OT - Pacific Pro Football Aims to Give an Alternative to College for Aspiring NFL Players
Just saw this on my Twitter feed this morning. It's a new league that, instead of competing with the NFL or college football, offers a completely different alternative. You can only compete if you are less than 5 years out of high school, you are guaranteed playing time, and you get paid a decent ($50k) salary. Also, you don't have to sacrifice the chance at an education because they will pay for community college tuition.
I REALLY hope this works, because the current system doesn't work for a lot of kids who, for one reason or another, simply don't get what they need out of the college experience.
Also, and VERY importantly, the league will be focused on pro-style offense. It's truly all about getting kids ready for the League.
A new pro football league is coming, offering a new, non-college route to the NFL https://t.co/oRplyIlqVJ
— Dan Wetzel (@DanWetzel) January 11, 2017
It also bears mentioning that this is not intended to be a money-maker. All teams will be league-owned, it will compete during the summer (when CFB and the NFL aren't playing games), the teams will play in small venues, and there will only be a few games each year.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:21 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 9:27 AM ^
Maybe for some schools, but I don't see it harming schools like Michigan at all -- or most big-name schools for that matter. The best prospects will still want to play in front of huge crowds and get the college experience, and kids who come to Michigan value the degree they get from the school.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:06 AM ^
In the short-term yes I agree. However, if the league does find any significant success it is easier to see it expanding in a number of ways (more teams, bigger venues, more business focused, larger payments for players, etc.).
So I agree that as of now schools like Michigan have nothing to worry about (and in some ways it may even be beneficial), but if this model finds success (A BIG IF) it would essentially shut down college football as it currently exists.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:22 AM ^
I agree that long term, if successful this could change the dynamic of college athletics. I don't see that as a bad thing though, the system is pretty broken as it is.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:27 AM ^
Totally agree -- I love college football and selfishly I wouldn't mind it staying the way it is, but I can't in good conscience say that the system doesn't need major changes.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:51 AM ^
This will have a lesser impact on the true universities, Michigan as one of them, as these kids are often in it for the student side of student athlete. I could see a successful league impacting the obvious "I didn't come here to play school" crowd. I would enjoy that, honestly.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:53 AM ^
To your point, I believe, it might also generate a whole new level of energy around paying college athletes. I wouldn't like that as much unless it is spread across non-revenue generating sports.
January 11th, 2017 at 1:53 PM ^
I get the argument, but I don't think non revenue athletes should get paid off the backs of the kids that play football and basketball. It seems to me like it would create too many problems once you get down past the top 15-25 schools because the money just isn't there. I think title IX needs to be reworked in some fashion. A school like Michigan, or Stanford could afford it, even with the high number of non revenue sports, but it'd be really difficult for a school like MSU (not that I care).
January 11th, 2017 at 6:41 PM ^
Again with this argument. Why? Those programs half exist because of football and basketball. This is coming from a Track and Field guy. I know our role and it doesn't compete with star football players who are huge marketing entities for schools.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:33 AM ^
It looks like it would be 40-60 players per year. That's not going to devastate NCAA football.
Edit: I do wonder though, would more players come straight from high school, or after a year or two on a college team?
January 11th, 2017 at 10:01 AM ^
Would guess lightly recruited and troubled kids would be the most interested out of high school. Would become a new alternative to JUCO for those that get dismissed for arrests, breaking team rules, and grades.
January 11th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^
So the SEC is going to oppose this new league.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:29 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 9:33 AM ^
why would it be terrible for some kids?
January 11th, 2017 at 9:37 AM ^
If you suck in college football, you get a degree. If you suck in this league, you get cut and you're done, i would imagine.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^
......or you get $50k and (if you are smart enough to take advantage) a community college degree vs. a generic degree from a random college that may or may not be more useful than the community college degree.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:50 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 9:58 AM ^
Very sober. I know people who went to community college and are very happy with the education they received. I also know people who went to 4-year colleges (not for sports) and are frustrated about how little traction it gets them in the real world.
An education from a good community college is valuable.
EDIT: I don't mean to say that community colleges are better than 4-year colleges. Just that $50k and community college vs. a degree from a random college CAN be a difficult choice for somebody who values education.
January 11th, 2017 at 10:00 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 10:03 AM ^
I get what you're saying. I am one of those- I started at a community college because I slacked in high school (played way too much Star Craft) and then transferred to a 4 year college. I just could see this easily turning into a situation where it draws many kids who don't want to have to go to class (of which there are certainly many) but who may regret it ten years down the road. OTOH, if they are planning to mentor the kids, which they may be, and guide them as opposed to forcing them, to pursue the opportunity then it may turn out okay.
January 11th, 2017 at 10:34 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 10:35 AM ^
you don't leave a community college with a degree and an AA from one doesn't really pull a lot of weight in the world as most employers are looking for a degree in a field you wish to work in.
I think a community college is a great start for many kids before going to a 4 year school, but you still need to combine both.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^
Okay, but the question was why would it be terrible for SOME kids. $50k is nice, but let's not pretend that community college tuition is some great gift. They would be better off making $55k a year and not get community college tuition (average associate's degree cost is under $10k).
And I'm not trying to argue against this idea. I think it's great for players to have options, especially those that lack interest or capacity for college.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^
I hear what you're saying and rather like the point. Maybe they could do a voucher system or something like that. Either you get $50k and a free community college education or you get $55 - 60k and you are responsible for any academic pursuits.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:56 AM ^
in College Football you get cut and you're done, and you don't even get 50k
January 11th, 2017 at 11:57 AM ^
Coach Saban! You have been lurking here since 2014? Who knew.
January 11th, 2017 at 3:27 PM ^
Actually, this is the part I wonder about...
If a player partakes in this new league, does that make him ineligible to go the JUCO transfer route to a four-year university after 1-2 years if he changes his mind?
Once players accept money to play, normally they are ineligible through the NCAA, but not sure on whether there would be an exception for this league. If they would be eligible to transfer, it could actually create a bit of a farm system for the OSU/SEC teams of the world who are able to take the talented JUCO transfers easier than M is able to.
January 11th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^
I would ask you to explain, then, why you haven't been losing sleep over, say, baseball's minor league system. If a kid goes into the minor leagues and gets cut... what? If you've never thought about it before, then, you've just undermined your point here. The entire baseball entire system is ok, but you don't think football players should have the same options? And we can add many other sports to that example:
Hockey.
Soccer.
Tennis.
Golf.
Swimming.
In all of them, high schoolers have pro (minor league or foreign) options aside from college. They make a decision what works for them. If it doesn't work, they are NO DIFFERENT than the rest of everyone else -- go get a delayed education, get a job w/o a degree, etc. It's call choice... capitalism... works for everyone else. Let the footballs players be the same as everyone else.
January 11th, 2017 at 2:04 PM ^
Umm, okay. I agree that options are good in this case. My response was to why it would be bad for SOME kids. People being allowed to make choices is great, even if it means some will make choices that don't work out ideally for themselves.
January 11th, 2017 at 2:08 PM ^
Not everyone is cut out for college and that's fine. It doesn't necessarily make sense that these guys that have a talent to be a pro athlete potentially have to qualify for school and stay academically eligible.
It's like me never making it as an engineer because I couldn't keep my SPARQ score up.
January 11th, 2017 at 3:28 PM ^
Absolutely love this analogy!
January 11th, 2017 at 9:38 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 9:52 AM ^
Correct--for many the CC offer will be window dressing, but so is the degree that many current scholar-athletes get (or don't get when they don't graduate).
I actually like the CC possibilities, as the CC can provide you actionable work skills (carpentry, welding, etc.) better than taking a smattering of liberal arts classes at a university can.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:48 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 9:53 AM ^
I agree that this is the case for many students.
At the same time, what would hold stronger value for some of these kids: a degree or $200,000. With $200,000, you can still go get an instate degree for less and have some savings.
January 11th, 2017 at 10:01 AM ^
January 11th, 2017 at 10:04 AM ^
Plus the league is in Southern Cali. Depending on where exactly, taxes and high living expenses could stretch 50k pretty thin.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:20 AM ^
If room and board aren't free, the 50K will likely not turn into much savings, even for those who eschew high livin'
January 11th, 2017 at 10:05 AM ^
There are indeed countless stories of professional athletes who make millions and still end up broke because they are so irresponsible with their money.
January 11th, 2017 at 12:18 PM ^
This an absurd statement that I really wish would go away. Young people are bad with money and irresponsible, therefore, we should not pay young people. QED
It's often interesting that this argument seems to come up only when we are talking about paying basketball / football players. Nobody mentions that some baseball / hockey players are worth significant sums of money before stepping foot on college campuses. But I guess that's not a problem -- probably all the additional grit, hustle and intelligence that comes from playing those sports.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:42 AM ^
Well that's just like your opinion man...
And if others feel that way, then they are more than able to pursue that education under the current model.
If we're going to make broad statements about what people on this board value / believe, I think that most people on this board fail to realize that for some "student-athletes" there really is little value in pursuing a college degree. Some of these kids are so far behind because of poor education leading up to college, that they would be better off pursuing a trade or developing a specific skill that can lead to as much or more success than the degree they are working towards. Just to be clear, I do think every individual should be able to make that decision for himself (just him - since we are talking about football) -- but let us not pretend that since the current system only offers one option that others do not exist or aren't better for some individuals.
January 11th, 2017 at 4:20 PM ^
Chiwolve, I totally agree that what works for some does not work for all. That's why I love the idea of this new league - to give kids a real, reasonable choice.
Where I disagree is your comment that for some kids there is "little value in pursuing a college degree". Yes, absolutely some kids feel that way, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm sorry, but any degree from Michigan is enormously valuable, and greatly enhances the future prospects of the degree holder. Football players get the added benefit of an alumni network filled with businessmen who would love to hire a former Wolverine player.
Furthermore, the opportunity to be part of a university community, to be exposed to the resources, ideas, and achievements of other students has to have real value, especially to kids who might otherwise never get the chance.
You're right that some kids are behind academically, and frankly some shouldn't be enrolled at major universities - I'm pleased that Michigan does a pretty damn good job of choosing kids who are up to the challenge and that resources (tutors, mentors, academic counselors, etc.) are given to help those who need extra assistance.
If this league takes off, just maybe some of the "I didn't come here to play school" types - won't.
January 11th, 2017 at 7:09 PM ^
Don't disagree with anything you've said. Specifically, I agree with your statement, " the opportunity to be part of a university community, to be exposed to the resources, ideas, and achievements of other students has to have real value, especially to kids who might otherwise never get the chance."
My only clarifying point would be that there is no real way to know whether an individual exposed to all of that but duoes not thrive academically is / would be better off than a student not exposed to that, but who really learns a trade and pursues it (Electrician, Software Designer, whatever else). It's a bit of a messy hypothetical, but I agree that I'm excited about the prosepct of this league opening additional opportunities.
January 11th, 2017 at 11:31 AM ^
...but this league is largely going to attract kids who weren't going to go to college, not attract kids away from going to college.
It isn't "4 year college" vs. "This league". It's "Not go to college and not play football" vs. "This league".
January 11th, 2017 at 2:04 PM ^
It's not that people are undervaluing a college degree, the problem is no one has created a system which provides an equal opportunity for everyone (with or without debt and with or without sports).
January 11th, 2017 at 3:59 PM ^
I couldn't agree more. It amazes me how little value some people place on the opportunity to get a degree from a major university - especially one like Michigan. That, combined with the alumni network and notoriety that comes from playing for a school that's on national TV every week is hugely valuable.
Personally, I love the idea of this league, and hope it works. It's encouraging that making money is not a goal, because I think minor-league football has limited potential fan interest. I've wondered for years why the NFL didn't subsidize a minor league (obviously they didn't feel the need since college football provided it gratis).
Giving kids a living wage to pursue their NFL dream makes a ton of sense, and might just restore a tiny bit of sanity to college football. Kids that have no interest in school or just can't handle the academics now have a legitimate path to the NFL.
January 11th, 2017 at 9:36 AM ^
this would be bad for the SEC & the bagmen
January 11th, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^
If it's bad for the NCAA then it can only be good for athletes. Hopefully the kids who are needing cash now and an education later can play for pay then go to school later, hopefully after they cash in big time by playing for 3 years in the minors and then enjoying an average career of another 3 years in the NFL. Sic years of getting paid versus maybe getting injured and never seeing a dime can only be a good thing for them.
Hopefully it will force the NCAA to allow athletes to receive payment beyond the arbitrary limit of a scholarship.
January 11th, 2017 at 2:10 PM ^
I would think having a paying alternative would only strengthen the argument that college kids should not get paid.
What I hope it does is force colleges and the NCAA to re-evaluate what all the money goes to and how it is spent. I would prefer the money goes towards insurance policies against being injured, safety research, long term health care options, and enforcement of rules to create even playing conditions. Then student athletes would truly get an education, be able to play competitive sports, and not have to suffer long term impacts for applying their skill while gaining an education.