My brother, a local attorney and sports writer, told me that he feels the corruption of college football by money is related to the fact that there is no minor league for professional football. The problem with college football (and to some extent basketball with the rare Kobe, Lebron, like exceptions) is that there is no minor league for high school students to choose when they want to just get to work and make some money at their chosen sport rather than get a college education,. In the other big money sports, (baseball, hockey, soccer, tennis, golf) there are no barriers to going pro to make some money right away if that is your interest instead of further schooling.
Would a minor league for pro football reduce the corruption of college footbal by money?
If you're really worried about money as an 18 year old star recruit, why not go to the CFL? Are there restrictions?
I don't think there are. I also think you can go to the AFL or whatever league Maurice Clarett is in right now. The problem is visibility, a little like going to play basketball in Europe or Israel or whatever. The NFL knows the best competition comes from the BCS conferences and thus will put the biggest amount of money into players from there.
You only have to be 3 years removed from HS to be drafted, that's the only requirement. You can go to the CFL, but all the best talent is going to college, so it would just hurt your stock. Essentially, you'd be playing for a non AQ school while the best prospects are playing for the USC's, Michigan's, OSU's, Florida's of he world.
Actually, and I went to edit this after you replied, you have to be four years out of high school for the CFL, and have had to appear on a college roster during some point of those four years. Maybe AFL...? I'll check.
You should check that again cause bryce brown was going to go striaght to the CFL a few years back before choosing Tennessee. If you google it mgoblog threads even appear.
I thnk the problem with the CFL, if it's even permissible, is that there are players there that are 30-35 years old. If I were an 18-year-old, I'm not sure I'd want to go up against them, even if they aren't super-talented. The lower levels of the baseball and hockey minor leagues, in contrast, are almost entirely composed of guys 20 and under.
The only two effects I see it happening is that it would cost even more to buy a Terrelle Pryor or that boosters end up paying the same money to lesser players. Wherever there's competition, there's always someone trying to get an unfair edge.
That's why I would rather just seem them let players get money from whoever they want. The NCAA thinks they will lose revenue if players are allowed to receive money above the table, but money that boosters like to pay players would never go the the NCAA anyway. The players deserve money. The only reason schools like TSIO and USC cheat is because the current setup rewards them for it.
I think the only way they can really reduce corruption is to stop rewarding teams for being corrupt. The NCAA should put TSIO into so deep a hole that it takes them at least ten years to dig out.
is primarily driven by boosters, not the players. CFB and CBB are very popular and "fans" (and agents) want to get involved. Take football and basketball off TV, off the betting lines and they'll resemble those other sports in terms of corruption.
That's an interesting viewpoint. Personally, I think the issue is much simpler than that. College football is hugely popular and creates a connection with the fanbase that is absent in large quantities from other amateur sports. That's it.
College football was popular before the NFL came around, back when boxing, horse racing, baseball and college football were the most popular sports in the country. Even though other pro sports leagues have come along, the only amateur (or even semi-pro) league to rival it's professional counterpart is college football. Hell, NCAA football is the second most popular sports league in America behind the NFL by many different measures, and it isn't really close.
Add to that the fact that college football has a system in which it is guaranteed to build a bond with it's audience because they represent universities that bring in 5, 10, 15k new students each year to each institution or represent a geographical area in which people want to show their pride. People build that bond because by rooting for their alma mater or local university's football success, they share in that success as a "part" of the university. It's not just a business like professional sports to many fans; there's an emotional connection that leads to the type of fanaticism that is absent all minor/amateur sports except maybe college basketball. And that's not even close.
Add in that football's popularity dwarfs any other sport in which you could compare it (in America, so no futbol) and that will lead to corruption. I don't really think there's an easy way to curb paying players or other corruption of the sort unless you can find a way to make people care less about winning in college football. Compliance just needs to be diligent and do they best they can to ensure the rules are being followed (and maybe change some of the ass-backward rules that make it easier to get away with it).
The XFL, World League/NFL Europe, USFL, Arena, and whatever that new league is called have been around for years. The NBA has the D-league and college basketball recruiting is still as dirty as can be.
The reason there is corruption is because there is interest and money invested in what happens in college sports (namely football and basketball). The interest and money are there because people give a shit about the outcome. 105,000 people aren't going to watch the Columbus Thundercats minor league team every Saturday in the Shoe. The guys playing in those minor leagues probably make as much or less than what a full ride with room/board costs at a place like Stanford or Duke. But nobody is looking to put any extra dough in the player's pockets because nobody gives a shit what happens.
Isn't the D-league more like a farm system, kinda like AAA baseball or the AHL? When I hear talk about minor league football or basketball I'm thinking something along the lines of the OHL or the Quebec Major Junior League.
which has the smallest following?
- UM Football
- UM Basketball
- MSU Football
- MSU Basketball
- Toledo Mudhens Baseball (Tigers farm team)
I choose #3
When this debate came up before I looked up some of the salaries for MLB minor league players and the percentage that makes it to the pros. Answers.com or wikianswers,com informed me it was around 18% making it with first year A players making 850 or 1050 a month with first year AAA making 2150 a month. After that its open to negotiation. You probably don't make much unless you are one of the players who has the possibility to play some time in the majors.
A minor league probably wouldn't fix the corruption. So many more people care about college sports now than when the baseball minor leagues were beginning and separating from college baseball. There would always be interest in brining the best players to your school that boosters could even become more prominent. Additionally, maybe all the best players go to the minor league because it becomes an easier manner to go pro; problem is that this severely diminishes the quality of college football. Also, the value of the education they are receiving seems to outweigh the amount of money most of these kids will make in the minor leagues, even if these kids don't want to be at school. Also, I think even if most kids think they can go pro after high school, many start to realize in college they can't make that dream or it isn't worth it. I had a friend who tutored some UofM football players and my friend told me most of the ones who weren't that good really were trying to make the most out of their education.
Even if that did work, it would ruin college football forever. Don't think its worth it.
Interesting question...who would win: a top CFL team or a top BCS college team? Let's say they use American rules.
I think a championship CFL team would beat any college team, but a top 5-10 college team could hang with a weaker CFL team. The college team might have better high-end talent, but the CFL team would have better depth and fewer roster holes. The CFL team would be a solid favorite over any non-top 10 team.
Keep in mind - Renaldo Sagesse was a top prospect for the CFL draft, and he wasn't a starter on a bad Michigan defense. I highly doubt the top CFL team last year would have beaten Oregon or Auburn.
The benchwarmers on a CFL team are probably better than on a BCS team, but none of the guys on the CFL teams are NFL calibur or they would be in the NFL. On a championship NCAA team, likely half of the starters are near-NFL calibur and the other half are about as good as those CFL players, just a few years younger.
Sagesse is a CFL prospect because he's Canadian, and they have a quota of domestic players to fill. The best players in the CFL are almost always Americans. The Canadian players are role players, mostly.
A CFL/college matchup is grown men against college boys. The difference in maturity and experience is huge. The CFL guys would probably be in better shape, have better technique, and have a much broader playbook to digest. They don't have a bunch of tutors and whatnot holding their hands. It's not a perfect analogy, but think about what happened when our basketball team went to Belgium and played a bunch of nondescript pro teams there. They got killed. Men against college boys.
You can't say that no CFL players are NFL-caliber, because some make the jump from there to the NFL every year. Some players may just need the opportunity a CFL spot offers. And there may be some CFL veterans making decent money who don't feel like risking it to try out for an NFL roster. A championship CFL team probably has several NFL-caliber players - and its weaker players are still probably much better than a college team's scrubs.
Completely agree with you, nothing really to add. Also, Sagesse was a 4th round pick, I wouldn't call him a top prospect.
asthe XFL. The quality would be about as high too. A minor league wouldn't replace college football, it's not either/or , there's already NCAA and minor league baseball right now. Minor league football would just give practice squad and undrafted guys a place for a second chance. Maybe more qb's would make it that way, but it wouldn't stop boosters from paying kids to go to their favorite school. Minor league anything won't get kids to say "no thanks" when someone tries to hand them money.
Unless the PAC 10, ACC and former Big 12 operates by rules I'm unaware of, the SEC is virtually a minor league for the NFL. Take the two best players for Auburn, this year's NC and it's not difficult to conclude they would not have won this game, and obviously many others if not for their two best players, both juco transfers, doing the one(two if necessary) and done thing. Now I realize schools, specifically MSU, within our conference goes hard after the quick fix that jucos may provide, but that's a rarity within the conference.
Most of the other conferences listed above prefer recruiting a player for the five-year plan, four - three, if supremely gifted- enabling them to develop the player according to their specific agenda. This is just one of the many practices the SEC utilizes to gain an adavantage. Among others are lower admission standards, OVER, OVER, OVER signing, effectively eliminating the possibility of many of the players that don't end up there as a result, playing for one of their conference foes and enabling them to pick the best of the lot after National signing day. Included also are extra benefits like schooling being optional and having real students do your actual school work, specifically testing.
Hell the list of SOPs ubiquitous in the SEC that other conferences don't employ is the reason that the list of most recent BCS NCs and probably most of the future, unless rules are changed to eliminate the many loopholes providing for competive advantage, will be from that conference.
When others such as USC and OSU attempt to practice the same rules, it results in conference domination, thereby automatically placing them in the spotlight and destined for NCAA sanctions. Guess in USC's case they haven't learned their lesson, as Lane seems to be utilizing all the tricks he learned from Penis, and wots has it UO had better check itself also.
Hell Les wasn't a better coach at OSU and Saban certainly not at MSU. However, both are thriving in environments that promote questionable, and in many cases illegal activities. It's not surprising, to me anyway that LSU, long removed from the national spotlight, was able to re-emerge after Nick mirrored the actions of all other conference coaches, and we all know Les isn't shy about following suit.
A college education, along with all the lifelong contacts that privileges gives you is a fair enough exchange to play football for a certain school. I think, instead of thinking like this, it might be wiser to take millions of the money now generated and expand the NCAA in numbers strong enough to make it a viable rules enforcement agency. And I have no problem with the Death Penalty being reinstated for those knowingly flaunting disregard for the rules as written.
i just don't even.....
The career of a NFL player is just too short to spend time in the minor leagues.
Also, I don't recall very many undrafted players ever making good in the NFL, so having a minor league would be nearly useless....It's pretty much now or never when it comes to football.
Again I think people are referring to the idea of players going and playing at a high level of competition, getting paid, much like others athletes do instead of going to college. It'd still be the same 3-4 years or even more. You could opt out of HS and play in the "minors" so to speak like they do with minor league hockey. If you can get drafted and get paid, why go to college? Even if boosters offer you more money than your minor league contract, why risk it? You think Pryor is enjoying the attention he's getting right now? Well maybe he's a little screwed in the head but most rational people I think would choose the minor leagues, get paid and not get illegally paid and have to go through the media circus and embarrassment.
Look the whole amateur argument doesn't fly. Maybe they were amateurs back in the day but now they get more airtime than some pro-teams. More people in Columbus know who Pryor is as opposed to Rick Nash. When we buy a #16 Michigan jersey, we're buying it because we know that's Denard's jersey. Everyone get's a piece of the pie, coaches get paid millions upon millions are allowed to switch jobs like we switch underwear but a player goes to a school based upon the belief that his coach will be there for his tenure and when he's not, the player has to wait a year if he wants to transfer? Look you really wanna call it amateur, that's fine--cut the TV deals, cut the Addidas and Nike contracts, if other sports can't survive without football and basketball revenue, cut them, etc.
btw hail yes, this wan't directed at you. just me ranting. I don't think even the Big 10 proposal for COL is enough. It's a billion dollar industry. The cat's out of the bag. players should be able to do what they want.
FWIW, I think the whole COL thing is a great idea as long as it applies to all athletes and they all get paid the same regardless of sport or sex.
FWIW you can't play in the AHL until you turn 20 so you'd be two years out of high school.
I think that rule only applies to players from the CHL. There are several guys in the AHL right now that aren't 20, but they're all from Europe or a non-CHL North American league.
For example, Justin Faulk from UMD is a 1992 birthday, but played for Charlotte in the AHL playoffs.
I suppose you're right. I should really know that but the CHL is all I really know at this point.
AHL is a farm league. I'm talking about the OHL, WHL, QMJ, etc. These kids are leaving home at 15 or 16 to play.
your brother is absolutely correct. Creating a minor league for the National Football League is really the best way to do this for the players. The players who "need the money" could go right into the league after high school, sign a contract, and eventually move into the professional league. The contract could even specify paying for a college education for them.
Paying players in the current system will not stop the problem. Even if you create a system where players are paid for their performance (on the field and academically), some people will still cheat. And once the NCAA sanctions paying the players, it is a neverending slippery slope. Would they really be amateurs at that point?
No, the problem is the NCAA is greedy and the NFL is glad that it doesn't have to create its own farm system. And I'm not naive, cheating will still happen but the driving force is the money. Reduce the monetary gain and my assumption is the cheating will follow.
A minor league for football would certainly mean more head injuries and less interesting football being played.
I think it would help. But it would be hard to ever institute. NFL teams would not be in favor, since it would make their scouting jobs get a whole lot tougher. It's pretty tough to predict which high school players will be good enough to someday be in the NFL. Predicting which ones will make good college players is hard enough.
What if you let players get drafted after their freshman years. Give NFL teams 2+ more years to groom their next QB, etc, etc. I am pretty sure most NFL teams have enough players on their practice squad to form some sort of traveling team or D-League. Does not have to be anything big, Maybe even have the season played in the offseason of the regular NFL. Something on the lines of a 10 game season.
Also have to have a salary cap so your not paying some guy 70 million to sit on the bench for 2 years. I would leave all the rules the same as far as be out of HS for 3 years to play in the NFL. This will give scouts and coaches an extra 2 years to evaluate the talent level of recruits. I think it could work if enough thought was put into it. Have another draft for 2-3 rounds just for underclassman. It would be interesting to see. I doubt there would be much money to gain from a D-league.
Also if you was to play the games in the Summer maybe you could have some type of an agreement where the players could go to college during the spring and fall.
The first is - and I may be wrong about this - but didn't USC also get into serious trouble over their baseball team?
The second is, there is a difference in the economics of football and baseball, specifically the NFL and MLB. While both leagues generate most of their income through TV and retail, gate revenue is still a huge slice of the pie. But since baseball (and hockey) are both every day affairs - the MLB plays 162 games in 180 days, or 81 home games in six months - they typically draw most of the fans to their stadiums from their immediate metropolitan area. That makes it economically feasible for them to have minor league teams in smaller markets. It's not just that those teams are investments for the major leauges (they are) - but they also bring in their own revenue.
A typical major football game, be it professional or college, draws fans from a huge area. I know folks from Ludington who drove all the way to Detroit every Sunday to watch the Lions. I knew a guy from Traverse City who'd play in his HS game Friday night, wake up at 6AM on Saturday and travel with his family to make it to a noon game in Michigan Stadium. This happens because football games are a rarity and occur only on weekends - every game is a major event, that happens ~every other weekend for four months.
When folks are willing to travel upwards of five hours to watch a major football game, is there really room for minor league footbal? FWIW I think basketball could definitely work.
Do it during the summer. If it gets baseball highlights off SC's top 10 every night, I'm all for it.
Interesting notion, but as others point out the career of a typical player is very short unlike a baseball or basketball player who can knock about for a decade. Few football players play a decade.
Does anybody know how the international rugby leagues handle this issue? They are also a full contact sport and have a similar career arc length.