hesskilla
VILLAGE IDIOT
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,500
Are you suggesting limiting someone’s earning potential because not all colleges have the same amount of affluent boosters? Why should their income be reduced because you value “tradition”? What a load of horse sh it.The talk overlooked one important issue: What potential damage will NIL do to the sport?
Teams with the support of billionaires will do great. Teams without, say, a Ruiz, will sink. We’ll see greater distance between the haves and have-nots.
So I don’t worry about Smart and Georgia at the present moment. The schools that don’t have $$$ backing have a right to complain. I mean if one team’ supporters can pay out, say, $10 million a year for recruiting, how can a team paying out $2 million compete? That’s a serious disadvantage.
Don’t get me wrong. I think players should get paid. And I‘m enjoying this NIL-rich recruiting year to no end. But I think the above should be at least part of the discussion.
Go Mario!
Things will change. That’s life. Change or adapt. College football and all its traditions will be just fine. There will be new traditions. A large playoff format is 100 times better than a 1970’s #1 Vs #7 Sugar Bowl to determine the AP champion. Things usually change for the better. One of the changes I’m looking forward to is the rise of colleges located in major metropolitan areas. A school located in Idaho, Mississippi, or Alabama shouldn’t have as much power as one located in Florida. They should be at a disadvantage. Some schools will fall and others will rise to take their place. This is life. Change or adapt.