(03-19-2013 02:26 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 01:51 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  I root for doomsday scenarios. I hope it all collapses. I would be absolutely giddy. Let all 350-whatever D1 schools all drop back to D-III no athletic scholarships.

Why would you want something that would effectively kill UAB athletics?
What are you motives behind cheering this on?

I think he's bitter about UAT. What he doesn't realize is that this wouldn't kill Crimson Tide football. What would happen is that the major football institutions (Alabama, Texas, Michigan, etc...) would just shut down NCAA football (along with several NCAA women's sports) and license their name and colors to a minor league professional football program. Those players would not be student athletes, but they would play for the "Alabama Crimson Tide" or the "Michigan Wolverines" as independent professionals not associated with the university. They may or may not go to school there, and the league would have to decide eligibility rules (within 6 years of High School Graduation or leaving the military probably).

You could see something similar happen with Men's Basketball (no Duke Minor League Pro Football, but certainly Duke Minor League Pro Basketball).

Interesting idea, but I think that would kill the golden goose. If the programs are not associated with the school other than a fee for use of trademarked property, then why in the heck would anyone care? It become minor league baseball, a cheap alternative to the real thing.

You have to keep some sort of association between the players and the schools are else its over. At best it will die a slow death, but it could be an instant bomb.

Schools are not going to give up their multimillion dollar tv deals. I think people are upset because that is what Delaney is making it seem as if they are going to do and that is not reality.

I agree with the sentiment that 95% of the the passion and interest in college sports is the fact that it is apart of the community. They don't threaten to move or demand a new stadium every 10 years. The players are mostly regional outside of a few exceptions and the teams represent something bigger than themselves. State schools represent their state and their alumni, Notre Dame represents not only their alumni but their religion as does BYU. You cannot quantify something like that.

It will be interesting to see what they do. I think they could go the IVY league route without taking too much of a hit financially. Even if competition sprang up in the form of official minor leagues for basketball and football, the passion for a 68 team nationwide tournament full of upsets and surprises will not change. It may work out for the best if OBannon wins

Y'all presuming that "de-emphasizing" equals dropping the sport or shuttering the doors of the stadiums and arenas.

Doesn't mean that at all.

What it likely means is the end of "ability" based aid, instead aid would be based on academic achievement and financial need.

It likely means caps on spending for athletics.

It probably even means foregoing the wealth of TV. Schools might turn the production and distribution of telecasts and radiocasts over to university owned stations or websites as an educational activity. If there is no revenue from exploiting the likeness on TV or in video games there is none to share.

End of the day, the best athletes will still be going to college to play. The games will be freely available locally via campus TV and nationally via the web.

Don't for a minute think that there aren't 50 or more big time college presidents who would be THRILLED to no longer have to deal with the beast of a $100 million a year athletic department that spends every nickle it brings in and is under pressure to compete with schools spending $20 million more and match them in salaries and facilities. If the O'Bannon suit gives them the cover to do it, so be it.

If ESPN and Fox get culled from having the product, they can take their money and spend it on youth development leagues for players under age 21 saving the colleges from the hassle of special admissions for athletes that don't meet the school's academic standards but meet the NCAA minimum and they will be applauded by the presidents.

(03-19-2013 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 01:51 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  I root for doomsday scenarios. I hope it all collapses. I would be absolutely giddy. Let all 350-whatever D1 schools all drop back to D-III no athletic scholarships.

Why would you want something that would effectively kill UAB athletics?

What are you motives behind cheering this on?

The UNC academic scandal, Penn State, Miami, etc. Money and winning at all costs has created a culture of corruption. Major college athletics have become a distraction and in some cases a hindrance to the real purpose of Universities.

http://www.imleagues.com/Default.aspx

(03-19-2013 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Then that'll cross the line to being a professional instead of a collegiate athlete. If the athletes don't care about getting a free education then they can go to the NBA D-league or the CFL/WFL...etc and be a professional there and then see if they get drafted into the NBA or NFL.

That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

They are famous for playing football but the income from that fame isn't football income? I suppose Hanes pays Jordan because of his brilliant acting in Space Jam rather than his historic NBA career.

Of course the net result is this. Joe Booster of Joe Booster Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep contacts Buddy Guard, a 5 star offensive lineman and tells him if you sign with Bama he can get a $5,000 a month ad contract that includes the use of a car. Meanwhile Don Alumni of Don Alumni Lexus of Austin calls and offers $5,500 a month and use of a car if he signs with the Horns.

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Haynes didn't pay Michael Jordan to play basketball. They paid him for his face. IMO it doesn't matter why...

As for offering kids advertising contracts to sign with certain schools, that's a recruiting violation. Any hint of under the table deals of this kind would be a recruiting violation as well. Once they get on campus and become the face of the program, that's another matter...

Of course, the fact that they are recruiting violations won't stop the big programs from doing such things. They do them now. How many kids signed with Miami, Tennessee, or another big school because they were given girls willing to have sex with them, along with a bit of cash under the table?

IMO if the NCAA makes schools give these kids stipends, they will cease to be amateurs. They'll be getting paid to play college ball. So I see little difference between the 2 options, except that one puts a big burden on the schools, further separating the haves from the have nots...

They pay some students on academic scholarships stipends. What they are talking about is something less than the "full cost to attend." Some academic scholarships pay more than 2,000 even without requiring any teaching. Room, board & books is not all there is to the cost.

I would guess this makes them professional students, since they're there on academic scholarships...

Guess we need to add University of Chicago as a possible expansion target of the Big Ten. Wonder if Northwestern would block them?

(03-19-2013 10:52 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  It won't hurt the B1G. The CIC is where the real money is.

And that real money comes from the Government who issues funny money and a has a declining tax base and from corporations which have long tentacles that are attached to their grants up to and including intellectual property. I don't see a great future in counting on that either. I readily admit its better than not having it, but still not the panacea that many think. Lawyers now have to read those grants from corporations to try and discern just what it is that is contained within them that might ensnare the school and/or its faculty.

(03-19-2013 03:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Guess we need to add University of Chicago as a possible expansion target of the Big Ten. Wonder if Northwestern would block them?

lol - good one.

(03-19-2013 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:52 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  It won't hurt the B1G. The CIC is where the real money is.

And that real money comes from the Government who issues funny money and a has a declining tax base and from corporations which have long tentacles that are attached to their grants up to and including intellectual property. I don't see a great future in counting on that either. I readily admit its better than not having it, but still not the panacea that many think. Lawyers now have to read those grants from corporations to try and discern just what it is that is contained within them that might ensnare the school and/or its faculty.

Not to mention that also with a private corporation - university relationship, that $$ dwarfs any TV money. $20 million TV revenue vs $100 million+ from corporation or government entities.

(03-19-2013 02:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Y'all presuming that "de-emphasizing" equals dropping the sport or shuttering the doors of the stadiums and arenas.

Doesn't mean that at all.

What it likely means is the end of "ability" based aid, instead aid would be based on academic achievement and financial need.

It likely means caps on spending for athletics.

It probably even means foregoing the wealth of TV. Schools might turn the production and distribution of telecasts and radiocasts over to university owned stations or websites as an educational activity. If there is no revenue from exploiting the likeness on TV or in video games there is none to share.

End of the day, the best athletes will still be going to college to play. The games will be freely available locally via campus TV and nationally via the web.

Don't for a minute think that there aren't 50 or more big time college presidents who would be THRILLED to no longer have to deal with the beast of a $100 million a year athletic department that spends every nickle it brings in and is under pressure to compete with schools spending $20 million more and match them in salaries and facilities. If the O'Bannon suit gives them the cover to do it, so be it.

If ESPN and Fox get culled from having the product, they can take their money and spend it on youth development leagues for players under age 21 saving the colleges from the hassle of special admissions for athletes that don't meet the school's academic standards but meet the NCAA minimum and they will be applauded by the presidents.

I fail to see a negative in your scenario arkstfan. I just don't see the big time conferences giving up all that TV money nor do I see the tv networks willingly allowing their partners to shut down. they willl work something out. Sports is propping up the cable market as it is, something like this, if you're scenario were to play out, could deeply wound the tv sports titans and the cable industry as a whole

(03-19-2013 11:40 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  In college the school, the colors, the logo, the history, the tradition are the selling point. There are very very few people who are such a fan of a player that they would go buy their jersey from each stop along the way if the player transfers.

It's true that history and tradition are important, but they are important only because of the success of the athletes whose work created that history and tradition. Rutgers has been playing football longer than Notre Dame. Having "more" history and tradition is nowhere near as valuable as having "better" history and tradition.

And, history and tradition are far more valuable when combined with current success -- which exists because of the work of the current athletes. USC or Alabama football generate much more money when they are on top than when they are in a Paul Hackett or Mike Shula era.

If you subtract the past and current success of the athletes who made it happen, then these power programs would have no "brand equity". None.

No one can credibly argue that free tuition and expenses are fair compensation at the top programs, and that's even more so in an era where the football and basketball factories reap tremendous amounts of money while recruiting athletes who have little or no interest in getting their college degree.

These power programs are saying that giving athletes something they don't really want -- free tuition and expenses -- is sufficient compensation for generating millions of dollars for the schools. That's ridiculous.

(03-19-2013 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  .

These power programs are saying that giving athletes something they don't really want -- free tuition and expenses -- is sufficient compensation for generating millions of dollars for the schools. That's ridiculous.

Unless they play football why would the athletes accept something they don't want. They are free to go play pro baseball, soccer, or hockey at any level their skill warrants. They are free to play basketball in any variety of pro leagues other than the NBA. Only football players are stuck yet they are free to go play at schools that won't exploit them in juco or at lower levels of the NCAA or on NAIA.

If they don't WANT what is being offered why are they taking it??!!

(03-19-2013 03:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 02:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Y'all presuming that "de-emphasizing" equals dropping the sport or shuttering the doors of the stadiums and arenas.

Doesn't mean that at all.

What it likely means is the end of "ability" based aid, instead aid would be based on academic achievement and financial need.

It likely means caps on spending for athletics.

It probably even means foregoing the wealth of TV. Schools might turn the production and distribution of telecasts and radiocasts over to university owned stations or websites as an educational activity. If there is no revenue from exploiting the likeness on TV or in video games there is none to share.

End of the day, the best athletes will still be going to college to play. The games will be freely available locally via campus TV and nationally via the web.

Don't for a minute think that there aren't 50 or more big time college presidents who would be THRILLED to no longer have to deal with the beast of a $100 million a year athletic department that spends every nickle it brings in and is under pressure to compete with schools spending $20 million more and match them in salaries and facilities. If the O'Bannon suit gives them the cover to do it, so be it.

If ESPN and Fox get culled from having the product, they can take their money and spend it on youth development leagues for players under age 21 saving the colleges from the hassle of special admissions for athletes that don't meet the school's academic standards but meet the NCAA minimum and they will be applauded by the presidents.

I fail to see a negative in your scenario arkstfan. I just don't see the big time conferences giving up all that TV money nor do I see the tv networks willingly allowing their partners to shut down. they willl work something out. Sports is propping up the cable market as it is, something like this, if you're scenario were to play out, could deeply wound the tv sports titans and the cable industry as a whole

The colleges can walk and the presidents will be happy. It is ESPN, NBC, CBS, and Fox who really have something to lose and their creativity in the event of an O'Bannon victory will determine who wins and loses. If the colleges walk, they win and the players and TV lose. The players can't win unless TV makes the colleges happy.

(03-19-2013 04:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 02:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Y'all presuming that "de-emphasizing" equals dropping the sport or shuttering the doors of the stadiums and arenas.

Doesn't mean that at all.

What it likely means is the end of "ability" based aid, instead aid would be based on academic achievement and financial need.

It likely means caps on spending for athletics.

It probably even means foregoing the wealth of TV. Schools might turn the production and distribution of telecasts and radiocasts over to university owned stations or websites as an educational activity. If there is no revenue from exploiting the likeness on TV or in video games there is none to share.

End of the day, the best athletes will still be going to college to play. The games will be freely available locally via campus TV and nationally via the web.

Don't for a minute think that there aren't 50 or more big time college presidents who would be THRILLED to no longer have to deal with the beast of a $100 million a year athletic department that spends every nickle it brings in and is under pressure to compete with schools spending $20 million more and match them in salaries and facilities. If the O'Bannon suit gives them the cover to do it, so be it.

If ESPN and Fox get culled from having the product, they can take their money and spend it on youth development leagues for players under age 21 saving the colleges from the hassle of special admissions for athletes that don't meet the school's academic standards but meet the NCAA minimum and they will be applauded by the presidents.

I fail to see a negative in your scenario arkstfan. I just don't see the big time conferences giving up all that TV money nor do I see the tv networks willingly allowing their partners to shut down. they willl work something out. Sports is propping up the cable market as it is, something like this, if you're scenario were to play out, could deeply wound the tv sports titans and the cable industry as a whole

The colleges can walk and the presidents will be happy. It is ESPN, NBC, CBS, and Fox who really have something to lose and their creativity in the event of an O'Bannon victory will determine who wins and loses. If the colleges walk, they win and the players and TV lose. The players can't win unless TV makes the colleges happy.

Some of you don't seem to understand how much the faculty and administration dislikes what college athletics has become. And also how few of these schools are really making money. They may still figure out a way to keep doing it if they lose, but that's no guarantee.

(03-19-2013 04:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  .

These power programs are saying that giving athletes something they don't really want -- free tuition and expenses -- is sufficient compensation for generating millions of dollars for the schools. That's ridiculous.

Unless they play football why would the athletes accept something they don't want. They are free to go play pro baseball, soccer, or hockey at any level their skill warrants. They are free to play basketball in any variety of pro leagues other than the NBA. Only football players are stuck yet they are free to go play at schools that won't exploit them in juco or at lower levels of the NCAA or on NAIA.

If they don't WANT what is being offered why are they taking it??!!

They want to play and compete at the level best suited for them. Joe Fivestar with a 50th-percentile ACT score wants to play top-tier college football for a couple years on his way to the pros. He's not going to Enormous State University to get a B.A. If Joe Fivestar was allowed to play football without taking classes at all, he would.

If colleges want to honestly claim that an education is a fair trade for otherwise-uncompensated athletic performance, then colleges must commit to only recruiting kids who enter college with the skills and background to thrive academically and the desire to earn their B.A.

Colleges won't do that because, in football and basketball at least, those requirements would exclude a large percentage of the stars at the elite level. Check back with me after Nick Saban, Bill Self, John Calipari, Bob Stoops, etc. voluntarily restrict their recruiting to players who meet those criteria. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do that.

On the other hand, if top programs are going to continue to recruit athlete-nonstudents -- and of course that's exactly what they're going to do -- then coaches, ADs, and commissioners need to stop spouting BS about free tuition being all the compensation that star athletes are entitled to.

One other thing to consider, if Colleges ball officially becomes a glorified minor league, what big coaches would want to stick around? If it turns into a battle of who can pay the players more, why stay in college when that is what the pros are?

This is a bluff if I've ever seen it. If the B1G was remotely close to being serious then they should drop the BTN. They won't drop it because its a tremendous source of revenue.

(03-19-2013 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:40 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  In college the school, the colors, the logo, the history, the tradition are the selling point. There are very very few people who are such a fan of a player that they would go buy their jersey from each stop along the way if the player transfers.

It's true that history and tradition are important, but they are important only because of the success of the athletes whose work created that history and tradition. Rutgers has been playing football longer than Notre Dame. Having "more" history and tradition is nowhere near as valuable as having "better" history and tradition.

And, history and tradition are far more valuable when combined with current success -- which exists because of the work of the current athletes. USC or Alabama football generate much more money when they are on top than when they are in a Paul Hackett or Mike Shula era.

If you subtract the past and current success of the athletes who made it happen, then these power programs would have no "brand equity". None.

No one can credibly argue that free tuition and expenses are fair compensation at the top programs, and that's even more so in an era where the football and basketball factories reap tremendous amounts of money while recruiting athletes who have little or no interest in getting their college degree.

These power programs are saying that giving athletes something they don't really want -- free tuition and expenses -- is sufficient compensation for generating millions of dollars for the schools. That's ridiculous.

99% of the players are over-compensated. They're getting a scholarship worth 40,000 a year at the big state schools. More at the private schools. They get tutoring worth 5-10k. They get coaching and training they couldn't pay for. They get access to the best training facilities in the country. They get trainers and medical personnel. They're getting 200-300k in value over 4 years.

(03-19-2013 06:32 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  This is a bluff if I've ever seen it. If the B1G was remotely close to being serious then they should drop the BTN. They won't drop it because its a tremendous source of revenue.

Of course it's a bluff. Delany's quote conveniently included a remark about dropping Title IX. What court in the world would get anywhere near abolishing Title IX?

If somehow colleges were forced to pay players, then Delany would be ready to pay them more than anybody else. (Legally, of course. Insert Ohio State/Alabama joke here.)

(03-19-2013 09:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:40 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  In college the school, the colors, the logo, the history, the tradition are the selling point. There are very very few people who are such a fan of a player that they would go buy their jersey from each stop along the way if the player transfers.

It's true that history and tradition are important, but they are important only because of the success of the athletes whose work created that history and tradition. Rutgers has been playing football longer than Notre Dame. Having "more" history and tradition is nowhere near as valuable as having "better" history and tradition.

And, history and tradition are far more valuable when combined with current success -- which exists because of the work of the current athletes. USC or Alabama football generate much more money when they are on top than when they are in a Paul Hackett or Mike Shula era.

If you subtract the past and current success of the athletes who made it happen, then these power programs would have no "brand equity". None.

No one can credibly argue that free tuition and expenses are fair compensation at the top programs, and that's even more so in an era where the football and basketball factories reap tremendous amounts of money while recruiting athletes who have little or no interest in getting their college degree.

These power programs are saying that giving athletes something they don't really want -- free tuition and expenses -- is sufficient compensation for generating millions of dollars for the schools. That's ridiculous.

99% of the players are over-compensated. They're getting a scholarship worth 40,000 a year at the big state schools. More at the private schools. They get tutoring worth 5-10k. They get coaching and training they couldn't pay for. They get access to the best training facilities in the country. They get trainers and medical personnel. They're getting 200-300k in value over 4 years.

Don't forget some get free food and lodging if they stay on campus along with free books etc (by free I mean access to a meal plan and scholarships for books of course). In all seriousness why do we feel sorry for big time student athletes? If they don't like all of that free stuff then go somewhere else to go to the pros. If you don't like that option because college is the best way to get to the NFL congrats you just proved that the college is valuable in its own right for your career so you should not complain for getting that bonus and then free stuff on top of that.