While I think OSU will win this by 10 or so, I think this is one of the most intriguing B1G games in years. I would love to see Indiana win, and would particularly enjoy seeing OSU, Michigan and PSU all shut out of the title game after all the whining their fan bases did about the West Division having a team in that game before the great chaos was instituted this year.
OT: Indiana OSU
- Thread starter eastbaycat99
- Start date
At this point in the game we actually did better than Indiana is doing. Well into the third quarter they only have 68 yards of total offense and losing 28 to 7
It's the haves vs. the have-nots. Michigan's new $10M high school QB is being treated like royalty on the sidelines today. How do we compete against teams with NFL-like payrolls?
It really is stupid. Just make the NFL draft high school kids and send them to a minor league.
The top power 4 teams already are the NFL’s D league. Why would they spend many more millions creating new minor league teams, hiring staff, renting stadiums and marketing when OSU, Michigan, Bama etc are willing to spend that money already?
We should quit whining and raise some money. We get to start spending $20 million per year on player salaries next year, that penty enough to poor $10 million into our football team plus $8 million into building a really excellent basketball team.
Why on earth would the NFL pay for a minor league when it gets well-trained players for effectively zero cost?
Seems like most schools are going to ignore title IX for revenue sharing since it's a passthrough of the TV contract dollars. I am curious if the federal government or courts will change this, but it's been widely reported it's going to start like that at most places.
If we're at a point where womens teams are getting $10 million in direct cash payments for football TV contracts... that's just ****ing ridiculous, and frankly the players will find a way around it, like becoming direct parties to the contract.
I hope all the people who for years and years said "the payers should be paid" (and I am not talking about this board, it was all over the place, tons of message boards, sports talk radio, columnists, cable tv etc etc), I hope they are happy especially if they were fans of a team that isn't as big as OSU or Alabama! Congratulations about the new world of college football you pressured people to create.
OSU and Alabama were 10x better than Us before legal payments to players. Being paid hasn’t changed any of the pecking order.
Just saying the highest ranked teams now are very similar to who they were a decade ago. We don’t see Cal, Syracuse or NIU etc suddenly making a run at the Natty because players are paid. We need NIL to be competitive with this tier of teams not the historical blue bloods.
Wouldn’t it be disgusting if the players responsible for a $1.3 billion per year 12-game playoff weren‘t compensated?
I imagine we will see some changes, with players signing multi-year deals, or extended time until payments vest, or something of that nature. Of course, it may also be collusive depending on how it happens.
Time marches on.
Kain Colter was ahead of his time. Maybe if his unionization proposal had gone through, there’d be a more reasonable, regulated and equitable distribution of player payments and benefits, not $2 million/year.
The Genie is out of the bottle. The teams that got the best players 20 years ago are still the teams that get the best players. The pecking order sees little changes.
I think D1 splitting out to the have and have nots is inevitable. The question then becomes are the Haves the entire P4 or some subset of super teams? We are in far better shape than the Pitt’s, Iowa State’s and Wake forests of the world. NU should be in a financial position to get very good players. Think if we were NIU, South Dakota State or even Memphis.
If the goal is to be in the hunt for the Natty every year, we will be falling woefully short. However, as fans, we should expect nothing less than to be competitive with any team in the country. We didn’t lose last week 50-6 because of NIL or the transfer portal. We have to stop with the excuses and demand more from the AD, the Coaches and especially the Administrators of the school.
I am reminded of the women's national soccer team that was able to leverage the cultural wars into an equal share of the men's income. Do you really believe that at Northwestern it would be more than five minutes before there would be protests concerning the inequitable sharing of income? Women will get a proportionate share however that is defined.
Superior performance, name recognition, national stature, and endorsements = culture wars
OK Boomer.
I see we're still not trying to have a rational discussion.
How many of you folks would take time on a Saturday night to go watch a bunch of 19-23 year old guys play football against another bunch of guys - if it was the Diamond City Wildcats against the Beloit Maulers.
And yet most people here totally ignore the fact that their interest in minor league caliber football is out of loyalty to the university, not the players. I realize there are some exceptions. In other words, without the logo of the university, the vast majority of the players don't have much value.
How many of you folks would take time on a Saturday night to go watch a bunch of 19-23 year old guys play football against another bunch of guys - if it was the Diamond City Wildcats against the Beloit Maulers.
And yet most people here totally ignore the fact that their interest in minor league caliber football is out of loyalty to the university, not the players. I realize there are some exceptions. In other words, without the logo of the university, the vast majority of the players don't have much value.
Oh, I agree. College Football has been boring in that regard for quite some time. It was at least tolerable because we had things like the BIG West to care about and our lower level bowl games. I didn't care at all about the National Championship, personally. But now that we've pretty much gone to a semi-pro league with an expanded playoff, they should just go all the way and do away with the stupidity of Northwestern vs. Ohio State or even Indiana vs. Ohio State. IU is having the best season in the history of that school and they still got blown out by Ohio State. It's just silly to keep pretending these schools are playing the same game.
Yeah, that was a bad example. The USWNT is way better than the men in terms of outcomes and popularity.
It's a fair point, but the opposite argument is also true. Would average Joes be giving so much money to a university -- even their own -- if it weren't for these young men strapping it on every Saturday? Without the sports, there would be less donations - money through ticket sales - purchased wardrobes of purple -- TV dollars -- etc....
You're not making the opposite argument!
My argument is that the fan's interest is driven by loyalty is to the university, not the individual players.
The opposite argument would be that the players themselves drive the fan interest (which for 95% of the player is not true at all)
Your stated point is that if the sports were canceled, the university would lose some significant revenue sources.
And obviously that is true.
What is attempting to pass here as "discussion" is essentially "These teams are paying guys to play football for their franchise, so we need to pay guys to play for our franchise." Its about as deep as "My neighbor bought a Lamborghini, I'd better go buy a Lamborghini."
Last edited:
Oh no, thanks to NIL Northwestern cannot compete with Oregon, OSU, and Alabama! And we were SO competitive with Michigan before this!
Oh wait, no, we beat Michigan in our three Big Ten title years and beat them one other time, almost 20 years ago, since NINETEEN SIXTY FIVE.
I'm absolutely glad that in a world where Curt Cignetti gets like ten million a year thrown at him plus big bonuses for win achievements that his players are getting a taste. Starting next year the schools get to pay players directly and NU, as a part of the richest conference, gets to benefit from that just as much as the rest do.
100%. How much revenue have all the failed semipro/pro FB leagues generated (USFL, XFL etc) compared to college FB? How many NBA D league, minor league baseball or hockey games are even on TV? Nobody wants to see minor league football.
First of all..... what neighborhood do you live in?
Second of all... I thought you were arguing that players don't deserve to be paid because the university is the reason they are popular. I was just providing the counter-argument that the reason the university is so popular (or at least a big part of it) are those players. If I weren't still following NU sports, would I have any involvement still with my alma mater? Probably not much. I am not the Lamborghini driving kind of alum that makes a bunch of donations to their school. So, all the money I've given Northwestern after graduation has been through sports. That is true for a lot of alums I'd have to think.
Title IX has cost schools multi, multi millions of dollars every year. Women’s, almost entirely across the country lose millions and millions and generate nothing. Some women’s bbal and volleyball generate big crowds, but the ticket prices, little girls free, the rest of ticket prices range from $5 to $20 generate no where’s near the amount it costs to operate these women’s sports. If you are a real conservative, this millions of dollars in losses can’t be accepted. Just saying
Yep, but IU kicked your tails, and if we played each other again this week, it would be a repeat.
My Lamborghini analogy was only about the logic (not wealthy donors) - you could substitute anything.
The argument I dislike is - We need to pay the players because "they" are paying the players.
We need to buy a Lambo, because "they" are buying Lambos. We need to cover our entire house in Christmas lights because "they" are covering their houses in Christmas lights. I find that logic silly. Thats all I meant by that.
On the more interesting point - I think it is indisputable that nobody would care very much about watching Johnny Common play football, except for the fact that he is playing for Northwestern. I'd guess that 50% of NU's current undergrads couldn't name 10 players on the football team.
My argument is that players don't have a claim to the television revenue. The tv revenue is primarily a result of the Name and Image of the university - not the individual players. I can see paying them for their time, given the tv revenue. However, other students have time-consuming jobs that generate revenue for the university. But those kids with the work study jobs aren't getting their tuition and housing provided for $0, like the scholarship athletes do. So the athletes are already being paid, regardless of any attempt to obfuscate. And a scholarship to Northwestern is worth a lot more than a scholarship to Mississippi State.
First, if I ever do get back to a game sometime soon, I want to catch a ride with you in your car!
Second, I still would make the counterargument that the tv network is not paying these schools millions (billions) of dollars to watch their engineering students build a robot. They are paying them all that tv revenue because of the athletes on the field. It's sort of a chicken or egg argument we're having at this point.
Euro, this day was inevitable, and had little to do with sports pundits and their puffery. It started with Ed O'Bannon, who rightfully sued the NCAA to be compensated for use of his personal likeness. It accelerated with ESPN and our national insatiable appetite for college football. In that sense, you are as guilty as any of us, as we have all tuned in for MOAR college football.
So we can yell at the clouds, or we can embrace uncertainty as opportunity, and tolerate the ugliness of this creative destruction. But we must ask ourselves, would life be any better if the NCAA were still kings of this kingdom? I don't think so.
The NCAA hasn't been in charge of college football for awhile now - ever since the 1984 Supreme Court decision to strip the NCAA of its television negotiation monopoly. The current (unsustainable) chaos is simply the result of having no regulatory authority.
In fact, it is easy to argue that the universities (and their biggest donors) have been running college football for 40 years - and the NCAA is just a scapegoat - essentially a whipping boy for the abuses carried out by the universities.
The NCAA has more control over basketball, because it runs the NCAA tournament and that generates a lot of revenue. But football is in the hands of the schools and the conferences.
This guy presents an interesting perspective (and he ultimately disagrees with me on some things)
The NCAA: A history, its fall, and how it can be rebuilt. | mgoblog
There is one wonderfully consistent trend on this blog...the universal hatred of the NCAA.While I have stated the NCAA in its current state is a horrible organization, I also think a better understanding of its history would be helpful in explaining why it acts the way it does now. For those who...
There are healthy foreign leagues in basketball and hockey where talented players can make a good living.
Similar threads
