17em. If no one is watching will anyone care
I agree with you. Ultimately, I do not think a program like this works unless people with significant funds contribute, and the good news is that we have been getting those type of contributions. Without a doubt, those contributions will be the largest part of our revenue for this year. Over the past few months, though, more and more people have told me that I was missing the need for a broad outreach, so we rolled up our sleeves and created the web site. In hindsight, I think both matter and are necessary. We need the big money or this won’t work. The numbers just aren’t there. On the other hand, because a number of those who have signed up (good news - that number has gone up since lunch) have gone well beyond the minimum, this part is also going to matter and has the potential to really help.
It’s easy to get discouraged - Lord knows, I often do, but I think things are trending better than that number might indicate. That being said, if it all falls apart and the inevitable “we should have never trusted a 17 monotone announcer” comments make their way back again, I will at least have the clear conscience of knowing I have done every 17 think I could to try to make it work.
As I said before - I hold *zero* frustration with somebody who does not like this and does not want to participate, and I know many are tired of hearing me talk about it. One last plug for participation, though, if somebody’s objection is that they already get enough - Consider doing something for baseball. On average, our players get 42% of a scholarship. I would at least like to see us get enough to even us up with Vanderbilt and make the part about free school true for them.
I’m afraid that we’ll have to lose a good player on our team for people to wake up on this.
I’m afraid that we’ll have to lose a good player on our team for people to wake up on this.
All losing a really good player is going to prove is how broken this whole 17ing system is, and is only going to drive even more people away and make them even less likely to pay….and rightfully so.
I mean….we just had a starting WR - on a team that throws the ball 60-65 times a game, mind you - transfer to our in-state rival in the offseason. We have two starting QB’s in the SEC West transferring to other SEC West schools to start for those teams. Another starting QB in the SEC West just packed up and decided to go to Oregon. Who seriously wants to support this 17ing joke of a product and “college” sport anymore?
IPTAY
I'm out on the current mercenary model of college athletics .. I have always been for the players getting a bigger piece of the pie but the current model is not the way ... I cannot get behind what we currently have
It literally can't get any worse as far as competitive imbalance, than the last decade. It's not possible. I think NIL will balance it out a little. Until now, it's all about a combination of how football culture + coaching + money = recruiting better players. Now money is more of a factor, and allows some of the mid-level teams, who maybe didn't have the best coaching or culture, to pull even. I don't see how it affects us at all.It feels like it's going to become a bad professional sports league with less talent than the legacy pro leagues and no draft. No salary cap is one thing, but no draft in MLB or the NFL would mean the Cowboys and Yankees will win every year. For teams to get better, they will have to pay the top talent more and more and my guess is roster sizes will shrink substantially for schools with less money. Schools like Mississippi State become JV teams for bigger money schools where talented freshman transfer to get a bigger paycheck from Ohio State or Georgia.
It literally can't get any worse as far as competitive imbalance, than the last decade. It's not possible. I think NIL will balance it out a little. Until now, it's all about a combination of how football culture + coaching + money = recruiting better players. Now money is more of a factor, and allows some of the mid-level teams, who maybe didn't have the best coaching or culture, to pull even. I don't see how it affects us at all.
Not only that, but we've also been paying players since the 1980s. So again, what is really changing except additional tax revenue?
The way I see it is, with no rules or any real limitations on transfers, why should I spend my money on a bunch of players who are likely to hold out or transfer out next year for a better deal? Even if we did have a sensible system in place, we couldn't begin to compete with 12 of the other 15 schools in the conference anyway.
You think the current economy is worse than 2008-2009?
The thing to remember is that there is still a finite number of players (generally) that can play at the D1 level. So if a Texas A&M, Arkansas, Miami, Louisville or USC rises, that also means that an Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State or Notre Dame will have to fall. That's why I'm not worried. The shuffling, in my opinion, will occur at the top, for the top players. We will still get our 3 star army with a few 4 stars from Mississippi that we can buy with NIL (the ones we were previously buying under the table, usually defensive studs), along with JUCOs and now transfers from the blue bloods who aren't getting the PT they want.It is now in the open and completely "legal" and encouraged to pay players. Sure it has happened forever, at various levels by school and decade under the table. But 99% of most schools fans/alumni would never consider paying players when it could lead to punishment. Now the kimono is open. It's absolutely going to change the paradigm.
In the past players were getting a car note taken care of or a house note for the family, but it was all contingent on the player stating loyal to the school, because it was illegal for everyone involved. If said player tried to transfer, the whistle would be blown.
We are now talking about NIL collectives paying potential 6-7 figure annual deals to players on top of the table. Texas A&M just landed the highest rated recruiting class ever, strictly based on NIL. The proverbial gap is about to widen, my hope is, much like other professional leagues, the SEC establishes some rules to create competitive balance... (Like you said, this hasn't existed and that could be the great potential outcome of a this.)
NIL is injecting jet fuel into the fire that was already burning. Add in the transfer rule. There will absolutely be breakout stars transferring from our $30k per year nil deals to go play for one of the blue chip schools for $300k per year.
You are right about one thing for sure, the money will allow for struggling but affluent programs to step it up. I don't think we fit that mold unfortunately.
The reshuffling at the top of the deck makes sense. I just have hope some of this stuff gets regulated by the leagues. I really have no problem with NIL. The transfer portal is the problem. That combined with NIL is what makes me nervous. All of those 2-3* under the radar Mississippi boys that turn into beasts after a year or two of good meals and workouts will be getting huge money offers to transfer.
The SEC and B1G feel like an AFC/NFC setup. With the lack of teeth from the NCAA now, it feels like an opportunity for those two leagues to create a real competitor for NFL TV revenue.
I always point this out, If I am sitting in the SEC office I don't look at the ACC deal, the Big 12 deal, or even the B1G deal spitting out $60 million per year. I'm looking at the NFL where each team gets +$300 million a year. How can we create a product that is compelling enough to create half of that TV money? Parity, dynamic scheduling, and like you mentioned... An expanded playoff is what allows the NFL to thrive. That and gambling.
It literally can't get any worse as far as competitive imbalance, than the last decade. It's not possible. I think NIL will balance it out a little. Until now, it's all about a combination of how football culture + coaching + money = recruiting better players. Now money is more of a factor, and allows some of the mid-level teams, who maybe didn't have the best coaching or culture, to pull even. I don't see how it affects us at all.
Not only that, but we've also been paying players since the 1980s. So again, what is really changing except additional tax revenue?
I agree with you. Ultimately, I do not think a program like this works unless people with significant funds contribute, and the good news is that we have been getting those type of contributions. Without a doubt, those contributions will be the largest part of our revenue for this year. Over the past few months, though, more and more people have told me that I was missing the need for a broad outreach, so we rolled up our sleeves and created the web site. In hindsight, I think both matter and are necessary. We need the big money or this won’t work. The numbers just aren’t there. On the other hand, because a number of those who have signed up (good news - that number has gone up since lunch) have gone well beyond the minimum, this part is also going to matter and has the potential to really help.
It’s easy to get discouraged - Lord knows, I often do, but I think things are trending better than that number might indicate. That being said, if it all falls apart and the inevitable “we should have never trusted a 17 monotone announcer” comments make their way back again, I will at least have the clear conscience of knowing I have done every 17 think I could to try to make it work.
As I said before - I hold *zero* frustration with somebody who does not like this and does not want to participate, and I know many are tired of hearing me talk about it. One last plug for participation, though, if somebody’s objection is that they already get enough - Consider doing something for baseball. On average, our players get 42% of a scholarship. I would at least like to see us get enough to even us up with Vanderbilt and make the part about free school true for them.