BCS

[The Leaper]

Is it more probable that they would go for an 8 team playoff or a 16 team playoff? Let the debate rage. It's encouraging that the BCS coordinator (also the SEC Commish) has said that they would entertain thoughts of a possible playoff format when the current agreement expires. It will be interesting to see if it stays status quo or changes. Whatever happens will have to be a hybrid of the polls and bowls system and a playoff. If you're going to marry the two, you're going to need compromise. Existing infrastrure and will to do something is going to be key.

It will need to be a 16 game playoff if it goes to a playoff format. The powers that be won't go for a playoff to begin with...but if they ever do, they will only do what will bring in the greatest possible $$$$$$$$$.

Clearly, a 16 game playoff has a far greater chance for $$$$$$$$ than an 8 team playoff. Also, as I mentioned before, and 8 team playoff is too small when you have a division comprised of 11 separate conferences and one very aggressive independent.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The six BCS conferences currently monopolize 95% of the pie.

If they go to a 16 team playoff system, they'll have to share the pie with the other schools. They don't want to do this, even if the pie is bigger.

That is precisely correct Harv.

Okay, Bretsky.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the NCAA can do a 16 team playoff in a lesser division...where there are still college athletes playing games on four weekends in December, through finals, through the holidays

ya, they can do it, but is this really a good idea?

There are four or five parties with conflicting interests: The BCS schools (& BCS sponsors), the non-BCS schools, the fans, and the athletes.

You can say the selfish BCS schools are currently ignoring the interests of the fans, true enough. But you advocate a solution favorable to the fans and non-BCS schools that ignores the interests of the athletes! Is this more ethical?

12 games is a long enough season for college students; in fact it is a grind if they are trying to be real students.
Asking them to play a 16 game season (even if it is just a couple teams) is too much.

A 4-team playoff strikes a proper balance. Try that for a few years.

I'd be more open to a 16-team playoff if players were compensated better, I don't like the current exploitation. My suggestion is to offer athletes lifetime free tuition to increase their eduational possibilities. Make freshmen year ineligible so they can get basic academic grounding, insure every athlete has highschool-level math and english skills. That will help them with college work, or be good preparation for vocational training if neither college or pro sports works out for them.

[The Leaper]

I'd be more open to a 16-team playoff if players were compensated better, I don't like the current exploitation.

The guys at major universities get a $1500 a month stipend on top of a free ride through school. Their locker rooms have a dozen plasma TVs. They stay in 4 and 5 star hotels. Their life is one of luxury and privilege.

Sure, colleges make a lot of money on the backs of these kids...no argument there. I think it is very unfair...that is why I hate the greedy bastards running the NCAA and wish fans would stand up to them.

It is hardly exploitation though. The NCAA is giving them the means to display their talent and potentially earn millions in the NFL someday.

[The Leaper]

12 games is a long enough season for college students; in fact it is a grind if they are trying to be real students.

What is the ratio of players who are grinding to be real students on teams with the capacity of gunning for the national championship?

5%? Even less?

Harlan, your argument is dumb. The kids playing football who ARE real students are the ones who already utilize a 16 team playoff already, which is planning on being expanded to 24. They have time to do it, so why can't Michigan and USC do it?

Claiming additional games is going to "hurt the academics of real students" is one of the most ridiculous positions I've ever heard. Those kids hardly do any schoolwork as it is. They are PE majors with 8 tutors to do their homework for them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The guys at major universities get a $1500 a month stipend on top of a free ride through school.

This a hoot. You think athletes get $1500/month spending money!? Is this for the football players, volleyball players, swimmers - all the scholarship athletes?

The poor athletes have a real problem with spending money because they are barred from working. They typically can't afford to travel home for holidays. You are misinformed.

Their locker rooms have a dozen plasma TVs. They stay in 4 and 5 star hotels. Their life is one of luxury and privilege

I think this is, again, laughable. But even if they have these physical comforts, it doesn't help them in the long run. I'm not suggesting that athletes needs to be provided with more money or comforts.

Sure, colleges make a lot of money on the backs of these kids

I don't mind that the college make money from football/basketball. Except for some excessive salaries for coaches, the money goes to good purposes.

It is hardly exploitation though. The NCAA is giving them the means to display their talent and potentially earn millions in the NFL someday.

Many of the athletes hope to be pros, but in reality only a tiny percentage make it. In most cases, the colleges are not making an all-out effort to provide for the future of the athletes, they use them and discard them when their eligibility runs out. This is exploitation. The colleges can do better, I decribed a couple ways.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Claiming additional games is going to "hurt the academics of real students" is one of the most ridiculous positions I've ever heard. Those kids hardly do any schoolwork as it is. They are PE majors with 8 tutors to do their homework for them.

There's a mixture. About half the players are serious students who complete degrees.

But lets assume your theory that they are all PE majors who don't do their own homework. This situation seems to be acceptable to you. You are not bothered by the fact that only a tiny percentage will be able to make a living off their athletic skills.

This is exploitation. It doesn't have to be this way.

[The Leaper]

This a hoot. You think athletes get $1500/month spending money!?

I'm talking about football players from major college programs...ones that we are referring to in this argument. It is indeed a fact that these players get a reasonable amount for expenses. I know for a fact that kids on a full ride at Ohio State get roughly $1500 a month for expenses. That is a pretty nice chunk of coin. No, you can't live like an NFL player on it.

However, Harlan...how many poor college students don't get free rides through school? How many poor college students don't get a $1500 check every month? Don't sit here and whine about how bad a football player at a Big 6 conference university has it. Most other college students in the United States have it far worse.

I think this is, again, laughable. But even if they have these physical comforts, it doesn't help them in the long run. I'm not suggesting that athletes needs to be provided with more money or comforts.

Read Rick Reilly's take on the comparison of the life of an OSU football player to a homeless guy in Columbus in a recent SI magazine. Tell me again how the life of an OSU football player is such a trying, impossible life...or how laughable it is to know that a soup kitchen in Columbus on a budget of $250,000 annually, which is the cost OSU utilizes to support THREE scholarship basketball players. $80,000 a year is spent on ONE SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETE.

You clearly have no idea just how good these guys have it. Again, I'm not talking about kids playing at Morehead State here. I'm talking about the BIG TIME PROGRAMS. The programs who would be potentially involved in a playoff.

Many of the athletes hope to be pros, but in reality only a tiny percentage make it. In most cases, the colleges are not making an all-out effort to provide for the future of the athletes, they use them and discard them when their eligibility runs out. This is exploitation. The colleges can do better, I decribed a couple ways.

Do better how? Are you saying great athletic ability should somehow be a ticket to a free ride through life? These kids all earn a FREE RIDE THROUGH COLLEGE...and not some community college, but a university that is respected world-wide. It gives them a chance to get out of the impoverished lifestyle you are claiming they are in.

I'm sorry. I just don't see how scholarship athletes at major universities have it tough. Some parts of their lives are unfair, especially when you compare sport to sport...but on the whole, they are living pretty good if you ask me. Looking at the glass half empty is the wrong approach to take in my book.

[The Leaper]

There's a mixture. About half the players are serious students who complete degrees.

Which half of the LSU or OSU roster is there aiming to complete a degree?

[The Leaper]

But lets assume your theory that they are all PE majors who don't do their own homework. This situation seems to be acceptable to you. You are not bothered by the fact that only a tiny percentage will be able to make a living off their athletic skills.

This is exploitation. It doesn't have to be this way.

How is it exploitation?

The kid with shit for brains is getting a free college degree. Who else with shit for brains is getting a free college education?

If they aren't smart enough to take advantage of that and use it to his or her advantage, what is the NCAA supposed to do? The NCAA is giving them an opportunity to learn and advance themselves as a person if they work at it. A college degree is the stepping stone to becoming a productive member of society.

However, the NCAA can't force anyone to have the determination to work though. If they squander what they've been given, it is no one's fault but their own.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How is it exploitation?

The kid with shit for brains is getting a free college degree. Who else with shit for brains is getting a free college education?

They typically are getting neither a degree or an education. You just got done arguing this yourself. This is wrong.

The NCAA is giving them an opportunity to learn and advance themselves as a person if they work at it. ?

The devil is in the details. In theory they are providing them with educational opportunity, but in practice it is not so. Making a longer football season just makes matters worse. The colleges can make some changes to provide better opportunites for the athletes. I've offered my ideas, but you don't recognize that there is a problem, so it's not surprising that you've given no thought to my suggestions.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do better how? Are you saying great athletic ability should somehow be a ticket to a free ride through life?

My specific suggestions were to give them lifetime free tuition so they can return to school if they choose. And focus on academic work during their freshman year so they are better prepared for school/life.

These are not pie-in-the-sky ideas.

I recognize (as you should too) that not every athlete is college material. Fine. But give them a basic education. This will help them in Tech School, or some other training, after their football careers. And then again, many will be able to benefit from college. I'm just suggesting give them more educational opportunities, on a practical level. Colleges are clearly not doing enough now, it is exploitation.

[The Leaper]

They typically are getting neither a degree or an education. You just got done arguing this yourself. This is wrong.

So whose fault is it that someone going to college doesn't earn their degree? The college?

The bottom line is that kids in major college programs on football scholarships live a life few will get to experience.

Are there ways the NCAA could provide more to these players? Sure. Is it exploitation when a kid doesn't take advantage of a golden opportunity to obtain a 4 year degree from a prestigious university based on his athletic ability that gets him in the door? I don't think so.

[The Leaper]

In theory they are providing them with educational opportunity, but in practice it is not so.

So whose fault is it? You are honestly claiming it is the fault of the university for students that don't have the desire or work ethic to graduate? People are responsible for their own actions...and any football player on a free ride at a major football power has the responsibility to make the best of their individual situation.

It certainly is not the responsibility of the NCAA to ensure they succeed...just as it is not the responsibility of the NCAA to ensure that any other student succeeds. I agree the NCAA should try harder to help students succeed, or explore other avenues to achieve success...but that doesn't mean they are exploiting anyone.

[Harlan Huckleby]

In theory they are providing them with educational opportunity, but in practice it is not so.

So whose fault is it? You are honestly claiming it is the fault of the university for students that don't have the desire or work ethic to graduate? People are responsible for their own actions...

There is responsibility with both parties. The university has to provide an environment where athletes, often with poor preparation, are able to get some educational value, even if they aren't degree bound. The student has to take advantage of the opportunity.

Your view of the situation at football factories is that the athletes typically don't do any academic work, just get passed along. Total corruption. How can you just accept this situation, and absolve the university of any responsibility for changing the environment?

There are some concrete steps schools can take so that athletes get more benefit from school, even for athletes who aren't focused on a 4-year college degree. The current system too often uses and discards the players, a disgusting abuse of young people.