NCAA College Football 2019-20: Official Thread

Stele wrote:

... sh*tty little stadium ...

Really? I've always been under the impression that BB&T Field was just small and in no way sh*tty, unless you consider ~24K fans for a home game is sh*tty (which it is, tbh).

In any event, moving ND games to a larger stadium makes perfect sense for a team with a national fanbase. It's the same reason Duke plays in NYC, Greensboro and some other neutral-ish sites.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

It is crazy, but is it objectionable?

Not really. I guess.
It’s definitely not bad for ND.

I just like the actual college atmosphere. That said, Lambeau Field against Wisconsin...that’d be a great game to be at!!

I hear you, I enjoy the campus environment as well.

I really don't know what TN is doing in recruiting. But it's fun to watch as a fan.

Saw this on twitter:

In the last 15 days, Tennessee has landed commitments from:

— The nation’s top-ranked LB
— A 5-star edge rusher
— A 4-star QB
— A 4-star RB
— A 4-star WR
— A 4-star OL
— A 4-star DT
— A 4-star LB
— A 4-star DB
— The nation’s top-ranked JUCO RB
— A 3-star DB

They've got three past year top ranked by 247 recruiters on the staff now (Pruitt, Tee Martin, and Niedermeyer). Guess that's paying off.

MannishBoy wrote:

I really don't know what TN is doing in recruiting. But it's fun to watch as a fan.

Saw this on twitter:

In the last 15 days, Tennessee has landed commitments from:

— The nation’s top-ranked LB
— A 5-star edge rusher
— A 4-star QB
— A 4-star RB
— A 4-star WR
— A 4-star OL
— A 4-star DT
— A 4-star LB
— A 4-star DB
— The nation’s top-ranked JUCO RB
— A 3-star DB

They've got three past year top ranked by 247 recruiters on the staff now (Pruitt, Tee Martin, and Niedermeyer). Guess that's paying off.

You mean figuratively, right?

firesloth wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I really don't know what TN is doing in recruiting. But it's fun to watch as a fan.

Saw this on twitter:

In the last 15 days, Tennessee has landed commitments from:

— The nation’s top-ranked LB
— A 5-star edge rusher
— A 4-star QB
— A 4-star RB
— A 4-star WR
— A 4-star OL
— A 4-star DT
— A 4-star LB
— A 4-star DB
— The nation’s top-ranked JUCO RB
— A 3-star DB

They've got three past year top ranked by 247 recruiters on the staff now (Pruitt, Tee Martin, and Niedermeyer). Guess that's paying off.

You mean figuratively, right?

Who knows?

Seriously, I think part of what UT is selling is it's ability to help students profit from their likeness when the NCAA finally does what they say they're going to do. They've hired a firm to assist with that IIRC, and UT has shown historically that they can stay in the top 10 teams nationally in revenue even when not putting a product out on the market that's even close to the top 10 during our dark days.

They go out there and talk to kids about developing personal brand, because these recruits actually talk about it in interviews. Not sure how common that is around the country. Maybe it is? I just don't know.

Our long national nightmare is over, no, not corona virus. At long last Zach Evans picked a school!

And in more sobering news about the prospects of CFB this fall:

“This is a respiratory virus, so it’s going to be spread by shedding virus. The problem with virus shedding is that if I have it in my nasal pharynx, and it sheds and I wipe my hand against my nose—now it’s on my hand. You see, then I touch my chest or my thigh, then it’s on my chest or my thigh for at least a few hours. Sweat as such won’t transmit it. But if people are in such close contact as football players are on every single play, then that’s the perfect set up for spreading. I would think that if there is an infected football player on the field—a middle linebacker, a tackle, whoever it is it—as soon as they hit the next guy, the chances are that they will be shedding virus all over that person.

“If you really want to be in a situation where you want to be absolutely certain, you’d test all the players before the game. And you say, Those who are infected: Sorry, you’re sidelined. Those who are free: Get in there and play.”

That’s going to require so many tests that imagining it now would either be sheer folly or greedy on the part of a sports league. But Fauci hopes that the coming months bring increased access to tests."

Badferret wrote:

Our long national nightmare is over, no, not corona virus. At long last Zach Evans picked a school! :razz:

Such a weird deal. I hope things work out for him. Hope they win the conference every year; even after he's gone, too!

Ferret, that's why March Madness was cancelled. They assumed they could test players and coaches before games but when they found out not enough tests, no more tournament.

“If you really want to be in a situation where you want to be absolutely certain, you’d test all the players before the game. And you say, Those who are infected: Sorry, you’re sidelined. Those who are free: Get in there and play.”

Gambling is such a big part of CFB there is zero chance this will happen (having people sit right before the game starts)

UFC just had probably the ultimate contact support event.

I think they administered over 1000 tests on 300 people. One fighter and corner team tested postive Friday night before the Saturday fights and was pulled.

Not sure how that scales to football. But it seems doable if planned.

My back of the napkin math says that's over 3 million tests to complete the college football season just counting the players and not staff. To say nothing of the likelihood that college campuses aren't even open this year.

.

One more point I think is important to consider. What happens if college football starts under a rigorous testing regime, knowing that we have enough tests for everyone and eventually there's another wave and colleges close down again? Will it have been worth it for all the risk for a partial season?

Stele wrote:

With UC making the move, doesn't bode well for football season this fall.

Was hoping for empty stadium games on TV. But they've made it pretty clear if regular students can't be on campus then athletes can't either.

This quote is from the D&D Cornavirus thread.

And rather gum up that thread with continued college football talk, I wanted to bring it over here.

I'm not hopeful at all for the fall season.

The only realistic scenario that I can see is that the P5 schools play a shortened season, in empty stadiums and maybe fewer refs, virtual down and marker tracking etc.

And then, if and only if, the P5 schools come up with some kind of airtight waiver for the players/coaches/support staff to sign away their liability rights for them if they get infected, while playing football even if their campus is otherwise closed.

The lizard brain, sports loving part of me wants something like the above, but the rational, caring part of me thinks that there is no way we should be risking these kids lives or even more so the lives of the support staff that would still be needed to host a football game even in an empty stadium.

There shouldn’t be college football. It’s the easiest layup of all time.

Living in the Pac-12 I haven't seen anything about UC's.. Cal State's have made their decisions, and certainly as part of OOC, schools like Fresno and SDSU could be impacted, but Cal and UCLA (along with Davis) are a different system.

There is too much money involved to not have college football. I suspect that some schools will cancel their season and some schools may even cancel their football program forever but I believe that we will see football especially in the SEC and possibly in other conferences like the ACC.

Too much money and politics to worry about anything else especially if the argument is that these kids are not going to “really” get sick.

Ego Man wrote:

There is too much money involved to not have college football. I suspect that some schools will cancel their season and some schools may even cancel their football program forever but I believe that we will see football especially in the SEC and possibly in other conferences like the ACC.

Too much money and politics to worry about anything else especially if the argument is that these kids are not going to “really” get sick.

Canceling football will definitely result in fewer scholarships and other externalities that I don't think this thread has discussed yet. Even if the NCAA waived the 85 scholly limit, only the largest schools could afford to carry extra.

Most of these athletes are probably at little risk from the virus, and may prefer some incremental risk of catching it over possibly losing the ability to get a college degree.

I'm not speaking for them or taking a side, just adding some food for thought. Personally, we're quarantining more seriously at my house than most of our neighboring families, in large part because of pre-existing lung conditions in 3/4 of us.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Ego Man wrote:

There is too much money involved to not have college football. I suspect that some schools will cancel their season and some schools may even cancel their football program forever but I believe that we will see football especially in the SEC and possibly in other conferences like the ACC.

Too much money and politics to worry about anything else especially if the argument is that these kids are not going to “really” get sick.

Canceling football will definitely result in fewer scholarships and other externalities that I don't think this thread has discussed yet. Even if the NCAA waived the 85 scholly limit, only the largest schools could afford to carry extra.

Most of these athletes are probably at little risk from the virus, and may prefer some incremental risk of catching it over possibly losing the ability to get a college degree.

I'm not speaking for them or taking a side, just adding some food for thought. Personally, we're quarantining more seriously at my house than most of our neighboring families, in large part because of pre-existing lung conditions in 3/4 of us.

You'll start hearing a lot of second order impacts when people realize that there are only one or two sports that support the rest of the athletic departments in a university. Football and maybe basketball. All small sports, including all Title IX sports are funded by these two big pillars.

Also, many large university athletic departments also donate back to the colleges and cover administration and educational budget shortfalls. And many of those budgets have been hurting for years.

MannishBoy wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Ego Man wrote:

There is too much money involved to not have college football. I suspect that some schools will cancel their season and some schools may even cancel their football program forever but I believe that we will see football especially in the SEC and possibly in other conferences like the ACC.

Too much money and politics to worry about anything else especially if the argument is that these kids are not going to “really” get sick.

Canceling football will definitely result in fewer scholarships and other externalities that I don't think this thread has discussed yet. Even if the NCAA waived the 85 scholly limit, only the largest schools could afford to carry extra.

Most of these athletes are probably at little risk from the virus, and may prefer some incremental risk of catching it over possibly losing the ability to get a college degree.

I'm not speaking for them or taking a side, just adding some food for thought. Personally, we're quarantining more seriously at my house than most of our neighboring families, in large part because of pre-existing lung conditions in 3/4 of us.

You'll start hearing a lot of second order impacts when people realize that there are only one or two sports that support the rest of the athletic departments in a university. Football and maybe basketball. All small sports, including all Title IX sports are funded by these two big pillars.

Also, many large university athletic departments also donate back to the colleges and cover administration and educational budget shortfalls. And many of those budgets have been hurting for years.

All of which is why I emphasized that the Power 5. I don't think there is anyway that the smaller schools will be able to afford to play with the extra cost, testing, quarantining etc.

And you are already seeing a lot of the smaller conferences cutting scholarship numbers in non-revenue sports this week.

And while, Fed is right that the players probably have little risk, it's still more than zero. So basically, we are saying risk your health in an unpaid position to benefit universities and TV networks.

And I think the bigger issue is all of the ancillary support people needed to put on a major college football game even without fans.

Just a quick back of the napkin list.

Groundskeepers, facility/stadium employees
Trainers/ball boys
Coaches
Referees
TV production
Media

And the big one, spread to the community.

Again, the money has to be big enough for all the power 5 conferences to decide the risk outweigh the potential for some of the folks listed above possibly dying and the potential lawsuits that would entail.

And, I think all of the Power 5 has to be on board. Several ACC administrations have already said that unless kids are back on campus in the fall, football players won't be either.

Personally, I would hate for the SEC to try and go it alone, as I don't want UGA's next national championship to be meaningless.

Football doesn't support the rest of the sports program.

Student fees support the whole athletics operation, at least at most public universities. (Schools like Alabama and Clemson are the exception.) Sure, most of the Power 5 schools will be OK. But there are a lot more Sun Belt and C-USA and MAC and FCS schools out there.

If schools lose 5 / 10 / 15 percent of enrollment this fall, you're going to see a lot of athletics departments implode, especially after they lost all NCAA payout this spring.

Enix wrote:

Football doesn't support the rest of the sports program.

Student fees support the whole athletics operation, at least at most public universities. (Schools like Alabama and Clemson are the exception.) Sure, most of the Power 5 schools will be OK. But there are a lot more Sun Belt and C-USA and MAC and FCS schools out there.

If schools lose 5 / 10 / 15 percent of enrollment this fall, you're going to see a lot of athletics departments implode, especially after they lost all NCAA payout this spring.

I suspect just the ESPN/SEC Network revenue alone dwarfs student fees in those schools, all but one of which are public schools.

Smaller schools? Maybe. Big 10, SEC etc? Eeeeh.

I usually think Enix posts are right on, but bro, I don't think that's even close to true. Maybe if you're referring to non Division 1 schools, but that isn't how you stated it.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I usually think Enix posts are right on, but bro, I don't think that's even close to true. Maybe if you're referring to non Division 1 schools, but that isn't how you stated it.

I gotta agree with Enix here Fed, the majority of Group of 5 programs barely make money off of football, and depend on revenue sharing from the NCAA. There is a reason group of 5 schools and FCS schools offer themselves of as sacrificial payday slaughter.

Add the cost of the described level of testing needed before and after every game, I just don't see a way the smaller schools have any chance of playing this fall, especially without students on campus.

To further illustrate this point, here is a comparison between two different schools that both beat Tennessee last year.

I know you guys are all talking about much more important things, but today in my Cal echo chamber twitter, someone asked "top 5 situations you would like to see before you die"

100% of the answers had Rose Bowl in the top 5, 95% of those had it #1 (at least two had Rose Bowl as #s 1-5). Those that didn't either had Final 4 or some other much more meta goal that had nothing to do with winning games.

1 response had Football National Championship... as #4.. behind Rose Bowl, Passing stanfurd in overall big game wins, and winning the Pac-12, Yes.. I would rather go to the Rose Bowl than win the Pac-12 (ie what should have happened in 2004 before the great Satan Mack Brown stole it from us). Many separated "Winning Rose Bowl" and "Going to Rose Bowl" as #1 and #2.

I know a lot of you think I just say this to get a rise out of people who think the BCS system (or whatever its called now) needs to expand and eliminate the current Bowl system, but until Cal goes, this is our singular mindset. New grad, old grad, anyone who is a fan of Cal Football knows the Rose Bowl is the pinnacle.

Also.. in case it wasn't clear.. Cal and UCLA is not Cal State so whatever you read regarding the CSU system is not directly applicable to the two P5 publich schools in the state.

Not sure how true it is, everything I have ever understood was that football and Men’s basketball pay for everything

IMAGE(https://i.insider.com/59d687a6c68d7b282e8b7b77?width=1800&format=jpeg&auto=webp)

From the article

. The chart below shows how much money the average Division I (FBS) school makes in various sports, according to data obtained from the Department of Education. To nobody's surprise, football is the sport that is most responsible for total sports revenue. For example, at the University of Texas, the school with the most revenue from athletics ($182 million), 70% comes from football.

However, the gap between football and the rest of the sports is jarring. While the average school generates $31.9 million in football revenue each year, the next 35 sports on average generate $31.7 million combined each year. Here is the average revenue for the top 14 sports at FBS schools.

Edit.

Found this neat NCAA site

From that site

. from 2017 to 2018, while expenses climbed 5.4%. Expenses outpaced generated revenues at every FCS institution, meaning their schools subsidized at least a portion of the athletics budget at every school across FCS. Those subsidies ranged from $2 million to over $46 million, with a median of $13.9 million.