Jim Delany: If O'Bannon plaintiffs win, Big Ten could "de-emphasize" athletics

I just have a question. I read through most of this thread, and I dont think anyone answered, if they did sorry.  If players get paid, what if they dont perform.  Do they get cut, not just from being paid, but a scholorship as well.  What if they get hurt, would they still get paid for the rest of their time at school?

As much as I love getting to watch college football and hockey, I've always been really conflicted by this. In some ways I would be upset to see it, but at the same time, athletics really does need to be de-emphasized. Michigan is a University first and foremost, and I never could justify to myself how sports reasonably fit into that. And spare me the nonsense about being great publicity for the school, because I disagree. 

This topic obviously strikes a cord with all fans, as we hate the idea of losing our big sports teams and rooting interests. Michigan graduates should be as proud of the academic reputation of their school and of the B1G schools as a group. Don't fool yourselves, Delany and the university presidents care far more about the academic side of the equation than we fans do, and rightfully so.  They will gut the athletics if it comes down to it.

I'd like the B1G to de-emphasize Jim Delany.

The article also links to an earlier Staples piece on the ongoing investigations into some of the NCAA's miscues of late - (LINK). It's an interesting piece which discusses how the NCAA has, through time, been very good at selling the narrative that providing compensation beyond a scholarship is essentially "immoral" (Staples' word), but then by doing this, it creates opportunities for players to basically risk their collegiate careers merely by realizing their potential market value. 

What was suggested, interestingly enough, was something akin to the Olympic model, which would allow for boosters and wealthy benefactors to provide the "pay", relieving the school of Title IX problems related to compensation as well as tax issues. In support of that, he notes the relative imbalance of the competitive field of FBS football and notes that 13 of the 20 top revenue producing schools actually have classes in the Rivals Top 20 for recruiting. His argument then is that competition would not be terribly altered in that scenario.

I don't know if this is one of the other alternatives which Delany believes to exist, of course, but it was an interesting approach to the issue, I thought. In the article as well, there is a link to a theory on a truncated handbook which would accommodate these changes as well and that was also an interesting read. 

A draft for high school players might be kinda cool. 25 rounds of 150 or so picks would be epic. If they're getting paid to play, they shouldn't get the opportunity to play where they want to as well - that would just be plain greedy.

This is merely posturing on the part of the "big boys."  It has helped them get their way for years.  Ever since Walter Byers coined the term "student-athlete," the NCAA has had free labor to drive a multi-billion, dollar business.  I'm consistent in my arguments on this: all they have to do is allow the athletes to take money from boosters and accept endorsements.  

Most of all, I just wish they would all stop pretending that anything the NCAA has done in the last forty years even comes close to being "amateur."  

It's scare tactics. He's not daring anyone, he's trying to get everyone so worried that Big Ten sports will go away, that they won't risk it. Probably not a good strategy.

Though they'd have to go all Division III, because he's never going to get pay for play for small sports but scholly's for Football past Title IX. Unless his plan is to have a football team, men's and women's basketball teams, and then whatever group of women's sports he can cobble together that adds up to 85 scholarships.

On the bright side, if there's going to be a last edition of EA College Football, it'll at least have Denard on the cover.

I don't know if this has been posted already, but I just educated myself the quick and easy way, through Grantland:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8914700/ed-obannon-vs-ncaa

I was thinking that some sort of post-career trust would be amenable to both sides, but I guess Ed O'Bannon's attorneys already tried that and the NCAA said no. I'm still opposed to athletes getting paid while they're in school, as that denigrates the value of the education they're getting, not to mention all the other benefits if they have a future in professional sports (entre into the pro world through exposure, TV time, etc..). But I have to say, O'Bannon and his fellow plaintiffs have a point: if the school continues to use their images and numbers, they should get a piece of it. 

I understand why college teams don't want to undertake the responsibilities and liabilities related to "paying" players (revenue sharing at this level of granularity would be a massive headache), but at the same time many of these schools are making a significant amount of money from these same individuals.  I've never quite bought the argument that these players are being abused, as they are receiving scholarship money and all of the perks attached to being an athlete, but claiming financial concerns when you are clearing $20+ million a year in TV revenue alone is disingenuous.  

I'd be fine if the school wanted to address these concerns constructively, perhaps through some insurance plan or additional aid, but I don't for a second expect UM to drop athletics down to the Ivy/DIII model, which means they'll just create a myth surrounding the new procedures while still recruiting top athletes and providing them academic/aid scholarships that perform the same purpose.