The question is, what will be the fallout if/when the whole system comes crashing down? Small P5 schools like Wake Forest rely on TV dollars to help run their athletic program when their own teams aren't that great. Some big P5 schools like Tennessee are in debt up to their eyeballs even with TV payouts. G5 schools make so much less than to the power conferences that they're better equipped for such a crash.

If you think about it and want to blame 'someone', then the reality is WE are the ones to blame. Our insatiable appetite and rabid desire for college sports and to win caused an arms race that is way past anyone's control. It kind of started with the boom of college education after World War II and just has grown from there. More college alums meant more fans. More fans wanted their teams to experience success. Donations increased, budgets increased, revenue increased.

(03-26-2014 09:43 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  Longhorn greed has destroyed everything. They started the ball rolling by driving Arky to the SEC. Then a few years later they assassinated the SWC. They were even able to drive Nebraska away from all of their old comrades. Then the LHN pissed off the world. Pretty much everything bad in college sports starts in Austin. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Darrell Royal ordered Oklahoma to file the early '80s suit that brought all of the changes to tv rules.

Actually its because they ripped us off in 2008 and didn't put the best team in the nation in the BCS title game. And then Colt got hurt in the 2009 title game. Otherwise we would have so much money we could have bought everyone off.

(03-26-2014 11:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Overall greed by everyone involved with college sports.

If schools' sports TV budgets and coaches salaries were not so high, would we have this issue?

If head coaches made $75,000 a year and each school's athletic budget was $10 million a year, the pressures to end the fiction of "student-athletes" and paying players would not be so great.

These kids see everyone bragging about all of the millions the schools rake in, the athletic budgets, the money spent on coaches and facilities and say "Where is my share, I want a piece of that action?"

I am really not sure that I can blame them.

You've got to include the players.

And there's the professionalization of the sport. Players are getting to unhealthy sizes (for them and the players they hit). Summer "optional" workouts have become effectively mandatory-making it a year round avocation. And with that the gap between students and the average athletes has gotten bigger (there were always a few extraordinary athletes who weren't much in the way of students).

the consistently growing obsession with football and the belief that's the only sport which matters

Lots of good comments here. Frankly I think the answer is "All of the Above" (including very good answers provided within this thread). For that reason I have voted in the "Other" category.

(03-27-2014 08:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 01:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:34 PM)prp Wrote:  NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma in 1984 was the beginning of the end.

This.

Even at the time, people who were paying attention knew it was a big f***ing deal, and there were lots of articles about it in print-media. Some TV/radio, too, but the magazines and newspapers are what I remember more clearly.

Yet even the most farsighted individuals could have scarcely believed -- 30 years ago -- how the Oklahoma case (which Univ. of Georgia heavily participated in as OU's ally) the extent of the changes brought about.

It's delusional to think that these "problems" have only been with us for a few decades.

Just think of the horror when Oklahoma State took their powerhouse basketball program out of the SWC in 1925 for the then-dominant MVC, only to be left behind 3 years later when the big MVC schools left to form the Big 6. And many tears were shed when the Southern Conference split in two in 1933. And so on, every few years a major change has occured (except for the 80s).

And paying for victories was an issue well before college sports became big-time money. Kentucky and half the Pac-8 got caught in pay-for-play scandals in the 50s. Consider that as early as the 50s, schools like Chicago, Wash U, Case, and NYU dropped down to D-3 and the Ivies dropped all scholarships. They did this because they thought that other schools were placing athletics above academics.

Schools have been losing money on athletics for decades in the relentless pursuit of WINNING. That is the main issue here; that winning is valued more than running a good, clean program or graduating kids.

Look, I'm not some pie-in-the-sky commie. Winning is important, but unless you're in a real fight or a war it's not the only thing. Good sportsmanship and playing by the rules is more important than hanging up a banner.

Actually UK's scandal involved point shaving by the players.

(03-27-2014 10:05 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  the consistently growing obsession with football and the belief that's the only sport which matters

Well we could blame Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams and Sonny Werblin & Co for starting the AFL and the rapid escalation in football salaries.

(03-27-2014 10:12 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:05 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  the consistently growing obsession with football and the belief that's the only sport which matters

Well we could blame Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams and Sonny Werblin & Co for starting the AFL and the rapid escalation in football salaries.

Strictly talking about the college game here.

(03-27-2014 09:54 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  If you think about it and want to blame 'someone', then the reality is WE are the ones to blame. Our insatiable appetite and rabid desire for college sports and to win caused an arms race that is way past anyone's control. It kind of started with the boom of college education after World War II and just has grown from there. More college alums meant more fans. More fans wanted their teams to experience success. Donations increased, budgets increased, revenue increased.

At the big money schools, I suppose that's true. That money never really got to conferences like the MAC or the Sunbelt. We're just trying to ride an angry bear and hold on for dear life.

(03-27-2014 10:17 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:12 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:05 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  the consistently growing obsession with football and the belief that's the only sport which matters

Well we could blame Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams and Sonny Werblin & Co for starting the AFL and the rapid escalation in football salaries.

Strictly talking about the college game here.

Well its the increase in salaries at the pro level that impacted the college level. In the 50s and 60s, not all players the pros wanted chose to go pro. So the college game has become more professionalized. And the money and practices have trickled down to the athletic departments at colleges.

College football is just a victim of its own popularity.....

It's great entertainment, but its just that......entertainment

when you start reaching the point of valuing your entertainment more than your livelihood, such as education and responsibility....then you've turned into a hardcore football junky

These kids don't think they're playing football anymore, they think they're providing "athletic services"....

(03-26-2014 09:01 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Whose at fault? In where we've ended up, in the state of affairs we have now, having unionization, super conferences, rivalries destroyed, regional sport trying to become the NFL, the whole model of CFB being destroyed as we know it. Is it ESPN , is it Delany and B1G Presidents, who are the culprits who've caused all this? Don't say money we know that what its been all about. How did we get here. Can we go back to a simpler time, when things made sense? Cast your vote on who caused this .

The Disney dynasty has created this mess...was fun at first, but is quickly unraveling.

(03-26-2014 09:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:30 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Delany, citing the O'Bannon case, said B1G would consider playing by DIII rules. So, no, it's not Delany and B1G Presidents; at least in the sense that "they didn't start the fire".

do you have a link for this

Here is one as well:


http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...ers_a.html



and an excerpt:

Delany, Fresno State President John Welty, Horizon League Commissioner Jonathan LeCrone and NCAA Executive Vice President for Championships Mark Lewis recently were deposed in the suit, which faces a pivotal certification hearing June 20. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say NCAA counsel or Big Ten counsel played a major role in drafting the March statements from Welty, LeCrone, Lewis and Delany.

"Delany, for example, didn't write a single word of his declaration," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote. "This fact obviously bears on the weight that this Court should accord these declarations," when considering the impact of the case on universities.

Class-certification experts used by the NCAA and co-defendants Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company rely extensively on opinions by Delany and other college sports leaders, according to the plaintiffs. Those opinions are "faulty at best, and flatly wrong at worst," the lawyers' plaintiffs wrote.


On Friday, Big Ten attorney Andrew Rosenman criticized the plaintiffs' portrayal of how Delany's declaration was crafted, saying it is "completely irrelevant and meaningless" that Delany did not write the declaration himself.

Delany "carefully read and reviewed the declaration before he signed it," Rosenman said in an e-mail. "... Mr. Delany would not have signed the declaration if he determined that any portions of the document were inaccurate."

Rosenman said the plaintiffs' filing conveys "the absolutely false impression that Mr. Delany simply rubber-stamped a statement that The Big Ten's counsel drafted."


The filings included excerpts of Delany's deposition on May 29. Excerpts from the testimony of Welty, LeCrone and Lewis were sealed.

Delany testified it is his personal belief that some schools might explore leaving Division I if the plaintiffs prevailed. He identified Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman as someone who had "real questions" about whether Michigan "would be supportive of a system that required some form of 'pay for play.'"

In a supplemental brief, the plaintiffs portray Delany's concept of "pay for play" as being "vague and uncertain." Delany offered no opinions on whether "pay for play" would describe athletes being compensated for athletes' use in video games, TV footage or merchandise, or if "pay for play" would describe Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel should he recover misuse of his "Johnny Football" trademark name in court.

Delany testified he thinks he would consider the "Olympic model" as "pay for play." The term "Olympic model" was defined to Delany by a lawyer for the plaintiffs as an athlete who is free to secure endorsements but would not be paid by schools.

The plaintiffs also claim Delany's testimony about Title IX undermines the notion by the NCAA and experts that gender-equity concerns would be major obstacle to paying players. In his March declaration, Delany said, "I believe that paying football and/or men's basketball players would reduce opportunities for student-athletes overall."

Delany testified it's a personal belief that paying football and basketball players would impact other athletes' opportunities. Under questioning, Delany confirmed approximately 35 percent of the Big Ten's budget dollars go to female sports.

"Do you think that's Title IX complaint?" a lawyer for the plaintiffs asked Delany.

"I don't know -- I don't know if it is or is not," Delany responded. "I -- I know that there are a variety of different tests. And I think that as we grow opportunities in both quantity and quality, I think we're making -- have made quite a bit of progress."

Delany testified that since 2007 the Big Ten has used a uniform release-of-rights form athletes must sign to participate. Delany said he does not know whether the release authorizes the use of an athlete's name, image or likeness in video games or broadcast clips, or whether the Big Ten could televise games without the release. He testified he presumes the release allows the Big Ten to rebroadcast archived games without paying former players.

When asked what athletes receive in exchange for signing these releases, Delany responded, "Nothing that I know of."

Follow the money.