Jack Swarbrick spoke at an ND function this week. A summary of his comments:

BB Recruiting: We can only admit 20-30 of the top 250, which makes for a huge challenge. If Duke offers, we generally lose out on that one. In addition the AAU coaches run the show. Unlike football, where ND can work the HS coaches, parents, teachers guidance counselors etc., we have no leverage there in hoops. You have to have the ear of the AAU coach. He thinks that Under Armor will help us there.

Under Armour: Will help with hoops recruiting, see above. Adidas has been a great partner. We were not unhappy, but especially in hoops, we were not getting the attention from them that we will get from UA. They have Kansas, Michigan etc. We are UA's premier client. This year's Shamrock series uniform will be pretty tame. Due to somewhat limited time constraints, they did not come up with anything too drastic. Expect that to change in coming years.

Video Board: South end zone. Book it. We have shown how we will use it at the Shamrock series games, and it will be tasteful.

Crossroads: No consideration was given to a wraparound concept whole stadium. The original plan had 4 buildings and they scaled it back to 3. He did not get into it but said that would have been a much bigger challenge in construction with disruption of the use of the stadium.

Dave Brandon: (Shaking head) "different styles....just...different styles" (Brandon is Michigan's AD)

Recruiting: Behind basketball, hockey is the biggest challenge. You literally have Canadian junior league teams trying to outbid your scholarship offer. That continues while they are in school too.

Unions: Not really a major concern. Everyone thinks that the Northwestern players voted it down. The basic premise of the ruling is that football activities are not educational. They dispute that very notion. Funny thing is that if unions do happen, all scholarship athletes will be part of it. That means that football players will be a minority in the union. The union rep will likely be a fencer, soccer player or swimmer etc. The results of an agreement with that union will be likely much different than what the Northwestern football players are hoping they will get. They need to be careful what they ask for.

Navy Series: "Fr. Hesburgh committed to it, and I am not going to be the one who goes against that." The chop blocking is really an NCAA rules issue. They stay within the rules, but on the very edge of them. Maybe, way in the future that might morph into an "Academy" slot on the schedule (with some sort of rotation), but no plan on that.

Scheduling: After 5 ACC, Navy, USC, Stanford, Shamrock Series and one "buy" game we have one home and home to play with each season. (Hence, the Big Ten games had to go).

His Future: Will be on the beach within 5 years.

He had a forum this morning with Tom Bowen the AD at University of Memphis;

Biggest Challenge to College Football: The antitrust issue. Similar to how the Ivies got slapped a few years ago with their academic scholarships, the antitrust case against the NCAA is a hard one to defend legally. Ultimately they will probably need congress to grant an exemption like the NFL and MLB have. In the meantime there could be a free for all for a few years if they lose. The pro sports teams also can collectively negotiate compensation. If they lose the schools may in fact want a players union with whom the can negotiate scholarship compensation.

Eligibility: Would love to see all sports go the baseball route: If you want to go pro out of HS, then go. If you start college, you must stay 3 years.

Big 5 conference Split: Thinks that they will stay within the NCAAA but will have some additional autonomy to make rules for themselves.

History of College Football: This was interesting - we have had 3 eras. From the beginning til about the '50s the individual schools were in control of things. From the '50s-2000's the NCAA dominated, now all of the power is in the hands of the conferences and their commissioners. Thinks power will shift back to the schools over time.

Penn State: Thought there was a rush to judgment on the part of the NCAA. Did not understand why the current athletes were penalized (scholarships, bowl ban). The institution should have been penalized, but not the current students. NCAA should have waited until the legal case ran its course before acting. This was not really an athletics issue per se.

Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next.

(06-05-2014 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Jack Swarbrick spoke at an ND function this week. A summary of his comments:

BB Recruiting: We can only admit 20-30 of the top 250, which makes for a huge challenge. If Duke offers, we generally lose out on that one. In addition the AAU coaches run the show. Unlike football, where ND can work the HS coaches, parents, teachers guidance counselors etc., we have no leverage there in hoops. You have to have the ear of the AAU coach. He thinks that Under Armor will help us there.

Under Armour: Will help with hoops recruiting, see above. Adidas has been a great partner. We were not unhappy, but especially in hoops, we were not getting the attention from them that we will get from UA. They have Kansas, Michigan etc. We are UA's premier client. This year's Shamrock series uniform will be pretty tame. Due to somewhat limited time constraints, they did not come up with anything too drastic. Expect that to change in coming years.

Video Board: South end zone. Book it. We have shown how we will use it at the Shamrock series games, and it will be tasteful.

Crossroads: No consideration was given to a wraparound concept whole stadium. The original plan had 4 buildings and they scaled it back to 3. He did not get into it but said that would have been a much bigger challenge in construction with disruption of the use of the stadium.

Dave Brandon: (Shaking head) "different styles....just...different styles" (Brandon is Michigan's AD)

Recruiting: Behind basketball, hockey is the biggest challenge. You literally have Canadian junior league teams trying to outbid your scholarship offer. That continues while they are in school too.

Unions: Not really a major concern. Everyone thinks that the Northwestern players voted it down. The basic premise of the ruling is that football activities are not educational. They dispute that very notion. Funny thing is that if unions do happen, all scholarship athletes will be part of it. That means that football players will be a minority in the union. The union rep will likely be a fencer, soccer player or swimmer etc. The results of an agreement with that union will be likely much different than what the Northwestern football players are hoping they will get. They need to be careful what they ask for.

Navy Series: "Fr. Hesburgh committed to it, and I am not going to be the one who goes against that." The chop blocking is really an NCAA rules issue. They stay within the rules, but on the very edge of them. Maybe, way in the future that might morph into an "Academy" slot on the schedule (with some sort of rotation), but no plan on that.

Scheduling: After 5 ACC, Navy, USC, Stanford, Shamrock Series and one "buy" game we have one home and home to play with each season. (Hence, the Big Ten games had to go).

His Future: Will be on the beach within 5 years.

He had a forum this morning with Tom Bowen the AD at University of Memphis;

Biggest Challenge to College Football: The antitrust issue. Similar to how the Ivies got slapped a few years ago with their academic scholarships, [b]the antitrust case against the NCAA is a hard one to defend legally. Ultimately they will probably need congress to grant an exemption like the NFL and MLB have[/b]. In the meantime there could be a free for all for a few years if they lose. The pro sports teams also can collectively negotiate compensation. If they lose the schools may in fact want a players union with whom the can negotiate scholarship compensation.

Eligibility: Would love to see all sports go the baseball route: If you want to go pro out of HS, then go. If you start college, you must stay 3 years.

Big 5 conference Split: Thinks that they will stay within the NCAAA but will have some additional autonomy to make rules for themselves.

History of College Football: This was interesting - we have had 3 eras. From the beginning til about the '50s the individual schools were in control of things. From the '50s-2000's the NCAA dominated, now all of the power is in the hands of the conferences and their commissioners. Thinks power will shift back to the schools over time.

Penn State: Thought there was a rush to judgment on the part of the NCAA. Did not understand why the current athletes were penalized (scholarships, bowl ban). The institution should have been penalized, but not the current students. NCAA should have waited until the legal case ran its course before acting. This was not really an athletics issue per se.

Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next.

Great informative post Terry D

We agree on most and disagree on some, mostly over whether antitrust was a threat to conferences. Has this information changed your mind?

How do you reconcile the two bolded and underlined comments?

Of course ND wants conference stability so they would be the last entity to not deviate from the standard rout comment that they expect stability during the grant of rights period of the ACC and Big 12, but is that really true?

Thanks, TerryD.....interesting.

Apparently Jack doesn't like being called out for killing the Michigan series. That, or doesn't like to dance.

(06-05-2014 07:11 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Jack Swarbrick spoke at an ND function this week. A summary of his comments:

BB Recruiting: We can only admit 20-30 of the top 250, which makes for a huge challenge. If Duke offers, we generally lose out on that one. In addition the AAU coaches run the show. Unlike football, where ND can work the HS coaches, parents, teachers guidance counselors etc., we have no leverage there in hoops. You have to have the ear of the AAU coach. He thinks that Under Armor will help us there.

Under Armour: Will help with hoops recruiting, see above. Adidas has been a great partner. We were not unhappy, but especially in hoops, we were not getting the attention from them that we will get from UA. They have Kansas, Michigan etc. We are UA's premier client. This year's Shamrock series uniform will be pretty tame. Due to somewhat limited time constraints, they did not come up with anything too drastic. Expect that to change in coming years.

Video Board: South end zone. Book it. We have shown how we will use it at the Shamrock series games, and it will be tasteful.

Crossroads: No consideration was given to a wraparound concept whole stadium. The original plan had 4 buildings and they scaled it back to 3. He did not get into it but said that would have been a much bigger challenge in construction with disruption of the use of the stadium.

Dave Brandon: (Shaking head) "different styles....just...different styles" (Brandon is Michigan's AD)

Recruiting: Behind basketball, hockey is the biggest challenge. You literally have Canadian junior league teams trying to outbid your scholarship offer. That continues while they are in school too.

Unions: Not really a major concern. Everyone thinks that the Northwestern players voted it down. The basic premise of the ruling is that football activities are not educational. They dispute that very notion. Funny thing is that if unions do happen, all scholarship athletes will be part of it. That means that football players will be a minority in the union. The union rep will likely be a fencer, soccer player or swimmer etc. The results of an agreement with that union will be likely much different than what the Northwestern football players are hoping they will get. They need to be careful what they ask for.

Navy Series: "Fr. Hesburgh committed to it, and I am not going to be the one who goes against that." The chop blocking is really an NCAA rules issue. They stay within the rules, but on the very edge of them. Maybe, way in the future that might morph into an "Academy" slot on the schedule (with some sort of rotation), but no plan on that.

Scheduling: After 5 ACC, Navy, USC, Stanford, Shamrock Series and one "buy" game we have one home and home to play with each season. (Hence, the Big Ten games had to go).

His Future: Will be on the beach within 5 years.

He had a forum this morning with Tom Bowen the AD at University of Memphis;

Biggest Challenge to College Football: The antitrust issue. Similar to how the Ivies got slapped a few years ago with their academic scholarships, [b]the antitrust case against the NCAA is a hard one to defend legally. Ultimately they will probably need congress to grant an exemption like the NFL and MLB have[/b]. In the meantime there could be a free for all for a few years if they lose. The pro sports teams also can collectively negotiate compensation. If they lose the schools may in fact want a players union with whom the can negotiate scholarship compensation.

Eligibility: Would love to see all sports go the baseball route: If you want to go pro out of HS, then go. If you start college, you must stay 3 years.

Big 5 conference Split: Thinks that they will stay within the NCAAA but will have some additional autonomy to make rules for themselves.

History of College Football: This was interesting - we have had 3 eras. From the beginning til about the '50s the individual schools were in control of things. From the '50s-2000's the NCAA dominated, now all of the power is in the hands of the conferences and their commissioners. Thinks power will shift back to the schools over time.

Penn State: Thought there was a rush to judgment on the part of the NCAA. Did not understand why the current athletes were penalized (scholarships, bowl ban). The institution should have been penalized, but not the current students. NCAA should have waited until the legal case ran its course before acting. This was not really an athletics issue per se.

Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next.

Great informative post Terry D

We agree on most and disagree on some, mostly over whether antitrust was a threat to conferences. Has this information changed your mind?

How do you reconcile the two bolded and underlined comments?

Of course ND wants conference stability so they would be the last entity to not deviate from the standard rout comment that they expect stability during the grant of rights period of the ACC and Big 12, but is that really true?

Also the grant of rights period of the Pac 12 whose contracts end in 2024

On the realignment issue, Swarbrick doesnt know what Delaney, Bowlsby, Slive or Scott are planning or doing. He only knows what he is hearing from Swofford.

If he talks about tv contracts driving the next round, then he can only be talking about the ACCs and what they will or wont get within that time.

"This year's Shamrock series uniform will be pretty tame. Due to somewhat limited time constraints, they did not come up with anything too drastic. Expect that to change in coming years. "

Someone should go to jail for what they forced the ND women's basketball team to wear a couple years ago. Why do they want monstrously ugly uniforms? Does Notre Dame have a bet with Maryland?

Navy Series: "Fr. Hesburgh committed to it, and I am not going to be the one who goes against that." The chop blocking is really an NCAA rules issue. They stay within the rules, but on the very edge of them.

Demerits to dissing Navy.

(06-05-2014 07:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  Thanks, TerryD.....interesting.

Anti-trust comments are very interesting.

For those who aren't familiar, the Ivies got together and decided how much they would offer so they wouldn't be trying to outbid each other.

(06-05-2014 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  Navy Series: "Fr. Hesburgh committed to it, and I am not going to be the one who goes against that." The chop blocking is really an NCAA rules issue. They stay within the rules, but on the very edge of them.

Demerits to dissing Navy.

(06-05-2014 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  Does Notre Dame have a bet with Maryland?

Both are wearing Under Armour uniforms, so you might see more gear like this (although this was Adidas)

(06-05-2014 09:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 07:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  Thanks, TerryD.....interesting.

Anti-trust comments are very interesting.

For those who aren't familiar, the Ivies got together and decided how much they would offer so they wouldn't be trying to outbid each other.

That was an agreement among the Ivies on uniform financial aid packages for "regular" students.

Swarbrick is right to make the comparison because that is exactly how the Kessler lawsuit is attacking the schools, i.e., arguing it's an antitrust violation to agree to cap what athletes can get at nothing more than what the NCAA rules define as a full scholarship. Stipends or "full cost of attendance" won't save the schools from the Kessler lawsuit because that would be still a cap, just a higher cap than the one they have now.

(06-05-2014 10:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  Does Notre Dame have a bet with Maryland?

Both are wearing Under Armour uniforms, so you might see more gear like this (although this was Adidas)

I'm doubting this idea that only 20-30 kids in the top 150 could be admitted to ND.

When I look at Duke and ND, I do see players in the past who were admitted with the type of scores that at least half of the top 150 achieve.

The average SAT for athletes in 2 revenue sports at ND in 1997 was 899, but now it's 1010. And that's with the new SAT bumping up averages by 100 nationally. So, given the new metric, we're talking about an increase of 11 points in SAT scores from that earlier era.

So is Swarbrick saying that the schools would back a players union if they lose the antitrust case? Based on his comments it might prove to be a good strategy for them.

(06-05-2014 10:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  Does Notre Dame have a bet with Maryland?

Both are wearing Under Armour uniforms, so you might see more gear like this (although this was Adidas)

Nice...pajamas...?

"Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

(06-05-2014 10:13 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 07:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  Thanks, TerryD.....interesting.

Anti-trust comments are very interesting.

For those who aren't familiar, the Ivies got together and decided how much they would offer so they wouldn't be trying to outbid each other.

That was an agreement among the Ivies on uniform financial aid packages for "regular" students.

Swarbrick is right to make the comparison because that is exactly how the Kessler lawsuit is attacking the schools, i.e., arguing it's an antitrust violation to agree to cap what athletes can get at nothing more than what the NCAA rules define as a full scholarship. Stipends or "full cost of attendance" won't save the schools from the Kessler lawsuit because that would be still a cap, just a higher cap than the one they have now.

Exactly!

The premise of that suit is that ANY agreed upon restraint is a violation of anti-trust.

The pro leagues aren't useful for guidance because they fall under the collective bargaining exception.

But there have been past decisions where the courts have discussed that what college athletics offers is a unique brand that is built upon the foundation of amateur athletics. While none of those that I can recall off the top of my head dealt with that as a critical holding in the case (and I'm sure there is one, probably Bloom and others), the probability is that the concept of amatuerism is secure but there has been a lot of turnover in the courts since many of these decisions and the nature of the business has changed dramatically.

One thing stipend advocates have failed miserably at is explaining how stipends function within the overall environment of amateurism.

For example, in women's boxing, if you are a top boxer good enough to make the US National team you would likely forego going professional because the US National team will give you a stipend of $500 to $2000 per month to assist with your training costs and will cover your travel. The purses for pros are actually less than that once you factor in your overhead.

So there remains room for compensation within amateurism but defending amateurism is the critical matter in the case.

Quote:History of College Football: This was interesting - we have had 3 eras. From the beginning til about the '50s the individual schools were in control of things. From the '50s-2000's the NCAA dominated, now all of the power is in the hands of the conferences and their commissioners. Thinks power will shift back to the schools over time.

It is the natural progression as I've discussed often.

The conference as an economic driving force is very new in intercollegiate athletics. Until 1973 conferences set the scholarship limits in football (if any).

For much of NCAA history, the conference was more involved in regulation than the NCAA. The Association was simply an unfinished shell and it was up to each conference to finish out their space as they saw fit or the school itself if an independent.

As the game became more national and less regional (ie. we moved into a space where a team in the eastern time zone became of routine interest to someon in the Pacific time zone) the need arose to make the operations more standard. For 20 years the NCAA was the only entity capable of leveraging the product for a high value TV contract. Even in the wake of Board of Regents v. NCAA the conferences were still over a decade away from having sufficient market power to truly reap large benefits.

That transition took us to divisional governance where schools within a division governed their operations instead of association wide governance. That took us to federated governance where the conference became the base unit of governance, and now with the autonomy plan we see the idea of school rather than conference voting once again taking the stage and it will be fascinating to see what direction that may take us.

I tend to think a return to school governance even if it is just within the P5 will lead to a less aggressive stance on economic matters.

I know for a fact that Delany and Slive have performance bonuses that are tied to economic performance so they are encouraged to act in best economic interest. I think it is very likely that there are matters where a vote of conferences would result in a more aggressive economic position while a vote of schools would end up on the other side. In a conference vote in a league with a few power leaders, they are more likely to get consent for support especially if SEC or B1G favors the matter but on a school vote that is likely tamped down. It's like the electoral college on meth right now.

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.