- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 32 DI Olympic sports teams have been cut since the House settlement
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:19 am to SoFla Tideroller
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:19 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
…players were overpaid
Not according to all the SEC boosters and college coaches that were caught over and over and over again giving them illegal payments.
Mingo is right-o with all his comments.
2
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:42 am to FlyDownTheField83
quote:
Not according to all the SEC boosters and college coaches that were caught over and over and over again giving them illegal payments.
This doesn’t even make any sense.
quote:
Mingo is right-o with all his comments.
Oh, another stupid person posting about something he knows nothing about.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:43 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Oh, another stupid person posting about something he knows nothing about.
What are your bonafides?
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:54 am to Mingo Was His NameO
Look should the players have been able to be paid for signatures and advertisements? 100%. The fact that was ever a thing is honestly silly.
That being said should public institutions of education be involved with paying athletes directly? Hell no. We had a good thing going. There was zero reason to change any of it and now we’ve gone and ruined the whole thing. I’m sure something will come that takes the place of what we had for these sports that are going to disappear from the college ranks but it’s going to be a shell of what we had more than likely. It makes me sad and frustrated for future athletes.
That being said should public institutions of education be involved with paying athletes directly? Hell no. We had a good thing going. There was zero reason to change any of it and now we’ve gone and ruined the whole thing. I’m sure something will come that takes the place of what we had for these sports that are going to disappear from the college ranks but it’s going to be a shell of what we had more than likely. It makes me sad and frustrated for future athletes.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:57 am to Pedro
quote:
That being said should public institutions of education be involved with paying athletes directly? Hell no.
Completely disagree. These schools are PROFITING $10s of millions a year based on media rights
quote:
we’ve gone and ruined the whole thing
The “adults” yes, because they acted like petulant little children for decades
quote:
It makes me sad and frustrated for future athletes.
It’s terrible. Administrators traded the well being of young adults for more money. Despicable behavior honestly
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:59 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:And you could substitute the elite d1 players with average graduating high school talent across the board and they would still make millions
Completely disagree. These schools are PROFITING $10s of millions a year based on media rights
Sec and big 10 football would be sellouts and major business regardless of what players are coming into the program
The athletes really are inconsequential
You could have 1,500 5’5” Mingos playing power 5 football and it would be a booming business. The institutions hold the true value
This post was edited on 6/19/25 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:00 pm to lsupride87
quote:
The athletes really are inconsequential
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:01 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
About the response I expected from you
SEC football would be the same exact money maker regardless of the quality of athlete or who is walking through the door
SEC football would be the same exact money maker regardless of the quality of athlete or who is walking through the door
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:03 pm to lsupride87
quote:
About the response I expected from you SEC football would be the same exact money maker regardless of the quality of athlete or who is walking through the door
I disagree with your premise, but even so, having athletes is fundamental to the operation. You physically can’t play without the athletes.
How much of the revenue they “deserve” is certainly up for debate. But to argue they’re “inconsequential” is retarded, even for you. The sport literally can’t exist without players
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:04 pm to lsupride87
Hypothetical
Every single D1 athlete boycotted and so they had to be replaced by clearly lesser talent
Your argument is the product would suffer financially because the players have worth. I’m telling you the stadiums would still be packed and business would be booming. The fans are there for lsu vs bama not player x vs player y
The players value really is tied to teams trying to win. It isn’t actually tied to the bottom line of the money the entity of college football is making
Every single D1 athlete boycotted and so they had to be replaced by clearly lesser talent
Your argument is the product would suffer financially because the players have worth. I’m telling you the stadiums would still be packed and business would be booming. The fans are there for lsu vs bama not player x vs player y
The players value really is tied to teams trying to win. It isn’t actually tied to the bottom line of the money the entity of college football is making
This post was edited on 6/19/25 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:05 pm to lsupride87
quote:
The fans are there for lsu vs bama not player x vs player y
Funny you use two teams that routinely have the best players as your example
quote:
It isn’t actually tied to the bottom line of the money the entity of college football is making
You are truly an idiot
This post was edited on 6/19/25 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:09 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
Dude you simply are 100% wrong here. You could replace D1 elite athletes with 2nd team all district 2a players across the board and the stadiums would be packed and games still buzzing
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:15 pm to lsupride87
I’m on the fence with this. I think in theory you may be right but the product would definitely suffer some if that scenario played out. Maybe not in the stadiums per se but in terms of tv eyeballs which is more indicative of the casual fan it 100% would. I know I, for one, wouldn’t tune into Ohio state/Michigan if there’s two Pedro’s playing qb and throwing lame duck passes every other play.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:17 pm to lsupride87
quote:
You could replace D1 elite athletes with 2nd team all district 2a players across the board and the stadiums would be packed and games still buzzing
So what you are saying is you need players to play the games? Thanks
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:19 pm to Pedro
quote:
I’m on the fence with this. I think in theory you may be right but the product would definitely suffer some if that scenario played out. Maybe not in the stadiums per se but in terms of tv eyeballs which is more indicative of the casual fan it 100% would. I know I, for one, wouldn’t tune into Ohio state/Michigan if there’s two Pedro’s playing qb and throwing lame duck passes every other play.
This is inarguable. Being on the other side of pride is almost a sure fire way of knowing you’re right.
Look at Nebraska, the local brand is still huge, but there’s no national market for them anymore, because their players generally suck. Getting your team (and/or conference) on big time stages as inarguable value and you do that by winning on the field. Boise State, Utah, USC, Clemson. We see it time and time again
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:22 pm to Pedro
quote:Lsu football played the most braindead boring football possible for 10-15 years.
I’m on the fence with this. I think in theory you may be right but the product would definitely suffer some if that scenario played out. Maybe not in the stadiums per se but in terms of tv eyeballs which is more indicative of the casual fan it 100% would. I know I, for one, wouldn’t tune into Ohio state/Michigan if there’s two Pedro’s playing qb and throwing lame duck passes every other play.
Eyeballs didn’t suffer.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:23 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:Great call
Look at Nebraska,
They have sucked and they are still bringing in 100s of millions and are absolutely still a national brand
The players are simply bodies. They can be replaced by more bodies and the product goes forward rich as hell
This post was edited on 6/19/25 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:25 pm to lsupride87
They were still pulling in elite athletes and were a top 15 team at least at some point during those seasons though (if you’re talking about the miles years at least)
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:25 pm to lsupride87
quote:
They have sucked and they are still bringing in 100s of millions and are absolutely still a national brand
Are you really delusional enough to argue Nebraska’s national brand is the same as it was in their hey day (when they were arguably the biggest brand in the sport)?
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:25 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:to be fair I’m not sure I want to be associated with either of yall right now.
This is inarguable. Being on the other side of pride is almost a sure fire way of knowing you’re right.
Page 6 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News