Small Schools Want Everyone To Be Small
Two notable developments in the world of NCAA committee flerbydoo. One: schools without money say schools with money shouldn't give a small slice of that to their athletes.
The NCAA's plan to give athletes a $2,000 stipend may be in trouble.
The legislation, passed in October, now faces an override challenge at January's annual NCAA convention, a decision that could create an unusual discrepancy between recruits who have already signed national letters-of-intent and those who have not. …
Berst said 97 schools have signed onto the override measure, more than the 75 needed for the NCAA board to reconsider the stipend. If that number hits 125 by Dec. 26, the legislation would be suspended.
Two: schools without money say schools with money should give fewer scholarships out.
The NCAA's Resource Allocation Working Group, an offshoot of the summit conducted by NCAA president Mark Emmert last August, finalized a list of proposals that are designed to cut costs and to free up money for other areas within athletic departments.
The proposals include trimming the maximum number of scholarships for Football Bowl Subdivision programs from 85 to 80, for Football Championship Subdivision programs from 63 to 60, and women's basketball programs from 15 to 13.
What does Todd Graham think of this?
![TGAgpkXXNCAAAvfdk[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/TGAgpkXXNCAAAvfdk1.jpg "TGAgpkXXNCAAAvfdk[1]")
He likes it almost as much as he likes private jets, leaving schools after one year, and making his wife wear oriental rugs as blouses*.
Say what you want about the vast and overarching corruption of the NCAA and its conspiracy to alienate workers from the fruits of their labors, but at least the big schools, cognizant of that hypocrisy, tried to bridge a portion of the gap this year. The NJITs of the world are shooting it down despite the change being completely voluntary:
The board approved a measure allowing conferences to vote on providing up to $2,000 in spending money, or what the NCAA calls the full cost-of-attendance.
The legislation poses no financial burden on anyone who doesn't have the money. If that creates an unbalanced playing field, 1) no it doesn't since your training table is already rice and beans and 2) it damn well should.
Only someone as blinkered as USA Today's Christine Brennan—whose collected works should be entitled "TITLE IX TITLE IX TITLE IX"—could think voluntarily closing a gap between living expenses and scholarships is "unfair" because it doesn't let womens' athletics set more money on fire.
![joker-money-on-fire-thumb-500x270-29950[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/joker-money-on-fire-thumb-500x270-299501.jpg "joker-money-on-fire-thumb-500x270-29950[1]")
Title IX makes sense at institutions where no one is actually making money for the school. It ceases to do so at places where college athletics becomes a massive transfer scheme from statistically poor basketball and football players to statistically wealthy (and, in the case of women, increasingly overrepresented) non-revenue athletes who can afford tennis lessons and whatnot.
It is incoherent to have these two groups under one roof. There's a fundamental divide between schools that are unprofitable by choice and those that are inherently so, a fundamental divide between schools where mens' basketball and football players have economic value only the schools are realizing and those where every athlete is a net expense. Before you condemn the big ones, realize that it's the small ones and their futile attempt to maintain a "level playing field" that is preventing larger schools from making even token moves towards a fairer system.
It's probably time for another split, or at least serious saber-rattling from the schools that drive the revenue the NCAA subsists on. The remoras at the bottom of the D-I pool need to be reminded who the sharks are.
*[Congratulations, Arizona State. You've hired a guy who just displaced Bobby Petrino as the go-to-reference for skeezy mercenary coaches. I know you can't pass up a guy who took Pitt from 7-5 to 6-6 that quickly, but… actually, maybe you can.]
December 16th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
I think this is exactly right - why does everyone assume that, sans Title IX, schools would immediately go right back to the bad old days?
Title IX passed because it garnered enough support to pass. People's attitudes changed and "women can't play sports" is no longer the default assumption. Would Michigan can its softball program just because Title IX went away? I find it hard to believe that the administration at most universities are closet sexists just waiting to axe those women's programs if it weren't for that meddling Title IX.
What you have now, if we're going to play victim politics, is absurd: rich white women who were going to college anyway getting scholarships to play field hockey, lacrosse, crew, etc., all paid for by the sweat equity of usually poor black men who wouldn't be in school at all without athletics.
What you would see with an end to or softening of Title IX is some return to rationality - it's silly that women's crew can be varsity but men's can't. Or wrestling. Or fencing. Or gymnastics. In many cases you have varsity women's sports begging for team members while competitive men's club teams can't go varsity due to Title IX. Even if you don't give out scholarships, why can't a school fund (and compete at the highest level in) a sport that has a lot of unserved interest, be it a male or female sport?
If you truly believe that college athletics are a benefit above and beyond cash and entertainment (and clearly anyone who supports Title IX does or at least claims to), then shouldn't we be on the side of more opportunity for those that want it?
December 19th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
"What you have now, if we're going to play victim politics, is absurd: rich white women who were going to college anyway getting scholarships to play field hockey, lacrosse, crew, etc., all paid for by the sweat equity of usually poor black men who wouldn't be in school at all without athletics."
That is NOT for you to decide. The whole point of anti-discrimination law is so that you cannot make any distinction about race, gender or class, and there's a very valid reason why -- so you can't make ill-informed generalizations about this.
Who gets the scholarships is less consequential than the opportunity to get them. Rich white boys play football as well, but I guess that doesn't matter if there's a political point to be made?
I have a rule: A political argument is invalidated if it ignores or stereotypes a beneficiary or victim. Yours broke that rule in every way possible.
The law makes no distinction by design. Neither should you, or you've completely misunderstood the reason why Title IX exists.
December 16th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
All the stupid things the ADA requires them to do, with no basis in reality either. Those impact sports in a lot of ways too.
December 17th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
College ahtletics may "add something meaningful to the life of the university." But you are so sure of that notion that you want to compel every school to that wants to offer football to therefore offer 6 other sports that make no money so that women have have that same opportunity. To compel them to offer a wide array of first class opportunities for a wide variety of sports. It should be up to individual schools to decide exactly how many sports "add something meaningful."
But let's accept all of your argument as fact. Now please tell me exactly how playing a sport in college is a right for anyone, male or female? Then tell me exactly why a woman playing in a sport at a college with "bad equipment" is being harmed--in any way. And why your definition of harm should be enshrined and enforced by the government.
All anti-discrinination laws do cost money. That is because society has decided that rectifying the harm done to groups of individuals discriminated against is worth the cost of the new law. If a person can't access a business that others can they are harmed. If they can't get a job they are meaningfully harmed. If they can't vote. If they can't get served in a restaurant.
But if there is a football team on campus and a women wants to row and there isn't a rowing team? Or a rowing team with "bad equipment?" That is a definition of harm that is pure B.S. By your exceedingly soft definition of harm, the kids at Wayne State today playing for the title in football are being harmed by their crappy stadium and equipment compared to Michigan's.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
"Now please tell me exactly how playing a sport in college is a right for anyone, male or female? Then tell me exactly why a woman playing in a sport at a college with "bad equipment" is being harmed--in any way."
OK, I can buy that -- sports aren't a right for anyone. But if you're gonna go with this, I'll point out that that goes for men, too. Schools are under no obligation whatsoever to have athletic programs at all. The obvious answer, then, is to eliminate collegiate athletics altogether. And you know what, I'd be fine with that. There are more efficient ways to give poor people an opportunity to go to college than make them play sports. I'd like to see you convince the country to abolish collegiate athletics, though.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
if schools CHOOSE to do so on their own, for men to suffer as well. The point is that it should be up to each school to decide what to offer.
December 19th, 2011 at 2:46 PM ^
The schools can already decide what to offer. They just aren't allowed to discriminate. You can't offer ten men's sports and no women's sports; that's discrimination and if a school needs to recruit female rowers because they have a football squad quota that's THEIR problem and Title IX is an excuse. That's where I'm going to argue sports are completely unnecessary, so if a small school's whining that it doesn't have the resources to field a football team without discrimination they can ditch the damned football team and actually remember they're a school for once. Equality only sucks when it stands in the way of getting what you want, eh? Well, tough.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^
Actually, in most cases women were simply not allowed to participate, period. At Michigan, women were not even allowed to be in the Marching Band (among other things). When were they first allowed? 1972 -- the year Title IX was signed. That may not have been forced by Title IX (MMB is officially a music course), but the timing was NOT a coincidence. Women's golf came to UM in 1976. Gymnastics? Also 1976. Swimming? 1974. Tennis? 1973. Track? 1978. Getting the picture? Prior to Title IX, women's athletics was not merely second-rate, it simply DID NOT EXIST. Screwing over female students was just that routine. Schools had TWO HUNDRED YEARS to fix this thing voluntarily. They had ALL the time in the world. They just. didn't. do it. College athletics had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the federal government and threat of the law into fixing blatant discrimination problems thirty years after Rosie the Riveter.
I'm very much against the "that was then, this is now" argument because of this. This isn't just out of spite. History matters (ask anyone in law enforcement), and schools never once gave a single shred of evidence in two centuries of chances that they would ever do the right thing. Furthermore, go back to an honor system and there is EVERY indication most schools would go RIGHT back to gutting women's athletics because yes, football and men's basketball are where the money is. If completely eliminating the women's volleyball team was worth a few more recruiting trips, many schools would do it in a heartbeat; they'd be under overwhelming pressure to do so. OK, it'd be a financial situation now instead of a chauvanistic one, but to the woman getting screwed here, it doesn't effin' matter what the excuse is. I concede the current situation is too much of an academic farce and a dysfucntional business, but let's make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease. Title IX fixed a hell of a mess; there's a huge pile of evidence its repeal would once again eliminate collegiate athletics for women in favor of the business of football. That MAY sound fair, but we have to realize that the sole reason for this is because of a physical, genetic difference between men and women. Discrimination couldn't be more clear-cut. It's an ugly choice and I'm well aware of what that means to guys like Denard, but in a day and age where people are still starving, if someone getting a free ride through college (the equivalent value of a six-figure salary these days) doing what they enjoy is a victim and the beneficiary is someone who otherwise might not be able to play sports at all, I can sleep at night. It's unfair, but society has far worse problems to fix.
Sure, compliance is a pain and a few greedy jerks may be benefiting from this, but I honestly doubt Title IX drives either of these issues. Do away with Title IX and you still have crap like the NCAA and BCS -- greedy jerks will always find a way to exploit a system for personal gain. It might mean reform is needed, but getting rid of a system for just that reason is stupid and always has been. Like a guy with bad spending habits blaming his financial trouble on income taxes, Title IX's role in society is more complex than its opponents would have anyone believe.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
all of your assumptions (even though I disagree with them), and let me posit a hypothetical: no Title 9 exists, and UM immediately announces that after he current season women's volleyball will be dropped for financial reasons.
Now, beyond the fact that this would be unfortunate, please tell me exactly how this is unfair, wrong, discriminatory or any other way, something that government should strive to overturn. How a school not offering an additional choice for athletic endeavor, or an additional 6 choices, or 10, is in any way wrong, in any way something that should be legislated away, or in any way something that a school should be forced to pay for.
The entire idea that offering any athletic or extracurricular activity should be forced upon a school is ludicrous and empty headed. Just as if say, a school decided that they didn't want to offer a major in geology, or geography. If you want to major in geology, find another school that offers it. If you are a star volleyball player, go to a school that plays it. And if volleyball ceases to exist anythere at the college level (very unlikely but...) after this? That would be unfortunate. But that is all it would be. Just like anything else in life, sometimes things aren't as ideal as we would like.
December 19th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
The long history of discrimination against female athletes is a matter of public record. They aren't assumptions you're allowed to dismiss.
"let me posit a hypothetical: no Title 9 exists, and UM immediately announces that after he current season women's volleyball will be dropped for financial reasons. Now, beyond the fact that this would be unfortunate, please tell me exactly how this is unfair, wrong, discriminatory or any other way, something that government should strive to overturn."
Oh, purely financial, right? That makes it all different, then!
Seriously. . . are you really this trusting?
People who discriminate always find reasons for doing what they do. ALWAYS. For financial reasons, for example. They don't mean to, we pwomise! And it's not like anyone's rights are being taken away. The resources are just going to where they're used (wink, wink)! Rubbish. That's precisely how this game is played, and any decent person who sees enough of it eventually develops a gag reflex to it. You really, really need to wise up to just how shamelessly dishonest people can be, if only out of self-preservation.
I get that you're saying this is "just sports", not some fundamental right like voting. So who cares, right? Except that's completely backwards. If sports are so unimportant, well, equality is REALLY damn important so that should be enforced by law against institutions proven time and again they can't be trusted -- at the expense of sports, if necessary. We can live without sports. Equality, not so much. Anti-discrimination law isn't about what people have, but how people behave. Athletic departments have budgets that are not isolated from public funding; that makes them subject to our rules. If a school has five men's sports and claims they WOULD add a sixth sport for women but (sigh) they just don't have budget for it (seriously, we pwomise), Title IX isn't going to buy their excuses.
There are solutions that would free colleges of the shackles of Title IX. They can abolish sports, or they can cease to be schools and become professional teams. They just don't want to.
December 20th, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^
we can't get together, but here goes. First, I don't even accept your characterization of pre-Title 9 athletics as "discrimination." That word (to me) should be reserved for things that actually harm someone--I don't accept the proposition that sports is anyone's right to play--therefore not having a sport available to you is simply unfortunate, but not discrimination, and not harmful in the legal sense.
Second, feel free to be so cynical about human nature, but IMO, especially today where everyone acknowledges that most universities are--at minimum-- places of tolerance where it is very rare to find a professor or administrator that is not liberal and supportive of your basic argument, I do not believe a lack of Title 9 would mean wholesale elimination of women's sports. HOWEVA, my point remains that even if this happened, that would be unfortunate but NOT something that government should rectify. I'll be even more clear-- no one can look inside the heart of anyone else and see their REAL reason for doing anything--so eliminating women's volleyball in my example, I don't care whether secretly the AD eliminated it out of bias or out of financial motivation. It would be a shame either way, but I don't think government should step in to compel a school to offer any sport, under any condition.
You are very fired up about equality. If we were discussing access to a business, access to a job, access to medical treatment, and many other things, I'd be with you. But I don't accept the argument that it matters to society, not to women or men as a whole, if a university athletic department offers 6 male sports and 1, 2, or 12 women's sports. If my daughter (who I'm raising to love football and other sports) was a great HS volleyball player and couldn't get an offer to a colege, even if that college had 12 male sports, that would be.... unfortunate. And that is all it would be. And I still would not support any government trying to rectify that by law.
Here is our difference in a nutshell going by your quote: "If a school has five men's sports and claims they WOULD add a sixth sport for women but (sigh) they just don't have budget for it (seriously, we pwomise), Title IX isn't going to buy their excuses."
You would like to lead a march and fashion legislation to promote "equality" and prevent "discrimination" in response to that. I would say that decision is a school AD's choice and that society has no compelling interest in addressing that so called inequality. That no one is harmed. and that we have far better things to do than ensuring a woman can row/spike/shoot at the same percetnage rate as a man. If female athletes at that school protest and under student pressure the AD caves--more power to the students. Otherwise--I would do nothing and support no law addressing it. And if a certain school has a 50/50 male/female student body but 70/30 male female athletes? My response? Ok....
December 16th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
that support Title IX?
December 16th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
about what would happen if Title IX went away.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^
I don't think you'd see women's sports cut. I don't think you'd see anymore added though alongside men's sports that got added though.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
You're probably right, but at many schools there are more female varsity sports than male, because football throws the participant numbers off so much. For example, I don't see a school adding men's gymnastics if women's already exists as particuarly unfair, even though, because of football, it will result in a small imbalance of men vs. women on varisty rosters.
December 16th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
... if women's sports aren't added/expanded alongside men's sports, then you end with a student body that's 55% women and student-athletes who are 45% women. That's exactly what Title IX is striving to avoid: as long as the primary purpose of the school is scholarship, the athletic pursuits should be open to all in equal measure.
The minute you start making "well, the students are doing something extra-curricular - tangential to their education - which is pouring money into our pockets" the primary focus, of course Title IX is inconvenient; women's sports do not - yet - pour that kind of money into the coffers. That's not what it's for.
[And BTW, why is it that all college male athletes are [characterized as] underprivileged people of color while all female college athletes are [characterized as] rich white women? That doesn't strike anyone as a honkin' big red flag against the argument?]
Title IX is for encouraging more women to attend college, and for giving them the same rich experience of their male counterparts while they're there.
-----
That said, we can certainly discuss whether or not it's been successful (I think it's hard to argue that it has not been) and what would happen if it were removed: I am not sanguine about it. Given the massive impact of the almighty dollar; I think it's quite possible that men's sports would end up with about four times the size of the women's sports.
----
As far as paying student-athletes over and above the cost of their scholarships, I marginally support it. Except for football, where I believe that they should get lifelong, full, comprehesive medical coverage instead. I am really happy for Team 132's success and would hate to think they'd paid for it with their brains.
December 17th, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^
WTF is wrong with "a student body of 55% women and student-athletes who are 45% women?" This is what I don't understand about Title 9 supporters. Who says 1- that this is even inequitable on an INDIVIDUAL CAMPUS, and 2- that government, or us--should care? How do you know, or how does anyone know that allowing the natural order to resolve itself in that way is even wrong? You arbitraily decide that based on math? So we should all feel better if the percentage of student athletes is roughly equal to students? Why???? There are many decisins that go into who decides to go out for sports and who doesn't--who says that 50, or 30, or 70% of students of either sex is the "right" amount, or even want to participate? It is simply insane that people should even decide that.
December 16th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
Until I hear of a case "MGoBlog vs. X" in front of the Supreme Court. Because you can take pot shots at it because you don't agree with the philosophy behind it (and I actually tend to agree with Brian on that), but unless you think you have something that's going to change the case law and overturn Title IX other than "common sense", it's like any other political topic, and just shaking your fist at the stupidity of government. Which, well, duh.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
What is the NCAA going to do to stop them? The doesn't provide anything that the Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC, etc. can't find elsewhere. Those conferences, on the other hand, have what the NCAA can't get anywhere else - Michigan football, Kansas basketball, Alabama v. Auburn, etc.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
Time for the SEC, B1G, Pac, and whatever other conferences and schools are big enough and want to to just say F the NCAA we aren't a part of you anymore?
What is the NCAA if it loses participation from its biggest schools?
December 16th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
But it's not the big schools that would have a problem with this. It would be one more arrow in their quiver to get a player to not go somewhere else.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
The stipends are desired by the big schools. It is something they can do to maintaing the amateurism of their athletes, and continue to profit off of them. It is a relatively small drop in the bucket for these big schools. It also gives them a competitive advantage over the little schools which further increases their value over other schools.
WIdning the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" would be in the interest of the Big boys. The stipend system would do that if small schools can't keep up with it.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
rather than leave the NCAA set up a new division 1. we already have 1 and 1aa, the big boys can push their way into a new Division 0 or whatever to stop the little guys from messing with them
December 16th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
Well speaking as also a fan of one of the smaller schools, a $2,000/player stipend might be the straw that breaks the camel's back although I do think that players should receive some of the fruits of their labor. But if you have a football team of roughly 100 players, that would mean another $200,000/year expense. That is small potatoes to the teams at the top but that could be significant to a team like EMU. While I think it is a good idea, I also think it will widen the gap. But maybe it might be the catalyst for the teams at the bottom end to decide it's not worth it to maintain Division IA status and bump down to IAA or II.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
It wouldn't require an EMU to drop down to IAA unless the MAC as a whole voted in favor of adopting the stipend.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
so widening it a little isn't going to make much of a difference.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^
True. It's not like EMU's ever gonna beat Michigan in my lifetime...State maybe....
December 16th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^
Why does a college football fan want small schools in D-1 FBS in the first place? 95% of those schools are not going to be able to compete for a national title. They exist purely to pump up school prestige and act as punching bags for the rest of D-1.
The few "small" schools that are the exception to that (The Boises and TCUs of the world) probably wouldn't have an issue with this legislation, as they make enough revenue to offset this. Say a small school averages 200,000 people in the stands every year. You charge $1 more per ticket and you're there. If you can't average 200,000 people over 6 games, maybe you shouldn't be in D1.
The rich will be richer, but from a fan of any major D1 school, it would probably mean much better non-conference schedules as there won't be enough bottom feeders to go around, meaning that schools will have to schedule more competitve games.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
which is, why does a wide gap matter? Eastern is already at a significant disadvantage when it comes to the quality of their facilities, pay for coachs, NFL names, fan/ alumni support...
Assume that they cannot afford the $200K, who cares? They won't pay it, and their players don't get a whopping $2K stipend each.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
After all, she did close with
"When you hear who chaired that group, you almost won't believe it. He's no longer chairman, because he's no longer a university president. He ran Penn State. Yes, it was Graham Spanier.
Surely that validates the entire article?
December 16th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
It makes up for the fact that she completely dodged the fact that you have a group of athletes right now who make a huge amount of money for their schools while receiving comparatively* little in return.
*Please, critics of this post, note that I said comparatively. I didn't say "nothing."
December 16th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
AHHH FUCK YOU CHRISTINE BRENNAN (and all other journalists outside of FT/WSJ because apparently journalism school does not require any sort of business-related courses to graduate):
"...just 22 out of [college athletic departments] 331 turned a profit"
Goddammit when did athletic departments have a stated goal to maximize profits? There aren't any college athletic department shareholders and University Presidents don't schedule meetings with their athletic directors to go swim in a room of gold coins Schrooge McDuck-style.
There aren't more total profitable athletic departments because they spend what they make paying of facilities upgrades, academic centers, and title IX sports. The only reasonable thing to do with profits outside of reinvesting in your own program is donate it to academics, which OSU and Texas already do (and I'm sure others do, as well). College sports are a business in the sensationalized sense that large volumes of money are exchanged but that isn't literal, CHRISTINE.
WHO IS USING THAT PROFIT IF THEY DON"T SPEND IT AHHHHHHHH!!!!1
/this rant doesn't even take into consideration the "pay the players" -> "don't give the players money" flip-flopping from writers like Brennan.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
The idea of paying players extra has to be an across the board thing or not at all. It also has to be from a general fund that goes to all sports. Title IX has it's issues, but it isn't going anywhere. It probably will come to the big conferences breaking off when the smaller schools can't afford to keep up with these reforms.
Honestly though, basketball seems to find a way to share the wealth across Division 1 just fine and they are dealing with a much smaller pie. That should be the goal here. The number 1 reason it should be the goal is that it would maintain opportunities for kids to get subsidized college educations in places beside big football schools. Thousands of kids all over the country benefit, which benefits us all ultimately.
Someone has to stand up and decide that University scholarships, besides ones catering to high profile jocks, also have a right to exist. It's what's best for everyone. I know that sounds unimportant amid our sadly Darwinian dominated collective mindset.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
I respect female college athletes, FWIW. I was friend with a number of them when I was an undergrad at the Univ. of Kansas. The think, though, that people have to acknowledge that it is at least sometimes the case that "high profile jocks," as you put it, pay for the scholarships of everyone else. In any event, I don't see why paying athletes $2,000/yr has to kill scholarhips for women.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
I'm assuming any conference that adopts FCOA will do so for all of their scholarships in all sports. That's fair I think, since we're talking about "increasing scholarship value", not "profit sharing".
As for the gap between large and small schools, who cares? All it means is that the big schools will be more attractive to the best athletes. But they already are. Athletes getting smaller scholarships at smaller schools are still benefiting greatly by scholarship programs.
December 16th, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^
So you are saying that the millions of dollars that Michigan earns should share the wealth with the smaller less fortunate schools. This is a communistic belief and as an American I can not agree with. If I earn a million dollars a year I should be allowed to keep that money. Why should I have to work hard just so that I have to give it away to someone who doesnt work hard. Michigan and the rest of all the rich schools already have to share their tv revenue with the rest of the confrenece, its not their job to support the EMUs of the world.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
The whole situation is like Ayn Rand writing a novel about college football.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
When Brian suggests that big schools leave the NCAA and see what the small schools do, the first thing I thought of was Atlas Shrugged.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:07 PM ^
The characters in this story are far more believable, though.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
"The remoras at the bottom of the D-I pool need to be reminded who the sharks are."
It's like...you're a professional writer or something. Wonderful sentence, that.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
I don't particularly care for Title IX extremism, but I also disagree with Brian's premise that one school-sponsored sport becomes more worthy than another just because it makes more money.
The point and the fundamental mission of the sports is to provide extracurricular activities for the school's students. The amount of outside interest that generates from other students and non-students is entirely secondary.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
So what, Brian, does the B10, SEC, PAC 10, and ACC need to just start their own association?
Nothing like a 40-team semi-pro league to bring out the best in college athletics and keep the best interests of the athletes in mind.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^
I posted this question in a thread about a month ago and I still don't have a good answer to it. This seems like a decent time to re-ask it. What is the glue that holds the FBS together?
All teams not in the B1G, B12, PAC, ACC, SEC should drop to FCS, then agree to eliminate FCS/FBS play.1. It chops the field down and improves the odds of getting a fair BCS champion.
2. The BCS schools will actually have to schedule decent non-conference games. For FCS schools, the lost revenue from slaughter-for-income games will be offset by a drop in 22 scholarships, with some extra revenue coming from added home games and a bump in TV revenue.
3. Small schools won't have to attend the Beef 'O' Brady's bowl at Tropicana Field where they actually lose money. The combination of fewer bowl-eligible teams and market forces should buttress the decent bowls and eliminate the shitty ones.
4. Bowl traditionalists can keep their system, and the current mid-majors are now in a division they can actually win.
Someone explain to me why this isn't a decent solution for all parties?
December 16th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
If you only have around 60 D1 football programs and they only play another then you will only be getting 6 home games a year. This even hurts the smaller schools as they won't be getting their pay checks to visit the big schools.
December 16th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
December 16th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
Without 7-8 home football games Michigan wouldn't be able to take Lax to D1. Or build the new player development center for the mens and women's basketball programs ect.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
you make it sound like we cant keep playing these smaller schools. Who says we cant play 2 out of division schools?
December 16th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^
what I was responding too?
December 16th, 2011 at 3:21 PM ^
Comments