This Week's Obsession: Skipping the Bowl
The Sponsor:
Nick Hopwood, our MGoFinancial Planner from Peak Wealth Management. If you haven't listened to Nick's podcast, 
Finding True Wealth, yet, head over there because his latest episode is an interview with our own Brian Cook about the past and future of MGoBlog. Nick also has a neat new tool which has a different spin on figuring out which level of risk is appropriate for your portfolio in these volatile times.
Legal disclosure in wee itty bitty font: Calling Nick our official financial planner is not intended as financial advice; Nick is an advertiser who financially supports MGoBlog. MGoBlog is not responsible for any advice or other communication provided to an investor by any financial advisor, and makes no representations or warranties as to the suitability of any particular financial advisor and/or investment for a specific investor.
-------------------------------
Nick's Question:
Michigan will be without Rashan Gary, Devin Bush, and Karan Higdon for the Peach Bowl. What should be done (besides the obvious) and what do you think will be done?
Brian: What's the obvious?
Seth: Pay the players.
Brian: Okay and what else could possibly give the NCAA leverage in these situations?
Seth: Short of voiding their scholarships pretty much nothing.
Brian: I don't think there are even scholarships to void in these situations. Most guys headed for the draft leave school to do full-time prep.
The Mathlete: The leverage here is on the games becoming meaningful, which means the solution to this problem is...expand the playoff.
Brian: One thing that's totally crazy is that two years ago Danny Kanell was coming up with insane conspiracy theories about Jabrill Peppers skipping the bowl game by faking an injury and the next NY6 bowl Michigan plays in is going to be skipped by anyone the NFL might take in the mid-rounds.
And everyone's like "yup!"
Seth: Expanding the playoff changes things for a few teams. They would have to go back to when they do have leverage. Start with the new freshman class and a new rider to their letters-of-intent: If you leave your team early you owe your school the cost of all of your schooling. Schools obviously could forgive that.
To be clear I am not advocating this.
The Mathlete: Would schools ever enforce that?
Brian: There is absolutely no way that would fly in the current environment where trying to restrict a transfer to a team you're going to play causes vast outrage. Public opinion has shifted so hard against the schools that even stuff I'm fine with--restricting transfers from teams you play--is no longer tenable.
The Mathlete: And could you imagine Michigan going to Rashan Gary right now asking for their scholarship money back?
Brian: That would really perk up recruiting.
[After THE JUMP: We don't really have any answers but there are perspectives]
-------------------------------
Seth: It would be the NCAA. No one school or conference is going to put themselves out there like that, but I don't think it's a stretch to see the NCAA passing something that screws the players to protect their business partners.
The Mathlete: Is there any evidence that this actually affects the interest of the games?
Seth: Anecdotal.
Brian: It's affecting my interest.
Interest level: somebody else playing NCAA 2014 [Upchurch]
Alex: What can the NCAA actually do though?
Alex: Offer money for bowl game participants? For a guy like Rashan Gary, a $10K check is not worth the risk to his draft stock.
Brian: Hypothetically they could if they wanted to blow up all their amateurism arguments in court.
Alex: And “offering money to players” is pretty antithetical to the NCAA’s entire raison d’être. If they’re dead set against offering carrots, all they have is to threaten with sticks.
Brian: But they don't even have any sticks.
Alex: Exactly. All they can do is tut tut about how this is Bad For The Sport and how the Players Are Being Selfish.
Seth: It is a quite perfect rebuke to amateurism.
Adam: They might want to drop that angle and push these games as a preview of your favorite team’s future. It’s like a spring game but against different jerseys and, in our case, probably not snowing or sleeting.
Brian: It is bad for the sport. The exhibitions aren't even glorified anymore.
BiSB: Is there any change here that wouldn’t create more problems than it would solve?
Brian: Other than paying the players, no.
BiSB: Even then. We’re talking about a very narrow group of players in a very narrow set of good-enough-to-care-but-not-playoff bowls.
Seth: They faced this kind of thing the first time in the 1970s after the NFL got its feet under it and the AFL increased the demand for players. Their answer was to get the pro league to make a three-and-done rule.
BiSB: Adding a “bowl bonus” or something like that would create a huge set of headaches and precedent problems for the NCAA. (FTR: pay the players)
Brian: Those are only problems from the perspective of a class of parasitic managers on top of the sport.
BiSB: But even if you go to a full “pay the players” model, is one extra paycheck worth the potential hit to their draft stock?
Brian: Once you have real contracts you can do things with them to ensure participation, and at that point it's not even gross.
Seth: Yeah. For example if an NFL player about to be a free agent on a team eliminated from the playoffs decides to sit out the last week, he gets fined more than the cost of one game.
BiSB: That’s fair. But then it comes back to the schools to enforce those deals. And then “Michigan made John Doe play when he didn’t want to and cost him 80% of his rookie contract” becomes a thing.
Seth: Again, they'd all agree to do it through the NCAA. And it's a big step for a player to go from "I'm going to sit out the last game of my forced amateurism career" to "I'm going to breach a contract." It's a "what would we do if people ignored stop signs?" problem.
BiSB: Wait, is the NCAA going to be the employer in these pay-the-players plans?
Seth: We're getting into the weeds but the more I've thought about it the answer has to be yes, or at least the NCAA will set the standards.
Brian: Uh, no. Jim Harbaugh isn't an NCAA employee. This is orthogonal to our discussion anyway.
Operative theory: The people who sponsor the games are vastly more important to the NCAA than those who play in them. [Adam Glanzman]
Alex: There’s no chance the schools will blow up their whole business model to get like a total of maybe a few dozen players to play in a meaningless exhibition when they otherwise wouldn’t.
Seth: So...there's shaming. When you ask former players about this, they're livid at guys who abandon their teammates.
Alex: They won’t even let an FBI investigation into obvious malfeasance in college hoops recruiting impact that sport in a meaningful way.
Shaming people for looking out for their best interests is bad, imo.
Brian: Yeah, Alex is right. The NCAA can't do anything about this without blowing it all up and so they won't.
Seth: Team sports shame people out of their best interests all the time.
BiSB: I do think this is somewhat a byproduct of the playoff. The more games that “matter,” the less people are going to care about the RedBox bowl.
Alex: They can get “the media” to do the shaming (or “the media” will do the shaming of their own accord) but there’s nothing else they can do.
BiSB: Expanding the playoff to 8 will ensure that those players play, but further who-cares midmajor bowls
Brian: If I was a 22-year-old black man with no money and a kid and some rich middle aged white dude tried to shame me, as a couple of former players did on Rivals, I'd laugh in their face.
Alex: I think it’s also a byproduct of bowls being a weird anachronism that puts an exhibition at the end of the season instead of the beginning.
Seth: Fwiw the middle aged white dude here is Tom Brady.
BiSB: Yeah, like Tom Brady never does stuff that makes him seem somewhat punchable.
(Love you, Tom)
Seth: I have the takes from guys who played with Tom Brady and directly after. The general sentiment from Lloyd Player X is "You are abandoning your teammates and missing out on the last chance of your lifetime to play for a team you chose to be on."
slackbot: LLOYD TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES // LLOYD GET NAKED
BiSB: How do those guys feel about Jake Butt?
Alex: If I’m someone (say, Rashan Gary) who watched his teammate (say, Jake Butt) significantly harm his earning potential by playing in a game that didn’t matter for anything, and somebody (say, former players) wants to criticize me for sitting out the bowl game, I’d probably want to tell them to fuck off.
Brian: It is way different now because it is obvious to anyone that college football is a relentlessly capitalist enterprise that chooses to screw their players.
Seth: Tragic, and when he came back for a game last year I went to the former players tailgate and guys way more famous than Butt were coming up to shake his hand.
It is. And I bet you the guys who played for Lloyd are not representative of the players even of their age.
slackbot: LLOYD TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES // LLOYD GET NAKED
Seth: Hi slackbot.
Brian: Back before the revenue explosion it was much easier to argue for The Team The Team The Team without being a big dumb sap who's just funneling more money into Jim Delany's pockets.
Adam: I feel like current players’ sentiment is “secure the bag” based on Instagram comments but I could be wrong
Brian: And in that they are merely following the example of their elders. "Secure the bag" was literally the only thought behind putting Maryland and Rutgers in this league.
slackbot: I think you mean Rutger
Seth: I don't think the sentiment changed overnight and isn't universal. You'll get very different takes from Randy Moss and Charles Woodson.
I forgot that was literally a show.
BiSB: How dare you guys besmirch the sanctity of the Bad Boy Mower Gasparilla Bowl?
Seth: So that's another thing: it's a solid rebuke to the idea of "New Years Six" bowls. If the Peach Bowl was called the Rose Bowl and played in Pasadena, would more guys play?
BiSB: This is Very Important Stuff and in no way one great big racket designed to enrichen the already enrichened.
Alex: It’s almost like the existence of this very profitable system is fundamentally reliant on the exploitation of labor. And it’s almost like whenever labor exercises some semblance agency (sitting out a bowl, transferring, whatever), people get real mad.
Brian: That's the NCAA's theory in court. Literally.
Seth: I'm for paying the players, but I also like college football because I bought into the idea--maybe foolishly--that it's way more fun to watch a student wearing the winged helmet because he wants to than whoever's currently being forced to wear a cartoon lion because that's where his job assigned him. The NCAA started it by taking "The Team, The Team, The Team" to its most cynical extreme, and that has invited the most cynical personal interests to strike at what's best about the sport.
Brian: Yes. The lion's share of my attention goes to college sports because at some level I do buy into all the rah rah rah. But when the thing is run like a company, what do you expect? You don't get to play it both ways.
The Mathlete: And that's the crux of major college sports right. There is a legitimate ideal that on Earth 7 college football never got excessively monetized, the bowls still mattered and there was a realistic claim that forgoing a bowl for an NFL payday was a massive violation of the unwritten contract with team. That is not the reality of this Earth and half-measures to go back don't get you any further back, but typically come at the expense of the players who are making rational decision based on the field before them.
Alex: I have way more of a connection to my alma mater than I could possibly have to any pro sports franchise, but at the same time, I feel like it’s important to be clear-eyed about the industry, how it works, and what it does to people.
They run it like a corporation to squeeze every cent they can out of bodies they see as disposable and then try all that rah rah shit whenever that dynamic is interrogated.
It’s not bad to enjoy watching Michigan play football. It’s bad that Michigan and other schools have colluded to prevent their workers from receiving fair compensation. It’s bad that Dim Jelany makes a bajillion dollars.
Brian: "Those are fleeting, four-year relationships" -Hunter Lochmann
BiSB: #ForTheLoveOfTheGame
— Yahoo Sports College Football (@YahooSportsCFB) December 18, 2018
Brian: Anyway
- it sucks that it makes sense for players to skip the bowl
- it is bad for my interest in said bowl
- nothing will be done to fix it
- let's go Shawne Alston Lawsuit
Seth: I don't have a list of players skipping. Are there schools getting hit worse than Michigan this year? We seem to be right in the sweet spot of "Had the best possible season with the most NFL picks that got in the biggest bowl that is the least interesting."
BiSB: Also, they're playing Florida. Again.
Brian: TBH I'm envious they get to skip playing Florida
BiSB: We could have had Coach O interviews.
v
December 21st, 2018 at 12:51 PM ^
100K after taxes/FICA/SS will be about $60-70K.
Scholarship is $42K.
That leaves about $18-$28K to cover food, housing, books, etc... and health insurance.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:49 AM ^
Lol. Your argument:
"The players are receiving something with a huge cash value. Like, 6 figures.
The day players receive cash, which has value, I will stop watching."
December 20th, 2018 at 11:50 AM ^
The players are not being compensated, the NCAA bylaws state this quite specifically. Any scholarships given to the players are not given in compensation for services rendered.
December 20th, 2018 at 4:24 PM ^
Well...bye?
December 20th, 2018 at 5:54 PM ^
I agree. I think they're called football scholarships, to actually play football with the team.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:16 AM ^
Revoking scholarship isn't the answer. For one that is just wrong, Two a player could just say they tweaked an ankle and is injured and thus can't play in the bowl game. Or if the university told a player they would do revoke a scholarship, they could go out on the field and just stand back 20 yards from the play and do nothing. Or just keep jumping offside so that the coach is forced to take you out of the game. They still register as playing, but the player at that point doesn't have to listen to their coach or make any attempt to help their team win.
The only two ways to reduce this are to increase the playoffs (again not going to end it) and pay players. You are still going to have players sitting out, but players that are mid-rounders or on the fence are more likely to play if they get paid $5,000 - $10,000. If they really want to get more participation they could say the winning players gets money(or more money) that way the player feels a little more obligated to help teammates/friends win some money.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:17 AM ^
Easy: Scholarships are paid at the end of a full semester of participation. If you skip games when you are healthy you don't get reimbursed.
You guys are simultaneously arguing that the players are hugely abused *and* that nothing can be done about them skipping games because they hold all the cards. It can't be both.
The full-boat tuition I pay subsidizes athletic scholarships, which are a two-way agreement. If the player doesn't fulfill the agreement, then I'd like my money back, thanks.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:55 AM ^
Not only can it be both, it *must* be both.
The NCAA declares that the players are amateurs--they are playing for the love of the game and the educational and health value of athletic competition only. That's the only benefit they receive, per the NCAA (the scholarship is not compensation, they say, and that athletic scholarships are *not* a 2-way agreement in any sense of the phrase).
So if the players are playing for the love of the game and the educational value only, that means that they do have all the cards--they get to decide when they no longer get any benefit out of the competition.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:18 AM ^
I do not know why everyone does not see the obvious solution to this problem as well as the "one and done" issue in college basketball.
Follow the NHL model.
While in many - if not most things - the NHL is primitive and backwards, they are the only pro sport that does the draft correctly.
IE: Make all players draft eligible at 18. There is no declaring for the NHL draft, by being alive and 18, you are eligible.
Then, the NHL allows you to pursue college hockey, amateur hockey in Canada or wherever - and when the NHL thinks you are ready, they come and get you.
There is no declaring or a unilateral player decision on this.
If football followed this model, players like Gary and Bush would have already been drafted by NFL teams. Gary likely following his freshman searson and Bush after last year.
Then in a joint decision between the NFL team and the players, they would figure out if they should participate in the bowl games or not.
If we follow the hockey model, I do not recall seeing any hockey players skipping the NCAA hockey tournament or the Memorial Cup to turn pro.
I'm pretty sure the NFL would tell these guys to play in bowl games.
Added bonus: I can almost guarantee that the NBA would leave almost all these one and done players in college basketball for many more seasons as most of them have terrible fundamentals.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:21 AM ^
This would make particular sense seeing as there is no competitive league with a better pipeline to the pros than college football, although it would certainly create the possibility of the formation of such leagues.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:30 AM ^
I agree that the NHL draft model makes the most sense, especially for MLB and NBA, but I'm not sure it works for the NFL. I disagree with your assertion that the NFL would tell these guys to play in bowl games, and in fact I think the opposite would be true - the NFL team might encourage guys to leave even earlier to save them for the following season. We may be on the slippery slope now anyway, but I could see NFL-level guys starting to quit mid-season, once their own team is out of playoff/conference contention.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:36 AM ^
I agree. You are right. Draft like the NHL, and get rid of the 3 and done. If a player is good enough for the NFL don't stop them from leaving. Does it reduce the talent in the NCAA? Yes, absolutely, but at least it allows an "amateur" sport to be amateur instead of half pro players "playing school". Believe it or not, there are still alot of NCAA FB players that are in it for the education and will never play pro football. Let's just watch them play.
Unfortunately, the only way for these changes to happen would be for the NFL to want them to happen. The way hockey, or baseball or football players are drafted has nothing to do with the NCAA.
btw, in essence MLB does almost the same thing.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^
Yeah, the MLB at the end. That's my model. NHL is close. But I like that in baseball you either commit to the program for 3 years (three, right?) or you go straight to minor league ball. I'm in favor of some level of college roster certainty. That would require the NFL to start a minor league (which I pray for every night before bed).
But you're right. There are thousands of college kids who voluntarily play this sport for the scholarship. And thousands more who don't even get that and play the game because it's football and it's awesome. Those are the guys I want to watch.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:22 AM ^
Nobody yet has mentioned what has changed on the NFL side.
For one, NFL salaries have skyrocketed, changing the risk-reward tradeoff of playing vs draft position. The NFL salary cap has gone from $34M in 1994 to $177M this year. In 1994, the top three picks signed contracts worth 14, 17, and 19M each, and by 2010 rookie contracts were up to 50M. Last year's top 3 all got $30M guaranteed, per the rookie wage scale. The players used to be gambling thousands; now they're risking millions.
Also, the NFL draft-scouting industrial complex has expanded, so the bowls are less of an opportunity for players to showcase for the league. There is already plenty of film and draft analysis, so much that one more game (for the big schools) isn't going to change the pre-draft opinion.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:22 AM ^
Brian: That would really perk up recruiting.
Um, Brian, you forgot the “/s”. kthxbye
December 20th, 2018 at 11:26 AM ^
TBH, I am actually looking forward to seeing the the guys that are replacing Bush, Higdon and Gary. I don’t think they should play in a meaningless bowl game, they have nothing left to prove. If we hadn’t gotten destroyed by OSU, I am sure that they would all be playing (except Bush because he isn’t cleared to play).
December 20th, 2018 at 11:27 AM ^
Gotta get rid of bowl games entirely. Play a 10-game regular season (2 nonconference games, 8 conference), take a week off at the beginning of December, then play a 64-team tournament. Does it devalue the regular season? Yes. It also means I don't have to have a heart attack if we lose by 7 in week 1.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:35 AM ^
I actually find the bowl game more interesting because the biggest names skip it. It gives us an opportunity to see a preview of our team next year.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^
I agree to some extent, but if it's truly just an exhibition, then I'd rather it didn't reflect on the record at the end of the season. They "don't matter," but it still leaves a bad taste to lose the bowl game. If they really didn't count for anything, then yeah, go ahead. Also, extend bowl invitations (or at least practices) to all teams, not just good ones.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:32 PM ^
Really, what's the record mean in the large picture? Bo lost most of his bowl games and he kept his job just fine. Do you think any less of him? It's just a game. If they are competitive and don't get just hammered (remember that Miss St bowl game) I'm just fine with whatever happens.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:35 AM ^
Even though the NCAA has no control over it and it will NEVER happen, I'd really like to see the "3 and done" eliminated. If great players can go pro when they are ready it makes players missing a bowl game less relavant AND it begins to level the playing field.
All of Bama's 5*'s will not be there for 3yrs. They will play until they are NFL ready and then leave. People complained that 1 and done or even 0 and done would kill NCAA basketball. I enjoy NCAA BBall even more. Players are playing that want to play, not because they have no other option.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:35 AM ^
Expand the CFP to include 8 teams and make the upper tier/NY6 bowls a rotating part of that scheme. Fuck Notre Dame, if they don't want to join a conference then they can play for one of the three at-large bids every year like everyone else who's not in a p5 conference. Also, just fuck ND in general.
Take next level bowls with conference tie-ins and somehow combine them with conference championship games that are necessary to win a conference and get auto-bid for 8 team CFP. Location-wise, not sure if these would be better as warm weather junkets or within conference footprint....likely within footprint so as not to exhaust travel oriented fans from being able to pay for CFP attendance.
For CFP player participants, establish a deferred bonus/payment solution......paid out by NCAA or bowl they play in for each playoff game once they are done with college football. Team members get an amount X, players that see the field an amount Y and starters/top players an amount Z.
That preserves the importance of 7 bowl games with an 8 playoff, 5 more as conference championship games, you could even add 1-3 additional bowls as at-large, play-in type bowls for non-P5 teams, or deserving P5 teams that didn't win their conference outright. So the top 12-15 bowls remain relevant. All the other bowls remain exactly where they are, interesting pretty much to only the teams that participate in them and their fans.
Playoff teams that have the vast majority of NFL talent are all in games that matter, both to the fans and to their draft stock. Any NFL level talent that is on a non-playoff team is welcome to sit out meaningless bowl games and I think there would be a pretty low level of angst about that.
Creates some semblance of a payday for players on playoff teams and preserves their current amateur status by deferring payouts until after their eligibility is exhausted or try go pro.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:37 AM ^
I'm fine with these young men making their own decisions. My only problem is would they sit out if it was a national championship game? It just sends the rest of the team the message that this game is totally meaningless.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:43 PM ^
That's my problem with all of this. We're now subjectively picking and choosing which games on the schedule are worth of a player's participation. By green-lighting these decisions, you're opening the door to the next step - and that one probably won't be as widely accepted.
Like if Mo Hurst decided last year's OSU game was "meaningless", which it was, and bailed on the team once we were eliminated from B1G contention. That's coming. We're okay with that?
This prevailing attitude that the NCAA is the devil, these poor kids are victims and nothing is more important than an NFL contract is dangerous to college football. If all of that is true, then every college game is "meaningless".
Why get your head kicked in by Alabama in the CFP? Why would anybody play against Middle Tennessee State to open next year? It's all meaningless. It doesn't impact my end goals. I'm tired of making money for the man. Let my backups play the non-conference slate and I'll play in the games I feel are important.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:42 AM ^
If players skipping bowl games is the problem, am I the only one wondering whether expanding the playoff is anything more than a temporary solution?
Skipping a bowl game is a business decision, not a cynical one. If I imagine I'm an early first round draft pick nursing an injury, I have to ask what about a chance at a college national title would tip my balance sheet away from skipping the playoff to maximize the success of an NFL career that isn't even likely to last 10 years?
December 20th, 2018 at 11:42 AM ^
Sorry, but sick of hearing that the players aren’t seeing a reasonable financial benefit from their time playing football at Michigan. Leaving aside years of free room and board, and tuition (if they care about that), the guys we’re talking about are looking at big future financial payoffs from the NFL as a result of the coaching, conditioning, game experience and media exposure they’ve gotten in college. Cripes, that’s WHY they’re sitting out the bowl games.
Thought experiment: Ask Devin Bush what he hopes to sign for in the NFL after three years at Michigan, and then ask him what he would have expected financially if he had tried to go straight to the NFL with no college. Then ask if he feels exploited and cheated by the college football machine.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:47 AM ^
yeah that argument is entirely incoherent once you realize how much harbaugh, the university, and the B1G executive vampire class is making off of this deal despite all value being generated by the players.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^
In his defense, you are wrong.
The admin, Harbaugh, etc do add SOME value. The exe s get the players on TV, which brings in money so teams can get better training equipment. Good coaches make players better. So there *some* value added.
Now, the question becomes "where on that sliding scale do you assign the values." Is is 90% players, 10% admin? I don't know, but I do think people underestimate the value the admin brings.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:30 PM ^
Sure, I was definitely exaggerating. There is value in organizational administration and obviously Harbaugh and staff. But I will counter that the players are easily the most irreplaceable part of the equation. You could find another administrator, executive, pencil pusher, etc. that all make six figures, but the players' talent is one of a kind. Case in point: look how much time, energy, and money we spend on making sure we get the best ones.
December 20th, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^
Indeed: where do you assign the values. When we let the free market assign the values (the NFL, for example), we get something that gives us a pretty good idea what the values actually are, correct?
If you assume that a scholarship counts as compensation, Jim Harbaugh probably makes 7 times what his entire starting offense makes.
If you look at the NFL, John Harbaugh probably makes 1/7 as much as his entire starting offense.
Yes, coaches are more important at lower levels than at higher levels (because more instruction is necessary), but is a college coach really 50 times as valuable compared to his players than an NFL coach?
I think you find that about 50 percent of an NFL team's revenue goes to player compensation--48.5 percent to be exact. Now Michigan football makes $50 million a year just from the TV contract, plus another $60 million or so from ticket sales and branding and donations. If we take the "50 percent" model of the NFL, that's $55 million to player salaries, or half a million per player on the roster, not that they would divide it evenly.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:02 PM ^
They do receive some financial benefit - the issue I see is that they are grossly underpaid for their value in the new age of schools making millions of dollars off the program. The NCAA has monopoly power on pre-NFL football and basically regulates the wages of people they make money off of
December 20th, 2018 at 4:45 PM ^
The problem with your argument is the school is making millions of the program, not the individual. The program comprises hundreds of individuals directly (thousands if you include the various support staff, admins, etc.) as well as the university infrastructure that supports it (and the fans!). So, yes - the players deserve a share. What is fair? Maybe $10k/yr? $20k/yr? $50k/yr? That seems rather close to the value of a year of tuition/room/board/etc.
Additionally, you have been talking about revenue - which is not necessary the net income. Many programs struggle to stay solvent (look at the problems UAB and EMU have had in the last decade or so). Different programs have different financial realities yet all must operate with the same rules.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^
College football is a business. This is a business decision. Don’t legislate it. Use this time, in non CFP bowls, to showcase and develop new talent. The sport will have to adjust and accommodate to new changes.
December 20th, 2018 at 4:46 PM ^
I would say legislation is a better solution. Force the playing field to be even and those who don't like it can go elsewhere.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:48 AM ^
Suppose you have a job lined up as a senior; you can take English 125, or an organic chem/woody plants/diff EQ mashup class that makes people cry with your buddy. And your buddy really wants you to take that last class with him.
If you take the mashup class and tank you might lose the job. Take English 125 and kill it and you get the job easily.
That's kind of how I view the bowl game.
I love the team, but this isn't the 70's or even the 90's. Higdon has a daughter.
I'm 100% supportive of whatever decision he wants to make.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:55 AM ^
P5 players should be paid. But these guys get a lot already. College education, contacts, training and in guidance in their chosen business...all this without having to go into serious debt.
The average UM football players leaves Michigan with advantages non-athletes don’t get.
I think people over look some aspects of this issue in order to make their argument. These guys generally leave with good prospects regardless of their chances in the NFL.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^
Brian, BiSB, and Alex, go on Chapo.
As long as the NCAA and dipshit reactionary fanbases continue to justify massively underpaying incredibly valuable labor, the system will continue to degrade to the point of being unrecognizable and unenjoyable.
Players and coaches are better than they have ever been, just look at the NFL this year. There is no reason that CFB can not be incredibly interesting and fun and enjoyable for players and fans alike. But, just like everything, the selfish desire for profit by those at the top of the system will drive it into the ground for the last penny they can make. They will add Rutgers and Maryland, and sell TV rights, and add commercials until the only reason you watch is the name on the front of the jersey.
December 20th, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^
FBS football continues to be the oddball amongst a number of other sports, on a number of other skill levels. Where else do you have random exhibition games at the end of the season that have no bearing on the actual championship? The NIT, CBI, etc. is the only other thing I can think of.
I think much of the feeling around Bowl Games Are Important is a relic of pre-BCS days when the bowl games actually were decently important and had national title implications in some cases. Now that the FBS has an actual post-season tournament, the bowl games are being revealed for what they are - glorified exhibitions. The vast majority of the bowls are just fun trips for players. If they don't want to participate in a bowl, I have no problem with it
December 20th, 2018 at 12:05 PM ^
There is no reason for them to play, so they shouldn't. I'd much rather see Evans/Turner, Paye/Uche/Hutchinson, and Gil/Ross playing with 100% effort than see Higdon/Gary/Bush turn in 2015 Florida Secondary efforts.
And it's great for the future. When Peppers missed the FSU game, Metellus stepped right in, played admirably, and gave us a hint of his future potential.
Those three guys playing doesn't make the Peach bowl any more meaningful. Outside of a Rose Bowl or National Title game, what bowl game was ever meaningful? The 2011 Sugar Bowl that we had no business winning, let alone playing in. The countless buffalo wild wings or outback bowls? *Yawn*
December 20th, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^
I get players sitting out but for most of us, it definitely sucks.
They are not meaningless to the vast majority of players that participate. They are not meaningless to the majority of fans. Expanding the playoff sounds good to help remedy this problem, but there will definitely be unintended consequences, like watering down the regular season, which is the magic of FBS college football.
I think as a fan, I just need to continue to cheer my team on, but lower my bowl game expectations when a few key players decide to make a pretty smart business decision.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^
I have no issues with players skipping bowl games. As a player, why should I feel excited about playing Florida again! in a meaningless bowl if I can prepare to make money in the NFL?
This actually gives other players an opportunity to step up. Call it a pre spring game.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:16 PM ^
Just eliminate the meaningless post-season games. Bowls do not exist for the benefit of the players - it's programming for ESPN and glorification of the sponsor/host city.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:20 PM ^
The month of practice is very helpful.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:37 PM ^
However, the limitations on "practice" is completely irrational. I can guarantee every D1 player that cares about the sport practices every day of the year.
December 20th, 2018 at 2:57 PM ^
They may work out individually but that isn't the same as team reps and reps vs someone.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:17 PM ^
I think players sitting out actually makes me more interested in the bowl. I am excited to see the young kids and get a glimpse of the future. I know bowls are not completely meaningless and an 11 win season is a lot better than a 10 win season. But, I can't shake a part of me that thinks UM should start preparing for next season the second they aren't selected to the CFP. If the ultimate goal is to beat OSU, win a B1G title and make a CFP, does it not make sense to move on from players that can no longer help you achieve those goals? Game experience is extremely valuable and next years team will be better now that Turner will get some looks. Same for Ross, Paye, Hutch, etc..
December 20th, 2018 at 12:20 PM ^
There is no reason for a draft eligible player who has established his reputation at a high level with the pros to play in any bowl game that is not part of the playoff. Expand the playoff to eight teams, and more guys on those teams will play. Of course, the playoff has killed the bowl games already and may be killing college football if talent continues to concentrate in fewer schools. I am getting tired of Alabama, Clemson, and Georgia more recently in the playoffs. If you had each conference champion assured a spot, perhaps more guys would go to the Pac12 or whatever it is called these days, knowing winning the title gets them into the playoff.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:26 PM ^
Make the Bowl an exhibition game next August. Bowls are only exciting to see the kids who will play next year and they'll mean something rankings wise, even if the game doesn't officially "count." Plus you get an even-strength non-conference game.
The kids can actually have a winter break with their family or the school can organize an end of year trip.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:30 PM ^
So here’s a question: do the teams that go to the playoffs get all their players to suit up (I don’t know the answer to this)? If so, in practical terms, how are the playoffs vs the bowls more important to a player’s future? A Natty pays them nothing. They don’t necessarily go higher in the draft. They stand the same risk of injury as they do in any other game.
Maybe they do it for pride/prestige? I’m asking, not arguing the point.
I also wonder about the perceived difference between a league game and a bowl game, if these future pros are concerned about losing a shot at the dollars? Why bother finishing out any season once it’s clear you have high draft stock? A game’s a game - chance of injury no matter if it’s a bowl or a regular season game. And in fact we saw that come into play with Bosa at OSU this year. I could see this becoming a trend.
The solution of paying the players...I dunno. Their degrees (if they stuck around for them) are worth a lot of money, and they aren’t burdened with student loan debt. But in any case, the nickels and dimes they’d get paid in college probably won’t matter much if they stand to lose millions via injury before the pro draft.
Paying players is probably fair, but at the same time, they’re not going to be paid very much compared to what they’d earn as pros. How does that make them want to compete once it’s clear that the high dollars are waiting to be grabbed in the pros?
To take the “pay the players” argument further, why should colleges be in the pro sports business in the first place? Their job is ostensibly education, or at the very least, being good four-year vacation hosts to students.
Pay the players and possibly you kill off the mythical premise of college athletics that people actually do buy into - that it’s all about the school. It’s certainly a factor in how fanatical folks are about college games. Whether that’s good or bad, I can’t say, but I doubt you’ll draw the crowds and interest as strongly as still happens now.
December 20th, 2018 at 12:36 PM ^
I have zero problems with Higdon, Bush, Gary or even Nick Bosa making a business decision. If they were my teammate, I'd be cool with it, I think. If the NCAA and the schools want to compensate them for playing in a bowl game fine. If they decide to punish them for not playing, that's bullshit.
The one thing I'd like to see is that bowl games don't count against the redshirt numbers. If Harbaugh said, "We're going to play 1) The people who are graduating/leaving who want to play, and 2) The people we expect to see on the field next year," I'd be super interested. You?
Then you can get a young guy into four games during the regular season, and work him into the rotation during the bowl practices, without his losing a season.
Comments