End Division I College Sports?

[arnie]

No, my intention was to list private schools and generate discussion, but I realize now that Va Tech is not private, so feel free to substitute. Maybe Davidson?

Georgia Tech isn’t private either, but I get your point.

[YmoBeThere]

Doesn't it make sense now to go through more conference consolidation? Since the schools are running minor league sports franchises might as well organize more efficiently. Part of the allure of college sports is the ability to say, "Hey, I went to school with that person." To an extent, that's gone. And if you want to know how minor league sports work, just look at baseball. (Constantly shifting team and affiliations...)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Doesn't it make sense now to go through more conference consolidation? Since the schools are running minor league sports franchises might as well organize more efficiently. Part of the allure of college sports is the ability to say, "Hey, I went to school with that person." To an extent, that's gone.

No way, with the one and done rule, you can say "I went to school with that person" in reference to four times as many players!

/sarcasm

[MCFinARL]

How about landmark change:
American Academic-Athletic Collegiate Union
Start with basketball and other sportsadd football in future
Require minimum two-year commitment of athletes
Athletes not paid

West Conference
Stanford
Creighton
Rice
Loyola Marymount
Gonzaga
Pepperdine
Santa Clara
USC
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Marquette
Vanderbilt


East Conference
Duke
Johns Hopkins
Princeton
Cornell
Harvard
Yale
Georgetown
Wake Forest
Virginia Tech
Georgia Tech
Boston College
Miami (FL)

Give it a go?

We could quibble about some of the schools included (I might want to see, say, Butler, or U. Penn., which despite the name is a private university--or maybe Army and Navy, which, though public, probably have more similarities to Ivies than to big state schools), but this is an appealing idea--if not one that I think has much likelihood of coming to pass. Making the jump from a basketball start to football could be a challenge, though.

[Richard Berg]

Quoting a friend from another forum. To his credit, he wrote this long before the current news cycle:

College sports were broken long before money got involved. They started bringing in ringers right from the beginning because like to win even if it means destroying the entire point of the event you wanted to begin with.

In the beginning a group of young men at Harvard decided that they going to challenge another group of young men at Harvard to a boat race.

Over the next couple of years an intramural tournament developed. Different groups of young men at Harvard all competed against each other to see who could the row the fastest.

While summering in Nantucket, a Yale student heard about the Harvard boating tournament and thought it was a great idea. The next school year he started a rowing tournament at Yale.

A few years later one of the men on the winning Harvard team happen to be at a dinner party with one of the members of the Yale team. Trash was talked and challenges were issued. Thus was born the annual Harvard-Yale boat race.

The above is the heart of collegiate sport and how it should work. But after a years of losing to Yale, someone at Harvard started visiting local quarries looking for the guy the biggest arms in 50 miles. Thus began the replacement of Harvard and Yale students in the annual Harvard and Yale game with ringers.

And from then on the whole point of the annual game was destroyed and replaced with something bizarre that just assumed the shape of the original.

I have no problem letting schools sponsor a pro or semi-pro league, the way Duke sponsors the Gardens (hosted on campus, otherwise separate entity with its own employees), or maybe the way UC sponsors the Denver A-Line (unrelated venture that simply trades naming rights for money). But I see no reason to confuse the issue by mixing in Trinity/Pratt undergraduates.

[mgtr]

I have been an avid amateur basketball fan since Junior High. As I grew older, and I moved to the Carolinas, my interest ran to Duke and Coach K. I have no connection whatsoever with Duke, although I have driven by on I-85. I like the way the team plays and the honor of the coach.
Now, as a result of the NCAA copout on UNC-CH, a fog, a pall, has been cast on all of college basketball. Certainly for the last 10 years I have not missed a Duke basketball game on TV (though, unbelievably) I have never been in Cameron.
Going forward, I am still interested in college basketball in general and Duke in particular. But the "new" has been worn off -- a certain sulliness has been painted over everything. Colors are less vibrant, much of the sparkle is gone. I still support Duke, and will watch every game on TV even though I have no relation to the school. I love Coach K and the Duke view of basketball. I no longer care what other team do, only what Duke is doing.
I assume that an increasing proportion of schools will cheat as UNC did, making it harder for Duke to compete, but I will support the effort of Duke, no matter how the other teams cheat.
I have one great advantage: I am old enough that I will die before everything falls apart.

[Bostondevil]

Yes, of course it could. But it isn't just about the Iron Dukes. Sports play a role in the way many alums who donate to the university as a whole (not just to sports booster programs) feel about their school. And level of alumni/ae support factors into many university ranking systems. And of course there is money that comes in from tv contracts, tournament appearances, and the sale of sports merchandise.

A school with research funding as solid as Duke's isn't going to fall apart without Div. I sports. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be negative effects. It would be hard to take that kind of risk unilaterally.

Sure. I don't think Duke should get rid of sports unilaterally. This point is more of a hold over from the "pay the players" debate. The basketball team brings in a nice chunk of change and national recognition, but it is not the backbone of Duke's financial health. Iron Dukes plus all those other things doesn't come close to $1 billion that the research brings in. The number one school in terms of federal grants is Johns Hopkins, so, I'll argue again that it is possible (yes, yes, I know they're good at lacrosse). To be fair, Johns Hopkins gets a higher percentage of the research dollars from federal grants and a much lower percentage from alumni donations, but their totals coming in and going out are about twice as big as Duke's.

But with student loan debt what it is and CTE research showing that even playing high school football is dangerous, well, I can't really support a school like Duke with it's world class medical facility continuing to condone football. I suspect the Ivy League will get rid of football first, but I think it's coming and I think it's coming soon. And once football implodes, the NCAA will become an organization that runs a basketball tournament and the rules will change, drastically. I have to believe that the money will too.

[RPS]

I appreciate this thread. All participants deserve thanks.

My somewhat random thoughts follow.

1. There is no plausible connection between the mission of a great university and D1 sports as presently constituted. None.
2. The monetary impact of D1 sports on schools is dramatically overstated. I haven't dug into Duke's numbers, but sports money contributions to academics nationwide is negligible.* Sports money pays for sports (and sometimes not even that). Thus, non-revenue sports and some largely unquantifiable school experiential benefit would be hurt by a new paradigm, but pretty much nothing else.
3. I have no idea what the timetable will look like, but college football is doomed on account of CTE. Football is far-and-away the key driver of college sports revenue. Not even basketball is in the same zip code. Perhaps football's ultimate demise -- whenever that comes about -- will be the catalyst for a new paradigm.
4. I love to watch college sports (and especially Duke) as presently constituted. I will miss them terribly. In the meantime, I will continue to watch and try not to think about my blatant hypocrisy for doing so.

* As reported by USA Today: "In 2016 [the most recent year for which data is available], Texas A&M’s [football program] generated revenue of more than $194 million — a total that led Division I — exceeded its operating expenses by more than $57 million. But its revenue and surplus amounts, both driven by fundraising related to a massive football stadium refurbishment, occurred against the backdrop of $57 million in football- and other capital-project spending."

Edited to add footnote.

[RPS]

There is an interesting dispute in the southwest that sheds some interesting light on this subject (at least for me).

After last season, Paul Weir left his job as head coach at New Mexico State to become the head coach at New Mexico. Really. Weir and his former employer are arguing about the terms of employment separation, including a buyout that Weir allegedly owes. There is also a dispute about Weir's being prohibited by a contractual non-solicitation clause from recruiting certain players for UNM he had previously recruited for NMSU. Weir's attorney described this part of the dispute as follows (emphasis supplied).

“While Mr. Weir’s Employment Agreement does contain a provision prohibiting Mr. Weir from seeking to recruit certain prospective student-athletes, there is no blanket provision stopping a student athlete from contacting or enrolling in UNM. New Mexico law is clear that simple non-solicitation clauses do not prohibit a customer from being the one to contact or transact business with the entity that is the subject of the non-solicitation provision.”

It is entirely accurate but still jarring. Through his attorney, the coach describes prospective high school recruits as customers seeking to transact business. That fits with the mission of a great university how, exactly?

[English]

There is an interesting dispute in the southwest that sheds some interesting light on this subject (at least for me).

After last season, Paul Weir left his job as head coach at New Mexico State to become the head coach at New Mexico. Really. Weir and his former employer are arguing about the terms of employment separation, including a buyout that Weir allegedly owes. There is also a dispute about Weir's being prohibited by a contractual non-solicitation clause from recruiting certain players for UNM he had previously recruited for NMSU. Weir's attorney described this part of the dispute as follows (emphasis supplied).



It is entirely accurate but still jarring. Through his attorney, the coach describes prospective high school recruits as customers seeking to transact business. That fits with the mission of a great university how, exactly?

Interesting, certainly.

When I (er, my parents) wrote a check to the Duke Bursar's office every year for tuition, room, and board, was I/they a customer intending to transact business? Did it sully the university to be involved in such a transaction? Was it different when my brother went on recruiting trips to schools pursuing his athletic talents in hopes of receiving financial remuneration in the form of tuition, room, and board? Money, goods, and services are exchanged in each instance. Are you suggesting the coaches are the customers? Or that universities shouldn't have customers? Or athletes should be immune from such a designation because they return the investment by performing on the field, court, etc.? I'm unclear how a university's mission is compromised because higher education and all else involved costs money.

[RPS]

When I (er, my parents) wrote a check to the Duke Bursar's office every year for tuition, room, and board, was I/they a customer intending to transact business?

When I wrote my checks payable to Duke (and, sadly, they were my checks), I never thought of myself as a customer transacting business. I thought of myself as a student. Elsewhere, I have been a patient, a client, a member and, sometimes, a customer.

Did it sully the university to be involved in such a transaction?

No.

Was it different when my brother went on recruiting trips to schools pursuing his athletic talents in hopes of receiving financial remuneration in the form of tuition, room, and board?

Yes. In my experience (having gone on a number of such trips with my son), it is *wildly* different.

Money, goods, and services are exchanged in each instance.

True. But the purposes are different. A few programs make a token effort to sell the parents on education (Stanford, Berkeley and Wake Forest did a pretty good job, for example). But nobody (in our experience) tried to sell the prospective students on education. The tours of the "facilities" were not library visits.

Are you suggesting the coaches are the customers?

In the context of the Weir dispute, the athletes are the customers solicited by coaches.

Or that universities shouldn't have customers?

At the risk of veering into PP territory, one of the great problems with education today is that universities treat prospective students like customers, angling for their business.

I'm unclear how a university's mission is compromised because higher education and all else involved costs money.

That isn't the problem.

Collegiate athletes is justified as providing substantial educational benefits for student-athletes. How do you think modern D1 sports programs are doing in that regard?

[luvdahops]

I appreciate this thread. All participants deserve thanks.

My somewhat random thoughts follow.

1. There is no plausible connection between the mission of a great university and D1 sports as presently constituted. None.
2. The monetary impact of D1 sports on schools is dramatically overstated. I haven't dug into Duke's numbers, but sports money contributions to academics nationwide is negligible.* Sports money pays for sports (and sometimes not even that). Thus, non-revenue sports and some largely unquantifiable school experiential benefit would be hurt by a new paradigm, but pretty much nothing else.
3. I have no idea what the timetable will look like, but college football is doomed on account of CTE. Football is far-and-away the key driver of college sports revenue. Not even basketball is in the same zip code. Perhaps football's ultimate demise -- whenever that comes about -- will be the catalyst for a new paradigm.
4. I love to watch college sports (and especially Duke) as presently constituted. I will miss them terribly. In the meantime, I will continue to watch and try not to think about my blatant hypocrisy for doing so.

* As reported by USA Today: "In 2016 [the most recent year for which data is available], Texas A&M’s [football program] generated revenue of more than $194 million — a total that led Division I — exceeded its operating expenses by more than $57 million. But its revenue and surplus amounts, both driven by fundraising related to a massive football stadium refurbishment, occurred against the backdrop of $57 million in football- and other capital-project spending."

Edited to add footnote.

I think the Duke Development Office would disagree vehemently with your #2 above (and #1 by extension). I have no idea how much money from the Duke Athletic Program flows back to academics. But success in sports, especially in basketball, is a huge factor in fundraising, and in keeping alums engaged generally. And those efforts absolutely do impact the academic mission favorably.

[AnotherNYCDukeFan]

The concept of a bolted-on minor league/ for-profit sports club is an interesting idea. As I was thinking of ways to avoid the value destruction of the the big name schools losing their brand value and the stranded capital costs of the facilities, I had this idea. What if every school converted their revenue sports (and facilities) into LPs or LLCs and placed those privately held assets in the school endowment? If run properly, the revenue would continue to support the mission of education. Some programs would die, undoubtedly, but at least it would keep the big scale problems away.

Benefits - End the NCAA and the hypocrisy. Schools retain their brand and investment. Employees in the minor leagues can still benefit from actually attending (by paying) or being adjacent to the university. Schools can always exit the business by selling to private sector.

Downsides - I'm sure there's a tax issue that I'm missing. Would still likely result in some diversion of public moneys to for-profit entities. Am I missing anything else?

[swood1000]

It seems that the problems of Division I that we are talking about really only concern the few revenue-generating sports. What are the costs and benefits of accepting students who are weak academically, or who do not intend to graduate, based on their skill or ability in some non-academic area?

Costs

• Easier courses have to be made available if these students are to stay in school and that lowers the overall academic level of all students who take these classes, along with the reputation of the school.
• This can be seen as introducing dishonesty into the curriculum and normalizing hypocrisy.

• This denies a place to applicants who are much more able academically but not as good in the non-academic area.
• Trying to maintain amateurism in an enterprise that generates high profits might be thought to be inherently corrupting.

Benefits

• Sports and other non-academic accomplishments are a source of pride and comradery for the entire student body, and are fun to watch, as long as the students feel that they have a connection with the performers because of their common identity as students at that school.

• In the case of team sports, this provides an opportunity for students who don’t lag academically to compete at this level.
• These students provide a unique perspective that other students may benefit from.

It appears that those admitted primarily for non-academic reasons are not harmed by this. They certainly see some benefit to themselves or they wouldn’t do it. If we leave Division I do we also stop admitting the violinist or math wizard who struggles mightily in English class?

Any other costs or benefits? Which ones carry the most weight?

[RPS]

I think the Duke Development Office would disagree vehemently with your #2 above (and #1 by extension). I have no idea how much money from the Duke Athletic Program flows back to academics. But success in sports, especially in basketball, is a huge factor in fundraising, and in keeping alums engaged generally. And those efforts absolutely do impact the academic mission favorably.

I know the DDO believes that and it is probably true. But Duke is almost surely an outlier. The broader context suggests that while applications do go up modestly with athletic success, increased donations go almost entirely to sports programs (as per the link above).

[sagegrouse]

I appreciate this thread. All participants deserve thanks.

My somewhat random thoughts follow.\
There is no plausible connection between the mission of a great university and D1 sports as presently constituted. None.

Oh, this is fun!! IMHO (where the H ran away with a cute cheerleader many, many years ago). There is a lot more than a "plausible connection." It is the way academics and athletics are organized in America. A number of top universities and virtually all of the public universities have defined themselves as having broad academic missions that includes competitive intercollegiate athletics. I believe this is at least a "plausible connection."

The monetary impact of D1 sports on schools is dramatically overstated. I haven't dug into Duke's numbers, but sports money contributions to academics nationwide is negligible.* Sports money pays for sports (and sometimes not even that). Thus, non-revenue sports and some largely unquantifiable school experiential benefit would be hurt by a new paradigm, but pretty much nothing else.

The "Duke family" of fans and alumni provide very generous support to Duke. While it is not totally due to having strong athletics, it is partially attributable to it.
Moreover, while not the same thing, Duke's reputation as a premier academic institution among the public at large is significantly helped by its high-profile athletic programs. I believe the public reps of Duke, Northwestern, Stanford and Vanderbilt are superior to those of Emory, Wash. U., Hopkins, and the U. of Chicago. The Ivies are a different kettle of fish, with HYP being their own strong brands.

I have no idea what the timetable will look like, but college football is doomed on account of CTE. Football is far-and-away the key driver of college sports revenue. Not even basketball is in the same zip code. Perhaps football's ultimate demise -- whenever that comes about -- will be the catalyst for a new paradigm.

I expect we will see gradual but ultimately massive changes in the rules before we give up on college football. And the same with the NFL. But I agree with you that the present situation cannot continue.

I love to watch college sports (and especially Duke) as presently constituted. I will miss them terribly. In the meantime, I will continue to watch and try not to think about my blatant hypocrisy for doing so.

* As reported by USA Today: "In 2016 [the most recent year for which data is available], Texas A&M’s [football program] generated revenue of more than $194 million — a total that led Division I — exceeded its operating expenses by more than $57 million. But its revenue and surplus amounts, both driven by fundraising related to a massive football stadium refurbishment, occurred against the backdrop of $57 million in football- and other capital-project spending."

Edited to add footnote.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts, and it is a debate that is not going away.

[RPS]

It is the way academics and athletics are organized in America. A number of top universities and virtually all of the public universities have defined themselves as having broad academic missions that includes competitive intercollegiate athletics. I believe this is at least a "plausible connection."

If "because it's done that way" is all that is required, a university's mission could be furthered by anything a university decides to do or allow.

The "Duke family" of fans and alumni provide very generous support to Duke. While it is not totally due to having strong athletics, it is partially attributable to it.

As noted previously, Duke is almost surely an outlier.

I expect we will see gradual but ultimately massive changes in the rules before we give up on college football. And the same with the NFL. But I agree with you that the present situation cannot continue.

I wonder if leather helmets would help. They would make it much tougher to use one's head as a weapon.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts, and it is a debate that is not going away.

Likewise.

[sagegrouse]

I wonder if leather helmets would help. They would make it much tougher to use one's head as a weapon.

Likewise.

How does rugby do it -- without any helmets? Or, do we not hear about head and other injuries from the ruggers?

[MartyClark]

How does rugby do it -- without any helmets? Or, do we not hear about head and other injuries from the ruggers?

I played club rugby in college for a few years. I'm not an expert but the tackling is different in rugby. There is never any need for the tackler to drive the ball handler back. There are no first downs and it doesn't matter if the runner drags the tackler a few yards after initial contact.

In a head on tackling situation, you would not lead with your head for two reasons. First, you could get really hurt without a helmet. Second, there is just no need to drive the runner backward. You can lead with your shoulder, wrap up and let him drag you a couple of yards if necessary. There is not disadvantage, other than arguably at the goal line.

When tackling a guy from the side, we were taught to hit with the shoulder but have our head behind the runner. Same reasons.

I understand that Pete Carroll of the Seahawks has been trying to implement rugby style tackling. I haven't paid much attention to how that has developed.

I played in the Midwest. We didn't have may "foreigners" on our team. Most of us were former high school football players. Some of the other teams in the Midwest had many Irish, South African or New Zealand players. They were generally better teams and often didn't like the way we tackled.

It has been 4+ decades since I played so things may have changed.

[burnspbesq]

We could quibble about some of the schools included (I might want to see, say, Butler, or U. Penn., which despite the name is a private university--or maybe Army and Navy, which, though public, probably have more similarities to Ivies than to big state schools), but this is an appealing idea--if not one that I think has much likelihood of coming to pass. Making the jump from a basketball start to football could be a challenge, though.

I don’t know whether that was your intention, but you created a power conference in just about every sport except basketball, football, and maybe water polo.

Hop is not a good candidate. The Blue Jays play D3 in all sports except lacrosse.