Nebraska Doubles Down on Frost

[SCKnight]

So, are you for or against having salary caps on coaches if the players compensation (regardless of it's magnitude) is capped?

Yes. You seem to confuse an employee with a student on scholarship. If you are student, you are student, not an employee. You don't get salary. You get your benefits and they are tax free like any other student on scholarship be it athletic or academic. If you are an employee you have a different legal status. then you are en employee and the benefits are taxed. If you want to make them salaried employees then I guess you could talk of caps. But then we just converted college football to professional football. That what you want?

 

[Ucfmikes]

NGEbraska extended Frost, because they are sticking with him for as long as it’s going to take. Sending a message. They are out of options.

 

[UCF_SystemsEng]

Yes. You seem to confuse an employee with a student on scholarship. If you are student, you are student, not an employee. You don't get salary. You get your benefits and they are tax free like any other student on scholarship be it athletic or academic. If you are an employee you have a different legal status. then you are en employee and the benefits are taxed. If you want to make them salaried employees then I guess you could talk of caps. But then we just converted college football to professional football. That what you want?

Why so condescending? I'm not confused at all and I know full well the legal difference between an employee and a scholarship recipient. You seem to have incorrectly assumed my position on whether or not players should be paid. I have no problem with taxing any player compensation beyond what the typical academic scholarship student is awarded at that school, which includes the value of professional coaching/fitness training that isn't also available to other students.

 

[SCKnight]

Why so condescending? I'm not confused at all and I know full well the legal difference between an employee and a scholarship recipient. You seem to have incorrectly assumed my position on whether or not players should be paid. I have no problem with taxing any player compensation beyond what the typical academic scholarship student is awarded at that school, which includes the value of professional coaching/fitness training that isn't also available to other students.

Not meant to be condescending, so sorry if it came off that way. Salary caps were negotiated for the purpose of keeping the level of competition someone equal. It promotes parity. But those players are employees. They actually pay taxes in every state in which they play. Imagine having to file state tax returns for 15 or more states. College athletes are not employees, but college coaches are. their positions are professional.

So I look what is the purpose for paying players? I think that 80% of the players would probably play even if they did not get a full ride. Most of them do not even bring the value that tuition brings, let alone extra pay. And even if we were left with that 80% the product would remain and be just as popular, because it is not whose name is on the back of the jersey, but the name of the school that matters. Yes winning matters, but currently that seems to be limited to 15% of schools. The rest seem mired in mediocrity and are ok with it for the most part.

So Is it to redistribute wealth? Who is really behind all this?

 

[jayman razorback fan]

its not the 90's anymore Neb also had prop 48 guys back then and they recuited TX CAL And FL back then all they have is their past they are the razorbacks in a softer div now

 

[GoKnights2003]

Not meant to be condescending, so sorry if it came off that way. Salary caps were negotiated for the purpose of keeping the level of competition someone equal. It promotes parity. But those players are employees. They actually pay taxes in every state in which they play. Imagine having to file state tax returns for 15 or more states. College athletes are not employees, but college coaches are. their positions are professional.

So I look what is the purpose for paying players? I think that 80% of the players would probably play even if they did not get a full ride. Most of them do not even bring the value that tuition brings, let alone extra pay. And even if we were left with that 80% the product would remain and be just as popular, because it is not whose name is on the back of the jersey, but the name of the school that matters. Yes winning matters, but currently that seems to be limited to 15% of schools. The rest seem mired in mediocrity and are ok with it for the most part.
Do you believe salary cap really promote parity?

 

[GoKnights2003]

Salary caps don't promote parity. JMHO

 

[SCKnight]

Salary caps don't promote parity. JMHO

You mean having one team with billions to spend does not give them a competitive advantage over the smaller market with less money?

 

[GoKnights2003]

You mean having one team with billions to spend does not give them a competitive advantage over the smaller market with less money?

No. I mean limiting competition doesn't equal parity.

 

[UCF_SystemsEng]

No. I mean limiting competition doesn't equal parity.

I don't think anyone suggested that limiting competition automatically creates parity. There are many things that can create a competitive advantage, the ability/inability to retain a good coach is certainly one of them.

 

[Knight_Light]

its not the 90's anymore Neb also had prop 48 guys back then and they recuited TX CAL And FL back then all they have is their past they are the razorbacks in a softer div now

Nebraska didn't give the new Big 12 much of a try as that Texas exposure would have helped them much more vs playing games in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, etc...

I think the beginning of the end came when the Nebraska/Oklahoma annual rivalry died after the 1997 season...as that was always a marquee game for TX recruits (and FL recruits) to watch...and Nebraska basically hasn't been the same since.

NOTE: In the Big 12...Neb/OU were not annual opponents so they would play for 2 years and then be off for 2 years and so on.

 

[SCKnight]

No. I mean limiting competition doesn't equal parity.

Creating a more level playing field allows for more parity. If there were not limits on scholarships and payments to players, UCF would not be anywhere near what it is. They would have been outspent and eliminated years ago. We would probably still be in Div III. as would many other schools. That limit on competition allows many schools to be competitive and creates a much more interesting product.

 

[GoKnights2003]

Creating a more level playing field allows for more parity. If there were not limits on scholarships and payments to players, UCF would not be anywhere near what it is. They would have been outspent and eliminated years ago. We would probably still be in Div III. as would many other schools. That limit on competition allows many schools to be competitive and creates a much more interesting product.

Whoa! Did you forget how that Came to be? Competition! DON'T LIMIT WHAT CREATES BETTER THINGS! And yes I was a GOLDEN Knight fan. Painful maybe but are we better today Yes!

Go KNIGHTS!

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

They've shown improvement. You can't expect a team to do what UCF did while he was here. Most teams take 4-5 years to turn around. FSU was dumb to think a coach could fix the mess there in two years. Frost is going to have to break with his DC, but they'll be back.

Totally agree. These things take time. Frost needs time. Willie needed time.

 

[Crazyhole]

Nebraska didn't give the new Big 12 much of a try as that Texas exposure would have helped them much more vs playing games in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, etc...

I think the beginning of the end came when the Nebraska/Oklahoma annual rivalry died after the 1997 season...as that was always a marquee game for TX recruits (and FL recruits) to watch...and Nebraska basically hasn't been the same since.

NOTE: In the Big 12...Neb/OU were not annual opponents so they would play for 2 years and then be off for 2 years and so on.

Nebraska was in the big12 for 15 years, I would say that is giving it a chance. The final straw was when the big12 commish greenlighted Texas starting the Longhorn Network without doing any profit sharing. It's the same reason that TAMU and Missouri left.

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

What was done in the past can take years to correct, especially for a team like Nebraska. Frost is showing he can get them better, how long? Ehhh, even great coaches take time to correct years of mismanagement. This is why I'm worried about having heup at the helm.

Agree.