(11-01-2018 10:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

To borrow a line from Frank.

Think like a university president.

A lot of that NCAA overhead is to pay for side items like research and outreach etc that the presidents like and they know if that money flows into the athletic department it will go to facilities and salaries, if it stays with the NCAA it can fund their interests.

Don't assume that the presidents that matter dislike how the NCAA uses the money that is generated via the value of their athletic departments.

But the people who generate it don't get it.

That's not really an argument that sways most college Presidents. The majority (not all, but a clear majority) of them are commies at heart.

Uhm, Commie elites who have a fat pension, a lovely dacha at the lake, and don't have to compete for a living. If they were just regular commies they damn sure would want a different hierarchy and system.

Most of these guys now just want to run the academic side of things and let the capitalists run the athletic side. I think in the end they will go with the flow of what (pick one: regents, B.O.G. and B.O.T.) members want.

Wait you guys are making up bizarre definitions of communist.

If I donate money to a charitable activity via payroll deduction that sure isn't commie.

The power schools could have the NCAA Tournament money flow in a greater percentage to them.

Instead they CHOOSE to subsidize Division championships in sports they don't sponsor. They CHOOSE to subsidize lower division championship events.
They choose to subsidize funds used for post-graduate programs, for student-athlete tutoring programs, for research on athlete health and safety, degree completion, education programs for student-athletes, coaches, and administrators.

They know that if that money flows into their athletic program there will be immense pressure to spend that money on coaching salaries and more athletic facilities.

In way shape or form does this resemble communism it is much more similar to me having money sent to my church to fund the mortgage, salaries, education programs and mission programs before it goes into my wallet.

I would personally like to see more NCAA divisions than 3. Allow for the provision of athletic scholarships to be determined by each individual institution (or by conference) rather than a sweeping rule across each division. I'd like to see a limitation of no more than 120 or so schools per division, depending.

The line drawn after #19 above (Ivy) and before #20 (Atlantic Sun) could be a good place. I could see some schools flip-flopping over that line. I would think that, if the Ivy makes it in then perhaps the Patriot gets a pass as well (at least Army and Navy, if no one else.)

(11-01-2018 10:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

To borrow a line from Frank.

Think like a university president.

A lot of that NCAA overhead is to pay for side items like research and outreach etc that the presidents like and they know if that money flows into the athletic department it will go to facilities and salaries, if it stays with the NCAA it can fund their interests.

Don't assume that the presidents that matter dislike how the NCAA uses the money that is generated via the value of their athletic departments.

But the people who generate it don't get it.

That's not really an argument that sways most college Presidents. The majority (not all, but a clear majority) of them are commies at heart.

Communists are all capitalists at heart. They're just lazy. Why do you think all the elite lived so well while the rest struggled. Also, take a look at president's salaries. Its not as high as the football coach, but they're pretty comfortable.

(11-05-2018 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

To borrow a line from Frank.

Think like a university president.

A lot of that NCAA overhead is to pay for side items like research and outreach etc that the presidents like and they know if that money flows into the athletic department it will go to facilities and salaries, if it stays with the NCAA it can fund their interests.

Don't assume that the presidents that matter dislike how the NCAA uses the money that is generated via the value of their athletic departments.

But the people who generate it don't get it.

That's not really an argument that sways most college Presidents. The majority (not all, but a clear majority) of them are commies at heart.

Communists are all capitalists at heart. They're just lazy. Why do you think all the elite lived so well while the rest struggled. Also, take a look at president's salaries. Its not as high as the football coach, but they're pretty comfortable.

University presidents aren't commies.

They are much more like the aristocracy of city states. They know and understand that while they hold the crown the AD and football coach (or hoops coach) in general hold the hearts of the masses.

They know flushing more money into the hands of the AD and coaches increases their power even more, especially if the AD is able to flow some money into the academic side.

The princes are more than happy to let the NCAA have money that can buy them off the books business trips to NCAA meetings (also why conferences have significant overhead) and they can fund pet projects they like that the AD would complain about having to fund if money got tight and the school were directly funding it.

What they don't support is equal redistribution.

(11-05-2018 02:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  To borrow a line from Frank.

Think like a university president.

A lot of that NCAA overhead is to pay for side items like research and outreach etc that the presidents like and they know if that money flows into the athletic department it will go to facilities and salaries, if it stays with the NCAA it can fund their interests.

Don't assume that the presidents that matter dislike how the NCAA uses the money that is generated via the value of their athletic departments.

But the people who generate it don't get it.

That's not really an argument that sways most college Presidents. The majority (not all, but a clear majority) of them are commies at heart.

Communists are all capitalists at heart. They're just lazy. Why do you think all the elite lived so well while the rest struggled. Also, take a look at president's salaries. Its not as high as the football coach, but they're pretty comfortable.

University presidents aren't commies.

They are much more like the aristocracy of city states. They know and understand that while they hold the crown the AD and football coach (or hoops coach) in general hold the hearts of the masses.

They know flushing more money into the hands of the AD and coaches increases their power even more, especially if the AD is able to flow some money into the academic side.

The princes are more than happy to let the NCAA have money that can buy them off the books business trips to NCAA meetings (also why conferences have significant overhead) and they can fund pet projects they like that the AD would complain about having to fund if money got tight and the school were directly funding it.

What they don't support is equal redistribution.

They are exactly like party apparatchiks, who live in a home provided by the state, have private dachas in resort areas, and go with the flow of the party to insure their future success. That's exactly how the party elites have lived in every damned communist system that has existed outside of Tito's Yugoslavia.

What you're missing is that in this situation the NCAA is the damned Communist Party!

And the proof is in how they dole out just enough to keep the serfs happy, and ignore the crimes committed by their most powerful members.

The 65 top schools won't leave because they can't organize cooperatively and don't want to risk their own overhead funding for compliance with independent agencies who might have decided that a school like North Carolina did indeed deserve sanctions in spite of the fact that it would harm their cash cow.

And the presidents can't conceive of another world beyond the NCAA. University Presidents are astute politicians and people pleasers but what they aren't is imaginative, resourceful, risk takers.

(11-05-2018 02:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  University presidents aren't commies.

They are much more like the aristocracy of city states. They know and understand that while they hold the crown the AD and football coach (or hoops coach) in general hold the hearts of the masses.

They know flushing more money into the hands of the AD and coaches increases their power even more, especially if the AD is able to flow some money into the academic side.

In one way, yes. In another way, a university president is like a CEO of a corporation that has its hands in several different lines of business, athletics being only one of those lines of business. It's possible, in some situations, that mismanagement of athletics could prematurely end a university president's tenure, but it's far more likely that his or her tenure would be endangered by more fundamental things such as failing to raise enough money, or failing to accomplish some goal that is important to the university's board and major donors (which might be something like launching a medical school, or improving the university's overall academic reputation).

And in most, but not all cases, the university president wants to keep football and/or men's basketball from being the tail that wags the dog, because that's a distraction from the overall business of running the university. Which is why many university presidents may be happy that the richest athletic programs don't generate even more money than they already do.

(11-05-2018 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 02:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  University presidents aren't commies.

They are much more like the aristocracy of city states. They know and understand that while they hold the crown the AD and football coach (or hoops coach) in general hold the hearts of the masses.

They know flushing more money into the hands of the AD and coaches increases their power even more, especially if the AD is able to flow some money into the academic side.

In one way, yes. In another way, a university president is like a CEO of a corporation that has its hands in several different lines of business, athletics being only one of those lines of business. It's possible, in some situations, that mismanagement of athletics could prematurely end a university president's tenure, but it's far more likely that his or her tenure would be endangered by more fundamental things such as failing to raise enough money, or failing to accomplish some goal that is important to the university's board and major donors (which might be something like launching a medical school, or improving the university's overall academic reputation).

And in most, but not all cases, the university president wants to keep football and/or men's basketball from being the tail that wags the dog, because that's a distraction from the overall business of running the university. Which is why many university presidents may be happy that the richest athletic programs don't generate even more money than they already do.

Chancellor at Arkansas got sideways with Frank Broyles a few years before Frank retired. Care to guess who outlasted who?

(11-05-2018 05:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 02:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  University presidents aren't commies.

They are much more like the aristocracy of city states. They know and understand that while they hold the crown the AD and football coach (or hoops coach) in general hold the hearts of the masses.

They know flushing more money into the hands of the AD and coaches increases their power even more, especially if the AD is able to flow some money into the academic side.

In one way, yes. In another way, a university president is like a CEO of a corporation that has its hands in several different lines of business, athletics being only one of those lines of business. It's possible, in some situations, that mismanagement of athletics could prematurely end a university president's tenure, but it's far more likely that his or her tenure would be endangered by more fundamental things such as failing to raise enough money, or failing to accomplish some goal that is important to the university's board and major donors (which might be something like launching a medical school, or improving the university's overall academic reputation).

And in most, but not all cases, the university president wants to keep football and/or men's basketball from being the tail that wags the dog, because that's a distraction from the overall business of running the university. Which is why many university presidents may be happy that the richest athletic programs don't generate even more money than they already do.

Chancellor at Arkansas got sideways with Frank Broyles a few years before Frank retired. Care to guess who outlasted who?

Excellent example of the tail wagging the dog.