Are we fans of the team or the players?

[BSpringsteen]

Someone suggested that the only way to get rid of all the candals in college sports is to rid yourselves of scholarships and just have it be a student activity.

So let's say this is done across the board.

Doesn't everyone stink then? The academic standards are now real, the money is now gone. Kids who aren't interested in college certainly will not be enrolling.

So let's say that we have 11 misfits on the field, but so does Purdue. Does that make the game less fun? Do we care less? Do people stop showing up? Or is it the idea that they play for Iowa, and as long as they are competitive against their opponents, we're all happy?

 

[JonDMiller]

I think a lot of programs bend the rules, but I don't think most of them break them with such cavalier bravado as Ohio State, USC, some schools in the SEC, etc.

I also doubt Ohio State (the administration) was aware of the depths of the trading for tats, etc, stuff that was going on...however the vehicle issues are certainly troublesome, as that stuff is supposed to be air tight through the compliance division.

Taking away all scholarships and making it a club would still find the biggest schools with the biggest dollars getting the best players, because those kids still want to play in the NFL

 

[BSpringsteen]

Another idea...

Why not allow pro teams to draft players right out of high school and still play college sports?

 

[BSpringsteen]

Also Jon - if you don't think that there are real violations taking place at every BCS level school that coaches know about even if not the details... don't put your head in the sand.

 

[trj]

This hypothetical is so implausible that it is hard to contemplate.....So essentially we are talking about Drake football.....If it was a level playing field I would say team, but there so many variables/factors that would make up that level playing field it is really hard to say.

 

[STILLBUSTER]

I'm a fan of the TEAM, then the game, then the players. So, for me it would come down to relative competitiveness. Sort of like what attracts me to watching those weeknight C-USA level games -- could care less who wins but if it's a good game, I'll keep watching.

On the other hand, I still like to see great players make great plays. I believe this would take care of itself even if all collegiate sports went to pay-to-play -- you'd still see the best players going to the biggest universities because that's where they will receive the most exposure for the next level.

There's already a model for this in the evolution of all amatuer youth sports. The better players get on youth traveling teams (regretably at the demise of "town-ball" teams) for 2 reasons:
1) parents can afford the pay-to-play fees and travel;
2) parents push Johnny and Jane in this direction for exposure.

 

[NewMexHawk]

For me, I am a fan of the team...that team happens to be Iowa. Iowa is really the only college that I really care about and (or) watch. I rarely sit around on weekends watching other teams play because I just have no interest...unless Notre Dum is losing...then I watch the game with avid joy.

Again, people can make all the allegations they want about all or most of the BCS schools cheating but until schools get caught you have to assume they are NOT cheating, unless you have actual proof against other schools. Same with coaches...we have heard other coaches make allegations against schools, yet the coach will not bring any proof to show they are cheating nor will they actually turn the school in. IF they have proof or knowledge of another school cheating, the coaches should turn that school in for cheating and offer up the proof and (or) knowledge. Otherwise the allegations mean nothing whatsoever and make the coach(es) look foolish.

You can say I have my head in the sand but I ask, what proof or knowledge of all the other schools cheating do you have? You can't just say, "I know all the other schools are cheating." Well you can but the allegations mean absolutely nothing. Statements like that are just a justification of fans for schools that do cheat. To make statements like that just makes you look foolish because all I have to say is, "Show me some proof or knowledge that (you pick the school(s)) is cheating." If you can't then how do you respond? By just repeating, "I just know they are all cheating?"

 

[Sirhouseman]

I am a fan of the school first, but I am also a fan of football, so it would be difficult to pay $300+ a season to watch what would be the equivalent to glorified high school football. It's the great players who make great plays that make it worth the money (at least IMO).

 

[kicker22]

IMO, if I understand the OP correctly, the question then becomes if college football became a nonsanctioned club-sport (at the college level) would people still have interest? I'm guessing no. Although you still have a small fanbase it would basically become irrelevant. Ask anyone who played a nonsanctioned sport in college, I played club soccer for a school that didn't offer it as a scholarship sport and the fan base was nonexistent. Given the publics perception of soccer, the fact is that without the big names and the elite athletes people will lose interest or simply won't know about the product.

 

[vosov]

I am a fan of the school first, but I am also a fan of football, so it would be difficult to pay $300+ a season to watch what would be the equivalent to glorified high school football. It's the great players who make great plays that make it worth the money (at least IMO).

I find this hard to believe.

So, all day at work, you are sweating profusely in anticipation for Forbes magazine to arrive in your mailbox. You get home, crack open a "High Life", and sit down in the "Lazyboy" before you open the cover. You tip over your beer when you throw the magazine in the air and start doing laps around the house, because Iowa has been named one of the "top ten public institutions in America!"

I'm kidding, but not really.