Badgers Football 2019

[Samurai Bucky]

Just pay the players and give us the 8-game playoff that we deserve. Give each of them $50,000 to be in the playoff.

Don't they get about $50K in swag, anyway?

[owbc]

Just pay the players and give us the 8-game playoff that we deserve. Give each of them $50,000 to be in the playoff.

Don't they get about $50K in swag, anyway?

 

Yes, because "amateur athletics". I'm sure they would prefer cash...

[stalton]

Who does the weekly scheduling for college football? I feel like an early Buckeye/Badger game in the season would help both teams given how the ranking system works.

[tmwiese55]

The stuff gets all set in advance years ahead. Tough to plan things of that nature. In theory, they just did what you said with Mich, buuuut turns out maybe Mich isn't that good. Also have an opener with PSU not far down the line. By that logic you'd also want to move a bunch of late season rivalry games such as OSU/Mich and Bama/LSU. Really can't plan all that stuff years in advance so just have to randomize as much as possible. I'd say too the UW/OSU game this year is early enough that you'll have plenty of time to climb back up the rankings after a loss.

 

UW's schedule in spite of being very tough this year I think was laid out very well. First, two byes. Bye week before Mich. Then a Kent St game for semi bye in the middle of the longest stretch of games. Illinois a semi bye right before OSU (though Ill looks improved). Bye week before a tough stretch to end and right before physical games vs Iowa/Neb.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The SEC is masterful at scheduling - byes or creampuffs always right before marquee rivalry games, and one less conference game to keep teams propped up in the rankings with 1 fewer loss. Seems like the Big Ten may be attempting to match that up a bit.

 

Also, Alabama's schedule is a flipping JOKE this year. I get that they are talented and deserving of a high ranking, but they basically get a bye until going on the road to TX A&M October 12...then LSU and Auburn late in the season for quality opponents, it just sets up to keep Alabama close to the top 5 even if they lose to one of these teams and re-enter the conversation of a CFP candidate despite not even playing in its conference title game should LSU or Auburn knock them off.

 

I for one will be completely turned off seeing Clemson and Alabama in the CFP for like the 18th consecutive season even if they are deserving...

[tmwiese55]

Yes, SEC mastered the game theory on this years ago and everyone else is finally catching up including the B1G. Other conferences should be pressuring SEC to add the 9th conference game though just like almost everyone else has.

[Samurai Bucky]

Yes, SEC mastered the game theory on this years ago and everyone else is finally catching up including the B1G. Other conferences should be pressuring SEC to add the 9th conference game though just like almost everyone else has.

Clemson's toughest opponent is Texas A&M. There is no way they lose a game this season. Who else is on the docket that will give them a challenge?

[tmwiese55]

Yea the ACC is very weak right now after Clemson. FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Louisville all taking big steps back. Then throw in that Clemson I think misses Miami this year and doesn't get ND. I know Pac 12 gets ripped on due to not having a 'title' contender but really top to bottom ACC is worse. Pac 12 really only has one truly bad team most years in Oregon ST. As of now you have to call UCLA bad but that's not going to last.

[HiAndTight]

Which BTW is a perfect reason not to expand to a field of eight. The two semi final games were bloodbaths. What do you think quarterfinal games are going to look like?

 

Well, two of the extra teams last year would have been Georgia and Ohio State. Georgia played Alabama to a one score game, and Ohio State was fresh off a baby seal type clubbing of Michigan. Honestly, if either of those teams made the playoffs and won the whole thing, I wouldn't have been shocked. Those two teams were good enough to beat anyone on a given day. Hindsight is 20/20, but those two teams were better than Oklahoma or Notre Dame.

 

To me the semi final bloodbaths aren't an indication not to go to 8. They were an indication that the committee got it wrong when selecting the final 4, and hence maybe even an argument to go to 8.

 

An undefeated UCF would have been in the mix multiple years with a field of 8. They may have gotten clubbed by Bama in the opening round, but at least we would know for sure. Last year without their QB probably not the best example for them though.

 

To me the Power 5 conference champs should all have a shot to advance.

 

 

I think it was more an indication that there were really 3 elite teams last year and because of UGA losing to Alabama and only one SEC team getting in, the two Semi's were blowouts for that reason.

 

You probably 10 DL on each team who'd be 1st round picks, a few backs who'd end up going in the 1st, two QB's who will likely be back to back 1st overall picks. You're not going to find many more talented runner up's than 'Bama from last year and they got destroyed by Clemson.

 

So yeah, I think the top two were just that good.

[HiAndTight]

Which BTW is a perfect reason not to expand to a field of eight. The two semi final games were bloodbaths. What do you think quarterfinal games are going to look like?

 

Well, two of the extra teams last year would have been Georgia and Ohio State. Georgia played Alabama to a one score game, and Ohio State was fresh off a baby seal type clubbing of Michigan. Honestly, if either of those teams made the playoffs and won the whole thing, I wouldn't have been shocked. Those two teams were good enough to beat anyone on a given day. Hindsight is 20/20, but those two teams were better than Oklahoma or Notre Dame.

 

To me the semi final bloodbaths aren't an indication not to go to 8. They were an indication that the committee got it wrong when selecting the final 4, and hence maybe even an argument to go to 8.

 

An undefeated UCF would have been in the mix multiple years with a field of 8. They may have gotten clubbed by Bama in the opening round, but at least we would know for sure. Last year without their QB probably not the best example for them though.

 

To me the Power 5 conference champs should all have a shot to advance.

 

 

I think it was more an indication that there were really 3 elite teams last year and because of UGA losing to Alabama and only one SEC team getting in, the two Semi's were blowouts for that reason.

 

You probably 10 DL on each team who'd be 1st round picks, a few backs who'd end up going in the 1st, two QB's who will likely be back to back 1st overall picks. You're not going to find many more talented runner up's than 'Bama from last year and they got destroyed by Clemson.

 

So yeah, I think the top two were just that good.

[HiAndTight]

Just pay the players and give us the 8-game playoff that we deserve. Give each of them $50,000 to be in the playoff.

Don't they get about $50K in swag, anyway?

 

Yes, because "amateur athletics". I'm sure they would prefer cash...

 

 

I don't care what they'd prefer. Unless you want to limit College athletics to a handful of College BB teams, a chunk of CFB teams and then almost no other sports, you can't start paying players.

[HiAndTight]

Just pay the players and give us the 8-game playoff that we deserve. Give each of them $50,000 to be in the playoff.

Don't they get about $50K in swag, anyway?

 

Yes, because "amateur athletics". I'm sure they would prefer cash...

 

 

I don't care what they'd prefer. Unless you want to limit College athletics to a handful of College BB teams, a chunk of CFB teams and then almost no other sports, you can't start paying players.

[owbc]

I don't care what they'd prefer. Unless you want to limit College athletics to a handful of College BB teams, a chunk of CFB teams and then almost no other sports, you can't start paying players.

 

It would not affect other sports at all. Top football schools are literally swimming in extra athletics cash, spending tens of millions on all sorts of unnecessary stuff. Just the salaries of the coaches are absurd. They don't know what to do with all the money. And my proposal is paying players who have to play playoff games which is bonus money that didn't even exist a few years ago.

 

Many FBS schools lose money on their football programs and still manage to have other sports.

 

Anyway, I'm sorry for bringing this topic up again, it affects my enjoyment of CFB and I think about it all the time. No more from me on this.

[owbc]

I don't care what they'd prefer. Unless you want to limit College athletics to a handful of College BB teams, a chunk of CFB teams and then almost no other sports, you can't start paying players.

 

It would not affect other sports at all. Top football schools are literally swimming in extra athletics cash, spending tens of millions on all sorts of unnecessary stuff. Just the salaries of the coaches are absurd. They don't know what to do with all the money. And my proposal is paying players who have to play playoff games which is bonus money that didn't even exist a few years ago.

 

Many FBS schools lose money on their football programs and still manage to have other sports.

 

Anyway, I'm sorry for bringing this topic up again, it affects my enjoyment of CFB and I think about it all the time. No more from me on this.

[homer]

There are 10 college coaches that make over $6 million per year. There are coordinators making well over $1 million per year. The AD at Notre Dame makes $3million (Alvarez makes like $1.5 million). The B1G just signed a $2 billion with a B TV deal. There is plenty of money to pay athletes from revenue producing sports some kind of stipend.

 

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/highest-paid-college-coaches/

 

https://247sports.com/ContentGallery/Ranking-the-10-highest-paid-athletic-directors-in-college-sports-118239240/#118239240_10

[young guns]

NCAA protests California bill allowing college athletes to profit from endorsements - Los Angeles Times

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-college-athletes-endorsements-bill

 

Heard about this last week but forgot about till this conversation. This should just be a national law. Though it will be interesting to see how it effects recruitment once all the dust settles. Kinda laughable for the NCAA to call in unconstitutional. I dont recall anything in the constitution about student athletics.

[OnTheBlack]

I don't care what they'd prefer. Unless you want to limit College athletics to a handful of College BB teams, a chunk of CFB teams and then almost no other sports, you can't start paying players.

 

It would not affect other sports at all. Top football schools are literally swimming in extra athletics cash, spending tens of millions on all sorts of unnecessary stuff. Just the salaries of the coaches are absurd. They don't know what to do with all the money. And my proposal is paying players who have to play playoff games which is bonus money that didn't even exist a few years ago.

 

Many FBS schools lose money on their football programs and still manage to have other sports.

 

Anyway, I'm sorry for bringing this topic up again, it affects my enjoyment of CFB and I think about it all the time. No more from me on this.

 

 

Do you honestly believe this? This is absolutely 100 pct untrue. There is absolutely zero question it would impact other sports significantly. In fact, that's how they defend the large salaries, because the money they make not only goes back into the rest of the athletic departments, but also into the school.

 

And please list these schools that are "literally," swimming in extra cash?" Especially to the point where they "don't know what to do with it." You've got a small number of big time Division one programs that actually make a significant amount of money. The Badgers generate far more money than most and they couldn't afford to give their assistant football coaches modest raises. So out of 300+ Division one programs, you're talking about a small fraction of them.

 

Now I don't know which FBS schools lost money and still manage to have other sports, but there goes the paying the athletes right there. You start paying athletes, you're going to get virtually every top recruit going to a small pool of colleges, those athletic departments are going to losing even more money and you're going to have about 8-10 schools who can realistically compete on any level. The disparity between the Alabama/UGA/LSU's and the UW type schools is going to grow exponentially.

 

Now paying them..50K for making the playoffs, that wouldn't have a huge impact. But now you've set the precedent that you pay college athletes. Now there's no obstacles to paying them outright, not just for bowl games, but for regular season games.

 

And what do you pay kids? How many kids do you pay? All 105 that are on the roster in the off-season? The 120+ that many teams list during the season?

 

Yeah, it's gonna have a enormous impact on the ~500,000 student athletes.

[OnTheBlack]

There are 10 college coaches that make over $6 million per year. There are coordinators making well over $1 million per year. The AD at Notre Dame makes $3million (Alvarez makes like $1.5 million). The B1G just signed a $2 billion with a B TV deal. There is plenty of money to pay athletes from revenue producing sports some kind of stipend.

 

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/highest-paid-college-coaches/

 

https://247sports.com/ContentGallery/Ranking-the-10-highest-paid-athletic-directors-in-college-sports-118239240/#118239240_10

 

 

Yeah, I never said you couldn't afford to pay Football players and Basketball players(though the Mid-Majors and smaller schools wouldn't be able to in most cases).

 

I said you'd have to eliminate just about every other sports for both Men and Women.

 

Where do you think most of the money that they generate goes? Back into the Athletic Department and to the School. Even with the money from joining the Big 10 and the TV money, Rutgers athletic department had a 36 million dollar deficit. And that's a school that excels in many of the non-revenue sports.

 

There are virtually no Women's sports that generate money even right now. Schools like UConn, Tennessee. And they certainly wouldn't after you eliminate about 90 pct of the other Women's BB programs that don't generate money and wouldn't be able to compete.

 

And on the mens side, there are a handful or programs that make money as well. But again, if there are only 3 College Baseball programs making money and the rest can't afford to travel and compete, then there's not much money to be made for those 3 that are making money(I don't know if it's 3 or 8, but the point stands, very few make money).

 

So again, you can take the money they make and pay athletes...but you can't maintain the non-revenue sports. That's the trade off. College Athletics would just be CFB and CBB. And that'd be fine with most people. I understand that. But again, there are 300+(I think it's just under 350) schools with Division One programs. The vast-vast majority of them do not make money. Even most of the Power 5 schools aren't operating at a profit.

 

28 of the Power 5 Schools athletic departments are in the red. It'd be 29 without Phil Knight throwing that Nike money to Oregon.

 

So again, you'd basically be creating a situation where there are only a handful of Power 5 schools who can compete, but also you're eliminating every other sport for both Men and Women. Track and Field, Women's Basketball, Swimming, Wrestling, Baseball, Softball, Hockey...and on and on and on. In each case, there are a couple of sports that generate money. In baseball I think LSU might, in Track it's Oregon, again, Phil Knight, in Wrestling it's Iowa and Penn State, in Hockey it depends on the year, but it may be just a few teams.

 

 

So basically, if you want to pay College Athletes, you're going to end up with probably 20-25 programs that actually are able to compete and within that pool, you're going tilt the recruiting even more towards the programs like Texas, Alabama and the like. The "Blue Bloods." And that'd be pretty much it.

[tmwiese55]

Moreover the legality of paying men's athletes but not women's. Or other sports. Title 9 law complicates this much more than the average joe realizes.

 

Also, just a reminder they do pay them currently. They all get a stipend each semester for general walking around money. Simplest thing they can do to help kids out some more (keep in mind they just increased the stipend and added free food for all) is to simply increase that stipend a bit more. It doesn't mess up the entire system, it doesn't give them 'pro level' type money, it doesn't break the budgets everywhere. I can't' recall the number right now, but let's say it's 5K per semester, bump that up to 7K, something like that. Keep ahead of inflation. And I say that fully knowing that huge chunk of that money is going to be spent on video games, weed, tats, jewelry whatever stuff they don't need. I don't care, another big chunk will go to what it's actually for in letting them not live poor, be able to afford trips home, get a car, etc.

[Samurai Bucky]

The government would love for players to get paid. Why? Because of the taxes the players would have to pay. W2 (probably not a 1099 Miscellaneous)

 

Let's say they get paid -- they would become employees of the University, wouldn't they? How would that work with the transfer portal? Would they have to ask for their release?

 

Also, they would have to file a tax return in each state. If the only reason the athletes are at school is to play sports, do you think they really want to pay an accountant / tax advisor to help them with that?

 

So, let's say 50K. Take away probably 20K for taxes. How about agents? They will get their 5% or 10% cut.

[HiAndTight]

Yea the ACC is very weak right now after Clemson. FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Louisville all taking big steps back. Then throw in that Clemson I think misses Miami this year and doesn't get ND. I know Pac 12 gets ripped on due to not having a 'title' contender but really top to bottom ACC is worse. Pac 12 really only has one truly bad team most years in Oregon ST. As of now you have to call UCLA bad but that's not going to last.

 

 

It's been painful watching FSU just go from 18 straight years finishing in the top 4 to being awful. I mean, they were the dominant team in CFB for a couple decades. NeBraska would pop up or Miami, but it was always FSU right in there like 'Bama is now, then they just always missed a FG. I think they lost about 4 or 5 Titles by going wide left and then a wide right. Which is funny giving all the good NFL kickers that have come from FSU.

 

They still finish among the top 5 recruiting classes each year and Miami always has a ton of talent, but they can't seem to actually build a program. Even when Jumbo was there and they had that team that was so much better than everyone else, they still did everything they could in about half their games to lose it.

 

The ACC is brutal now though.

[HiAndTight]

Moreover the legality of paying men's athletes but not women's. Or other sports. Title 9 law complicates this much more than the average joe realizes.

 

Also, just a reminder they do pay them currently. They all get a stipend each semester for general walking around money. Simplest thing they can do to help kids out some more (keep in mind they just increased the stipend and added free food for all) is to simply increase that stipend a bit more. It doesn't mess up the entire system, it doesn't give them 'pro level' type money, it doesn't break the budgets everywhere. I can't' recall the number right now, but let's say it's 5K per semester, bump that up to 7K, something like that. Keep ahead of inflation. And I say that fully knowing that huge chunk of that money is going to be spent on video games, weed, tats, jewelry whatever stuff they don't need. I don't care, another big chunk will go to what it's actually for in letting them not live poor, be able to afford trips home, get a car, etc.

 

 

Title 9 has been great by in large, but it's also had unintended consequences for a lot of different Men's sports that they've just cut instead of adding Women's sports in order to maintain the ratio that they need to maintain.

 

But you're right, they can eat whenever they want to, even in non-revenue sports, you get all the free clothes, food, all the rest of the crap that people don't realize.

 

You've got to figure out if you want to appeal to the Ed Bannon's, or the couple of Duke/UK stars in CBB or the handful of big names in CFB or if you want to keep Student Athletes across the board. Is paying those few who the school IS obviously making money off of worth dismissing the 400-500,000 student athletes.

[homer]

We put a man on the moon. Figuring out how to pay a college athlete is not as difficult.

[MrTPlush]

So, let's say 50K. Take away probably 20K for taxes. How about agents? They will get their 5% or 10% cut.

 

Still sounds better than $0

[owbc]

Back to the football...love the aggressiveness on 4th down