Pac-12 fans: "Larry Scott is the absolute WORST conference commissioner in the P5!"

Kevin Warren:



USFFan

Once again showing the ADS hold zero true power on the most important of matters

(08-23-2020 11:29 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Once again showing the ADS hold zero true power on the most important of matters

Yeah, it really is the worst job in D1 higher ed.

Given that this is a conference realignment forum, I'll focus on that rather than on my general opinion of the Big 10's decision-making processes. I can't imagine Chris del Conte at UT ever recommending to the UT execs to join that conference if AD's are completely left out of discussions regarding the postponement/cancellation of a fall football season. Having Kevin Warren representing all AD's (who unanimously wanted to have a fall season) in a Zoom meeting with chancellors/presidents seems unbelievable, but it actually happened. And having the execs just over-rule all the AD's with no opportunity to state their views also seems unbelievable. The Big 10 better hope that the SEC, ACC and Big 12 end up having to cancel their seasons too because if they don't, the Big 10 is going to end up looking even more ridiculous than they already do. The Big 10 is looking at losing a LOT of money as well as inimical recruiting ramifications and the loss of a full season of football culture at their schools, which really can't be replaced. Maybe the networks will pro-rate the TV money, but that'll just mean losses (or a declining rate of increases) will continue for multiple years. That article is very damning of the decision-making process and the dearth of communication in the Big 10.

(08-23-2020 11:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-23-2020 11:29 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Once again showing the ADS hold zero true power on the most important of matters

Yeah, it really is the worst job in D1 higher ed.

No, it's the change in the landscape. As the money in Athletics grew so did the notice and intervention of the school CEO and board. The CEO didn't care when the money was small, fees were small, and budget small. But as the budgets and revenue have grown to significantly the autonomy of the Athletic Department shrank, and it has come under more supervision, like other revenue and costs centers on campus.

The fiefdom was all the domain of the AD when money involved was small. But the regent has noticed the money and that autonomy ended.

Honestly that is the way it should be. You cannot have a large rogue department in your organization.

(08-23-2020 11:42 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  Given that this is a conference realignment forum, I'll focus on that rather than on my general opinion of the Big 10's decision-making processes. I can't imagine Chris del Conte at UT ever recommending to the UT execs to join that conference if AD's are completely left out of discussions regarding the postponement/cancellation of a fall football season. Having Kevin Warren representing all AD's (who unanimously wanted to have a fall season) in a Zoom meeting with chancellors/presidents seems unbelievable, but it actually happened. And having the execs just over-rule all the AD's with no opportunity to state their views also seems unbelievable. The Big 10 better hope that the SEC, ACC and Big 12 end up having to cancel their seasons too because if they don't, the Big 10 is going to end up looking even more ridiculous than they already do. The Big 10 is looking at losing a LOT of money as well as inimical recruiting ramifications and the loss of a full season of football culture at their schools, which really can't be replaced. Maybe the networks will pro-rate the TV money, but that'll just mean losses (or a declining rate of increases) will continue for multiple years. That article is very damning of the decision-making process and the dearth of communication in the Big 10.

We don't know that the ADs didn't express their views to the presidents.

(08-23-2020 11:29 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Once again showing the ADS hold zero true power on the most important of matters

That's how it will be as long as you put the word college in front of the word football.

If we want college football to be a sport played by students who attend the university and funded through the university -- and in the case of more than half of FBS, there wouldn't be college athletics at all without millions of dollars that are directly provided by the university each year -- then the university president and/or board make the final decisions.

If we want the athletic director to be the final decisionmaker, to be the CEO of an athletic franchise that just uses the names, mascots, and logos of the university, that's something more like the Mexican pro soccer teams that bear the name of a university (and in some cases are still owned by the university), but the players aren't students and there's no pretending it's an amateur sport.

Examples:

Liga MX club Tigres, full name Club de Fútbol Tigres de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, partly owned by the university, plays its home games in the university's stadium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigres_UANL

Liga MX club UNAM, full name Club Universidad Nacional, A.C., owned by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, plays its home games in the university's stadium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadio_Ol...versitario

The article quotes one AD (Nebraska's) who claims to speak for every other Big Ten AD and is written for a Nebraska website/media source and we know Nebraska is the one school that has gone on the record about wanting to play in the fall. I haven't read or heard anywhere from Gene Smith, Sandy Barbour, Barry Alvarez, Michigan's AD, etc. on record saying "they wanted to play in the fall". I've heard Harbaugh and Franklin say they wanted to play in the fall. I'm not saying Nebraska's AD isn't correct but consider the source before trusting one man's words speaking for every other Big Ten AD.

(08-23-2020 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-23-2020 11:29 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Once again showing the ADS hold zero true power on the most important of matters

That's how it will be as long as you put the word college in front of the word football.

If we want college football to be a sport played by students who attend the university and funded through the university -- and in the case of more than half of FBS, there wouldn't be college athletics at all without millions of dollars that are directly provided by the university each year -- then the university president and/or board make the final decisions.

If we want the athletic director to be the final decisionmaker, to be the CEO of an athletic franchise that just uses the names, mascots, and logos of the university, that's something more like the Mexican pro soccer teams that bear the name of a university (and in some cases are still owned by the university), but the players aren't students and there's no pretending it's an amateur sport.

Examples:

Liga MX club Tigres, full name Club de Fútbol Tigres de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, partly owned by the university, plays its home games in the university's stadium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigres_UANL

Liga MX club UNAM, full name Club Universidad Nacional, A.C., owned by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, plays its home games in the university's stadium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadio_Ol...versitario

Coaches and ADs don't make the decisions on whether or not to play football; the presidents do. The presidents informed Warren they would not be playing football and as commissioner he carried out their instructions. Yes it is Warren's job to be the bad guy but the anger of B1G parents, coaches, AD's, and players need to be directed at the presidents.

The ADs are not in charge. Their opinions are just barely above the fans opinions on this board.

Bunch of idiot ADs who are trying to over rule the schools' presidents.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that individual presidents did not consult beforehand with their ADs on this topic. But if any of them did fail to consult, that's on them, not on the conference or its Commissioner. A meeting of the presidents would have been an inappropriate forum to invite all the ADs to.

Since I wasn't a party to any calls or meetings, I have no basis on which to judge what happened at them except what some individuals say afterwards. And in my experience, such statements rarely accurately present an unbiased view of what actually happened. The presidents themselves know, and that's how they will judge the Commissioner's performance.

(08-23-2020 05:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think it would be a mistake to assume that individual presidents did not consult beforehand with their ADs on this topic. But if any of them did fail to consult, that's on them, not on the conference or its Commissioner. A meeting of the presidents would have been an inappropriate forum to invite all the ADs to.

Since I wasn't a party to any calls or meetings, I have no basis on which to judge what happened at them except what some individuals say afterwards. And in my experience, such statements rarely accurately present an unbiased view of what actually happened. The presidents themselves know, and that's how they will judge the Commissioner's performance.

None of the Presidents are not denying what Warren said. It is the smear campaign coming out of Iowa and Nebraska who have travel restrictions placed on them for their very high Covid19 test numbers and the high death rates. The stupid parents are now starting protests on the campuses led by coaches and ADs.

The ADs were POed when the Presidents invited Penn State into the Big 10 without consulting them too. it doesn't / didn't matter a whit. Now if the FB coaches start bailing for other conferences that are playing....

August 5th Big Ten players follow Pac-12's lead in pushing for safety ahead of 2020 college football season

Link
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ll-season/

August 11th Big Ten & Pac 12 cancels all fall sports over coronavirus concerns

Link
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/stor...s-concerns

#WeareUnited will be united on the Couch this season...The movement backfired!

(08-23-2020 08:56 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  August 5th Big Ten players follow Pac-12's lead in pushing for safety ahead of 2020 college football season

Link
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ll-season/

August 11th Big Ten & Pac 12 cancels all fall sports over coronavirus concerns

Link
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/stor...s-concerns

#WeareUnited will be united on the Couch this season...The movement backfired!

The other conference to "unionize" was the MAC. So 3 of the 4 FBS conferences that cancelled.

The college/University president should always have the final say, IMO, but not including the ADs is a bad idea, again, IMO. The ADs are the ones closest to those who will be affected by the proposed moves/changes. The PAC 12 used to operate this way, but not anymore. Thankfully, the SEC still does.

(08-23-2020 11:49 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Honestly that is the way it should be. You cannot have a large rogue department in your organization.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but, there should be more balance to the position to lead athletics; to be at that table. Notre Dame with Swarbick and what Louisville used to have with Tom Jurich...it seems like they do a ton of work and may do everything but actually vote.

When a conference practically shuts them out, like the Big Ten historically does (and just did), that’s too much. Yes, presidents have to make these decisions, no disagreement there, but the optics of this kind of disconnect? There’s something wrong within.

I do have a problem with what has become of athletics in D1. I do have a problem with presidents having to be that involved in the overall process given everything else they must oversee.

I really can’t imagine a worse job in higher ed, other than those who work in advancement, where there’s always more money to be had and there’s little to celebrate because even your positives become your future benchmarks. That’s what’s become of the athletic director position at this level. Only it is so much more thankless. You can bet with both hands that when these decisions are made, presidents aren’t readily making themselves fully available to the kids to personally discuss this stuff. That **** is what is handed over to the AD. There’s less administration than there should be. I can’t be at the table about running my sports programs. I can be undermined on my coaching hires by people with deep pockets who have the ear of the president maybe more than I would? I know the salary gets better at D1, but no thank you.

I’d rather have the job at the D2 or D3 level because you actually do have some power. It’s actually a job rather than some figurehead.