Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

2024 College Football Thread


KingKucci
 Share

Recommended Posts

The NCAA blew it.  I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC and Big Ten drop the NCAA and form a super league:

Quote

In an unreported and little-known fact, SEC presidents in March quietly authorized their commissioner, Sankey, to split from the NCAA if he deems that the right move.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/with-college-sports-in-limbo-and-key-issues-coming-to-a-head-the-spotlight-is-on-the-sec-its-going-to-get-heated-130018106.html?guccounter=1

That would at least allow the ACC and others to get back to being universities first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:

The NCAA blew it.  I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC and Big Ten drop the NCAA and form a super league:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/with-college-sports-in-limbo-and-key-issues-coming-to-a-head-the-spotlight-is-on-the-sec-its-going-to-get-heated-130018106.html?guccounter=1

That would at least allow the ACC and others to get back to being universities first.

 

the top of college football is losing sight of what actually made college football king IMO.   If they want to break off and be the NFL's highly paid (for now) development league.....it will eventually be treated as such by the masses. 

  • Pie 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see where this ultimately goes. They're trying hard to kill the golden goose. With the playoffs expanding to 12 teams and purely going with the highest seeded teams you know the SEC is going to throw a bitch for every time they don't make up at least half the teams on the field. Some of those crazy ass homers honestly think it should just be all SEC every year. No one else belongs. It's mainly the fans of lower tier SEC schools who think this way. It's just their attempt to rise the coattails of the better teams and act like they belong instead of realizing that they're just schedule cannon fodder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This is getting beyond stupid.

Why? If someone is willing to pay it, someone should take it. 

I'd be interested in seeing what the sliding scale looks like for recruits at different star levels.  If $20K a month is the rate for a top 25-50 recruit, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me - especially at the QB, RB and WR positions. 

I'd also like to think these schools are smart enough that they are putting some sort of recuperation clause in a contract that says we'll pay you to stay a recruit, but if you flip or decommit, the money has to be paid back.  Otherwise, I'd be telling my son to commit to anyone with a check book his sophomore year, let's get paid while we look / wait for better options.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, HeelsPanthersCanes said:

Why? If someone is willing to pay it, someone should take it. 

I'd be interested in seeing what the sliding scale looks like for recruits at different star levels.  If $20K a month is the rate for a top 25-50 recruit, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me - especially at the QB, RB and WR positions. 

I'd also like to think these schools are smart enough that they are putting some sort of recuperation clause in a contract that says we'll pay you to stay a recruit, but if you flip or decommit, the money has to be paid back.  Otherwise, I'd be telling my son to commit to anyone with a check book his sophomore year, let's get paid while we look / wait for better options.  

I completely get it from the player's perspective. But just because it's good for the players doesn't mean it's not absurdly ridiculous.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...