The future of Michigan: A Thought Experiment
It's a slow week with football not quite going yet, so I thought I'd pose a question to the board that has been occupying my brain since this whole OSU thing began and media members began talking about whether the NCAA was obsolete or not. Here goes:
In the not-so-distant future, schools run amok. Programs realize that after OSU got off with a wrist-slap, their program can do whatever it wants, as long as they deny knowledge of it. College athletics descend into anarchy. Teams no longer follow NCAA rules, making the NCAA obsolete.
Schools begin joining a separate entity from the NCAA, a new governing body of college athletics. While the NCAA was formed on the basis of amateurism, the new regime is only interested in one thing—money. None of the old rules will apply, including being allowed to pay players, and boosters are allowed to run amok.
Slowly schools pull away from the NCAA, beginning with those on probation, and moving through the SEC, spreading northward. Not all schools decide to leave—some of the more academically oriented schools want to continue to do things the right way. They decide to stay with the NCAA. The fear is that these programs will dissipate into oblivion when the new, money-laden, high-octane counter to the NCAA gets up and going.
The dispute moves north to Ohio, where OSU decides that they can be a lot more successful if they are able to pay players up front without worrying about tattoo parlors or car dealers blowing the whistle. Ohio U, however, does not have the money or prestige to make the move. The new governing body continues to leave small schools in its wake.
After picking up most of the SEC, Big 12, and a few schools from the Big 10, they move on to Michigan. State has already caved, moving to the protective wing of the new structure, and hopes that Michigan will follow suit so that they can keep getting blasted by Blue on a yearly basis. The commissioner calls Dave Brandon, and tells him if he wants to stay relevant in sports, and not turn in to an Ivy League school, UM must join the new governing body. He asks the fans what they would prefer through an on-line forum.
So, gents, here is my question: if the above scenario did occur, and Michigan had to choose between these 2 options, which would it be:
1.) Stay with the NCAA. This forfeits any sort of possibility of future championships on a national level, but will allow Michigan to continue to do things the right way. They become the equivalent of an Ivy League school with regard to sports.
2.) Drop the NCAA like it’s hot. We begin paying players, working with boosters, and forfeiting our century-long heir of superiority over other schools. We continue to be relevant in the national landscape, but our academic reputation takes a huge hit.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:39 AM ^
I hate stumbling onto profound threads like this at 2:30.
My gut says stay with the NCAA...
but my gut also kept me up this late...
August 24th, 2011 at 2:44 AM ^
I don't like this at all.
That being said, I would probably stick with the NCAA. If Michigan doesn't have its integrity, it doesn't have anything.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:45 AM ^
What don't you like about it? I understand it's not in the normal vein of things discussed on this board, but I thought it would be interesting to see what other people thought. Everyone says how important it is to do things the right way, but would they still feel that way if it meant giving up athletic competitiveness?
August 24th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
I think its actually a really interesting question. HOWEVA, the idea of being held in this dilemma is a painful one. I mean, on one hand, we could circumvent our tradition and history of fair play (imho this would be roughly the same for the legacy of Michigan football as getting a mascot, building a brand new stadium and putting ads up in that stadium, all at once). Or on the otherhand, we could stay with the NCAA, keep the tradition, yet damn the future of our athletics.
I mean, either way, it's a pretty big lose lose, which is why I don't like the situation.
I guess I should have elaborated on my opinions more, but in my defense, it was like 2:30 in the morning, and I was tired.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:46 AM ^
Here's the 100 million dollar(or more actually) problem with your hypothesis. There's no way Ohio or MSU or anyone in the Big Ten would risk leaving the NCAA(and thus the conference) due to the billions of dollars of research that comes as a benefit. It's what people who consistently list non-AAU members not named ND as a possible expansion choice miss(i.e Oklahoma).
To directly answer your hypothetical, I'd say to stay with the NCAA. Honestly if that happened, I'd turn into an NFL only fan(ugh...) for competitive football and thus wouldn't be bothered to obsessively follow the team and thus couldn't care less if we stopped competing for national titles.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:48 AM ^
I do not believe it is so cut-and-dry. I think that some Big 10 schools would feel pressure to move in because of the athletic history of the conference, something that they want to maintain. Some schools would likely be willing to give up grant money in order to join a new athletic structure that promises even more money than they would be giving up from grants.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:37 AM ^
You do realize he said billion with a b?
August 24th, 2011 at 7:47 AM ^
But couldn't you see some lesser institutions, who do not make as much from research as, say, Michigan does, foregoing the research money in order to make possibly MORE money through the new structure?
If a billionaire decides to get rid of the NCAA, I'ms ure there could be incentives for schools that would look a little sweeter than research money. For example, stock options in the new governing body? I imagine they wouldn't be not-for-profit like the NCAA, so offering each school willing to make the jump 1/2% of all yearly revenue (made up number, of course) that could amount to a pretty penny.
August 24th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
How do you define "lesser?" If you're refering to schools like Purdue and Northwestern, these are the same schools that get a TON of grant money - much more than MSU, I assume. Revenue from athletics (which are held privately, apart from University funds) pale in comparison to federal/state/private funding. What you suggest would be a separation of the athletics from the school, essentially.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:22 AM ^
But there's nothing to say this new demon-conference will net them any more money than they already make. I doubt fan bases would grow substantially, as it's likely that the schools able to provide the best perks are those that already have large fan bases and field competitive teams (Texas, Alabama, USC). Competition won't get that much better if the top-tier recruits are still being split amongst all of those schools (and generally the top-tier recruits pick those schools anyway). I don't understand where you think all of this extra money is going to come from that will offset the loss of hundreds of millions in research revenue. Maybe some sort of playoff, but I doubt the payoff would approach what's being sacrificed. Schools already have lucrative tv deals, and I doubt those would increase substantially in value for the rule-breaker league simply because they're breaking rules. So I disagree with your premise that there's more money to be made in a league free of B10 revenue sharing and research sharing.
<br>
<br>Also, if I had to pick, I'd pick 1. We are Michigan. We set an example for everyone else to follow. I'd much rather see a loss of competitive capacity than see us sacrifice our ethics because everyone else is doing it.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:30 AM ^
August 24th, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^
the million dollar answer. The NFL. While a good argument could be made for the Denard Robinsons of the world to come to college, both due to uncertainly regarding NFL prospects and his size, the same cannot be said for some guys who have the raw physical tools to at least not get injured in the NFL if drafted right out of high school. I am not saying they would play right away, but often rookies in the NBA don't play, and players drafted in the MLB play at various levels of minor league ball for modest salaries. That is the future of college athletics. The last six to eight years of college football has been akin the UNLV/Fab Five decade. The gig is up. Not that it exactly parallels the college football scenario because there was no actual prohibition on the B-Ball players going directly from high school to the NFL. But, as of right now, the outright inequity of the money generated by big time college athletics and the benefit bestowed upon the big time athlete for attendance at college has been exposed. The cat is out of the ban and cannot go back in. The NFL: draft eligibility requirement will be modified, the flood gates will open to a certain degree with players going directly to an NFL franchise, the college football landscape will be become dilluted short term until enough players who declare very early have their development siunted (like in the nba) make others realize that there is real value to playing college football, and then the sport will stabilize, just as NCAA basketball has.
Unless the NFL forms a developmental league, and then all bets are off. And then the OP's original hypo is somewhat applicable, except the alternative to the NCAA will not be college at all, but semi-pro.
Either way, enjoy it while you can......
August 24th, 2011 at 2:57 AM ^
....all I could think of was this:
August 24th, 2011 at 6:31 AM ^
Can we get an MGoPhotoshop Expert to put Hoke's face on Mad Max?
The one who is sent to make things right. He is: Hard Hoke.
August 24th, 2011 at 3:09 AM ^
In regards to the original question, I honestly can't answer that, I'm very torn.
<br>
<br>But imagine what High School football would become. So much emphasis would be places on it, as players would be playing to receive as big a contract as possible. My mind is just going on and on about what would happen to High School football if this happened
August 24th, 2011 at 3:15 AM ^
this thread was an unpleasant experience. scary to think about.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:17 AM ^
I actually spent too much time writing about this in a thread yesterday. What we should do is leave the NCAA for an organization that does things the right way, bringing other teams with us and spurning both the NCAA and the hypothetical Demon Association. I'd rather our football program end forever than participate in any type of activity that OSU, USC, or any SEC school participate in.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:17 AM ^
I actually spent too much time writing about this in a thread yesterday. What we should do is leave the NCAA for an organization that does things the right way, bringing other teams with us and spurning both the NCAA and the hypothetical Demon Association. I'd rather our football program end forever than participate in any type of activity that OSU, USC, or any SEC school participate in.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:37 AM ^
If any successor to the NCAA forms, it would be a union of some power conferences/schools. I don't believe the SEC wouldn just leave on their own - they'd need to at least pull some of the Big 12, the Big East, and maybe a few of the stronger mid-majors for this hypothetical league to start. I could maybe see OSU leaving the Big Ten and going it alone in this new association - but MSU? No way. Even OSU is a bit tough to believe, just because the most lucrative thing they have going for them is their rivalry with Michigan.
And so the question to me really becomes, does the Big Ten as a whole decide to go to this new, money-only association? I don't see it happening overnight. If they did go they'd keep a ton of the old NCAA rules within the conference, and keep talking about "winning the right way" and so forth. OR they'd lead a push to reform the NCAA so that players could be paid more but remain amateurs, and violators would face some actual teeth when they screw up.
But to answer your original question, if Michigan did make the athletes become full-on professionals - then why even call it college football? It'd literally be minor league football. There'd be no extra something between the players on the field and the fans in the stands that exists now in college sports - where you see the players staying in your dorms, walking to your classes, and generally being members of your student bodies. Sure, they get some perks now - but obviously the university makes a ton of money off them, so it's justified, and they're still STUDENTS.
If they're no longer student-athletes, then it's no longer college football, and they are no longer the Michigan Wolverines I know and love. And that's more important to me than winning national titles. I pick option 1.
August 24th, 2011 at 5:57 AM ^
"1.) Stay with the NCAA. This forfeits any sort of possibility of future championships on a national level, but will allow Michigan to continue to do things the right way. They become the equivalent of an Ivy League school with regard to sports."- Lets_Go_Blue
If only given those two options, I choose this one. I'd much rather do the right by others and maintain the academic reputation, not to mention the other day-to-day benefits related to being an NCAA member (that don't involve sports or the regulating thereof).
August 24th, 2011 at 6:23 AM ^
" do things the right way". It's not that simple. Who's to really say that not paying athletes is the right way? I know the thought of paying student athletes is very unnatural, but think about it for a moment. It's not as simple as right = don't pay athletes, wrong = pay athletes. You can't just skip the evaluation of whether or not it makes sense to pay athletes. You make a huge jump here.
I can see it being argued both ways, honestly. If I had to lean one way though, I'd lean toward amateurism, but do you really think the majority of college football players come into college ready to learn at collegiate level? Many of these kids are already so far behind academically by the time they're in 8th or 9th grade (let alone College), that they can't really take the full advantage of their athletic scholarships. We need to be honest and need better education programs to prevent the disparity, but also need to figure out how to allow for students to make the best of their educational opportunities.
To call these kids student athletes while schools like TCU will be making weekly treks to the Northeast is a sham. You fly from Texas to the Northeast weekly, and tell me how you do on your calculus exam.
That said, in an ideal set up:
- the majority these kids are ready to take advantage of the opportunity to go to college.
- The NCAA is able to govern the rules it sets up (rather than depending on self policing).
- Michigan wins the national championship 1 every 4 years (can't I dream?)
But seriously, we need to reconsider the current system...there are major holes. If some of the items above aren't fixed, I wouldn't be opposed to having some sort of benefits compensation package, with academic incentives. I ramble... sorry.
August 24th, 2011 at 6:36 AM ^
It IS that simple. There are rules set forth. Either you follow them or you don't. We can argue that there is a grey area, but no matter how you change the rules, that grey area still exists. Even if they started paying athletes, rule-breakers would still find ways around it.
The right way is based on the fundamentals that collegiate sports were formed under. The same rules that Yost, Bo, Woody, Stagg, and all the other great coaches have lived by. Times are changing, yes, but winning by obeying the rules is not an arguable point: either you cheat or you don't. There is no "in between."
August 24th, 2011 at 6:46 AM ^
Agreed, there's no in between. But, in your world you just described above, these schools break off to form their own governing assembly. Yes, paying athletes is wrong under NCAA guidelines, but not under this theoretical new governing body. So now that the Miamis and Ohio States are no longer breaking NCAA rules, is it wrong now?
I guess I'm calling into question paying vs not paying athletes from a general perspective, and not under the "well the NCAA disallows is, so it's wrong" perspective. I see people argue this, and while I support NCAA as it is, it's frustrating when people say "they're getting a free education". These kids help a program pump millions upon millions of dollars, but their reward is the opportunity to get an education from a great university. Yet a good number are unable to take advantage of the academic opportunities they're being given. And as for the "The same rules that Yost, Bo..." argument goes... you tell me what Bo would have said if NCAA came down on him for "practicing too much". What would Yost think? It was a different world then.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:02 AM ^
But these other schools moving to this other entity for the sake of skirting rules. They would stand too much to lose removing themselves from the NCAA (as mentioned above: research $$, academic standing) unless they saw that the advantage gained from their athletic programs outweighed nay hit they took.
While I understand my scenario is not perfect, I was curious what people thought in a situation like this. Boiled down to a minimum: would you rather be a middling team while obeying all the rules and running a clean program, or go Miami's way and break pretty much every single rule in order to succeed?
But to answer your question, no, in that situation, they would not be breaking the rules. But would you want to be a part of that entity? Would you want to forego the rules in said situation?
August 24th, 2011 at 7:18 AM ^
These are rules set forth by the NCAA, and quite frankly from an economic perspective, they don't make sense. Quite frankly, try explaining to someone in another country the rules/reasons for the NCAA rules. They likely wouldn't understand.
What you deem as "the right" way is really subjective, and the question, in my opinion is flawed, in that it assumes "right" and "wrong" are universal. You really mean "NCAA Compliant" and "non-NCAA compliant". Do I support what Miami allegedly did? Absolutely not, because they had an unfair advantage. So we agree on that. But, do I think college athletes shouldn't get paid? I'm not sure, but it's not easy to determine, if you think it is, you're not being honest or truly thinking about it.
In a nutshell, I support staying in the NCAA and having a below average program, but under the supposition that we no longer have to pretend that these kids are getting a world class education, and that they actually ARE getting a world class education. Ultimately, if they're not getting financial compensation or some sort of benefits package, then I truly hope they're able to make the best of their academic opportunity. I realize I hijacked your question and took it to a broader level, but I really think it's important to consider it from this height.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:26 AM ^
I guess I did mean NCAA-compliant vs. not. I was not trying to get into a discussion of "right" vs "wrong" but I guess that does need to be cleared before the real conversation can take place.
I do find it interesting that as important as sucess has been to Michigan, most responders so far would rather play by the rules and not having a championship team.
I do agree that support structure and opportunities afforded to student athletes need to be reconsidered. Sadly, I doubt this is on the forefront of the discussions circling the NCAA, as opposed to "they should get moneys, yo."
August 24th, 2011 at 8:29 AM ^
Honestly, who cares if they're able to "fully take advantage" of their educational opportunities? If I give you a BMW, is it worthless because you don't know how to drive stick? Absolutely not. Their scholarship has actual market value whiter they take full advantage of it or not. I knew many undergraduates during my time at UM who enrolled in stupid, easy classes just to get credit hour requirements out of the way. Anyone who is in a class they don't love or in a major they aren't passionate about could be argued to not be taking full advantage of their educational opportunity. It's not UM's responsibility to ensure that you get the best value out of your education, nor should it be. These kids are given real scholarships worth real money that many undergraduate students would kill for. The fact that they would prefer spending money is irrelevant. Just because you don't appreciate the value of something doesn't make it worthless.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:20 AM ^
I like college football far more than pro football, there is something about the spirit of it. If it just devolved into a minor league for the NFL (which is pretty much what you are suggesting) then I would lose a lot of interest. It would lose the very thing that makes it special, my fall Saturdays would lose much of the appeal that they always have held in my life.
I never what this to happen.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:29 AM ^
This is how I feel. I watch the NFL, but am not crazy about it. The superconference stuff and abandoning the NCAA makes me nervous. I think it will make cfb just a minor league of football played at college stadiums. Would not want at all
August 24th, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^
I like both the NFL and college football, but only attend college football games due to the very different atmosphere found at most universities.
Two things might make a difference, although I doubt they would be implemented. First, raise academic standards for kids to enroll, some thing which is in the works. Second, change the rules so that you can't play professionally for for years from the date of entry in college - I know, it isn't going to happen. Short of that, you get players who are using school as a minor league.
As for paying players, no freaking way. As an OOSer, it costs 200K or more to attend U of M. If that isn't enough of an inducement, screw em. - go flip burgers at a MacDonalds. The majority of the athletes at most schools simply do it for the love of the game, literally, and their scholarships. If that isn't enough for a handful of football or hoops players who have the talent each year to go to the NFL or NBA or NHL, tough shit.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:22 AM ^
Since the Deamon Association seems to step away from the traditional educational mission of the NCAA, I wonder if these rogue teams would jeopardize the tax-exempt status of their affiliated institutions...
August 24th, 2011 at 8:36 AM ^
number 2. No question.
<br>
<br>As far as taxes, they would effectively be corporations, but all profits could go to the university as a licensing fee or as a gift and the sports teams wouldn't have to pay a tax.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:31 AM ^
You want to stay in the NCAA. What makes college sports exciting is because they are amaturs. Is their any doubt a CBA team is better then pretty much any college team. Or that the Canadian minor leagues play better hockey then the college teams? I and a lot of other folks would not be interested in Michigan football if it is obvious it is just another pro league. I can spend less money and get season tickets to Lions games.
There is something really cool in watching sports at the college level because the players are not polished. I still enjoy watching college basketball even when all the best players leave for the NBA after their freshmen year. I would rather they go to the NBA straight out of HS.
College sports is fun to watch because of the intangiables and watching student/atheletes play. If college football turns into minor league football and Michigan has a professional roster of players who are their to learn football, I will not care about Michigan football any longer.
So for me I would rather they stay in the NCAA so I would still be interested.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
some might think it strange, but I've enjoyed div III athletics as much as div IA.
Even with the demon league, it still will coming down to having a set of rules that everyone agrees to and plays by. Some will start cheating on those rules (since they're known cheaters in many examples), and more scandals will emerge... Need to have rules, and enforce them with teeth, whatever they are.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^
Not that is would ever happen because the NFL has it now for free, but a legitimate minor league for kids that never should be in college would solve a lot of problems.
August 24th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
Right and wrong vs. money.
In today's "money for nothin and chicks for free" world ... the schools that don't really care about right and wrong would definitely take the money ... this would be 60% of the SEC, about 25% of the B1G (tsio, msu and illinois), Texas for sure, 25% of the PAC 12 (USC, UCLA and Oregon), probably FSU from the ACC and the Big East would not even be asked ... LOL!
The end of the NCAA (as bad as they are) would destroy college football as we know it today.
Go Blue!
August 24th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
NCAA- Here's why...
I understand that major universities make tons of cash. I went to a private college where I played football and the tuition was right around 34k for the year. My parents didn't help me out past signing their name as a cosigner to thousands and thousands of dollars in student loans. I had to work a job, play football, and go to school at the same time, and I didn't take leisure studies.
Listen, kids can go to school be an athlete and not need to get paid on the side. Getting an education paid for because of your athletic abilities should be a gift enough in its own right. I think the rules need to be changed, about benefits dramatically, but don't lose the NCAA even though they don't know their left from right...
August 24th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
Right on.
While everyone says "Pay them"; it is a huge issue. Most schools do not make money off of athletics and most sports do not make money. Who gets paid?
Also: jumping from high school to the NFL is not as easy as BB and the NBA. While there may be a few freak skill players that could make the jump, how many 18 yr old lineman and linebackers are ready physically for the NFL? Few to none.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
THE Ohio State gets away with cheating and obstructing investigations because their president was the president of the NCAA's mentor and is still a close friend. They will get the least amount of punishment that Mark Emmert will justify.
Meanwhile, Miami will be THE poster child, and their program will get nuked into the stone age. More schools will follow the OSU denial blueprint, but only OSU will get the OSU "get off easy" blueprint from the NCAA. The rest will get punished more in line with what they did.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
earlier, but I'll reiterate because I was also thinking along the same lines: schools or conferences should disband from the NCAA in favor of a more strict governing body.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
Don't do this to me so early in the morning.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
I don't see schools leaving the NCAA. College administrators are pretty conservative, for the most part, when it comes to things like creating a professional league that merely wears school colors.
On a personal level, I would prefer to see actual student-athletes play football than to see college football devolve into a professional minor league athlete freakshow, as it has frankly been well on its way to becoming for a long time.
Back in the 1920s, Michigan actually played the Ivies; they appear to have still drawn sizable crowds. I wouldn't love it if Michigan left the big stage, but I'd prefer a league like the Ivy League to seeing Michigan field a pro team.
August 24th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
Stay with the "clean" conference (which in your scenario is the NCAA but in reality might mean leaving if the NCAA will not change)
Personally, I would prefer taking action before the crooked schools leave on their own. Expel them. In fact, I think OSU should be expelled from the B10 if they will not admit what they did and the NCAA will not fairly police them.
If the crooked schools form another governing body based on profit, the US Congress should also have hearing to remove their tax exempt status, which would put a serious crimp in their ability to get booster money.
I realize that some of these events are not likely in the present world, but we are doing a "thought experiment."
August 24th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
Do the right thing. Take the high ground. Put education first... offer that education to athlete's who desire/value it.
The 'ncaa alternate league' that pays players, would probably end up butting heads with the NFL. Only a few schools can afford to pay players any way...this 'new league' would actually be more doomed to fail than the NCAA is currently.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
Good luck getting university administrators around the country (many of whom have misgivings about big-time sports as it is) to sign on to leaving the NCAA and joining an even more money-oriented enterprise. It's not going to happen.