I like the dynamism of the new setup. Guys are freer to move on from a program where it does not seem to be working out for them, freeing up space and, as Old Bear 71 pointed out, scholarships for guys who feel that they may be a better fit. It can work out for both the programs and the individuals. One of the keys to Sonny Dykes success…
I like the dynamism of the new setup. Guys are freer to move on from a program where it does not seem to be working out for them, freeing up space and, as Old Bear 71 pointed out, scholarships for guys who feel that they may be a better fit. It can work out for both the programs and the individuals. One of the keys to Sonny Dykes success at SMU and now TCU has been getting players to transfer there.
Perhaps because I'm a Berkeley person, I'm somewhat in favor of more autonomy for student-athletes.
I think it's a double edged sword. Gives programs a chance to swing for the fences that they otherwise might not have had, even if it means cases like Femi where we just straight up get poached for $. Overall I'm ok with it. At the end of the day the players get more freedom and ultimately have to live with the consequences of their choices just like every other aspect of life, as opposed to having a decision made in high school determining their future forever.
I know some people will say "other students can't transfer that easily!" well, perhaps that's true. But other students also don't provide the same amount of direct value to the school as some of these players do. Cal made a few years tuition off of me; they make a lot more than that from the football players.
Errrrrr....I would argue that Cal's reputation is mostly based on academics and that they get far more leverage off of the undergrads and grad students that move on to be all-stars in academics and other realms, as compared to sports. And the amount of money the professors bring in dwarfs anything that our athletic department does, which is mostly a resource drain now. Now...in terms of alumni engagement and donations, sports do matter, but not because of particular players so much. I would love to see the day when our boosters pony up money to support the grad students and adjuncts that don't make a living wage and are barely scraping by, or want to pony up money to bring in top shelf professors (rather than blow mills on an unproven football talent). Our priorities are kinda jacked.
I agree with what you said. I think you misunderstood the point I was making. In terms of immediate return on investment, the average football player brings in more dollars than the average undergrad. Academic reputation as a whole versus sports reputation? Sure. A random group of 85 undergrads vs the 85 on the football team? It's not close. Which is why players get scholarships, tutor support, etc.
I like the dynamism of the new setup. Guys are freer to move on from a program where it does not seem to be working out for them, freeing up space and, as Old Bear 71 pointed out, scholarships for guys who feel that they may be a better fit. It can work out for both the programs and the individuals. One of the keys to Sonny Dykes success at SMU and now TCU has been getting players to transfer there.
Perhaps because I'm a Berkeley person, I'm somewhat in favor of more autonomy for student-athletes.
I think it's a double edged sword. Gives programs a chance to swing for the fences that they otherwise might not have had, even if it means cases like Femi where we just straight up get poached for $. Overall I'm ok with it. At the end of the day the players get more freedom and ultimately have to live with the consequences of their choices just like every other aspect of life, as opposed to having a decision made in high school determining their future forever.
I know some people will say "other students can't transfer that easily!" well, perhaps that's true. But other students also don't provide the same amount of direct value to the school as some of these players do. Cal made a few years tuition off of me; they make a lot more than that from the football players.
Errrrrr....I would argue that Cal's reputation is mostly based on academics and that they get far more leverage off of the undergrads and grad students that move on to be all-stars in academics and other realms, as compared to sports. And the amount of money the professors bring in dwarfs anything that our athletic department does, which is mostly a resource drain now. Now...in terms of alumni engagement and donations, sports do matter, but not because of particular players so much. I would love to see the day when our boosters pony up money to support the grad students and adjuncts that don't make a living wage and are barely scraping by, or want to pony up money to bring in top shelf professors (rather than blow mills on an unproven football talent). Our priorities are kinda jacked.
I agree with what you said. I think you misunderstood the point I was making. In terms of immediate return on investment, the average football player brings in more dollars than the average undergrad. Academic reputation as a whole versus sports reputation? Sure. A random group of 85 undergrads vs the 85 on the football team? It's not close. Which is why players get scholarships, tutor support, etc.
I think what you are saying is fair enough.
And if we addressed the things above ^^^ we would get a lot more campus support for athletics (which I, personally, would support).
As long as Cal becomes a powerhouse and one to benefit from all of these new changes. When will that be? In 5 years?