Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,453
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #161
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-11-2018 04:57 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 11:08 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 03:38 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  If observations of the behavior of institutions over the last couple of decades have revealed anything, it is that no expense will be spared to if an institution wants to maintain its place in the athletic hierarchy. This could describe Duke suddenly spending large amounts of money on a long-neglected football program that had decades of historically atrocious performances or Rutgers subsidizing their athletic department, still, to a tune of over $28m a year (~$10 more than the next most subsidized P5 school) despite the fact that the performance of its athletic department is, historically, one of the worst in all major and mid-major athletic conferences. I use these examples because for these two schools, Duke football and Rutgers athletic successes' have clearly not had tangible impacts on addressing the overall missions of these institutions. But for whatever reasons, these universities still deem their positions in the athletic hierarchy as one of significant importance and spent resources accordingly to protect those positions.

Therefore, if a school wants to maintain its place, it will do so. Contrast this to Temple's essential unwillingness to address conference mandated issues with its football program in the 1990s while an affiliate member of Big East football. It just didn't care. Schools that value their place, and demonstrate that by spending appropriately on revenue sports, aren't going to be forced out, no matter how small the rest of their overall athletic budget is. There is a reason Georgia Tech only sponsors 17 varsity sports, Kansas State 16, or Northwestern only 18 Big Ten sports, and no one else in those conferences cares. And they don't care because it doesn't impact the bottom line of any of the other members. What does is the media contracts built around football and men's basketball, and those are the only two sports that really need to be funded to a competitive level. How schools get there, whether it is issuing debt, dropping men's tennis or having less assistants for softball, isn't really a concern to their partners.

I agree with Terry. Contraction is only occurring if college athletes become overtly paid professionals and some schools, like ND, decide to split because it is incongruent with their academic ideologies. You aren't going to see Wake or Vandy forced out of anything. However, you could see them join a consortium of like-minded universities exiting "professional" athletics over ethical considerations.

This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

Thanks. If that is the criteria there will be NO true contraction then since no one, not even the supposed academic elite schools, will sacrifice their athletic status on the altar of "academic conscience". 03-lmfao

Cheers,
Neil

Except it won't work that way Neil. The justification for the separation might be academic conscience, but the motivation for the separation will be purely economic. There will be those who simply recognize that they will be severely impaired by an open market for paid players. It's a game changer if the courts so rule.

They already are paying players the extra cost of living stipend. Not to mention secret bag money to high prospects families in bb. They will simply pay less for the athletes the Super Football Brands don't want. 07-coffee3

Cheers,
Neil

You won't keep your athletic donors with that duplicity. You'll either be all in or all out.
04-11-2018 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 198
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #162
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-11-2018 05:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 04:57 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 11:08 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

Thanks. If that is the criteria there will be NO true contraction then since no one, not even the supposed academic elite schools, will sacrifice their athletic status on the altar of "academic conscience". 03-lmfao

Cheers,
Neil

Except it won't work that way Neil. The justification for the separation might be academic conscience, but the motivation for the separation will be purely economic. There will be those who simply recognize that they will be severely impaired by an open market for paid players. It's a game changer if the courts so rule.

They already are paying players the extra cost of living stipend. Not to mention secret bag money to high prospects families in bb. They will simply pay less for the athletes the Super Football Brands don't want. 07-coffee3

Cheers,
Neil

You won't keep your athletic donors with that duplicity. You'll either be all in or all out.

That's not how it will work, imho. The Super Brands will pay more for the 5 star and higher 4 star recruits while others will decide to pay less for the lesser 4 star, 3 star, and 2 star recruits.

I don't see it being they ALL get paid the same amount. There could possibly be a minimum, but I don't see them all getting paid the same.

It will be similar to how the cost-of-living stipends currently are where the amount of $$$ varies from institution to institution. As I see it, this likely narrows it down even further to the level of athlete by athlete and by sport.

Cheers,
Neil
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2018 01:44 AM by OrangeDude.)
04-12-2018 01:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,875
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 572
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #163
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 01:43 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 05:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 04:57 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 11:08 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Thanks. If that is the criteria there will be NO true contraction then since no one, not even the supposed academic elite schools, will sacrifice their athletic status on the altar of "academic conscience". 03-lmfao

Cheers,
Neil

Except it won't work that way Neil. The justification for the separation might be academic conscience, but the motivation for the separation will be purely economic. There will be those who simply recognize that they will be severely impaired by an open market for paid players. It's a game changer if the courts so rule.

They already are paying players the extra cost of living stipend. Not to mention secret bag money to high prospects families in bb. They will simply pay less for the athletes the Super Football Brands don't want. 07-coffee3

Cheers,
Neil

You won't keep your athletic donors with that duplicity. You'll either be all in or all out.

That's not how it will work, imho. The Super Brands will pay more for the 5 star and higher 4 star recruits while others will decide to pay less for the lesser 4 star, 3 star, and 2 star recruits.

I don't see it being they ALL get paid the same amount. There could possibly be a minimum, but I don't see them all getting paid the same.

It will be similar to how the cost-of-living stipends currently are where the amount of $$$ varies from institution to institution. As I see it, this likely narrows it down even further to the level of athlete by athlete and by sport.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I don't think JR was referring to the athletes... I think he meant the DONORS would stop giving money (or at least, would give MUCH less) if Syracuse dropped down to a lower level of athletics. It would just mean less... to paraphrase the SEC slogan.

The duplicity is (a) we don't want to treat our players as semi-pros (or compete with those that do), but (b) we still want you donors to pay them under the table...?
04-12-2018 04:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 198
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #164
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 04:35 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:43 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 05:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 04:57 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except it won't work that way Neil. The justification for the separation might be academic conscience, but the motivation for the separation will be purely economic. There will be those who simply recognize that they will be severely impaired by an open market for paid players. It's a game changer if the courts so rule.

They already are paying players the extra cost of living stipend. Not to mention secret bag money to high prospects families in bb. They will simply pay less for the athletes the Super Football Brands don't want. 07-coffee3

Cheers,
Neil

You won't keep your athletic donors with that duplicity. You'll either be all in or all out.

That's not how it will work, imho. The Super Brands will pay more for the 5 star and higher 4 star recruits while others will decide to pay less for the lesser 4 star, 3 star, and 2 star recruits.

I don't see it being they ALL get paid the same amount. There could possibly be a minimum, but I don't see them all getting paid the same.

It will be similar to how the cost-of-living stipends currently are where the amount of $$$ varies from institution to institution. As I see it, this likely narrows it down even further to the level of athlete by athlete and by sport.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I don't think JR was referring to the athletes... I think he meant the DONORS would stop giving money (or at least, would give MUCH less) if Syracuse dropped down to a lower level of athletics. It would just mean less... to paraphrase the SEC slogan.

The duplicity is (a) we don't want to treat our players as semi-pros (or compete with those that do), but (b) we still want you donors to pay them under the table...?

Perhaps, but remember the response was to my post about institutions not voluntarily opting out but remaining involved in upper level collegiate athletics, but simply paying out less to the athletes the Super Brands didn't want since obviously the Super Brands would get those better athletes anyway as a result of their being better off financially.

I took his point as being that donors would stop giving if institutions opted to go the "cheaper" route (which isn't happening now in the current model - re COL stipends) and because that is how I took it I replied as I did since I wasn't sure why it would be different in the new paradigm.

I will await further clarification from JR as to what he meant precisely.

Cheers,
Neil
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2018 05:30 AM by OrangeDude.)
04-12-2018 05:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,100
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #165
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-10-2018 03:38 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:46 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:43 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 05:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I understand Neil's argument that what you get from the conference and what you earn on your own are 2 different things (and should probably be treated as such). For this reason conference averages are far less valuable than conference payouts.

For example, the 7th highest total revenues in the ACC belong to Syracuse (ironically) at $91.4M, while the 7th in the SEC would be South Carolina at $136.0M. Does that mean SC made more money BECAUSE they were in the SEC... or because they themselves are bigger and have a large fan base than Syracuse? Neil's point - that if we remove the conference payouts from both schools - is that Syracuse earned about $63M apart from the ACC payout, while SC earned about $96M apart from the SEC. SC wins anyway.

I also understand JR's argument that money is money, regardless of how you get it. I can say I'd make more if I were the president of Disney - but I'm not and never will be (spoiler!)

The ACC always looks worse when you average all 14 schools because of the small private schools. Does WalMart sell more stuff than the Mom & Pop Corner Store? Of course they do, but that tells you nothing about the profitability of the location. A better comparison would be how does the WalMart in SEC country compare to the one in ACC country? For that kind of comparison, the ACC really only has 2 schools with athletic programs as big as most SEC schools - Clemson and Florida State. Half of the ACC is made up of Syracuse-sized schools. It is what it is.

Total gross revenue isn't shared between conference members. Athletic departments vary wildly in size, scope, subsidy, the number of varsity teams supported, and the accounting employed, especially between public and private schools. The ACC has more small schools and over 3X more private schools than any other conference and everyone that actually matters is well aware of that and couldn't care less that "mean gross revenue" doesn't match conferences that are predominantly filled with large state flagships. It matters not one whit to Florida State or Clemson what amount of gross athletic revenue Wake and Georgia Tech bring in as long as those schools maintain a semblance of competitiveness in football so that they don't become an anchor when strength of schedule metrics are important. What matters as far as conference affiliations is the money that each school receives from their conference, the exposure facilitated by the conference, and whether the conference allows them to compete at the highest levels. No one gives a crap if Boston College doesn't make more revenue than Mississippi State, except maybe Boston College.

Hail CrazyPaco!

I agree with most of this, except perhaps (in part) the highlighted statement because I am not entirely sure you meant it the way I am taking it.

As I am sure all are aware, the ACC is behind the 8-ball in terms of conference payouts mainly due to three factors, which I discussed in Post 107:

1) The TV Contract
2) The Contract Bowl Contract
3) Conference Network not up and running yet

Being behind (and significantly behind in terms of conference distributions) I believe can impact FSU's and Clemson's sustaining year-in and year-out competitive levels with their peers in the SEC - specifically in this case Florida and South Carolina. This contention may seem silly considering the recent success of FSU and Clemson this decade, but the key is, what happens if their football records mirror more what happened in the late 00s? Perhaps then it might be impactful in terms of their recovery?

There is also a piece of this that is impacted by who they have to play in conference (which some fans believes impact their individual revenue in terms of ticket sales, donations, etc.), but that only muddies the waters even more in this thread since it goes into conference membership and divisional set-ups, etc., so I didn't want to go there.

That is one separate sub-discussion in this thread that started with a discussion about the ACC being a stitched together conference that combined with the 5th place finances will likely lead to its better programs considering leaving the conference.

My post 107 was meant to show that being 5th place in conference revenue distribution was not necessarily a "forever thing" and hopefully gave reasons why I believe each of the above will be addressed in the next go-round of negotiations or in the case of the ACCN being addressed now to help narrow the gap - with the realistic goal of getting to third place since it is unlikely the ACC will ever catch the B1G and SEC overall in this regard. It is what is fellow ACC fans, I think the majority of us know this.

Another sub-discussion is dealing with this notion posted by Fighting Muskie- I think it all comes down to finances. If Clemson and Florida St want to keep up with Alabama and Georgia they can't do so when they are bringing in less money than Vanderbilt and Mississippi St..

Well, obviously neither Mississippi State nor Vandy are bringing in more overall money than FSU and Clemson (despite getting $15 million more in conference distributions over FSU and $12 million more than Clemson according to the last available data out there on conference payouts for 2015-16).

This combined with a minor but friendly dispute with JR in another thread over on the SEC board about the power conferences contracting to between 36 and 40/44/48 teams has resulted in some of the posts you have been reading in the latter part of this thread by me that brings into contention that certain lower level B1G/SEC teams will make the cut.

Now to be fair to JR, he wasn't advocating this based solely on overall conference athletics, but other factors as well. But I chose to focus solely on looking at what I refer to as Institutional Athletic Revenue since Total Athletic Revenue is both Conference Revenues distributed to an individual institution as well as Individual Institutional Athletic Revenue.

But if contractions occurs, will it be voluntary, forced, or a combination of both? Is it possible this Individual Institutional Athletic Revenue factor will influences who voluntarily drops out? So, being a fan of a private university, I am interested in this topic without necessarily taking a stance on what is likely to happen.

Since I have suspected this was going to be a possibility in the future, I have been developing a spread sheet on what I refer to as Individual Athletic Revenue (total revenue minus conference revenue) that I hopefully am going to follow over a span of 5 years before considering posting. With both data sets (EADA total revenue for all and conference revenue distributions for all but one conference) being out there for the 2015-16 that is the base year.

Hope this post makes some sense. I do tend to get long-winded sometimes.

Cheers,
Neil

If observations of the behavior of institutions over the last couple of decades have revealed anything, it is that no expense will be spared to if an institution wants to maintain its place in the athletic hierarchy. This could describe Duke suddenly spending large amounts of money on a long-neglected football program that had decades of historically atrocious performances or Rutgers subsidizing their athletic department, still, to a tune of over $28m a year (~$10 more than the next most subsidized P5 school) despite the fact that the performance of its athletic department is, historically, one of the worst in all major and mid-major athletic conferences. I use these examples because for these two schools, Duke football and Rutgers athletic successes' have clearly not had tangible impacts on addressing the overall missions of these institutions. But for whatever reasons, these universities still deem their positions in the athletic hierarchy as one of significant importance and spent resources accordingly to protect those positions.

Therefore, if a school wants to maintain its place, it will do so. Contrast this to Temple's essential unwillingness to address conference mandated issues with its football program in the 1990s while an affiliate member of Big East football. It just didn't care. Schools that value their place, and demonstrate that by spending appropriately on revenue sports, aren't going to be forced out, no matter how small the rest of their overall athletic budget is. There is a reason Georgia Tech only sponsors 17 varsity sports, Kansas State 16, or Northwestern only 18 Big Ten sports, and no one else in those conferences cares. And they don't care because it doesn't impact the bottom line of any of the other members. What does is the media contracts built around football and men's basketball, and those are the only two sports that really need to be funded to a competitive level. How schools get there, whether it is issuing debt, dropping men's tennis or having less assistants for softball, isn't really a concern to their partners.

I agree with Terry. Contraction is only occurring if college athletes become overtly paid professionals and some schools, like ND, decide to split because it is incongruent with their academic ideologies. You aren't going to see Wake or Vandy forced out of anything. However, you could see them join a consortium of like-minded universities exiting "professional" athletics over ethical considerations.

Another rape scandal and the concussion issue could trigger some of the privates to drop out.
04-12-2018 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #166
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

I think that true payment of players will lead to the dissolution of college athletics. Yes, we all know that, in effect, at the P5 schools like Alabama in football and North Carolina in basketball, the players are "mercenaries", they are brought in strictly to play the sport, with eyes on the NFL/NBA, and have little connection to the university community as such. And they are often receiving benefits under the table.

Nevertheless, the veneer of amateurism and of attending classes is enough for university supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace them as embodying their school and all it stands for to them, which is the vital basis upon which they shower money on the team and watch on TV.

Make it a naked "pay for play" situation, and Alabama alumni will no longer think of the them as "Alabama", they will just be a semi-pro team from Tuscaloosa, and there's no point in following that. The vital psychic connection to the university will be lost, and supporters will therefore lose interest.

So IMO, true professionalism WILL mean the "end of the NCAA" as many around here say, but not for the reasons they think, which is that it will shift power away from the NCAA to the players. It will mean the "end of the NCAA" because "big time intercollegiate athletics" will shrivel away.
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2018 08:55 AM by quo vadis.)
04-12-2018 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 198
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #167
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

I think that true payment of players will lead to the dissolution of college athletics. Yes, we all know that, in effect, at the P5 schools like Alabama in football and North Carolina in basketball, the players are "mercenaries", they are brought in strictly to play the sport, with eyes on the NFL/NBA, and have little connection to the university community as such. And they are often receiving benefits under the table.

Nevertheless, the veneer of amateurism and of attending classes is enough for university supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace them as embodying their school and all it stands for to them, which is the vital basis upon which they shower money on the team and watch on TV.

Make it a naked "pay for play" situation, and Alabama alumni will no longer think of the them as "Alabama", they will just be a semi-pro team from Tuscaloosa, and there's no point in following that. The vital psychic connection to the university will be lost, and supporters will therefore lose interest.

So IMO, true professionalism WILL mean the "end of the NCAA" as many around here say, but not for the reasons they think, which is that it will shift power away from the NCAA to the players. It will mean the "end of the NCAA" because "big time intercollegiate athletics" will shrivel away.

Very interesting take Quo.

+3

Cheers,
Neil
04-12-2018 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #168
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

I think that true payment of players will lead to the dissolution of college athletics. Yes, we all know that, in effect, at the P5 schools like Alabama in football and North Carolina in basketball, the players are "mercenaries", they are brought in strictly to play the sport, with eyes on the NFL/NBA, and have little connection to the university community as such. And they are often receiving benefits under the table.

Nevertheless, the veneer of amateurism and of attending classes is enough for university supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace them as embodying their school and all it stands for to them, which is the vital basis upon which they shower money on the team and watch on TV.

Make it a naked "pay for play" situation, and Alabama alumni will no longer think of the them as "Alabama", they will just be a semi-pro team from Tuscaloosa, and there's no point in following that. The vital psychic connection to the university will be lost, and supporters will therefore lose interest.

So IMO, true professionalism WILL mean the "end of the NCAA" as many around here say, but not for the reasons they think, which is that it will shift power away from the NCAA to the players. It will mean the "end of the NCAA" because "big time intercollegiate athletics" will shrivel away.

Very interesting take Quo.

+3

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers
04-12-2018 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 198
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #169
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

I think that true payment of players will lead to the dissolution of college athletics. Yes, we all know that, in effect, at the P5 schools like Alabama in football and North Carolina in basketball, the players are "mercenaries", they are brought in strictly to play the sport, with eyes on the NFL/NBA, and have little connection to the university community as such. And they are often receiving benefits under the table.

Nevertheless, the veneer of amateurism and of attending classes is enough for university supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace them as embodying their school and all it stands for to them, which is the vital basis upon which they shower money on the team and watch on TV.

Make it a naked "pay for play" situation, and Alabama alumni will no longer think of the them as "Alabama", they will just be a semi-pro team from Tuscaloosa, and there's no point in following that. The vital psychic connection to the university will be lost, and supporters will therefore lose interest.

So IMO, true professionalism WILL mean the "end of the NCAA" as many around here say, but not for the reasons they think, which is that it will shift power away from the NCAA to the players. It will mean the "end of the NCAA" because "big time intercollegiate athletics" will shrivel away.

Very interesting take Quo.

+3

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil
04-12-2018 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,700
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #170
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

I think that true payment of players will lead to the dissolution of college athletics. Yes, we all know that, in effect, at the P5 schools like Alabama in football and North Carolina in basketball, the players are "mercenaries", they are brought in strictly to play the sport, with eyes on the NFL/NBA, and have little connection to the university community as such. And they are often receiving benefits under the table.

Nevertheless, the veneer of amateurism and of attending classes is enough for university supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace them as embodying their school and all it stands for to them, which is the vital basis upon which they shower money on the team and watch on TV.

Make it a naked "pay for play" situation, and Alabama alumni will no longer think of the them as "Alabama", they will just be a semi-pro team from Tuscaloosa, and there's no point in following that. The vital psychic connection to the university will be lost, and supporters will therefore lose interest.

So IMO, true professionalism WILL mean the "end of the NCAA" as many around here say, but not for the reasons they think, which is that it will shift power away from the NCAA to the players. It will mean the "end of the NCAA" because "big time intercollegiate athletics" will shrivel away.

Backhanded but not accurate.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketb...e-and-done

Tony Bradley is UNC's first one-and-done in almost a decade.

Bradley didn’t start a game for UNC as a freshman, instead coming off the bench behind two former McDonald’s All-Americans who stayed all four years in Kennedy Meeks and Isaiah Hicks. With both Meeks and Hicks graduating, Bradley would have been the Tar Heels’ best frontcourt player next season and one of the top returning sophomores in the country.
04-12-2018 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #171
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is exactly how we will get to the contracted number, be it 32 or up to 48. The schools that want to pursue the upper echelon will just stay the course and the schools, that because of academic conscience, will choose to drop to a lower level and band together to compete among peers.

I think that true payment of players will lead to the dissolution of college athletics. Yes, we all know that, in effect, at the P5 schools like Alabama in football and North Carolina in basketball, the players are "mercenaries", they are brought in strictly to play the sport, with eyes on the NFL/NBA, and have little connection to the university community as such. And they are often receiving benefits under the table.

Nevertheless, the veneer of amateurism and of attending classes is enough for university supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace them as embodying their school and all it stands for to them, which is the vital basis upon which they shower money on the team and watch on TV.

Make it a naked "pay for play" situation, and Alabama alumni will no longer think of the them as "Alabama", they will just be a semi-pro team from Tuscaloosa, and there's no point in following that. The vital psychic connection to the university will be lost, and supporters will therefore lose interest.

So IMO, true professionalism WILL mean the "end of the NCAA" as many around here say, but not for the reasons they think, which is that it will shift power away from the NCAA to the players. It will mean the "end of the NCAA" because "big time intercollegiate athletics" will shrivel away.

Very interesting take Quo.

+3

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

Not just for this case, but generally: At the bottom of every post except for your own, at the same level as the "reply" button but on the left hand side, near where it says the date/time of the post, there are icons that from left to right say "email", "PM", "WWW" (not everyone has all three of these, depends on what methods of communication they chose for their profile)), "Find", and then a box with a figure of a person and green + sign. You just click on that box with the figure/+ sign, and that brings up a dialog box that you can then use to give the poster + (or minus) for that post.

04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2018 02:14 PM by quo vadis.)
04-12-2018 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 198
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #172
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 02:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think that true payment of players will lead to the dissolution of college athletics. Yes, we all know that, in effect, at the P5 schools like Alabama in football and North Carolina in basketball, the players are "mercenaries", they are brought in strictly to play the sport, with eyes on the NFL/NBA, and have little connection to the university community as such. And they are often receiving benefits under the table.

Nevertheless, the veneer of amateurism and of attending classes is enough for university supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace them as embodying their school and all it stands for to them, which is the vital basis upon which they shower money on the team and watch on TV.

Make it a naked "pay for play" situation, and Alabama alumni will no longer think of the them as "Alabama", they will just be a semi-pro team from Tuscaloosa, and there's no point in following that. The vital psychic connection to the university will be lost, and supporters will therefore lose interest.

So IMO, true professionalism WILL mean the "end of the NCAA" as many around here say, but not for the reasons they think, which is that it will shift power away from the NCAA to the players. It will mean the "end of the NCAA" because "big time intercollegiate athletics" will shrivel away.

Very interesting take Quo.

+3

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

Not just for this case, but generally: At the bottom of every post except for your own, at the same level as the "reply" button but on the left hand side, near where it says the date/time of the post, there are icons that from left to right say "email", "PM", "WWW" (not everyone has all three of these, depends on what methods of communication they chose for their profile)), "Find", and then a box with a figure of a person and green + sign. You just click on that box with the figure/+ sign, and that brings up a dialog box that you can then use to give the poster + (or minus) for that post.

04-cheers

I don't have that icon next to Find. Only icon I have with a green + sign is on the right hand side and it says when I click on it - "quote this post" when I am on it. Maybe there is something on my set-up that I didn't click to enable the ratings icon?

Cheers,
Neil
04-12-2018 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #173
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 02:51 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Very interesting take Quo.

+3

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

Not just for this case, but generally: At the bottom of every post except for your own, at the same level as the "reply" button but on the left hand side, near where it says the date/time of the post, there are icons that from left to right say "email", "PM", "WWW" (not everyone has all three of these, depends on what methods of communication they chose for their profile)), "Find", and then a box with a figure of a person and green + sign. You just click on that box with the figure/+ sign, and that brings up a dialog box that you can then use to give the poster + (or minus) for that post.

04-cheers

I don't have that icon next to Find. Only icon I have with a green + sign is on the right hand side and it says when I click on it - "quote this post" when I am on it. Maybe there is something on my set-up that I didn't click to enable the ratings icon?

Cheers,
Neil

Yes, we've hit a road block in terms of my ability to help, because I don't know why you don't have the "green +" icon on the left side i described. Perhaps message a mod who can help? It is fun to give plusses and the occasional minus, LOL. 04-cheers
04-12-2018 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,875
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 572
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #174
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

[Image: postbit_reputation.gif] <-- the button looks like this
04-12-2018 03:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,453
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #175
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

[Image: postbit_reputation.gif] <-- the button looks like this
Off Topic Here but here's why Omni/OrangeDude can't give rep. You have to reach 600 posts as a new account before the option to give reputation is provided.

There were too many trolls and flame wars that were requiring reputation repair and 600 posts is enough time identify and ban trolls and tame flamers.

If there are follow up questions or the desire to explore a remedy in this case for a long time poster then PM me.
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2018 04:22 PM by JRsec.)
04-12-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 198
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #176
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

[Image: postbit_reputation.gif] <-- the button looks like this
Off Topic Here but here's why Omni/OrangeDude can't give rep. You have to reach 600 posts as a new account before the option to give reputation is provided.

There were too many trolls and flame wars that were requiring reputation repair and 600 posts is enough time identify and ban trolls and tame flamers.

If there are follow up questions or the desire to explore a remedy in this case for a long time poster then PM me.

Thanks JR, that explains it. And no remedy required. It wasn't a function I used a lot anyway.

Cheers,
Neil
04-12-2018 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,979
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 659
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #177
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-12-2018 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:51 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

Not just for this case, but generally: At the bottom of every post except for your own, at the same level as the "reply" button but on the left hand side, near where it says the date/time of the post, there are icons that from left to right say "email", "PM", "WWW" (not everyone has all three of these, depends on what methods of communication they chose for their profile)), "Find", and then a box with a figure of a person and green + sign. You just click on that box with the figure/+ sign, and that brings up a dialog box that you can then use to give the poster + (or minus) for that post.

04-cheers

I don't have that icon next to Find. Only icon I have with a green + sign is on the right hand side and it says when I click on it - "quote this post" when I am on it. Maybe there is something on my set-up that I didn't click to enable the ratings icon?

Cheers,
Neil

Yes, we've hit a road block in terms of my ability to help, because I don't know why you don't have the "green +" icon on the left side i described. Perhaps message a mod who can help? It is fun to give plusses and the occasional minus, LOL. 04-cheers

(04-12-2018 04:40 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks Neil ... and feel free to actually add that +3 to my rating, LOL. 04-cheers

I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

[Image: postbit_reputation.gif] <-- the button looks like this
Off Topic Here but here's why Omni/OrangeDude can't give rep. You have to reach 600 posts as a new account before the option to give reputation is provided.

There were too many trolls and flame wars that were requiring reputation repair and 600 posts is enough time identify and ban trolls and tame flamers.

If there are follow up questions or the desire to explore a remedy in this case for a long time poster then PM me.

Thanks JR, that explains it. And no remedy required. It wasn't a function I used a lot anyway.

Cheers,
Neil

I gave Quo some points for you....what is this place coming to? When a Cuse guy reps a Hoya?
04-16-2018 06:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 198
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #178
RE: Institutional and Sports culture in the ACC
(04-16-2018 06:35 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:51 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

Not just for this case, but generally: At the bottom of every post except for your own, at the same level as the "reply" button but on the left hand side, near where it says the date/time of the post, there are icons that from left to right say "email", "PM", "WWW" (not everyone has all three of these, depends on what methods of communication they chose for their profile)), "Find", and then a box with a figure of a person and green + sign. You just click on that box with the figure/+ sign, and that brings up a dialog box that you can then use to give the poster + (or minus) for that post.

04-cheers

I don't have that icon next to Find. Only icon I have with a green + sign is on the right hand side and it says when I click on it - "quote this post" when I am on it. Maybe there is something on my set-up that I didn't click to enable the ratings icon?

Cheers,
Neil

Yes, we've hit a road block in terms of my ability to help, because I don't know why you don't have the "green +" icon on the left side i described. Perhaps message a mod who can help? It is fun to give plusses and the occasional minus, LOL. 04-cheers

(04-12-2018 04:40 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I would but I can't seem to remember how to do that since I came back. 03-lmfao

04-cheers
Neil

[Image: postbit_reputation.gif] <-- the button looks like this
Off Topic Here but here's why Omni/OrangeDude can't give rep. You have to reach 600 posts as a new account before the option to give reputation is provided.

There were too many trolls and flame wars that were requiring reputation repair and 600 posts is enough time identify and ban trolls and tame flamers.

If there are follow up questions or the desire to explore a remedy in this case for a long time poster then PM me.

Thanks JR, that explains it. And no remedy required. It wasn't a function I used a lot anyway.

Cheers,
Neil

I gave Quo some points for you....what is this place coming to? When a Cuse guy reps a Hoya?

LOL. Thanks Mark

Cheers,
Neil
04-16-2018 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.