Is "Division 4" college football coming?

[Offside Number 76]

I don't disagree with some of the complaints listed about how colleges handle their student athletes and profits off of them but I don't understand the rights violation point.

 

How is the NFL saying you have to play college ball at least 3 years or be at a certain age to work for them any different than any other company requiring you to have a 4 year degree or more to work for them?

 

Playing football for a living isn't a "right". If they want to work for wages there are plenty of other things a college athlete could do.

 

If someone said you had to either have a four-year degree OR be 23 years old, do you think that would be legal? I don't.

 

Back to the topic at hand: I think it's a certainty that this will happen in the next ten years. The seeds were sown the minute D-IA was divided into BCS and non-BCS conferences.

[SBUffalo]

This was going to happen all along.

[TheLynchTrain]

I think a lot of you probably read the story on the Atlantic a few years back, but if not I encourage you to do so. It was an eye opener to me. The first executive director of the NCAA coined the phrase "student athlete" for the sole purpose of avoiding workman's comp cases. Not for the idea of academics over athletics, or the glory of amateurism. Nope. Worker's compensation cases.

 

He was also the first to coin the phrase "Plantation" when referring to big-time college athletics. The fact that this same executive director wrote a book later in life called "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" railing on the system put he helped put in place should really raise eyebrows.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/?single_page=true

[Cash]

The ESPN deal was extended last year, and it's not governed by the NCAA but by the teams that make up the former BCS. There's nothing that says they can't expand the playoff to more schools and increase the ESPN contract.

 

Bingo. Colleges are smart enough to put out clauses in their contracts. I'm reminded of the ACC's deal with ESPN, which they could renegotiate if ACC membership changed. Which is a big reason why they raided the Big East again.

 

I don't know the particulars, but I'd be shocked if the football playoff deal didn't have significant out clauses in the event of playoff expansion or alteration.

[Mr. WEO]

The ESPN deal was extended last year, and it's not governed by the NCAA but by the teams that make up the former BCS. There's nothing that says they can't expand the playoff to more schools and increase the ESPN contract.

 

You're right, my bad--it was last fall.

 

They may want to expand the playoff field, but ESPN doesn't have to pay for the extra games. I'm sure their lawyers are at least as smart as the BCS lawyers in that they aren't going to give the BCS an easy out of that contract.

 

You are absolutely incorrect here man. These Universities, through the NCAA, conspired to keep the wages (i.e. scholarships and modest allowance) to their money making machines limited, not at what the market would allow in a free system. Since there is no other real alternative for these "employees" to get paid for their services, since they are banned from the NFL, it is a clear violation of their right to work, earn money, earn a living, while the Universities, the apparel companies, TV and news outlets, profit hand over fist over their work.

 

Well, if you insist on putting it that way, the "wages" at some of the most expensive schools easily top $50,000 per year. That's pretty good compensation for a kid with no other marketable skills. And they get an education (if they want one).

 

All of these athetes are free to sell their skills elsewhere, but since the NFL (not the NCAA) determines the rules of league eligibility, their options are decidedly limited. Yet they are free to "work, earn money, earn a living" anywhere they can get a job in whatever field they are qualified for, so I don't know what you are talking about.

 

Universities use students and grad students to rake in millions of dollars of grant money every year on every campus. The students sign up speicifically for this and consent willingly to it. They know this is how they get their training for the next level.

 

 

 

 

Bingo. Colleges are smart enough to put out clauses in their contracts. I'm reminded of the ACC's deal with ESPN, which they could renegotiate if ACC membership changed. Which is a big reason why they raided the Big East again.

 

I don't know the particulars, but I'd be shocked if the football playoff deal didn't have significant out clauses in the event of playoff expansion or alteration.

 

See above. ESPN isn't going to allow any such clause that would damage or water down the product they have just paid massive amount for. They more likely have stipulated that the BCS can have 100 playoff games per year it likes, but the value of the contract stays the same--it comes out of the BCS's end.

[Cash]

You're right, my bad--it was last fall.

 

They may want to expand the playoff field, but ESPN doesn't have to pay for the extra games. I'm sure their lawyers are at least as smart as the BCS lawyers in that they aren't going to give the BCS an easy out of that contract.

 

See above. ESPN isn't going to allow any such clause that would damage or water down the product they have just paid massive amount for. They more likely have stipulated that the BCS can have 100 playoff games per year it likes, but the value of the contract stays the same--it comes out of the BCS's end.

 

That's a pretty bold stance, particularly since most of ESPN's TV contracts for college sports are known to already have those out clauses. The ACC never would have gone so hard after Big East teams if it didn't mean renegotiating the TV deal. Do you really think that ESPN was the only bidder for the BCS deal? They were just allowed to dictate terms? This is just my opinion, but of course they're willing to pay more if there's more games. More games means more nights of high-ratings, high-revenue TV. Adding extra regular-season games might dilute a product, but adding extra playoff games has never done anything but increase revenue. See: NCAA tournament (particularly the move to 64 teams), MLB playoffs, NFL playoffs, NBA playoffs. Going from 3 playoff games to 7 means an extra 16+ hours of high-revenue programming for ESPN, to say nothing of the extra mileage they can get on Sportscenter and their talking heads shows. That's not worth any additional money?

[Mr. WEO]

That's a pretty bold stance, particularly since most of ESPN's TV contracts for college sports are known to already have those out clauses. The ACC never would have gone so hard after Big East teams if it didn't mean renegotiating the TV deal. Do you really think that ESPN was the only bidder for the BCS deal? They were just allowed to dictate terms? This is just my opinion, but of course they're willing to pay more if there's more games. More games means more nights of high-ratings, high-revenue TV. Adding extra regular-season games might dilute a product, but adding extra playoff games has never done anything but increase revenue. See: NCAA tournament (particularly the move to 64 teams), MLB playoffs, NFL playoffs, NBA playoffs. Going from 3 playoff games to 7 means an extra 16+ hours of high-revenue programming for ESPN, to say nothing of the extra mileage they can get on Sportscenter and their talking heads shows. That's not worth any additional money?

 

I'm saying that ESPN may not have to pay the extra money for the extra games--I'm sure they feel they are already on the hook for tripling their "post-season" costs for the next dozen years.

[GG]

 

 

I'm saying that ESPN may not have to pay the extra money for the extra games--I'm sure they feel they are already on the hook for tripling their "post-season" costs for the next dozen years.

 

No way do I see the schools agreeing to that deal and not getting more cash for more playoff games.