Packers Huddle

Labrev wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 20:11

In any case, there has to be some way(s) we can level the playing field between different-sized programs without necessarily maintaining this system where athletes hardly get anything for their backbreaking contribution.

Limit the number of scholarships, that way the available talent is spread across more schools.
Athletes are given a free college education in exchange for their athletic prowess. A college degree costs about $50-200k and returns way more value over a lifetime than the pittance most will earn from the NIL system.

Since the vast majority of college athletes will not become pro's - the scholarship,education and degree are what will make/break their future earnings and success. Somehow that gets lost in all of the handwaving over the "aggrieved" athletes who have happily played for free just for the experience of being a college ball player. I have no issue with them getting NIL money as a supplement, but saying they get "hardly anything" is off base - especially since most of them would never be accepted to these top schools based on academics.

They also get to register for classes early, free food, free gear and dozens of other perks. College athletes are very well taken care of as compared to their "less athletic" classmates. I lived with one while at UW - being a student athlete is really really hard - but they are given more tools and help than any other students on campus and if they manage to graduate - their degree will be the single most valuable thing they have in life.

That's not "hardly anything"...its a life- changing gift that will take care of them long after their athletic career is over

BSA wrote: ↑

23 Jun 2021 15:08

Labrev wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 20:11

In any case, there has to be some way(s) we can level the playing field between different-sized programs without necessarily maintaining this system where athletes hardly get anything for their backbreaking contribution.

Limit the number of scholarships, that way the available talent is spread across more schools.
Athletes are given a free college education in exchange for their athletic prowess. A college degree costs about $50-200k and returns way more value over a lifetime than the pittance most will earn from the NIL system.

Since the vast majority of college athletes will not become pro's - the scholarship,education and degree are what will make/break their future earnings and success. Somehow that gets lost in all of the handwaving over the "aggrieved" athletes who have happily played for free just for the experience of being a college ball player. I have no issue with them getting NIL money as a supplement, but saying they get "hardly anything" is off base - especially since most of them would never be accepted to these top schools based on academics.

They also get to register for classes early, free food, free gear and dozens of other perks. College athletes are very well taken care of as compared to their "less athletic" classmates. I lived with one while at UW - being a student athlete is really really hard - but they are given more tools and help than any other students on campus and if they manage to graduate - their degree will be the single most valuable thing they have in life.

That's not "hardly anything"...its a life- changing gift that will take care of them long after their athletic career is over

So less scholarships for the kids who won’t be going pro but work their tails off at practice and on special teams waiting to contribute on O and D as they help their teams win. You wouldn’t give those kids a scholarship?

Capers is on the Lions coaching staff. Lions' Head Coach came from the Saints. Our home opener is versus Detroit.

BSA wrote: ↑

23 Jun 2021 15:08

Limit the number of scholarships, that way the available talent is spread across more schools.
Athletes are given a free college education in exchange for their athletic prowess. A college degree costs about $50-200k and returns way more value over a lifetime than the pittance most will earn from the NIL system.

Since the vast majority of college athletes will not become pro's - the scholarship,education and degree are what will make/break their future earnings and success. Somehow that gets lost in all of the handwaving over the "aggrieved" athletes who have happily played for free just for the experience of being a college ball player. I have no issue with them getting NIL money as a supplement, but saying they get "hardly anything" is off base - especially since most of them would never be accepted to these top schools based on academics.

They also get to register for classes early, free food, free gear and dozens of other perks. College athletes are very well taken care of as compared to their "less athletic" classmates. I lived with one while at UW - being a student athlete is really really hard - but they are given more tools and help than any other students on campus and if they manage to graduate - their degree will be the single most valuable thing they have in life.

That's not "hardly anything"...its a life- changing gift that will take care of them long after their athletic career is over

Suffice to say I do not share your view on college degrees. It may have been true once that college degrees ensure gainful employment and a decent standard of living, but it's not true anymore. I have two of them. Three if you count a minor. I am now pursuing #4 at the graduate level because they have been collectively worthless for the most part, still doing free labor at 30 in hopes I can leverage the experience to something that in all likelihood will put me solidly in lower-middle-class.

Don't even get me started on "Just study STEM, silly billy!" >.<

Labrev wrote: ↑

23 Jun 2021 19:41

Suffice to say I do not share your view on college degrees. It may have been true once that college degrees ensure gainful employment and a decent standard of living, but it's not true anymore. I have two of them. Three if you count a minor. I am now pursuing #4 at the graduate level because they have been collectively worthless for the most part, still doing free labor at 30 in hopes I can leverage the experience to something that in all likelihood will put me solidly in lower-middle-class.

Don't even get me started on "Just study STEM, silly billy!" >.<

I mean that may be the case, but nearly every quantitative review of the "worth" of a college degree shows they still pay; that you still make far far more money throughout life with one than without one, on average and broken down to smaller groups.

I'm not saying there aren't a handful of good jobs without degrees, but they are far less available than the number of people without them. Sports are an imperfect gateway to that payoff (doing so without loans and debt even more of a payoff), but they ARE a gateway to greater life outcomes.

Now, guys who are going to go pro--stars who are just training for the next level... maybe college isn't worth as much to them. They'll have a whole different set of opportunities and outcomes awaiting them. But as has been mentioned, the NCAA system serves thousands of students and literally a couple hundred go pro each year. The system is EXCELLENT for those who don't make it to (pr even aspire to) a next level athletically. It works GREAT for them.

Where it falls down is on the kids who are getting their training for the next level. Personally, I think there should be a selective athletic program that offers a (or "minor") in their sport; they get some course credit for playing and have a curriculum about the business side of sports (I graduated from a very poor program on sports business, but done well it doesn't have to be a joke). I think that players who qualify for the program (maybe it's 5-star recruits; maybe it's players who are starters by their junior years; could be any set of criteria, just like fine arts programs have you audition for your performance ability. But you create a program of education that applies to the aspiring pro athlete, which takes some of the burden off of their coursework and focuses on topics they need. While also supplying a baseline of general education and the opportunity for a more traditional major.

And secondly, allow endorsements and marketing rights. Return to the student athlete the rights of their likeness.

Honestly, that's it. That's all I'd change. The system is broken as a minor athletic league, but it is great as a vehicle for education of a large number of people (and the on-campus treatment and experience is MILES better than non-athletes, as BSA mentioned). But if you let people profit off of their own likeness and reduce the non-athletic coursework by offering them programs that will be relevant to their lives, it can be a more just, more functional, more helpful minor league program, as well.

Here's a comment from Ask Vic on the NCAA ruling from the Supreme Court

https://www.askvic.us/

Ben from Indianapolis, IN
What's your take on this Supreme Court ruling regarding NCAA athletes?

"I'm in the process of trying to gather opinion from people I consider to be experts on college football. At first glance, two words in Justice Kavanagh's narrative intrigue me: business model. Kavanagh spoke of the NCAA in terms of being a business model, and my first reaction was non-revenue sports are immediately in danger. Why? Because I know of no business model built on non-revenue. The other obvious reaction to the ruling is the NCAA will have to compensate its athletes and, of course, that goes immediately to football, where the money and the rosters are biggest. Yes, the rich would get richer but, as I've written in the past, roster/scholarship limits are the fix. There's enough talent to promote a level playing field, as long as the top-tier programs aren't permitted to monopolize recruiting. Also, if college football pays its players, it'll only be a matter of time before its players unionize, at which point college football can negotiate a CBA that will provide for a lottery system for talent acquisition, and other such rules that would standardize the game. As I've written, standardization is what college football needs most. I'm all for it. Let's go."


He adds a little more detail on the idea of limiting rosters/scholarships . I don't advocate for fewer scholarships overall, I join him in advocating for fewer football scholarships at the Power Conference teams- thus re-allocating and spreading out the available talent across more schools instead of concentrating all that talent under Nick Saban. He also introduces the concept of a high school draft...interesting thought and it would certainly change the recruiting dance.

BSA wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 12:53

Here's a comment from Ask Vic on the NCAA ruling from the Supreme Court

https://www.askvic.us/

Ben from Indianapolis, IN
What's your take on this Supreme Court ruling regarding NCAA athletes?

"I'm in the process of trying to gather opinion from people I consider to be experts on college football. At first glance, two words in Justice Kavanagh's narrative intrigue me: business model. Kavanagh spoke of the NCAA in terms of being a business model, and my first reaction was non-revenue sports are immediately in danger. Why? Because I know of no business model built on non-revenue. The other obvious reaction to the ruling is the NCAA will have to compensate its athletes and, of course, that goes immediately to football, where the money and the rosters are biggest. Yes, the rich would get richer but, as I've written in the past, roster/scholarship limits are the fix. There's enough talent to promote a level playing field, as long as the top-tier programs aren't permitted to monopolize recruiting. Also, if college football pays its players, it'll only be a matter of time before its players unionize, at which point college football can negotiate a CBA that will provide for a lottery system for talent acquisition, and other such rules that would standardize the game. As I've written, standardization is what college football needs most. I'm all for it. Let's go."


He adds a little more detail on the idea of limiting rosters/scholarships . I don't advocate for fewer scholarships overall, I join him in advocating for fewer football scholarships at the Power Conference teams- thus re-allocating and spreading out the available talent across more schools instead of concentrating all that talent under Nick Saban. He also introduces the concept of a high school draft...interesting thought and it would certainly change the recruiting dance.

The thing about the lottery system that doesnt make sense is some kids want to get a degree in something that other school specialize in. Think Myron Rolle who won the Rhoades scholarship years back. Imagine being picked up by Bama or something and not being able to go to the school of your choice for a degree you wanted.

No. You cannot have colleges "pick" what football players they are gonna get.

This is absolutely ridiculous. If a kid grows up in Michigan and wants to play for Michigan and go to school at Michigan he should be able to. I guess maybe you could have an "opt out" option where you bypass the lottery but as a result don't get extra compensation beyond scholarship?

But you shouldn't be forcing 18 year old kids where they are going to go.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 14:08

No. You cannot have colleges "pick" what football players they are gonna get.

This is absolutely ridiculous. If a kid grows up in Michigan and wants to play for Michigan and go to school at Michigan he should be able to. I guess maybe you could have an "opt out" option where you bypass the lottery but as a result don't get extra compensation beyond scholarship?

But you shouldn't be forcing 18 year old kids where they are going to go.

why not, uncle Sam did it for years

imo paying college players will never be a fair distribution, worst thing that could happen to college sports, the set up now could be enhanced, they already get the education, a little more expense money, maybe a few other perks.

If there good and end up in the nfl there almost instantly rich, if not they have a education that should allow them to live comfortably.

sure beats the Uncle Sam alternative 18 year olds where dealing with years ago

Who cares about competitive balance in college football?

Well the answer is the institutions that make millions off of their free labor when that labor wins, and fans who want to pretend the free labor are pros and not college students.

The ncaa claims to be a non profit org, it should act like one. The institutions should show the amount of money they need to run their programs, then the extra needs to go elsewhere. That could be charity, a pool for the players, to give more academic scholarships...wherever.

Either treat college football how people pretend it is...a pro sport at the highest level, and pay the players accordingly...or make schools behave like the title they claim they are...a non profit org.

The goal should not be competitive balance tho. That’s a goal to bring in more profit or satisfy fans, not a goal that has the free labor in mind.

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 14:51

if not they have a education that should allow them to live comfortably.

sure beats the Uncle Sam alternative 18 year olds where dealing with years ago

A college education by no means makes one live comfortably in today's age. The only real advantage athletes have is if they have a degree they don't have to pay for. Which is a huge deal. But a college degree does not mean joby jobs like it did 20 years ago.

I do agree about part 2. I am very lucky I didn't live through the Nam era. That would have been petrifying for a guy like me who does not have the heart for the service. Seriously. Thank you Lupe for serving so I don't have to.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 14:59

...or make schools behave like the title they claim they are...a non profit org.

Oh I think colleges behave EXACTLY like high end non profits do. Have you seen some of these sports facilities? The profits gotta go somewhere....so they get reinvested into Property and Equipment as well as employee compensation.

And boy do they ever for some programs.

Not for profit doesn't mean poor.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 14:51

if not they have a education that should allow them to live comfortably.

sure beats the Uncle Sam alternative 18 year olds where dealing with years ago

A college education by no means makes one live comfortably in today's age. The only real advantage athletes have is if they have a degree they don't have to pay for. Which is a huge deal. But a college degree does not mean joby jobs like it did 20 years ago.

I do agree about part 2. I am very lucky I didn't live through the Nam era. That would have been petrifying for a guy like me who does not have the heart for the service. Seriously. Thank you Lupe for serving so I don't have to.

there is a real imbalance now, and thats because you and almost everyone in your age bracket chose what you hoped would be a physically cushy job versus a service type occupation in the trade industry, now days you'll wait for weeks to get a plumber, or other tradesman and thats because there aren't any tradesman, imo the reason a college grad can't get a job is you have flooded out your market value.

look at the non union trade shops, plumbing, heating, electrical, they all have help wanted signs hanging in the window, and starting pay is around 12 to 15 bucks a hr, with in 4 to 5 years your making 25 bucks, if ya go union it's over 60 bucks with the perks, thing is you'll have to get your hands dirty.

and believe me, Uncle Sam will fix your heart.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 14:51

if not they have a education that should allow them to live comfortably.

sure beats the Uncle Sam alternative 18 year olds where dealing with years ago

A college education by no means makes one live comfortably in today's age. The only real advantage athletes have is if they have a degree they don't have to pay for. Which is a huge deal. But a college degree does not mean joby jobs like it did 20 years ago.

I do agree about part 2. I am very lucky I didn't live through the Nam era. That would have been petrifying for a guy like me who does not have the heart for the service. Seriously. Thank you Lupe for serving so I don't have to.

I’m just aircraft maintenance man. I sit around and fix planes. Some buddies of mine got the real hard stuff though like security forces or special forces. I’m not cut out for that life either.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:51

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 14:51

if not they have a education that should allow them to live comfortably.

sure beats the Uncle Sam alternative 18 year olds where dealing with years ago

A college education by no means makes one live comfortably in today's age. The only real advantage athletes have is if they have a degree they don't have to pay for. Which is a huge deal. But a college degree does not mean joby jobs like it did 20 years ago.

I do agree about part 2. I am very lucky I didn't live through the Nam era. That would have been petrifying for a guy like me who does not have the heart for the service. Seriously. Thank you Lupe for serving so I don't have to.

I’m just aircraft maintenance man. I sit around and fix planes. Some buddies of mine got the real hard stuff though like security forces or special forces. I’m not cut out for that life either.

The body is made of many parts, all vital in their own roles. All necessary for health.

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 14:51

if not they have a education that should allow them to live comfortably.

sure beats the Uncle Sam alternative 18 year olds where dealing with years ago

A college education by no means makes one live comfortably in today's age. The only real advantage athletes have is if they have a degree they don't have to pay for. Which is a huge deal. But a college degree does not mean joby jobs like it did 20 years ago.

I do agree about part 2. I am very lucky I didn't live through the Nam era. That would have been petrifying for a guy like me who does not have the heart for the service. Seriously. Thank you Lupe for serving so I don't have to.

there is a real imbalance now, and thats because you and almost everyone in your age bracket chose what you hoped would be a physically cushy job versus a service type occupation in the trade industry, now days you'll wait for weeks to get a plumber, or other tradesman and thats because there aren't any tradesman, imo the reason a college grad can't get a job is you have flooded out your market value.

look at the non union trade shops, plumbing, heating, electrical, they all have help wanted signs hanging in the window, and starting pay is around 12 to 15 bucks a hr, with in 4 to 5 years your making 25 bucks, if ya go union it's over 60 bucks with the perks, thing is you'll have to get your hands dirty.

and believe me, Uncle Sam will fix your heart.

You don't need to lecture me about the trades jobs. I agree there are many who should go into them. It's a very wise financial decision for most to go into them. I didn't because I am making more doing my "cush" job. But I finally convinced my little brother to be an electrician because his future is far brighter in that trade. Unfortunately he threw away $100k of going to a crappy liberal arts college first so his life is ruined with student debt (I warned him so many times to not do it before he made the decision). The average age of an electrician is like in his 50's. It's beyond unbelievable. There is so much opportunity for a journeyman who will be in their 30's 5 to 10 years from now.

I think the "you" language though is a bit unfair. My generation went to college because we were told that was the only path to success by the boomer generation. Whether it was parents, school guidance counselors, teachers, or ad marketing from the government itself....everyone told us we needed a 4 year bachelors degree to be successful. And if you didn't....then you are forced to have one of "those jobs" ....like a plumber.

"those jobs" have the bad stereotype because we were told by our parents, teachers, counselors that those jobs are our result if we don't perform well in school.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 16:38

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 15:02

A college education by no means makes one live comfortably in today's age. The only real advantage athletes have is if they have a degree they don't have to pay for. Which is a huge deal. But a college degree does not mean joby jobs like it did 20 years ago.

I do agree about part 2. I am very lucky I didn't live through the Nam era. That would have been petrifying for a guy like me who does not have the heart for the service. Seriously. Thank you Lupe for serving so I don't have to.

there is a real imbalance now, and thats because you and almost everyone in your age bracket chose what you hoped would be a physically cushy job versus a service type occupation in the trade industry, now days you'll wait for weeks to get a plumber, or other tradesman and thats because there aren't any tradesman, imo the reason a college grad can't get a job is you have flooded out your market value.

look at the non union trade shops, plumbing, heating, electrical, they all have help wanted signs hanging in the window, and starting pay is around 12 to 15 bucks a hr, with in 4 to 5 years your making 25 bucks, if ya go union it's over 60 bucks with the perks, thing is you'll have to get your hands dirty.

and believe me, Uncle Sam will fix your heart.

You don't need to lecture me about the trades jobs. I agree there are many who should go into them. It's a very wise financial decision for most to go into them. I didn't because I am making more doing my "cush" job. But I finally convinced my little brother to be an electrician because his future is far brighter in that trade. Unfortunately he threw away $100k of going to a crappy liberal arts college first so his life is ruined with student debt (I warned him so many times to not do it before he made the decision). The average age of an electrician is like in his 50's. It's beyond unbelievable. There is so much opportunity for a journeyman who will be in their 30's 5 to 10 years from now.

I think the "you" language though is a bit unfair. My generation went to college because we were told that was the only path to success by the boomer generation. Whether it was parents, school guidance counselors, teachers, or ad marketing from the government itself....everyone told us we needed a 4 year bachelors degree to be successful. And if you didn't....then you are forced to have one of "those jobs" ....like a plumber.

"those jobs" have the bad stereotype because we were told by our parents, teachers, counselors that those jobs are our result if we don't perform well in school.

It’s crazy how our generation was fed propaganda about college and how debt was seen as nbd and a necessary evil to avoid being a bum. I got lucky, my dad is an accountant. He drilled into me at a young age a fear of debt and owing money to “the man” I went to an in state university and had scholarships that paid for my school. But i absolutely agree with you that our generation was basically told “successful people go to college”. You were frowned apon if you went a different route. Such a disservice to individuals as well as disrespectful to the people who work in those honest honorable careers.

After what you just said about electritions, I would want to be one if I was up for doing it over again. Sounds great.

I tell my students all the time that they don't need to go to a four year college to be successful or have financial independence.

Electrician, plumber, auto techs....

The college push happens because we know that America can really suck - no healthcare, no home ownership, ten dollar an hour &%$@ job. Only those who have never been poor think that there is anything romantic about it.

The way in which we are living together is making us a mean and stupid people.

this has gone off the rails.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2021 17:05

I tell my students all the time that they don't need to go to a four year college to be successful or have financial independence.

Electrician, plumber, auto techs....

The college push happens because we know that America can really suck - no healthcare, no home ownership, ten dollar an hour &%$@ job. Only those who have never been poor think that there is anything romantic about it.

The way in which we are living together is making us a mean and stupid people.

No American knows what it is like to be poor. Poor is an outdoor toilet in January in a climate like Wisconsin. Poor is no shower from October to April. Poor is potatoes as 3/4 of your diet and eating the chicken that died of old age. Poor is pulling your wife's tooth or having her pull yours because you don't have money for a dentist. Poor is being unlucky enough to be born in the paradise that was the former Soviet Union - and this is how half of the people that live there still exist.