Thought Provoking Dan Wolken Article

[ShotgunDawg]

Wolken writes an interesting article here on the future of college football from sexual harassment to assistant pay and speaks about the pitfalls of it.

Worth a read and could lead to some intellectual conversation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2018/01/07/underneath-glitz-playoff-warning-money-coaches-not-players-me-too/1011059001/

It seems to me that college athletics would be done a great service by lowering the value of coaches. You could argue that the pay issues and sexual harassment issues are all caused by these coaches being of to much importance and run their own little empires in which they call the shots.

Professional sports doesn?t really have this issue because the value of a coach in less.

Why?

- Drafts. Drafts lead to recruiting and relationships not being needed at a desperate level. Drafts lower the value of coaches.

- Drafts also cause the need for a scouting department, since knowledge of a greater amount of players is needed, which divides the head coach?s duties and lessens the organizational value of the head coach or coordinator.

- Paying players. By paying players legally, your transferring some value from coaches to the players. At its extreme, you see situations like the NBA where the players are more important than the coaches.

Just some thoughts but it seems to me that lessening the value of coaches would solve multiple problems.

[msstate7]

Thank God, I did not get drafted by usm or OM. Sure I attended state as a student; but I hate the thought of a athlete not having the same choice just bc he/she is good at sports

[ShotgunDawg]

Thank God, I did not get drafted by usm or OM. Sure I attended state as a student; but I hate the thought of a athlete not having the same choice just bc he/she is good at sports

I think there are ways to help the process by allowing players to list schools they absolutely would not want to go to & think there could also be a clause that, you can remove yourself from draft consideration, but you won't get paid. Only drafted players get paid. That way the player can determine what is in his best interest. If you get drafted, you get paid. If you remove yourself from the draft, you can still play, but you don't get paid.

Plus, I'm not saying that a draft is the best way. It's just an idea of how to lessen the value of coaches to some degree.

I'm sure there are other ways as well

[Lord McBuckethead]

Thank God, I did not get drafted by usm or OM. Sure I attended state as a student; but I hate the thought of a athlete not having the same choice just bc he/she is good at sports

I also do not like how athletes get to go to a university when they barely can pass Pre-Algebra. Cuts both ways I guess.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Coaches are de-valued in the pros because the players make so much more money than the coaches. The players are the stars & faces of franchises in the pros. In college the coaches are the faces of the programs. AD's will always side with the coach while majority of the time the owner is going to side with the star player if there is a rift between player & coach.

[ShotgunDawg]

I find it funny when people prioritize a kid getting to choose their school over college football players being paid to play.

Any draft IMO should be accompanied by paying players & I think you could make headway towards paying players by implementing a draft & thus reducing the value of head coaches.

Think about this, if college football had a draft, who would be the best coaches in college football?

Would Moorhead be better than Kirby Smart? Moorhead is probably the better Xs & Os guy
Would Kermit Davis be better than Coach K?

Point is, once you make the sport not about recruiting & more about Xs & Os & coaching ability, the value of the recruiting emperors decreases dramatically.

You go from paying guys like Saban $10 mil a year for his recruiting + coaching ability to only needing to pay a quality coach 2 mil a year because recruiting ability no longer defines a coach. Then you use the money you save on head coaches to pay players.

[ShotgunDawg]

Coaches are de-valued in the pros because the players make so much more money than the coaches. The players are the stars & faces of franchises in the pros. In college the coaches are the faces of the programs. AD's will always side with the coach while majority of the time the owner is going to side with the star player if there is a rift between player & coach.

This is true, but coaches in the pros value is dramatically decreased by a draft.

Let me ask you this: If college football had a draft, are you paying Saban 10 mil a year?

[ShotgunDawg]

I also think some of you are missing the point. As Wolken states, the status quo is not adequate for the future of this sport.

So, if you don't like the draft idea (which is fine by me), what is another solution? Because we need a solution & IMO that solution needs to involve the reduction of the fair market value of coaches.

How do you do that?

[msstate7]

I also think some of you are missing the point. As Wolken states, the status quo is not adequate for the future of this sport.

So, if you don't like the draft idea (which is fine by me), what is another solution? Because we need a solution & IMO that solution needs to involve the reduction of the fair market value of coaches.

How do you do that?

Why is it not adequate? CFB is thriving. Just bc my team is not winning big does not mean we have to blow it up. I am not a big welfare guy on or off the field... life is hard, and not always fair

[Ifyouonlyknew]

This is true, but coaches in the pros value is dramatically decreased by a draft.

Let me ask you this: If college football had a draft, are you paying Saban 10 mil a year?

The draft isn't what devalues the coaches. It's the fact that the player that's being drafted is making more than the coaches. In college you don't have that dynamic. That's the most important factor not whether they can choose their team or not.

That last question really doesn't make any sense. Does he have the same resume? If so then yes he's going to make that much money. You get so upset when kids choose Bama or other big time schools but isn't recruiting perhaps the largest aspect of being a college coach? Why should coaches who recruit well be punished just because you cheer for a non power school? Yes I'm aware I'm a MSU fan but trying to put a cap or control on where kids go or how many of these elite talent kids make 0 sense to me.

[ShotgunDawg]

Why is it not adequate? CFB is thriving. Just bc my team is not winning big does not mean we have to blow it up. I am not a big welfare guy on or off the field... life is hard, and not always fair

Did you read the article?

[ShotgunDawg]

The draft isn't what devalues the coaches. It's the fact that the player that's being drafted is making more than the coaches. In college you don't have that dynamic. That's the most important factor not whether they can choose their team or not.

That last question really doesn't make any sense. Does he have the same resume? If so then yes he's going to make that much money. You get so upset when kids choose Bama or other big time schools but isn't recruiting perhaps the largest aspect of being a college coach? Why should coaches who recruit well be punished just because you cheer for a non power school? Yes I'm aware I'm a MSU fan but trying to put a cap or control on where kids go or how many of these elite talent kids make 0 sense to me.

I get your point, but where does it end with coaching salaries & players not being paid? I do think that when you really think about it, we pay coaches more because we fear them leaving & the ramifications that would have on recruiting. I know that was easily my biggest fear with Mullen leaving.

Doesn't it at some level make sense to redistribute the money in college athletics from coaches to players? What is healthier for the future of the sport?

My motivation here isn't really to level the playing field, but to put some constraint on the finances.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I get your point, but where does it end with coaching salaries & players not being paid? I do think that when you really think about it, we pay coaches more because we fear them leaving & the ramifications that would have on recruiting. I know that was easily my biggest fear with Mullen leaving.

Doesn't it at some level make sense to redistribute the money in college athletics from coaches to players? What is healthier for the future of the sport?

My motivation here isn't really to level the playing field, but to put some constraint on the finances.

I totally agree with you on money distribution but it will never change. Players have no leverage. Also fans love this lie of amateur athletics. For some reason people go crazy when talk of college athletes getting paid. We know the overwhelming majority will side with the schools over the players. We see it every time there's a threat of a work stoppage in any pro sport. Regular every day joes side with the billionaire owners over the players every time.

[ShotgunDawg]

I totally agree with you on money distribution but it will never change. Players have no leverage. Also fans love this lie of amateur athletics. For some reason people go crazy when talk of college athletes getting paid. We know the overwhelming majority will side with the schools over the players. We see it every time there's a threat of a work stoppage in any pro sport. Regular every day joes side with the billionaire owners over the players every time.

There is a lot of truth here

[bulldawg28]

I totally agree with you on money distribution but it will never change. Players have no leverage. Also fans love this lie of amateur athletics. For some reason people go crazy when talk of college athletes getting paid. We know the overwhelming majority will side with the schools over the players. We see it every time there's a threat of a work stoppage in any pro sport. Regular every day joes side with the billionaire owners over the players every time.

Which is delusional in itself and a crab in a bucket mentality.

[TUSK]

I don't think players (especially those that are incapable) should be forced to go to college to get in the NFL... My first move would be to let athletes earn a living professionally if there is the demand for their services...

And to go a little deeper, is it the NFL Players Union that influences this in the CBA?

My point is, if we removed a lot to the 4 and 5* types that don't want to be in college anyway, wouldn't the end result solve a lot of the aforementioned issues???

Just spitballin', guys....

[bulldawg28]

I don't think players (especially those that are incapable) should be forced to go to college to get in the NFL... My first move would be to let athletes earn a living professional if there is the demand for their services...

And to go a little deeper, is it the NFL Players Union that influences this in the CBA?

My point is, if we removed a lot to the 4 and 5* types that don't want to be in college anyway, wouldn't the end result solve a lot of the aforementioned issues???

Just spitballin', guys....

I don't know if it would or not. The college experience has no comparison. Larger stadiums, crazier fans, getting girls with no problems and agendas, and overall better fans . Nothing compares to college

[TUSK]

I don't know if it would or not. The college experience has no comparison. Larger stadiums, crazier fans, getting girls with no problems and agendas, and overall better fans . Nothing compares to college

You make some good points, but the cats of which I'm speaking likely care more about being an instant millionaire than they would the college experience...

secondarily, in the bold/italics, you misspelled "unicorn".

[1bigdawg]

College football is not broken. It can and will go on.