Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 7/1/2025 at 7:53 AM, South Austin said:

ESPN early 2026 draft projection has Cleveland picking Cabe Klubnik No. 1.  Lulz.

ESPN

The surefire way to make sure Arch comes back in 2026 is if Cleveland picks in the top 2

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
5 hours ago, Hermanator said:

The surefire way to make sure Arch comes back in 2026 is if Cleveland picks in the top 2

Unfortunately, new Orleans is supposed to suck shit through a straw this year 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Look at this hypocritical piece of shit:

Quote

FRISCO, Texas -- Colorado coach Deion Sanders is advocating for a salary cap in college football, noting that it would help even out the competitive landscape in a sport that is already becoming more like the NFL.

Speaking Wednesday at Big 12 media days, Sanders, the Pro Football Hall of Famer entering his third season as Colorado's coach, said the sport is hurt by an unregulated system with player movement and finances.

Advertising

"I wish there was a cap," Sanders said during a Big 12 coaches' roundtable. "Like, the top-of-the-line player makes this, and if you're not that type of guy, you know you're not going to make that. That's what the NFL does.


"So the problem is, you got a guy that's not that darn good, but he could go to another school and they give him a half million dollars. You can't compete with that. And it don't make sense."

Sanders pointed to the College Football Playoff, nothing that the same teams will make the field because of their stronger financial profiles.

"You understand darn near why they're in the playoffs," he said. "It's kind of hard to compete with somebody who's giving $25-30 million to a freshman class. It's crazy."

Sanders added that college football needs an "upright and upstanding" system where player salaries are transparent and regulated, like in the NFL. He mentioned that salary offers are often reported before players even enter the transfer portal.

Even recent developments such as the House settlement and revenue sharing directly from athletic programs don't give Sanders confidence that the sport will balance out.

"I wish it was truly equality," he said. "Now they go back to doing stuff under the table. They go back to the agents. Now you've got parents trying to be agents, you've got the homeboys trying to be agents, you've got the friends trying to be agents. You got a lot of bull junk going on. And quite frankly, we're sick of it. I'll say it for everybody: We're sick of it."

alanis morissette 90s GIF

 

  • Haha 9
Posted

I don’t think he’s wrong though. Unless I misread it. Of course, I’m pretty positive he paid Hunter to come to Jacksonville State. But we would never be able to prove it.

Posted
10 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

Of course, I’m pretty positive he paid Hunter to come to Jacksonville State.

I'm extremely positive he didn't pay Hunter to come to Jacksonville State.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
Quote

Now you've got parents trying to be agents, you've got the homeboys trying to be agents, you've got the friends trying to be agents. 

We all know this isn't a new development. It's just gotten a helluva lot more expensive now that it's over-the-table.

Classic FAFO

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

We all know this isn't a new development. It's just gotten a helluva lot more expensive now that it's over-the-table.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

I don’t think he’s wrong though. Unless I misread it. Of course, I’m pretty positive he paid Hunter to come to Jacksonville State. But we would never be able to prove it.

Agreed.  I know it's impossible for surly to be objective, but what is better for college football overall?  SOME sort of pay-for-play guardrails, or just let the players go to the highest bidder, whatever the price?  I already know what most will answer though. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Agreed.  I know it's impossible for surly to be objective, but what is better for college football overall?  SOME sort of pay-for-play guardrails, or just let the players go to the highest bidder, whatever the price?  I already know what most will answer though. 

I think either some type of cap per player, position or something like that would be a start. However, they’ll go back to paying them under the table to make up the difference. They could always make they have legitimate deals and disclose the information on some type of basis.
Posted
50 minutes ago, Chooky said:

I don't know. I thought they had a few more than that last season. I could look it up but I don't really care. 

That describes CU football pretty well. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I would think kids who can command NIL type money are just as much looking to land somewhere that has the staff and facilities to develop them into high draft choices.  It's a two part exam, and I don't see Sanders as having the chops or staff to pass the second part, even if CU had funds to match UT and other NIL leaders.

 

Posted
5 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

Agreed.  I know it's impossible for surly to be objective, but what is better for college football overall?  SOME sort of pay-for-play guardrails, or just let the players go to the highest bidder, whatever the price?  I already know what most will answer though. 

How would you feel about compensation "guardrails" being implemented in your line of work?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

How would you feel about compensation "guardrails" being implemented in your line of work?

You know that’s a stupid and nonsensical comparison.  

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

I don't know that.

Not that it surprises me, but why do you feel that way?

OK, let's play out your position.  Let's call the players what they are, professionals.  The National Football League has self imposed guardrails to try to create some level of competitive balance.  It's called the salary cap.  Precisely what Prime is suggesting.  That's how markets like Kansas City and in hoops OKC can compete with markets like LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.  Sure it's great as a Dodger fan to be able to spend wildly to field the most competitive team they can, but that is also why most people hate the Dodgers.  It's the same in CFB.  If there are no limits to what players can earn, then it'll be OSU, Texas, Oregon, Bama, Georgia etc who really are the only teams who have a realistic chance.  Is that good for the game?  Honest question.  And TRY to look at it as objectively as you can, as if you have zero affiliation to any team.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

The National Football League has self imposed guardrails to try to create some level of competitive balance.  It's called the salary cap

I would argue that that is not at all why the salary cap is in place. Remember Jerry Jones was one of the biggest proponents of the salary cap

  • Drool 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I would argue that that is not at all why the salary cap is in place. Remember Jerry Jones was one of the biggest proponents of the salary cap

Doesn't really change the fact that there is a cap.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Doesn't really change the fact that there is a cap.


I mean, if you’re talking about the benefit of the cap, look at who benefits

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

OK, let's play out your position.  Let's call the players what they are, professionals.  The National Football League has self imposed guardrails to try to create some level of competitive balance.  It's called the salary cap.  Precisely what Prime is suggesting.  That's how markets like Kansas City and in hoops OKC can compete with markets like LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.  Sure it's great as a Dodger fan to be able to spend wildly to field the most competitive team they can, but that is also why most people hate the Dodgers.  It's the same in CFB.  If there are no limits to what players can earn, then it'll be OSU, Texas, Oregon, Bama, Georgia etc who really are the only teams who have a realistic chance.  Is that good for the game?  Honest question.  And TRY to look at it as objectively as you can, as if you have zero affiliation to any team.

 

14 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

How would you feel about compensation "guardrails" being implemented in your line of work?

Whatever SBB's line of work actually is, he supports guardrails to maintain competitive balance. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

OK, let's play out your position.  Let's call the players what they are, professionals.  The National Football League has self imposed guardrails to try to create some level of competitive balance.  It's called the salary cap.  Precisely what Prime is suggesting.  That's how markets like Kansas City and in hoops OKC can compete with markets like LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.  Sure it's great as a Dodger fan to be able to spend wildly to field the most competitive team they can, but that is also why most people hate the Dodgers.  It's the same in CFB.  If there are no limits to what players can earn, then it'll be OSU, Texas, Oregon, Bama, Georgia etc who really are the only teams who have a realistic chance.  Is that good for the game?  Honest question.  And TRY to look at it as objectively as you can, as if you have zero affiliation to any team.

I don't see why "good for the game" is an issue for the labor to bear the cost of solving. 

Any sort of competitive balance in the NFL and NBA is more due to revenue sharing than salary caps.  

When half of the banks in the country were going bankrupt at the same time, I never saw anyone claiming that everyone in the banking industry should be subject to industry compensation limits.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
The NFL cap is collectively bargained.

You sure about that? I mean, unions are stupid, but I find it hard to believe they would willing impose a limit to watch their members can be paid and the amount of dues that would be brought in.
Posted
6 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:


You sure about that? I mean, unions are stupid, but I find it hard to believe they would willing impose a limit to watch their members can be paid and the amount of dues that would be brought in.

The concept of a salary cap makes sense for the goal of competition.  Of course that goal would also require caps on revenue and non-athlete salaries.

Posted

The comparison to real world business compensation is nonsensical.  

Without some sort of cap the wealthiest owners spend the other franchises into insolvency.  Then they have no one to compete against.  And yes of course that could apply to business in the real world, except the market depth and breadth is entirely different than a single league of 30 or so sports teams.

 

F1 has been pretty famously revitalized by implementing a spending cap on teams.  Previously the insolvency rate of teams led the whole sport to be unsustainable.

Posted
The comparison to real world business compensation is nonsensical.  
Without some sort of cap the wealthiest owners spend the other franchises into insolvency.  Then they have no one to compete against.  And yes of course that could apply to business in the real world, except the market depth and breadth is entirely different than a single league of 30 or so sports teams.
 
F1 has been pretty famously revitalized by implementing a spending cap on teams.  Previously the insolvency rate of teams led the whole sport to be unsustainable.

Premier League Soccer says different
Posted
On 5/15/2025 at 9:06 AM, Vegas64 said:

I have a super unpopular opinion:

I actually think Sanders is going to be a great QB in the league (top 10 QB, if not an MVP candidate one day) and think he’s going to have a 10-year+ career. He’s impressed me with his positive attitude with all the chaos that’s happened and he doesn’t seem to take himself too seriously IMO. If prediction markets would let us buy a stake in a players career he’d be a huge value buy for me, based on how he’s pretty much been buried before playing a snap.

Seems like a good guy:

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 7/11/2025 at 7:44 AM, Sbbruin said:

OK, let's play out your position.  Let's call the players what they are, professionals.  The National Football League has self imposed guardrails to try to create some level of competitive balance.  It's called the salary cap.  Precisely what Prime is suggesting.  That's how markets like Kansas City and in hoops OKC can compete with markets like LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.  Sure it's great as a Dodger fan to be able to spend wildly to field the most competitive team they can, but that is also why most people hate the Dodgers.  It's the same in CFB.  If there are no limits to what players can earn, then it'll be OSU, Texas, Oregon, Bama, Georgia etc who really are the only teams who have a realistic chance.  Is that good for the game?  Honest question.  And TRY to look at it as objectively as you can, as if you have zero affiliation to any team.

There’s maybe 10 teams each year that realistically have a chance to win a title. Other teams will just have e to figure it out when it comes to money and the players they can get. As an ASU supporter I’m mostly indifferent. If they win that’s cool. If they don’t that’s cool too. I have zero objections to teams and boosters spending whatever they want to field a winner. 
 

I also hope aggy spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave into perpetuity and keep putting up those dominating 8-5 seasons they’re famous for. Those Texas Bowl trips are just a great reward for a job well done.

  • Hook 'Em 1

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.



×
×
  • Create New...