There are way too many bowls.

[615dawg]

Don't get me wrong. I love the fact that we are going to a decent bowl this season, but in a perfect world, we should be in the "we need to win this one to lock up a bowl" phase.

If 615dawg was in charge, there would be a playoff. But if a playoff wasn't possible. I'd get rid of 20 bowls. Yep. 20. That's the only way that you would get the bowls back to a prestige that they once had. A 6-6 team should not sniff a bowl game in my opinion. Think about it. 70 out of 120 teams will be able to say that they went to a bowl game this year. Where's the prestige in that?

Here is my plan. There should be three tiers of bowls. The BCS (5 games), 6 Tier 1 Bowl Games and 4 Tier II Bowl Games. 30 teams. 25% of the teams should be able to say they had a good enough season to make a bowl game. The BCS standings are used past the BCS games as well. Here is the breakdown.

<span style="font-weight: bold;">BCS Games</span>
BCS National Championship: The No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the BCS.
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 Champion vs. Big East champion/at-large
Rose Bowl: Big 10 Champion vs. Pac 10 Champion
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champion vs. Big East champion/at-large
Orange Bowl: ACC Champion vs. Big East champion/at-large

The Big East has no permanent home, but rotates among the Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowls. The other two are guaranteed an at-large pick, that must come from the top 12 in the BCS. If a non-AQ is in the top 6 of the BCS, they must be taken as an at-large. The conference champions that end up in the NC game default their spot to an at-large spot and draft No. 1 and No. 2, respectively. Here is how it would go down with this year's current BCS/conference standings.

BCS National Championship: Oregon vs. Auburn
Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska (Big 12 champ) vs. TCU (first pick in the draft) no Big East qualifier in top 12 of BCS
Rose Bowl: Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) vs. Stanford (second pick in the draft)
Sugar Bowl: LSU (third pick in draft) vs. Boise State (fifth pick in the draft)
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Ohio State (fourth pick in the draft)

Tier I Bowl Games. Six games. Each has one conference tie-in, based on history. Teams must come from the BCS Top 25. Note: If I were in charge, corporate sponsors would be sponsors, not bowl titles.

Citrus Bowl: Top remaining SEC team (Alabama #11) vs. at-large
Peach Bowl: Top remaining ACC team (Miami #24) vs. at-large
Cotton Bowl: Top remaining Big 12 team (Oklahoma State #10) vs. at-large
Hall of Fame (Outback for you youngens) Bowl: Top remaining Big 10 team (Michigan State #12) vs. at-large
Gator Bowl: Top remaining Big East team (no qualifier in BCS Top 25) vs. at-large
Holiday Bowl: Top remaining Pac 10 team (Arizona #22) vs. at-large

So the draft order looks (and my picks) like this:
Gator Bowl (because no Big East qualifier): Arkansas (vs. Florida State)
Peach Bowl: Oklahoma (vs. Miami)
Holiday: Missouri (vs. Arizona)
Hall of Fame: South Carolina (vs. Michigan State)
Citrus: Texas A&M (vs. Alabama)
Cotton: Iowa (vs. Oklahoma State)
Gator (regular at-large pick) : Florida State (vs. Arkansas)

Tier II Bowls. Four bowls. No tie-ins. The three BCS Top 25 teams (in this case, Nevada, Mississippi State and Utah) must be selected before anyone in the at-large pool, which includes teams ranked in either poll but not in the BCS Top 25 (Northwestern), conference champions (Pittsburgh, Central Florida, Northern Illinois, Florida International) or any FBS team with the same number of wins (7) as the lowest BCS team (Maryland, NC State, Syracuse, Michigan, Southern Miss, Tulsa, Navy, Temple, San Diego State, Air Force, Hawaii). A team cannot be picked if its conference champion has not been picked (e.g. UCF must be picked before USM or Tulsa is on the board). There are 14 teams available for 5 bowl slots.

The four Tier II Bowls are the Alamo, Sun, Liberty and Tangerine (Champs Sports) Bowls. They are randomly assigned a draft order, which rotates.
Alamo (#1 and #8 picks)
Sun (#2 and #7 picks)
Liberty (#3 and #6 picks)
Tangerine (#4 and #5 picks)

Possible draft
Alamo: Mississippi State vs. Maryland
Sun: Utah vs. Northwestern
Liberty: Nevada vs. Michigan
Tangerine: Pittsburgh vs. Central Florida

The remaining 11 bowl eligible teams (Northern Illinois, Florida International, NC State, Syracuse, Southern Miss, Tulsa, Navy, Temple, San Diego State, Air Force, Hawaii) can try again next year.

The following bowls cease to exist:
Military Bowl
Beef O Bradys Bowl
New Mexico Bowl
Compass Bowl
New Orleans Bowl
Godaddy.com Bowl
Poinsettia Bowl
Las Vegas Bowl
Armed Forces Bowl
Hawaii Bowl
Little Ceasers Pizza Bowl
TicketCity Bowl
Insight Bowl (considered heavily as a Tier II Bowl, Copper Bowl)
Fight Hunger Bowl
Pinstripe Bowl
Music City Bowl (also considered, loses on history to Liberty)
Independence Bowl
Meinike Car Care Bowl

 

[615dawg]

Don't get me wrong. I love the fact that we are going to a decent bowl this season, but in a perfect world, we should be in the "we need to win this one to lock up a bowl" phase.

If 615dawg was in charge, there would be a playoff. But if a playoff wasn't possible. I'd get rid of 20 bowls. Yep. 20. That's the only way that you would get the bowls back to a prestige that they once had. A 6-6 team should not sniff a bowl game in my opinion. Think about it. 70 out of 120 teams will be able to say that they went to a bowl game this year. Where's the prestige in that?

Here is my plan. There should be three tiers of bowls. The BCS (5 games), 6 Tier 1 Bowl Games and 4 Tier II Bowl Games. 30 teams. 25% of the teams should be able to say they had a good enough season to make a bowl game. The BCS standings are used past the BCS games as well. Here is the breakdown.

<span style="font-weight: bold;">BCS Games</span>
BCS National Championship: The No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the BCS.
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 Champion vs. Big East champion/at-large
Rose Bowl: Big 10 Champion vs. Pac 10 Champion
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champion vs. Big East champion/at-large
Orange Bowl: ACC Champion vs. Big East champion/at-large

The Big East has no permanent home, but rotates among the Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowls. The other two are guaranteed an at-large pick, that must come from the top 12 in the BCS. If a non-AQ is in the top 6 of the BCS, they must be taken as an at-large. The conference champions that end up in the NC game default their spot to an at-large spot and draft No. 1 and No. 2, respectively. Here is how it would go down with this year's current BCS/conference standings.

BCS National Championship: Oregon vs. Auburn
Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska (Big 12 champ) vs. TCU (first pick in the draft) no Big East qualifier in top 12 of BCS
Rose Bowl: Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) vs. Stanford (second pick in the draft)
Sugar Bowl: LSU (third pick in draft) vs. Boise State (fifth pick in the draft)
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Ohio State (fourth pick in the draft)

Tier I Bowl Games. Six games. Each has one conference tie-in, based on history. Teams must come from the BCS Top 25. Note: If I were in charge, corporate sponsors would be sponsors, not bowl titles.

Citrus Bowl: Top remaining SEC team (Alabama #11) vs. at-large
Peach Bowl: Top remaining ACC team (Miami #24) vs. at-large
Cotton Bowl: Top remaining Big 12 team (Oklahoma State #10) vs. at-large
Hall of Fame (Outback for you youngens) Bowl: Top remaining Big 10 team (Michigan State #12) vs. at-large
Gator Bowl: Top remaining Big East team (no qualifier in BCS Top 25) vs. at-large
Holiday Bowl: Top remaining Pac 10 team (Arizona #22) vs. at-large

So the draft order looks (and my picks) like this:
Gator Bowl (because no Big East qualifier): Arkansas (vs. Florida State)
Peach Bowl: Oklahoma (vs. Miami)
Holiday: Missouri (vs. Arizona)
Hall of Fame: South Carolina (vs. Michigan State)
Citrus: Texas A&M (vs. Alabama)
Cotton: Iowa (vs. Oklahoma State)
Gator (regular at-large pick) : Florida State (vs. Arkansas)

Tier II Bowls. Four bowls. No tie-ins. The three BCS Top 25 teams (in this case, Nevada, Mississippi State and Utah) must be selected before anyone in the at-large pool, which includes teams ranked in either poll but not in the BCS Top 25 (Northwestern), conference champions (Pittsburgh, Central Florida, Northern Illinois, Florida International) or any FBS team with the same number of wins (7) as the lowest BCS team (Maryland, NC State, Syracuse, Michigan, Southern Miss, Tulsa, Navy, Temple, San Diego State, Air Force, Hawaii). A team cannot be picked if its conference champion has not been picked (e.g. UCF must be picked before USM or Tulsa is on the board). There are 14 teams available for 5 bowl slots.

The four Tier II Bowls are the Alamo, Sun, Liberty and Tangerine (Champs Sports) Bowls. They are randomly assigned a draft order, which rotates.
Alamo (#1 and #8 picks)
Sun (#2 and #7 picks)
Liberty (#3 and #6 picks)
Tangerine (#4 and #5 picks)

Possible draft
Alamo: Mississippi State vs. Maryland
Sun: Utah vs. Northwestern
Liberty: Nevada vs. Michigan
Tangerine: Pittsburgh vs. Central Florida

The remaining 11 bowl eligible teams (Northern Illinois, Florida International, NC State, Syracuse, Southern Miss, Tulsa, Navy, Temple, San Diego State, Air Force, Hawaii) can try again next year.

The following bowls cease to exist:
Military Bowl
Beef O Bradys Bowl
New Mexico Bowl
Compass Bowl
New Orleans Bowl
Godaddy.com Bowl
Poinsettia Bowl
Las Vegas Bowl
Armed Forces Bowl
Hawaii Bowl
Little Ceasers Pizza Bowl
TicketCity Bowl
Insight Bowl (considered heavily as a Tier II Bowl, Copper Bowl)
Fight Hunger Bowl
Pinstripe Bowl
Music City Bowl (also considered, loses on history to Liberty)
Independence Bowl
Meinike Car Care Bowl

 

[TUSK.sixpack]

with some similarities to yours. Mine kept most of the bowls, improved the quality and increased revenue.... and the season stayed the same length:<div>
</div><div>[list type=decimal][*](8) 14 team superconferences, 6 divisional games, 3 non-div games, 1 OOC game, conference championship game[*]8 automatic bids from conference championships, 8 A.L. bids to the next highest BCS ranked teams[*]seeds are based on BCS rankings with conference or regular season rematches avoided with preference given to the higher seeded team[*]the good bowls are incorporated into the 16 team playoff and the lower tier bowls would be played on "off" weeks during playoffs[/list]<div>the plan is much deeper and has other features than this, but that's the basics.... it's actually a fairly bulletproof system....</div></div>

 

[FQDawg]

What do I care if 6-6 Miami of Ohio plays 6-6 Illinois in the Irrelevant Bowl? If you don't want to watch the game, then don't watch the game - And I'm speaking generally, not at anyone directly, but don't be so condescending as to presume to tell other people what they should or should not watch. Frankly, I'd rather watch a bowl game with two teams that I don't remotely care about than whatever else (poker, golf, etc...) that ESPN might show in its place.

 

[MaroonedNdaRock]

What, if anything, does more bowl games hurt? Nothing I can think of. If anything, it gives a couple of teams an extra game to play and fans another game to watch. Also, I got to say. It absolutely sucked in 1997 when we were 7-4 and did not go bowling. So, if one year we have a bunch of bowls games with 6-6 teams......so be it. As long as a team like State doesn't let out from time to time because of to few. </p>

 

[seshomoru]

Because they for some reason convince themselves that it cheapens the college football post season. News flash! There is only one bowl game that matters and can even be considered a post season game. The rest are just exhibitions in December and January. They can have as many as people are willing to fork over sponsorship money for and it won't bother me. As FQ said, I'd rather watch college football of any kind instead of a lot of other crap.

 

[Hair of the Dawg]

I was very surprised at some of the info that was in that article.

According to what was written, Ohio State LOST $79,000 after their payout from the Rose Bowl. While they recieved 18 million for playing in that game, it was taken by the Big 10 and put into a pot for all of the members. Once it was handed down and the league office took it's share, OSU got something like 2.2 million. Once all expenses were payed, they ended up $79,000 in the hole.

I also didn't realize how much money schools lose on ticket sells. The schools purchase a required amount at face value, what doesn't get sold, the school has to eat.

It was also reported that the birth of lots of these bowls was related to bonuses recieved by AD employees.

It was a really good article.</p>

 

[patdog]

But this year, we very well may have a 5-7team play in a bowl. That's just too many bowls.

 

[drunkernhelldawg]

I'm not against extra games but it is amazing how the corporate interests can lasso even large victims like universities.

The prices of playing

 

[seshomoru]

But this year, we very well may have a 5-7team play in a bowl. That's just too many bowls.

But why? There's only one bowl that means anything. The rest are just exhibitions to make a little money and have something besides WSP reruns on TV. The more the merrier. As I said, it's not exactly a post season in the sense that winning a bowl game advances you closer to a national championship. It's just another football game. Who cares how many there are.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Seems like many opinions concerning College Football and Bowls and/or Playoffs fail to take the player into account. The bowl game is the one tangible reward a player earns for all that effort in practicing, lifting weights and playing 12 or 13 games to entertain the alumni and generally earn their schools and coaches millions of dollars. Now you are talking about taking that away from them.

Many other people want to make these AMATEUR players put their bodies on the line for 3 or 4 more games which would earn the schools and coaches even more money with the player getting nothing more than they get now. The NFL is in for a big fight about two more games.

Please think about the players for once. They are not graphics in a video game (which they get nothing from either).

 

[tenureplan]

Did you ever play football? I would have loved to have been athletic enough to have played on the collegiate level. The game itself is the reward.

 

[drunkernhelldawg]

Your comparison of the players in some fans' minds to "graphics in a computer game" is spot on and awesome.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I know how much we put in and I know how much effort the football players put in. I also know how much of a reward it was to go to a College World Series or a Bowl game for my football friends.

I know they love to play. I also know how injured they got and how full the training room was each week. Trust me, there is a price to pay on your body for College Football. It is a big problem where the people that are paying that price get less and less of a percentage of what their blood and sweat produces.

The simple analogy is what would happen if your boss came to you tomorrow and said we are going to make all employees work 2 extra hours a day. We know this will allow us to earn 100,000,000 more dollars per year. My bonus and salary will go up accordingly. Yours will not. If you try to get a second job that earns more than $2,500, you will be fired. If you accept a loan from a friend you will be fired. If you quit and try and move to another job, even though your contract is up, you will have to sit out a year and be on unemployment. I am sure you would not be very happy.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

regularly play 15 games in a season. 16 in some states.<div>
</div><div>What would be wrong with an occasional college team (only the 2 best each year) getting to 16?</div><div>
</div><div>I mean, Jesus 17 Christ, do you think the players on the screwedTCU/Boise State/Cincinnati/Texas/Texas Tech/Utah/USC/Georgia/Hawai'i/Missouri/Kansas/Oklahoma/West Virginia/Virginia Tech/Arizona State/Michigan/Louisville/Wisconsin/Auburn/Oregon/Colorado/Miami were relieved that their bodies only had 1 more game to play? No! They were mad as hell they were wrongfully denied a shot at the title that rightfully should have been determined in a multi-game tournament!</div><div>
</div><div>Really, none of the arguments about the players really hold water, whether it's the strain on their bodies nor the missed class time, since the FCS, D2, D3, NAIA, all do a playoff system and it works fine (actually quite well).</div>

 

[8dog]

i completely agree they should get a reward if they qualify. Hell, they are up at the wee hours of the morning running the entire stadium so that we can sit on campus on saturdays and drink beer and have a hope that they'll make our university proud.

 

[tenureplan]

All of that is worthless right? Go to school, go to practice, play a gamethey "should"love. No worries about whether they can afford rent next month or tuition next semester.

And lets not forget the glory and all that comes with it. Football players are treated like kings on campus. Think of all the tail they pull just because they are a football player. Whatdo they really have to spend money on?

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

High Schools don't earn millions more because of the playofffs. They are also generally not as big and fast and don't play as long a game.

I do have a solution to the "unfairness" within the current BCS system. What you can do is tell all schools to be eligible for the BCS is that you can only schedule 11 games a year. Take away one of those directional games. A 12th game will be scheduled by a committee after the BCS poll comes out two weeks before Rivalry Week. The week before Rivalry week will be BCS week. The committee would look at the poll and setup games for all schools. That would allow them to pit Boise St v Auburn, TCU v Oregon. The higher ranked team would get the home game. The committee would setup other games based on regions and avoid conference or previous matchups. They could also mix in one loss teams if that would be necessary that season.

This would keep it at 14 games max and would give the non-BCS schools an "on the field" opportunity to win a championship.

 

[KurtRambis4]

youve asked who one of the greatest players in msu baseball history is & posted that Chuck Rhodes continuously chunked up threes his senior year in your last few posts. Nice.

 

[tenureplan]

I wish I would have checked the stats before the Rhodes comment. It sure felt like he shot a bunch. Myabe he was shooting alot of 18-20 footers...can't remember.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I DON'T think they should be paid.

I do think they should be allowed to make as much money based on their "fame" as they want. They should keep their name and likeness. It should be licensed just like the schools do for their logos and colors. They should be able to sign jerseys/memoribilia and sell them if they want to. As long as the school is not involved in setting up the business, it should not be a problem. They should be able to have agents who have to register with the NCAA and Conferences. I do think they should be able to move from one school to the next without penalty if schools use the one year scholarship contracts.

I also believe that these FBS schools need to accept that Professional Sports is a valid career and they can train people to compete or be a part of that industry. there can be a real curriculum with business, law, communication and physical education courses as part of it. These football and basketball players are the only ones that go to school to train for something other than what they really want to do. Imagine wanting to be a doctor and be told well you need to take agriculture courses. We will act like you actually want to be a farmer and you can take those doctor classes later on in the day.

The de facto path to the NFL and NBA is college sports. So don't say these people have other means to follow their dreams.

 

[seshomoru]

All of that is worthless right? Go to school, go to practice, play a gamethey "should"love. No worries about whether they can afford rent next month or tuition next semester.

And lets not forget the glory and all that comes with it. Football players are treated like kings on campus. Think of all the tail they pull just because they are a football player. Whatdo they really have to spend money on?

So every college athlete is someone who should be content with basic food and shelter and nothing more. No reason they should ever want to go to a movie, go on a date, own a car, save money for the future, buy gas, go home on the holidays, but Christmas presents for their family, get a hair cut, buy clothes, etc.

Oh that's right. Money from their parents! Because every student athlete we sign is from the suburbs and has two parents with well paying jobs.

 

[8dog]

a 6 figure salary? Damn.

Hell, I got tuitiion room and board and all I had to do was go to class. I can't imagine 20 hours of practice plus film study plus conditioning plus team meetings plus all the other things I can't think of b/c I didn't play football.

 

[seshomoru]

I wish I would have checked the stats before the Rhodes comment. It sure felt like he shot a bunch. Myabe he was shooting alot of 18-20 footers...can't remember.

It was 12-15. He developed a jump shot.

I give Stans no credit for that. It was all Charles Rhodes of course. He had no help.

 

[seshomoru]

a 6 figure salary? Damn.

Hell, I got tuitiion room and board and all I had to do was go to class. I can't imagine 20 hours of practice plus film study plus conditioning plus team meetings plus all the other things I can't think of b/c I didn't play football.

But you're not thinking of the tail they can pull!

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

I also believe that these FBS schools need to accept that Professional Sports is a valid career and they can train people to compete or be a part of that industry. These football and basketball players are the only ones that go to school to train for something other than what they really want to do. Imagine wanting to be a doctor and be told well you need to take agriculture courses. We will act like you actually want to be a farmer.

As I am sure you know being a former collegiate athlete, only a very small percentage of D1 athletes in the big 3 sports ever play professionally on any level, much less in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. In my mind, there should not be a "professional athlete" or "professional sports" type degree since such a small number of these athletes would actually gain anything from it. Now, if it was more of a generic "sports" degree that encompassed classes on coaching, physical training, money management (for those that actually have a legit shot at being pro athletes), talent evaluation/scouting, etc., then I might be able to see that as a legitimate point. But, you simply can't dump any athlete in school into the "professional sports" degree (assuming that is what they want to major in) because way too many of them will have nothing to fall back on when they graduate. As long as the NCAA mandates the "student" part of student athlete, then the schools are obligated to offer/provide some sort of meaningful degree path which a "professional sports" degree will not be for most.

 

[tenureplan]

That there is no effective minor league system for Professional Basketball and Football. I will concede that schools make way too much money off of these athletes. But they are priveledged in the fact that they get to play. Most of us have to hang up the cleats after the 12th grade.

Although I don't agree that players should be able to get agents and market themselves in college, they should be alloted extra living expenses that are the same across the board since they can't hold jobs.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

It would not be based on just playing in that industry. The sub majors can be for front office work, agents, media coverage, coaching and all the jobs that exist because of professional sports.

With that said, it doesn't stop schools from training schools from training people to be actors and musicians. Very few people make a living doing those things also. It is not up to the school to guarantee your future. They provide a service to prepare you for what you want to do for your future whether you are successful at it or not.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

is that schools could not afford to pay the girls volleyball team and they shouldn't have to. Title IX will not allow an unbalanced scholarship for those sports that do not earn money.

That is why I just say get out of the players pocket. If an agent wants to pay them on their possible future earnings, the school has nothing to do with that.

Again for an analogy if you are a computer science major on scholarship, the school will not stop you from inventing and marketing facebook or napster.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

It would not be based on just playing in that industry. The sub majors can be for front office work, agents, media coverage, coaching and all the jobs that exist because of professional sports.

This is what I was alluding to when I was talking about a generic "sports" degree. A degree that trains college athletes to do all of what you listed & the items I listed I am fine with simply because those are legitimate functions of college or professional sports. I took your "professional sports" degree to mean to train them along the lines of actually being a professional athlete. My mistake.

With that said, it doesn't stop schools from training schools from training people to be actors and musicians. Very few people make a living doing those things also. It is not up to the school to guarantee your future. They provide a service to prepare you for what you want to do for your future whether you are successful at it or not.

This is a flawed comparison in my mind. Being a professional athlete is only attainable by a very few elite individuals. Anyone that has musical ability or acting ability can make a living off a degree in those fields. I'm assuming that you meant a famous actor or famous musician when you made the comparison, but that isn't a complete picture of what you can do with those backgrounds. Off the top of my head, actors can do movies, TV (obviously the big ones), theater (can be big but there are plenty of "smaller time" opportunities out there), commercials, they can teach acting, etc. Musicians can become composers, lyric writers, teach, church music pastors, member of a symphony, members of a famous musicians band (fairly typical for big name country artists to have bands that aren't recognized per se like Tim McGraw, Garth Brooks, & so on), etc. There are infinitely more opportunities for people with those degrees to have successful careers than someone who has a "professional sports" degree if that degree were only designed for those that make it as pro athletes.

 

[tenureplan]

It would have to be the same for all athletes though, and the school would just have to eat the costs in those other sports.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line. Let's say players could market themselves. Then you would have AJ Green version 2.0 selling his jersey for $100,000. An it would be perfectly legitimate. Then players would start flocking to the schools who "valued" player memorobilia more. It would even further widen the divide between the "have" schools and the "have nots" and schools like MSU would have no shot at relevancy.

Secondly, maybe I am naive, but there is something special about thepurity of college athletics. It's the fact that it's played for something other than money that makes me love it so much. I am not naive enough to believe that athletes aren't getting paid already. But if you legitimize a pay for play scheme even if it is through individual player marketing, you forever taint the sport.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

but even the Olympics have dropped the archaic idea of amateurism. The NCAA is stuck in the 1930s where Bobby Jones refused to go Pro because it was looked down upon to be a professional athlete in society.

But on the other side if you want these players to remain amateurs don't keep asking them to do more and more without them having a say in it. I even have no problem in going back to shared national championships where 170 guys get a ring instead of just 85.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

but if you take worldwide basketball and football leagues, NDBA, NFL, CFL, AFL, etc the amount of players jobs is bigger than you think. Once you get into the composers, lyricists and church music pastors I think you are getting into sports coaching jobs. Those are all peripheral jobs.

I would think that the percentage of people with an acting degrees that are making a living by actually just acting, is very comparable to college athletes that earn a living playing professional sports. I watch TV and I often see the same folks keep showing up the different shows.