College Sports (Football)

#153      

He's also the same guy that scolded everyone when it was suggested Feagin wasn't a RB. Quite a marginal track record he has....

In general, I'll say it again, the bulk of college football programs aren't going anywhere. They will continue to compete against either other, albeit, somewhat unlevel playing field......the way it's always been.

More teams will have the opportunity to continue their season beyond a 1 game bowl. Bowls will continue.

Players will continue to get paid, like you and I do, via a 1099 (or similar).

Congress will make a token effort, maybe.

A super league (say 40 teams or less) will NOT happen.

We will all continue to pay more. Both watching on TV and attending games in person.
 
#154      
What would that even mean practically speaking? The B1G and SEC in a super league that only plays one another?

The way this process gets fans to embrace dystopia is horrific, and make no mistake, the mechanics under which this is unsustainable for Kansas will swallow Illinois too, and Ohio State and Texas too in their due time.

"Unsustainable" is an overused word, but this is the dictionary definition.
I personally think the funny thing about using the word "unsustainable" in these circumstances is that it makes it seem as though the old status quo was "sustainable" which is demonstrably false in that it was literally unable to be sustained.

I don't even think there has ever been such a thing as stability for college sports. The entire venture has been in a state of flux from the beginning, because the traditional notion of student athletics has always been in tension with the fact that people care deeply about athletic competition and want to win, and some of those people have vast resources and a great deal of school pride. This isn't new stuff. In the 1890s, Hall of Famer Walter Camp, the "Father of American Football," operated a secret $100k slush fund, funded by alumni, to pay Yale's star football players (btw, the CPI inflation calculator only goes back to 1913, but as a rough comparison, $100k in January 1913 equals approximately $3.4 million today).

It's been unsustainable for coming up on 200 years now. This is just a new kind of unsustainability.
 
Back