01-19-2015, 12:43 PM
Good grist for the mill re: the NCAA and Power 5
01-19-2015, 12:50 PM
I'm fine with all these changes, I just want some kind of actual enforcement mechanism. There's no way that UNC should still be playing DI basketball/football.
01-19-2015, 01:26 PM
Seems to me that the changes will provide a net benefit to Stanford competitively. We have higher retention/graduation rates so this levels the playing field against schools that oversign and cut players. The stipend in the hands of our student-athletes is less likely to get them in trouble as compared to the athletes at our competitors.
Seems to me that the changes will provide a net benefit to Stanford competitively. We have higher retention/graduation rates so this levels the playing field against schools that oversign and cut players. The stipend in the hands of our student-athletes is less likely to get them in trouble as compared to the athletes at our competitors.
01-19-2015, 01:30 PM
(01-19-2015, 01:26 PM)Publius link Wrote:Seems to me that the changes will provide a net benefit to Stanford competitively. We have higher retention/graduation rates so this levels the playing field against schools that oversign and cut players. The stipend in the hands of our student-athletes is less likely to get them in trouble as compared to the athletes at our competitors.
I fully expect the Alabamas of the world to find a way around that. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they can't.
(01-19-2015, 01:26 PM)Publius link Wrote:Seems to me that the changes will provide a net benefit to Stanford competitively. We have higher retention/graduation rates so this levels the playing field against schools that oversign and cut players. The stipend in the hands of our student-athletes is less likely to get them in trouble as compared to the athletes at our competitors.
I fully expect the Alabamas of the world to find a way around that. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they can't.
01-19-2015, 01:48 PM
With regards to the Penn State sanctions, the NCAA knew it didn't have jurisdiction (as per embarrassing e-mails released as part of the lawsuit) and went ahead and forced Penn State to agree to sanctions. And, as absolutely horrible as the things that happened at Penn State were, they really should have been dealt with by law enforcement, and not the NCAA. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Penn State suffered some grave injustice here when the NCAA overstepped its authority (let's not lose sight of the fact that the real victims were the kids abused by Jery Sanduski), but I'm also not overly broken up by the fact that they were reversed. It's been fashionable on the interwebs to compare the fate of USC, who bore the full brunt of the NCAA sanctions, to Penn State, for whom most of them were overturned, but USC committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so. Thus I have zero sympathy for USC, and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.
On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college. If there is a sense that college athletics is an unpaid minor league football and basketball league and athletes are being exploited it is because in many places they are; the academics are there just to keep athletes eligible.
BC
On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college. If there is a sense that college athletics is an unpaid minor league football and basketball league and athletes are being exploited it is because in many places they are; the academics are there just to keep athletes eligible.
BC
With regards to the Penn State sanctions, the NCAA knew it didn't have jurisdiction (as per embarrassing e-mails released as part of the lawsuit) and went ahead and forced Penn State to agree to sanctions. And, as absolutely horrible as the things that happened at Penn State were, they really should have been dealt with by law enforcement, and not the NCAA. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Penn State suffered some grave injustice here when the NCAA overstepped its authority (let's not lose sight of the fact that the real victims were the kids abused by Jery Sanduski), but I'm also not overly broken up by the fact that they were reversed. It's been fashionable on the interwebs to compare the fate of USC, who bore the full brunt of the NCAA sanctions, to Penn State, for whom most of them were overturned, but USC committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so. Thus I have zero sympathy for USC, and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.
On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college. If there is a sense that college athletics is an unpaid minor league football and basketball league and athletes are being exploited it is because in many places they are; the academics are there just to keep athletes eligible.
BC
On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college. If there is a sense that college athletics is an unpaid minor league football and basketball league and athletes are being exploited it is because in many places they are; the academics are there just to keep athletes eligible.
BC
01-19-2015, 02:24 PM
(01-19-2015, 01:48 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:With regards to the Penn State sanctions, the NCAA knew it didn't have jurisdiction (as per embarrassing e-mails released as part of the lawsuit) and went ahead and forced Penn State to agree to sanctions. And, as absolutely horrible as the things that happened at Penn State were, they really should have been dealt with by law enforcement, and not the NCAA. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Penn State suffered some grave injustice here when the NCAA overstepped its authority (let's not lose sight of the fact that the real victims were the kids abused by Jery Sanduski), but I'm also not overly broken up by the fact that they were reversed. It's been fashionable on the interwebs to compare the fate of U$, who bore the full brunt of the NCAA sanctions, to Penn State, for whom most of them were overturned, but U$ committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so. Thus I have zero sympathy for U$, and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.
On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college. If there is a sense that college athletics is an unpaid minor league football and basketball league and athletes are being exploited it is because in many places they are; the academics are there just to keep athletes eligible, and give the illusion schools care about the academic development of their mercenaries.
BC
There. Fixed it for ya!
Back to the article... The idea of the conferences enforcing the recruiting regulations makes it sound as though it will ultimately become a bidding contest to lure the best athletes.Â
(01-19-2015, 01:48 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:With regards to the Penn State sanctions, the NCAA knew it didn't have jurisdiction (as per embarrassing e-mails released as part of the lawsuit) and went ahead and forced Penn State to agree to sanctions. And, as absolutely horrible as the things that happened at Penn State were, they really should have been dealt with by law enforcement, and not the NCAA. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Penn State suffered some grave injustice here when the NCAA overstepped its authority (let's not lose sight of the fact that the real victims were the kids abused by Jery Sanduski), but I'm also not overly broken up by the fact that they were reversed. It's been fashionable on the interwebs to compare the fate of U$, who bore the full brunt of the NCAA sanctions, to Penn State, for whom most of them were overturned, but U$ committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so. Thus I have zero sympathy for U$, and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.
On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college. If there is a sense that college athletics is an unpaid minor league football and basketball league and athletes are being exploited it is because in many places they are; the academics are there just to keep athletes eligible, and give the illusion schools care about the academic development of their mercenaries.
BC
There. Fixed it for ya!
Back to the article... The idea of the conferences enforcing the recruiting regulations makes it sound as though it will ultimately become a bidding contest to lure the best athletes.Â
01-20-2015, 07:07 AM
(01-19-2015, 01:48 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:but U$ committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so. Thus I have zero sympathy for U$,
Also often overlooked is that S.-C. got pummelled as much for refusing to take the case seriously - neither seriously investigating nor punishing internally and responding as if it were all merely jealousy on part of competitors - as it did for the initial violations themselves. That matters.
Quote:and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.
I think you mean that Penn State swept everything under the rug in the name of football. That is twig upon which the NCAA based their claim to jurisdiction.
The NCAA swept jurisdiction questions under the rug because they were too concerned about the media and immediate public perception. There was lots of harping to "do something" and that the NCAA should act because this was way more serious than cases from Ohio State, S.-C., whereever. Of course it was way more serious, I would argue too serious to be in the NCAA's purview.
But overall one should remember that punishing Penn State harshly was the media-popular result at the time.
Quote:On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college.
The article itself is overly-dramatic, but such articles are.
If you want to see a quick run down of the new governance structure that was approved, there is a reasonably readable discussion here.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...-structure
The article is certainly correct that the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow.
A lot of the specifics in that article are not so clear they will happen. I have heard little about solid support for allowing the players to directly sell their likeness and images - though the vague idea will be woven into various settlements. This sentence, "The "power 5 conferences" will determine who enforces the rules and in some cases, what those rules are going to be." is roughly backwards from what I have heard elsewhere: the Power 5 can make many of their own rules but the NCAA would remain the backstop enforcement agency.
Overall, I think that mostly the Power 5 conferences are focussed on finding some viable way to continue to function. Anything short of a full professional model may not pass muster with the courts and anything too close to a full professional model may not pass muster with states and their laws and provisions for educational institutions. The feds are also rather schizophrenic on the issues.
I do wonder what Stanford would agree to. On the one hand, it is quite clear that many folks at Stanford are extremely uncomfortable with the 'loosely attached - professional' model that seems to be developing for football and basketball. On the other, Stanford has dropped h.u.g.e investments into sports and most of the administration seems to be enjoying the recent successes. It would take a lot to drop all of that - and would incur significant alumni wrath.
Finally, while the discussion is usually framed in terms of how much athletes will share in the revenue, "how much" is a little complicated idea. There is the question of how much money is directed toward the few, most marketable athletes versus how many athletes will benefit. The how many includes both how many scholarships are available at athletically successful schools (as in how many non-revenue sports) but also how many institutions will continue to sponsor scholarship supported athletics.
(01-19-2015, 01:48 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:but U$ committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so. Thus I have zero sympathy for U$,
Also often overlooked is that S.-C. got pummelled as much for refusing to take the case seriously - neither seriously investigating nor punishing internally and responding as if it were all merely jealousy on part of competitors - as it did for the initial violations themselves. That matters.
Quote:and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.
I think you mean that Penn State swept everything under the rug in the name of football. That is twig upon which the NCAA based their claim to jurisdiction.
The NCAA swept jurisdiction questions under the rug because they were too concerned about the media and immediate public perception. There was lots of harping to "do something" and that the NCAA should act because this was way more serious than cases from Ohio State, S.-C., whereever. Of course it was way more serious, I would argue too serious to be in the NCAA's purview.
But overall one should remember that punishing Penn State harshly was the media-popular result at the time.
Quote:On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference. Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college.
The article itself is overly-dramatic, but such articles are.
If you want to see a quick run down of the new governance structure that was approved, there is a reasonably readable discussion here.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...-structure
The article is certainly correct that the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow.
A lot of the specifics in that article are not so clear they will happen. I have heard little about solid support for allowing the players to directly sell their likeness and images - though the vague idea will be woven into various settlements. This sentence, "The "power 5 conferences" will determine who enforces the rules and in some cases, what those rules are going to be." is roughly backwards from what I have heard elsewhere: the Power 5 can make many of their own rules but the NCAA would remain the backstop enforcement agency.
Overall, I think that mostly the Power 5 conferences are focussed on finding some viable way to continue to function. Anything short of a full professional model may not pass muster with the courts and anything too close to a full professional model may not pass muster with states and their laws and provisions for educational institutions. The feds are also rather schizophrenic on the issues.
I do wonder what Stanford would agree to. On the one hand, it is quite clear that many folks at Stanford are extremely uncomfortable with the 'loosely attached - professional' model that seems to be developing for football and basketball. On the other, Stanford has dropped h.u.g.e investments into sports and most of the administration seems to be enjoying the recent successes. It would take a lot to drop all of that - and would incur significant alumni wrath.
Finally, while the discussion is usually framed in terms of how much athletes will share in the revenue, "how much" is a little complicated idea. There is the question of how much money is directed toward the few, most marketable athletes versus how many athletes will benefit. The how many includes both how many scholarships are available at athletically successful schools (as in how many non-revenue sports) but also how many institutions will continue to sponsor scholarship supported athletics.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »