Salary For College Players!?

I guess there has been a large enough group of people, albeit still way in the minority, who feel that college players (especially football) should be receiving some sort of compensation for playing sports. This has got to be the single most idiotic idea out there. I can't believe there are that many fans of college sports out there who believe this should be the case. Ask anyone close to the game on a college or professional level and 99,999 out of 100,000 will tell you the same.

First of all, do people not realize that they are already compensated? I checked a few sites, including school sites. The average tuition is about $10,000 at a public university (that's in-state...out-of-state jumps up to around $24,000) and $27,000 at a private university. College players get scholarships. A free education, of which the initial investment is about $40,000 without interest. The rest of us have to pay them off via student loans which, depending on how long it takes to pay it off, usually ends up closer to $55,000 - $60,000. That's a lot of money!

Aside from a free college education, these players are given a lot of stuff (legally) on campus. They get the hottest girls, tickets to shows, parties, and breaks when it comes to academics. Think Nick Saban wouldn't "talk" to Mark Ingram's teacher if he was in any danger of becoming ineligible for the season? Think anyone would talk to that same teacher if Joe Schmo was failing? They also get free trips, athletic gear, shirts and jerseys, and all kinds of equipment & memorabilia.

So my first point is that they're already plenty compensated for playing college sports. High school sports make money...should their players get paid, too?

Secondly, to those who say college players should get paid, I'd like for them to be the ones to draw out the plans to do so. How much money should each sport get paid? Should football players get paid more than basketball players because they bring in more money? What about female basketball players, should they get paid the same? Then the big question, should each university pay their players the same amount? If they don't, the schools that make more will be paying more. This means more recruits for Florida, Ohio State, Penn State, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Miami, Florida State, & Michigan. Guess what that leaves for Boise State, TCU, New Mexico, Wyoming, Villanova, Western Tennessee, Utah State, BYU, Utah, Indiana, Washington State, North Carolina State, Baylor, & Missouri - nothing. If the big boys can pay out more, they're going to get the best players. If you think the gap between BCS schools and non-BCS schools is big NOW, it will be even bigger if we start paying college players. So after a while, 60% of schools will really have NO money because they won't get any talent. Don't be naive, ONLY football is big enough to support a school. Sorry Duke, North Carolina, and the Big East - if your football programs stink, so will your school. The top 5 basketball programs last year made a combined $70 million. Guess what Texas football made? $72 million. Not even close.

So once most of the schools start to go under & have to cut programs because their expenses just increased across the board (a lot of schools have more than 30 sports), that leaves only a few schools to actually compete in athletics. Not that schools bring in a ton of money in college sports compared to their expenditures. In fact, most of the large schools don't make money every year - they lose it. The Yankees have the biggest revenue streams in baseball but they don't make money, they lose it every year. Why? Because it's worth it to their fans. They overpay for their players, for their products. That's why ticket prices have skyrocketed. Same in college sports. To pay all the coaches, staff, travel expenses, food expenses, and other things, most schools don't end up making any money. So what would increasing their expenses do? Nothing positive.

So please, even if none of these things were an issue, I'd like to see someone come up with a plan for how we're going to pay these athletes. After all, the NFL, MLB, & NBA can't do it; there's a lockout looming this year with the NBA and possibly the NFL next year. And these are PROFESSIONAL sports! You think the NCAA would do a BETTER job of policing money and contracts?! They have the worst track record of all 4 of these sports!!

So in a down economy, let's take money from our educational system and give more of it to athletes. That would be best, right?

NFL Predictions

The NFL playoffs are almost here, quenching the thirst of angry anti-BCS football-watchers everywhere. I'll go through both conferences to see what the possible outcomes are. There aren't as many as you may think.

The AFC...34-30 vs. the NFC

I won't go through seeding, just teams. 5 are in:

Pittsburgh

Baltimore

New York Jets

New England

Kansas City

The last week will determine whether Indy or Jacksonville gets in. It doesn't matter in either case in terms of who will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Only 4 of these teams have shots.

Pittsburgh... Great coaching, well-run organization, knows how to win, QB who's good enough to win it for them. Their defense is pretty solid despite injuries. Though their record may not be as good as others, this is 1 of 4 teams in either conference that you really don't want to play.

Baltimore... This is a scrappy team with a few chips on their shoulders. They may be older, but they're still a very physical team who will bring it. Good in cold weather, motivated, and led by a decent QB, Baltimore was my pick at the beginning of the year so I'll stick with it.

New York Jets... Great coach, balanced team. The only soft spot is at QB which worries me. If it comes down to needing a play from Sanchez, I don't think the Jets will get it. Great running game and solid defense, the Jets are talented enough to make it to the Super Bowl.

New England... Great coach, great QB, experienced. There are a lot more reasons to have confidence in this team than not. This would be my pick had I not picked the Ravens in the beginning.

Sorry Chiefs, Colts, and Jags fans. None of these teams have what it takes to make it to the Super Bowl. Indy is just too depleted and lacks a strong defense. Manning can only do so much. Chiefs are too inexperienced and have a bi-polar QB. Same with Jags.

On to the NFC...

This is where it gets a little trickier. Only 3 teams are technically in, although New Orleans could wrap it up tonight with a win over Atlanta. Here are the teams that are in:

Atlanta

Philadelphia

Chicago

The teams on the bubble:

New Orleans

St. Louis
Seattle

New York Giants

Green Bay

Tampa Bay

St. Louis and Seattle will battle it out next week for the playoff team entering with the worst record, so 1 of them will be out. That leaves 2 spots for 4 teams. The giants have the best shot as they play the Redskins. The Bucs will play the Saints, leaving room for only 1 of them. If New Orleans wins tonight or next week, they'll be in. The Bears play the Packers at home, which will be tough for Green Bay. The most likely scenario is that St. Louis, New Orleans, and New York all get in. But how cool is this! When's the last time we had Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and Seattle all fighting for a playoff spot?!

So out of the 6 playoff teams in the NFC, only 3 teams have shots at making it to the Super Bowl. Here we go:

Atlanta... A lot of Falcons fans are upset that Atlanta hasn't gotten more love from the media after a great year. This was the dark horse pick for a lot of people. And Falcons fans will see a lot more pub once the playoffs start. Good QB, balanced attack with Turner and Ryan, good defense. They made some strides last year in the playoffs, look for them to do the same this year.

Philadelphia... Great coach, great QB, talented offensive team. Vick is a wild card. The Eagles can only go as far as he can take them. He's matured a lot, we'll see if he's ready to take the next step and play well (hopefully for all 4 quarters, not just 1) in a playoff situation.

New York... The Giants may not even make the playoffs, but they have a good QB, a solid defense, and experience. Right now, I'm afraid to put them up here because they're sturggling. But to ignore them and say they can't make it just isn't accurate...they can be great when they want to.

Sorry Bears fans as well as Saints fans. St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa Bay, and Green Bay fans should all be able to admit to themselves that this year isn't their year. A rookie QB in St. Louis (referencing the Jets last year, their defense, coaching, and run game is nowhere near where New York was), Seattle and Tampa Bay have no anything, and Green Bay is playing with a limited QB as well as other injured players. The Saints don't have that edge that they did last year, but they are talented. Just not enough to make it again this year. And to my dear Bears fans... you have the #1 most overrated team in your city. Cutler is not the answer and has no positive playoff experience. Forte isn't used nearly as much as he should be, and the defense is good but not good enough to win a Super Bowl (see their last appearance) nor make it (unless they catch 98193793149 lucky breaks as they did the last time they ran deep in the playoffs). They spent their year beating up on the Lions (GREAT job there), an injury-ridden Packers team, and a Viking team who imploded about the 2nd week of the season. It's almost the NFC West, but not quite.

Prediction... Ravens/Vikings was my pick at the beginning of the year, but since the Vikings are out, I'm gonna go with Philly. I think Vick will continue to grow and pull off big plays with his arm in the playoffs, and they'll sneak out with a win against Atlanta to the disappointment of all Vick's former fans. However, the physical Ravens D will be too much for Philly to overcome. Baltimore wins 31-17.

Well since my first blog post was bashing Fisher-hating Jazz fans, I'm grateful for the chance to empathize with them a little bit.

Last Thursday, after 6 years of waiting for their draft pick that came from the NY Knicks, Jazz fans let the administration know of their displeasure of the #9 pick which went to them, especially after patiently waiting all that time. As soon as Forrest announced the pick, boos came loudly and with some pain. I was there. Nobody really liked the pick, including myself. However, I didn't share the disgust for the Jazz organization that they did - just the doubt of whether they really know what they're doing in the front office. If the Cavs would've made that pick, I'd be livid as well.

I'll give my take on Mr. Gordon Hayward from Butler. I'm convinced that the upset boos aren't targeted towards Gordon as much as they are Kevin O'Conner. I'm sure Hayward is a good guy, a decent college player who may or may not pan out on the pro level. I'll give 3 reasons why this actually was a bad pick.

1. This pick came out of left field. Never mind who was left on the board...this guy hadn't really been mentioned at all by anyone anywhere. He was ranked somewhere in the mid-late teens by most mock drafts. Nobody even thought he'd be an option. Well, apparently someone pretty high up did. But surprising Jazz fans with someone like this? Not the best idea, especially if you're trying to keep someone named Williams longer than 2 years.

2. There were at least 3 better options on the board, and that's being nice. Ed Davis, Cole Aldrich, and Patrick Patterson not only were ranked higher by just about everyone, but fit the needs of the Jazz a little bit better than Hayward. Yes, the Jazz need a 2-guard, but if the Jazz's aim is to stop L.A's length, you really think a rookie 2-guard is going to solve anything? Patterson, Davis, and Aldrich are all great big men who are superior talent-wise. They have the bodies to compete on a pro level a lot sooner than Hayward (2 years Mr. O'Conner?! By then, won't D-Will be gone?!)

3. The Jazz's needs. They needed length, they took a guard. In fact, they got 2 guards. They didn't address the need for big men at all. And this with the uncertainty of their best 2 big men probably not playing next year. Boozer probably will leave via free agency and Okur could be out for the year. That leaves you with Millsap and some bench players. And again, Hayward is going to help you on this how?

So with a 9 pick that they've been waiting 6 years for, they don't attempt to trade up or down but go with someone who may end up the biggest bust of round 1. Looking over their picks the last few years, there's a lot of bad decisions. The 1 good pick was when they had a low top ten pick and traded up to get Deron Williams. You would think they'd do something similiar this time around, too.

College Expansion

Things are really starting to shift!! With the Big Ten adding Nebraska and the Pac-10 adding half of the Big 12, let's break down how everything is going to look now.

The Big Ten - Maybe not the biggest winner, but a winner nonetheless

After a successful addition of Penn State which has helped the conference in recent years, the Big Ten/Eleven conference has now become the new Big 12. Adding Nebraska is a great fit for both sides: school traditions, historical success on the football field, education, administration, and drive. Nebraska and Ohio State are the top 2 traveling teams in the country and now will be paired together hopefully year after year. How they break out the 2 divisions is going to be interesting. I think they'll keep Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State together and maybe add in Penn State, Northwestern, and Purdue while the other division sets the western/northern schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana. It should a couple nice rivalries like Iowa/Nebraska and possibly Nebraska/OSU. The Big Ten will also double Nebraska's paycheck each year.

The Pac-10 - Best chance of being the biggest winner

Going from 10 to 16 teams in a matter of a couple weeks may push this conference over the top. It also may destroy college football, it could weaken the other conferences just making them mad while the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-10 really take everything. It's also probably no coincidence that all of this happens while the dominant Pac-10 football program, USC, starts a downward spiral. By the time they really start to feel the effects, Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech will all be there to shoulder the burden. The depth of this conference will no longer be criticized as each of the 2 divisions could probably rival most of the other conferences. Texas, USC, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona State, and UCLA if they decide to take advantage of the loss of USC recruits over the next few years. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Big 12 - Winner of the Biggest Loser

The SEC plays better football, the Big Ten has the most money, the Pac-10 is just a sexier place being mostly located in California...the Big 12 really had nothing left to offer. Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou were all more than happy to jump off that bandwagon. Seems like 5 other teams were as well. I thought the Big 12 was going to pick up raid some other conferences like the Mountain West (Utah, BYU, TCU, Colorado State), the WAC (Boise State) and possibly C-USA (Houston) to help cover their losses. But with the Mountain West grabbing Boise State and targeting some of the Big 12 leftovers like Mizzou and Kansas, they may be in a position to catapult themselves into what may be the 6th automatic bid spot with the Pac-16, the Big 12 (formerly the Big Ten), the SEC, the ACC, and Big East. The Big 12 wants to kick Mizzou out which leaves them with Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State. They'll need a lot more teams if they want to even consider competing as a conference.

The Mountain West - A Surprising Wild Card

Utah, TCU, and possibly (although I don't see why) BYU were all targeted to go somewhere else but will probably end up staying and building up the MWC. With the addition of the only other relevant non-BCS team, Boise State, they've now got their sights on Kansas and Mizzou. Mizzou would be a stretch travel-wise but would make a lot of sense for their conference. It's a good basketball and football school, not great but good, and it helps solidify the rest of the conference so it's not just the big 3 and then the rest of the conference. It gives them more depth. Kansas and Kansas State are both great basketball programs and decent football programs. However they work it, adding any of these teams would really help this conference who a lot of people thought would end up losing more than gaining but apparently not.

The WAC - Not as big a loser

By losing Boise State, the WAC just became the MAC. Neither Hawaii nor Fresno State can carry that conference on a national level, so it just becomes a good watch if you're into mediocre football that end in close games. The most attractive girl just left the nerd group to go hang out with some cooler people.

The SEC - The non-player

Everyone keeps talking what the SEC is going to do. Why? They just signed a new contract for $17.5 million per school and they've been consistently the top conference for the past decade. They don't need to make any moves. They boast the past 5 of 6 national champions in Florida (twice), Alabama, and LSU (twice). The only addition I could see them making, and it's a stretch, would be to pick up Mizzou who will be getting booted out by the Big 12 (now the Big 4). It would put them at an odd number, though, so they may need to get another team with them making it less probably the SEC makes any move.

The ACC and Big East - Are they still playing football?!

Now that we have the conference breakdowns, there are some wild card schools that could shake things up a little bit depending on where they go. Most are already mentioned above: Kansas, Kansas State, Houston, and Mizzou. It'll be fun to see what happens with all of these new conferences.

Where Will LeBron End Up? (Part 1)

The LeBron 2010 sweepstakes have begun! And as biased as I am being a Cavs fan, I want to go over the best option James has this summer. Now, I don't believe that LeBron has even thought about where he wants to go this summer. Well, maybe this past week he has, but I doubt its been in-depth thought. These are not in any kind of order and I'll go through each one to see which ones are likely and which aren't:



1. New York
2. New Jersey
3. Chicago
4. Miami
5. L.A Clippers
6. Dallas
7. Cleveland


There are 4 categories in which I think would at least play some role of James making his decision. After each team, I will list the ranking 1-7 (1 being the best, 7 being the worst) for these 4 categories: Winning, Administration, Location, Off-Court Perks. Since all 7 of these teams can offer a max contract (although Cleveland can offer just a little bit more money), money isn't really a difference-maker.

1. New York - 5, 4, 4, 1... The talk of the town, New York is the place most people think James will land. Statistically, NY ranks second on the list totaling 14 which came as a surprise to me. However, the winning category would seem to hold the most weight from what LeBron has been saying in which NY ranks a low 5th. Right now, NY has unloaded their team in hopes to land LBJ. They currently have 4 people listed on their roster as of July 1st. They have 2 max contract spots and a lot of financial wiggle room (and are probably more than willing to go into the luxury tax). NY is a big stage, something LeBron loves. He could probably get some more endorsements there, which is why the off-court perks rank #1.

The downside with NY is exactly what makes it big: the risk. There's nothing like winning in NY but there's also nothing like losing in NY, which is exactly what he'd do. They are not ready to win right now, there's not even a team there right now. Even assuming they land a good #2 like Chris Bosh, re-sign Derek Lee (who also plays PF), they're nowhere deep enough to make a run in the playoffs. Boston is still a lot deeper as is Orlando, so if winning is atop LeBron's list, NY isn't the place to go right now.

2. New Jersey - 7, 1, 5, 2... New Jersey is an interesting team, and its odds of landing a great team were lowered after missing out on the John Wall draft. Not that Cousins or Johnson will be bad picks, and they may even end up with Evan Turner. But a team that barely wins 10 games in a year is in no position to make a playoff run, even with landing the best player in the world. It can be argued that New Jersey doesn't even make the playoffs with LeBron James much less win multiple championships.

While I think NJ has some talent, it's very undeveloped and will take time to turn into anything. So yes, it may be a talented team, but the team has 0 playoff experience and just a little bit more winning experience. Having a good relationship with owner Jay-Z and eventually moving into the Brooklyn area will help, but I don't think it's enough to draw a player who wants to win right now.


3. Chicago - 3, 7, 6, 4... Statistically, this is the worst team to go to. I think this may be one of the better options because they already have solid players. However, their administration and coaching leave a lot of room for doubt. After firing Del Negro, who did a great job with a team that wasn't expected to go anywhere, the Bulls' future is a little uncertain.

First Blog Post...unfortunately

Welcome to my blog everyone! Thought I would create a blog to share my opinion on certain topics. If you want updates on my life (as I'm sure EVERYONE does, right), my wife Jodi's blog is probably a better place to get them. I wanted to talk about things that I want to talk about. Kinda like a journal....pretty cool.

So unfortunately my first topic comes at 3:30 a.m because I can't sleep...I think I'm getting a little sick. So while I've been up, I've looked at some of my friends' facebook statuses. One of my mission companions posts talks about Derek Fisher...he's a Jazz fan. Sorry Jazz fans, you're a little biased when it comes to Fisher but I want to hear your opinions on this matter. It's sad that my first post is about a Laker...I hate the Lakers...but I don't understand where Jazz fans are coming from. Here's my question:

Jazz fans, why do you hate Derek Fisher?

Really though, why do you hate him? Fisher played in California for 10 years, Utah 1 year. How do you get upset because he's going back to the place that he's spent just about all of his career at? He's not a Jazz player at heart, he's a Laker player at heart. And I hate the Lakers! (just making sure you know that I'm on your side of that issue) But how can you blame someone for wanting to go back to the place that they've played most of their life?

To help put this in perspective, let's switch it. Let's say Stockton, towards the very end of his career, got traded to the Pistons. He was there one year, and decided to come back to Utah to finish out his career. Would Piston fans be right in HATING him? He was only there ONE year! He's a Jazz guy! He's got family, friends, and business partners here. He knows the city, he feels at home here, his kids probably love it (one plays ball at Westminster) here. How can Detroit fans hate him for coming back after only 1 year with their organization?

If you haven't noticed by the pic, I'm a Cavs fan. Last year, we got Ben Wallace. Actually 2 years ago. So he played with the Cavs for 2 years before he got traded. He started his career out with Washington (3 years), then went to Orlando for a year (any Magic fans hate Ben Wallace?), then to Detroit for 6 years where he won a championship and anchored their defense, then to Chicago for 2 years (unfortunately for him), then to Cleveland for 2, got traded to Phoenix and then released shortly after and now he's back with Detroit. Little different circumstances, but I don't know of any Cavs fans who hate Ben Wallace. Yea he didn't ask to be traded, but he was going to retire had he not been traded. Even if he retired from the Cavs and went to Detroit we wouldn't hate him. And Cleveland is a very hateful city!! Just ask a Cav fan about Carlos Boozer.

So if this isn't enough, I watched the actual press conference where Fisher announces he's going to join the Lakers. First off, he thanks the Jazz a million times. He's a pretty classy guy off the court...on the court is another story. But I hear a lot of "well, Derek Fisher lied!! He's a liar!! He said he wanted to go to LA to use their doctors but he still uses his doctor in NY!!" Calm down, Jazz fans. He said in his press conference not once but twice that he is still using his doctor in NY as his treating physicain until his child is fully transitioned to the facilities in LA. His doctor in NY gave him a list of places that had adequate facilities where he could take his kid to in order to treat them.

He didn't say, "I'll be using the doctors here in LA and that's it." He clearly explained why he was going to California and that he would keep his treating physician in NY. So someone please explain to me where he lied or "gave up his integrity" by signing with the Lakers.

Everyone outside of Utah, even fans of teams who hate both Utah and the Lakers, really bag on Jazz fans for this. So I leave it to you, D-Will-ites (guess that doesn't really work). Why the hate on Derek Fisher?

Post, the First

Hi everyone. This is Aaron's wife, Jodi. I helped Aaron create this blog way too late at night and we decided we need at least ONE post to start it off, so here it is. I had no idea how impossible it is to create a man's blog. There are all kinds of cutesy things for girls to put on their blogs! But try to find manly sports backgrounds and pfft. We may have to resort to lots of pictures, comics, quotes, and sports trivia.

Stay tuned for pictures of Aaron coaching! And thanks for reading.