(05-26-2019 03:51 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well they are all competing on bells and whistles and creating 5 star locker rooms that have no value but for recruiting. Maybe if they actually paid players, San Jose would drop football and be better off.

That's a point I can agree with. Heck, probably 50% of all FBS schools would be better of without football.

Tell that to all those schools alumni. It would not only mean the football team but all Olympic sports, also, since football is the most money driven.

The alumni obviously don't care much because at most schools they don't support football enough for it to make money. They might say they care but they don't put money where their mouth is.

(05-26-2019 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 03:51 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well they are all competing on bells and whistles and creating 5 star locker rooms that have no value but for recruiting. Maybe if they actually paid players, San Jose would drop football and be better off.

That's a point I can agree with. Heck, probably 50% of all FBS schools would be better of without football.

Tell that to all those schools alumni. It would not only mean the football team but all Olympic sports, also, since football is the most money driven.

The alumni obviously don't care much because at most schools they don't support football enough for it to make money. They might say they care but they don't put money where their mouth is.

That's true. It's the tax payers who put their money where the alumni's mouths are and that is inherently wrong.

The problem, however, will resolve itself. The shrinking numbers of actual players will one day starve the lesser programs of viable recruits, or the growing state appropriations shortfalls will.

Abolish the NCAA and kick him to the curb.

(05-26-2019 03:40 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 07:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

Partly true.

He IS overpaid because he's incompetent.

Incompetent? When I grew up, I would always do the best job to impress my employers that paid my salary.

Who is Emmert's boss that he needs to impress?

In other words, who can fire Emmert?

The NCAA's board of governors is almost entirely Presidents of member institutions. So their corporate governance structure looks like European firms, where boards are primarily insiders from the corporation (in Germany it's actually a law that unions have to be on the board). In the USA, most firms' boards consist of outsiders. Research has repeatedly shown that a board of outsiders is more likely to fire or reduce the pay of a CEO who has poor performance. It's a big part of the reason why the USA is significantly wealthier than other free-market democracies.

When's the last time that the CEO of the NCAA got fired?

The guy is running a multi billion dollar organization so the price tag is low, but given what / who it represents, the optics are still pretty bad.

(05-26-2019 06:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 03:51 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well they are all competing on bells and whistles and creating 5 star locker rooms that have no value but for recruiting. Maybe if they actually paid players, San Jose would drop football and be better off.

That's a point I can agree with. Heck, probably 50% of all FBS schools would be better of without football.

Tell that to all those schools alumni. It would not only mean the football team but all Olympic sports, also, since football is the most money driven.

The alumni obviously don't care much because at most schools they don't support football enough for it to make money. They might say they care but they don't put money where their mouth is.

That's true. It's the tax payers who put their money where the alumni's mouths are and that is inherently wrong.

The problem, however, will resolve itself. The shrinking numbers of actual players will one day starve the lesser programs of viable recruits, or the growing state appropriations shortfalls will.

And tv goes back to the days when Nebraska and Oklahoma were rivals. If this is the case, I can't see the major conferences getting the money they make now from the networks, except maybe the Big and the SEC. Would see a lot of realignment at that time.