Hey NCAA, ahhhhh seeee ya!

[johnb]

If it's just a football thing, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the entire world. It'd suck to lose Boise State and the service academies and future potential Boise States, and I think paying every player is lame (but discussed in another thread), but it might be worth it in making the average non-conference game much better and heading toward a future playoff (4 teams doesn't count in my mind). As others have noted, things would get a lot tougher for Duke from a competitive standpoint.

My main concern is in other sports. I'm sure I wouldn't stop watching Duke basketball completely, but my interest in the sport would plummet. It'd be the worst thing to ever happen to college basketball.

Any sort of Premier League needs to appeal to a large proportion of the country. We see this in the NFL and NBA: areas that lack teams often focus their allegiances on their college team (e.g., consider the legendary followings at Bama, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and throughout NC). The big 5 conferences would geographically cover the country fairly well.

It's also useful to cover the country demographically, and it is not a coincidence that the traditional conferences all had at least one academically-oriented private school and a mix of big state schools and big "A&M" ag schools (UNC/NC State; OU and OSU, TX and A&M). So even non-alums could pick the team that best reflected their inner sense of themselves or the sense they want to project, belong to, whatever. This move might well force Notre Dame's hand, but its uniqueness has already faded (hard for Catholics from around the country to follow Notre Dame as "their" school with the national decline in rabid anti-Catholic sentiment and Notre Dame seeming increasingly like just another highly selective private school which is perhaps just a little more conservative than most).

And if NCAA football can potentially do without ND, it definitely doesn't need Boise State; though there are those who love her, Idaho is a small state whose televisions will pick up games from Oregon and Washington.

The NCAA does, however, need the ACC because of its footprint, and it needs Duke because of an elite image that will appeal to and repel a broad swath of the country. And Duke needs the NCAA because of the vast exposure that has helped us firm up our elite status. If anything, the Duke administration is more committed than ever to this cycle of recruiting and spending in the pursuit of climbing into the ranks of schools whose sports teams generally prompt comments like, "MIT has a basketball teams?"

[uh_no]

Serious question-- why would the power conferences want to stick with the NCAA for revenue sports (football and basketball) other than inertia? Is there anything the Big Ten, SEC, or ACC gain out of being associated with the MAC and Southern Conference? There is most certainly something they lose -- money and control. Is there any question that the power conferences could make more money if they did not share football and basketball TV monies with the small guys?

I know many folks say the power conferences want no part of trying to manage things like volleyball, water polo, and even baseball (though I suspect the college world series is going to soon turn baseball into at least a revenue neutral sport if not a money maker) but there are easy answers to that question that do not involve the big conferences giving away hundreds of millions of dollars every year in revenue sharing with the smaller conferences.

Change is a-coming, we all know it.

-Jason "as a member of the ACC, I don't think the coming changes will hurt Duke football as much as some others do" Evans

For one, I think it's important to remember that the NCAA makes no money of college football...that all goes to the conferences...so there is NO sharing of revenue from the big guys with the little guys. Almost all of NCAA revenue comes from the big dance.

That is, though, certainly compelling. I think while not having the little guys might be good at face value, does the tournament lose value without the cinderella? no butler vs duke. no george mason. no seth curry...is the tournament as a whole more valuable because of that? maybe. I don't know. I don't have the numbers...but most school's revenue is driven by football anyway...and they've shown they don't give a darn about what happens with basketball.

[JasonEvans]

For one, I think it's important to remember that the NCAA makes no money of college football...that all goes to the conferences...so there is NO sharing of revenue from the big guys with the little guys. Almost all of NCAA revenue comes from the big dance.

True, but there were one or two non ACC/BigTen/Big12/SEC/Pac12 teams that made the BCS bowl games in recent years (UCF, Boise St, Fresno St, Northern Illinois, and so on) and each time they did, that was tens of millions that went to one of the non-BCS conferences.

-Jason

[Olympic Fan]

I am flabbergasted by the Duke fans that want to dump the NCAA or see the power conferences pull out.

Not that the NCAA is without flaws (it's not), but anything that would replace it would almost certainly be worse -- much worse.

The struggle is between those schools (such as Duke) that want to maintain the NCAA's student-athlete ideal and those (such as the SEC and Big Ten) that want to turn football and basketball into semi-pro endeavors. The semi-pro faction is leading the charge to "reform" or replace the NCAA. Serious academic institutions such as Duke will lose ground in the reorganization. If you don't believe me, attend a meeting that features Kevin White or David Cutcliffe -- I've heard both voice their concerns as to the current stampede for NCAA reform. I haven't heard Coach K's take yet, but I suspect it would be similar to White and Cutcliffe.

I think the new autonomy plan for the power 5 conferences is a step backwards, but it's not as bad as the big schools pulling out of the NCAA or blowing up the NCAA.

So much of what is written about NCAA problems is BS. Despite the Kevin Ollie complaints last fall, players are NOT going hungry. They are not struggling for housing. Heck, most are driving better cars than I can afford.

Are they fairly compensated? They are IF -- and it's a huge if -- they are given the educational opportunity in return for their athletic contributions. We know many schools are not providing that education, but breaking up the NCAA won't fix that -- it will make it worse. It will give more power to the schools where academics are neglected in favor of athletics.

There are things I'd like to see changed.

Should the NCAA scholarship pay the full cost of attending (it does pay all tuition, books, fees, housing, food, but leaves off things such as money for laptops or clothing or spending money)?

It would be nice, but this is not a major problem. Over half of NCAA football and basketball players receive Pell Grant money (and average of $3,500 BEYOND the scholarship). That fills in the gaps.

Should the NCAA scholarship be for four years (as it was before 1973)? Yes, but again, this isn't as major problem -- the instances where a player's one-year-scholarship is not routinely renewed is so rare that when it happens, it's a major news story. I recall the stink when Tommy Tuberville didn't renew 5 of 6 guys when he took the Auburn job -- in the face of bad publicity, all were offered non-athletic scholarships. Rick Majerus famously refused to renew the scholarship of his backup point guard Jordie McTavish, but that was almost 20 years ago. Bob Wade tried to pull a scholarship in the late '80s (was it Phil Nevin?), but the outcry was so ugly, he rescinded the decision (although the kid left anyway).

My point is that the scholarship may be one-year on paper ... but in reality, we already basically have a four-year deal. Make that official, fine ... but it doesn't really change the landscape.

This is a greatly overblown issue. The NCAA needs tweaking, not trashing. And the farther we get away from the NCAA ideal, the worse it is for Duke and Duke sports.

[Wander]

It's also useful to cover the country demographically, and it is not a coincidence that the traditional conferences all had at least one academically-oriented private school and a mix of big state schools and big "A&M" ag schools (UNC/NC State; OU and OSU, TX and A&M). So even non-alums could pick the team that best reflected their inner sense of themselves or the sense they want to project, belong to, whatever. This move might well force Notre Dame's hand, but its uniqueness has already faded (hard for Catholics from around the country to follow Notre Dame as "their" school with the national decline in rabid anti-Catholic sentiment and Notre Dame seeming increasingly like just another highly selective private school which is perhaps just a little more conservative than most).

If anything, the Duke administration is more committed than ever to this cycle of recruiting and spending in the pursuit of climbing into the ranks of schools whose sports teams generally prompt comments like, "MIT has a basketball teams?"

They cover a lot of demographics, but not all. You'd be missing some cool things like the military service academies, HBCUs, and probably others I can't think of. And MIT made the (D3) Final Four a couple years back!

There are things I'd like to see changed.

Agreed with the general notion of specific reforms rather than overhaul of the system. In addition to the couple you suggested, I'd add a simplification of transfer rules. Get rid of the idea of coaches being able to attempt to ban transfers to specific schools, and either make a blanket rule that all transfers must sit one year or all transfers can play immediately. I don't think the NCAA should be spending energy on figuring out, well this kid has a sick relative, and the school is X miles away from that relative compared to Y miles away at his original school, etc. Letting all transfers play immediately, anywhere, would be a nice compromise example - giving players more freedom without trashing the entire system.

[A-Tex Devil]

It's a broken system that is only being held together by inertia, fear of change and fear of loss of traditions, but most importantly, fear of losing money.

I don't buy Jay Bilas' argument that the free market should reign within the current system, because you might as well decouple major college sports from the colleges altogether then. And maybe that's worth doing as an endgame. I also can't get behind Steve Patterson (UT's AD) and Bowlsby when they say kids make a conscious decision to come to a school knowing they can't get paid, and that the scholarship is a testament to the value they are bringing to the school. This ignores the fact that it's the only industry where people are the product, and those people see a pittance of the money they bring in. Add that to the fact that there are no other practical options, especially in football, to ply a trade at 18. The rest of the world looks at the US sports infrastructure for its youth and laughs.

The fact of the matter is, college sports for football and men's basketball are glorified minor leagues that are part of a system that is about to break. It's a system that is being clung to that just can't work in the long term at the rate it's going - lawsuits aside. When their are problems in the athletic department based in results on the field, and college presidents, who have much more important things to worry about, are being called to the carpet as a result, it's time to consider divesting one from the other, at least with respect to the revenue sports. Work out a licensing deal so that the teams that represent colleges can be "affiliated" with the university/region. There have to be some reasonably decent ideas out there. Does the average [INSERT SCHOOL] fan care if [INSERT STAR PLAYER] is actually a student at the university and goes to class?

I love watching college sports as much as the next guy, and I'll continue to be a fan. But I'm beyond the point where I'll be upset if our mainstream sports system evolves beyond the NCAA and collegiate athletics.

[ricks68]

I am flabbergasted by the Duke fans that want to dump the NCAA or see the power conferences pull out.

Not that the NCAA is without flaws (it's not), but anything that would replace it would almost certainly be worse -- much worse.

The struggle is between those schools (such as Duke) that want to maintain the NCAA's student-athlete ideal and those (such as the SEC and Big Ten) that want to turn football and basketball into semi-pro endeavors. The semi-pro faction is leading the charge to "reform" or replace the NCAA. Serious academic institutions such as Duke will lose ground in the reorganization. If you don't believe me, attend a meeting that features Kevin White or David Cutcliffe -- I've heard both voice their concerns as to the current stampede for NCAA reform. I haven't heard Coach K's take yet, but I suspect it would be similar to White and Cutcliffe.

I think the new autonomy plan for the power 5 conferences is a step backwards, but it's not as bad as the big schools pulling out of the NCAA or blowing up the NCAA.

So much of what is written about NCAA problems is BS. Despite the Kevin Ollie complaints last fall, players are NOT going hungry. They are not struggling for housing. Heck, most are driving better cars than I can afford.

Are they fairly compensated? They are IF -- and it's a huge if -- they are given the educational opportunity in return for their athletic contributions. We know many schools are not providing that education, but breaking up the NCAA won't fix that -- it will make it worse. It will give more power to the schools where academics are neglected in favor of athletics.

There are things I'd like to see changed.

Should the NCAA scholarship pay the full cost of attending (it does pay all tuition, books, fees, housing, food, but leaves off things such as money for laptops or clothing or spending money)?

It would be nice, but this is not a major problem. Over half of NCAA football and basketball players receive Pell Grant money (and average of $3,500 BEYOND the scholarship). That fills in the gaps.

Should the NCAA scholarship be for four years (as it was before 1973)? Yes, but again, this isn't as major problem -- the instances where a player's one-year-scholarship is not routinely renewed is so rare that when it happens, it's a major news story. I recall the stink when Tommy Tuberville didn't renew 5 of 6 guys when he took the Auburn job -- in the face of bad publicity, all were offered non-athletic scholarships. Rick Majerus famously refused to renew the scholarship of his backup point guard Jordie McTavish, but that was almost 20 years ago. Bob Wade tried to pull a scholarship in the late '80s (was it Phil Nevin?), but the outcry was so ugly, he rescinded the decision (although the kid left anyway).

My point is that the scholarship may be one-year on paper ... but in reality, we already basically have a four-year deal. Make that official, fine ... but it doesn't really change the landscape.

This is a greatly overblown issue. The NCAA needs tweaking, not trashing. And the farther we get away from the NCAA ideal, the worse it is for Duke and Duke sports.

I agree.

ricks

[uh_no]

it's the only industry where people are the product, and those people see a pittance of the money they bring in. .

You mean, like facebook? You and your data are worth a lot of money to facebook...how much of that money do you see?

[arnie]

I agree.

ricks

As do I. It's very easy to lob insults at the NCAA as one of our own does every time he speaks on ESPN. But without controls and oversight, as I've said before, the morally bankrupt programs such as Auburn, UNC, will remove all academic criteria and cash for player limits to bring in athletes. I see no reason for Duke to participate in this arrangement.

[left_hook_lacey]

It's a broken system that is only being held together by inertia, fear of change and fear of loss of traditions, but most importantly, fear of losing money.

I don't buy Jay Bilas' argument that the free market should reign within the current system, because you might as well decouple major college sports from the colleges altogether then. And maybe that's worth doing as an endgame. I also can't get behind Steve Patterson (UT's AD) and Bowlsby when they say kids make a conscious decision to come to a school knowing they can't get paid, and that the scholarship is a testament to the value they are bringing to the school. This ignores the fact that it's the only industry where people are the product, and those people see a pittance of the money they bring in. Add that to the fact that there are no other practical options, especially in football, to ply a trade at 18. The rest of the world looks at the US sports infrastructure for its youth and laughs.

The fact of the matter is, college sports for football and men's basketball are glorified minor leagues that are part of a system that is about to break. It's a system that is being clung to that just can't work in the long term at the rate it's going - lawsuits aside. When their are problems in the athletic department based in results on the field, and college presidents, who have much more important things to worry about, are being called to the carpet as a result, it's time to consider divesting one from the other, at least with respect to the revenue sports. Work out a licensing deal so that the teams that represent colleges can be "affiliated" with the university/region. There have to be some reasonably decent ideas out there. Does the average [INSERT SCHOOL] fan care if [INSERT STAR PLAYER] is actually a student at the university and goes to class?

I love watching college sports as much as the next guy, and I'll continue to be a fan. But I'm beyond the point where I'll be upset if our mainstream sports system evolves beyond the NCAA and collegiate athletics.

I get where you're coming from. I do. But I'm looking at this as a Duke University football fan. Does the average [USC, Alabama, FLorida, FSU,] fan care if [insert star player] is actually a student at the university? Probably not. Many of them are only students on paper anyway. Just ask UNC. But if I plug [Duke] in there, yes, most fans absolutely care. At least, I hope they do. And to me that's the point.

If we're willing to let go of the NCAA, and concede to your notion that the major college sports are now just "glorified minor leagues", and "our mainstream sports system evolves beyond the NCAA and collegiate athletics" then what's the point? What are we even doing here?

You said the current system is only being held together by fear of change, or loss of traditions. If the change or tradition I'm losing is watching college football on Saturday afternoon being played by actual students who are proud to represent their University on the field. Then yes, I'm afraid of losing that.

[A-Tex Devil]

You mean, like facebook? You and your data are worth a lot of money to facebook...how much of that money do you see?

I guess, literally, you are correct. But I hope you aren't comparing the amount of effort I put into Facebook to what a Division 1 football player puts into his sport. Also, unless I'm an elite Facebook user (and, who knows, maybe I am), I'm not sure it's an apt comparison either.

[Duvall]

I guess, literally, you are correct. But I hope you aren't comparing the amount of effort I put into Facebook to what a Division 1 football player puts into his sport. Also, unless I'm an elite Facebook user (and, who knows, maybe I am), I'm not sure it's an apt comparison either.

Well, there's also every service industry, including quite a few in which the people doing most of the work don't get much of the revenue.

[A-Tex Devil]

I get where you're coming from. I do. But I'm looking at this as a Duke University football fan. Does the average [USC, Alabama, FLorida, FSU,] fan care if [insert star player] is actually a student at the university? Probably not. Many of them are only students on paper anyway. Just ask UNC. But if I plug [Duke] in there, yes, most fans absolutely care. At least, I hope they do. And to me that's the point.

If we're willing to let go of the NCAA, and concede to your notion that the major college sports are now just "glorified minor leagues", and "our mainstream sports system evolves beyond the NCAA and collegiate athletics" then what's the point? What are we even doing here?

You said the current system is only being held together by fear of change, or loss of traditions. If the change or tradition I'm losing is watching college football on Saturday afternoon being played by actual students who are proud to represent their University on the field. Then yes, I'm afraid of losing that.

Bolded part -- bingo. I think as much pain would come out of the nuclear option initially, a generation later, it will be the better path for the schools, for the players, etc. A true minor league football system makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. But the NFL isn't ever going to do it so long as it has college football subsidizing the training and weeding out of young players. I am all for the continuation of college sports, whether it's as is, or on a smaller scale. But I'd, personally, like to see options for elite 18 year olds in football and basketball besides risking injury for a stipend or going to Europe. Baseball works pretty well with how high school players have options, and I think football and baseball could survive on similar models. But there is too much money in it now for that sane of a decision.

[A-Tex Devil]

Well, there's also every service industry, including quite a few in which the people doing most of the work don't get much of the revenue.

I guess I see it more as entertainment where the talent is not getting paid. If MGM were able to make $100M movies with actors working for scale, perhaps we'd have an apt comparison.

[Wander]

Baseball works pretty well with how high school players have options, and I think football and baseball could survive on similar models.

Nobody (approximately) cares about college baseball.

[lotusland]

It's a broken system that is only being held together by inertia, fear of change and fear of loss of traditions, but most importantly, fear of losing money.

I don't buy Jay Bilas' argument that the free market should reign within the current system, because you might as well decouple major college sports from the colleges altogether then. And maybe that's worth doing as an endgame. I also can't get behind Steve Patterson (UT's AD) and Bowlsby when they say kids make a conscious decision to come to a school knowing they can't get paid, and that the scholarship is a testament to the value they are bringing to the school. This ignores the fact that it's the only industry where people are the product, and those people see a pittance of the money they bring in. Add that to the fact that there are no other practical options, especially in football, to ply a trade at 18. The rest of the world looks at the US sports infrastructure for its youth and laughs.

The fact of the matter is, college sports for football and men's basketball are glorified minor leagues that are part of a system that is about to break. It's a system that is being clung to that just can't work in the long term at the rate it's going - lawsuits aside. When their are problems in the athletic department based in results on the field, and college presidents, who have much more important things to worry about, are being called to the carpet as a result, it's time to consider divesting one from the other, at least with respect to the revenue sports. Work out a licensing deal so that the teams that represent colleges can be "affiliated" with the university/region. There have to be some reasonably decent ideas out there. Does the average [INSERT SCHOOL] fan care if [INSERT STAR PLAYER] is actually a student at the university and goes to class?

I love watching college sports as much as the next guy, and I'll continue to be a fan. But I'm beyond the point where I'll be upset if our mainstream sports system evolves beyond the NCAA and collegiate athletics.

I think it a lot of fans do care about players also being students but I've been wrong before. I guess time will tell if it happens.

[Bluedog]

Some argue that the NCAA system is basically a subsidized minor league for the NFL and NBA, who don't want to go to the baseball model and have to cough up the funds for developing players. I'm sure most football and basketball athletes would reject a $60,000+ athletic scholarship to instead earn half as much as fast-food workers at $3k-$7.5k/year, right? I mean, I suppose some players would do that to avoid having to go to class, but the room and board alone that these universities are providing are much more than that (not to mention world class athletic facilities, trainers, coaches, etc.).

I understand college football and basketball players are bringing in enormous sums for the universities, but maybe it's the brand of the UNIVERSITY that helps establish the market value of the product. I'm sure the NBA D-League teams would destroy college teams if they played, but nobody cares. Why? They're better players, right? Maybe because people want to see "Duke," "Kansas," and "UCLA" on the jerseys as they have a connection to those brands, but don't care about the Fort Wayne Mad Ants, the Maine Red Claws, and the Canton Charge despite a "superior" product. Yes, we obviously care about winning, so the quality of play matters, but it's relative to other teams, not necessarily in absolute terms.

The players certainly dedicate a lot of time and energy, and work hard to represent the universities and perform at a very high level. I acknowledge that commitment as well as the press (and money) it brings the universities. They should be applauded for the dedication and sacrifice. But I don't feel badly for the players or think they're getting a "raw deal." At a place like Duke, the basketball and football players are treated like kings. They get an absurd number of benefits, and that extends even beyond their college career as their is a huge fraternity of the business world that helps its fellow athletes. They also do get benefits not afforded to athletes in other sports like chartered planes and the like. Many also get admitted into schools in which they would have no chance of acceptance if it wasn't for their sport (I'm not saying this applies to all football players, but, yes, obviously academic standards are lessened tremendously at many institutions for many players -- and standards are more compromised for athletes in revenue sports than others).

The college players put forth a lot of time and effort, but also get a lot in return. Furthermore, it's the brand of the college/team that people care about mostly, not necessarily the level of play; otherwise, there would be a lot of money in the D League and there's not. The NBA/NFL recognizes the brand that the colleges bring and thus prefer this model since the players are then known commodities, helping their viewership and overall interest. I agree with Olympic Fan completely that almost anything we replace the NCAA with will likely be much worse. The system isn't perfect admittedly, but it's not like the players aren't benefiting at all -- I would be ecstatic if my child got an athletic scholarship and had the misfortune of being "exploited" by a university like Duke.

[Newton_14]

I guess I see it more as entertainment where the talent is not getting paid. If MGM were able to make $100M movies with actors working for scale, perhaps we'd have an apt comparison.

But (an Oly post above captured the problem nicely) if we go to the semi-pro model you suggest, no one will watch and no one will care, and the money will disappear. TV revenue will be zippo. How many Durham Bulls games are must see TV? How many "DBR Blogs" are there for the Durham Bulls? Zippo. The local township has a small base of fans that attend Durham Bulls games, but there are no star players selling jersey's like crazy.

When the Jabari's of the world start playing in the D-League and not college, not a damn sole will give a whit about him. Of course guys like him will got straight to the Pro's so its actually the Rasheed's, Andre Dawkins, Jon Scheyer's, Wojo's of the world in the D-League where no one watches and no one cares.

Without the Duke on the front of the shirt, no one cares, and no one watches. Same for "semi-pro" football not associated with a college school. The model would fall flat on its face in terms of fandom, and money rolling in. Meanwhile, without the money in the college model, it becomes club sports only with intramural level players.

If the bubble bursts as we know it today, what comes out when the smoke clears will end college sports as we know it today.

Another bad scenario... March Madness becomes a 64 Team tourney with only teams from the Power Five Conferences allowed in, no cinderellas from the small schools in the tourney. Again, best tourney in the world is destroyed. Who cares if 16 seed VaTech upsets 1 seed Kentucky? Big flip. No one cares. March Madness ruined.

I hope I am wrong but dont think I am. There needs to be tweaking, and strategic ways to allow athlete's to get the money from their likeness in a controlled manner/trust fund post graduation/leaving school timeline. Blowing it up and creating minor leagues not associated with schools will bring an end to Mens Basketball and Football as we know it.

Just my current take. I am happy to be convinced otherwise but I feel Uh No and Oly are spot on in their analysis.

[Wander]

The rest of the world looks at the US sports infrastructure for its youth and laughs.

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)

[A-Tex Devil]

Nobody (approximately) cares about college baseball.

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?

That's a little rhetorical on my part. But baseball players have the option of the minor leagues. Football and basketball players' options are far more limited. Why? Because we as fans deserve it? We want to continue to root for our schools teams with the best talent possible. We *don't* think they should be paid despite the revenue they are generating as the talent. Ummm... ok. For better or worse, the massive amounts of money in the last 2 decades screwed all of this up. Too many people are paid too much money as a result of the draw of 18-22 year olds playing sports for me to continue to pretend that the scholarship, and the limitations of amateurism in the NCAA's tome accompanied by arbitrary enforcement that comes with it, are adequate compensation for the student athlete.