End Division I College Sports?

[monkey]

So, with the UNC non-punishment announced, the addidas scandal blossoming and the era of one-and-done making it such that top prospects, even those who stay for more than one year, are becoming increasingly unlikely to graduate, I have to seriously ask: why are division I sports still to exist? Why should Duke continue to support them?

In the past, I've always pooh-poohed those who suggested Duke get out of athletics and become "more Ivy-League" or drop down a division (in the bad-old days of football, not so long ago), but at this point, I'm struggling to see how any of this is consistent with educating students or any semblance of a "normal" student experience at a University. I recall that when I got to Duke (mid 90s) one of the things that was stressed was that the basketball team graduation rates were as good or better than the student body as a whole.

How can any of this tie in the slightest bit to academics or education? Regarding the paying the players debate, I'd rather just shut it all down at this point, and that saddens me. I've loved watching Duke sports, especially the basketball team. But at this point it just all seems like one giant corrupt business to me. I cast no aspersions on any of our players or coaches for this development and do not think that Duke has been particularly part of the problem (although I think the one and done change has significantly devalued what it means to be a Duke student-athlete, although I blame no one for taking the money).

Why should Duke exist in an NCAA that makes a mockery of academics (in the UNC situation) or the ACC (wherein we have to play the aforementioned cheaters)? Why should we compete against programs with shoe money greasing the wheels? Why should DI sports (or the revenue sports) exist when they seem to have little to do with academics, everything to do with a big business and the business is (in most cases) losing money?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post - but actually would like to hear arguments why we should continue our current participation in the whole enterprise and why sports shouldn't go back to being a club level enterprise - diversions for students who are otherwise on the campus to be students.

[BandAlum83]

So, with the UNC non-punishment announced, the addidas scandal blossoming and the era of one-and-done making it such that top prospects, even those who stay for more than one year, are becoming increasingly unlikely to graduate, I have to seriously ask: why are division I sports still to exist? Why should Duke continue to support them?

In the past, I've always pooh-poohed those who suggested Duke get out of athletics and become "more Ivy-League" or drop down a division (in the bad-old days of football, not so long ago), but at this point, I'm struggling to see how any of this is consistent with educating students or any semblance of a "normal" student experience at a University. I recall that when I got to Duke (mid 90s) one of the things that was stressed was that the basketball team graduation rates were as good or better than the student body as a whole.

How can any of this tie in the slightest bit to academics or education? Regarding the paying the players debate, I'd rather just shut it all down at this point, and that saddens me. I've loved watching Duke sports, especially the basketball team. But at this point it just all seems like one giant corrupt business to me. I cast no aspersions on any of our players or coaches for this development and do not think that Duke has been particularly part of the problem (although I think the one and done change has significantly devalued what it means to be a Duke student-athlete, although I blame no one for taking the money).

Why should Duke exist in an NCAA that makes a mockery of academics (in the UNC situation) or the ACC (wherein we have to play the aforementioned cheaters)? Why should we compete against programs with shoe money greasing the wheels? Why should DI sports (or the revenue sports) exist when they seem to have little to do with academics, everything to do with a big business and the business is (in most cases) losing money?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post - but actually would like to hear arguments why we should continue our current participation in the whole enterprise and why sports shouldn't go back to being a club level enterprise - diversions for students who are otherwise on the campus to be students.


Emory University, a well respected university, has as part of its charter that it cannot participate in Division I sports. My son went there. I know it well. In many ways (other than sports) it reminds me of Duke.

The question you ask is valid and topical.

[MCFinARL]

So, with the UNC non-punishment announced, the addidas scandal blossoming and the era of one-and-done making it such that top prospects, even those who stay for more than one year, are becoming increasingly unlikely to graduate, I have to seriously ask: why are division I sports still to exist? Why should Duke continue to support them?

In the past, I've always pooh-poohed those who suggested Duke get out of athletics and become "more Ivy-League" or drop down a division (in the bad-old days of football, not so long ago), but at this point, I'm struggling to see how any of this is consistent with educating students or any semblance of a "normal" student experience at a University. I recall that when I got to Duke (mid 90s) one of the things that was stressed was that the basketball team graduation rates were as good or better than the student body as a whole.

How can any of this tie in the slightest bit to academics or education? Regarding the paying the players debate, I'd rather just shut it all down at this point, and that saddens me. I've loved watching Duke sports, especially the basketball team. But at this point it just all seems like one giant corrupt business to me. I cast no aspersions on any of our players or coaches for this development and do not think that Duke has been particularly part of the problem (although I think the one and done change has significantly devalued what it means to be a Duke student-athlete, although I blame no one for taking the money).

Why should Duke exist in an NCAA that makes a mockery of academics (in the UNC situation) or the ACC (wherein we have to play the aforementioned cheaters)? Why should we compete against programs with shoe money greasing the wheels? Why should DI sports (or the revenue sports) exist when they seem to have little to do with academics, everything to do with a big business and the business is (in most cases) losing money?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post - but actually would like to hear arguments why we should continue our current participation in the whole enterprise and why sports shouldn't go back to being a club level enterprise - diversions for students who are otherwise on the campus to be students.

Well, if you could get all schools--or a substantial majority--to do this, or something like it, it would be a terrific thing. In theory, athletic scholarships provide opportunities for talented athletes to get a college education they might not otherwise be able to afford--but you could accomplish the same purpose by providing need-based aid not linked to athletic ability.

But if only one or two schools do it, then they put themselves at a disadvantage--alumni/ae support and dollars often hinge on continued athletic success, and successful athletic teams bring a lot of publicity to a school. I was teaching at George Mason University in 2006 when the basketball team made the Final Four--and there was a dramatic increase in applications over the next few years, especially from out of state. Some of these applicants had likely never heard of GMU before the Final Four run.

For a school like Duke, whose brand is deeply tied into that well-rounded academics plus athletics plus service combination, dropping D1 athletics, or even going to the Ivy model of D1 athletics without athletic scholarships, would be a pretty significant paradigm shift.

But I don't disagree that it is harder and harder to see the revenue sports especially as having a significant connection to the fundamental academic purpose of universities, even at schools like Duke where they at least try to provide their one-and-done transients, as well as other athletes, with something resembling an actual college student experience.

[BigWayne]

As a start, I am sending a letter to key Duke individuals requesting that they forfeit all games against UNC rather than play against cheaters.

I am looking for some major response from Duke and/or the ACC. If none is forthcoming, I would support the OP's suggestion of withdrawing from D1 sports.

[Scorp4me]

In the past I believe it was suggested because Duke could not keep up with other Division I programs. Now I have to believe it is because other Division I programs cannot keep up with Duke without resorting to cheating. So I think the OP suggestion is certainly a valid one.

[superdave]

Basketball is small potatoes to the college sports world. NCAA or the FBI doing anything in college hoops will not change much.

Football is the revenue source. I have said for years that the BCS playoffs is a stepping stone towards major college football being carved out of the NCAA. I still believe that, although I have no idea what the next step would be (NCAA clamping down on SEC recruiting?).

[Hingeknocker]

With the essentially simultaneous decisions by the NCAA to accept UNC's excuses, but deny the eligibility of NC State's Braxton Beverly for the egregious offense of having taken college classes before his coach at OSU retired - precipitating his transfer to NC State - the only conclusion I can draw is that the NCAA's time overseeing college sports should be over.

I do not think there is any overarching reason to end college sports altogether. A more moral and just system could easily exist within the academic structure. But, so long as the NCAA as currently constituted is in charge, my fandom is going to continue to be degraded by the NCAA's immorality.

Edited to add: I am fully aware that the NCAA is the schools, and the schools are the NCAA. They are one and the same. Duke, by virtue of being a member school, shares complicity in the current state of things, along with every other member school. We have created and allowed to persist the very poison that many are decrying today. Who will step up and lead us to a better place? I'm not optimistic anyone will.

[cspan37421]

We must rebuild. But who will lead us in the rebuilding process? Man, it's got to be someone with the know-how and the elbow grease to lead us to a new land. Who will step up and lead us to a better place? I'm not optimistic anyone will.

Me and KG!

Wait, we don't have the cognitive capacity to lead.

Oh alright - we'll do it!

The first decree is ... to banish UNC from the land!

[elvis14]

Today really makes me think for the first time that major changes have to be made. Earlier this week I was listening to what people had to say about US Soccer and how we don't compete because we don't properly train players from ages 16-22. We need academy teams instead of college teams to compete with the rest of the worlds. So my thought was, why can't a academy team offer a kid a college scholarship? That way our better soccer players can train at a high level and still got to college on scholarship.

After today, I have to think perhaps this model should be exended beyond soccer. With soccer it's about competing with the rest of the world. We have 16-22 year old student athletes (well except for UNCheat) and the rest of the world has 16-22 year old soccer players. Maybe high level D1 sports should be replaced by these academy teams.

I'm not sure what the answer is but with the 'student athlete' being killed off today, the same old same old just isn't good enough anymore.

[rocketeli]

the late Nora Ephron defined porn as "something you're embarrassed it got you off" and college sports are starting to be like porn for me. I've long enjoyed them, but I'm starting to be embarrassed about it. Our beloved Duke significantly lowered it's admission standards for large men who like to hit people--at the expense, no doubt of some very qualified applicants. It's clearly nonsense that institutions of higher education are running professional sports clubs, which are what the upper level programs are. Of course, there are about 4000 colleges and universities in the US and about 2000 belong to the NCAA and about 360 of those play division I sports and about 130 of them play bowl division football--so we have to be careful about what we are talking about (Just as with "pay the players"-which players--the women's swimming team? the men's fencing team? the players at schools that make money only?(about 5 of them) etc. etc.)

My proposition is that the big money/division I teams like Ohio state or Alabama have their donors sponsor a sports club for whatever sports they feel appropriate, and recruit players as employees of said club--with perhaps an option to take courses at free or lowered rates as an employee benefit, but no requirement to do so. The players would be paid openly, given benefits and there would be no question of unqualified people pretending to go to class and occupying seats that actually qualified students could have. The club would then play in its own league, as with the bowl division now. I've read enough message boards for other teams to know that most of their fans don't give a -- about the academic performances of their heroes and people sure like to root for pro teams so fan interest would remain high. Each school could choose to have a branded club for any all or none of their revenue (or other sports) and the true amateurs, the rowers, runners and so on could still enjoy intercollegiate competions sponsored by the NCAA.

[smvalkyries]

This is a sad sad day. I think ending all Div 1 sports is overkill but I also don't relish the thought of trying to continue having real student athletes compete against semi-pro ringers for a
another 21 years. That situation might actually get worse with the NCAA validation of the Carolina Way as newly defined and exposed., I do not believe that Duke can or should sit by and accept this ridiculous decision. Years ago we could have counted on the ACC to have integrity (witness Mike Grosso) but such is apparently no longer the case. I don't know what Duke should do. I suggest we ask Coach K and Coach Cut what they want to do. Some suggestions are (1) Quit the NCAA and all the ramifications thereof, (2) Forfeit or do not schedule schools following the New Carolina Way for at least the next 21 years . I find both too extreme but have no better suggestions. Maybe someone wiser and more calm than I can come up with a better solution.
As a minimum protest I think we should not play any sporting contests with UNC-ch (they get to keep the U too) this year and possibly next. I also think we need to seriously consider founding or supporting some other body to govern college sports and dumping the NCAA or permitting them to just run their own semi-pro league in conjunction with the shoe companies.
The least damaging way I have of looking at this whole thing is that UNC provided no additional benefit of value to their student athletes by essentially giving them academic credits towards "earning" their degree from UNC. I really can't accept this as true as the value of the degree is certainly tainted and diminished yet it does retain some value and therefore gifting credits is and will continue to be impermissible benefit in my mind.

[duke79]

the late Nora Ephron defined porn as "something you're embarrassed it got you off" and college sports are starting to be like porn for me. I've long enjoyed them, but I'm starting to be embarrassed about it. Our beloved Duke significantly lowered it's admission standards for large men who like to hit people--at the expense, no doubt of some very qualified applicants. It's clearly nonsense that institutions of higher education are running professional sports clubs, which are what the upper level programs are. Of course, there are about 4000 colleges and universities in the US and about 2000 belong to the NCAA and about 360 of those play division I sports and about 130 of them play bowl division football--so we have to be careful about what we are talking about (Just as with "pay the players"-which players--the women's swimming team? the men's fencing team? the players at schools that make money only?(about 5 of them) etc. etc.)

My proposition is that the big money/division I teams like Ohio state or Alabama have their donors sponsor a sports club for whatever sports they feel appropriate, and recruit players as employees of said club--with perhaps an option to take courses at free or lowered rates as an employee benefit, but no requirement to do so. The players would be paid openly, given benefits and there would be no question of unqualified people pretending to go to class and occupying seats that actually qualified students could have. The club would then play in its own league, as with the bowl division now. I've read enough message boards for other teams to know that most of their fans don't give a -- about the academic performances of their heroes and people sure like to root for pro teams so fan interest would remain high. Each school could choose to have a branded club for any all or none of their revenue (or other sports) and the true amateurs, the rowers, runners and so on could still enjoy intercollegiate competions sponsored by the NCAA.



I feel your disgust at what has happened to college (or, at least, some Division I schools and certain sports and programs) sports and your suggestion (italicized) above MAY be the best solution to what has become an untenable and unsustainable future for some college sports (mostly football and basketball). I'm not optimistic, though, that any major reform, like what you propose, will take place any time in the near future. There is simply too much money flowing into the coffers at some of these schools (including Duke) for those institutions to walk away from that cash stream. They'll try to make some reforms around the edges but I think the basic setup will continue for the rest of my lifetime.

[DukeandMdFan]

How can any of this tie in the slightest bit to academics or education?

Why should Duke exist in an NCAA that makes a mockery of academics (in the UNC situation) or the ACC (wherein we have to play the aforementioned cheaters)? Why should we compete against programs with shoe money greasing the wheels? Why should DI sports (or the revenue sports) exist when they seem to have little to do with academics, everything to do with a big business and the business is (in most cases) losing money?



Watching sports is an enjoyable activity for the student-body and alumni and is a source of pride, etc. Perhaps the success of athletes inspires students to be more successful in some area(s) of their life.

The athletes are welcome to get an education out of the system if they choose to, but no outside organizations are requiring it.

[Devils Librarian]

My proposition is that the big money/division I teams like Ohio state or Alabama have their donors sponsor a sports club for whatever sports they feel appropriate, and recruit players as employees of said club--with perhaps an option to take courses at free or lowered rates as an employee benefit, but no requirement to do so. The players would be paid openly, given benefits and there would be no question of unqualified people pretending to go to class and occupying seats that actually qualified students could have. The club would then play in its own league, as with the bowl division now. I've read enough message boards for other teams to know that most of their fans don't give a -- about the academic performances of their heroes and people sure like to root for pro teams so fan interest would remain high. Each school could choose to have a branded club for any all or none of their revenue (or other sports) and the true amateurs, the rowers, runners and so on could still enjoy intercollegiate competions sponsored by the NCAA.

I feel like this is the next logical evolution. If today's ruling accomplished nothing else it has shown that the emperor has no clothes. We should bury the fraud that is "amateurism" and allow schools to openly pay their athletes. Coaches, refs, announcers, and the schools are all getting paid so why shouldn't the athletes?

I wonder what the reaction would be across the country if Kevin White announced, "In light of today's ruling by the NCAA, Duke athletics will begin paying it's players."

[Hingeknocker]

My proposition is that the big money/division I teams like Ohio state or Alabama have their donors sponsor a sports club for whatever sports they feel appropriate, and recruit players as employees of said club--with perhaps an option to take courses at free or lowered rates as an employee benefit, but no requirement to do so. The players would be paid openly, given benefits and there would be no question of unqualified people pretending to go to class and occupying seats that actually qualified students could have. The club would then play in its own league, as with the bowl division now. I've read enough message boards for other teams to know that most of their fans don't give a -- about the academic performances of their heroes and people sure like to root for pro teams so fan interest would remain high. Each school could choose to have a branded club for any all or none of their revenue (or other sports) and the true amateurs, the rowers, runners and so on could still enjoy intercollegiate competions sponsored by the NCAA.

This is EXACTLY what every school should do. Duke should do this. If schools do not do this, eventually the players will realize the whole existing structure is a giant scam perpetrated against them, and some other league will sprout up for them. I for one think it would be incredibly foolish for schools to throw away the 100+ years of equity they have built in the passion of their alums and fans, but hey, I'm not in charge.

[fuse]

Given how feckless the NCAA has shown itself to be, I’d love for Duke to take the lead on what’s next.

Can’t be done in a vacuum, of course.

Time for the ALPACA (American League of Paid Athletes in College Association) to rise and displace the NCAA.

[mapei]

I haven't been posting here nearly as much as I once did. Real Life has intervened. But I still read the board often, especially during the season. And today this caught my attention.

FWIW, I find monkey's original post very well stated. It expresses my feelings precisely. Thanks for bringing up this very difficult subject and, to me, logical response. It's time for this conversation, no matter how painful.

[Ranidad]

Great thread and I will definitely give it some more thought. A couple quick thoughts...

1) The money is all in football and to a much lesser extent men's basketball. I think solutions need to focus on those two sports where the money tossed at universities is huge and where a relatively large number of athletes have a chance at a large professional sports payday.

2) To me the NBA's rule on minimum age is what truly exposes the hypocrisy of student-athletes. At least with football, most athletes have a redshirt year and then need at least two years of playing to be ready to jump to the NFL. With that timeline, football players have at least 3 years to complete work toward a degree.

3) Eliminating the crazy geography that football conferences have created for non-revenue sports, could enable universities to get back to a more reasonable travel schedule for other sports, reducing cost and time away from campus for the student athletes.

[Bostondevil]

But if only one or two schools do it, then they put themselves at a disadvantage--alumni/ae support and dollars often hinge on continued athletic success,

In 2016-17, the Iron Dukes received over $39 million in donations.

I've found a few lists ranking universities in terms of federal research grants received. Duke usually comes in around 10th, with figures north of $550 million every year. (They are usually ahead of Harvard and behind Stanford. Johns Hopkins tends to be first.) The federal research money is usually more than half but less than 60% of the total spent on R&D. The rest comes from private donors, corporations, and other sources. Duke could survive just fine without the Iron Dukes.

[MChambers]

Basketball is small potatoes to the college sports world. NCAA or the FBI doing anything in college hoops will not change much.

Football is the revenue source. I have said for years that the BCS playoffs is a stepping stone towards major college football being carved out of the NCAA. I still believe that, although I have no idea what the next step would be (NCAA clamping down on SEC recruiting?).

CTE may be the end of football as we know it, in the not too distant future. I don’t understand how any sport that causes brain injury should be played be educational institutions. If football goes, maybe that radically changes the economics of college sports.

I’m fine with ending Division I sports.

[Scorp4me]

Given how feckless the NCAA has shown itself to be, I’d love for Duke to take the lead on what’s next.

Can’t be done in a vacuum, of course.

Time for the ALPACA (American League of Paid Athletes in College Association) to rise and displace the NCAA.

I agree. Start outright paying the players (not under the table but above board) and setting up a system (such as a sports major as someone else suggested) to make it as easy as possible to for athletes. This should free up scholarships and therefore would no longer deny positions to worthy applicants as someone else suggested. And then dare the NCAA to do something about it, since they obviously can't lol.

[Acymetric]

I agree. Start outright paying the players (not under the table but above board) and setting up a system (such as a sports major as someone else suggested) to make it as easy as possible to for athletes. This should free up scholarships and therefore would no longer deny positions to worthy applicants as someone else suggested. And then dare the NCAA to do something about it, since they obviously can't lol.

I'm not sure it would free up scholarships...the athletic scholarships are not coming out of the general scholarship fund. And assuming we pay the players enough for tuition plus payment, that means even more money going that direction assuming nobody who is getting paid now takes a paycut (and they won't).

[duke2x]

It's going to be an interesting 5-10 years after today's decision. There's no reason to continue the NCAA's tax-exempt status. It made a business decision much more than a legal one not to pursue UNC like it did Notre Dame, GT, FSU, and many others. The other NCAA litigation is probably the larger concern.

Duke isn't going to pay players or lower its curriculum to UNC's or UK's level to compete in sports. CTE is going to be a revenue issue for P5 football schools along with unsustainable TV contracts. (ESPN isn't in Chapter 11 yet, but I think it's heading there.) If football pays in dollars, our strongest sport pays in pennies, and lacrosse and Olympic sports pay in Italian lira. Yes, the HOF coach will retire soon along with Cutcliffe and Dr. White.

I know Duke has changed radically since I was a student in the Dark Ages. It's still going to be one of the top 20 academic institutions in the world, but P5 athletics is still one its selling points relative to its peers. You can't take a train into NYC, Chicago, or San Francisco on a Friday/Saturday night.

The best prediction is usually that nothing will change, but it's going to take strong and creative leadership to navigate these issues. As pessimistic as I am tonight, an updated version of the Ivy/Patriot league (with Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt) is no longer a 0% probability like it was on Monday.

[burnspbesq]

Let’s suppose that my fantasy comes true: universities stop running player development systems for the NFL and NBA without compensation. Every year the best 1,000 16-year-old basketball players in North America go into NBA academies, and the best 2,500 16-year-old football players go into NFL academies. The players that are left are available to play D1 college football basketball. The big money goes away, but there is still revenue, from game day and subscription streaming services that cater to alumni.

The power 5 and the geographically sprawling conferences like the mountain west will wither away over time.

Duke and schools like it will reorganize into geographically more compact leagues of schools with comparable ideas about the role of athletics in the life of the institution.

Ladies and gents, welcome to the Greensboro Coliseum for the first day of the inaugural Carolina-Virginia Conference men’s basketball tournament. In the opening game at noon, the surprise five seed Central takes on VMI, followed by the eight-nine game between Elon and William & Mary. In tonight’s double-header, sixth-seeded Wake takes on Hampton, followed by crosstown rivals VCU and Richmond. The top four seeds—Davidson, Duke, Georgetown, and Virginia—begin play in tomorrow’s quarterfinals.

Tell me you wouldn’t go.

[TKG]

Let’s suppose that my fantasy comes true: universities stop running player development systems for the NFL and NBA without compensation. Every year the best 1,000 16-year-old basketball players in North America go into NBA academies, and the best 2,500 16-year-old football players go into NFL academies. The players that are left are available to play D1 college football basketball. The big money goes away, but there is still revenue, from game day and subscription streaming services that cater to alumni.

The power 5 and the geographically sprawling conferences like the mountain west will wither away over time.

Duke and schools like it will reorganize into geographically more compact leagues of schools with comparable ideas about the role of athletics in the life of the institution.

Ladies and gents, welcome to the Greensboro Coliseum for the first day of the inaugural Carolina-Virginia Conference men’s basketball tournament. In the opening game at noon, the surprise five seed Central takes on VMI, followed by the eight-nine game between Elon and William & Mary. In tonight’s double-header, sixth-seeded Wake takes on Hampton, followed by crosstown rivals VCU and Richmond. The top four seeds—Davidson, Duke, Georgetown, and Virginia—begin play in tomorrow’s quarterfinals.

Tell me you wouldn’t go.

I would go, but one of the reasons this isn't going to happen is that Duke is not going to turn its back on the money we receive from the current structure.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I would go, but one of the reasons this isn't going to happen is that Duke is not going to turn its back on the money we receive from the current structure.

There's the rub. Any entity that walks away from this current corrupt model is effectively ripping up very large checks. And most organizations don't do that.

[TKG]

There's the rub. Any entity that walks away from this current corrupt model is effectively ripping up very large checks. And most organizations don't do that.

It would require a fundamental change in the culture of Duke and its alumni (including me) and the appropriate role of athletics in the University's mission.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It would require a fundamental change in the culture of Duke and its alumni (including me) and the appropriate role of athletics in the University's mission.

I don't think you are wrong. I certainly don't know what it is like to walk away from the sort of luxury, facilities, and expectations afforded by the giant piles of money passed around at top D1 programs.

[TKG]

I don't think you are wrong. I certainly don't know what it is like to walk away from the sort of luxury, facilities, and expectations afforded by the giant piles of money passed around at top D1 programs.

Oh, I am not arguing with you at all. In fact, we are in agreement. I would caution, however, that we , as a group, tread lightly on the self-righteousness, as long as we remain a financial beneficiary of the current system. The old phrase that "you can't get a little bit pregnant" comes to mind.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Oh, I am not arguing with you at all. In fact, we are in agreement. I would caution, however, that we , as a group, tread lightly on the self-righteousness, as long as we remain a financial beneficiary of the current system. The old phrase that "you can't get a little bit pregnant" comes to mind.

We certainly agree. But it is worth pointing out that without TV revenue from Evil Worldwide Leader, we don't have some of the amazing facilities that we enjoy.

Something something putting something back into a bottle.

[TKG]

We certainly agree. But it is worth pointing out that without TV revenue from Evil Worldwide Leader, we don't have some of the amazing facilities that we enjoy.

Something something putting something back into a bottle.

Absolutely. That extends beyond just Cameron and WW. The so-called Olympic sports benefit as well.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Absolutely. That extends beyond just Cameron and WW. The so-called Olympic sports benefit as well.

Proportionally, they benefit far more than the revenue sports. It is a sticky wicket and there are no simple solutions.

Interestingly, there we're lots of people a week ago saying that there simply wasn't a lot of money lying around to "pay for play" with some of the models suggested. Withdrawing from Big League sports would drain FAR more money across the board than coming up with six figures for top athletes.

[SoCalDukeFan]

So, with the UNC non-punishment announced, the addidas scandal blossoming and the era of one-and-done making it such that top prospects, even those who stay for more than one year, are becoming increasingly unlikely to graduate, I have to seriously ask: why are division I sports still to exist? Why should Duke continue to support them?

In the past, I've always pooh-poohed those who suggested Duke get out of athletics and become "more Ivy-League" or drop down a division (in the bad-old days of football, not so long ago), but at this point, I'm struggling to see how any of this is consistent with educating students or any semblance of a "normal" student experience at a University. I recall that when I got to Duke (mid 90s) one of the things that was stressed was that the basketball team graduation rates were as good or better than the student body as a whole.

How can any of this tie in the slightest bit to academics or education? Regarding the paying the players debate, I'd rather just shut it all down at this point, and that saddens me. I've loved watching Duke sports, especially the basketball team. But at this point it just all seems like one giant corrupt business to me. I cast no aspersions on any of our players or coaches for this development and do not think that Duke has been particularly part of the problem (although I think the one and done change has significantly devalued what it means to be a Duke student-athlete, although I blame no one for taking the money).

Why should Duke exist in an NCAA that makes a mockery of academics (in the UNC situation) or the ACC (wherein we have to play the aforementioned cheaters)? Why should we compete against programs with shoe money greasing the wheels? Why should DI sports (or the revenue sports) exist when they seem to have little to do with academics, everything to do with a big business and the business is (in most cases) losing money?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post - but actually would like to hear arguments why we should continue our current participation in the whole enterprise and why sports shouldn't go back to being a club level enterprise - diversions for students who are otherwise on the campus to be students.

I agree that Duke should try to drop Div I football and basketball. Very well stated.

I understand that Duke does get benefit from participation in these sports. Duke is one of a few schools that offers students a well recognized excellent degree as well as the opportunity to experience excellence in big time college sports. However that benefit comes at a cost. For one we admit basketball players who clearly intend on staying for one year and in some cases less than that as they drop out after the season to get ready for the NBA. Our coaches have to recruit in the murky world of AAU coaches, shoe companies and would be agents trying to control the fate of these future Duke students. Our teams have to compete against an arch rival who is so willing to do demean their so-called university that they will spend $18 million to prove that sham classes are not fraudulent. We have to be part of the NCAA, which is ridiculous in its enforcement.

Yes I think Duke does this much better than most. I am sure that our one and done and others on our football and basketball teams get more out of their college experience than they would have at other schools and that many are fine young men. I just think the the cost outweighs the benefit.

There are universities that do fine without Division I sports. Personally I like the competing at the highest levels in the other sports. I think students that can handle the demands Duke academics and the demands of competing in a Division I sport are exceptional people and Duke benefits from their presence. The non-monetary cost of these sports, to me, is much less than football or basketball.

SoCal

[MCFinARL]

In 2016-17, the Iron Dukes received over $39 million in donations.

I've found a few lists ranking universities in terms of federal research grants received. Duke usually comes in around 10th, with figures north of $550 million every year. (They are usually ahead of Harvard and behind Stanford. Johns Hopkins tends to be first.) The federal research money is usually more than half but less than 60% of the total spent on R&D. The rest comes from private donors, corporations, and other sources. Duke could survive just fine without the Iron Dukes.

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

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

[quahog174]

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

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

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

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


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

Give it a go?

[arnie]

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

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


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

Give it a go?

Why oh why is VPI on your list? Did you mean UVA?

[quahog174]

Why oh why is VPI on your list? Did you mean UVA?

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

[duke4ever19]

I posted the gist of this pipe-dream elsewhere, but I'd thought I'd share it here.

I wish there was a way that the NCAA was a part of -- or partnered with -- the accreditation agency. If the NCAA determined that academic fraud was committed, then they would corroborate that with the an arm of the accreditation agency, which would examine the same set of evidence and either back up the NCAA up on their findings, or propose some alteration/amendation where necessary.

Then a school like UNC would have to either admit it's wrongdoings, accept the proposed penalties, or, by refusing to recognize it's academic wrongdoing, risk expulsion from the NCAA and also signal to the accreditation agency their unwillingness to keep certain courses at a level worthy of accreditation.

If you disagree with both the NCAA and the accreditation agency that your courses were so poor as to constitute academic fraud, or improper benefits (which would be any course below accreditation standards) then you obviously would be welcomed to continue those courses, but without accreditation from that agency.

This would put the focus back on "student-athlete." Either keep your courses at acceptable standards or go somewhere else to find accreditation.

[Ian]

Yes, get rid of it.

That's why I've decided to stop participating and watching any NCAA event. Because clearly schools are not in position to handle the temptations of also running professional sports programs.

Think about. UNC was willing to risk their academic integrity and reputation in order to win basketball games. What does tell you? That tells you UNC-Chapel Hill is actually a professional sports team that also happens to have a school as one of its department. The priorities have completely inverted, and athletic repuation is placed as a higher priority than academic reputation.

Even at places like Duke, the temptation to place the athletic repuation in front of the academic repution only grows with time, as that is the one broadcasted on TV and the academic repuation is relegated to some rankings article of a magazine that few ever reads.

Even on this board people talk about how the basketball successes have contributed greatly to Duke's public reputation, how long before somebody decides the basketball successes contributes *more* to Duke's reputation than any academic shortfalls will hurt?

I don't think any school's adminstrator is equipped to handle these temptations correctly and I don't think it's fair to even subject them to these temptations.

Get out before getting sucked in deeper, or it will only be a matter of time before it happens here.

[BigWayne]

Yes, get rid of it.

That's why I've decided to stop participating and watching any NCAA event. Because clearly schools are not in position to handle the temptations of also running professional sports programs.

Think about. UNC was willing to risk their academic integrity and reputation in order to win basketball games. What does tell you? That tells you UNC-Chapel Hill is actually a professional sports team that also happens to have a school as one of its department. The priorities have completely inverted, and athletic repuation is placed as a higher priority than academic reputation.

Even at places like Duke, the temptation to place the athletic repuation in front of the academic repution only grows with time, as that is the one broadcasted on TV and the academic repuation is relegated to some rankings article of a magazine that few ever reads.

Even on this board people talk about how the basketball successes have contributed greatly to Duke's public reputation, how long before somebody decides the basketball successes contributes *more* to Duke's reputation than any academic shortfalls will hurt?

I don't think any school's adminstrator is equipped to handle these temptations correctly and I don't think it's fair to even subject them to these temptations.

Get out before getting sucked in deeper, or it will only be a matter of time before it happens here.

I did not watch any NCAA games today. Until the NCAA rights its ship or at least Duke comes out with a forceful statement and actions to respond to the UNC debacle, I won't be watching. I haven't watched the NBA since the strike in the summer of 1995.

[arnie]

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

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

[YmoBeThere]

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

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

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

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

/sarcasm

[MCFinARL]

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

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


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

Give it a go?

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

[Richard Berg]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mgtr]

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

[Bostondevil]

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

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

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

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

[RPS]

I appreciate this thread. All participants deserve thanks.

My somewhat random thoughts follow.

There is no plausible connection between the mission of a great university and D1 sports as presently constituted. None.

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

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

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

* As reported by USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/07/06/colleges-spending-more-their-athletes-because-they-can/449433001/): "In 2016 [the most recent year for which data is available], Texas A&M’s [football program] generated revenue of more than $194 million — a total that led Division I — exceeded its operating expenses by more than $57 million. But its revenue and surplus amounts, both driven by fundraising related to a massive football stadium refurbishment, occurred against the backdrop of $57 million in football- and other capital-project spending."

Edited to add footnote.

[RPS]

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

After last season, Paul Weir left his job as head coach at New Mexico State to become the head coach at New Mexico. Really. Weir and his former employer are arguing about the terms of employment separation, including a buyout that Weir allegedly owes. There is also a dispute about Weir's being prohibited by a contractual non-solicitation clause from recruiting certain players for UNM he had previously recruited for NMSU. Weir's attorney described (https://nmfishbowl.com/2017/10/19/weir-aggies-slog-toward-arbitration/) this part of the dispute as follows (emphasis supplied).


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

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

[English]

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

After last season, Paul Weir left his job as head coach at New Mexico State to become the head coach at New Mexico. Really. Weir and his former employer are arguing about the terms of employment separation, including a buyout that Weir allegedly owes. There is also a dispute about Weir's being prohibited by a contractual non-solicitation clause from recruiting certain players for UNM he had previously recruited for NMSU. Weir's attorney described (https://nmfishbowl.com/2017/10/19/weir-aggies-slog-toward-arbitration/) this part of the dispute as follows (emphasis supplied).



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

Interesting, certainly.

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

[RPS]

When I (er, my parents) wrote a check to the Duke Bursar's office every year for tuition, room, and board, was I/they a customer intending to transact business?When I wrote my checks payable to Duke (and, sadly, they were my checks), I never thought of myself as a customer transacting business. I thought of myself as a student. Elsewhere, I have been a patient, a client, a member and, sometimes, a customer.


Did it sully the university to be involved in such a transaction?No.


Was it different when my brother went on recruiting trips to schools pursuing his athletic talents in hopes of receiving financial remuneration in the form of tuition, room, and board?Yes. In my experience (having gone on a number of such trips with my son), it is *wildly* different.


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


Are you suggesting the coaches are the customers?In the context of the Weir dispute, the athletes are the customers solicited by coaches.


Or that universities shouldn't have customers?At the risk of veering into PP territory, one of the great problems with education today is that universities treat prospective students like customers, angling for their business.


I'm unclear how a university's mission is compromised because higher education and all else involved costs money.That isn't the problem.

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

[luvdahops]

I appreciate this thread. All participants deserve thanks.

My somewhat random thoughts follow.

There is no plausible connection between the mission of a great university and D1 sports as presently constituted. None.

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

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

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

* As reported by USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/07/06/colleges-spending-more-their-athletes-because-they-can/449433001/): "In 2016 [the most recent year for which data is available], Texas A&M’s [football program] generated revenue of more than $194 million — a total that led Division I — exceeded its operating expenses by more than $57 million. But its revenue and surplus amounts, both driven by fundraising related to a massive football stadium refurbishment, occurred against the backdrop of $57 million in football- and other capital-project spending."

Edited to add footnote.

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

[AnotherNYCDukeFan]

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

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

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

[swood1000]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[RPS]

I think the Duke Development Office would disagree vehemently with your #2 above (and #1 by extension). I have no idea how much money from the Duke Athletic Program flows back to academics. But success in sports, especially in basketball, is a huge factor in fundraising, and in keeping alums engaged generally. And those efforts absolutely do impact the academic mission favorably.I know the DDO believes that and it is probably true. But Duke is almost surely an outlier. The broader context suggests that while applications do go up modestly with athletic success, increased donations go almost entirely to sports programs (as per the link above).

[sagegrouse]

I appreciate this thread. All participants deserve thanks.

My somewhat random thoughts follow.\
There is no plausible connection between the mission of a great university and D1 sports as presently constituted. None.
Oh, this is fun!! IMHO (where the H ran away with a cute cheerleader many, many years ago). There is a lot more than a "plausible connection." It is the way academics and athletics are organized in America. A number of top universities and virtually all of the public universities have defined themselves as having broad academic missions that includes competitive intercollegiate athletics. I believe this is at least a "plausible connection."


The monetary impact of D1 sports on schools is dramatically overstated. I haven't dug into Duke's numbers, but sports money contributions to academics nationwide is negligible.* Sports money pays for sports (and sometimes not even that). Thus, non-revenue sports and some largely unquantifiable school experiential benefit would be hurt by a new paradigm, but pretty much nothing else.
The "Duke family" of fans and alumni provide very generous support to Duke. While it is not totally due to having strong athletics, it is partially attributable to it.
Moreover, while not the same thing, Duke's reputation as a premier academic institution among the public at large is significantly helped by its high-profile athletic programs. I believe the public reps of Duke, Northwestern, Stanford and Vanderbilt are superior to those of Emory, Wash. U., Hopkins, and the U. of Chicago. The Ivies are a different kettle of fish, with HYP being their own strong brands.


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

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


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

* As reported by USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/07/06/colleges-spending-more-their-athletes-because-they-can/449433001/): "In 2016 [the most recent year for which data is available], Texas A&M’s [football program] generated revenue of more than $194 million — a total that led Division I — exceeded its operating expenses by more than $57 million. But its revenue and surplus amounts, both driven by fundraising related to a massive football stadium refurbishment, occurred against the backdrop of $57 million in football- and other capital-project spending."

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

[RPS]

It is the way academics and athletics are organized in America. A number of top universities and virtually all of the public universities have defined themselves as having broad academic missions that includes competitive intercollegiate athletics. I believe this is at least a "plausible connection."If "because it's done that way" is all that is required, a university's mission could be furthered by anything a university decides to do or allow.


The "Duke family" of fans and alumni provide very generous support to Duke. While it is not totally due to having strong athletics, it is partially attributable to it.As noted previously, Duke is almost surely an outlier.


I expect we will see gradual but ultimately massive changes in the rules before we give up on college football. And the same with the NFL. But I agree with you that the present situation cannot continue.I wonder if leather helmets would help. They would make it much tougher to use one's head as a weapon.


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

[sagegrouse]

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

Likewise.

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

[MartyClark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[burnspbesq]

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

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

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

[CDu]

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

Rugby has a lot of head injuries, and deaths. And a lot of broken faces. We just hear less about it in the US because it isn’t a prominent US sport.

But, there are several factors related to the rules of the game that help reduce them in rugby:
1. You have to wrap up when tackling, as part of the rules;
2. You don’t have a helmet, so you have incentive not to lead with your head;
3. There are no first downs, so yardage is less critical (except near the try line), so less need to stop a guy in his tracks;
4. There are no “blow you up” plays: can’t hit someone without the ball, passes are all backwards so the “receiver” can see the defender, few hits from defenders running at high speeds, etc.

Basically, unless you can legislate out high-speed, high-force collisions, it is going to be very hard to reduce concussions in football.

[Wander]

Basically, unless you can legislate out high-speed, high-force collisions, it is going to be very hard to reduce concussions in football.

Kickoffs and punt returns should probably just be eliminated from the game. Start new drives at the 20 yard line and make all punts end in fair catches or downing the ball. It's not a perfect solution, but it would help what you're getting at - and honestly would have relatively minimal effect on the game.

On the non-concussion side of things, the Bowls should just be 100% eliminated.

I'd like to see us try these two things before completely giving up on the current model like the thread topic asks.

[Mal]

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

Agreed on this. I suppose we can debate how broadly worded a "mission" is, but to the extent that it's something along the lines of (a) further humankind's understanding of ourselves and our universe through research and academics, and (b) spread that knowledge through the education of individual citizens, it's quite unclear to me how fielding a football team contributes to that in any but the most superficial and indirect ways. The benefits people are talking about in this thread - camaraderie amongst students, branding for the purpose of increasing reputation and (presumably) to then attract better scholars, etc. - are rather indirectly related to those couple of fundamental purposes.

It's difficult to disentangle a university's popularity, acceptance rates and USNews rankings and fluctuations among those things from true institutional strength, I know. And a great many of us, myself included, are from a group that would likely not have ended up at Duke but for the presence of Mike Krzyzewski. We know that there's some kind of intangible value to the shared student experience, because we've all enjoyed it, and it feels like ingratitude to minimize that or say we think our successors at Duke shouldn't have that. No doubt there would be subtle differences over time in the student body's collective psyche and style and common interests were it not for D-I sports.

But I think it's worth noting that, while nice to have, a hot brand for undergraduate admissions is not really what universities are supposed to be trying to achieve, and that at the end of the day, athletic success mostly begets more money for athletics programs. It's a pyramid scheme. The more success a program has, the more money the coaching staff needs, and the nicer offices they need, and the more stadium expansion is needed, and the more ancillary neither academic nor athletic staff is needed for legal and licensing and logistics, and you have to build better practice facilities, and separate amazing dorms for athletes, and on and on. Alabama football has contributed jack to the education given to the average non-football playing undergrad in Tuscaloosa, in other words. It's a wholly separate business.

Look at the top 20 endowments amongst U.S. schools. 6 of the 8 Ivies, 5 more without big sports (MIT, UofC, WashU, Emory, Rice), the 4 "nerdy" big sports schools (Stanford, NW, Notre Dame and Duke), and then some of the biggest state school systems (Texas, California, Michigan, UVa), most of which are system-wide numbers. The outlier seems to be the Texas A&M system. One could argue that among those schools, at best TAMU, Duke and Notre Dame have substantially more money than they might otherwise because of success in a revenue sport. I'd even take Duke out of that, because at the end of the day I don't think Melinda Gates and Peter Nicolas and co. were going to decline to give however many hundreds of millions they did if their alumni pride hadn't been juiced by a couple hoops natties. Dropping out of the Big Ten hasn't stopped the University of Chicago from becoming universally recognized as one of the world's greatest universities despite being only 125 years old.

The fact that Williams and Amherst have endowments 2x that of Kentucky's is meaningful. The fact that the highest paid public employee in most states is a football or basketball coach, and oftentimes by a factor of 10, is disturbing. Collegiate sports have, by buying into (and helping nurture) the rabid obsession with sports that runs through American culture in the 21st century, helped to ruin youth sports for many, as well.

I've been steadily pulling back from college sports for quite awhile now. Which, I know, is a funny thing to say here on the "Duke Basketball Report" site. But there's just so much rot. I really don't think it would hurt Duke's academic output, or reputation, in any but the most superficial ways if we were to just lead the way and drop out altogether or go D-III or something. In fact, I think it would be an incredibly powerful statement, for a university that's built one of the most successful brands in college sports to say "Thanks, that was fun, but this is no longer healthy and we value our academic reputation too much to continue associating with y'all."

[Richard Berg]

Even if we grant the undergrad recruiting angle, I don't see how that's an endorsement of college sports as a system. Recruiting is a fundamentally zero-sum game. Luring top applicants from D3 schools to D1 schools does not improve the educational opportunities available to students within the system whatsoever; it merely shuffles them around.

[uh_no]

Even if we grant the undergrad recruiting angle, I don't see how that's an endorsement of college sports as a system. Recruiting is a fundamentally zero-sum game. Luring top applicants from D3 schools to D1 schools does not improve the educational opportunities available to students within the system whatsoever; it merely shuffles them around.

only sorta-kinda.

recruiting may bring people to school who may otherwise not be in ANY school.

[Mal]

recruiting may bring people to school who may otherwise not be in ANY school.

This is very much at the margins, however. We're not talking about many students there in the grand scheme, and of course it's debatable what percentage of those who wouldn't be in any school were it not for minor league football are particularly well-served by being in college, where they're essentially working full-time at an entertainment job with a short shelf life and health hazards. Not to mention that it may end up denying spots at schools for non-athletes.

Sometimes, when I let the hopeless idealist in my head take over, I like to imagine what we could do as a society if we took just half of the passion and energy and $$ we throw at college football and basketball, and used it on direct efforts to expand educational opportunity and build new universities and colleges instead.

[Bostondevil]

The fact that the highest paid public employee in most states is a football or basketball coach

This meme is not true. Roy Williams is not a public employee. Neither is Nick Saban. Roy Cooper has no say in the hiring or firing of UNC coaches. State legislatures do not determine their salaries. Public universities receive monies from the state coffers but that is entirely different from being a public employee.

If receiving public funds makes employees of that institution or corporation public employees, then the highest paid public employee in the country is the CEO of Lockheed Martin.

Not picking on you - but this particular factoid is a pet peeve of mine.

[Mal]

This meme is not true. Roy Williams is not a public employee. Neither is Nick Saban. Roy Cooper has no say in the hiring or firing of UNC coaches. State legislatures do not determine their salaries. Public universities receive monies from the state coffers but that is entirely different from being a public employee.

If receiving public funds makes employees of that institution or corporation public employees, then the highest paid public employee in the country is the CEO of Lockheed Martin.

Fine. University presidents are also not public employees, then, by your standard. And, of course, that's the common comparison. Would "employees or independent contractors of public universities or other similar institutions" work? Either way, the substantive point doesn't really change.

[RPS]

This meme is not true. Roy Williams is not a public employee. Neither is Nick Saban. Roy Cooper has no say in the hiring or firing of UNC coaches. State legislatures do not determine their salaries. Public universities receive monies from the state coffers but that is entirely different from being a public employee.Not to be critical because I am truly curious...

Why then are those salaries generally reported by state controllers? For example, coaches' salaries at public universities in my state (California) are published here (http://publicpay.ca.gov/) along with those of all state employees. Moreover, state school coaches' salaries are routinely available while those of private schools are not.

[Duke95]

If receiving public funds makes employees of that institution or corporation public employees, then the highest paid public employee in the country is the CEO of Lockheed Martin.


That's not it though. A public university is primarily funded though public means.
That's what makes Saban, etc. public employees. They're employed by a public university.