(07-12-2014 09:28 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 08:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 01:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 01:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  Would that be a bad thing?

NC State would have trouble completing a schedule.

Says the power that keeps scheduling Wofford, Furman, South Carolina State, The Citadel, Presbyterian.

Counting 2014 Clemson has played a total of 17 BCS/P5 programs in scheduled OOC games (not bowls) in the past 10 years. One of the three years where two weren't on the schedule Clemson played TCU, who finished 12-1 and ranked #6 that year.

NC State has played 9 in the same time-frame. Or about half as many.

You were saying?

However, the fact remains that as great as Clemson is in football you are still scheduling South Carolina State, Wofford, etc., etc. You are doing that despite having great teams and loads of talent. NC State has an excuse - a bad coach, and a lack of talent, moreover LSU dropped a series with us to play Syracuse.

What seems more amiss, a bad OOC schedule for a team coming off a 3-9 season, or a 12-2 Clemson squad still scheduling SC State, Wofford, The Citadel, etc?

As great as Clemson is, why don't you play 4 P-5's a year?

We play an in-state FCS team every year because it is all but required by our state legislature for us and South Carolina. It's a win/win for everybody. We get a win, we get the same size visiting crowd as if we were playing one of the NC ACC schools (pretty sad when FCS schools travel just as good as P5 schools, or in SC State's case travels better), and the in-state school gets paid.

Quote:Incidentally you remember that WVa team that hung 70 on you - it's funny but we beat then in their bowl just the year before they killed you and you embarrassed the entire league.

This is the point when you know you have won the argument, when your opponent starts to bring in totally unrelated topics. I accept you conceding the argument and I will allow you to withdraw without me further embarrassing you.

Quote:By the way your poor OOC scheduling cost you an NCAA basketball bid last year. Perhaps you need to improve on that and we will improve on our football OOC.

It's basketball. Who cares? Oh yeah....forgot you were a Tobacco Road idgit. In that case let me just counter with this:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba..._NCST@CLEM

You got your ass kicked by a football school!!!!

Wouldn't bother me whatsoever. I do wish some schools' fanbases would accept that there is more to sports than just football. But what can ya do?

This idea is not unprecedented. There are several varsity sports outside of the NCAA umbrella. Squash and Men's Rowing immediately come to mind. I believe in both cases, the schools participating in the sports do not want to be limited by various NCAA rules.

(07-12-2014 09:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:28 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 08:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 01:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  NC State would have trouble completing a schedule.

Says the power that keeps scheduling Wofford, Furman, South Carolina State, The Citadel, Presbyterian.

Counting 2014 Clemson has played a total of 17 BCS/P5 programs in scheduled OOC games (not bowls) in the past 10 years. One of the three years where two weren't on the schedule Clemson played TCU, who finished 12-1 and ranked #6 that year.

NC State has played 9 in the same time-frame. Or about half as many.

You were saying?

However, the fact remains that as great as Clemson is in football you are still scheduling South Carolina State, Wofford, etc., etc. You are doing that despite having great teams and loads of talent. NC State has an excuse - a bad coach, and a lack of talent, moreover LSU dropped a series with us to play Syracuse.

What seems more amiss, a bad OOC schedule for a team coming off a 3-9 season, or a 12-2 Clemson squad still scheduling SC State, Wofford, The Citadel, etc?

As great as Clemson is, why don't you play 4 P-5's a year?

We play an in-state FCS team every year because it is all but required by our state legislature for us and South Carolina. It's a win/win for everybody. We get a win, we get the same size visiting crowd as if we were playing one of the NC ACC schools (pretty sad when FCS schools travel just as good as P5 schools, or in SC State's case travels better), and the in-state school gets paid.

Quote:Incidentally you remember that WVa team that hung 70 on you - it's funny but we beat then in their bowl just the year before they killed you and you embarrassed the entire league.

This is the point when you know you have won the argument, when your opponent starts to bring in totally unrelated topics. I accept you conceding the argument and I will allow you to withdraw without me further embarrassing you.

Quote:By the way your poor OOC scheduling cost you an NCAA basketball bid last year. Perhaps you need to improve on that and we will improve on our football OOC.

It's basketball. Who cares? Oh yeah....forgot you were a Tobacco Road idgit. In that case let me just counter with this:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba..._NCST@CLEM

You got your ass kicked by a football school!!!!

Let's try to stay on topic.

(07-12-2014 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why should any schools give their basketball money to the NCAA? There are two money making sports for most schools and the rest have to be operated on that revenue (Baseball and Hockey excepted in some areas). Why should the NCAA be entitled to any of it at any level of competition? If schools want to compete in sports let them form their own rules committees and governance structures as each sport requires some different parameters. Let the schools keep all of their earnings and support the non revenue sports out of their profits. Then schools can control their expenses better and keep red ink in athletics from affecting other areas of their mission.

It would be interesting to me to see how dropping football from the NCAA might affect other sports, especially basketball. There are over 350 schools in D-I basketball. At least two thirds of those have no business being in the same division as the power schools/conferences. The only obvious motivation for being there is the lure of money, both from the tournament and from the practice of selling L's for cash to schools looking to pad their W-L records before conference play starts.

I have to wonder if they are chasing fool's gold. How much money do they really get from all that?

(07-13-2014 07:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:28 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 08:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Says the power that keeps scheduling Wofford, Furman, South Carolina State, The Citadel, Presbyterian.

Counting 2014 Clemson has played a total of 17 BCS/P5 programs in scheduled OOC games (not bowls) in the past 10 years. One of the three years where two weren't on the schedule Clemson played TCU, who finished 12-1 and ranked #6 that year.

NC State has played 9 in the same time-frame. Or about half as many.

You were saying?

However, the fact remains that as great as Clemson is in football you are still scheduling South Carolina State, Wofford, etc., etc. You are doing that despite having great teams and loads of talent. NC State has an excuse - a bad coach, and a lack of talent, moreover LSU dropped a series with us to play Syracuse.

What seems more amiss, a bad OOC schedule for a team coming off a 3-9 season, or a 12-2 Clemson squad still scheduling SC State, Wofford, The Citadel, etc?

As great as Clemson is, why don't you play 4 P-5's a year?

We play an in-state FCS team every year because it is all but required by our state legislature for us and South Carolina. It's a win/win for everybody. We get a win, we get the same size visiting crowd as if we were playing one of the NC ACC schools (pretty sad when FCS schools travel just as good as P5 schools, or in SC State's case travels better), and the in-state school gets paid.

Quote:Incidentally you remember that WVa team that hung 70 on you - it's funny but we beat then in their bowl just the year before they killed you and you embarrassed the entire league.

This is the point when you know you have won the argument, when your opponent starts to bring in totally unrelated topics. I accept you conceding the argument and I will allow you to withdraw without me further embarrassing you.

Quote:By the way your poor OOC scheduling cost you an NCAA basketball bid last year. Perhaps you need to improve on that and we will improve on our football OOC.

It's basketball. Who cares? Oh yeah....forgot you were a Tobacco Road idgit. In that case let me just counter with this:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba..._NCST@CLEM

You got your ass kicked by a football school!!!!

Let's try to stay on topic.

Agreed. Keep the NC State-Clemson bickering to the VAA or the ACC Smack Forum folks.

Why do it in football? The NCAA doesn't absorb any significant revenue off football and redistribute it (maybe Wilkie will feel better). Only impedance it has offered football is voting and that's all but resolved.

If you are going to break hoops is the place to do it. Personally I'd move college hoops to the AAU to use my cash and clout to get AAU youth basketball under control.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The NCAA could just create D1A for football, let it make its own rules and go about its business for all other sports.

Really that would only upset a handful of G5 programs who are pissed that they haven't gotten a P5 invite but makes the entire rest of the NCAA happy.

(07-12-2014 01:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 01:23 PM)billings Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 01:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  I don't mean to suggest that schools in the NCAA might drop football. Just that the NCAA might consider no longer sponsoring it, governing it, or including it in its criteria for membership.

What if they just say that football is sufficiently unique in college athletics that they will no longer have any role in it? If members want a governing body, or bodies, let them form their own, and make their own rules.

This would allow them to retain a meaningful role in all other sports, including their cash cow, men's basketball. The major players in CFB could go their own way for that sport, and establish divisional membership criteria that both respect tradition and make competitive sense.

Thoughts?

Would probably lead to many FCS programs closing or dropping to D2 rules with few if any scholarships. NCAA funds the FCS playoffs as well as D2 playoffs.

Would that be a bad thing?

A lot fewer kids would get the chance at playing college football so yea It would be a bad thing

There is no doubt that all institutions of academic learning at every level should stop on scoring football because it is incompatible with their mission of intellectual development. Brain studies have demonstrated damage to the brains of even high school football players. Knowing that, it makes no sense to claim to be developing the intellect of students while promoting a sport in which the very organ that houses that intellect is being damaged in the sport.

(07-13-2014 06:27 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  There is no doubt that all institutions of academic learning at every level should stop on scoring football because it is incompatible with their mission of intellectual development. Brain studies have demonstrated damage to the brains of even high school football players. Knowing that, it makes no sense to claim to be developing the intellect of students while promoting a sport in which the very organ that houses that intellect is being damaged in the sport.

Yeah, get rid of the FCS and those pesky G5s and just schedule those amazing lower tier P5 schools. Can't wait to see how Rutgers, Maryland, Mississippi State and Wake Forest alums feel after a decade of 2-10 or 3-9 seasons.

(07-13-2014 10:54 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  Yeah, get rid of the FCS and those pesky G5s and just schedule those amazing lower tier P5 schools. Can't wait to see how Rutgers, Maryland, Mississippi State and Wake Forest alums feel after a decade of 2-10 or 3-9 seasons.

There is nothing implicit in the idea that football would be governed by some body other than the NCAA to suggest any particular organizational structure (i.e.- divisions, conferences et al). The leaders of the schools you mention aren't stupid, so I assume they will vote to do what they see as being in their own self interest. If they see 2-10 seasons as their probable future, they will have to decide if the money is worth that to them.

One question I would have is whether, if football were not under the NCAA, schools could have different eligibility and scholarship rules for it than for other sports. What are the Title IX implications of that? Does providing equal opportunity for women to participate in sports mean that they must have a comparable number of athletic scholarships? Or that they should get a comparable amount of scholarship dollars? Or just that they have as many teams, roster spots?

Again the assumption is that seperate divisions can't play each other.

We know that is false from FBS playing FCS

Therefore, the idea that MSU/WSU can't schedule low level G5/FCS wins in cross division games is just grasping by G5 who desperately hope some P5 schools will have a reason not to support it.

(07-13-2014 06:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Why do it in football? The NCAA doesn't absorb any significant revenue off football and redistribute it (maybe Wilkie will feel better). Only impedance it has offered football is voting and that's all but resolved.

If you are going to break hoops is the place to do it. Personally I'd move college hoops to the AAU to use my cash and clout to get AAU youth basketball under control.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

When I framed the question in my mind, I considered including men's basketball. I think that most abuses, especially abuses to the notion that sports are an integral part of a college education, come from those two sports. And to the extent that they may also occur in other sports, the reality is that few people really care about those. When was the last time you heard a public discourse about low SAT's, APR's or GSR's in women's volleyball?

And surely the time demands on basketball players are just as great as those on football players, and they are as exploited just as much.

But I limited it to football for one reason only. Football is unique. It is unique with respect to the resources it requires. It is unique in that there are no viable alternatives for those who seek a pro career. It is uniquely an American sport.

To include basketball makes this not just about money, but almost exclusively about money. I think there's more to it than that.

(07-14-2014 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 06:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Why do it in football? The NCAA doesn't absorb any significant revenue off football and redistribute it (maybe Wilkie will feel better). Only impedance it has offered football is voting and that's all but resolved.

If you are going to break hoops is the place to do it. Personally I'd move college hoops to the AAU to use my cash and clout to get AAU youth basketball under control.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

When I framed the question in my mind, I considered including men's basketball. I think that most abuses, especially abuses to the notion that sports are an integral part of a college education, come from those two sports. And to the extent that they may also occur in other sports, the reality is that few people really care about those. When was the last time you heard a public discourse about low SAT's, APR's or GSR's in women's volleyball?

And surely the time demands on basketball players are just as great as those on football players, and they are as exploited just as much.

But I limited it to football for one reason only. Football is unique. It is unique with respect to the resources it requires. It is unique in that there are no viable alternatives for those who seek a pro career. It is uniquely an American sport.

To include basketball makes this not just about money, but almost exclusively about money. I think there's more to it than that.

There is another area where football is unique.

In FBS, there probably aren't five schools where meeting the minimum academic standards for initial eligibility would get you unconditional admission if admission at all but for playing football. In Division I as a whole, that isn't the case with a large number of schools where that academic history would grant you full admission.

FBS is very different from the rest of Division I and if FBS schools wished to raise admission standards even higher, a large number of schools would be forced to deny initial eligibility to students who earned unconditional admission to the school.

(07-14-2014 10:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 06:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Why do it in football? The NCAA doesn't absorb any significant revenue off football and redistribute it (maybe Wilkie will feel better). Only impedance it has offered football is voting and that's all but resolved.

If you are going to break hoops is the place to do it. Personally I'd move college hoops to the AAU to use my cash and clout to get AAU youth basketball under control.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

When I framed the question in my mind, I considered including men's basketball. I think that most abuses, especially abuses to the notion that sports are an integral part of a college education, come from those two sports. And to the extent that they may also occur in other sports, the reality is that few people really care about those. When was the last time you heard a public discourse about low SAT's, APR's or GSR's in women's volleyball?

And surely the time demands on basketball players are just as great as those on football players, and they are as exploited just as much.

But I limited it to football for one reason only. Football is unique. It is unique with respect to the resources it requires. It is unique in that there are no viable alternatives for those who seek a pro career. It is uniquely an American sport.

To include basketball makes this not just about money, but almost exclusively about money. I think there's more to it than that.

There is another area where football is unique.

In FBS, there probably aren't five schools where meeting the minimum academic standards for initial eligibility would get you unconditional admission if admission at all but for playing football. In Division I as a whole, that isn't the case with a large number of schools where that academic history would grant you full admission.

FBS is very different from the rest of Division I and if FBS schools wished to raise admission standards even higher, a large number of schools would be forced to deny initial eligibility to students who earned unconditional admission to the school.

This, IMO, is an area where P5 presidents could start to put their money where their mouth is. For nearly all P5 schools, there is a bigger gap between initial eligibility standards and the minimum admission standards for non-athletes than at any other level of play.

(07-14-2014 08:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  One question I would have is whether, if football were not under the NCAA, schools could have different eligibility and scholarship rules for it than for other sports. What are the Title IX implications of that? Does providing equal opportunity for women to participate in sports mean that they must have a comparable number of athletic scholarships? Or that they should get a comparable amount of scholarship dollars? Or just that they have as many teams, roster spots?

Good question and I do not know the answer to it either. I hope somebody can enlighten us.

(07-14-2014 08:50 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Again the assumption is that seperate divisions can't play each other.

We know that is false from FBS playing FCS

Therefore, the idea that MSU/WSU can't schedule low level G5/FCS wins in cross division games is just grasping by G5 who desperately hope some P5 schools will have a reason not to support it.

Don't G5 teams have to play NCAA 1-A schools 4 home games a year and one FCS or better.
So guess it would end playing G5 schools.
Could also open up 100 scholarships for G5 or any odd thing they want to do.
Might get competitive fast.