Page 29 of 36 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 714
  1. #561
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinDevil View Post
    This is beyond preposterous. They’re not going to continue the ncaa because they can’t pay for the minor sport championships, lol.
    I'm not saying they can't pay for these sports championships, I'm saying they have no interest (or financial incentive) in doing so. I believe that if these schools peel off in football they will still be a part of the NCAA in other sports. As I said, it is all about money. There is a money advantage in putting the 30 or so big-time football schools together... there is no such advantage in basketball because it is a different pool of teams and the pool of teams is deeper. UMBC can beat the top team in the country in hoops... but smaller football schools ain't beating Bama or Clemson.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  2. #562
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinDevil View Post
    This is beyond preposterous. Theyíre not going to continue the ncaa because they canít pay for the minor sport championships, lol.
    No but the remaining schools will need to maintain a governing body. So a version of the ncaa will survive albeit smaller and hopefully less cumbersome.

  3. #563
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I'm not saying they can't pay for these sports championships, I'm saying they have no interest (or financial incentive) in doing so. I believe that if these schools peel off in football they will still be a part of the NCAA in other sports. As I said, it is all about money. There is a money advantage in putting the 30 or so big-time football schools together... there is no such advantage in basketball because it is a different pool of teams and the pool of teams is deeper. UMBC can beat the top team in the country in hoops... but smaller football schools ain't beating Bama or Clemson.
    I agree. The football schools canít ignore title IX just because they ditched the NCAA.

  4. #564
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    I agree. The football schools canít ignore title IX just because they ditched the NCAA.
    bingo.

    The NCAA exists because it needs to exist. If they peel away, there will be something else in its place. Because of title 9 (and the general inclination of schools to field more sports than just football), it effectively must. At it's root, it is still just voluntary association of schools.
    basketball is back, baby!

  5. #565
    Speaking of Title IX, the law firm hired by the NCAA to examine issues of equity just recommended to hold the men's and women's Final Four at the same site (presumably at the same time, well at least same weekend). I guess that's similar to Grand Slam tennis setup or how the McDonald's All America game does it -- certainly seems doable.

  6. #566
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Speaking of Title IX, the law firm hired by the NCAA to examine issues of equity just recommended to hold the men's and women's Final Four at the same site (presumably at the same time, well at least same weekend). I guess that's similar to Grand Slam tennis setup or how the McDonald's All America game does it -- certainly seems doable.
    women's final 4 on friday, men's final four on saturday, finals back to back on monday? I'm game. that would be epic. (and maybe more importantly help alleviate the potential issue of the stadium being empty for the women...though they do get decent attendance for the F4)
    basketball is back, baby!

  7. #567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Speaking of Title IX, the law firm hired by the NCAA to examine issues of equity just recommended to hold the men's and women's Final Four at the same site (presumably at the same time, well at least same weekend). I guess that's similar to Grand Slam tennis setup or how the McDonald's All America game does it -- certainly seems doable.
    I'm sure it can be done. As a practical matter, however, combining the men's and women's Final Fours at the same location on the same weekend will pose some thorny logistical problems -- mainly for the attending fans who are trying to secure hotel rooms and restaurant reservations.

  8. #568
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    I'm sure it can be done. As a practical matter, however, combining the men's and women's Final Fours at the same location on the same weekend will pose some thorny logistical problems -- mainly for the attending fans who are trying to secure hotel rooms and restaurant reservations.
    the women's F4 is generally hosted in an NBA arena...significantly less load than the men. I'd assume most of the major cities that host the F4 could handle the moderate increase...espcially if they put the two on the same ticket.

    Having enough gym equipment on the other hand.... :troll_face:
    basketball is back, baby!

  9. #569
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Speaking of Title IX, the law firm hired by the NCAA to examine issues of equity just recommended to hold the men's and women's Final Four at the same site (presumably at the same time, well at least same weekend). I guess that's similar to Grand Slam tennis setup or how the McDonald's All America game does it -- certainly seems doable.
    Having the men and women in the same city would take away from the women. The women would likely play second fiddle to the men if they are in the same place, vs. being the biggest show in town if they are somewhere else.

  10. #570
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    Having the men and women in the same city would take away from the women. The women would likely play second fiddle to the men if they are in the same place, vs. being the biggest show in town if they are somewhere else.
    I'm not so sure that's true. The paige beuckers/jalen suggs thing was trumped up from both sides, and from a TV perspective for instance, I believe the women would relish the larger stage.

    Yes there would be more interest in the men, but that's true already. I don't think it much matters if they're in the same city or not. At least if they are, the same hype must be provided to both, instead of, say, not providing basic gym equipment or sufficient meals to the women...
    basketball is back, baby!

  11. #571
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Ticketing/parking would be a nightmare for the championship games if held on the same day. Play the women's championship at what, 12:00, and then kick everyone out of the lots to make room for the men's game?

    Good luck with that. I'd bet the women would much rather play in prime time, in front of their own fans, and for their fans at home knowing that nobody has to take off from work to watch on TV.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  12. #572
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    UMBC can beat the top team in the country in hoops... but smaller football schools ain't beating Bama or Clemson.
    Appalachian State says "hi".

    (Yes, I know Michigan is no Bama or Clemson nowadays)

  13. #573
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I'm not saying they can't pay for these sports championships, I'm saying they have no interest (or financial incentive) in doing so. I believe that if these schools peel off in football they will still be a part of the NCAA in other sports. As I said, it is all about money. There is a money advantage in putting the 30 or so big-time football schools together... there is no such advantage in basketball because it is a different pool of teams and the pool of teams is deeper. UMBC can beat the top team in the country in hoops... but smaller football schools ain't beating Bama or Clemson.
    I donít see a system wherein the big schools have their own association with their own set of rules for football, but are part of the NCAA or similar organization for all the rest of the sports. Iím picturing the football players having few if any rules around taking direct payments during and after recruiting, academic performance, or many other things. But the basketball players and the tennis players and the swimmers and all the rest of the athletes DO have to follow NCAA rules in their recruitment and in their on campus conduct. I just donít see that going over real well in the athletic dorms. Big John the defensive tackle has essentially no classes to go to and can sit around and cash checks and do whatever else he wants to do all day long, while Big John the power forward has no income other than NIL if he can get any, and has to go to class and perform? Very hard to coexist happily.

  14. #574
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    We're all kinda just spitballing on this right now, but if you're correct and that's the way it plays out, I wonder how legitimate the basketball champion of the super-association would be viewed by the public if the tournament did not include non-football powers such as Duke, Kansas, Gonzaga, Villanova, and others similar to that group.
    How long will those schools stay basketball powers if the bulk of the NIL money and all the football money is in the super-association? If I'm right, your point will be an issue for 5 or so years and then it won't anymore.

    While the University of Chicago was in the Big 10, over a 25-year stretch Chicago's football team won 7 Big 10 championships and 2 national championships; and Chicago's basketball team won 7 Big 10 championships and 3 national championships (Helms). They were a big time program but either couldn't or chose not to commit the financial resources necessary to stay relevant in big-time athletics when the university's main mission was academics. Chicago quit the Big 10 in 1939, the same year the NCAA tournament began, went independent for a period of years then drifted off to Division III. Despite this big-time program not being part of the tournament, the public was still interested and the tournament grew into what it has become. And today, nobody thinks about the University of Chicago in this regard. If the big schools form a super-association, the same will eventually become true of any school that isn't part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by hustleplays View Post
    You may be right, Kedsy. My view is conjecture, no question. You make two important points: [1] the various "lesser" sports not being able to support their own respective bureaucracies; and [2] the big, moneymaking schools would be running the show for all sports. Taking those two points as true, do you see the major schools caring enough about the non-money making sports to support them? And what do you see happening to the schools without money-making football programs?
    What I envision happening is the same thing that currently happens to, e.g., Division II and Division III. The schools will still field teams, but they either won't have scholarships or they won't have as many scholarships and won't be as competitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I'm not saying they can't pay for these sports championships, I'm saying they have no interest (or financial incentive) in doing so. I believe that if these schools peel off in football they will still be a part of the NCAA in other sports. As I said, it is all about money. There is a money advantage in putting the 30 or so big-time football schools together... there is no such advantage in basketball because it is a different pool of teams and the pool of teams is deeper. UMBC can beat the top team in the country in hoops... but smaller football schools ain't beating Bama or Clemson.
    I disagree with your assessment. The big schools are still colleges and universities. They still want sports to be part of the college/university experience and will still try to field teams in non-revenue sports. What they don't want is a holier-than-thou NCAA, run in large part by smaller schools with different agendas, telling them what to do. I can't imagine them sticking with the NCAA for any sport. They'll take control and run all the sports however they please. Title IX is an issue, certainly, but in the long run it may not end up being insurmountable. The next time they get a favorable Congress after they split off, for example, I wouldn't be surprised if they put heavy lobbying pressure to carve out an exception for football, and if they are successful, that alone might alleviate most of the Title IX pressure.

    Finally, to those who say the main reason people tune in to the NCAA tournament is first round upsets, I'd note that in 2021 the average TV audience for the first four days (2 rounds) was 8.5 million and the average TV audience for the Final Four games was almost twice that, at 16.9 million.

  15. #575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Speaking of Title IX, the law firm hired by the NCAA to examine issues of equity just recommended to hold the men's and women's Final Four at the same site (presumably at the same time, well at least same weekend). I guess that's similar to Grand Slam tennis setup or how the McDonald's All America game does it -- certainly seems doable.
    I may be missing something here, but isn't this recommendation by the NCAA's law firm, in the larger context, a rather small potatoes issue? [Dear passengers, yes, we have been struck by an iceberg, but in the interim, please remember to renew your daily pool passes.]

    It strikes me as another indication of a fatally inward-looking bureaucracy trying to maintain relevance.
    ďI love it. Coach, when we came here, we had a three-hour meeting about the core values. If you really represent the core values, it means diving on the floor, sacrificing your body for your teammates, no matter how much youíre up by or how much youíre down by, always playing hard.Ē -- Zion

  16. #576

    What association will they belong to?

    "What I envision happening is the same thing that currently happens to, e.g., Division II and Division III. The schools will still field teams, but they either won't have scholarships or they won't have as many scholarships and won't be as competitive." [from Kedsy]

    Kedsy, thank you for your response to my questions. In your scenario, if a Big Time Football School fields teams with fewer/no scholarships, what association will they belong to? Will their various sports compete in different divisions and therefore different associations?
    ďI love it. Coach, when we came here, we had a three-hour meeting about the core values. If you really represent the core values, it means diving on the floor, sacrificing your body for your teammates, no matter how much youíre up by or how much youíre down by, always playing hard.Ē -- Zion

  17. #577
    Quote Originally Posted by hustleplays View Post
    "What I envision happening is the same thing that currently happens to, e.g., Division II and Division III. The schools will still field teams, but they either won't have scholarships or they won't have as many scholarships and won't be as competitive." [from Kedsy]

    Kedsy, thank you for your response to my questions. In your scenario, if a Big Time Football School fields teams with fewer/no scholarships, what association will they belong to? Will their various sports compete in different divisions and therefore different associations?
    My statement that you quoted was meant to describe the teams that were not in the super-association. I imagine within the super-association, the vast majority of teams will be the equivalent of Division I, just like they are now (whether they give a full complement of scholarships or not). The teams that are *not* in the super-association will eventually end up the rough equivalent of Division II or Division III.

    I strongly doubt many if any schools will field some teams in the super-association and others in the successor to the NCAA. Schools without money-making football programs (or at least the potential for money-making football programs) will probably not be invited to the new super-association for any sport.

  18. #578
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    The ACC needs to be proactive to avoid either irrelevance or destruction. Same with Duke athletics. Those interests may or may not be aligned.
    As it happens, the dad of one of the boys who plays little-kid basketball with my son is the AD at a school in the WAC. At one point, he was in the athletic department at Maryland (post ACC days). His view was that no one knows what will happen, but that the Big 12 could stave off implosion by making decisive moves to stabilize itself ó moves it was reluctant to make in the past.

    He thought both an ACC - SEC merger and Duke ending up on the outside looking in when the music stops were, shall we say, paranoid ramblings of a fan base that doesnít realize how good they have it. Then again, he also told me that the Duke football program is in much better shape than I give it credit for, so Iím not sure how much of his perspective is from seeing the bigger picture and how much of it is from not paying particularly close attention to Duke.
    Carolina delenda est

  19. #579
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post

    He thought both an ACC - SEC merger and Duke ending up on the outside looking in when the music stops were, shall we say, paranoid ramblings of a fan base that doesnít realize how good they have it.
    I resemble that.

  20. #580
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    My statement that you quoted was meant to describe the teams that were not in the super-association. I imagine within the super-association, the vast majority of teams will be the equivalent of Division I, just like they are now (whether they give a full complement of scholarships or not). The teams that are *not* in the super-association will eventually end up the rough equivalent of Division II or Division III.

    I strongly doubt many if any schools will field some teams in the super-association and others in the successor to the NCAA. Schools without money-making football programs (or at least the potential for money-making football programs) will probably not be invited to the new super-association for any sport.
    I disagree. I do not think peeling off from the FBS schools is a death knell for big time college hoops outside the Superass. How many teams will the new FB association have? Letís say 40. In that case will their tournament include all 40 teams? What was the point of the regular season?

    Iím also confident that Duke and other prominent basketball schools left out can generate sufficient NIL money to field a competitive basketball Leaugue that will draw viewers and make money for the schools and networks.

    IMO, the best thing Duke could do would be to drop football and concentrate their fundraising and NIL contributions to basketball and right size the athletic dept accordingly.

Similar Threads

  1. Cassius is heading to the NBA
    By TJ99 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 04-09-2020, 10:02 AM
  2. Heading to the Phog
    By Utley in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-19-2019, 02:54 AM
  3. Heading to Austin!
    By Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-06-2018, 12:53 PM
  4. The FSU Implosion
    By duke blue brewcrew in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-11-2015, 05:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •