Bull94

1 hour ago, Brad said:

I didn't think so.  So to suggest he was out there shopping himself makes it okay for his players to do the same is faulty rationale.

Coaches are going to coach because they love to do it.  This turnover in roster is ridiculous and doesn't end in the best outcome generally speaking for players and for the university.

With that said, I hope Pryor gets his $39,000 and picks up a fly ride.  This alleged future NBA player may never have the chance again...

lol coaches jump at the chance to improve their position financially just like anyone else in this world. where was CAAR's loyalty to KSU?

11 hours ago, Brad said:

Coaches are employees subject to termination, not the players.  They are on short term contracts, not the players.  They build the programs, not the players.  They haul in money (when done right), not the players.  

Players are on 1 year renewable scholarships. Players get asked to leave programs all the time.

I'm not sure why people expect players to show loyalties to schools when schools don't reciprocate. Notice how we are complaining about the good players leaving and not the bad players that are "asked" to leave.

BTW all these players that we are complaining about leaving left other programs to come here

1 minute ago, Dave_Glaser said:

Nothing that is happening in collegiate sports today is meant to lift all boats and build a better, stronger product that creates more involvement. Every piece of it is designed to consolidate power in a handful of places. To an extent, it has always been that way, but right now, today, and the policies that are being put in place for the future are designed to shut programs out and make the overall product less competitive and less accessible outside of the chosen few.

it has absolutely always been that way. some people just have some idyllic vision of the past that didn't really exist.

20 minutes ago, olafberserker said:

Again .... collegiate athletics vs. professional sports

again....what does this mean?

just because the powers that be have been able to control the labor market in college athletics for so long doesn't mean it's right.

you know what. I'm ok if lower level schools don't pay their players.

in fact division 3 don't even get scholarships. there should be another division. There is a huge discrepancy with ohio state's revenues $250m compared to the 130th place d1 fbs school. they will never be on a level playing field.

but when major college programs chase every last dollar(coaches, athletic directors, schools) than the players deserve a cut.

the "innocence" of amateur sports is dead. it has been for quite awhile.

52 minutes ago, USFBulls12 said:

Yes, and if he wants to make a reference to capitalism and stick with that argument, this system was enacted by the powerful cabal of college sports elites to deepen their pockets and is not meant to make things better for everyone across the board. It will allow those with systems that have already been established with massive donor pools to prosper while destroying those who are still working on things. These elite members are now circling the wagons to consolidate everything for themselves at the top and force everyone else (that includes USF) out and you're arguing in favor of it. To continue this further, USF is a mom and pop store that will be eaten up by the big box retailers, along with dozens (CFB) if not hundreds (CBB) of other D1 programs around the country. As a "capitalist" system, that's what happens over time as cronyism enters. This isn't a pure capitalist system being set up in college sports from stage 1, it's a system of corruption and greed entering as the nationwide capitalist system simultaneously enters its final stage. For those school who will now go without the ability to put food in their kid's mouth (maintain and grow their programs), that's a problem. Do we let the market simply take out the weak college sports programs while those who already have the upper hand continue to benefit? Does the government interfere in this "free" system and increase spending of tax payer money to keep the status quo? Or should the new system have never been installed for the betterment of maintaining the system as soundly as it was? A NIL system like this is going to have harsh consequences for those who don't have the resources. Additionally, those who don't have the resources will never be able to get those resources to even get going. It'll eventually be like 1972 Dolphins playing against high school teams. Those "high school teams" will not be able to compete, fans won't have interest in them, no one will buy tickets, TV time or merchandise. NIL systems for the lower tiers will dry up so who will pay those athletes? No one? That defeats the purpose of even having those teams which are now on the level of a community league squad. Now we have professional sports. Why do you think the NBA can't have 351 basketball teams like D1 basketball? There just aren't enough fans, not enough money to be made, and the players wouldn't get paid as much -- except by the top 30 NBA teams that currently exist -- it would dilute and degrade that whole system. All of this will bull will cause these programs to go belly up without MORE government assistance and that can't happen when government spending is out of control and across some metrics, bankrupt. What's the solution?

are you a marxist?

USF will be fine. we may not end up at the top level but with a minimal donor base and not much demand for the product it's understandable.

You think we should be "allowed" to compete with programs that bring in 5x our revenue by I guess spreading the wealth. That's not how the real world works. The rays have to compete with the yankees when they spend 3x what the rays do.

sorry but the power is shifting to the labor(players) and away from the capital(schools).

not much they can do about it and honestly with the ridiculous sums of money being thrown around the players deserve a chunk.

2 hours ago, Grateful Dad said:

Capitalism?  Free Trade?  National economic systems?  You set yourself up as the only fair person, laugh at the rest of us hypocrites, and then pivot to national economic philosophy?  We're talking about college football, just as a reminder. 

These are not your best posts.  Put the shovel down.  The hole is just getting deeper.

Not sure what you mean.

You suggested coaches should sit a year if they take another job.

Would you have to sit a year if you wanted to change jobs?

1 minute ago, belgianbull said:

No doubt College sports is a multi billion dollar industry. From television networks to the gambling industry, to the universities, and everyone and everything in between.

I am totally fine with players getting their fair share of the money pie. The Nil is just something we will have to figure out. If you look at other teams in the AAC, they are also losing players. For now we will just have to restock for next year, and than figure out how to be competitive in the NIL long term. If we can get 300 million plus for an OCS I suspect the donor base is there for NIL money

 

the solution will be multi year contracts. just like professional sports.

Everyone has to deal with the issue of players leaving. Ohio State lost their starting QB

27 minutes ago, Professor BullDawg said:

Not to mention the gambling sites getting rich off of college sports too.

the conferences (and thereby the teams/players) need to get a cut of this. Just like professional sports leagues are doing.

15 minutes ago, Grateful Dad said:

Actually, a lot of us had a problem with coaches being able to transfer without sitting out a year.  It just never occurred to us to ruin our sports programs over it.  I guess we are the dumb ones.

so you just want to restrict free trade. got it.

maybe capitalism isn't your thing.

it may not be perfect but it's the best economic system we have.

BTW our basketball team benefited greatly from the ability to get a coach and multiple transfers this year.

The system worked in our favor and now that it has people are complaining that some players are moving on. Guess what? they left their last place to come here.

31 minutes ago, olafberserker said:

I find it funny that you make false assumptions.

so you aren't in favor of us chasing the dollars? Don't you want the best coach money can buy? How about the nicest facilities we can possibly build? Maybe move up to a conference that pays more?

I don't blame players one bit for wanting a cut.

BTW I'd be perfectly fine breaking off from the money chasers. put reasonable rules in place.

16 minutes ago, olafberserker said:

It's not biting "them, it's biting the fans.   "Them" don't care because they're still cashing their checks

if it's biting their customers then eventually it will bite them. I find it funny that everyone has a problem with the players trying to get a cut but nobody ever had a problem with coaches,schools or athletic directors etc chasing the dollars.

26 minutes ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

I'm so old, I can remember when multi-year contracts meant that you put in the work 4 years in exchange for tuition, books, room and board, meals, nutrition specialist, training program, personal trainer, occasional per diem money, pride in your chosen school, and eventually a degree.   Not intended to place blame on anyone for what college sports has turned into...its all about the $$$.  Just doesn't seem the same now when players chase the money like pros (and coaches do, too).  I root for the name on the front of the jersey.  Sad to hear CY doesn't want to play for USF anymore.

there has never been 4 year athletic scholarships to my knowledge. Just another way for the schools to take advantage of the athletes.

they are 1 year contracts. Looks like that has come back to bite them.

we had 3 returning players this year. seems to have worked out ok.

this is how college sports works now. every year is a rebuild until they come up with multi year contracts.

9 hours ago, bowman1 said:

Stat wise, the game was pretty even and though it did not seem like it - offensive rebounds were 10/15 in-favor of USF (though VCU seemed to convert on everyone of theirs, while our offensive rebounds seemed to end in missed shots)

The biggest difference was 3 pt shooting - they were almost 40% to our 20

we out rebounded(38-33) them and scored more in the paint(32-28).

they hit 6 more 3's while taking 6 more. That's +18 for them.

9 hours ago, Cmr3 said:

I agree really need a big man. If we can find a big that did what young blood did today we would be good. Youngblood played like a center posting up, offensive rebound and put backs. 
 

for the love of god people need to stop with this nonsense. a big who is one dimensional and can only score down low hurts an offense.

it clogs the lanes. slows down ball movement and allows the defense to sag back and take away driving lanes for other players.

youngblood scored plenty down low. you know who doesn't score down low if we have a one dimensional big man  there?

Youngblood because the opposing center could sag back and play help instead of having to guard Pryor at the arc.

Now if you're talking about a big man who can play in and out then I agree but they are extremely rare

BTW we out rebounded them and scored more in the paint than them which everybody has been saying we needed to do more of this year.

we lost because they shot(6) and made(6) more 3 pointers than us. that was  +18 points for them.

1 hour ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

If the B12's next TV contract includes a substantial pay increase (thinking neighborhood of $10M+ per school), plus pro-rata additions, I can see the ACC being in trouble then. Conference distributions will be interesting for the 23/24 year. 

carriage fees are going away.

tv money will turn into streaming money.

only way they get an increase like that is if they charge a ridiculous amount for a big 12 streaming service which will of course reduce demand.

isn't going to happen.

he signed  2 of our top 3 NBA players while here.

pretty tough to transition from c-usa to big east after losing your 2nd leading scorer to cancer

13 hours ago, Rocky Style said:

Hard to deny that one and UAB seemed like the tougher team to me.  Their defense had us stifled by putting 4 guys at the 3 point line and we would still try to shoot 3s.  Also their offensive rebounds.

We scored 83 points and shot 40% from 3. Their defense isn't why we lost. we had 14 offensive rebounds to their 13 so that wasn't it either.

8 minutes ago, SilverBull said:

Apparently the Tide does focus on macroeconomics...

Kalen DeBoer contract details: Buyout, bonuses and perks for new Alabama coach

WWW.AL.COM

---

Kalen DeBoer's contract details were made public on Monday.

 

I stand corrected. He does get a $50k bonus if their graduation rate is in the top half of the SEC. They really do care about academics.....

of course he gets an $875k bonus for winning a natty

it's crazy how much leverage these schools give these coaches.

53 minutes ago, USFBULL_08 said:

Yeah idk about that. All of this realignment is strictly for money.

Unless I missed Bama leaving for the Ivy League.

lol like bama cares about academics....

the big 12 actually pays out less than the acc.

sure the payout might drop some for the acc but not enough for some of the best academic schools in the country to join the likes of wvu and texas tech

now maybe if the sec or big 10 came calling you'd have a point.

no academic powerhouse is going to make a lateral move to join a conference full of 100+ rated schools

we would be the highest rated academic school in the big 12....

28 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

I don't know. If a Duke, Stanford, Cal. Pitt, and Georgia Tech get the choice between being in a conference with us, Tulane, Syracuse, Wake Forrest, and Boston College or the Big 12, they will fall over themselves to get in the Big 12.

Again assuming the ACC loses more than 4 teams. If its just 4 the ACC will be fine. If its more the Big 12 will be in a good position.

disagree. I think academics still matter to the presidents of those schools.

I think there are only 2 big 12 schools ranked in the top 100. That's tcu at 98 and baylor at 93.

Duke, Stanford etc would not want to be associated with wvu, TTech, Kansas state, etc.

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

 I like that we fired failure and made hires that seem to be having early success, that is a step in the right direction. There are a lot of things that can be done to improve things in the conference failure department, this stadium is not one of them. How does not wanting to pretend that building a ****** stadium somehow lead to UCF being successful and us not building one somehow leading to the failures that followed translate to needing to join UCF? This is their revisionist history that only exists because we made fun of their POS that they felt forced to build. We weren't forced use the money more judiciously on impactful things that are not at ridiculous highs for all parts of the process. It is dumb and people need to be fired.

 facility upgrades were something they could control unlike coaching hires which are more of a crapshoot. they certainly don't hurt as far as making us more attractive to a conference.

2 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

True but that assumes they're getting the upside they anticipated getting in the ACC (money, CFP access, prestige, etc.). If, however, the ACC takes a step or two back due to losing significant teams, I think going back to a reconstituted Pac-12 is more likely long-term than staying in the ACC (with or without those schools). At some point Cal and Stanford will just have to suck it up. They have no long-term future in a watered-down east coast league. Might as well rebuild a watered-down west coast league, or join the Big 12 in protest, and save the travel headaches.

I just don't see it. even if they lose top few teams, The ACC is academically heads and shoulders above the big 12 or reconstituted pac 2. I think this still actually matters to some schools.

1 hour ago, John Lewis said:

I think he would still have a few of the go to guys coming back after this season.

I'm sure he could take them with him and probably get them paid as well.

11 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

My thoughts FWIW (not much):

1. ACC is highly unlikely to ever take WSU, OSU, or Boise. Or Memphis. Just not enough bang for the buck from a media rights perspective - even for the Big 12. Plus, I don't think the ACC really wants to expand west. Adding Cal, Stanford, and SMU was a concession to ND, which will soon split for the B1G. I think those schools eventually realize that if they're not in the P2, they're better off reconstituting the Pac-12 with WSU, OSU, and a few other additions like SDSU, Boise, and Memphis, than remaining in the ACC. 

2. First three ACC adds, in order, would be UConn, USF, and Tulane. I think they probably only replace 1:1 and plan for the future departures of Cal and Stanford. SMU could either stick around or join the reconstituted Pac-12 described above.

3. Being in the ACC is far better than our current situation. It will still be viewed as a big step up from where we are in terms of money and prestige. I think the ACC survives on a level comparable to the Big 12 and reconstituted Pac-12. 

Cal and Stanford wanted nothing to do with big 12 for the academic reputation. they will not want anything to do with boise, sdsu and memphis