it stands now. And, you proposed solutions that keep College Football as a student-athlete endeavor not a professional farm system for the NFL.

 

Order, ethics, and integrity are too important to do nothing!

 

I would nominate you as the Commissioner for this Run For The Roses Alliance.  The perfect leader to return Real College Football!

Thank you. I respectfully decline as I only have so many golf shots left.

[jrw]

Jon...well reasoned and thought out. I forwarded it to George Kliavkoff.

 

What about coaches? Some rules for them, too?

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/21/2022 at 10:06 AM, Pocketchange said:

You are advocating to a return to football that I have absolutely hated for years.  Compensation is how businesses compete with each other for employees.  We allow it for every other I employee hired by the school.  We are complaining about employees making $50,000/year? They deserve a salary where they can plan for future and plan a family.

 

Further, it is imperative that other sports programs to market their sports programs better in order generate more revenue to the school and athletes.  Collegiate sports is worse by restricting the free flow of labor, artificially lowering employees wages, and making employees play in in a bowl game that would lower their potential income.  It’s wrong on every level.  Give them a wage, benefits, and tuition waver.

 

I get it. I understand your POV and it is most reasonable. Your 'plan' would make CFB players employees of the university. With that comes FUCA, FICA, SS and Oregon retirement benefit payments and all other emoluments granted University of Oregon employees. Like the NFL, the free flow of labor would be restricted by contractual agreement. The NFL contractual restraints on free agency have been tested by the courts and upheld. You also would have salary caps. You would have a player's union that might well agree to certain positions receiving a designated income. With this I also expect that you would have a HS draft. What you would not have is unfettered capitalism wholly in the favor of the players and the players managing the business. 

 

Would UO want to be part of 'this?' Many schools now playing P5 CFB would drop the sport or stop giving CFB scholarships. This is turn would negatively effect women's sports in particular and lead to sports such as golf, becoming club and not varsity sports. 

 

I have no objection to NIL if it is used to benefit an 'individual' for his/her athletic performance and not used as a disguise for pay for play. I have no objection to a player transferring within reasonable guidelines that allow for a roster to be created and maintained during the season. If any player notwithstanding being 'paid to play' in the postseason and having loss of income insurance provided did not want to participate they would not be forced to play. But as is the case with a player entering the portal, any player with eligibility left who elected not to play could have his scholarship pulled. 

 

Again I understand your POV but if literally put into place I think you would see many the CFB 'baby' thrown out with the bath water? Personally, I do not view CFB players today as indentured servants. I don't see big time CFB as an oppressor. After all no one is forcing any player to play ball or attend school on a full scholarship.

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/21/2022 at 11:16 AM, jrw said:

Jon...well reasoned and thought out. I forwarded it to George Kliavkoff.

 

What about coaches? Some rules for them, too?

 

Perhaps an all-in salary cap for coaches, assistant coaches and support staff would pass muster? But restrictions on salary in general and a person's freedom to switch jobs at will is heavily restricted by state and federal law. And in the case of HCs and many assistant coaches, you already have 'liquid damages' built into their respective contract; the 'buyout clause.'

 

Not that my article is that well articulated but if it did reach GK, that would be great. Although my guess is that GK and B1G commish Warren, have discussed where the so-called playoff is headed at length? 

 

The problem for the Pac-12 is that it is financially behind the curve which limits its negotiating leverage.

[Charles Fischer]

On 1/21/2022 at 7:06 AM, Pocketchange said:

You are advocating to a return to football that I have absolutely hated for years.  Compensation is how businesses compete with each other for employees.  We allow it for every other I employee hired by the school.  We are complaining about employees making $50,000/year? They deserve a salary where they can plan for future and plan a family.

 

Further, it is imperative that other sports programs to market their sports programs better in order generate more revenue to the school and athletes.  Collegiate sports is worse by restricting the free flow of labor, artificially lowering employees wages, and making employees play in in a bowl game that would lower their potential income.  It’s wrong on every level.  Give them a wage, benefits, and tuition waver.

And where is the funding for all the other sports?  What about equality for the women competing?  All revenue generated from football is used to fund the other sports, so how do we fund them?

[HappyToBeADuck]

Great thought out article Jon. Lots to digest, ponder and discuss. To me it boils down to Academics, Athletics, forward thinking and leverage. 

 

Without to much thought on this, in order to protect all of a school's athletic student athletes (Title 9) IT TAKES MONEY. Plain and simple money. The PAC presidents made it clear that the conference members must have enough money and can stand pat on expansion. Real forward thinking by the conference presidents? Academic arrogance the cousin of academic ignorance.

 

Expansion into Texas and Midwest opens up about 50 million more legitimate eyeballs. When negotiating with networks those eyeballs would represent leverage. Maybe a Baylor/Oregon matchup wouldn't interest some on this forum. But the networks would pay for it. In Texas, football is king. The stadium would be full and the television turned on. Utah/Texas Tech, USC/OSU, UCLA/ IOWA STATE would sell to the networks. Not all match ups would be compelling with expansion. IMHO, very few PAC games are compelling.

 

A 18-20 team conference would be better leverage for the future. The future of college athletics is here now and changing daily. The only leverage the PAC truly has is after dark games. In business terms, because I rarely watch them then why would I pay big money for them.

 

Jon, keep it up, your voice makes some sense amidst the chaos.

[WiseKwacker]

What a well-thought-out argument, Jon. Not surprised, though. Your contributions to FishDuck usually are right at the top.

 

As another old coot--I'm ONLY 69--I hate to be one of those "fatalistic" guys, but, I'm afraid that, with regard to the NIL:

• the cat's out of the bag,
• the horse is out of the barn,
• the camel's nose is under the tent.

As much as I agree with your vision, I don't see any "course correction" coming any time soon.  I say this primarily because I don't have any faith in the vision of the "leaders:"  NCAA admin, Congress, state legislatures, conferences.  I don't think these various bodies are particularly bad--albeit pretty slow to react--at recognizing problems. They're just bad at putting together balanced, workable solutions. 

 

Yes, the NIL rules have helped "solve" a problem. I don't see the solution helping anyone other than a handful of "college" athletes, though, who are either the ultra-elite individuals or happen to attend a few of the most wealthy colleges. 

 

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. Nevertheless, I expect I'll keep rooting for the Ducks however things develop.

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/21/2022 at 12:10 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

Great thought out article Jon. Lots to digest, ponder and discuss. To me it boils down to Academics, Athletics, forward thinking and leverage. 

 

Without to much thought on this, in order to protect all of a school's athletic student athletes (Title 9) IT TAKES MONEY. Plain and simple money. The PAC presidents made it clear that the conference members must have enough money and can stand pat on expansion. Real forward thinking by the conference presidents? Academic arrogance the cousin of academic ignorance.

 

Expansion into Texas and Midwest opens up about 50 million more legitimate eyeballs. When negotiating with networks those eyeballs would represent leverage. Maybe a Baylor/Oregon matchup wouldn't interest some on this forum. But the networks would pay for it. In Texas, football is king. The stadium would be full and the television turned on. Utah/Texas Tech, USC/OSU, UCLA/ IOWA STATE would sell to the networks. Not all match ups would be compelling with expansion. IMHO, very few PAC games are compelling.

 

A 18-20 team conference would be better leverage for the future. The future of college athletics is here now and changing daily. The only leverage the PAC truly has is after dark games. In business terms, because I rarely watch them then why would I pay big money for them.

 

Jon, keep it up, your voice makes some sense amidst the chaos.

 

Baylor and the Ducks already have a H+H series scheduled beginning I believe in 2025? I also believe that Baylor, among other B12 schools, should be a member of the Pac-20. (SIGH.)

[HappyToBeADuck]

On 1/21/2022 at 9:46 AM, Jon Joseph said:

 

Baylor and the Ducks already have a H+H series scheduled beginning I believe in 2025? I also believe that Baylor, among other B12 schools, should be a member of the Pac-20. (SIGH.)

If I was the Commissioner of the BIG12, I would poach 4 to 6 teams from the PAC. Just because the genius, acacademic brain trust of the PAC didn't want expansion doesn't mean the BIG 12 or BIG don't want too. West coast eye balls are leverage to a Midwest/Texas conference in negotiations.

[JDuck]

Money has definitely ruined college football.  A lot of things were definitely better the way they "used to be" (though not all, as you aptly point out). 

 

The biggest problem with the SEC having their own "championship" is they will always claim to be the true national champions.  The run for the roses winner will at best be a "split" champion.  There is a school up north that thinks they have been a champion once long ago based on that. 

 

The "alliance" schools, and their players and fan bases, will want a shot at an undisputed natty, I know I do as a Duck fan.  If the RFTR winner plays the SEC winner on January 10th, that's better.  Or, just expand the playoff, what everyone wants now.  There will be years where an Oregon, Baylor or Wisconsin will pull off the upset and be the undisputed champ.  Still leaves a lot of issues due to NIL and bad TV deals, but going back to Michigan winning the AP when Nebraska would have beaten them by 28 in 1997...I don't like that either.

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/21/2022 at 12:57 PM, JDuck said:

Money has definitely ruined college football.  A lot of things were definitely better the way they "used to be" (though not all, as you aptly point out). 

 

The biggest problem with the SEC having their own "championship" is they will always claim to be the true national champions.  The run for the roses winner will at best be a "split" champion.  There is a school up north that thinks they have been a champion once long ago based on that. 

 

The "alliance" schools, and their players and fan bases, will want a shot at an undisputed natty, I know I do as a Duck fan.  If the RFTR winner plays the SEC winner on January 10th, that's better.  Or, just expand the playoff, what everyone wants now.  There will be years where an Oregon, Baylor or Wisconsin will pull off the upset and be the undisputed champ.  Still leaves a lot of issues due to NIL and bad TV deals, but going back to Michigan winning the AP when Nebraska would have beaten them by 28 in 1997...I don't like that either.

Great take. However, I could care less about whatever the SEC claims or does not claim. We already know that the SEC only loses OOC games because while it just matters more, it matters less to defeat inferior schools an SEC team cannot expect to be interested in playing. I certainly get the 1997 point, but I thought CFB was fine with co-champions; and I was also fine with regular season games ending in a tie.

[Duck 1972]

On 1/21/2022 at 9:25 AM, Duck 1972 said:

The way I understand it, schools are in a no win situation. If they start paying the players a stipend as u suggest Congress will come in and blow up the cash cow of all of the other college sports.

 

The NCAA makes huge monies off CFB and C Basketball but that's it, no other sports make anything close to the cost. Then u bring in Title IX and there's not enough money unless things stay the same. Thus the boosters, corporations and networks.

 

 

This is the best idea they can come up with, a " new constitution". By calling it "amateur sports" they can avoid this delema and have since the beginning of the NCAA. 

 

As with everything it's extremely complicated with no easy answer so they kick the can down the road. The problem is, it eventually falls anyway.

Posted this on another post. I believe this is the problem. As it stands now I see Jons solution as possible under the new constitution because it allows all conferences make up their own rules. Maybe this was the point of the Alliance from the start. 

 

Just read an article by Paul Fienbaum the noted reporter for the SEC say ND, FSU and Clemson should join the SEC. Here we go.

[Pocketchange]

On 1/21/2022 at 8:16 AM, Jon Joseph said:

 

I get it. I understand your POV and it is most reasonable. Your 'plan' would make CFB players employees of the university. With that comes FUCA, FICA, SS and Oregon retirement benefit payments and all other emoluments granted University of Oregon employees. Like the NFL, the free flow of labor would be restricted by contractual agreement. The NFL contractual restraints on free agency have been tested by the courts and upheld. You also would have salary caps. You would have a player's union that might well agree to certain positions receiving a designated income. With this I also expect that you would have a HS draft. What you would not have is unfettered capitalism wholly in the favor of the players and the players managing the business. 

 

Would UO want to be part of 'this?' Many schools now playing P5 CFB would drop the sport or stop giving CFB scholarships. This is turn would negatively effect women's sports in particular and lead to sports such as golf, becoming club and not varsity sports. 

 

I have no objection to NIL if it is used to benefit an 'individual' for his/her athletic performance and not used as a disguise for pay for play. I have no objection to a player transferring within reasonable guidelines that allow for a roster to be created and maintained during the season. If any player notwithstanding being 'paid to play' in the postseason and having loss of income insurance provided did not want to participate they would not be forced to play. But as is the case with a player entering the portal, any player with eligibility left who elected not to play could have his scholarship pulled. 

 

Again I understand your POV but if literally put into place I think you would see many the CFB 'baby' thrown out with the bath water? Personally, I do not view CFB players today as indentured servants. I don't see big time CFB as an oppressor. After all no one is forcing any player to play ball or attend school on a full scholarship.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, it is a real difficult nut to crack.  In the end it will come down to what are we willing to give up in order to save what we can in collegiate sports.  It is my belief that non revenue generating sports will have to be cut in order to continue running sports programs at all.  I’m just skipping to the end so the U of O can have a competitive advantage in those market spaces.

[Pocketchange]

On 1/21/2022 at 9:04 AM, Charles Fischer said:

And where is the funding for all the other sports?  What about equality for the women competing?  All revenue generated from football is used to fund the other sports, so how do we fund them?

Again a real difficult issue to solve and without having an expert decipher their financial statements, I can’t make any judgements.  It looks to me that football is losing money at 4.8 M/year… but I’m not an expert at deciphering financial statement.

 

I really believe that their is a lot of revenue to be generated by multiple sports (including women’s BB) that the U of O is leaving on the table.  

[Duck 1972]

Only FB and BaskB M/W make any money.. It's not just the ADs budget. I believe it's all the other things; all the merchandising, corporations and donors thats the cash cow.

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/21/2022 at 3:06 PM, Pocketchange said:

I understand what you are saying, it is a real difficult nut to crack.  In the end it will come down to what are we willing to give up in order to save what we can in collegiate sports.  It is my belief that non revenue generating sports will have to be cut in order to continue running sports programs at all.  I’m just skipping to the end so the U of O can have a competitive advantage in those market spaces.

Perfectly reasonable and understandable POV. Thanks.