Originally Posted by
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.