houtiger

These guys thinking about declaring for the draft can get a "draft grade" that projects the round that NFL scouts see them as likely going in. Then they have some sound data to make a decision. Emery Jones has started here for 3 years, I don't think you can expect any more from a top player there days, so I think Emery probably made a good decision. Nuss has only started for one season and I think coming back for his fifth year is also a good decision.

That's big for LSU. I thought he should come back, he needs more game speed decision making experience, which should improve his draft position in 2026.

LSUDad is correct. Mack was here one year, 1982, and he was the QB coach. George Belu was the OC/ O-LINE coach, but I don't remember hearing an interview with George Belu, but I do remember Mack Brown. Brown left after that season to achieve a goal of his to become a head coach, which he did at App State. I thought Mack Brown was the OC. There was a lot of talk about how talented Mack was with the LSU offense, which is why App State took him as head coach. It seemed that was his trajectory.

Here is a good discussion of why Pimpton is leaving, and why BK view on the use of the portal needs to change. He wants to develop players out of high school, but they are not staying around long enough.

When something is so unfair that it is illegal, per the judge that ruled on a lawsuit by players who felt they were being cheated out of an opportunity to earn a fair reward (money) for being the primary provider of the entertainment, then the system has to change. Go back to what a capitalist system is, and what the role of government is, and you see that the players were getting the shaft. Now the NCAA needs to find a way to play the game and play it on a level basis for all of the FBS teams. Here is a bit on the first lawsuit that knocked down the NCAA rules on the use of a players name image and likeness: "O'Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015), was an antitrust class action lawsuit filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The lawsuit, which former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon filed on behalf of the NCAA's Division I football and men's basketball players, challenged the organization's use of the images and the likenesses of its former student athletes for commercial purposes. The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image.[1][2] The NCAA maintained that paying its athletes would be a violation of its concept of amateurism in sports.[3] At stake are "billions of dollars in television revenues and licensing fees."[4] On August 8, 2014, District Judge Claudia Wilken found for O'Bannon, holding that the NCAA's rules and bylaws operate as an unreasonable restraint of trade, in violation of antitrust law.[5]" Every person in America has the right to work and be paid for his/her efforts. You can't design a system where the entertainment is worth billions of dollars, and all the money goes to the NCAA administrators, the conference administrators, the university athletic departments which they use to pay all the coaches, and the players who work the hardest and take substantial personal risk and provide the entertainment that is worth the billions, get none of that money, and they could not even seek compensation for the use of their own name image and likeness. That is so absurdly wrong that it is illegal, and has been so ruled. Other lawsuits have been filed and decided, but this one started it.

It's not about fair. It's about capitalism, we live in a nation with a capitalistic economy. "Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals and businesses own and control the factors of production, and the market determines prices and distribution of goods. Some key characteristics of capitalism include: Private property: Individuals can own tangible assets like land and houses, as well as intangible assets like stocks and bonds. Self-interest: People act in pursuit of their own good, without regard for sociopolitical pressure. Competition: Firms are free to enter and exit markets, which maximizes social welfare. Limited government role: The government's role is limited to protecting private citizens' rights and maintaining an orderly environment. Free market: The law of supply and demand determines how goods and services are distributed. Innovation: Competition leads companies to innovate to gain market share and increase profits. Consumer sovereignty: Consumers have the final say in how much a product or service is worth. " I guarantee you, if it went back the way it was, there is not one player that would think it was better. Not one. And who are the most important individuals in this business? Is Greg Sankey, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference the most important person in the business of SEC sports, that he should made $3.7 million a year, sitting behind a desk and not risking a thing, or a guy like Harold Perkins who is injured, has to sit out most of the season, and hopes he retains the speed after his recovery that made him a phenomenon his freshman year? Why did Will Campbell only make $500K this year, when he will likely make $25 million + per year next year in the NFL. Now, there are a heck of a lot more teams and players in college ball, so when you divide the revenue by the headcount, it won't work out like the NFL. But Will Campbell should make more than Greg Sankey, because he has more talent, he works a lot harder, and he risks his entire future career every day in practice and in the games. The NCAA devised a set of rules that were appropriate in pre-historic times, like pre 1960, before football became a big business. The rules were totally in favor of the NCAA and conference rule makers with their big salaries, and totally against the players. The fat cat administrators who wrote the rules got rich, and the players got chicken feed. In a capitalistic economy, The government's role is limited to protecting private citizens' rights and maintaining an orderly environment. Free market: The law of supply and demand determines how goods and services are distributed. And when the players finally sued the NCAA, claiming that as the primary provider of the entertainment, they were not allowed by the NCAA rules to share in a portion of the revenue that they primarily generated. And the judge agreed. The rules of the NCAA in the old system that denied the players a share of the huge revenue that their work generated, it was a violation of their RIGHT to make a living from their efforts. Now, the NCAA needs to figure out how to share the revenue with the players, and create a level playing field if they want to retain their fanbase. So, OK, figure it out. We are not going back, and it certainly was a terrible system for the players, and they finally realized they had rights they thought were being violated by the NCAA rules, they sued and the judge agreed. "Fair" is not an economic nor legal concept. The question is "are my rights being violated by the "rules" these fat cats drew up to operate the college football business", and it is clear they took all the money for themselves and denied the players the right to make a fair living off the work they put in. That's just wrong.

that makes no sense. Unless one of a couple of ideas. One, maybe he is disappointed with his NIL from LSU and wants to test the free agent market, and pressure LSU to up his deal. Maybe it is just me, but since entering the portal does not necessarily mean they will leave, it could just be a negotiating ploy that gives the player some leverage to fight back against the all powerful head coach. Lane Kiffin said free agency every year is stupid, well not an exact quote, but that's pretty much it. Two, maybe the tight end coach is bad and he rubs the players the wrong way. But the tight end coach left anyway, Nagle. He was getting playing time. Any other ideas?

It was somewhat better before, but it was NOT because the players were not getting paid a fair wage for the big business revenue they generated. It was better before because there were rules that made is somewhat fair for all of the schools. You could not cheat exorbitantly without getting caught and slapped down. Sure some schools cheated, like USC with Reggie Bush, but the differential between schools was kept reasonably small for all of the top tier schools. The problem now is not that the players can get paid, it is that without a mechanism to keep all of the schools even, you have a Michigan that outbid LSU for Bryce Underwood by over $4 million dollars. The problem is there is no salary cap for the teams like the NFL has. Now in the NFL players are free to sign endorsement deals if they are famous enough, but clearly these are legitimate deals. The companies that use Tom Brady to endorse them are not doing it because they are Patriots or Bucs fans, but because Tom Brady is well known, well spoken and he's handsome, that's it. Nootch has a good piece on a set of rules that would solve most of the problem. It can be solved, but the NCAA has not been smart enough to do it, but they may be concerned about that same judge looking over their shoulder. Hopefully it will get fixed.

"SEC leaving CBS for ESPN in US$3bn deal from 2024" "The commissioner of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) makes $3.7 million per year, according to tax filings from 2022." Brian Kelly makes $9 million a year. Kirby Smart makes 13 million, Jimbo Fisher makes 9 million a year and he doesn't even have a job to show up to. The LSU coordinators make around $2 million a year. Position coaches make around $500K. To think these players should only get a full ride scholarship worth around $50K per year is a travesty, and the judge has ruled. For the NCAA to rule that THEY owned the rights to the players NIL, was a clear abuse of power, essentially making the players into slaves, illegally. Less than 2% of college football players make it to the NFL, so it is not like they are likely to make a big payday after they pay their dues. Take Bryce Underwood, the QB who signed with Michigan for $10 million for 4 years. After tax he will come away with $6 million, and if he banked that, at 4% CD money that is insured, he can make $240K per year for the rest of his life. If Joe Burrow can make $50 million a season, why can't Underwood make 2.5 a year? If he has the talent, of course he should. You are worth whatever the job market is willing to pay you. Sometimes the job market makes a poor choice, like aTm did in the case of Jimbo, but they made their own bed. Now, the way the NCAA allows NIL to operate today, they have created an uneven playing field and fans will lose interest in the game unless the NCAA can move to level the playing field. But the money is there provided by TV, ticket sales, and gear sales, and why should everyone make a fortune except the kids who work their butts off all year? They should not, the players need some of that giant pool of money that they primarily generate. Those kids run the risk of a career ending injury every game and every practice. Justin Vincent and Ally Brousard both had NFL potential, until they both suffered knee injuries and neither was ever the same, neither ever saw the NFL. There are a lot of Justin Vincent's out there. Should they have been paid in college, sure, they should have gotten a piece of the SEC TV contract, they put in the work, they put the show on TV, and were entitled to a piece of it. It is not a "liberal" idea to pay people fairly for their work, talent, and entertainment value they generate. That is the American concept of capitalism. In big business, the business says "thank you" with money.

This is a head scratcher to me. He got playing time, he took advantage of it, and I thought of him as a real contributor. He may not feel the team (coaches) value him enough, that his contributions to the team are higher than the NIL he is given, so he will check out the market. These guys are basically pros now, and with the rules they have no contract and are free agents every year. He may not leave if he can't get a better deal anywhere else, but I think he was able to show at LSU that he is a real contributor. Welcome to pro sports.

Better for who? The fans who don't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy the "entertainment", for all the TV watchers at no cost to themselves? The NCAA, the conferences, the universities, the coaches, all sharing in the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by this big business, while they were not risking anything and enjoying basically free labor from the guys doing all the hard work and risking their career due to one career ending injury. Most of the players would never make it to the NFL and not be able to cash in down the line. A reasonable judge finally looked at this and said "this does not make sense". How much did the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference made, and how much hard work did he do to earn it? We know the answer to that question. And yet the NCAA and the conference heads made rules that denied the players the right to make any money for their efforts, under the guise of keeping it an "amateur" sport, as though that was some sort of pristine objective that justified a set of rules they made up decades earlier when there was almost no money in the business venture except ticket sales. Was it better for the fans the old way? Probably. No free agency, you could get to know the players and watch them advance through their careers. It was fun. Better for the players? No way. And the players are the ones who made the game go. This is America, and you have a right to be rewarded for your work. Just because a bunch of "suits" with legal expertise managed to keep the rules in force from decades earlier when college athletics was not a big business, into the age when it became a really big business, and siphon a lot of that money to themselves, did not make it right. The players sued and the judge acknowledges what everyone could see, the system had become very unfair to the players, who are the most important folks in the system, they are the ones who provide the entertainment. Would Taylor Swift provide the entertainment and let most of the money go to her record label for "supporting her and providing legal counsel and promoting her concerts"? Of course not, no entertainer would do that. NCAA athletes are the same, entertainers, entitled to a share of the fruits of their labor. Now, what we have today is more fair to the athletes, but between the universities it is not a fair competitive environment if a few schools with billionaire boosters can buy the best talent on an unequal playing field of money. But that is not the players fault, that it the NCAA fault for being so stupid as to allow that system without defining rules to level the playing field, such as the NFL has a salary cap per team.

It would be expensive to review all the deals, and to find "comparables", but either you are willing to spend money to ensure (as well as you can) the integrity of the game, or you are not. The game lacks integrity right now. If you have a personal billionaire for you team, you clearly have an unfair advantage. That needs to stop, or people will lose interest in the games if the outcome is pre-determined by the size of the payroll. Whose #1, Oregon, with Phil Knight, Nike money.

Excellent Nootch! That is the concept I had in mind, but you went and did the hard work and worked out the details. You should send it to your congressman and the president of the NCAA. Maybe they will make you the zar.

We don't know about Nuss, whether he will return. I think most of us think he should return and get another season of making game decisions under fire. I was thinking about the criticism of Nuss in Jan. 2022 when he sat out the Texas Bowl to preserve his redshirt season. He had already played in 4 games. That redshirt season is important now. Without it, Nuss would be out of eligibility and there would be no dicision to make. Does Collins leaving mean he thinks Nuss is coming back?

NIL if used as it was intended should be OK. It is the collectives of boosters that is the problem. The billionaires can put in nearly unlimited amounts of money, apparently for nothing other than playing football. Livvy Dunne makes a legitimate living on NIL and that should not be denied to her, she's pretty, smart, and talented. She is a perfect pitch person for gymnastics and athletic wear. If they want to put you in commercials, no problem. But those offers should in no way be connected to the University, and Livvy's are not. Now policing it is just as hard as it used to be, but the rules have to exist.