I have never heard of built bars and had to look it up. I was wondering why people that don’t drink were interested in building bars. Guess I need to get out more.
5 Likes
I was in the same exact boat.
1 Like
They’ve already warned their $ in earned media.
sigh
I already said it was great for the walkons. I also said it’s not a big story because this won’t help BYU field a better team.
This company paid out roughly $300,000 to walkons for one year. This isn’t a game changer. This isn’t throwing the system on it’s head. It’s a PR piece that actually benefits some kids, for a year, and nothing more.
4 Likes
It also illustrates one of the problems with this NIL stuff. It’s all happening on the fly. There is no set of rules of all teams; rather, there are rules that vary by state.
This particular example shows how NIL can be used to make the 85 scholarship limit moot. That limit is what maintains “parity” in football and should actually be reduced. This is just the first of a series of unintended consequences we’ll see.
2 Likes
Yep. Schools will be able to stockpile players again. At least there’s the possibility of that.
2 Likes
There was more parity when there was not a reduction in scholarships.
I guess they didn’t go far enough. Fewer schollies will result in more parity.
You mean like back in the days when Nebraska’s third team would have been ranked third in the nation?
4 Likes
They won two titles pre- scholarship limits. They won three in the 1990s after it. So, I’m not sure this point is valid. Alabama is under Scholarship limits and won six of the last 12 with more schools playing FBS football.
Everyone is under scholarship limits. That’s what the limit means.
Alabama is the greatest college football program in history, and it’s not close. They would survive a scholarship reduction just fine.
I want parity. I think football would be improved with it. But people argue that parity is not a good thing for a sport. They say a sport needs a few teams at the top for people to love/hate. Maybe. I just want to spread the talent wealth wider and would like a reduction in scholarships.
2 Likes
That’s my point. We are seeing less parity under scholarship reductions. That was all I was saying. I think the parity issue is a weird convo when the SEC obviously has parity. Even with Alabama. You’ve had since 1999 (selective to add one more team) the SEC has had 5 teams win it. Since 2008 you’ve had 4 win it. and in the last two years, you’ve had two different programs. To do that with other conferences you’re going back pretty far. WHY DOES THE SEC HAVE PARITY? I honestly don’t really know.
Recruiting is 90% of college football. There is enough talent in this country to keep those 4-5 SEC teams loaded with talent. If the scholarship limits were higher, I think you’d have fewer competitive teams in the SEC.
1 Like
I don’t. I think you might spread them out more in conference at best. You would still see a majority of the top tier of the top tier choosing those programs. The question is “Why the SEC?” I know some will say $ while ignoring SC. To me though, why would a kid like Najee Harris leave the Bay Area if the Pac 12 was going to give him the exposure. I think many of these top athletes see it as choosing a better platform for draft status. Something happened when the SEC went to a Championship game. It gave them momentum and it’s been a catch up game for everyone else. There has to be some leadership from the conferences as to why their brand is not as strong anymore.
Growing up it was all about the Pac 10, Big 10 and ND. Oddly enough those have been the institutions most resistant to change. The SEC (and Nick Saban is notorious for this) are really good at pivoting and exploiting new rules.