2019 Miscellaneous college football news

[LouisEly]

Please save the Badgers thread for Badgers-related stuff.

 

Paying athletes... weak ACC... etc., etc.

[homer]

Clemson in a dogfight with UNC...tied in the 4th.

[MrTPlush]

Clemson in a dogfight with UNC...tied in the 4th.

 

I thought that TD was going to put them down...but they are fighting back with a absolutely amazing drive late.

[MrTPlush]

Man, UNC really blew the end of that. Went for two, failed. Perfect Onside kick, fail to get loose ball.

[tmwiese55]

Was going to look up the status of Nebraska's QB this week and came to realize that in spite of being 5-0 MN is still not technically ranked in the top 25. I know how flukey their wins have been, but just the nature of being undefeated I thought they'd have squeaked in by now. I bet the Napoleon type complex of most MN fans has them all whining about this right now and how disrespectful it is, on and on.

 

Generally speaking, I guess it's good for UW for them to have an inflated record for when we play them later. Though it really doesn't matter, all of UW's hopes come down to making and winning the title game with at most 1 loss. BUt, I also think it would be funny for MN to put up a fluky say 9-3 type year and have Fleck row his boat right out of there.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The Gophers' schedule does them a ton of favors this year. They probably should be 3-2 or even 2-3, and they still really have played nobody and won't for another month. The first 1/2 of their big ten schedule should guarantee them an 8-0 start, as their next 3 are a Husker team likely without its QB at home, then Rutgers and Maryland. Plus, their 2 big ten wins against bad Purdue and Illinois teams were made much easier after they knocked their opponent's starting QB from the game. Some of that is due to their play, sure...but it's still pretty lucky.

 

Gopher fans up here aren't too insufferable - yet...guessing after they reach 8-0 and they aren't cracking the top 15 they'll be hyping their team up relentlessly until Penn State comes into town and promptly demolishes them. Their last 4 conference games are home against PSU, at Iowa, at NW, and home against Wisky. They don't have to play anyone worth a darn in the Big Ten east aside from PSU, so they should wind up with a really good record despite likely being a marginally good team. They'll likely wind up getting into a bowl game they have no business being in and get destroyed by an SEC club.

[lcbj68c]

https://www.wisn.com/article/badgers-athletic-director-wont-schedule-california-teams-after-new-law/29313166?fbclid=IwAR1_VysETvM382UZaMhlFV5hGrjz2VEP0TEBWojTGMXZ-toGXbODps1Lhxk

 

This article is about 9 days old, but I haven't seen any specific discussion here on it, but forgive me if I missed it.

 

At face value, I'll be honest that I don't quite understand the nuances of the law, but I don't like Mr. Alvarez's staunch line in the sand here. Wouldn't this affect Wisconsin Football from playing in the Rose Bowl or other bowl games? Seemingly, players could then be paid for appearances out there or other marketing efforts for those games? Could this affect Wisconsin Basketball from playing in NCAA tournament games, including any Final Fours held out there because the Athletic Director or the University is afraid to compensate players for things done in California? I'm just concerned that players would earn opportunities to play in a Rose Bowl and they decline to go over this matter.

 

I understand the article to mean that Alvarez won't book any games with California schools...but if an invite to play UCLA or USC in the Rose Bowl happens...or heck, even Utah in California, what's the difference?

[olliegjw]

https://www.wisn.com/article/badgers-athletic-director-wont-schedule-california-teams-after-new-law/29313166?fbclid=IwAR1_VysETvM382UZaMhlFV5hGrjz2VEP0TEBWojTGMXZ-toGXbODps1Lhxk

 

 

 

I understand the article to mean that Alvarez won't book any games with California schools...but if an invite to play UCLA or USC in the Rose Bowl happens...or heck, even Utah in California, what's the difference?

 

Wouldn't the California schools be banned from bowl games/NCAA tournament? Or at least any players that took money. This is a California law. It has no bearing on the NCAA rules.

[jerichoholicninja]

https://www.wisn.com/article/badgers-athletic-director-wont-schedule-california-teams-after-new-law/29313166?fbclid=IwAR1_VysETvM382UZaMhlFV5hGrjz2VEP0TEBWojTGMXZ-toGXbODps1Lhxk

 

 

 

I understand the article to mean that Alvarez won't book any games with California schools...but if an invite to play UCLA or USC in the Rose Bowl happens...or heck, even Utah in California, what's the difference?

 

Wouldn't the California schools be banned from bowl games/NCAA tournament? Or at least any players that took money. This is a California law. It has no bearing on the NCAA rules.

 

Even though the state law may allow college players to be compensated for some things, the NCAA is going to destroy any players (and probably also their schools) that do so making the whole thing irrelevant for now. I do look forward to the years of legal battles this is going to lead to before the NCAA finally gives in/loses and at least allows players to profit from their own name.

[tmwiese55]

It's probably the simplest thing to try and allow as at least the money would be coming from elsewhere and not complicating title 9, other non revenue sports, etc. The biggest hurdle is going to be legislating in some way at the recruiting stage if possible. If not, well I guess you just have to accept how awful a system that will entail of funneling 'advertising' money from some booster to the kids. Then again, it's not like it's any less shady now being done behind the scenes. It's kind of like legalizing gambling/weed in that at least it comes to the surface to be regulated in some fashion.

[lcbj68c]

https://www.wisn.com/article/badgers-athletic-director-wont-schedule-california-teams-after-new-law/29313166?fbclid=IwAR1_VysETvM382UZaMhlFV5hGrjz2VEP0TEBWojTGMXZ-toGXbODps1Lhxk

 

 

 

I understand the article to mean that Alvarez won't book any games with California schools...but if an invite to play UCLA or USC in the Rose Bowl happens...or heck, even Utah in California, what's the difference?

 

Wouldn't the California schools be banned from bowl games/NCAA tournament? Or at least any players that took money. This is a California law. It has no bearing on the NCAA rules.

 

I'm more interested in dialogue on Alvarez's position not to play schools from or in California and it's impact on bowl games and tournaments. Thoughts?

[young guns]

Doesnt it just say he wont SCHEDULE any games with California teams? I assume post season games would be exempt from this statement.

 

Let's say this law went into effect today, just to keep what I'm sure will be further legal battles out of the equation, a star USC player signs an endorsement deal. He is now in violation of of NCAA rules, so the NCAA punishes him, I'm guessing by ruling him ineligible to play further. I haven't read the new law, but I'm guessing the punishment would violate this law somehow?

 

Who supersedes who here? Since the NCAA is a national member organization, do their bylaws take precedence or does the law nullify that in California?

[jerichoholicninja]

Who supersedes who here? Since the NCAA is a national member organization, do their bylaws take precedence or does the law nullify that in California?

 

This is where the lawyers will make their money. And they are going to make a killing.

[MadThinker88]

When I saw the full AP poll today, I nearly bust a gut ....

Notice #19 & #21....

 

AP Top 25

Rank Team Points W-L

1 Alabama 1,486 7-0

2 LSU 1,462 7-0

3 Ohio State 1,429 7-0

4 Clemson 1,408 7-0

5 Oklahoma 1,343 7-0

6 Penn State 1,224 7-0

7 Florida 1,138 7-1

8 Notre Dame 1,058 5-1

9 Auburn 1,054 6-1

10 Georgia 1,031 6-1

11 Oregon 979 6-1

12 Utah 852 6-1

13 Wisconsin 767 6-1

14 Baylor 732 7-0

15 Texas 627 5-2

16 SMU 587 7-0

17 Minnesota 577 7-0

18 Cincinnati 468 6-1

19 Michigan 440 5-2

20 Iowa 347 5-2

21 App State 286 6-0

 

Oh if they had been reversed....

[tmwiese55]

When I saw the full AP poll today, I nearly bust a gut ....

Notice #19 & #21....

 

AP Top 25

Rank Team Points W-L

1 Alabama 1,486 7-0

2 LSU 1,462 7-0

3 Ohio State 1,429 7-0

4 Clemson 1,408 7-0

5 Oklahoma 1,343 7-0

6 Penn State 1,224 7-0

7 Florida 1,138 7-1

8 Notre Dame 1,058 5-1

9 Auburn 1,054 6-1

10 Georgia 1,031 6-1

11 Oregon 979 6-1

12 Utah 852 6-1

13 Wisconsin 767 6-1

14 Baylor 732 7-0

15 Texas 627 5-2

16 SMU 587 7-0

17 Minnesota 577 7-0

18 Cincinnati 468 6-1

19 Michigan 440 5-2

20 Iowa 347 5-2

21 App State 286 6-0

 

Oh if they had been reversed....

 

Well, Mich plays ND this week. So a very tough game and probably a 50/50 game. App ST I'd assume plays an easy W. So, next week that very well could happen.

[MadThinker88]

Another Meatchicken loss this weekend & I doubt they are in the top 25. 3 losses (even if to Wisc/ PSU/ ND) should have them outside looking in..

Really is fun with both teams listed in the top 25 (& App St ahead of Meatchicken)...

[MrTPlush]

Another Meatchicken loss this weekend & I doubt they are in the top 25. 3 losses (even if to Wisc/ PSU/ ND) should have them outside looking in..

Really is fun with both teams listed in the top 25 (& App St ahead of Meatchicken)...

 

This didn’t age well. Looks like Meatchicken and App St will be ahead of Wisconsin.

[young guns]

Saw that the ncaa voted to allow athletes to profit from their names and likenesses. Not sure when it goes into effect. [sarcasm]Who will Barry schedule now?[/sarcasm]

[LouisEly]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-clears-way-athletes-profit-names-images-likenesses

 

Looks like the goal is January, 2021. Raises some interesting questions about when they will receive the money (while in school, or not until after they graduate) and what sources are eligible. I would think there would have to be regulations on promotions and advertising, but they definitely get a cut of jersey sales.

 

Also... if the university chooses certain players over others for promotions, would that create a riff among players not chosen?

[HiAndTight]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-clears-way-athletes-profit-names-images-likenesses

 

Looks like the goal is January, 2021. Raises some interesting questions about when they will receive the money (while in school, or not until after they graduate) and what sources are eligible. I would think there would have to be regulations on promotions and advertising, but they definitely get a cut of jersey sales.

 

Also... if the university chooses certain players over others for promotions, would that create a riff among players not chosen?

 

My first thought is this is going to make it a lot easier for schools like Texas and A&M, Arkansas, the schools with boosters just throwing money at the Football program to pay players for promotional events.

 

I think this is just the first step to a pretty significant change to college athletics and I don't think it's going to end up producing more parity(there can't be much less). And it'll likely hurt other athletics.

 

But it's happening. We'll have to see how it works out.

[jerichoholicninja]

Whatever ends the charade of "amateur" in college sports is fine with me.

[JimH5]

The NCAA isn't doing this out of benevolence. They are still trying to maintain control of something they have no right to control.

 

https://hrealsports.substack.com/p/the-ncaa-isnt-surrendering-on-athlete

[MrTPlush]

It may dramatically change college athletics, may make them worse, and may make parity worse. That being said it needs to happen, stop taking advantage of kids completely. Stop making poor kids/parents take horrendous under the table contracts that tie them to a shoe company with terrible terms for years. What gets lost in a lot of the deals where kids get $50k is it isn't just to go to a school. It usually forces them into a promise to stay with that shoe company when they go pro and forces them to sign with a specific agent. All likely costing them way more than that measly $50k. It is no coincidence many players stick with the shoe company they wore in college.

 

Also this has nothing to do with getting a piece of the pie when it comes to the money universities make. You won't see a Jonathan Taylor jersey being sold because the NCAA has already said they want nothing to do with the players making money. So no, the players won't be getting part of jersey sales etc. This simply allows them to not be under communist control when it comes to their own person/image. It is kind of crazy the rules athletes are put under. Even at the lower divisions in the NCAA kids are ripped apart for every little thing.

 

Not sure how this will actually work in reality though. It is not very clear what is or isn't allowed.

[JimH5]

It may dramatically change college athletics, may make them worse, and may make parity worse. That being said it needs to happen, stop taking advantage of kids completely. Stop making poor kids/parents take horrendous under the table contracts that tie them to a shoe company with terrible terms for years. What gets lost in a lot of the deals where kids get $50k is it isn't just to go to a school. It usually forces them into a promise to stay with that shoe company when they go pro and forces them to sign with a specific agent. All likely costing them way more than that measly $50k. It is no coincidence many players stick with the shoe company they wore in college.

 

Also this has nothing to do with getting a piece of the pie when it comes to the money universities make. You won't see a Jonathan Taylor jersey being sold because the NCAA has already said they want nothing to do with the players making money. So no, the players won't be getting part of jersey sales etc. This simply allows them to not be under communist control when it comes to their own person/image. It is kind of crazy the rules athletes are put under. Even at the lower divisions in the NCAA kids are ripped apart for every little thing.

 

Not sure how this will actually work in reality though. It is not very clear what is or isn't allowed.

 

The NCAA still wants to be one to say what's allowed, while the recent California law makes no such deference. This matter isn't over, and it's not going to be up to the NCAA to decide.

[nodakfan17]

FSU fires Willie Taggert and they still owe him over $20 million. How do you explain that one to your Board?