Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
Author Message
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #1
In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?


* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *
10-16-2017 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #2
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?


* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *

Why would they want to change anything?

The recent events have proven that just about anything short of first degree murder, your backside will be covered. That's pretty powerful incentive to keep the status quo.

I'm sure there are several institutions that are more honorable and more academically focused that probably have a problem with the way things were handled. I'm equally sure that cashing that fat check courtesy of the athletic department will help alleviate those concerns.

If they were being honest, they'd just drop the whole "student athlete" fallacy, at least for certain sports......
10-16-2017 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #3
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

No. And IMO university presidents are right to have athletics lower on their priority list. I wouldn't want a UC Berkeley chancellor, for example, to spend more time on micromanaging athletics than on helping to raise money or finding ways to retain top-notch faculty.

(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?

Again, doubtful. Stanford, for example, has moved in the direction of spending far more on athletics than they used to. Their faculty, like most faculties, is probably very skeptical of overemphasis on athletics, but their administration and donors want to run with the big boys rather than reining them in.

Also, playing fair is a matter of degree. What happened at UNC, even if it's an order of magnitude worse than what others do to keep athletes eligible, is probably not unique. Funneling money to star athletes and their families through shoe companies or big boosters is also not unique to the schools that have been exposed for doing so. IMO, the desire of P5 athletic departments (and others) to limit the NCAA's ability to snoop around in what they do outweighs their desire to drop the hammer on UNC or Louisville or anyone else. To some extent, they are all "making sausage" and don't want the process inspected too closely.
10-16-2017 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #4
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 12:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?


* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *

Why would they want to change anything?

The recent events have proven that just about anything short of first degree murder, your backside will be covered. That's pretty powerful incentive to keep the status quo.

I'm sure there are several institutions that are more honorable and more academically focused that probably have a problem with the way things were handled. I'm equally sure that cashing that fat check courtesy of the athletic department will help alleviate those concerns.

If they were being honest, they'd just drop the whole "student athlete" fallacy, at least for certain sports......

They will never drop the student-athlete idea.

That's my point. Without the idea of a student athlete, college athletics becomes a minor league professional sport. And it will become just as popular as minor league baseball or the NBA d-league.

So given that they have to maintain the charade, at some point they have to take action to maintain the charade.
10-16-2017 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?

* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *

The UNC ruling will serve as the needed excuse should the presidents want to take action for other reasons.

Nobody wants to say publicly that the NCAA hogs way too much of the revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament. There are what 66 -68 schools in the tourney now? And the NCAA banks in endowments (they have more than one) over 70 million annually from the tournament alone. Their endowment totals are at or near 1 Billion now.

And nobody really questions tourney credits which accrue for several years as they are portioned out over something like 3-5 years. That's an incremental payout that only serves.......the NCAA who collects interest on those funds until they are actually paid out. And those extended tourney credits are absurd to start with. Why not divide all tournament games into the pot after overhead and pay it out that year like the bowls do? Do you realize that the each tournament game would pay significantly more if that were done?

They weren't about to bite UNC's hand because it is UNC and a half dozen other basketball hoop brands that line their coffers with enough money to provide any high ranking NCAA official the finest of golden parachutes. It's a cushy bureaucratic job in a do nothing agency.

The simple truth is that all of the NCAA schools would have more money without them. We could simply have a panel of president's that could rotate and represent all levels of play to set up national competitions. And they could pay an independent investigative source to look into allegations. The 1 Billion in endowments would be a nice nest egg to get the less lethargic organization moving and would provide all member schools with a nice 1 time bump.

But nobody is going to say that they want the money. So objections to clarity and uniformity in enforcement, along with rights to enforce will be the "official" issues. And nothing is going to make that clearer than the FBI. It's a lot like the old adage about treason, only you can substitute the word cheating for treason. "None dare care it cheating, if everyone profiteth."
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2017 02:10 PM by JRsec.)
10-16-2017 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 01:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 12:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?


* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *

Why would they want to change anything?

The recent events have proven that just about anything short of first degree murder, your backside will be covered. That's pretty powerful incentive to keep the status quo.

I'm sure there are several institutions that are more honorable and more academically focused that probably have a problem with the way things were handled. I'm equally sure that cashing that fat check courtesy of the athletic department will help alleviate those concerns.

If they were being honest, they'd just drop the whole "student athlete" fallacy, at least for certain sports......

They will never drop the student-athlete idea.

That's my point. Without the idea of a student athlete, college athletics becomes a minor league professional sport. And it will become just as popular as minor league baseball or the NBA d-league.

So given that they have to maintain the charade, at some point they have to take action to maintain the charade.

I wouldn't use that word never if I were you. A sidebar to the ongoing FBI investigation could very well be the abnegation of tax exempt status for profit making sports on college campuses.

Should that happen I fully expect the see the Athletic Department's oversight only extend to for profit sports. College football, men's basketball, and depending upon the region of the country baseball or hockey may be all that winds up under the A.D.'s purview.

If that happens there will no longer be donations to the athletic department to gain a priority in ticket purchases. Why? They won't be tax deductible. I would expect however that donations to minor non profit sports to be made to the Academic Administration. Everything given for actual scholarships for non profit sports will keep Amateur status and will be tax deductible. I think the Olympic committee might like this distinction.

For profit players may wind up signing contracts instead of grant in aids and the schools would have more control over them if that happened. They could have endorsements and make money off of their images and personas. What they couldn't do is utilize school logos or uniforms in the ads and images. Those rights belong to the school.

On the upside for both the A.D. and Academic Administration would be Title IX implications. They could not apply to the for profit sports. But for minor sports the ratios could be maintained.

The government gets what they want out of it. They get to collect taxes from the for profit A.Dept. and from the players. Then they also get to drop having to investigate companies for under the table payouts because of course it would now be legal and there would be no reason for the corporate entities to pay otherwise because the endorsement money would be overhead written off against profits.

IMO there is a huge positive upside here where generations of corruption can be made above board business practice if we only acknowledge the conditions in the for profit sports that already exist due to market pressures.

The Academic side can budget for the minor sports and gifts to the schools for non profit sports can still weigh in on ticket priority for the for profit sports. It's just that none of that money would go to the for profit sports.

It would also mean if the NFL or NBA drafted early they would have to pay the school the buyout on the players contract and that too would be a benefit of the change.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2017 02:31 PM by JRsec.)
10-16-2017 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #7
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody wants to say publicly that the NCAA hogs way too much of the revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament. There are what 66 -68 schools in the tourney now? And the NCAA banks in endowments (they have more than one) over 70 million annually from the tournament alone. Their endowment totals are at or near 1 Billion now.

And nobody really questions tourney credits which accrue for several years as they are portioned out over something like 3-5 years. That's an incremental payout that only serves.......the NCAA who collects interest on those funds until they are actually paid out. And those extended tourney credits are absurd to start with. Why not divide all tournament games into the pot after overhead and pay it out that year like the bowls do? Do you realize that the each tournament game would pay significantly more if that were done?

They weren't about to bite UNC's hand because it is UNC and a half dozen other basketball hoop brands that line their coffers with enough money to provide any high ranking NCAA official the finest of golden parachutes. It's a cushy bureaucratic job in a do nothing agency.

True, March Madness is the goose that lays all of the NCAA's golden eggs. Which leads us to this point...

(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The simple truth is that all of the NCAA schools would have more money without them.

Well, no. And this is the reason pretty much every non-P5 school wants to keep the NCAA pretty much as is. If there was no NCAA, or if the NCAA didn't get to live off of March Madness money, the NCAA member schools would have to pay annual dues sufficient to operate the NCAA.

The NCAA's overhead is more than $1 billion per year, and there are about 1,200 member schools. To make the math easy: If the 1,200 NCAA member schools had to fund the NCAA with annual dues, and had to kick in $1.2 billion each year, that means annual dues of $1 million per school.

$1 million in annual dues is no problem for any of the athletic departments with over $50 million in annual real revenue (revenue minus subsidies). That's the P5. Schools with athletic departments that have about $20-50 million in real revenue could afford $1 million but would be unhappy about it. Schools with even less would be extremely squeezed by $1 million in annual NCAA dues.

But maybe you want to give the D-II, D-III, and marginal D-I programs a break -- let 'em all pay no dues and have only the 120 highest-revenue NCAA members pay the whole bill -- and then each school in that top 120 pays $10 million/year in annual dues. I'm pretty sure that even Ohio State isn't going to volunteer to pay the NCAA $10 million/year just so Ohio U and Ohio Wesleyan can benefit from the NCAA for free.
10-16-2017 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody wants to say publicly that the NCAA hogs way too much of the revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament. There are what 66 -68 schools in the tourney now? And the NCAA banks in endowments (they have more than one) over 70 million annually from the tournament alone. Their endowment totals are at or near 1 Billion now.

And nobody really questions tourney credits which accrue for several years as they are portioned out over something like 3-5 years. That's an incremental payout that only serves.......the NCAA who collects interest on those funds until they are actually paid out. And those extended tourney credits are absurd to start with. Why not divide all tournament games into the pot after overhead and pay it out that year like the bowls do? Do you realize that the each tournament game would pay significantly more if that were done?

They weren't about to bite UNC's hand because it is UNC and a half dozen other basketball hoop brands that line their coffers with enough money to provide any high ranking NCAA official the finest of golden parachutes. It's a cushy bureaucratic job in a do nothing agency.

True, March Madness is the goose that lays all of the NCAA's golden eggs. Which leads us to this point...

(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The simple truth is that all of the NCAA schools would have more money without them.

Well, no. And this is the reason pretty much every non-P5 school wants to keep the NCAA pretty much as is. If there was no NCAA, or if the NCAA didn't get to live off of March Madness money, the NCAA member schools would have to pay annual dues sufficient to operate the NCAA.

The NCAA's overhead is more than $1 billion per year, and there are about 1,200 member schools. To make the math easy: If the 1,200 NCAA member schools had to fund the NCAA with annual dues, and had to kick in $1.2 billion each year, that means annual dues of $1 million per school.

$1 million in annual dues is no problem for any of the athletic departments with over $50 million in annual real revenue (revenue minus subsidies). That's the P5. Schools with athletic departments that have about $20-50 million in real revenue could afford $1 million but would be unhappy about it. Schools with even less would be extremely squeezed by $1 million in annual NCAA dues.

But maybe you want to give the D-II, D-III, and marginal D-I programs a break -- let 'em all pay no dues and have only the 120 highest-revenue NCAA members pay the whole bill -- and then each school in that top 120 pays $10 million/year in annual dues. I'm pretty sure that even Ohio State isn't going to volunteer to pay the NCAA $10 million/year just so Ohio U and Ohio Wesleyan can benefit from the NCAA for free.

Your premise is flawed. The whole point is to pare down that 1 billion dollar bureaucracy into an operational model that is streamlined, defined in purpose, and doesn't need a million dollars a year from 1200 schools. The office complex is just a large part of that upkeep. We don't need 1 billion dollars worth of personnel, office space, and overhead to do the work. It has grown to a size to justify what they keep which is backwards from the way a business should function. Businesses keep their overhead to a minimum to derive a profit. Only a bureaucracy increases overhead to meet income.

It will require work and time, but doing away with the NCAA and contracting out much of their process work would be much more efficient and everyone would make more. And quite frankly maybe there are some very small schools that really need nothing more than intramural sports.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2017 03:47 PM by JRsec.)
10-16-2017 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #9
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
Want to? No. But they may have to.

The NCAA does have some merit. The way it is organized is at least adequate for establishing rules on competition (football field is 100 yards long, touchdown is 6 points, etc.). It also seems adequate at organizing championships for most of its 100+ sports. Football and men's basketball being the exceptions. The NCAA should also train and provide referees for all sports in all divisions.

The NCAA clearly fails at academics. Accrediting associations specialize in academics. They have 2 major flaws. They don't pre-approve anything and they only audit every 10 years. They should also certify every degree issued. I know that is a monumental task. Schools would pay attention if students degrees were not certified because a course was not approved or disqualified.

The NCAA also fails at the business side. I'm not talking about the media contracts. I'm referring to impermissible benefits, recruiting, etc. Boxing was way, way worse than the NCAA is now until government commissions were formed to oversee the industry. I would not trust commissions with competition rules or academics but they do seem to keep their sports relatively clean.
10-16-2017 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #10
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody wants to say publicly that the NCAA hogs way too much of the revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament. There are what 66 -68 schools in the tourney now? And the NCAA banks in endowments (they have more than one) over 70 million annually from the tournament alone. Their endowment totals are at or near 1 Billion now.

And nobody really questions tourney credits which accrue for several years as they are portioned out over something like 3-5 years. That's an incremental payout that only serves.......the NCAA who collects interest on those funds until they are actually paid out. And those extended tourney credits are absurd to start with. Why not divide all tournament games into the pot after overhead and pay it out that year like the bowls do? Do you realize that the each tournament game would pay significantly more if that were done?

They weren't about to bite UNC's hand because it is UNC and a half dozen other basketball hoop brands that line their coffers with enough money to provide any high ranking NCAA official the finest of golden parachutes. It's a cushy bureaucratic job in a do nothing agency.

True, March Madness is the goose that lays all of the NCAA's golden eggs. Which leads us to this point...

(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The simple truth is that all of the NCAA schools would have more money without them.

Well, no. And this is the reason pretty much every non-P5 school wants to keep the NCAA pretty much as is. If there was no NCAA, or if the NCAA didn't get to live off of March Madness money, the NCAA member schools would have to pay annual dues sufficient to operate the NCAA.

The NCAA's overhead is more than $1 billion per year, and there are about 1,200 member schools. To make the math easy: If the 1,200 NCAA member schools had to fund the NCAA with annual dues, and had to kick in $1.2 billion each year, that means annual dues of $1 million per school.

$1 million in annual dues is no problem for any of the athletic departments with over $50 million in annual real revenue (revenue minus subsidies). That's the P5. Schools with athletic departments that have about $20-50 million in real revenue could afford $1 million but would be unhappy about it. Schools with even less would be extremely squeezed by $1 million in annual NCAA dues.

But maybe you want to give the D-II, D-III, and marginal D-I programs a break -- let 'em all pay no dues and have only the 120 highest-revenue NCAA members pay the whole bill -- and then each school in that top 120 pays $10 million/year in annual dues. I'm pretty sure that even Ohio State isn't going to volunteer to pay the NCAA $10 million/year just so Ohio U and Ohio Wesleyan can benefit from the NCAA for free.

Your premise is flawed. The whole point is to pare down that 1 billion dollar bureaucracy into an operational model that is streamlined, defined in purpose, and doesn't need a million dollars a year from 1200 schools. The office complex is just a large part of that upkeep. We don't need 1 billion dollars worth of personnel, office space, and overhead to do the work. It has grown to a size to justify what they keep which is backwards from the way a business should function. Businesses keep their overhead to a minimum to derive a profit. Only a bureaucracy increases overhead to meet income.

It will require work and time, but doing away with the NCAA and contracting out much of their process work would be much more efficient and everyone would make more. And quite frankly maybe there are some very small schools that really need nothing more than intramural sports.

Yes, you could build an NCAA replacement with far less overhead. Doing it on half of the current overhead is realistic. Running the NCAA on one-tenth its current budget isn't realistic. All of the overhead for running D-II and D-III is still there in addition to D-I. The NCAA is administering 90 national championships across the three divisions at little or no out-of-pocket cost to the membership.

If you hypothetically put D-II and D-III -- that's over two-thirds of the total NCAA membership, by the way -- on a self-funded basis (i.e., funded by annual dues), those schools would be very unhappy to be paying out of pocket, and it would be a significant cost, to them, for what they now get for free. The alternative is to do without what the NCAA now gives them, which might mean, among other things, that they have to go without national championship events in most sports and have only conference titles. I don't see the D-II and III schools voting to go that route, given that they now get that stuff paid for by March Madness money. They won't do that unless the March Madness money disappears.

Even in D-I, there are over 350 schools and more than half of them have athletic departments that are just as financially precarious as those in D-II or D-III, and thus they also love the free ride of NCAA services provided by March Madness money. For them and for the D-II and D-III members, the fact that the NCAA wastes half or more of its budget is of little consequence to them because it's not their own money being wasted.
10-16-2017 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody wants to say publicly that the NCAA hogs way too much of the revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament. There are what 66 -68 schools in the tourney now? And the NCAA banks in endowments (they have more than one) over 70 million annually from the tournament alone. Their endowment totals are at or near 1 Billion now.

And nobody really questions tourney credits which accrue for several years as they are portioned out over something like 3-5 years. That's an incremental payout that only serves.......the NCAA who collects interest on those funds until they are actually paid out. And those extended tourney credits are absurd to start with. Why not divide all tournament games into the pot after overhead and pay it out that year like the bowls do? Do you realize that the each tournament game would pay significantly more if that were done?

They weren't about to bite UNC's hand because it is UNC and a half dozen other basketball hoop brands that line their coffers with enough money to provide any high ranking NCAA official the finest of golden parachutes. It's a cushy bureaucratic job in a do nothing agency.

True, March Madness is the goose that lays all of the NCAA's golden eggs. Which leads us to this point...

(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The simple truth is that all of the NCAA schools would have more money without them.

Well, no. And this is the reason pretty much every non-P5 school wants to keep the NCAA pretty much as is. If there was no NCAA, or if the NCAA didn't get to live off of March Madness money, the NCAA member schools would have to pay annual dues sufficient to operate the NCAA.

The NCAA's overhead is more than $1 billion per year, and there are about 1,200 member schools. To make the math easy: If the 1,200 NCAA member schools had to fund the NCAA with annual dues, and had to kick in $1.2 billion each year, that means annual dues of $1 million per school.

$1 million in annual dues is no problem for any of the athletic departments with over $50 million in annual real revenue (revenue minus subsidies). That's the P5. Schools with athletic departments that have about $20-50 million in real revenue could afford $1 million but would be unhappy about it. Schools with even less would be extremely squeezed by $1 million in annual NCAA dues.

But maybe you want to give the D-II, D-III, and marginal D-I programs a break -- let 'em all pay no dues and have only the 120 highest-revenue NCAA members pay the whole bill -- and then each school in that top 120 pays $10 million/year in annual dues. I'm pretty sure that even Ohio State isn't going to volunteer to pay the NCAA $10 million/year just so Ohio U and Ohio Wesleyan can benefit from the NCAA for free.

Your premise is flawed. The whole point is to pare down that 1 billion dollar bureaucracy into an operational model that is streamlined, defined in purpose, and doesn't need a million dollars a year from 1200 schools. The office complex is just a large part of that upkeep. We don't need 1 billion dollars worth of personnel, office space, and overhead to do the work. It has grown to a size to justify what they keep which is backwards from the way a business should function. Businesses keep their overhead to a minimum to derive a profit. Only a bureaucracy increases overhead to meet income.

It will require work and time, but doing away with the NCAA and contracting out much of their process work would be much more efficient and everyone would make more. And quite frankly maybe there are some very small schools that really need nothing more than intramural sports.

Yes, you could build an NCAA replacement with far less overhead. Doing it on half of the current overhead is realistic. Running the NCAA on one-tenth its current budget isn't realistic. All of the overhead for running D-II and D-III is still there in addition to D-I. The NCAA is administering 90 national championships across the three divisions at little or no out-of-pocket cost to the membership.

If you hypothetically put D-II and D-III -- that's over two-thirds of the total NCAA membership, by the way -- on a self-funded basis (i.e., funded by annual dues), those schools would be very unhappy to be paying out of pocket, and it would be a significant cost, to them, for what they now get for free. The alternative is to do without what the NCAA now gives them, which might mean, among other things, that they have to go without national championship events in most sports and have only conference titles. I don't see the D-II and III schools voting to go that route, given that they now get that stuff paid for by March Madness money. They won't do that unless the March Madness money disappears.

Even in D-I, there are over 350 schools and more than half of them have athletic departments that are just as financially precarious as those in D-II or D-III, and thus they also love the free ride of NCAA services provided by March Madness money. For them and for the D-II and D-III members, the fact that the NCAA wastes half or more of its budget is of little consequence to them because it's not their own money being wasted.

Well Wedge you can take it one of two ways, or you can simply admit a fundamental truth. Each division could pay for what it is that they need. That's only fair. Or you could tier the payments. Division I pays x amount Div II pays y amount and Div III pays z amount and the payments are tiered by economic grouping within those divisions. Thats two ways to handle the option for #1.

Or you could base the payout on the Gross Total Revenue totals and each school could give 5% of their gross total revenue.

But either way you take those first two options schools that run profitable programs are helping to subsidize those who don't.

However, the best option is the fairest method but I didn't include it with the first two because people always take it the wrong way.

Apportion the costs to every school based on their divisional expenses. If they can't pay their fair share then they should drop out.

Why should every other school (all separate entities) pay for someone else to essentially drain the rewards they should be reaping from their programs. And that is the long and the short of it Wedge. Productive programs should not be required to subsidize those who cannot pay their own way at any level, especially in football. If they can't afford to pay what is an essential overhead for operations, then they are likely to have poor training equipment, medical resources, and other safety essentials.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2017 05:18 PM by JRsec.)
10-16-2017 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #12
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 05:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody wants to say publicly that the NCAA hogs way too much of the revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament. There are what 66 -68 schools in the tourney now? And the NCAA banks in endowments (they have more than one) over 70 million annually from the tournament alone. Their endowment totals are at or near 1 Billion now.

And nobody really questions tourney credits which accrue for several years as they are portioned out over something like 3-5 years. That's an incremental payout that only serves.......the NCAA who collects interest on those funds until they are actually paid out. And those extended tourney credits are absurd to start with. Why not divide all tournament games into the pot after overhead and pay it out that year like the bowls do? Do you realize that the each tournament game would pay significantly more if that were done?

They weren't about to bite UNC's hand because it is UNC and a half dozen other basketball hoop brands that line their coffers with enough money to provide any high ranking NCAA official the finest of golden parachutes. It's a cushy bureaucratic job in a do nothing agency.

True, March Madness is the goose that lays all of the NCAA's golden eggs. Which leads us to this point...

(10-16-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The simple truth is that all of the NCAA schools would have more money without them.

Well, no. And this is the reason pretty much every non-P5 school wants to keep the NCAA pretty much as is. If there was no NCAA, or if the NCAA didn't get to live off of March Madness money, the NCAA member schools would have to pay annual dues sufficient to operate the NCAA.

The NCAA's overhead is more than $1 billion per year, and there are about 1,200 member schools. To make the math easy: If the 1,200 NCAA member schools had to fund the NCAA with annual dues, and had to kick in $1.2 billion each year, that means annual dues of $1 million per school.

$1 million in annual dues is no problem for any of the athletic departments with over $50 million in annual real revenue (revenue minus subsidies). That's the P5. Schools with athletic departments that have about $20-50 million in real revenue could afford $1 million but would be unhappy about it. Schools with even less would be extremely squeezed by $1 million in annual NCAA dues.

But maybe you want to give the D-II, D-III, and marginal D-I programs a break -- let 'em all pay no dues and have only the 120 highest-revenue NCAA members pay the whole bill -- and then each school in that top 120 pays $10 million/year in annual dues. I'm pretty sure that even Ohio State isn't going to volunteer to pay the NCAA $10 million/year just so Ohio U and Ohio Wesleyan can benefit from the NCAA for free.

Your premise is flawed. The whole point is to pare down that 1 billion dollar bureaucracy into an operational model that is streamlined, defined in purpose, and doesn't need a million dollars a year from 1200 schools. The office complex is just a large part of that upkeep. We don't need 1 billion dollars worth of personnel, office space, and overhead to do the work. It has grown to a size to justify what they keep which is backwards from the way a business should function. Businesses keep their overhead to a minimum to derive a profit. Only a bureaucracy increases overhead to meet income.

It will require work and time, but doing away with the NCAA and contracting out much of their process work would be much more efficient and everyone would make more. And quite frankly maybe there are some very small schools that really need nothing more than intramural sports.

Yes, you could build an NCAA replacement with far less overhead. Doing it on half of the current overhead is realistic. Running the NCAA on one-tenth its current budget isn't realistic. All of the overhead for running D-II and D-III is still there in addition to D-I. The NCAA is administering 90 national championships across the three divisions at little or no out-of-pocket cost to the membership.

If you hypothetically put D-II and D-III -- that's over two-thirds of the total NCAA membership, by the way -- on a self-funded basis (i.e., funded by annual dues), those schools would be very unhappy to be paying out of pocket, and it would be a significant cost, to them, for what they now get for free. The alternative is to do without what the NCAA now gives them, which might mean, among other things, that they have to go without national championship events in most sports and have only conference titles. I don't see the D-II and III schools voting to go that route, given that they now get that stuff paid for by March Madness money. They won't do that unless the March Madness money disappears.

Even in D-I, there are over 350 schools and more than half of them have athletic departments that are just as financially precarious as those in D-II or D-III, and thus they also love the free ride of NCAA services provided by March Madness money. For them and for the D-II and D-III members, the fact that the NCAA wastes half or more of its budget is of little consequence to them because it's not their own money being wasted.

Well Wedge you can take it one of two ways, or you can simply admit a fundamental truth. Each division could pay for what it is that they need. That's only fair. Or you could tier the payments. Division I pays x amount Div II pays y amount and Div III pays z amount and the payments are tiered by economic grouping within those divisions. Thats two ways to handle the option for #1.

Or you could base the payout on the Gross Total Revenue totals and each school could give 5% of their gross total revenue.

But either way you take those first two options schools that run profitable programs are helping to subsidize those who don't.

However, the best option is the fairest method but I didn't include it with the first two because people always take it the wrong way.

Apportion the costs to every school based on their divisional expenses. If they can't pay their fair share then they should drop out.

Why should every other school (all separate entities) pay for someone else to essentially drain the rewards they should be reaping from their programs. And that is the long and the short of it Wedge. Productive programs should not be required to subsidize those who cannot pay their own way at any level, especially in football. If they can't afford to pay what is an essential overhead for operations, then they are likely to have poor training equipment, medical resources, and other safety essentials.

My point is that over two-thirds of the NCAA member schools will not vote for what you are suggesting.
10-16-2017 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 05:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 05:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  True, March Madness is the goose that lays all of the NCAA's golden eggs. Which leads us to this point...


Well, no. And this is the reason pretty much every non-P5 school wants to keep the NCAA pretty much as is. If there was no NCAA, or if the NCAA didn't get to live off of March Madness money, the NCAA member schools would have to pay annual dues sufficient to operate the NCAA.

The NCAA's overhead is more than $1 billion per year, and there are about 1,200 member schools. To make the math easy: If the 1,200 NCAA member schools had to fund the NCAA with annual dues, and had to kick in $1.2 billion each year, that means annual dues of $1 million per school.

$1 million in annual dues is no problem for any of the athletic departments with over $50 million in annual real revenue (revenue minus subsidies). That's the P5. Schools with athletic departments that have about $20-50 million in real revenue could afford $1 million but would be unhappy about it. Schools with even less would be extremely squeezed by $1 million in annual NCAA dues.

But maybe you want to give the D-II, D-III, and marginal D-I programs a break -- let 'em all pay no dues and have only the 120 highest-revenue NCAA members pay the whole bill -- and then each school in that top 120 pays $10 million/year in annual dues. I'm pretty sure that even Ohio State isn't going to volunteer to pay the NCAA $10 million/year just so Ohio U and Ohio Wesleyan can benefit from the NCAA for free.

Your premise is flawed. The whole point is to pare down that 1 billion dollar bureaucracy into an operational model that is streamlined, defined in purpose, and doesn't need a million dollars a year from 1200 schools. The office complex is just a large part of that upkeep. We don't need 1 billion dollars worth of personnel, office space, and overhead to do the work. It has grown to a size to justify what they keep which is backwards from the way a business should function. Businesses keep their overhead to a minimum to derive a profit. Only a bureaucracy increases overhead to meet income.

It will require work and time, but doing away with the NCAA and contracting out much of their process work would be much more efficient and everyone would make more. And quite frankly maybe there are some very small schools that really need nothing more than intramural sports.

Yes, you could build an NCAA replacement with far less overhead. Doing it on half of the current overhead is realistic. Running the NCAA on one-tenth its current budget isn't realistic. All of the overhead for running D-II and D-III is still there in addition to D-I. The NCAA is administering 90 national championships across the three divisions at little or no out-of-pocket cost to the membership.

If you hypothetically put D-II and D-III -- that's over two-thirds of the total NCAA membership, by the way -- on a self-funded basis (i.e., funded by annual dues), those schools would be very unhappy to be paying out of pocket, and it would be a significant cost, to them, for what they now get for free. The alternative is to do without what the NCAA now gives them, which might mean, among other things, that they have to go without national championship events in most sports and have only conference titles. I don't see the D-II and III schools voting to go that route, given that they now get that stuff paid for by March Madness money. They won't do that unless the March Madness money disappears.

Even in D-I, there are over 350 schools and more than half of them have athletic departments that are just as financially precarious as those in D-II or D-III, and thus they also love the free ride of NCAA services provided by March Madness money. For them and for the D-II and D-III members, the fact that the NCAA wastes half or more of its budget is of little consequence to them because it's not their own money being wasted.

Well Wedge you can take it one of two ways, or you can simply admit a fundamental truth. Each division could pay for what it is that they need. That's only fair. Or you could tier the payments. Division I pays x amount Div II pays y amount and Div III pays z amount and the payments are tiered by economic grouping within those divisions. Thats two ways to handle the option for #1.

Or you could base the payout on the Gross Total Revenue totals and each school could give 5% of their gross total revenue.

But either way you take those first two options schools that run profitable programs are helping to subsidize those who don't.

However, the best option is the fairest method but I didn't include it with the first two because people always take it the wrong way.

Apportion the costs to every school based on their divisional expenses. If they can't pay their fair share then they should drop out.

Why should every other school (all separate entities) pay for someone else to essentially drain the rewards they should be reaping from their programs. And that is the long and the short of it Wedge. Productive programs should not be required to subsidize those who cannot pay their own way at any level, especially in football. If they can't afford to pay what is an essential overhead for operations, then they are likely to have poor training equipment, medical resources, and other safety essentials.

My point is that over two-thirds of the NCAA member schools will not vote for what you are suggesting.

All the more reason why the upper tier should break away. The NCAA lives off of promoting and including schools that should not be in it and can"t afford to be in it without taxing the healthier programs. We aren't Communist China, and they have at least become a little more like us. But it is insane to prop up dead weight. That's not how natural selection works in nature, or in business. Unfortunately these days we also prop up those too big to fail. That is said to clarify my point. Only those who are able to meet their obligations should survive. Higher Ed is a crowded field with a downward trending enrollment. It's time to let nature take her course. And that evidently won't happen as fluidly as it needs to happen until those who can pay their way leave.

And to clarify again by upper tier I'm not talking about P and G designation but rather FBS.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2017 05:58 PM by JRsec.)
10-16-2017 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #14
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 01:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 12:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?


* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *

Why would they want to change anything?

The recent events have proven that just about anything short of first degree murder, your backside will be covered. That's pretty powerful incentive to keep the status quo.

I'm sure there are several institutions that are more honorable and more academically focused that probably have a problem with the way things were handled. I'm equally sure that cashing that fat check courtesy of the athletic department will help alleviate those concerns.

If they were being honest, they'd just drop the whole "student athlete" fallacy, at least for certain sports......

They will never drop the student-athlete idea.

That's my point. Without the idea of a student athlete, college athletics becomes a minor league professional sport. And it will become just as popular as minor league baseball or the NBA d-league.

So given that they have to maintain the charade, at some point they have to take action to maintain the charade.

I wouldn't use that word never if I were you. A sidebar to the ongoing FBI investigation could very well be the abnegation of tax exempt status for profit making sports on college campuses.

Should that happen I fully expect the see the Athletic Department's oversight only extend to for profit sports. College football, men's basketball, and depending upon the region of the country baseball or hockey may be all that winds up under the A.D.'s purview.

If that happens there will no longer be donations to the athletic department to gain a priority in ticket purchases. Why? They won't be tax deductible. I would expect however that donations to minor non profit sports to be made to the Academic Administration. Everything given for actual scholarships for non profit sports will keep Amateur status and will be tax deductible. I think the Olympic committee might like this distinction.

For profit players may wind up signing contracts instead of grant in aids and the schools would have more control over them if that happened. They could have endorsements and make money off of their images and personas. What they couldn't do is utilize school logos or uniforms in the ads and images. Those rights belong to the school.

On the upside for both the A.D. and Academic Administration would be Title IX implications. They could not apply to the for profit sports. But for minor sports the ratios could be maintained.

The government gets what they want out of it. They get to collect taxes from the for profit A.Dept. and from the players. Then they also get to drop having to investigate companies for under the table payouts because of course it would now be legal and there would be no reason for the corporate entities to pay otherwise because the endorsement money would be overhead written off against profits.

IMO there is a huge positive upside here where generations of corruption can be made above board business practice if we only acknowledge the conditions in the for profit sports that already exist due to market pressures.

The Academic side can budget for the minor sports and gifts to the schools for non profit sports can still weigh in on ticket priority for the for profit sports. It's just that none of that money would go to the for profit sports.

It would also mean if the NFL or NBA drafted early they would have to pay the school the buyout on the players contract and that too would be a benefit of the change.

I honestly think that a majority of Big 10 and PAC schools would drop football/basketball if that became the business model.

They'll be forced to. A large portion of the budget for Big 10 and PAC schools comes from the State. Most voters aren't sports fans, so sponsoring bona-fide minor league sports would lead to a decrease in state funding for academics in any Northern or Western state.
10-16-2017 06:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #15
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 05:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 05:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 05:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your premise is flawed. The whole point is to pare down that 1 billion dollar bureaucracy into an operational model that is streamlined, defined in purpose, and doesn't need a million dollars a year from 1200 schools. The office complex is just a large part of that upkeep. We don't need 1 billion dollars worth of personnel, office space, and overhead to do the work. It has grown to a size to justify what they keep which is backwards from the way a business should function. Businesses keep their overhead to a minimum to derive a profit. Only a bureaucracy increases overhead to meet income.

It will require work and time, but doing away with the NCAA and contracting out much of their process work would be much more efficient and everyone would make more. And quite frankly maybe there are some very small schools that really need nothing more than intramural sports.

Yes, you could build an NCAA replacement with far less overhead. Doing it on half of the current overhead is realistic. Running the NCAA on one-tenth its current budget isn't realistic. All of the overhead for running D-II and D-III is still there in addition to D-I. The NCAA is administering 90 national championships across the three divisions at little or no out-of-pocket cost to the membership.

If you hypothetically put D-II and D-III -- that's over two-thirds of the total NCAA membership, by the way -- on a self-funded basis (i.e., funded by annual dues), those schools would be very unhappy to be paying out of pocket, and it would be a significant cost, to them, for what they now get for free. The alternative is to do without what the NCAA now gives them, which might mean, among other things, that they have to go without national championship events in most sports and have only conference titles. I don't see the D-II and III schools voting to go that route, given that they now get that stuff paid for by March Madness money. They won't do that unless the March Madness money disappears.

Even in D-I, there are over 350 schools and more than half of them have athletic departments that are just as financially precarious as those in D-II or D-III, and thus they also love the free ride of NCAA services provided by March Madness money. For them and for the D-II and D-III members, the fact that the NCAA wastes half or more of its budget is of little consequence to them because it's not their own money being wasted.

Well Wedge you can take it one of two ways, or you can simply admit a fundamental truth. Each division could pay for what it is that they need. That's only fair. Or you could tier the payments. Division I pays x amount Div II pays y amount and Div III pays z amount and the payments are tiered by economic grouping within those divisions. Thats two ways to handle the option for #1.

Or you could base the payout on the Gross Total Revenue totals and each school could give 5% of their gross total revenue.

But either way you take those first two options schools that run profitable programs are helping to subsidize those who don't.

However, the best option is the fairest method but I didn't include it with the first two because people always take it the wrong way.

Apportion the costs to every school based on their divisional expenses. If they can't pay their fair share then they should drop out.

Why should every other school (all separate entities) pay for someone else to essentially drain the rewards they should be reaping from their programs. And that is the long and the short of it Wedge. Productive programs should not be required to subsidize those who cannot pay their own way at any level, especially in football. If they can't afford to pay what is an essential overhead for operations, then they are likely to have poor training equipment, medical resources, and other safety essentials.

My point is that over two-thirds of the NCAA member schools will not vote for what you are suggesting.

All the more reason why the upper tier should break away. The NCAA lives off of promoting and including schools that should not be in it and can"t afford to be in it without taxing the healthier programs. We aren't Communist China, and they have at least become a little more like us. But it is insane to prop up dead weight. That's not how natural selection works in nature, or in business. Unfortunately these days we also prop up those too big to fail. That is said to clarify my point. Only those who are able to meet their obligations should survive. Higher Ed is a crowded field with a downward trending enrollment. It's time to let nature take her course. And that evidently won't happen as fluidly as it needs to happen until those who can pay their way leave.

And to clarify again by upper tier I'm not talking about P and G designation but rather FBS.

I'd be excited if this happened. It would restore the natural balance between football and basketball schools.

Kansas/UConn basketball produces as much TV value as Nebraska/Texas A&M football. But right now, the NCAA keeps most of that basketball money. And so Kansas/UConn are powerless, despite their huge fanbases and the huge revenues they generate for the NCAA.
10-16-2017 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #16
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 06:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 01:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 12:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?


* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *

Why would they want to change anything?

The recent events have proven that just about anything short of first degree murder, your backside will be covered. That's pretty powerful incentive to keep the status quo.

I'm sure there are several institutions that are more honorable and more academically focused that probably have a problem with the way things were handled. I'm equally sure that cashing that fat check courtesy of the athletic department will help alleviate those concerns.

If they were being honest, they'd just drop the whole "student athlete" fallacy, at least for certain sports......

They will never drop the student-athlete idea.

That's my point. Without the idea of a student athlete, college athletics becomes a minor league professional sport. And it will become just as popular as minor league baseball or the NBA d-league.

So given that they have to maintain the charade, at some point they have to take action to maintain the charade.

I wouldn't use that word never if I were you. A sidebar to the ongoing FBI investigation could very well be the abnegation of tax exempt status for profit making sports on college campuses.

Should that happen I fully expect the see the Athletic Department's oversight only extend to for profit sports. College football, men's basketball, and depending upon the region of the country baseball or hockey may be all that winds up under the A.D.'s purview.

If that happens there will no longer be donations to the athletic department to gain a priority in ticket purchases. Why? They won't be tax deductible. I would expect however that donations to minor non profit sports to be made to the Academic Administration. Everything given for actual scholarships for non profit sports will keep Amateur status and will be tax deductible. I think the Olympic committee might like this distinction.

For profit players may wind up signing contracts instead of grant in aids and the schools would have more control over them if that happened. They could have endorsements and make money off of their images and personas. What they couldn't do is utilize school logos or uniforms in the ads and images. Those rights belong to the school.

On the upside for both the A.D. and Academic Administration would be Title IX implications. They could not apply to the for profit sports. But for minor sports the ratios could be maintained.

The government gets what they want out of it. They get to collect taxes from the for profit A.Dept. and from the players. Then they also get to drop having to investigate companies for under the table payouts because of course it would now be legal and there would be no reason for the corporate entities to pay otherwise because the endorsement money would be overhead written off against profits.

IMO there is a huge positive upside here where generations of corruption can be made above board business practice if we only acknowledge the conditions in the for profit sports that already exist due to market pressures.

The Academic side can budget for the minor sports and gifts to the schools for non profit sports can still weigh in on ticket priority for the for profit sports. It's just that none of that money would go to the for profit sports.

It would also mean if the NFL or NBA drafted early they would have to pay the school the buyout on the players contract and that too would be a benefit of the change.

I honestly think that a majority of Big 10 and PAC schools would drop football/basketball if that became the business model.

They'll be forced to. A large portion of the budget for Big 10 and PAC schools comes from the State. Most voters aren't sports fans, so sponsoring bona-fide minor league sports would lead to a decrease in state funding for academics in any Northern or Western state.

Well you can put a pig in a skirt but at the end of the day it is still a pig. If your alums can't support the program why should the non alums be forced to subsidize it even if you are a massive state school. That just makes you another "too big to fail" and the concept prima facia is absurd.

But my point is going to a pay model for profit sports will force fairness in the business models. No subsidies is part of that. And if you look at the Big 10 schools now I guarantee you there are at least 7 of them that would be fine and the subsidized ones are holding those programs back.

At least the non profit Academic side of those schools would still be able to participate in the academic consortium. Maybe the taxpayers and schools would be better off not living above their means to keep up an image in sports.

It would after all be a revolutionary concept if the rest of the nation caught on. We might actually become the practical, social, and more gracious society that we were when our grandparents were young and 51% of the population did not live in major cities.

I just have a sneaking suspicion when all of the FBI's work comes to a head that we may not have a lot of choice in this matter. But having thought it through I think we would all be better for it if for profit and non profit minor sport were segregated and those who do make money are taxed.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2017 06:51 PM by JRsec.)
10-16-2017 06:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #17
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 06:32 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I'd be excited if this happened. It would restore the natural balance between football and basketball schools.

Kansas/UConn basketball produces as much TV value as Nebraska/Texas A&M football. But right now, the NCAA keeps most of that basketball money. And so Kansas/UConn are powerless, despite their huge fanbases and the huge revenues they generate for the NCAA.

Regular season college basketball doesn't provide anywhere near the TV money as regular season college football. The TV value for the games that the P5 conferences sell to the networks is about 80% attributable to football. And I don't see any reason why that would change if any group of schools, whether it's P5 or some larger group, divorces itself from the NCAA.

Just for fun, we can break down the exact percentages in the Pac-12 contract with ESPN and Fox, because those details were released in the lawsuit that Ed O'Bannon filed against the NCAA. ESPN and Fox get an equal number of Pac-12 football games, while ESPN gets twice as many Pac-12 basketball games as Fox. ESPN pays 53% of the total contract value, Fox pays 47%. Do the math, and it shows that ESPN and Fox are attributing 82% of the money to football and 18% to hoops.
10-16-2017 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,334
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #18
RE: In the wake of UNC ruling, do Power schools want to change NCAA?
(10-16-2017 01:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 12:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(10-16-2017 11:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA's authority is in trouble. They've done nothing to punish academic fraud at UNC, Auburn, Florida State, etc. We'll see what they do to Louisville, but I'm not optimistic.

Ultimately, only the college presidents have the power to change the system. But athletics is usually low on their priority list. Does that change with the UNC ruling?

Is there any group of schools that has the will and the desire to change the system and broaden the NCAA's authority? Maybe elite privates who don't want NCAA sports to taint their academic reputation like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt? Or maybe the P5s that are losing out by playing fair like Purdue/Wisconsin/Pitt/Boston College? Or maybe the service academies?


* I posted this on the P5 board because let's face it - only the P5s (along with the service academies and maybe the Ivies) have the power to change the NCAA. *

Why would they want to change anything?

The recent events have proven that just about anything short of first degree murder, your backside will be covered. That's pretty powerful incentive to keep the status quo.

I'm sure there are several institutions that are more honorable and more academically focused that probably have a problem with the way things were handled. I'm equally sure that cashing that fat check courtesy of the athletic department will help alleviate those concerns.

If they were being honest, they'd just drop the whole "student athlete" fallacy, at least for certain sports......

They will never drop the student-athlete idea.

That's my point. Without the idea of a student athlete, college athletics becomes a minor league professional sport. And it will become just as popular as minor league baseball or the NBA d-league.

So given that they have to maintain the charade, at some point they have to take action to maintain the charade.

The reason for the "student-athlete" term, and the reason they maintain the charade, is that the basis for tax exempt status for college sports - amateurism - is written into IRS regulations. It isn't exempt because its true nature would qualify it under existing statutes. It is only exempt because the IRS says it is amateur. Take that away and you simply make it an enterprise unrelated to the schools' tax exempt purpose.

If the IRS were to change its policy for some reason then the door would be open to make all kinds of changes in how athletes are treated by the NCAA.
10-18-2017 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.