@ed_waz@1985jjohnson@SethDavisHoops@NCAA It makes sense why you would support limiting NCAA control when you have a financial interest in the players. Or at least that’s what I gather from your bio
@1985jjohnson@ed_waz@SethDavisHoops But a key distinction is that college football roster turnover rates are also skewed by graduating seniors.
Take basketball on the other hand and the numbers suggest the difference is much greater. NBA retains their rosters at a much higher clip than college basketball rosters
@1985jjohnson@ed_waz@SethDavisHoops You are providing only an NFL stat. But based on PFFs site, which last measured turnover from 2020-2022, it looks like the avg retention rate is about 65%. PFF doesn’t appear to track the same stat for college football but other sources cite similar retention rates
@1985jjohnson@ed_waz@SethDavisHoops This doesn’t appear to be a stat that we will find any credible sources on. The 70% figure appears to come from a Reddit thread. But systematically, it would make no sense for the NFL to have higher turnover. Plus NFL contracts can lock the best players in place. College can’t
@1985jjohnson@ed_waz@SethDavisHoops Never said players owe attachment to the fans. Simply asserted that attachment is a good thing for fans. But way to make it weird. Second, your turnover stat sounds like total BS.
The NFL has much more structure than the NCAA so of course nobody thinks it’s in chaos
@erecasner@slyguy41 To your credit, this tweet you quoted only provides the Cal quote out of context. Many other people are quoting the video with the context and still missing the point
@ed_waz@1985jjohnson@SethDavisHoops Which is a good thing for fans. We want to grow attachment to players. We want to support players. It’s hard when players are just chasing paychecks every year
@Betsycashmoney The comparison should be annual compensation, not lifetime. The length of eligibility is irrelevant to the value of the labor.
Plus Cal isn’t arguing that his players shouldn’t be getting paid more than his assistants if you listen carefully. He’s simply refuting “but coaches”
@calebherring_ - specifically non revenue sports where football and basketball were needed to subsidize. Take a tennis player for instance, probably earned way more indirect compensation than they were actually worth to the university. And I don’t think that was a bad thing
@calebherring_ I don’t disagree with your sentiment here and I respect that it’s a big deal to you. But it’s hard for me say college athletes were exploited when they still received substantial indirect compensation. And in many cases, athletes were getting more than their fair share -
@maxb152@awireman The legislation makes an attempt to legitimize NIL. And the legislation makes an attempt to protect all college athletes. If that takes money away from basketball and football players so be it.
I’m not seeing how it would benefit the SEC and Big 10.
@calebherring_ Pretty easy to support reparations for former athletes when you are a former athlete who would, in this hypothetical, receive the reparations
@emamadden If by their NIL, by its truest definition, then sure. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s pay to play and there’s no cap. These are not employees
@CoryRAanalytics@SteveOtt9 I’m sure inflation is a huge part of the “all time highs”. I’d be interested to see the same numbers adjusted for inflation
I think you’re starting to see cracks in the foundation when you see empty seats in stadiums even at games like Penn State. It’s harder to feel attachment
@maxb152@awireman The product of play in the NBA & NFL is much better for one. Two, those players are drafted and sign multi year contracts. College players are largely just choosing the largest paycheck. These are meaningful differences. And im fine with capping everything if that’s what it takes
@CoryRAanalytics@SteveOtt9 They buy the jerseys of players they feel an attachment to. I think it’s fair to say that attachment is becoming harder and harder to come by.