- Adam Rittenberg, ESPN Staff Writer
- 0 Shares
Coming at you from America's dairyland. Don't forget to join our Twitter minions.
Inbox time ...
Jimmy H. from Six Feet Under a Driveway in Grosse Point writes: We can probably all agree that the current system does exploit the players. Well, what if say, 2 percent of football revenues went to the players? You could even pay the money out in limited checks while in school, or perhaps after graduation. Alternatively, would it radically change the game if say, seniors only, could do promotions and product sponsorship? Imagine if each conference started to allocate 5 percent of conference football revenue to their players, paid out either as stipends during college or over a period following graduation. I think the BIG would once again start dominating the recruiting battles.
Adam Rittenberg: Jimmy, some interesting ideas here. I like that your proposals would affect players across the board, not necessarily just stars. There's no doubt that more of the record revenue being generated can go toward the athletes. Whether it's a stipend for travel/standard expenses, a trust to ensure further education for those who leave school early, or a fund to cover long-term medical injuries sustained while playing, there are ways to improve the college player experience. Some of these already have been proposed by the Big Ten and other conferences, but nothing substantial has come to fruition. The NCAA has let these issues drag for years and now could pay a substantial price, and not just in dollars.
Matt from Michigan writes: MSU has more hype than it deserves. Yes, they won the Rose Bowl, and that is great for a conference that needed a team to do it, but you are forgetting how little one random year means in actually being a consistent program. MSU was 7-6 the previous year. Are you forgetting they had four HOME losses that year? Pat Narduzzi is a fantastic assistant with a great scheme. But that scheme was helped by having talent AND experience at some key positions last year. Something that MSU does not have much of coming back. Looking at just last season, MSU deserves all the recognition it has gotten, but as for the future, please slow down the hype train for the inconsistent Spartan program.
Adam Rittenberg: A couple things, Matt. Go find me a projection that has Michigan State in the College Football Playoff. There aren't many, if any, out there. You cite the 7-6 season MSU had in 2012. That's fair, and the Spartans must show they can build on a season like last one with another strong performance. But to label Michigan State inconsistent is inaccurate. MSU has recorded 11 or more wins in three of the past four seasons. It has produced a top-five defense in each of the last three seasons, despite some personnel moving in and out. Will the 2014 Spartan Dawgs be as dominant as their predecessor? Probably not, but the offense certainly could be better than the 2013 version. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're a Michigan fan. If we were talking about Michigan, because of its superior overall history, it would be mentioned as a playoff candidate. Michigan State isn't getting the same treatment.
Mark from Champaign, Ill., writes: Is Julie Hermann too outspoken? She doesn't seem to have any boundaries and will talk about anything to any audience. Looks to be a thorn in Jim Delany's side right away.
Adam Rittenberg: I don't know if she has boundaries, Mark, but she's showing her inexperience in the role. Major-conference athletic directors must deal with scrutiny, especially those operating in major markets. She certainly has had more than her share for a first-year AD, but the spotlight is always on, and people are looking for poise, not noise about the media. As an AD, you have to focus on the bigger picture and stay above this stuff. It will be important for Hermann to do so going forward with the Big Ten transition.
Scott from Pleasanton, Calif., writes: After reading some articles about James Franklin's long hours and boundless energy, I wanted to get your take on the following -- does it matter that much? I mean, the coaches aren't on the field making plays, so it seems to me there may be diminishing returns with respect to the total number of hours spent in the office. Would he be just as effective if he worked a little less and got some more sleep?
Adam Rittenberg: He could be, Scott, but coaches always talk about being who they are, and Franklin knows no other way to do the job. The long-hours thing gets overplayed, but I think his energetic approach -- and that of his staff -- is effective in making connections with a group of players who have been through a lot with the coaching changes and sanctions. They want to see the coaches invested in them and in the program. They're getting that with Franklin.
Joel from Minneapolis writes: The Big 12 Blog recently gave its take on whether spring games were still necessary or have become irrelevant. I'd be interested to know your (and Bennett's) takes are on these events. Obviously they're a nice bridge that fills such a long offseason, but some schools can barely attract enough fans to fill even a fraction of their stadiums, and as many coaches in the B12 blog pointed out, have become so guarded as to showcasing how far their team has come along. Perhaps its time for the marketing departments at each school to rebrand these events into a more quasi-athletic affair, showcasing other aspects the athletic department. Thoughts?
Adam Rittenberg: Joel, schools take different approaches and some try to pair the spring football games with another athletic event (Ohio State typically schedules a lacrosse game beforehand). The bigger issues I see are existing injuries or the fear of more injuries. Some teams are so beaten up along the lines that it's impossible to field two true teams. Can't blame them for that. Other coaches are concerned about starters being hurt. I can tell you Wisconsin will have a true spring game, despite its injuries, as only a handful of players (RB Melvin Gordon among them) will be held out as a precaution. Spring games are fun events for the die-hards, but they often don't matter nearly as much as the 14 preceding practices. I'm fine with having the events continue, but I don't expect much from them.
2dMitch Sherman and Dan Murphy
3dMitch Sherman and Dan Murphy
4dDan Murphy and Mitch Sherman