https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/co...100508944.html
I could see this being a hit with the top 200 recruits
Printable View
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/co...100508944.html
I could see this being a hit with the top 200 recruits
Yep, I could see it making the NCAA a much different league. If the blue chips don't come to the traditional powers, they are gonna have to do a lot more evaluating players and it could really level the playing field.
I think it will damage the NCAA, but will provide a great opportunity for great players that hate high school algebra.
I am all for it. It may make the NCAA return a little towards student athletes.
This could be either good or bad for the student athlete.
Bad because this sounds like a recipe for this discouragement of high school kids to do well in school to become eligible. How many kids with "hoop dreams" did nothing because they thought they were going straight to the pros after HS.
On the other side I could see this forcing the NCAA to compensate or financially protect student athletes more.
It absolutely will not work, but I am all for it. We need to put the "college" back in to college athletics. There are A LOT, and by A LOT I mean a shit ton, of NCAA football players that have no business being anywhere near a college campus.
I'm all for it if it's financially viable. That's been the problem with every alternative league. It has to make money. Maybe by limiting geography and teams it will constrain costs, but by limiting the age of these kids and the play calling, you are also limiting the competitive nature of the game, which is why people watch games.
I've always thought an off-season league comprised of teams in small southern markets without pro teams (Memphis, Jackson, Birmingham, Little Rock, Chattanooga, Greenville (SC)) might have a chance of being successful if you managed costs and made sure education was part of the package. I think the key is that it has to be competitive and entertaining. Nobody wants to go watch a bunch of bonehead DII athletes practice.
You also have to compensate according to value to pull in guys that might otherwise choose college or the stars are going to just take their benefits to sign with Bama or whoever. You aren't going to out pay the big boys. The total scholarship + extra benefits from boosters is a lot more than $50K.
This will destroy the NCAA game as we know it. Which might not be a bad thing since it will definitely affect the Bamas, OSUs, FSUs, etc. moreso than the middle tier. I think it brings parity back as a good majority of the blue chippers will prefer this route to college. And with only 200 players in the league (4 teams, 50 man rosters), it does limit the effects on the college game... That is until this starts making a lot of money and they add 10 more teams and completely destroy college football for everyone.
There is no way in hell it will work. The article itself even mentions that the games will be played at local DIII stadiums as opposed to a larger venue, meaning they aren't anticipating much fan interest. Then they mentioned that a premium will be placed on getting everyone on the field to get them on tape and that most fans probably won't care about the final scores of the games. Great recipe there for people to tune in. There is a $2.5 million annual payroll for teams just for salary (not even including the workers comp, tuition reimbursement, etc) and absolutely no tangible revenue stream to produce that money.
And lets just go ahead and address the elephant in the room, $50,000 per year in Southern California is shit, and most all these kids get equal or greater amounts than that from booster inducements (at least the ones with NFL potential that would qualify for this league). Just a bad idea all the way around, which I hate to say because it would help the MSU's of the college football world.
I agree that it will hurt the Alabama's, Ohio States, Michigan's of the world, but where do you think they will then turn to get their players? If Alabama loses 4 players of their 25 that they wanted, then they would just come after 4 from the MSU's, OM's, Arkansas of the world. Don't think it wouldn't affect us too.
Personally, I don't want Ala, LSU, Ga to start looking at what's on our plate any more than they do.
Jackson had a semi pro team in I think 98 99 timeframe. Jackson doesn't support its sports teams. Hell even the M-Braves have one of the lowest attendance figures in the Southern League.Quote:
Originally Posted by codeDawg
Sure we'd loose a couple to Bama, but the juggernaut programs would be crushed without the top 200 players and it would vastly level the playing field. In 2013, there were 387 4*+. Take 200 of those out, and teams like Bama aren't fielding 4* players on the 3 deep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy Chucklelips
This thing wouldn't get the top 200 players. It would only get the ones that can't make it into school. It has zero chance of working unless the NFL backs it financially 100%. This is basically juco without the school. How much would you pay to go see that? I would pay about $2 if beer was free, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnodawg
This has total clusterf@ck written all over it.
I don't doubt it will be a complete flop. Just saying if they did start a minor league with enough money to pull in the top recruits, it would hurt the big boys more.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimberBeast
There is no way this will make money but if someone wants to pump a lot of money into it at first it could last long enough to change college football by accelerating the paying of players in college. My guess is that the league never really gets off the ground.
They make more money going to a p5 school.
Won't be a fly on the windshield of college football, much less make a dent.
The quickest way to kill college football is to pay the players. I hope that never happens because it is a great sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by LC Dawg