end of D1 world as we know it?

not foolish at all

1. the fans come to see the team, not the players. florida and tx am had full stadiums before Tebo and Manziel, and they will have full stadiums after. Duke, Kansas, UCLA and Kentucky all sell out basketball even when kids are just there for one year, just like they sold out when kids were there for 4 years only a generation ago

2. unfortunately, for many, perhaps even most of the student-athletes at these schools, THEY WOULD NOT BE ADMITTED if they weren't athletes. Their academic records are well below the admission standard. So low in fact, they place NO VALUE on their eduction. Classes are an incovenience to their sport. Unfortunately, in many instances this is a stance supported by coaches. Therefore, millions of dollars are invested in tutoring and academic buildings for athletes just to keep them eligible (see UNC Chapel Hill for an extreme but real example)

3. So the culture of college athletics is out of whack. These kids aren't forced to play football or basketball, they choose to.

4. The amount of gear, food, travel, medical expense they receive is surely not NOTHING or a SUNK COST as you proclaim.

5. Many are pocketing significant per diem on road trips and championship trips. many are pocketing Pell grant (over $5500 per year) that was meant to go towards their tuition. Many are given the cash equivalent of FULL ROOM and MEALS on campus, yet live off campus and pocket a significant amount of that too.

6. But you are correct, there is NO NEED for kids to be practicing and watching film and travelling as much as they do. It is not professional sports.

7. Solution....NCAA create stricter initial eligibility standards so only those who have demonstrated that academics are a legitimate pursuit in high school receive that opportunity at university. Then create stricter limitations on practice time/film time, and the amount of travel involved with a season.

Result, the big 5 leave the ncaa completely and the ncaa is left broke. A few schools make all the money for the rest of us. The ncaa needs the big 5, but the big 5 doesn't need the ncaa. Good luck selling CBS a tournament without any of the schools in the big 5. However a big 5 tournament will be an instant success. It's about the TV money.

.............................. wrote:

7. Solution....NCAA create stricter initial eligibility standards so only those who have demonstrated that academics are a legitimate pursuit in high school receive that opportunity at university. Then create stricter limitations on practice time/film time, and the amount of travel involved with a season.

.............................. wrote:

example)

7. Solution....NCAA create stricter initial eligibility standards so only those who have demonstrated that academics are a legitimate pursuit in high school receive that opportunity at university. Then create stricter limitations on practice time/film time, and the amount of travel involved with a season.

That's fine but that's called D3. And you can find complaints about colleges admitting football players with poor academic backgrounds going back over 100 years - I don't see that changing so long as college football continues to exist.

As for sports teams "losing money" for their uni's-- this is bull___. It all depends on how you do the accounting.

When you add in things like increased alumni donations and the free 24/7 advertising that, e.g., a successful football or basketball team gives a university, almost every sports program make money for the uni.

If you want to see what a program that loses money for the university looks like, check out the university orchestra or choral group.

Compare the salary of the director of the university orchestra with the salary of the football coach, and then tell me that the football team loses money for the uni the same way that the university orchestra does.

supply and demand wrote:

You're on a faulty premise. The vast majority of schools' football teams do not net money. .

I was replying to a post about the top 60 schools. They're making the money.

If you are young and talented in football why should you're only choice of payment be this "free" college and not cash, like everything else?

We don't worry about young musicians or actors going to college. How stupid would it sound to say that before Taylor Swift can get paid for her music she must at first perform for tuition and board at a music school?

Those guys should get paid a paycheck and if they chose to spend some of it on getting a college degree- great for them. If they spend it on cocaine and hos.. well lots of rock stars have done that too but we dont debate their need for education.

I'm a d1 outsider but one who believes in higher education - I would be all for segregating basketball and football - let them have their own rules, don't count them for title 9.

The other sports - eliminate athletic scholarships, use that money to pay staff instead. It will reduce the quality of NCAA track and xc, but I'll pay that price - athletic scholarships are irrational - they make no sense in non-revenue sports.

agip wrote:

I'm a d1 outsider but one who believes in higher education - I would be all for segregating basketball and football - let them have their own rules, don't count them for title 9.

That would be great, but you dont get to just opt out of a Federal law.

Paying them instead of grants in aid MAY take fball & bball out of the title ix pool, but that's debatable.

DenaliLama wrote:

agip wrote:

I'm a d1 outsider but one who believes in higher education - I would be all for segregating basketball and football - let them have their own rules, don't count them for title 9.

That would be great, but you dont get to just opt out of a Federal law.

Paying them instead of grants in aid MAY take fball & bball out of the title ix pool, but that's debatable.

isn't baseball exempt from federal anti trust rules? so there is precedent here.

and the problem with title 9 isn't the rule itself, it is how schools feel they must show compliance - they wind up using a raw headcount because the other prongs are too hard to prove.

So just add a fourth prong exempting football and it should be solvable.

isn't baseball exempt from federal anti trust rules? so there is precedent here.

and the problem with title 9 isn't the rule itself, it is how schools feel they must show compliance - they wind up using a raw headcount because the other prongs are too hard to prove.

So just add a fourth prong exempting football and it should be solvable.[/quote]

I completely agree. Instead of actually complying, they just use a bone headed, super simplistic "formula" that isn't accurate, fair, or correct. A rule that ends up flying in the face of common sense.

I agree that if you have X number of mens xc scholarships you should have the same number for women, but to include fball where there's no women's equivalent is absurd.

As far as opting out, it may be an option, but it's going to be a political one. Is there any politician willing to "declare a war on women's sports" because that's exactly what they'll be accused of doing.

You can not opt out of Title 9 laws, unless you do not want to receive a single penny in Federal Financial Aid, Research grants, etc.

You cannot have a University that has a 60% female enrollment give only 40% of their Athletic grants to women !

That is one reason that JMU had to drop Men's Cross Country and Track.

as I said before, D3 and the Ivy's have it right in regards to purpose of athletics within an educational institution.....you don't see it in Europe.

And while I do agree that athletic participation may enhance an applicants admission standing, I don't think you go so far to admit anyone who meets NCAA minimal eligibility rules while you are denying 1100+ SAT kids who don't play a sport. I disagree more strongly when the 3rd string nose guard who couldn't have gotten into school anyway, now thinks he is entitled to a scholarship AND a paycheck......now we have gone too far.

Look, I love coaching "fast" kids on scholarship. And I love giving someone of lower income an opportunity they might not otherwise have. But I still ask, what in the heck value to they bring to the school through their athletic performances?

I also ask, if they chose to fire me today, I bet they would have 100 resumes who would take the job at 1/2 my salary.........

So really, why not the division 3 model?

And when the Big 5 does become real, there will be schools at the bottom of those conferences that will become the new "have nots" and the greedy haves will attempt to create rules/culture that eliminate "their own."

Eventually it will just be the 2 biggest athletic budgets vs each other....who is that Ohio State vs Texas and eveyone else will be eliminated as a have not.......

the sooner we fast forward to that point, the better.....

if my AD said we were going D3 tomorrow, I'd be pleny happy.

greedy haves will attempt to create rules/culture that eliminate "their own."

Could you have a rule that you could take a guy off his initial scholarship and then get him a "low effort, great paying summer job" that will earn him twice his "tuition, room and board" for his sophomore year ?

(and the job could be a National Poultry company or the largest retailer in the U.S.)

A10 fan wrote:

You can not opt out of Title 9 laws, unless you do not want to receive a single penny in Federal Financial Aid, Research grants, etc.

You cannot have a University that has a 60% female enrollment give only 40% of their Athletic grants to women !

That is one reason that JMU had to drop Men's Cross Country and Track.

Hmmm - a reason JMU had to reduce the number of male athletes, but I guess getting rid of the might JMU football program didn't get much consideration. And JMU needs to have a football team becausee...???

see

for the football schedule. Hard for me to believe this program is doing the school much good at any level.

.............................. wrote:

I disagree more strongly when the 3rd string nose guard who couldn't have gotten into school anyway, now thinks he is entitled to a scholarship AND a paycheck......now we have gone too far.

Exactly. The money should stay with the administrators and coaches. After all, they are the ones waking up practicing 20 or so hours a week, sacrificing their grades, and incurring long-term health issues so that there is a football team.

Title IX is a Federal Law that has been interpreted and imposed over time by the NCAA in a manner the NCAA believes it best adheres to the law. Unfortunately, the broad scope of how the NCAA has forced this upon Universities - for the political correctness of it - will be over in a few years time. You don't have to argue with me. It's just my opinion and I'm SURE you think it's an ill informed decision (which is just fine with me). Time will tell.

As far as football and basketball not being profitable...... Football and basketball bring in rich Alumni who donate tons of cash to the school. Based solely on gate receipts, it's possible that football games are not profitable. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that every single University would never invest such a large amount of funds for programs that don't make them money. Successful football teams bring in students, who bring in cash.

I agree with a previous post that the appearance of profitability depends on the accounting. Many universities don't include the gameday parking revenue, concessions sales, and increased merchandise/licensing that is directly correlated w/ high attendance & success, as well as the free advertising from being mentioned constantly on TV/print/radio/internet, advertising in stadiums, tv contract revenue, and the increased dontations from alums. They are making a boatload of money in several ways, but don't want the football/basketball teams to "appear" profitable so they can claim "poverty" in terms of not paying the football & basketball athletes the market value for their talent. This is why SEC bagmen rule. They are willing to pay market value for Cam Newton. Other B1G schools are not.

Do you actually read the Chronicle of Higher Education? Yes, you do get very meaningful information about athletics in the Chronicle if it's related to higher education. It's infrequent but very meaningful when it's there.

B1G Alum wrote:

This is why SEC bagmen rule. They are willing to pay market value for Cam Newton. Other B1G schools are not.

ha ha Butt still hurting from last weekend?

It could just be that all your teams suk. You should consider that as option #1. Y'all have fun watching the playoffs.

If T&F/XC scholarships do become a thing of the past it will be interesting to see what the knock on effect to HS sports will be.

How many kids, particularly girls, are encouraged to participate in HS sports in pursuit partial scholarships to top up their financial aid package?

I would expect that without scholarships the increased focus on academic achievement, as the only way in to college, will displace participation in sport.