Hey NCAA, ahhhhh seeee ya!

[Duvall]

But why should whether we *care* about it matter? If we are going to root for our school no matter who plays for us, isn't that enough?

Not if the sports go away without scholarship funds. Harder to root for teams that don't actually exist.

[A-Tex Devil]

The US has the best universities in the world. The US won the most gold medals and total medals at the last summer olympics, and it sure seems like a whole lot of our medal winners played NCAA sports. If you hear the rest of the world laughing at our system, you can just say "scoreboard."

(But I don't know who's laughing - almost all of my international friends think the college sports system is pretty cool)

The college sports system is cool. And it doesn't have to go away. But the idea that a short, compulsory, stint in college sports should be the only practical way for people to reach their dreams if (1) college is clearly not for them, and (2) they are talented enough to earn a living for a few years at a professional level, is ridiculous.

Other countries' don't make integral decisions in their academic institutions based on sports. Other countries do not use their academic institutions as feeders to their most profitable and popular sports leagues (whether it's soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby, team handball, or track). I just watched an outstanding university president here in Austin withstand a ridiculous coup d'etat that was almost pulled off because of football. You can say, "but that's Texas", but look 15 miles down, and I think we can see it's everywhere.

I'm not so certain successful college basketball and football couldn't exist alongside more fulsome minor leagues in those sports. Basketball is basically there as it is, and things seem to be fine. I'm for the continuation of college sports. But I'm also in the camp that sees it as a quasi-plantation system (which edges toward PPB, so I'll stop there). Watch the applicable South Park episode. It's dead on.

[Duvall]

But I'm also in the camp that sees it as a quasi-plantation system.

That's wholly inappropriate.

[A-Tex Devil]

That's wholly inappropriate.

Fair enough. I should have just said exploitative. Said a different way, Spurrier pointed out the ridiculousness of it all last week when he talked about how the boosters can take him out on yacht trips to the Bahamas (on top of the salary he's already getting paid), but can't hand a Gamecock $100 without the kid missing half the season. I realize all the Pandora's Box/Slippery Slope arguments that come from this. But he's the one that made the point.

[gep]

The college sports system is cool. And it doesn't have to go away. But the idea that a short, compulsory, stint in college sports should be the only practical way for people to reach their dreams if (1) college is clearly not for them, and (2) they are talented enough to earn a living for a few years at a professional level, is ridiculous.

I wonder if this is one of the points. An athlete who is clearly not cut out for college *can* earn a living... like the rest of high school graduates who don't go to college. So if they do that, train, get better, then enter the draft/pros. What college provides for these athletes is a "platform" to display their wares. So colleges are necessary for these athletes to maximize their "earnings potential" after one (or more) years. That, in itself, should have a lot of value to the athlete.

[Jim3k]

Well, they could bring back the National Industrial Basketball League, but as a pro league, not an AAU league. In order to play, the players would also have to work for the sponsoring company at real jobs. That way, non-college-bound kids could both play and work for a year or two, be seen by the NBA and be moved to whatever level they can succeed at.

Bring back the Denver-Chicago Truckers, the Phillips 66ers, the Peoria Cats and the Buchan Bakers or their modern equivalents!

Heck maybe hedge fund money can be found to fund such teams.

[lotusland]

Well, they could bring back the National Industrial Basketball League, but as a pro league, not an AAU league. In order to play, the players would also have to work for the sponsoring company at real jobs. That way, non-college-bound kids could both play and work for a year or two, be seen by the NBA and be moved to whatever level they can succeed at.

Bring back the Denver-Chicago Truckers, the Phillips 66ers, the Peoria Cats and the Buchan Bakers or their modern equivalents!

Heck maybe hedge fund money can be found to fund such teams.

Well hedge fund managers may be willing to waste money for the sake of their egos but no one is going to watch those games including the hedge fund managers. The same people who pay $10-$20K a year for good tailgate spot near the stadium entrance for their favorite college team just aren't going to do that for a minor league team. It's been tried every way possible and it just doesn't work. What that tells me is that those players who are not ready for the pros just don't have much inherent "market value" outside their university affiliation. Those few who are ready to play professionally should be allowed to but that won't be accomplished by changing college sports. BTW looks like Mudiay is doing OK without college - will others follow? You have to think Wiggins and Parker could have gotten as much or more.

[cato]

The same people who pay $10-$20K a year for good tailgate spot near the stadium entrance for their favorite college team just aren't going to do that for a minor league team. It's been tried every way possible and it just doesn't work.

No, it hasn't been tried every possible way, because there have always been college sports to suck up market share.

That said, I tend to agree with you that no minor league would approach the popularity of college sports. Where I differ is that I'm not sure I care.

I am troubled by so many aspects of the college sports system, from the people forking out that much money for a tailgate spot (really?) to watch kids play sports, to the reach of recruiting into high schools, to the treatment of star athletes on campus.

[lotusland]

No, it hasn't been tried every possible way, because there have always been college sports to suck up market share.

That said, I tend to agree with you that no minor league would approach the popularity of college sports. Where I differ is that I'm not sure I care.

I am troubled by so many aspects of the college sports system, from the people forking out that much money for a tailgate spot (really?) to watch kids play sports, to the reach of recruiting into high schools, to the treatment of star athletes on campus.

So you want to eliminate college revenue sports? I'm not sure that is even a viable option unless you count college revenue sports actually becoming minor league professional sports - less any pretense of amateurism or student athletes. Yes season tickets with a prime parking/tailgate spot for Gamecock football games costs about $15K/year. I'm guessing boosters pay more at Alabama, Texas, Florida, etc. My friend gives his tickets away and watches the game on a big TV in his parking space. It's a fun time but then I don't pay anything when I go. How much does it cost to join a private country club per year? I guess it's just a matter of priorities. Regardless I can't imagine any circumstance where boosters or golfers transfer that discretionary income to minor league football or basketball.

[cato]

So you want to eliminate college revenue sports?

When reading about things like the UNC scandal -- yes.

[bob blue devil]

So you want to eliminate college revenue sports?

When reading about things like the UNC scandal -- yes.

Now I'm a bit confused... what are you doing on a website dedicated to the following of a college revenue sport if you want them to go away? Are you seeking to convert the rest of us?

[mo.st.dukie]

The college sports system is cool. And it doesn't have to go away. But the idea that a short, compulsory, stint in college sports should be the only practical way for people to reach their dreams if (1) college is clearly not for them, and (2) they are talented enough to earn a living for a few years at a professional level, is ridiculous.

Other countries' don't make integral decisions in their academic institutions based on sports. Other countries do not use their academic institutions as feeders to their most profitable and popular sports leagues (whether it's soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby, team handball, or track). I just watched an outstanding university president here in Austin withstand a ridiculous coup d'etat that was almost pulled off because of football. You can say, "but that's Texas", but look 15 miles down, and I think we can see it's everywhere.

I'm not so certain successful college basketball and football couldn't exist alongside more fulsome minor leagues in those sports. Basketball is basically there as it is, and things seem to be fine. I'm for the continuation of college sports. But I'm also in the camp that sees it as a quasi-plantation system (which edges toward PPB, so I'll stop there). Watch the applicable South Park episode. It's dead on.

Why exactly should we care what other countries do? We are one of the most dominant sports nations (we always dominate in the Olympics, at least the summer Olympics) and we have built one of the largest economies the world has ever known on the backs of one of the best systems of higher education. Whatever problems we do have with education and the economy in this country have nothing to do with the existence of college sports.

The vast majority of these elite high school athletes actually are NOT talented enough even if they can get a contract. The way pro teams operate they can dump players off the roster like it's nothing, there's no risk to them if they take a young guy who just isn't talented enough and get rid of him in a few years.

There are worse things we could do than to send 18 year old kids to college. And there are thousands of non athletes who don't want to go to college but do anyways because it's the only possible way they can reach their dreams.

Yes, people use and abuse the system. People will always use and abuse the system no matter what system it is. Even religious institutions have corruption and no sports are involved there. You really think corruption in American universities will go away if sports are removed? Yeah right. There will still be illegitimate grades given and university officials will still do sleazy things. Universities are money making businesses with a lot of politics involved. Corruption is inevitable, with or without sports.

[A-Tex Devil]

Why exactly should we care what other countries do? We are one of the most dominant sports nations (we always dominate in the Olympics, at least the summer Olympics) and we have built one of the largest economies the world has ever known on the backs of one of the best systems of higher education. Whatever problems we do have with education and the economy in this country have nothing to do with the existence of college sports.

OK, forget other countries. My point is that *WE*, the US, shouldn't be making integral decisions in academia based on sports. But there is too much money in it now to separate the two. I'm a conscientiously hypocritical objector as a season ticket holder and money spender on college sports. But I won't bat an eyelash if things change dramatically, whether in an instant, due to a court case, or over time, as a result of the curtain slowly getting peeled back further than these current cases are doing already.

The vast majority of these elite high school athletes actually are NOT talented enough even if they can get a contract. The way pro teams operate they can dump players off the roster like it's nothing, there's no risk to them if they take a young guy who just isn't talented enough and get rid of him in a few years.

There are worse things we could do than to send 18 year old kids to college. And there are thousands of non athletes who don't want to go to college but do anyways because it's the only possible way they can reach their dreams.

Pro teams are doing that right now to guys that never intended to finish college that are leaving early (or even staying 4-5 years and not graduating). That's not going to change. I'm just not a fan of college being constructively compulsory for football and basketball, especially football. It's not compulsory for the olympic sports, where most of our best athletes are getting their most serious training outside of the collegiate system (whether it be swimming, gymnastics, fencing, track, etc.). Many olympians compete collegiately, sure, but the limitations on practice means they either have to supplement (or use collegiate practice/competition as a supplement) or give up collegiate competition, eventually. It's also not compulsory for baseball, soccer, hockey. Why football and basketball? Because of the way those sports evolved over the past 60 years and the money that came along with it. That's it. That's why. It got some people rich, and grew huge fan bases. And *that* is why the system stays in place and boosters can fly coaches to the Bahamas but can't buy a burger for the point guard. In my opinion, using the colleges as constructive minor leagues for 2 of our 3 favorite sports was simply an evolutionary wrong turn that, while wildly successful, as a result of that success, is due to fume at some point.

Yes, people use and abuse the system. People will always use and abuse the system no matter what system it is. Even religious institutions have corruption and no sports are involved there. You really think corruption in American universities will go away if sports are removed? Yeah right. There will still be illegitimate grades given and university officials will still do sleazy things. Universities are money making businesses with a lot of politics involved. Corruption is inevitable, with or without sports.

I'm not worried about corruption, I'm worried about distraction from the mission to research/educate and/or the athletic tail wagging the academic dog. Perhaps the tail is just replaced, who knows.

[Atlanta Duke]

NCAA officials apparently have concluded that the light at the end of the tunnel in the O'Bannon case is an oncoming train that is about to run them over.

Colleges May Seek Antitrust Exemption for NCAA
Potential Plan B to Protect College Sports' Principle of Athletic Amateurism

Universities with big-budget sports programs may ask Congress to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption should a federal court rule that it is illegal to forbid college athletes from making money, people familiar with the plans said...

Now more than ever, schools have reason to pursue it: A ruling is expected within weeks on a landmark federal antitrust case brought by current and former athletes that could open the door to paychecks for college players.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/colle...caa-1406741252 (do not think this link is behind the WSJ paywall)

So if you are violating the antitrust laws the answer is to get Congress to change the laws. Good luck with that - even assuming the NCAA gets relief to its liking in Congress that would not include greater federal regulation of "amateur" college sports the bill still would need to be signed by the President.

[wilson]

NCAA officials apparently have concluded that the light at the end of the tunnel in the O'Bannon case is an oncoming train that is about to run them over.

Colleges May Seek Antitrust Exemption for NCAA
Potential Plan B to Protect College Sports' Principle of Athletic Amateurism

Universities with big-budget sports programs may ask Congress to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption should a federal court rule that it is illegal to forbid college athletes from making money, people familiar with the plans said...

Now more than ever, schools have reason to pursue it: A ruling is expected within weeks on a landmark federal antitrust case brought by current and former athletes that could open the door to paychecks for college players.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/colle...caa-1406741252 (do not think this link is behind the WSJ paywall)

So if you are violating the antitrust laws the answer is to get Congress to change the laws. Good luck with that - even assuming the NCAA gets relief to its liking in Congress that would not include greater federal regulation of "amateur" college sports the bill still would need to be signed by the President.

This plan lost any chance of realistic possibility at the moment in which it involved asking Congress to do something.

[RoyalBlue08]

OK, forget other countries. My point is that *WE*, the US, shouldn't be making integral decisions in academia based on sports. But there is too much money in it now to separate the two. I'm a conscientiously hypocritical objector as a season ticket holder and money spender on college sports. But I won't bat an eyelash if things change dramatically, whether in an instant, due to a court case, or over time, as a result of the curtain slowly getting peeled back further than these current cases are doing already.



Pro teams are doing that right now to guys that never intended to finish college that are leaving early (or even staying 4-5 years and not graduating). That's not going to change. I'm just not a fan of college being constructively compulsory for football and basketball, especially football. It's not compulsory for the olympic sports, where most of our best athletes are getting their most serious training outside of the collegiate system (whether it be swimming, gymnastics, fencing, track, etc.). Many olympians compete collegiately, sure, but the limitations on practice means they either have to supplement (or use collegiate practice/competition as a supplement) or give up collegiate competition, eventually. It's also not compulsory for baseball, soccer, hockey. Why football and basketball? Because of the way those sports evolved over the past 60 years and the money that came along with it. That's it. That's why. It got some people rich, and grew huge fan bases. And *that* is why the system stays in place and boosters can fly coaches to the Bahamas but can't buy a burger for the point guard. In my opinion, using the colleges as constructive minor leagues for 2 of our 3 favorite sports was simply an evolutionary wrong turn that, while wildly successful, as a result of that success, is due to fume at some point.



I'm not worried about corruption, I'm worried about distraction from the mission to research/educate and/or the athletic tail wagging the academic dog. Perhaps the tail is just replaced, who knows.

This pretty much sums up how I feel on the matter exactly. I know it isn't going to be the most popular sentiment on a message board of fans of a particular college basketball team, but I think in the general population and with casual sports fans this opinion is rising fast. I'm not sure when or how fast change is coming, but it almost certainly is IMO.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Fed judge rules NCAA can't limit share of revenue

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId

[Tripping William]

Fed judge rules NCAA can't limit share of revenue

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId

Double-whammy. "Autonomy" yesterday; antitrust ruling today (assuming it survives appeal, etc.). Brave new world.

[Jim3k]

According to CBS' Dennis Dodd, the collegiate model has been broken.
But expect spin and an appeal.

Looks like the scholarship basketball and football players are going to get a post-career payout of $20-40,000.

Now, the schools – the NCAA's membership lifeblood – are going to have to pay -- more. The judge capped that per-year trust fund money at $5,000. Combine that with Thursday's ruling on autonomy, and various players will be able to be compensated up to $40,000 by the time they leave school. (Cost of attendance, approximate $5,000 max x 4 + NIL trust, $5,000 max x 4 = $40,000.)

At the D-1 level, There Will Be Blood.

[JasonEvans]

At the D-1 level, There Will Be Blood.

I would suspect this will be the end of many of the smaller conferences trying to compete at all with the Big 5, especially in football.

I would expect some schools to try to stick it out -- like some of the more successful former Big East or CUSA football schools (UConn, Memphis, Navy, and perhaps ECU and/or SFla) and a few others who have made a splash on the big stage over the years and have some equity in being a big time football school (Boise St, BYU, perhaps a couple others) -- but much of the MAC , CUSA, Sun Belt, and Mountain West are likely to realize that fielding a Division 1 football program is just not worth the money it will cost.

In basketball, I bet there isn't quite as much fallout as you are only talking about making extra payments to 12 or 13 scholarship athletes versus 70 or 80+ in football. But the football landscape has completely changed in the past 24 hours. Truly remarkable.

-Jason "I have no problem with this -- it actually may serve to level the playing field a bit more and make more games more competitive" Evans