PDA

View Full Version : Hey NCAA, ahhhhh seeee ya!



JasonEvans
07-23-2013, 12:12 AM
If you listen carefully, you can hear the whispers that the 5 power conferences (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC) are going to go their own way from the NCAA.

Actually, that is not true. It isn't whispers anymore. They are all but shouting it from the rooftops. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2013/07/22/commissioner-bob-bowlsby-super-division/2574925/)


Suggesting a special convention might need to be called to achieve "transformational change" in the NCAA, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby suggested Monday it's time to consider a new "federation" of schools with like resources.

The commissioners of the ACC and SEC have been talking about this too. Word is the 5 big conference commissioners all met and have agreed that something needs to change.

The simple reality is that there is no reason they should split the billions their football playoff system will be worth with teams in the MAC, Sun Belt, and Mountain West... or the Big East (sorry, AAC) for that matter.

I don't think the big conferences really want to have to govern swimming, field hockey, and cross country, so they won't completely secede from the NCAA, but they are going to form a new system for football and they will be keeping the lion's share of the football TV revenues. I suspect they are perfectly happy with the way college basketball is run and won't mess with that system. It will be interesting to see if they give Notre Dame a seat at this table. They could certainly survive and thrive without the Irish. Perhaps this becomes the carrot (or stick?) that pushes Notre Dame into full ACC membership.

Oh, and one more thing. I think some of what they will do with their extra money will be good. It is said that the big conferences want to give a stipend of some kind to revenue sport players. A school like Utah State probably cannot afford the expense of giving every one of its football players $5k per year in "living expenses." But Ohio State and Florida sure can afford it, especially if a new football playoff system and new division of monies for football is bringing in several million extra per year per team.

-Jason "what are the odds that this fall is the last time we see Division 1 football as it is currently configured? Less than 25%?" Evans

JasonEvans
07-23-2013, 12:23 AM
Ooooh, I like some of the lines in this article (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22846958/bowlsby-attacks-ncaa-suggest-division-4-football-is-possible) even better...


“We've made it too easy to get into Division I and too easy to stay there,” Bowlsby said, later adding. "Northern Iowa and Texas aren't much alike."

Ouch! That was a punch in Northern Iowa's face!

-Jason "and you need to read this analysis (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22847993/life-to-the-bcs-look-for-division-4-to-revolutionize-college-athletics) by the same author that gets into some really far reaching impacts of all this" Evans

hudlow
07-23-2013, 12:41 AM
If Carolina can just hold out until then will they get a do-over?

matt1
07-23-2013, 12:46 AM
I just read an ESPN article about this topic. I think that it is about time that this happens for two reasons. First of all, there is no reason that these schools should be forced to support the low-tier schools financially. Secondly, this is an opportunity to veto some of the harsh NCAA legislation around compensation (I support small compensation for basketball and football student athletes) and recruiting violations (if you believe that any major basketball or football program, even Duke, is clean, you are fooling yourself).

To answer a couple of your questions:

-Yes, this would get Notre Dame to completely join the ACC.
-I would think that this tier would be initially for football, but, eventually, a similar basketball configuration (with more teams) would develop.
-My guess would be that we may see this in 2015 (if at all)
-I bet that a few other teams, such as Boise State, BYU, Cincinnati, UConn, Northern Illinois, and the Service Academies (to appease the government) find their way in. 80 teams (5 leagues of 16) may be the final answer.
-I still think that it is only 50/50 that this happen in the near future.

matt1
07-23-2013, 12:57 AM
Also, how great would a 64-team January Madness football tournament be?

I know that it is probably just a dream, but I want them to take a six week stretch in December and January and create a true tournament modeled after the NCAA Basketball one.

Kedsy
07-23-2013, 01:21 AM
I know that it is probably just a dream...

Probably?

hurleyfor3
07-23-2013, 01:26 AM
This needs to happen. Can we please quit pretending there's a level playing field, or ever was?

Duvall
07-23-2013, 02:14 AM
In what sense is this good for Duke, as a university or an athletic program?

The five power conferences have already claimed nearly all the football television and playoff revenue already, so there's not much to be gained there unless those conferences start expelling schools - starting with schools like Duke. But even if Duke is allowed to stay at that level they will be left with a choice between spending like Texas - which they can't do - and dropping out of big-time athletics entirely - which they won't do, even if they should.

MarkD83
07-23-2013, 06:37 AM
How many years after the formation of this new federation will the federation start to have a high school draft rather than recruiting in order to maintain competitive balance?

OldPhiKap
07-23-2013, 07:37 AM
How many years after the formation of this new federation will the federation start to have a high school draft rather than recruiting in order to maintain competitive balance?

Maybe a salary cap.

arnie
07-23-2013, 07:51 AM
In what sense is this good for Duke, as a university or an athletic program?

The five power conferences have already claimed nearly all the football television and playoff revenue already, so there's not much to be gained there unless those conferences start expelling schools - starting with schools like Duke. But even if Duke is allowed to stay at that level they will be left with a choice between spending like Texas - which they can't do - and dropping out of big-time athletics entirely - which they won't do, even if they should.

Agree with you that this may not be good for Duke. Not just stipends, but minimal or no academic requirements (seeUNC) if the governing body is tailored to desires of Auburn, Texas,etc. Will Duke take a seat at this table?

burnspbesq
07-23-2013, 08:18 AM
Let's step back for a second and ask the bigger question.

What earthly sense does it make for universities to be paying a multi-hundred-million-dollar subsidy to the NFL, by providing it with a youth development scheme for no financial consideration whatsoever?

Let the NFL build, run, and pay for its own academy system. Let's have actual students, not mercenaries, play college sports.

roywhite
07-23-2013, 08:34 AM
Agree with you that this may not be good for Duke. Not just stipends, but minimal or no academic requirements (seeUNC) if the governing body is tailored to desires of Auburn, Texas,etc. Will Duke take a seat at this table?

We'll have to see how things go.

Some of the strongest academic schools within the BCS structure -- Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Rice, and Duke -- had some football success last year.
It's a tough battle, but not impossible.

JasonEvans
07-23-2013, 08:50 AM
We'll have to see how things go.

Some of the strongest academic schools within the BCS structure -- Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Rice, and Duke -- had some football success last year.
It's a tough battle, but not impossible.

This may sound crazy, but I think a new organization with new rules would actually be a good thing for compliance and perhaps academics. This new "Division 4" is going to be awash in cash from its new playoff structure and the fact that it won't have to share nearly as much money with the little sisters in old Division 1. If they chose to, they can really fund a compliance arm and set up rules that make sense as opposed to a massive rule book that sometimes seems aimed at the minutia. Many people who watch this stuff believe that the schools would want a strong and strict compliance mechanism because their goal is a level playing field among all these teams. One reason many of the schools cheat right now is that they think everyone else is cheating. If you were able to really police things, schools might actually abide by the rules.

Plus, they would almost certainly start paying players ($5-$10k per year is tossed around a lot), which would make it harder and a lot more expensive for boosters and runners to get their claws into players. I am not saying it would not happen, but the guy threatening your eligibility by offering you a $500 handshake (or a ride in a rental car) is a lot less interesting if you are getting a paycheck from the school too.

-Jason "I can hope for something better... can't I?" Evans

Dev11
07-23-2013, 08:57 AM
Let's step back for a second and ask the bigger question.

What earthly sense does it make for universities to be paying a multi-hundred-million-dollar subsidy to the NFL, by providing it with a youth development scheme for no financial consideration whatsoever?

Let the NFL build, run, and pay for its own academy system. Let's have actual students, not mercenaries, play college sports.

Because the schools get huge exposure and revenue from it. The NFL looks at the D-League and wants nothing to do with paying more players who don't generate revenue, particularly if the player safety issue turns into huge lawsuit payouts for the leagues. Best to leave the maiming of 20 year-olds in other people's hands.

sagegrouse
07-23-2013, 09:00 AM
In what sense is this good for Duke, as a university or an athletic program?

The five power conferences have already claimed nearly all the football television and playoff revenue already, so there's not much to be gained there unless those conferences start expelling schools - starting with schools like Duke. But even if Duke is allowed to stay at that level they will be left with a choice between spending like Texas - which they can't do - and dropping out of big-time athletics entirely - which they won't do, even if they should.

It is good for Duke in that we are in the inside looking out. The 66 or so teams will be the center of the college athletics universe. And what makes you think that Duke would not be sought after as a member? According to this (http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue) report from 2008 Duke ranks relatively high in total athletic revenue -- 25th on the list and ahead of all ACC teams except FSU (and Notre Dame). Later reports, which I can't find right now, also show Duke in the top 30, ahead of over one-half the teams in the so-called top five conferences.

sagegrouse

Dev11
07-23-2013, 09:07 AM
I wonder if the new organization (I like JE's nomenclature 'Division 4') and the NCAA will be able to come to an agreement to let teams play each other across organizational lines. I think as a whole, the change would be a good thing, but I worry that Duke goes right back to the bottom of the pile in talent.

There is a lot to consider. I doubt they get it done for next year, but 2 or 3 years down the line they will.

JasonEvans
07-23-2013, 09:22 AM
I wonder if the new organization (I like JE's nomenclature 'Division 4') and the NCAA will be able to come to an agreement to let teams play each other across organizational lines. I think as a whole, the change would be a good thing, but I worry that Duke goes right back to the bottom of the pile in talent.

In the articles I linked, it talks a bit about the desire to have the haves only playing other haves and not just feasting on have nots.

I suspect we will see something like what we currently have where Division 4 schools can play 1 game a year against old Div. I or even I-AA schools. But, the vast majority of the games will be big schools versus big schools. I am not sure what will happen to all the bowl games but, assuming some of them still exist, getting to 6 win to be bowl eligible will be a bit tougher... which is a good thing.

-Jason "yes, this will be hard on Duke, but I think Cut is up to the task!" Evans

MCFinARL
07-23-2013, 09:42 AM
Plus, they would almost certainly start paying players ($5-$10k per year is tossed around a lot), which would make it harder and a lot more expensive for boosters and runners to get their claws into players. I am not saying it would not happen, but the guy threatening your eligibility by offering you a $500 handshake (or a ride in a rental car) is a lot less interesting if you are getting a paycheck from the school too.

-Jason "I can hope for something better... can't I?" Evans

Yes, but--given some of the stories about what sometimes goes on in recruitment now--jobs for parents or youth coaches, home mortgage loans, lots of cash--I'm not sure how much difference $5-10K will make for the big stars, who will still face a lot of temptations, both before and after getting to school. On the other hand, it would offer an equitable allocation of spending money, and a certain amount of insulation, for the majority of players who may be only secondary targets, if targets at all, for the boosters and runners.

Wander
07-23-2013, 09:56 AM
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.

Atlanta Duke
07-23-2013, 10:01 AM
This may sound crazy, but I think a new organization with new rules would actually be a good thing for compliance and perhaps academics. This new "Division 4" is going to be awash in cash from its new playoff structure and the fact that it won't have to share nearly as much money with the little sisters in old Division 1.

Plus, they would almost certainly start paying players ($5-$10k per year is tossed around a lot), which would make it harder and a lot more expensive for boosters and runners to get their claws into players. I am not saying it would not happen, but the guy threatening your eligibility by offering you a $500 handshake (or a ride in a rental car) is a lot less interesting if you are getting a paycheck from the school too.

-Jason "I can hope for something better... can't I?" Evans

This response might fit better in the paying players thread but it is pertinent to the big 5 conferences potentially bolting from the NCAA.

The elephant in the room regarding these discussions is the O'Bannon lawsuit. Plaintiffs, which now include current players, are seeking class action status for a share of not just video game revenue but TV revenue. The schools may not be awash in cash if plaintiffs prevail.

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, speaking in Dallas on Monday, denounced the NCAA process and talked openly about the big-time football schools breaking away in their own division, claiming “unanimity” among his BCS-conference peers. A breakaway has been much whispered and debated, but this was a rare moment where someone in a position to make it happen endorsed the idea.

It all goes back to O’Bannon. That’s the fulcrum. Everyone is watching and waiting, from the bowls to the TV networks to the schools themselves, the powerful and the powerless alike.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/22/3048487/decock-player-lawsuit-looming.html

If players prevail against the NCAA you can bet a similar lawsuit would be filed against the 5 mega-conferences if they picked up their footballs and left the NCAA (although the antitrust underpinnings for the O'Bannon litigation presumably could be impacted by the mega-conferences being only a subset of schools playing football)

Plaintiff's expert in the O'Bannon case is Roger Noll, professor emeritus of economics at Stanford. The O'Bannon lawsuit is not his first rodeo with regard to providing expert testimony in antitrust cases and sports licensing cases. In his declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' request for class certification, Noll proposes the players receive 50% of TV revenues received by each conference (that obviously is a bargaining chip, but as Noll states at pp. 101 - 104 of his linked declaration, that is in accordance with the players share of NFL TV rights)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.03.pdf

In his declaration Noll provided a hypothetical breakdown of how the players share of revenue would be allocated equally among members of the SEC and PAC-12football and men's basketball teams. Basketball players would receive higher payments than football players because of the lesser number of team members on the basketball teams among whom a share of broadcast revenues would be allocated.

Under Noll's methodology (which is discussed in greater detail in the article linked below)

• Per-athlete damages for an SEC football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $46,627 to $66,610.

• Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $26,253 to $44,497.

• Per-athlete damages for an SEC basketball player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $177,860 to $295,475.

• Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 basketball player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $171,547 to $253,171....

Lots of issues spin off from this, including a potential way to address the Title IX issues of only paying revenue sports players - the payment would be tied to a share of the broadcast revenue generated through using the players' likenesses, which results in higher payments to football and men's basketball players than to the women's lacrosse team.

In addition, there is the issue of how the value of a scholarship would be factored in to the payments received for players attending more expensive private schools

In many instances, a BCS football player’s live broadcast damages would not even be equal to the value of his athletic scholarship. For example, the per-athlete number for Stanford’s 2009-10 football team is $36,463. The value of a full athletic scholarship at Stanford in 2009-10 was over $50,000.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/10/31/a-deeper-look-into-the-potential-damages-in-the-obannon-case/

While schools in the big 5 conferences may talk about how to be magnanimous and provide some $$ to the players after they no longer need to share football revenues with the Northern Iowas of the world, it may not be their decision to make.

TexHawk
07-23-2013, 10:03 AM
I suspect they are perfectly happy with the way college basketball is run and won't mess with that system.

Whoa... I have to strenuously disagree. The NCAA bankrolls a lot of what they do with the nearly $1 billion per year that CBS/Turner give them for the NCAA tournament. The conference heads are licking their chops to get at that.

On the down side, if this new "Power 5" cracks that egg, a lot of that billion dollars helps the NCAA run non-CBB/non-CFB sports. If they have to start sharing that, those sports could suffer. And what of Gonzaga, Butler, Philly hoops schools?

On the bright side, as fans of teams with less-than-powerhouse football teams, this new BIG WHATEVER will not go forward without hoops bluebloods like KU/Duke/Kentucky, because nobody sane would run their own spin-off NCAA tournament without those teams. This is why I have never been *scared* of realignment as a KU fan. The football dollars have to stop going up at some point, and the next logical place for more revenue is hoops. In that scenario, the KUs and Dukes of the world become a lot more valuable.

SupaDave
07-23-2013, 10:55 AM
Whoa... I have to strenuously disagree. The NCAA bankrolls a lot of what they do with the nearly $1 billion per year that CBS/Turner give them for the NCAA tournament. The conference heads are licking their chops to get at that.

On the down side, if this new "Power 5" cracks that egg, a lot of that billion dollars helps the NCAA run non-CBB/non-CFB sports. If they have to start sharing that, those sports could suffer. And what of Gonzaga, Butler, Philly hoops schools?

On the bright side, as fans of teams with less-than-powerhouse football teams, this new BIG WHATEVER will not go forward without hoops bluebloods like KU/Duke/Kentucky, because nobody sane would run their own spin-off NCAA tournament without those teams. This is why I have never been *scared* of realignment as a KU fan. The football dollars have to stop going up at some point, and the next logical place for more revenue is hoops. In that scenario, the KUs and Dukes of the world become a lot more valuable.

Very good point. This is something I've wondered since the SEC and the Big 10 were (and still are) having stadium wars. Some may not recall but I remember there being much debate in the 90s about who had the "biggest" stadium (tee hee - that's rich). But anyway, what makes the football bubble go pop? 5 year olds are already playing at advanced levels now - so will it eventually be the players?

Olympic Fan
07-23-2013, 12:42 PM
Let's be clear -- there are two proposals gaining momentum -- one is to let the five power conferences form their own division within the NCAA ... the other is for the five power conferences to break off and form a separate organization.

Of the two proposals, I much prefer the first option. I think the second option would be a disaster. I'll tell you why.

I am a basketball guy. I like and follow college football, but I live and die with college basketball. I glory in Duke's basketball history -- our four national -- read NCAA! -- championships. Our 15 Final Fours, the best NCAA Tournament winning percentage of any program.

You want to leave that behind and be part of the new College Football Association basketball tournament. So we'll have schools for the five power "football" conferences competing for one national championship. We'll have such traditional powers as St. John's, Villanova, Gonzaga, Cincinnati, Butler, Temple ... etc left to compete in the NCAA Tournament.

With two competing national tournaments, we'll never get a real champion. I'd be skeptical about how much money this would bring from the TV Networks -- CBS certainly wouldn't like losing all the power conference schools -- Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Michigan, UCLA, Louisville ... but the new CFA couldn't command top dollars without the drama of the Cinderellas-- the Butler's the VCU's, the Florida Gulf Coasts.

I'm sure that doesn't matter to the administrators. This -- like the ACC's 2004 expansion -- is all football driven. Basketball is an afterthought. But the sport will never be the same if this happens. Remember the AIAW that used to determine the women's national title. Our NCAA legacy would go the way of Old Dominion or Immaculata's AIAW legacies. This would be a basketball; reboot.

Oh, we'd still have our NCAA banners in the rafters, but imagine the future when schools start mix and matching their nation titles -- let's see, we have one Helms title, five NCAA titles, two CFA's titles ...

I also think that if the power football conferences break away, you're going to see a lowering -- a drastic lowering -- of academic standards. It's going to be the lowest common denominator.

Any body who thinks playing players will prevent corruption is living in a fool's world. In the first place, payments are going to limited somewhat for Title IX requirements (for even dollar you give a male athlete, you have to give a dollar to a female athlete -- that's not an NCAA rule, that's federal law). In the second place, even if kids are paid $10,000, many will have their hands out to boosters for another $10,000 or free rental cars or bling. If it's $20K or $50K, it's the same ... greed never sleeps.

I'm glad I'm an old guy. I'd hate to see this landscape change in my lifetime.

Duvall
07-23-2013, 12:55 PM
Whoa... I have to strenuously disagree. The NCAA bankrolls a lot of what they do with the nearly $1 billion per year that CBS/Turner give them for the NCAA tournament. The conference heads are licking their chops to get at that.

Are they? To my knowledge no one has proposed that, or suggested that it would be a good idea. Certainly the conference commissioners have yet to suggest that taking all of their sports out of the NCAA would be a good idea. I think it's much more likely that the power conferences will want to eat their cake and have it by ensuring that the new rules and administrative structure apply only to football.


On the bright side, as fans of teams with less-than-powerhouse football teams, this new BIG WHATEVER will not go forward without hoops bluebloods like KU/Duke/Kentucky, because nobody sane would run their own spin-off NCAA tournament without those teams. This is why I have never been *scared* of realignment as a KU fan. The football dollars have to stop going up at some point, and the next logical place for more revenue is hoops. In that scenario, the KUs and Dukes of the world become a lot more valuable.

But if there's no spin-off tournament, that doesn't help.

TexHawk
07-23-2013, 03:30 PM
Are they? To my knowledge no one has proposed that, or suggested that it would be a good idea. Certainly the conference commissioners have yet to suggest that taking all of their sports out of the NCAA would be a good idea. I think it's much more likely that the power conferences will want to eat their cake and have it by ensuring that the new rules and administrative structure apply only to football.

There are whispers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/21/college-football-ncaa-split/2097115/) that a "Power 5 only" hoops tournament is the inevitable/logical next step after football breaks away. As far as I know, publicly, no conference commissioners have proposed it. It makes sense from their point-of-view, those guys could not care less about Butler, they care about more money. In fact, CBS/Turner is in the same boat, as a Sweet 16 with Kentucky has much higher ratings than one with Florida Gulf Coast. Why divide ~$1 billion if you don't have to?

wilko
07-23-2013, 04:34 PM
And this will be my exit stop if not handled properly..
If it becomes like NASCAR where only the wealthy teams will compete at the top and players advertise on their unis - Im done.
They will have rendered me indifferent.

lotusland
07-23-2013, 04:34 PM
This all seems silly to me. I think they are killing the golden goose or pooping in the ice cream - pick your metaphor. There is a reason minor league athletics don't make as much money or garner the same attention as amateur college athletics. Why do you want to make college like minor league pro ball? It will just kill it.

Besides that football already reached it's zenith and is on the way down. How much longer can institutions of higher learning afford to sponsor a sport that causes permanent brain damage at an alarming rate? The NFL lawsuit, when settled, will determine a lot but it is well known now that multiple concussions are very dangerous. So when Junior High, HS and College players accumulate a couple of concussions now either their career is over or someone is taking a huge liability by continuing to play them. How many kids make it to the pros without ever getting a concussion? The money is little to no factor in the Junior High Schools so it will start there with schools cutting football. Kids make their choices about what sport specialize in well before then. HS football will suffer then college and on up the chain. Meanwhile there will continue to be rule changes to protect players that essentially ruin the game.

It feels like I'm watching the major conferences sink a bunch of money into 1990 .com companies just before the bubble popped or lining up to flip houses in 2008. This is going to end badly and smart people are going to wonder how they sucked into this crapper.

Jim3k
07-23-2013, 04:36 PM
Let's step back for a second and ask the bigger question.

What earthly sense does it make for universities to be paying a multi-hundred-million-dollar subsidy to the NFL, by providing it with a youth development scheme for no financial consideration whatsoever?

Let the NFL build, run, and pay for its own academy system. Let's have actual students, not mercenaries, play college sports.

Luddite!!! :rolleyes:

matt1
07-23-2013, 04:38 PM
There are whispers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/21/college-football-ncaa-split/2097115/) that a "Power 5 only" hoops tournament is the inevitable/logical next step after football breaks away. As far as I know, publicly, no conference commissioners have proposed it. It makes sense from their point-of-view, those guys could not care less about Butler, they care about more money. In fact, CBS/Turner is in the same boat, as a Sweet 16 with Kentucky has much higher ratings than one with Florida Gulf Coast. Why divide ~$1 billion if you don't have to?

I would imagine that the new Big East would also be included for basketball. Also, all of this is a major sign of disrespect to the Mountain West, which is on par with the other conferences.

Bluedog
07-23-2013, 04:54 PM
I would imagine that the new Big East would also be included for basketball. Also, all of this is a major sign of disrespect to the Mountain West, which is on par with the other conferences.

It may be on par from an on-the-field competitive standpoint, but is not on par when it comes its current TV deals and how much revenue they generate. And money is driving it.

Capn Poptart
07-23-2013, 04:57 PM
What would this mean for rules and academic enforcement? Will there be such a thing as cheating? Academic requirements? If so, who will enforce them? Do we really expect that the big football factories will want to create rules that will impede their desire for a college NFL?

What I am concerned about is that the football-firsters will create an academics-free zone. Schools like Duke, Vandy, NU, Stanford etc. would probably choose to maintain their standards, but schools where that is not an institutional priority (read: most of them) would be bringing guns to our knife fight.

I am in the minority, I'd say, but I'm against stipends for players. I think I need to pick a D-3 league to follow.

Bluedog
07-23-2013, 05:04 PM
It's also worth noting that if something like Noll's proposal of "per athlete damages" were to be put into practice, costly schools like Duke would be at a disadvantage because the scholarship amount would be deducted from the total. That is, if somebody's compensation is calculated as $60,000 and the Duke full ride is worth $54,000, the football player "only" gets paid $6,000/yr whereas if they went to a state school, they'd get paid significantly more, perhaps as much as $50,000 conceivably. That's major incentive not to go to Duke. On top of that, Noll has differing amounts per conference, meaning athletes would again be more likely to choose the high paying conferences like the SEC. It gets overly complicated in a hurry. Although I find it very hard to believe that the "pay the players" methodology would ever go as far as Noll suggests. I sure hope not.

Atlanta Duke
07-23-2013, 05:45 PM
Although I find it very hard to believe that the "pay the players" methodology would ever go as far as Noll suggests. I sure hope not.

Agreed there are a lot of issues to work through. Since all Duke (and Stanford, Vandy, and Northwestern) athletes have higher per player scholarship costs than the state schools, I suppose a settlement could pay equal amounts of damages to players having different scholarship costs since the "use of likenesses" damages would be the same for all players regardless of the cost of a scholarship. I bet Duke and the other high cost schools would insist on that to avoid being placed at a further competitive disadvantage.

But if payments to players in the revenue sports are regarded as inevitable, the question is how to structure the payments. As I posted earlier, the potential benefit of paying the players in only revenue sports anything above the value of their scholarships, as a fee for licensing their images for use in the TV contracts, is it arguably provides a way to avoid violating the Title IX requirement that universities provide equal amounts of financial assistance to male and female athletes. One commentator contends:

On the NCAA level, the Supreme Court, in NCAA v. Smith, held that Title IX does not apply to the NCAA despite the fact that the NCAA receives dues from federally funded intercollegiate athletic programs that fall under the scope of Title IX. As a result, if the NCAA established a trust fund, or other such licensing program, to disperse compensation to former college athletes, it probably would not violate Title IX because the NCAA would be the entity distributing the funds, not the member institutions.

http://winthropintelligence.com/2012/05/06/student-athlete-licensing-program-how-could-it-happen-and-what-are-the-elements/

Given the potential impact of licensing fee payments, this article from last December raised the question that may be answered by the current drift of the big time sports schools into their own affiliation separate from the NCAA

And if recruiting is driven by trust payouts to student-athletes, will schools realign around the group which can yield the highest rights fees possible? Will this group become its own division, separate from the vast majority of other schools?

http://winthropintelligence.com/2012/12/16/obannon-v-ncaa-potential-financial-consequences-of-a-student-athlete-trust-fund/

Interesting days for big time college sports

DukeHLM'13
07-23-2013, 06:01 PM
Are college sports really so messed up that everything needs to be completely reworked. I agree that there are problems with the the NCAA that need to be addressed, but I just don't see this working. I'm far from a legal expert, but I don't see how with Title IX it would be possible to pay players in profitable sports (men's football and basketball) and no one else, and I don't think that paying them in right anyways. And besides, are they not being compensated by receiving scholarships to play sports at their schools? I don't see how this continues to be overlooked?

I think that some sort of stipend, i.e. ROTC, which has been mentioned before on here, could be a good idea. But outright paying the players will only ensure that the good get better and the others have no chance. If this new system were to come in to place a story the emergence of Boise State from would never happen again.

There are problems that need to be fixed, but paying players is not going to fix them, and there'd a distinct possibility that it could make the problems that already exist even worse.

snowdenscold
07-23-2013, 08:07 PM
This all seems silly to me. I think they are killing the golden goose or pooping in the ice cream - pick your metaphor. There is a reason minor league athletics don't make as much money or garner the same attention as amateur college athletics. Why do you want to make college like minor league pro ball? It will just kill it.

Besides that football already reached it's zenith and is on the way down. How much longer can institutions of higher learning afford to sponsor a sport that causes permanent brain damage at an alarming rate? The NFL lawsuit, when settled, will determine a lot but it is well known now that multiple concussions are very dangerous. So when Junior High, HS and College players accumulate a couple of concussions now either their career is over or someone is taking a huge liability by continuing to play them. How many kids make it to the pros without ever getting a concussion? The money is little to no factor in the Junior High Schools so it will start there with schools cutting football. Kids make their choices about what sport specialize in well before then. HS football will suffer then college and on up the chain. Meanwhile there will continue to be rule changes to protect players that essentially ruin the game.

It feels like I'm watching the major conferences sink a bunch of money into 1990 .com companies just before the bubble popped or lining up to flip houses in 2008. This is going to end badly and smart people are going to wonder how they sucked into this crapper.

I found your post here particularly interesting because it hits a lot of issues I've been musing over for awhile now. We like college athletics vis-a-vis minor league sports for a combination of reasons - alumni/heritage, big game days at schools with built-in fan bases, and the attempt to cling to some notion of amateurism of a bygone era (no matter the cognitive dissonance that occurs as a result of the latter). Will the diminishing (or complete removal) of amateurism produce a negative effect on the excitement that college sports bring?* You can argue this has already been happening for many decades now, but such a sudden change could produce an unintended backfire. Or perhaps not. Hard to say at this point, but it remains a possibility.

* Unlike the situation with the Olympics, where we are now watching the best athletes, there remains another tier of skill at the NFL level

And in regards to the injuries and talent pipline issue - it's been brought up on other threads before, but never seems to gain that much traction. Are we really at the zenith, or is this just another hype that will end up having negligible effect in the long-term? I find it hard to believe there won't be some sort of tangible repercussions of the whole injury/concussion concern as more studies are done. One comparison that comes to mind is smoking - a steady stream of evidence has emerged over the past 50+ years, yet it's taken quite a long time for the public to change (recognizing the addictive nature of nicotine makes a true analogy difficult). In fact, there's still a shockingly large percentage of the US population who smokes - many of them starting after the research was overwhelming! Perhaps in the same vein there will always continue to be a large enough segment of the population interested in seeing boys play football that the pipeline won't be significantly affected? Again, hard to say, and that's before addressing the issues of "game-ruining" rules changes which you note.

But if you're correct, I will definitely join you in being completely frustrated at the destruction we've wrought upon the college athletics landscape for something that only ever had a shelf life of a couple more decades.

burnspbesq
07-23-2013, 08:35 PM
Luddite!!! :rolleyes:

And proud of it!

If college football were to disappear tomorrow, Duke would unquestionably be one of the two or three biggest winners when the dust settled. It's a marquee program, in the marquee conference, in every other college sport that gets any meaningful amount of fan and media attention.

burnspbesq
07-23-2013, 08:40 PM
What would this mean for rules and academic enforcement? Will there be such a thing as cheating? Academic requirements? If so, who will enforce them? Do we really expect that the big football factories will want to create rules that will impede their desire for a college NFL?

What I am concerned about is that the football-firsters will create an academics-free zone. Schools like Duke, Vandy, NU, Stanford etc. would probably choose to maintain their standards, but schools where that is not an institutional priority (read: most of them) would be bringing guns to our knife fight.

I am in the minority, I'd say, but I'm against stipends for players. I think I need to pick a D-3 league to follow.

Try the Liberty League. :cool: Union and RPI are even closer geographically than Duke and Carolina, and the rivalry has been nasty since the 1890s.

If you want to know what big-time college football would look like, post-apocalypse, in terms of its relationship to the sponsoring universities, look to Mexico City and Guadalajara. The model is UNAM Pumas and Tecos UAG. Fully professional teams affiliated with universities, but it's been years (if not decades) since an actual student suited up for either club.

dukeofcalabash
07-23-2013, 08:52 PM
Blah, blah, blah, money, money, money. So boring. Let those who want to get paid go pro immediately, do not pass Go, do not pass College, do not even look for an education. Leave college for college kids and let the teams become what they may. Much as I love sports, I hate to see academics taking hits to allow athletes to take easy courses, earn (or not) worthless degrees they will never earn. Separate the jock from the nerd and let 'em play in different arenas. Do not continue down the road to ruin for college sports and academics in order to make the fans happy.

lotusland
07-23-2013, 08:59 PM
I found your post here particularly interesting because it hits a lot of issues I've been musing over for awhile now. We like college athletics vis-a-vis minor league sports for a combination of reasons - alumni/heritage, big game days at schools with built-in fan bases, and the attempt to cling to some notion of amateurism of a bygone era (no matter the cognitive dissonance that occurs as a result of the latter). Will the diminishing (or complete removal) of amateurism produce a negative effect on the excitement that college sports bring?* You can argue this has already been happening for many decades now, but such a sudden change could produce an unintended backfire. Or perhaps not. Hard to say at this point, but it remains a possibility.

* Unlike the situation with the Olympics, where we are now watching the best athletes, there remains another tier of skill at the NFL level

And in regards to the injuries and talent pipline issue - it's been brought up on other threads before, but never seems to gain that much traction. Are we really at the zenith, or is this just another hype that will end up having negligible effect in the long-term? I find it hard to believe there won't be some sort of tangible repercussions of the whole injury/concussion concern as more studies are done. One comparison that comes to mind is smoking - a steady stream of evidence has emerged over the past 50+ years, yet it's taken quite a long time for the public to change (recognizing the addictive nature of nicotine makes a true analogy difficult). In fact, there's still a shockingly large percentage of the US population who smokes - many of them starting after the research was overwhelming! Perhaps in the same vein there will always continue to be a large enough segment of the population interested in seeing boys play football that the pipeline won't be significantly affected? Again, hard to say, and that's before addressing the issues of "game-ruining" rules changes which you note.

But if you're correct, I will definitely join you in being completely frustrated at the destruction we've wrought upon the college athletics landscape for something that only ever had a shelf life of a couple more decades.

Well it seems you never recognize the summit until you are half way down the other side. When I was in HS there was a "smoking area" where students could smoke but now that would be unheard of. Schools weren't sponsoring the smoking they just allowed it because it was customary I guess. How long will public education continue to sponsor a sport that causes permanent brain damage? If you are the #1 ranked QB in the country going in to your junior year and pick up a couple of concussions before college you are practically done. Pickup one more in college and kiss your chance at a pro career goodbye. So the object is to play as hard as you can to earn a shot but you better not get hurt. It is an unsustainable catch-22 IMO. Changing the rules so Clowney's hit earns an ejection might reduce liability but it won't fill the seats or turn on televisions.
My neighbor is a Clemson grad and a diehard Clemson football fan. When his kids younger they played Pop Warner football and the whole family traveled to Clemson 3 or 4times a year for games. Around middle school they got seriously into soccer and gave up football completely. I watched the Clemson bowl game on TV with my neighbor and his kids were upstairs watching soccer with their friends. I can't remember the last time I saw kids playing a pickup game of tackle football. Those kids playing soccer may go to college and support their school's teams but are they going to continue to donate to the programs as alumni and take their families to games the way my generation does? They just don't seem to have the same connection to it IMO. So college football may earn more dollars than ever over the next several years but the decline is already underway with the alumni of tomorrow.
Meanwhile the conferences are trashing the NCAA and creating conferences that don't any make sense geographically or academically for future dollars that won't be there in the long term anyway.

g-money
07-24-2013, 01:16 AM
Let's be clear -- there are two proposals gaining momentum -- one is to let the five power conferences form their own division within the NCAA ... the other is for the five power conferences to break off and form a separate organization.

Of the two proposals, I much prefer the first option. I think the second option would be a disaster. I'll tell you why.

I am a basketball guy. I like and follow college football, but I live and die with college basketball. I glory in Duke's basketball history -- our four national -- read NCAA! -- championships. Our 15 Final Fours, the best NCAA Tournament winning percentage of any program.

You want to leave that behind and be part of the new College Football Association basketball tournament. So we'll have schools for the five power "football" conferences competing for one national championship. We'll have such traditional powers as St. John's, Villanova, Gonzaga, Cincinnati, Butler, Temple ... etc left to compete in the NCAA Tournament.

With two competing national tournaments, we'll never get a real champion. I'd be skeptical about how much money this would bring from the TV Networks -- CBS certainly wouldn't like losing all the power conference schools -- Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Michigan, UCLA, Louisville ... but the new CFA couldn't command top dollars without the drama of the Cinderellas-- the Butler's the VCU's, the Florida Gulf Coasts.

I'm sure that doesn't matter to the administrators. This -- like the ACC's 2004 expansion -- is all football driven. Basketball is an afterthought. But the sport will never be the same if this happens. Remember the AIAW that used to determine the women's national title. Our NCAA legacy would go the way of Old Dominion or Immaculata's AIAW legacies. This would be a basketball; reboot.

Oh, we'd still have our NCAA banners in the rafters, but imagine the future when schools start mix and matching their nation titles -- let's see, we have one Helms title, five NCAA titles, two CFA's titles ...

I also think that if the power football conferences break away, you're going to see a lowering -- a drastic lowering -- of academic standards. It's going to be the lowest common denominator.

Any body who thinks playing players will prevent corruption is living in a fool's world. In the first place, payments are going to limited somewhat for Title IX requirements (for even dollar you give a male athlete, you have to give a dollar to a female athlete -- that's not an NCAA rule, that's federal law). In the second place, even if kids are paid $10,000, many will have their hands out to boosters for another $10,000 or free rental cars or bling. If it's $20K or $50K, it's the same ... greed never sleeps.

I'm glad I'm an old guy. I'd hate to see this landscape change in my lifetime.

I fully agree with this post and will quote it in its entirety. By my count, 14 of the final 32 teams in the 2013 NCAA tournament were from outside the so-called power conferences. If these 5 conferences break away to form a league outside the NCAA, I'd have to think that college basketball's "one shining moment" would be lost forever.

How in the world did college football get so much clout and power over all the other collegiate sports? As a Duke fan who grew up in the Northeast, I just don't get it. :)

toooskies
07-24-2013, 07:46 AM
How in the world did college football get so much clout and power over all the other collegiate sports? As a Duke fan who grew up in the Northeast, I just don't get it. :)

I'm going to go with, football is a better excuse to drink all afternoon.

devildeac
07-24-2013, 08:43 AM
I'm going to go with, football is a better excuse to drink all afternoon.

We start our tailgates at 0700 or 0800 sometimes (miltary time for the benefit of Bob Green who is part of our group;)). Why are you waiting until the afternoon to start?:rolleyes::o;)

crimsonandblue
07-24-2013, 09:43 AM
I fully agree with this post and will quote it in its entirety. By my count, 14 of the final 32 teams in the 2013 NCAA tournament were from outside the so-called power conferences. If these 5 conferences break away to form a league outside the NCAA, I'd have to think that college basketball's "one shining moment" would be lost forever.

How in the world did college football get so much clout and power over all the other collegiate sports? As a Duke fan who grew up in the Northeast, I just don't get it. :)

There would be significant backlash against the power conferences if they broke away from the NCAA, held their own basketball tourney and excluded mid-major conference winners. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a middle ground of breaking away, holding their own tourney and inviting certain conference winners or other merit-based participants just as it's done now.

The thing is, leaving at least some of the tournament revenue on the table for NCAA use is probably a fair trade in return for not having to administer all the other sports championships, coordinate eligibility, police amateurism issues and recruiting practices, etc. And don't get me started on the ridiculous size of D1 basketball (are we pushing 350 schools?).

Keeping the NCAA around to administer non-revenue sports makes sense. But, I'm sure the power conferences are wondering where the margin is between the full tourney revenue and the NCAA's real costs of administration and what could and should be cut out of the NCAA to bolster power conferences' take, while not gutting the NCAA.

Atlanta Duke
07-24-2013, 10:21 AM
I have not read any of the recent statements coming from the big conferences to have expressed an interest in blowing up the NCAA basketball tournament and the $$ that go with it.

Big 12 chairman Bowlsby spoke of a "federation by sport" concept - so I guess the concept is the big time football schools could form the federation of Footballistan to keep the footaball TV $$$ while the Northern Iowas and George Masons of the world could continue to be part of a separate basketball federation that would participate in the current NCAA basketball tournament. If the big schools were to seek to secede completely from the NCAA my guess is the attorneys from CBS and Time-Warner might want to chat about who writes the check to unwind the current 14 year contract to broadcast the basketball tournament.

The federation by sport concept is something that Coach K appears to have supported, albeit for reasons other than a deep love for big time football running the show.

I think one of the main things that has to happen is college basketball has to have a relationship with the NBA. There should be someone in charge of college basketball who on a day-to-day basis sets an agenda for our great sport.

http://sportsradiointerviews.com/2012/04/17/mike-krzyzewski-nba-college-basketball-duke/

roywhite
07-24-2013, 01:59 PM
NCAA's Emmert at crossroads (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9500489/a-year-removed-penn-state-decision-ncaa-president-mark-emmert-finds-amid-another-defining-moment)


The Penn State announcement was supposed to be the defining moment of Emmert's tenure. But instead of signifying his and the organization's status as tough on NCAA crime, it has become Emmert's Waterloo moment. Employees are headed for the exits in droves, and instead of helping to alleviate the NCAA's problems, the man at the top may be compounding them.

Since the Penn State sanctions announcement a year ago, NCAA president Mark Emmert's leadership style, combative personality, and most of all, his decisions, have directly intersected with an NCAA in deep crisis.
"It's been one misstep after another," said a longtime administrator and former NCAA staffer, echoing the statements of several sources who have spoken to "Outside the Lines."

opossum
07-26-2013, 12:24 AM
It's also worth noting that if something like Noll's proposal of "per athlete damages" were to be put into practice, costly schools like Duke would be at a disadvantage because the scholarship amount would be deducted from the total. That is, if somebody's compensation is calculated as $60,000 and the Duke full ride is worth $54,000, the football player "only" gets paid $6,000/yr whereas if they went to a state school, they'd get paid significantly more, perhaps as much as $50,000 conceivably. That's major incentive not to go to Duke. On top of that, Noll has differing amounts per conference, meaning athletes would again be more likely to choose the high paying conferences like the SEC. It gets overly complicated in a hurry. Although I find it very hard to believe that the "pay the players" methodology would ever go as far as Noll suggests. I sure hope not.

I think this is his proposed basis for a settlement with past players, not for future stipend/"full cost of attendance" payments to players. If it were the latter, I agree it would be pretty much a disaster for all the division IA private schools and, to a lesser degree, the state schools that have high out of state tuition. I can't think of who would be for that. Even state schools with lower in state tuition than the private schools would have trouble competing for recruits out of state if the recruits could immediately monetize the difference. (They are only seventeen years old).

Every article I've seen about this stipend idea talks about a capped few thousand bucks a year in "walking around money" on top of the already covered tuition, books, housing and meals. It would cover the costs of things like transportation to and from home on holidays and for the summer, having some fun without having to hang out with people nicknamed "Fats" or random dentists, and maybe flying the family in for a game or two (without having to find them fake jobs that involve travel to all of your games but that they get fired from right after you graduate), and stuff like that.

johnb
07-26-2013, 01:24 AM
64 team playoff in December/january would be cool. Seeding would matter, so earlier games count, but all those big team vs big team matches would take away the currently suboptimal system in which a September loss can wreck a season. I don't care whether cincy or the service academies get in. there would always be an underdog who wins a couple of games (tho their names might be Mississippi or Duke, and the teams left out could set up their own tournament. Such a tournament could lead to teams playing only 10 regular season games (eliminating the 2-3 games that are typically mismatches for the top 20 schools--and hard-earned wins for Duke post 2010), which would reduce some of the physical trauma.

If football rules were being enforced by the teams rather than the ncaa, I'd imagine simplification and enhanced enforcement. Nobody knows who's cheating better than the other coaches/teams, most of whom don't report on each other because of the code and the likelihood they'll need a job within a couple of years,a search complicated if known as a rat. Let the sec enforce the rules, however, and I'd think Georgia, for example, would be all over Tennessee, etc, in a way that the ncaa as despised outsiders, could never be.

if teams had to pay players, perhaps they'd recruit fewer players per team. This would help Duke by redistributing some 3 stars who are no longer offered at their preferred top 15 program.

I can imagine football failing, but I don't think there's a shortage of really big 17 year olds who view themselves as invulnerable and who are willing to do what it takes to make it in one of the two marquee sports. and even if you are an elite athlete and prefer basketball, if you're built like a lineman or linebacker, or if you're really fast but under 6'3, basketball options are limited at the college and definitely the pro level. it's true that I don't see kids in my neighborhood playing football, but they aren't the kids who get offered at Oklahoma and Alabama.In a lot of the country, my understanding is that football star still equates with success. And the guys who populate the rosters of big-time football teams were not, at age 14, debating football vs lacrosse, football vs crew, football vs cross country. Or is that wrong?

basketball is different. no reason to eliminate all the small schools from tournament eligibility (small in basketball but often huge in regards to alumni or regional fans). and basketball is much cheaper, I should think.

I'd also like to think that enhanced technology will lead to the ability for fans to watch the non revenue sports, possibly converting them into revenue producing. If given a tv choice between an average PGA golf or pro tennis tournament and a golf or tennis match that involved Duke, I think I'd generally watch duke. And just as I watch Duke lacrosse without knowing the rules, I'd be happy to sit on my couch and watch virtually any other duke sport including the ones that I'd simply never watch without the connection. And as everyone knows, we tend to be in the top 10 in just about all the sports in which we offer scholarships, so this development--which seems inevitable--also seems good for duke.

Capn Poptart
07-26-2013, 11:24 AM
If the top division of NCAA is limited to the Big 5 conferences, I wonder if we can expect litigation from the more ambitious members of say, the American, the MWC or C-USA. Since we are talking a big institutional (read $) advantage, could it even be deemed an anti-trust violation?

sagegrouse
07-26-2013, 11:40 AM
If the top division of NCAA is limited to the Big 5 conferences, I wonder if we can expect litigation from the more ambitious members of say, the American, the MWC or C-USA. Since we are talking a big institutional (read $) advantage, could it even be deemed an anti-trust violation?

I think the likely change is about as clear as mud. The Pete Thamel story (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130725/college-sports-braces-for-more-change/) linked on the Front Page writes of about 12 conferences and 150 schools making up a new division within the NCAA. Since there are only about 130 teams playing Division 1 football, this seems at odds with Slive's and Swofford's comments last week. And Thamel reports that there is general agreement that the NCAA hoops tournament should be just as broad as currently, with excitement provided by the Florida Gulf Coast teams and others.

I suppose what this accomplishes is a narrower voting base for scholarship and other benefits to athletes. The benefits mentioned were (a) stipends for players in revenue sports and (b) year-around training tables for athletes, not just in-season tables.

Anyway, stay tuned. This seems to be on a fast track.

sagegrouse

ns7
07-28-2013, 01:49 PM
Dabo Swinney paid for school, so no athlete should be allowed pay: http://t.co/TewPX5mfqA Many are unemployed, should Swinney work for free?
-Jay Bilas (@JayBilas)


Will be interesting to see how the potential stipend for football and basketball players fits into a breakaway from the NCAA.

Dev11
07-29-2013, 09:01 AM
Dabo Swinney paid for school, so no athlete should be allowed pay: http://t.co/TewPX5mfqA Many are unemployed, should Swinney work for free?
-Jay Bilas (@JayBilas)


Will be interesting to see how the potential stipend for football and basketball players fits into a breakaway from the NCAA.

Dabo is reminding every coach in America that the biggest single expenditure for each of these programs is the head coach's salary, so don't be so hasty to back the players all the way here. If I'm a coach, I'm not commenting until the whole thing plays out. During recruiting, I'm prone to say anything to get smart athletes to come play for me, but I don't want to be at the head of any charge to change anything right now.

ns7
07-29-2013, 10:57 AM
Dabo is reminding every coach in America that the biggest single expenditure for each of these programs is the head coach's salary, so don't be so hasty to back the players all the way here. If I'm a coach, I'm not commenting until the whole thing plays out. During recruiting, I'm prone to say anything to get smart athletes to come play for me, but I don't want to be at the head of any charge to change anything right now.

To be fair, Dabo actually earns less so that his top assistants can make more. But I still think it's somewhat hypocritical for him and other coaches to earn boatloads of money off their players hard work and then turn around and say that those players deserve to work for free.

And before anyone says they get paid in scholarships, etc., it's not entirely true, because under-performing athletes, especially in football, are forced to transfer or leave the school to make room for new recruits.

Dev11
07-29-2013, 11:06 AM
To be fair, Dabo actually earns less so that his top assistants can make more. But I still think it's somewhat hypocritical for him and other coaches to earn boatloads of money off their players hard work and then turn around and say that those players deserve to work for free.

And before anyone says they get paid in scholarships, etc., it's not entirely true, because under-performing athletes, especially in football, are forced to transfer or leave the school to make room for new recruits.

I agree with you, and I was thinking that assistants' salaries would get slashed along with head coaches' salaries for the player payments. Just thinking selfishly, if I was a coach, I would play the waiting game on this issue. The only thing to be gained in the short term is a very slight recruiting bump for being 'player-friendly,' but as I alluded, I think there are easier ways to get that message out.

Bluedog
07-29-2013, 11:24 AM
And before anyone says they get paid in scholarships, etc., it's not entirely true, because under-performing athletes, especially in football, are forced to transfer or leave the school to make room for new recruits.

I wouldn't say this is universally true. Perhaps at some institutions and not at others. Can you recall a Duke football player who was forced to leave to make room for a new recruit? I can't. Duke football and basketball players are treated extremely well and get an obscene number of perks. To say that these Duke athletes are "working for free" and that the scholarship is contingent upon their performance seems disingenuous to me. I was actually pretty amazed at how much they get with their scholarship when I saw it firsthand - definitely things that are worth a considerable sum of money in addition to the fact that some would not be admitted to such a great academic institution without their athletic success in the first place (I'm not saying they're not deserving of admission, just that they get a full-ride scholarship on top of a potential HUGE boost in admittance even if academics are somewhat lacking comparatively).

Of course, athletes put in a tremendous amount of work and effort on the field and I certainly acknowledge and respect that. But I just think people saying they get nothing in return aren't being entirely truthful - I realize you ns7 didn't say that, I'm speaking more generally. (Incidentally, I'm still undecided as to whether football players should be paid.)

Duvall
07-29-2013, 12:53 PM
And before anyone says they get paid in scholarships, etc., it's not entirely true, because under-performing athletes, especially in football, are forced to transfer or leave the school to make room for new recruits.

The same is true of employees in most fields, though football and basketball coaches do have the protection of contracts.

Turk
07-30-2013, 09:55 AM
The same is true of employees in most fields, though football and basketball coaches do have the protection of contracts.

OK, but if the poor performer on the football field is a stellar performer in the classroom, are they a student or an employee? Why force such a student-employee to transfer if he is excelling at the (alleged) mission of the institution of higher education?

johnb
08-01-2013, 07:24 AM
OK, but if the poor performer on the football field is a stellar performer in the classroom, are they a student or an employee? Why force such a student-employee to transfer if he is excelling at the (alleged) mission of the institution of higher education?

he's not forced to transfer. he's forced to give up his scholarship, and he's kicked off the team.

my issue with this is not really about duke players. many of them do not really need the monthly stipend.

in the first duke/Vegas championship game, the parents of every duke player attended the game. from unlv, the only parents who could afford to go were the parents of a player who did not get off the bench (and who was, incidentally, their only white player). there is simply a huge family income gap between many football/bball players and even the average "poor" college student.

My angle on this has shifted, however, from one of justice (recognizing that it's a minor sop to equalizing experiences and opportunities) to one of power. I think this will go through the courts, and they'll force the issue, and it'll become akin to Title IX, free agency, and other variations on civil rights legislation...

greybeard
08-01-2013, 12:50 PM
It occurred to me before today's lead story, that the reason for the big conferences potential move their football programs out from the NCAA's umbrella might have less to do with pure greed than a reasonable concern that significant rule changes might be mandated by the NCAA in light of what I have long believed are the inevitable class action lawsuits regarding the NCAA's failure to adopt and enforce rules to lessen the likelihood of significant and often life altering injuries and to at least help defray not only long term, but also short term, health, rehabilitative, and living-assistance costs associated with injuries that statistical analysis shows were made far more likely due to the NCAA's failure to take such action.

In other words, NCAA member schools with no meaningful revenue stake in maintaining the status quo with respect to all sports, a status quo that allows for play that is producing significant and life altering injury, might just be driven to do the right thing and vote for significant rule changes prophylactically without putting up a protracted fight.

The portent that those schools might drive the NCAA to adopt rules that significantly tone down the violence and danger of football as we know it might well be playing a part, perhaps a significant one, in this drive to create mega conferences, to drive even the great Notre Dame to join a conference, to secede from the Union, the NCAA, and fight the battles on their own. If football is made significantly safer it also will be far, far less the show that it is today, which means that the revenue that the sport produces will take a dramatic hit. Can we say Lucky Strike, boys and girls.

Mods, feel free to fold this into the separate thread I created that focuses on the broader implications of the portent of such lawsuits. My thought, however, that it has a direct bearing on the subject matter of this thread in particular.

SupaDave
06-04-2014, 05:28 PM
Once again - it's on...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/2/5759916/ncaa-ed-obannon-lawsuit-trial

77devil
06-10-2014, 09:52 AM
Once again - it's on...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/2/5759916/ncaa-ed-obannon-lawsuit-trial

The NCAA settled a related case yesterday. EA had already settled with these plaintiffs. My understanding of the Keller case is that it was mostly about the monetary value of using a player's likeness and did not address the antitrust issue at the heart of the O'Bannon suit. Looks like the NCAA is trying to walk a fine line between settling for past monetary harm on a past case by case basis while fighting the existential threat in the O'Bannon trial that it is an illegal cartel.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2014/06/09/as-obannon-case-opens-ncaa-settles-offshoot-case-for-20-million/

lotusland
06-10-2014, 02:34 PM
The NCAA settled a related case yesterday. EA had already settled with these plaintiffs. My understanding of the Keller case is that it was mostly about the monetary value of using a player's likeness and did not address the antitrust issue at the heart of the O'Bannon suit. Looks like the NCAA is trying to walk a fine line between settling for past monetary harm on a past case by case basis while fighting the existential threat in the O'Bannon trial that it is an illegal cartel.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2014/06/09/as-obannon-case-opens-ncaa-settles-offshoot-case-for-20-million/

Not sure about the how's or why's of it but this settlement also supposedly eliminates EA as a potential witness for the plaintiff in the O'Bannon case.

Henderson
06-10-2014, 02:43 PM
Not sure about the how's or why's of it but this settlement also supposedly eliminates EA as a potential witness for the plaintiff in the O'Bannon case.

How does that work? What testimony would EA have favoring the plaintiffs in the O'Bannon suit? And if they had critical facts, they could be subpoenaed despite any settlement in the other case. Given the cozy business relationship between EA and the NCAA, I doubt the EA people would testify for the O'Bannon plaintiffs except under subpoena anyway. No?

lotusland
06-10-2014, 07:35 PM
How does that work? What testimony would EA have favoring the plaintiffs in the O'Bannon suit? And if they had critical facts, they could be subpoenaed despite any settlement in the other case. Given the cozy business relationship between EA and the NCAA, I doubt the EA people would testify for the O'Bannon plaintiffs except under subpoena anyway. No?

Well I looked back over the articles linked on the front page to verify what I read and I misspoke. I think the supposed advantage is that EA may not share info with the plaintiffs due to the settlement http://college-football.si.com/2014/06/09/ncaa-keller-lawsuit-settlement/

NCAA reaching settlement with EA & CLC significant mainly because of evidence: settlement makes EA/CLC less likely to share info w/O'Banno


Or that the video game claims and documents may be removed from the O'Bannon case http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/9/5793556/keller-lawsuit-ncaa-settlement-money-obannon

NCAA lawyer Glenn Pomerantz says he hopes the settlement allows the elimination of video game claims from O'Bannon trial #NCAAtrial

The NCAA had previously asked Judge Claudia Wilken to deny the use of the video game documents in the O'Bannon trial, though she refused to do so. Now, because of the settlement, the NCAA seems to think it could have that request approved, though there is no word on whether it will be.

Atlanta Duke
06-11-2014, 08:37 AM
More on day two of the O'Bannon trial

Day two of the O’Bannon v. NCAA trial began on Tuesday morning with Stanford professor of economics Dr. Roger Noll — who testified for two and a half hours on Monday — retaking the stand....

After five and a half hours over two days, [plaintiffs' attorney Michael] Hausfeld ended his questioning of Noll, giving way for the NCAA to cross-examine.

[NCAA attorney Rohit] Singla conducted the cross, which got off to a feisty start. “You realize that the NCAA only makes rules with the agreement of the colleges?” Singla asked. “That’s called a cartel,” Noll replied.:)

And the NCAA thinks this line of defense is plausible

In regard to live television broadcasts, Singla employed an argument the NCAA first introduced in last summer’s class certification hearing: Broadcasters pay for exclusive access to the stadium, not for the rights to televise athletes’ games.

http://college-football.si.com/2014/06/10/obannon-v-ncaa-day-two-roger-noll/

That looks like a winner - I know I watch ESPN for the great visuals of Cameron, not for the sideshow of the game that is being played

Duvall
07-21-2014, 12:04 PM
NCAA go away, and take men's Olympic sports with you? (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa-state/isu-football/2014/07/21/bowlsby-big-12-conference-power-five-ncaa-football/12933403/)


Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby said non-revenue sports will be in jeopardy if the NCAA loses lawsuits with which it currently involved.

"I think you'll see men's Olympic sports going away as a result of funding challenges coming down the pike," Bowlsby said at the Big 12 Conference media days Monday. "It will be very difficult to run the (depth) of programs that hundreds of thousands of students enjoy if we start diverting money."

BigWayne
07-21-2014, 02:49 PM
There are two articles I read over the weekend that are useful in understanding what is likely to happen here.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11231638/answer-coming-shortly-ed-obannon-v-ncaa-trial

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/2/

The first one is an analysis of what is likely to happen after the initial decision is announced for the O'Bannon trial. The executive summary is that the NCAA is likely to lose at least in some part, but regardless, it will be appealed and there will likely not be a definitive solution for at least a couple years.

The second one is from a couple years ago and details how tenuous a hold the NCAA really has on collegiate athletics, especially football. Reading both of these in a short period of time, I get the impression that the NCAA as it currently stands is a severely endangered species.

Newton_14
07-21-2014, 05:51 PM
There are two articles I read over the weekend that are useful in understanding what is likely to happen here.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11231638/answer-coming-shortly-ed-obannon-v-ncaa-trial

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/2/

The first one is an analysis of what is likely to happen after the initial decision is announced for the O'Bannon trial. The executive summary is that the NCAA is likely to lose at least in some part, but regardless, it will be appealed and there will likely not be a definitive solution for at least a couple years.

The second one is from a couple years ago and details how tenuous a hold the NCAA really has on collegiate athletics, especially football. Reading both of these in a short period of time, I get the impression that the NCAA as it currently stands is a severely endangered species.

Good find. I agree. Sort of like the dot.com bubble bursting in 1999, the NCAA is a big bubble thats is perilously close to bursting. I'm just not sure what College Sports as we know it today looks like, after that happens. What will the recovery & rebuild process look like?

Duvall
07-21-2014, 06:00 PM
Good find. I agree. Sort of like the dot.com bubble bursting in 1999, the NCAA is a big bubble thats is perilously close to bursting. I'm just not sure what College Sports as we know it today looks like, after that happens. What will the recovery & rebuild process look like?

A commercial product, operated by ESPN for ESPN. Unprofitable segments of the college sports business will go the way of the NHL.

Newton_14
07-21-2014, 07:10 PM
A commercial product, operated by ESPN for ESPN. Unprofitable segments of the college sports business will go the way of the NHL.
I'm afraid I agree with you old pal. A classic case of I cannot have my cake and eat it too. If substantial amounts of the revenue are redirected to athlete's in the revenue sports, the Olympic sports die, and worse, some of the revenue sports at smaller Div I Schools die as well. Without revenue sharing from the haves, the have nots cannot survive.

It will be major change, and vastly different from the college sports model most of us grew up loving.

uh_no
07-21-2014, 08:33 PM
I'm afraid I agree with you old pal. A classic case of I cannot have my cake and eat it too. If substantial amounts of the revenue are redirected to athlete's in the revenue sports, the Olympic sports die, and worse, some of the revenue sports at smaller Div I Schools die as well. Without revenue sharing from the haves, the have nots cannot survive.

It will be major change, and vastly different from the college sports model most of us grew up loving.

so many here are all RAH RAH for the death of the NCAA....i'm not sure everyone will like where it ends up....

lotusland
07-21-2014, 09:07 PM
so many here are all RAH RAH for the death of the NCAA....i'm not sure everyone will like where it ends up....

Yep I miss the old flawed NCAA already. I read one account earlier that credited the NCAA attorneys with making persuasive closing arguments by pointing out that an anti-trust violation is defined by damage to the consumer not damage to the employees or players in this case. I'm not a lawyer but, assuming that is accurate, it's hard to imagine that amateur college athletics has been detrimental to the fans. If anything the amateur model left an opening for a for profit model to enter the market and pay those athletes their true market value outside of any affiliation with a college or university and let them start raking in those obscene minor league profits.

left_hook_lacey
07-21-2014, 09:19 PM
so many here are all RAH RAH for the death of the NCAA....i'm not sure everyone will like where it ends up....

Put me in the "skeptical" boat that this is a good idea.

I agree the NCAA has its problems, but I'm not sure I'd like the alternative any better, if at all. Even with a governing body, there is still rampant monetary and academic violations. What would college football be without the NCAA? It would not be college football anymore. It would resemble the XFL or CFL if you ask me.

The articles that have been mentioned in this thread paint a gloomy picture for Duke football in my opinion. We've fought tooth and nail since Cut has been here to elbow our way to a seat at the grown-ups table. Seperating sports as some have mentioned with basketball staying with NCAA, and football power conferences making their own rules regarding football, I fear we'll be back on the outside looking in again when football is concerned.

lotusland
07-21-2014, 09:55 PM
Put me in the "skeptical" boat that this is a good idea.

I agree the NCAA has its problems, but I'm not sure I'd like the alternative any better, if at all. Even with a governing body, there is still rampant monetary and academic violations. What would college football be without the NCAA? It would not be college football anymore. It would resemble the XFL or CFL if you ask me.

The articles that have been mentioned in this thread paint a gloomy picture for Duke football in my opinion. We've fought tooth and nail since Cut has been here to elbow our way to a seat at the grown-ups table. Seperating sports as some have mentioned with basketball staying with NCAA, and football power conferences making their own rules regarding football, I fear we'll be back on the outside looking in again when football is concerned.

As a member of a power conference won't they be on the inside looking out especially is they decide to break away from division one? They may or may not win but at least they'll get paid and be allowed compensate their players in whatever form of compensation is approved. The article linked on the front page mentioned that the transfer rules are a major focus of reform for the power conferences so I'm curious as to what they want to change? Do they want to make it more or less difficult to transfer?

uh_no
07-21-2014, 10:00 PM
Put me in the "skeptical" boat that this is a good idea.

I agree the NCAA has its problems, but I'm not sure I'd like the alternative any better, if at all. Even with a governing body, there is still rampant monetary and academic violations. What would college football be without the NCAA? It would not be college football anymore. It would resemble the XFL or CFL if you ask me.

The articles that have been mentioned in this thread paint a gloomy picture for Duke football in my opinion. We've fought tooth and nail since Cut has been here to elbow our way to a seat at the grown-ups table. Seperating sports as some have mentioned with basketball staying with NCAA, and football power conferences making their own rules regarding football, I fear we'll be back on the outside looking in again when football is concerned.

or perhaps we can make a nice league with ND, stanford, NW, and any other school that is interested in having inter collegiate competition rather than semi-professional mostly minor-league caliber athletes many of whom no one would give two shakes about if it didn't happen to say "alabama" on the front of the jersey

Jarhead
07-21-2014, 10:20 PM
Put me in the "skeptical" boat that this is a good idea.

I agree the NCAA has its problems, but I'm not sure I'd like the alternative any better, if at all. Even with a governing body, there is still rampant monetary and academic violations. What would college football be without the NCAA? It would not be college football anymore. It would resemble the XFL or CFL if you ask me.

The articles that have been mentioned in this thread paint a gloomy picture for Duke football in my opinion. We've fought tooth and nail since Cut has been here to elbow our way to a seat at the grown-ups table. Seperating sports as some have mentioned with basketball staying with NCAA, and football power conferences making their own rules regarding football, I fear we'll be back on the outside looking in again when football is concerned. I agree one hundred percent with what you say. We're forgetting the mission of the NCAA. It is to provide a regulatory agency for COLLEGE sports. It has no other function. It is under the authority of the member colleges and universities. My contention has been, on this board, that it is up to the presidents of the member institutions and their governing boards. Has anybody heard from them? All competitive sports have rules, rules of eligibility, or competition, or safety, and so on. and the NCAA provides for them in college sports. Without that structure it would be as if nobody is in charge of anything. Come to think of it, that is a problem that goes far beyond college sports, doesn't it?.

lotusland
07-21-2014, 10:24 PM
or perhaps we can make a nice league with ND, stanford, NW, and any other school that is interested in having inter collegiate competition rather than semi-professional mostly minor-league caliber athletes many of whom no one would give two shakes about if it didn't happen to say "alabama" on the front of the jersey

I like your idea but I doubt ND will be down with that. Also I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to watch those games because they would not be televised. Or if they are televised they'll make a bunch of money and have to pay their players and then we're right back where we started. The paradox is that I want purified college sports unsullied by big money but I want to watch all the games on ESPN.

sagegrouse
07-21-2014, 10:32 PM
The gloom-and-doom talk about the NCAA or Olympic sports or whatever is a total joke, if the concern is the increased stipends for college athletes. The numbers I have seen involve a few thousand a year for a fraction of the athletes. At most, it's a million bucks per year. According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/), the top-revenue athletic program (Texas) earns $165 million in revenue. Number 50 is Iowa State at $62 million. (The list seems to leave out private schools, which have different and more limited reporting on athletic budgets.) The rate of increase per year is at least 2-3 percent, and the new "burden" is less than a year's growth of revenue.

Prediction: ten thou a year for 100 athletes won't amount to a hill of beans at the major athletic programs. The doom-saying is so much throat wash.

Duvall
07-21-2014, 10:45 PM
The gloom-and-doom talk about the NCAA or Olympic sports or whatever is a total joke, if the concern is the increased stipends for college athletes. The numbers I have seen involve a few thousand a year for a fraction of the athletes. At most, it's a million bucks per year. According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/), the top-revenue athletic program (Texas) earns $165 million in revenue. Number 50 is Iowa State at $62 million. (The list seems to leave out private schools, which have different and more limited reporting on athletic budgets.) The rate of increase per year is at least 2-3 percent, and the new "burden" is less than a year's growth of revenue.

Prediction: ten thou a year for 100 athletes won't amount to a hill of beans at the major athletic programs. The doom-saying is so much throat wash.

I don't think those kind of stipends threaten college athletics as we know it - they were approved by the power conferences but voted down by the smaller leagues. But that's not all that's on the table right now.

JasonEvans
07-22-2014, 10:23 AM
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

johnb
07-22-2014, 10:39 AM
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
07-22-2014, 02:47 PM
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
07-22-2014, 03:04 PM
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
07-22-2014, 03:28 PM
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
07-22-2014, 04:02 PM
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
07-22-2014, 04:15 PM
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
07-22-2014, 04:54 PM
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
07-22-2014, 07:27 PM
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
07-22-2014, 08:48 PM
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
07-22-2014, 08:53 PM
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
07-22-2014, 09:38 PM
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
07-22-2014, 09:46 PM
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
07-22-2014, 09:50 PM
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
07-22-2014, 09:56 PM
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
07-22-2014, 10:15 PM
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
07-22-2014, 10:21 PM
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
07-22-2014, 10:26 PM
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 (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/03/minor-leaguers-working-poor-lawsuit-mlb-bud-selig)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
07-22-2014, 10:28 PM
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
07-22-2014, 10:31 PM
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
07-22-2014, 10:34 PM
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.

Duvall
07-22-2014, 10:37 PM
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
07-22-2014, 10:51 PM
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
07-22-2014, 10:54 PM
But I'm also in the camp that sees it as a quasi-plantation system.

That's wholly inappropriate.

A-Tex Devil
07-22-2014, 11:11 PM
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
07-23-2014, 12:35 AM
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
07-23-2014, 04:01 AM
Well, they could bring back the National Industrial Basketball League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
07-23-2014, 12:10 PM
Well, they could bring back the National Industrial Basketball League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
07-23-2014, 12:27 PM
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
07-23-2014, 12:52 PM
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
07-23-2014, 01:05 PM
So you want to eliminate college revenue sports?

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

bob blue devil
07-23-2014, 01:27 PM
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
07-23-2014, 02:13 PM
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
07-23-2014, 03:09 PM
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
07-31-2014, 10:03 AM
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/colleges-may-seek-antitrust-exemption-for-ncaa-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
07-31-2014, 10:32 AM
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/colleges-may-seek-antitrust-exemption-for-ncaa-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
07-31-2014, 11:08 AM
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
08-08-2014, 07:00 PM
Fed judge rules NCAA can't limit share of revenue

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

Tripping William
08-08-2014, 07:19 PM
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
08-08-2014, 09:14 PM
According to CBS' Dennis Dodd (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24653888/obannon-decision-signals-the-end-of-the-collegiate-model), 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
08-08-2014, 10:07 PM
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

Newton_14
08-08-2014, 11:50 PM
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

I caught Wes Durham on the radio yesterday giving his thoughts. Like you, he felt this will be more positive than negative in the end, but also thought it will be a gradual change, not a sudden change. I also agree it will have a much bigger impact on Football than Basketball. As long as they don't screw with the Big Dance, I can live with it I guess. Mrs Newton_14 is a Southern Miss grad and loves her Football. We are both nervous to see how this impacts them. They have tried really hard for years to get into the SEC, but twas not to be, and before Fedora screwed them over, they were a solid FB program capable of competing with most schools in the Big 5, sort of like ECU, and the other schools your mentioned.
,
The smaller D1 schools are toast in Football though. (Looking at you App State, gosh I wish you had stayed put) as recruits will try like heck to get into the Big 5. Wake Forest losing recruits to ECU, Middle Tenn St, etc, just ended. That goes out the window. That started happening with the invention of the BCS years back, but this move will end it once an for all.

arnie
08-09-2014, 07:32 AM
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 Evans
I must have missed the ruling that women's sports are exempt from the extra payments. Are you assuming the smaller schools have a "two tier" system and ignore Title IX?

Jarhead
08-09-2014, 07:57 AM
I must have missed the ruling that women's sports are exempt from the extra payments. Are you assuming the smaller schools have a "two tier" system and ignore Title IX?

From what I have read, and as Jason explained, the ruling seems to be very narrow, applying only to football and basketball. Furthermore, it makes no mention of the Big Five conferences. My guess is that higher courts will have to weigh in and maybe even throw it out. Let's wait, and see.

lotusland
08-09-2014, 08:49 AM
There are still a lot of moving pieces in the larger saga but I have a strong suspicion that big money college football is about to be hoisted upon it's own petard.

OldPhiKap
08-09-2014, 08:56 AM
So -- does this mean that Norte Dame is likely to become an ACC football program?

Duvall
08-09-2014, 09:19 AM
So -- does this mean that Norte Dame is likely to become an ACC football program?

No, at least at any time in next 12 years. Why would it?

wilko
08-09-2014, 09:59 AM
The machine that IS college sports is perilously close to making me lose interest completely...

Bottom line - It cant cost me more.

greybeard
08-09-2014, 04:13 PM
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.

This seems to be the crux of it, but also to me reveals the false dichotomy. Apple is enormous; Amazon, enormous; Dell, chopped liver? Big Time College Sports is at the vortex of a multi, multi billion dollar affinity marketing, media bursting, vertically integrated chain of separate industries that produces enormous incomes for scores upon scores of people except for the people who actually put on the show and their bodies on the line every day for what is now a 365 day cycle. Those people get cut if they have to get cut (literally) or if somebody better who comes along.

To say that they are not pros because they cannot make it in the NBA sounds nice but for the fact that it makes no sense. The notion that they are not pros is belied by who is on Cable and who is not, and how many people watch when they are and how many don't when those who play for schools that can only make it onto obscure cable. Tom Brady was no less a professional when he kicked aside the best quarterback recruit Michigan ever had than he was the next season when he effectively did the same thing to the best quarterback that the Patriots ever had. The only difference was, when he was at Michigan he was playing before 100,000 plus every home and many away games instead of half that or less when he went to the pros? Football go to classes (do they go to classes), what 15-20 hours a week, heck, they can go on line lying in bed; they practice and train god knows how many hours 5-6 days a week for the entire year. They produce billions.

Your argument would be like saying that you were only worth getting paid the big bucks if you work for Apple or Amazon rather than the hundreds of other companies in Silicon Valley, that you need to be good enough to land a job in one of the real pro companies before you want to be paid like a pro. You do know where this is going, but, on the very rare chance that you don't, it seems that in the "Valley," they don't need no stinkin' false dichotomies or front organization like the NCAA to provide cover for getting rich off the players without giving them anything approaching their economic worth. They just needed to decide among themselves, decide that is after Steve, as in Jobs, let it be known that there would be no stealing his valued assets away by the offer of better paying jobs or the offerer of those jobs would soon have no jobs to offer, that Mr. Jobs said was the law. And, once Amazon's "leader" decided that hey, it would be oh so much more lucrative to join him then fight him, the peace was made--everybody would keep their cotton-pickin' hands off everybody else's bodies or the everybody that didn't would be the body that would bew buried. (Oy). All this would have gone uncovered if they hadn't manned cigars and such schemes were still hatched and transmitted in smoke filed back rooms. Only smart as that dirtball Steve (sorry-Mr. President-none-of-those-jobs-will-be-coming-back-because-they'll-work 20-hour-days-for-next-to-nothing-and-we-won't) Jobs was, he was too in love with his own toys to be stupid enough to put it all in cyberspace in the form of e-mails.

The class action lawsuits presented actual damages in the 3 billion range, but Jobs (before he kicked) and the other honchos weren't worried, they'd pay the suits off by making a piddling settlement offer, in comparison to what the case was actually worth, which the lawyers would press their clients to accept because the case could last forever, yadayadayada. Well, that because was the BS that the lawyers would tell their clients and actually did, enough of them that is, to get the settlement accepted. The real because was/is that the 1/3 the lawyers would collect, would be enormous for a few hours of work along with paying a service who specializes in such matters to go through the tricky process of putting together a plaintiff class that could be certified under the federal rules.

The only problem was that they drew a judge who was not only bright and ethical way beyond your average bear, way, way beyond, but who also understood that someone, somewhere had to put a stop to this type nonsense. Untied States District Court Lucy H. Koh sent a shot heard round the world. She looked at the e-mails and saw that the case was a lock for the plaintiffs, looked at the $324 million settlement the handful of class action lawyers had pushed through, and went well beyond the judge that held up the travesty of a settlement that the NFL had tried to ramrod through (the judge let an only slightly smaller hot poker to be ramrodded through after the Commissioner greased the skids some). Nope, Judge Koh told the lawyers that they were trying their case in her court, trying it, not settling it, which means that if the jury rules as anyone who can read will have to, and agrees that actual damages are in the range plead $3 bill, you will recall, treble damages makes that recovery 9 large. Of course, the lawyers will have to hire real lawyers who actually know something about trying a case, or, heaven forbid, try it themselves (I doubt that they could if they would).

Back to big time college sports, the lawsuit, the weak and near fraudulent attempt at damage control that the big 5 are about to try to pull off, something like, we'll withdraw, each of us will agree on parameters for paying players on our own, just like the oil companies do with oil prices, and the peace will be made, at .5 cents on the dollar. They just might get away with it. And, you know what, big deal. The big deal is health costs, not just for the time in school, but for a lifetime. That is the BIG COST, THE HUGH COST, and damned if we are not all paying for it, accept if, the farce that the watered down health care law goes down, we will all be paying more in more ways than just dough. Let the games begin. Can't wait to read the next day's paper and see who was injured, and how, and when they are expected back. Tell me that that is not what determines the odds. And, then tell me, over, and over, and over again, my friends, that there is any reason to care about whether these guys get paid. Well, there's the principle of it, I suppose. Yeah, the principle, that counts for something.