NFL 2015 Season

[Hurlshort]

I did go to SJSU.  Believe me, I was as surprised as anyone else that we made a bowl game based on academics.  I love my alma mater, and I think people often overlook that it has a few outstanding programs, but I've never thought of it as an academic powerhouse.  I'm not sure exactly how they figure out the Academic Progress Rating, but this is the link to it:

 

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/division-i-academic-progress-rate-apr

 

SJSU had a 975.  I'm not sure how that ties into graduation rates, as there is a lot more that goes into that aspect.

 

Here is a story from your source:

 

http://www.scout.com/college/san-jose-state/story/1554785-sjsu-improves-academic-progress-rate

 

Probably more than you want to know about SJSU

 

Edit:  Cal should be ashamed.  But Berkeley is a weird place.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Gromnir]

the problem with grad rates, as you can see from the bootleg article, is that there is multiple methodologies that is used simultaneous by universities often to obscure.  GSR (graduation success rate) is the current favored method for individual years as it recognizes, for example, a player being drafted by an nfl team before graduation, but more accurate penalizes schools for transfers. (in the past, a mid-season transfer would not counted til subsequent year, if ever.) this is what leads to so much confusion and consternation as one can see from bootleg that the gsr for san jose state for academic year 2012-2013 were 51% and in 2011-2012 sjsu were tied with Cal at a paltry 48%... in 2010-2011, sjsu had foodball grad rate o' 44% which were second worst in all of ncaa football (http://www.scout.com/college/stanford/story/1273612-the-bootleg-s-2013-graduation-rate-analysis   http://www.scout.com/college/stanford/story/1183346-the-bootleg-s-2012-graduation-rate-analysis ). APR is sorta/kinda a tracking of GSR over a 4-year span.

 

*shrug*

 

confusion is expected.  how can grad rates be low but apr high? is reason why bootleg and other sources post articles as APR is frequent inexplicable.  

 

however, one thing is certain: Cal should be embarrassed.  we saw an academic advisor a total o' one time while we were at Cal, so am not surprised that things has only gotten worse. even so... is particular appalling when looking at disparity 'tween student body grad rates v. football player grad rates... and when grad rates o' black football players is further highlighted, one wonders how such inequalities is allowed to continue.  is shameful.  yeah, at public schools you got far less tracking o' students-- success and failure is individual responsibility.  "why should football players get special treatment?"  is a valid argument.  special tutors and programs to ensure football player success is kinda frowned 'pon by the hippies at Cal.  even so, is no reason for seeing +95% grad rates for student body as a whole and only mid-40% grad rates for football players.  recruit such athletes with an expectation that more than 50% will fail is utter unacceptable to Gromnir.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we solved mystery of sjsu high apr.  sjsu student-body graduation rate, as a whole, is not much better than the football team.  apr considers the disparity 'tween athletes receiving financial aid and the grad rate (GSR) o' the school as a whole as viewed over a 4-year span.  thus sjsu poor grad rates for football players is not an ncaa concern as football players is faring little worse than the ordinary student at sjsu.  

Edited December 21, 2015 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

The Buccaneers have been eliminated from playoff contention and while this season could hardly be called successful I am VERY happy with what we have in Jameis Winston. Hopefully he will keep his head screwed on straight and continue to progress. There is a lot to like in Tampa but the defense needs a lot of work this off season. 

[the_dog_days]

Only trolls post about crappy college games in the NFL thread. Such boring stuff plus supporting the evil college teams that STEAL money from players. EVIL.

When the NCAA was talking about giving the players stipends (which they are now, so on top of tens of thousands of dollars in free education they are also getting basically ALL their experience paid for while at school rather they're actually passing their classes or not) I was of the opinion that they should've implemented what I call "the Manzel rule", giving players the right to market themselves and their likeness for profit if they so choose.

[Volourn]

"giving players the right to market themselves and their likeness for profit if they so choose."

 

THIS. this should be an automatic.  But, people espcially those in charge of colleges believe in slavery.

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty sure everyone hates the NCAA.

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Gromnir]

most college football programs make very little money, and that money typical goes to support other athletic departments.  for an out of state student such as Gromnir was, the average yearly costs to attend Cal is ~$60k.  how many $60k jobs can your average college jock find nowadays?  and 'course we is talking 40 year investment rather than 4, yes? additional,  for student athletes serious about an nfl career, the coaching and training they receive from professional coaches also has considerable value.  various schemes suggested to pay players is economical challenging for most universities and impossible for a large %. ~25 of 228 d1 programs break even each year... though obvious the numbers change a bit.  and dont even get us started on title ix problems.

 

and am suspecting that in spite o' some recent litigations, the average player would not wanna be treated as an employee. 

 

we got no real issue with letting players market themselves, but is also a bit problematic... and likely pointless.  for a $60 jersey, the university itself makes very little money.  is forbes and cnbc articles that claim anywhere 'tween $3 and $5 for university on sales o' jersey.  obvious can't give player all profits for selling a Georgia or Texas jersey, so let's be magnanimous and split that in half.  for sake o ez math, call $2 per jersey. the thing is, even they typical star player ain't selling that many jerseys.  may seem like lots, but it actual ain't that great.  tebow were kinda a recent high watermark with about 1500 per year.  most other star players come nowhere near that... oh, and don't forget you is likely now paying attorney and agents and other folks to handle the money side.

 

and again, most Universities don't make money, and for the most part, the money the Universities do get goes to support other athletic programs that don't generate revenue.  is not that paying star athletes will create a new revenue stream.  pay stars means take away from women's lacrosse and swimming and track.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

So.. they leech of the people actually make money for loser sports?  Talk about a welfare system. L0L

\

\

And, waaa at  the poor colleges. L0L I feel no pity when there are plenty of colleges that can make TONS of money. This is proven fact. Of course, like any business, like small coleges they would pay less (or not at all). Of coruse, they would lose out on bigger target. OMGZ! FREE MARKET. Can't have that.. instead we'll let the colleges steal all the the money.

 

EVIL.

[the_dog_days]

It's true that the third team point guard for the community college women basketball team isn't likely to earn as much as a Heisman winning quarterback, but that's life; some people make more money than others. If an athlete is determined to earn a living through their athletic ability alone, they need to start considering how to market themselves in college, anyway. Call it the thinning of the herd (but realistically, it's more like separating hobbyists and the career oriented).

[Gromnir]

So.. they leech of the people actually make money for loser sports?  Talk about a welfare system. L0L

\

\

And, waaa at  the poor colleges. L0L I feel no pity when there are plenty of colleges that can make TONS of money. This is proven fact. Of course, like any business, like small coleges they would pay less (or not at all). Of coruse, they would lose out on bigger target. OMGZ! FREE MARKET. Can't have that.. instead we'll let the colleges steal all the the money.

 

EVIL.

well, yeah... as a general proposition the system persists because o' the socialist notion that there is value in making sports scholarships available in spite o' the fact that many o' those sports do not generate revenue.  w/o such we would have men's football, men's basketball and baseball... and only at a handful o' schools... which would violate title ix in a Big way.

 

we "steal" money from rich citizens to build highways and schools too.  

 

perhaps it is wrong, but unraveling the system requires major changes.  paying players money or allowing 'em to get money from the use o' their image, even if you agree such is necessary, would require major changes to all college sports.  such difficulties is why most universities and pundits suggest more moderate solutions such as providing some kinda fixed additional amount to the scholarship benefits o' players from the revenue generating sports... which still runs afoul o' many title ix roadblocks, but isn't as much o' a dead end.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

So.. they leech of the people actually make money for loser sports?  Talk about a welfare system. L0L

In the US at least its mandated that men and women's sports have to have an equality of access. That's fine with a lot of sports because there's a women's equivalent. Football there isn't, so if you have a football team there's usually some women's team around to make up for that.

 

And, waaa at  the poor colleges. L0L I feel no pity when there are plenty of colleges that can make TONS of money. This is proven fact. Of course, like any business, like small coleges they would pay less (or not at all). Of coruse, they would lose out on bigger target. OMGZ! FREE MARKET. Can't have that.. instead we'll let the colleges steal all the the money.

Most schools don't get the money, the foundations do. The foundations then are often called on to pay non-teaching coaching staff, facilities upkeep, etc.

[Hurlshort]

It's not about the colleges making money, the NCAA as an organization brought in close to $1 billion in revenue last year.  That's crazy.

[Gromnir]

It's not about the colleges making money, the NCAA as an organization brought in close to $1 billion in revenue last year.  That's crazy.

actually, it didn't... not really.  majority o' that money goes to individual schools... is misleading.  $908 mil of $989 mil is expenses and payments to Universities.  $70 mil has been allotted for the new concussion program.  the $40 million lawsuit is being appealed, so is not counting as a loss... yet. most money the ncaa brings in is media rights/tv revenues which is then paid to conferences and schools.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

Nope. NCAA makes a ton of money. Why is Grom lying about this? LMAO

[Gromnir]

volsense is funny.  this is an nfl thread, so we make obvious comparison 'tween nfl and ncaa.  recognize the money the nfl makes while ignoring who runs the league and enjoys profits from nfl tv contracts would be ridiculous.  roger goodell and the nfl works for the nfl owners.  well, guess what, ncaa fills similar role.  the individual universities realize that a single entity to negotiate media contracts and enforce rules benefits everybody... well, benefits everybody save for texas and notre dame and a couple other universities that got enough cache all by their lonesome.  ncaa makes lots o' money for the benefit o' individual universities, and most universities is still losing money from their sports programs.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kgambit]

@Gromnir - Hurlshot was correct actually insofar as he only mentioned revenues.   

 

Gromnir's numbers for the NCAA financials are pretty accurate. You can check them out here:

 

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/NCAA%20Financials%202014.08.31%20-%20Final_0.pdf

 

The NCAA is the sole negotiator only for the TV rights for 24 NCAA Championship tournaments*.  That includes the Men's and Women's Final Fours, the NIT, the CFP and associated bowl games; the CWS for baseball and softball and the Frozen Four and over a dozen more.    The Men's FInal Four is a 14 year deal with CBS / Turner worth 11 billion $ and the CFP deal with ESPN is worth 470 million per year.  Those are the two major revenue sources for the NCAA.  You are correct that most of the revenue received is disbursed but it is not disbursed to the universities.  It is paid out to the conferences and the conferences are then free to distribute that money any way they choose.   The fund distribution is not equal between or within conferences.  Conferences with more teams get a larger payout and participating teams get a bigger share based on how far they advance in the various tournaments.

 

That is the extent of the NCAA's involvement in negotiating TV deals.  The individual conferences negotiate their own TV deals independent of the NCAA for regular season games and conference championship games.  The NCAA has no hand in any negotiations beyond the NCAA Championships.*   

 

The recent 2014 agreement between ESPN/CBS and the SEC for football rights including the conference championship game did not involve the NCAA.  Neither have the prior agreements between the BIG12 and  ESPN/Fox; the PAC12 and ESPN/FOX; the ACC and ESPN; or the BIG10 and BTN, ESPN, FOX and CBS.  The deals involving the big 5 conferences originally returned a combined average value of $1.15 billion per year in 2014.  That figure increased with the 20 year SEC/ESPN agreement signed in 2014 which created the SEC Network.  The latest estimate puts the figure at $1.45 billion just with the increases from the prior year's revenue for the SEC and the BIG10 alone.  It does not include any increases from the ACC, PAC12 and BIG12.  Just to be clear, those figures do NOT include revenue from any NCAA championships.  Further the funds generated by the big 5 networks are not uniformly distributed across the entirety of the NCAA membership, nor even across the entirety of division 1.  The funds generated by conference affiliated networks are distributed solely to the member universities of that conference and to no one else. 

 

 In addition, the big 5 conference networks retain broadcast rights for games not aired on the networks in other deals.  CBS retains first right of broadcast and can select the SEC games it chooses to air first; the remainder are then free for broadcast by the SEC Network.  (Note:  It's not clear if CBS retains exclusive broadcast rights to their selected games or not; or if they simply have an exclusive broadcast window which will later allow the network to broadcast a game on tape delay.)

 

The ownership of these networks is a mixed bag.  The SEC Network was created and is owned by ESPN.  The BIG10 network is a 50/50 joint venture between the Big10 and Fox.  ACC Network is owned by RAYCOM Sports.  The PAC12 conference has 100% ownership over the PAC12 network and it's 6 regional sub-networks. 

 

The owners of the conference networks negotiate with various carriers such as Comcast, Charter, DirectTV, DIshTV and others  for subscriber fees.  The SEC added Comcast to its distribution list in 2014 expanding its coverage to 46 million households (at the time - its even larger now) and was still negotiating with other carriers.   In its first year of operation, SEC Network returned $455.8 million and distributed a record $436.8 million to the member 14 schools: a record $31.5 million each.   An additional $19 million was distributed to schools participating in bowl games.  

 

Some teams such as University of Texas and Notre Dame do have their own private broadcast deals with providers that are also outside the control of the NCAA.  One major issue encountered by the BIG12 in negotiating their contract with ESPN/FOX was the complications caused by the conflict of interest with ESPN over the Longhorn Network which was subsidized by ESPN and which claimed exclusive rights to all UT football games. 

 

Pretty massive numbers, right?  Well, here's one more:  346 NCAA Division 1 schools paid a total of $2.2 billion in scholarships/financial aid to athletes in 2014.  (add in Division II and the number climbs to $2.7 billion.)   Each Division 1 school can offer the equivalent of ~440 full scholarships (some sports allow fractional scholarships).  

 

 

*  The NCAA does act as the collection agent for cable television royalty payments and resolve disputes between claimants.  They do not negotiate with the cable providers.   It's not clear if the NCAA also acts as a collection agent for cable subscriber fees. 

Edited December 25, 2015 by kgambit

[ManifestedISO]

What is a catch?   ... no one knows ... not the league, not Santa, or referees, or replay video. My grandma ...

 

Except any sane person with one eye knows what a catch is. Officials reversed Ladarius Green's 30-yard game-clincher TD reception after he landed face-first in the end-zone, the ball secure in one arm, his right hand in contact with the ball yet visibly in motion. Disappointing.

 

Still, happy trails and congratulations on retiring, Charles Woodson, of the Raiders, gifted their last home victory by the NFL's absurd catch rule. No hard feelings.     

[Bartimaeus]

Didn't look like a catch to me at all.

 

 

That is not control.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[kgambit]

Didn't look like a catch to me at all.

 

 

That is not control.

 

Showing the play after he hits the ground?  How about showing a video of the entire sequence?   There is a video from NFL.com posted on Yahoo sports that appears to show Green had control prior to that.  Admittedly it was just one angle but I think the Zebras missed this one. 

[Bartimaeus]

It's irrelevant whether it's after he hits the ground: he caught it while falling, he has to complete the "process of making a catch" (whatever the heck that means) all the to the ground and after. He didn't do that: the ball bobbled a little while it was touching the ground (as you can see here), which the referees time after time have consequently ruled "not a catch". There are a couple of catches and non-catches that have made me scratch my head this year, but this was not one of them: I knew (or at least thought I knew) it was going to be overturned as soon as I saw the replay.

 

Personally, I think the whole "process of completing the catch" is rather asinine: if, at any point, you have secured the ball, I think that should count as possession. That would solve the problem of catches like this and the Calvin Johnson catch and the Dez Bryant catch, et cetera. However, it would also mean that any time a ball pops out of a receivers hands after only holding it for but a moment, it would often be ruled as a fumble instead of merely an incompletion, and this would probably encourage defensive backs and linebackers to smash as hard into receivers as humanly possible to try and force fumbles. Of course, a lot of them seem to try to do that anyways, so whatever. It would make the passing game a bit more turnover prone, which I guess could be exciting.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[the_dog_days]

The NFL no longer has clear rules on what constitutes as a catch. I prefer the old "maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch." Control now seems to be mostly mean the WR had the ball in his hands at one time.

[Bartimaeus]

Yikes, back to being completely putrid offensively for the Packers. I had a little hope after all the upsets today that we might be able to win it, but this is just terrible, haha.

[the_dog_days]

In the Pack's defense, Arizona is the best team in the NFL and my pick to win the Super Bowl.

[Nepenthe]

In the Pack's defense, Arizona is the best team in the NFL and my pick to win the Super Bowl.

I hope for that, too. Meanwhile I'm enjoying the afterglow of the defeat of the pouty manchild Newton and Breesus's 13th 400 yard game. Too bad they were two different games.

[Keyrock]

and Breesus's 13th 400 yard game. 

 

Maybe Breesus is juicin' like 5Head Manning?