Unverified Voracity Votes For Payne

Submitted by Brian on April 6th, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Bring the Payne. MI CB LEVITICUS PAYNE has just achieved more than most of us will over the course of our lives: he's made the Name of the Year bracket.

2011 NOTY ballot

[click for big.]

He's a 12 seed in the Bulltron regional against a "Silverberry Mouhon," which is mellifluous but is no LEVITICUS PAYNE. The Mercedes Bunz/Col. Many-Bears Grinder winner in the second round might be tough.

College football is also represented by South Carolina uber-recruit Jadeveon Clowney and former Michigan recruit Quinta Funderburke, who ended up signing with Arkansas. 2013 Purdue basketball commit Basil Smotherman Jr. also makes it. I'm pulling for Smotherman because for the duration of his career I'm going to pretend everything he says on the court is a Fawlty Towers quote.

Also everything Matt Painter says is going to be "BASIL!" I might watch every Purdue game during this era.

Schedule bits. The Big Ten released conference schedules for 2013 and 2014. Illinois and Purdue rotate off; Penn State and Indiana rotate on. Michigan won't see Wisconsin until 2015. That's why the Big Ten will add a ninth conference game sometime in the near future—four years off is a bit much.

At least that's good in terms of schedule strength… unless that thing where any team that doesn't play Michigan is guaranteed to collapse keeps happening. If Illinois and Purdue are insanely good next year our curse continues. Illinois could actually… naw, nevermind.

Monocle follow-up. Women's basketball is out of control:

Some schools paid their coaching staffs many times what their teams earned, the data show. The Texas A&M staff received $1.36 million, or 114 percent of operating revenue of $1.19 million, and Michigan State paid out $833,931, or 87 percent of operating revenue of $954,779.

At Auburn University, salaries and benefits cost $1.14 million, or 1,783 percent of the Tigers’ operating revenue of $64,225, and the program posted a $3.16 million operating loss.

Auburn continues to live by the motto "go big or go home." The 53 BCS schools vulnerable to FOIAs collectively lost over two million dollars each.

Those numbers are insane. Money is being transferred directly from football and basketball players to women's basketball coaches. At least with revenue sports there's some justification for paying the head of your program a lot of money—he's in charge of something that makes money and might stop doing so if you suck. There's no reason any women's basketball coach not at UConn or Tennessee should be making more than 100k. What's going to happen? Are the empty seats going to stop coming?

There's a lot of blather in that article from administrators talking about "the market,"  but that market is shaped by all the extra cash sloshing around because revenue athletes get the same scholarship as everyone else. Even UConn lost nearly a million dollars last year because it paid its head coach nearly two. There's an easy way to close that gap.

Do it or I'll burn you with my eye lasers. Outstanding find from MVictors, as he runs across a wire photo showing what Yost used to look like in the days of Cazzie Russell:


Greg advocates putting the old man back up—"Extend the Yost brand," he exhorts—and this is obviously the most fantastic idea ever.

BONUS: it reminded me of the Martin Van Buren alert system, wherein Old Man Murray put up a picture of MVB on their page and would change it to a "dramatic approximation of Martin Van Buren as he would appear if he were alive today" in the event some random person important to misanthropic gaming nerds* in 1999 updated her "page":

MVB, devil MVB

Michigan could do the same whenever Michigan State came to town or something. Best idea ever? Best idea ever.

*[so, so guilty as charged.]

Exit Fiesta. The NCAA's going to meet about the Fiesta Bowl whatnot soon and could pull the licenses from both the Fiesta (which would be a big deal) and the Insight (which would be a big deal to Minnesota). The shocking, shocking abuses uncovered have caused at least a few guys within the ivory tower to grumble about a playoff:

“The bowls ought to be put under the control of the N.C.A.A.,” said William E. Kirwan, the chancellor of Maryland’s university system and co-chairman of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which discusses and sometimes makes recommendations on the major issues of college sports.

“One way to accomplish that is to go to a playoff and let it be an N.C.A.A. championship. That would be one way of breaking the back of the B.C.S. I’ve never been in favor of a playoff, but given what I see going on, I think it’s time to press that issue.”

He's got a point. Money currently being spent on strippers and golf by bowl executives could instead be used on strippers and golf by women's basketball coaches.

Nervous yet? In an article heavily laden with moody pictures of confetti, Luke Winn drops the bomb you've been bracing for in a way-too-early top 32(?):

13. Michigan John Beilein is on the verge of a breakthrough in Ann Arbor — that is, if point guard Darius Morris returns for his junior season. Tim Hardaway Jr. was perhaps the nation’s most underrated freshman in ’10-11, and the Wolverines showed flashes of their potential by nearly knocking off Duke in the “third” round. They could make an outside run at the Big Ten title.

Deliciously, Michigan State does not feature. Draymond Green's reaction to this:


As for the Wolverines, that 13 is uncomfortably close to the #15 ranking they got in the preseason AP poll before they imploded two years ago. It's also ridiculous to make these lists before the NBA draft deadline, not that it stops CBS (16) or ESPN (also 16).

Etc.: Corn Nation covers Bo's final season as part of their countdown to joining the Big Ten. Via On The Banks, here's an academic economist who actually seems to have a clue about college athletics. Polynomial efficiency margins from Maize Colored Glasses.



April 6th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^

When it comes to matters of public health, I get my information from Dr. Taco B.M. Monster, Ph.D.

This is a perfectly executed name. Between your "taco" and your "monster" you have a "B.M."  It's exactly what I would expect to have between enjoying a taco and running into a monster. Well played, parents of Taco Monster.


April 6th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^

As a studying Epidemiologist, I have a new favorite NOTY candidate. I was pulling for Madz Negro before that.

EDIT: Upon further research though it's a tough decision. Madz Negro turns out to be a white female high school cross country runner, and also subject to one of the most hilariously titled articles I've seen in a while: "SHG's Negro leaves health troubles in dust"


April 6th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^

Like Greg, I too want to bring back the giant portrait of Yost to Yost.  I know it might be a little awkward to put up on the back wall with the three banners back there, but I think we can make it work, and I mean, come on, hovering gaze of Fielding Yost, hovering gaze of Fielding Yost.


April 6th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^

...feature more prominently in M Branding.  As should Fritz Crisler and Bo Schembechler.

Kind of the Michigan Football Mount Rushmore. Photoshop anyone?


April 6th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^

your revenue/expense data on women's bball show how Title IX needs to be revised.  I don't know all the details of Title IX, but i'm pretty sure it's a scholarship-for-scholarship-type formula for men and women.  i really think this formula should be revised to more of a "net income/expense" formula between men and women's sports. 

in other words, revenue-generating sports should not be included in the scholarship formula, unless it's a loss-leader (like a smaller schools; ie Div II or Div III or bad Div I programs).

i've argued this for years, but who am i...

MI Expat NY

April 6th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^

I think there might also be some expenditure balance involved with the Title IX regulations, but I'm not sure.  Either way, I think you're right, exempt football and Title IX becomes much more reasonable.


April 6th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^

but based on a ratio of male to female students and also male to female varsity athletes.

I think the idea is excellent* in concept, but horrible in execution. It basically requires the revenue sports to fund women's sports**, with the rare exception of a Tennesee basketball or whatever that might actually make money, but it doesn't force the schools to be reasonable in how they make those opportunities available. How many more scholarships could a school offer if it weren't paying a coach 10x to 20x their probably value?

I don't know that it will matter too much in the future ... at some point, the NCAA will be forced to confront the disparity between the revenue that football and basketball players produce and the value of the services they receive in return, and non-revenue sports for male and female alike will have to be dealt with differently.


*as much as an idea that makes people do things can be. It would be better if such opportunities had been voluntarily offered, not dragged out of ADs like cats from an overturned tuna truck.

**but of course that applies to men's non-revenue sports as well.

Old Blue

April 7th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^

But how can the NCAA confront it?  Title IX is not NCAA legislation.  It is federal legislation that is enforced by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR).  It has to do with gender equality in all areas of education that receive any federal funding directly or indirectly, not just athletics. 

Publicly NCAA administrators and athletic directors and probably even most university presidents have to toe the party line that Title IX is good legislation that has advanced women's opportunities, blah, blah, blah.  It's true that it has done much good.  But privately, off the record, I'd be willing to bet that most of them hate the way it controls how they operate.  Unfortunately, since it's a federal law, there is not much they can do about it.

The solution to changing Title IX is political.  Elect a president and senators and congressional representatives who want to change it.  Good luck with that, by the way.


April 7th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^

Office of Civil Rights handed it over to the Department of Education. It's their jurisdiction now.

You're right about this being a terribly unlikely policy battle. This is a case where it's very easy to scream "sexism" whether or not that's the motivation behind wanting a change, and where there are some very strong interest groups lined up for the status quo.

The best time for change would have been from 1974-1977, or if Title IX included a sunset provision; since neither is the case, it would be very hard to change.

Now that I think about it, I guess that theoretically, if you had a Secretary of Education that was anti-Title IX, and a president that was at least ambivalent, the SoE could change the handbook used to determine violations without the consent of Congress: this is about as likely as forcing a legislative change, IMO. The courts have already sided with Title IX on several occasions, so that is out as well.


April 6th, 2011 at 6:45 PM ^


This is the amendment that relates to athletics:

(a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.

(b) Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.

(c) Equal opportunity. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors:

(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;

(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;

(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;

(4) Travel and per diem allowance;

(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;

(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;

(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;

(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;

(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;

(10) Publicity.



April 6th, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^

"He's got a point. Money currently being spent on strippers and golf by bowl executives could instead be used on strippers and golf by women's basketball coaches."

I thought misopogon wrote it at first and immediately forgave all his long-winded Dear Diary posts. Should have known it was the Dear Leader. Anyway, best line in a while, Brian. Good show.


April 6th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^

Fawlty Towers--top ten comedy show ever. And Brian, great point regarding women's basketball coaches--it's ludicrous in a sport where almost every team can't fill their own arenas, and we (figuratively) kill football players for looking for a couple hundred dollars.


April 6th, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^

"There's a lot of blather in that article from administrators talking about "the market,"  but that market is shaped by all the extra cash sloshing around because revenue athletes get the same scholarship as everyone else."

But, Brian, they don't really get the same scholarship as everyone else!  Unless your women's rowing (LOL TITLE IX).  Let's look just at the men:




Cross Country/Track and Field 12.6
Football 85
Golf 4.5
Gymnastics 6.3
Ice Hockey 18
Lacrosse 12.6
Soccer 9.9
Swimming and Diving 9.9
Tennis 4.5
Water Polo 4.5
Wresting 9.9

Baseball players certainly are not getting the same scholarship as football players.  85 football players get full-rides.  NO BASEBALL PLAYER GETS A FULL RIDE.  They are lucky to receive half of a full scholarship. 

There's been a lot of talk lately about how football players get little in return for what they make the athletic department when in actuality, they are some of the lucky few (along with fellow revenue sports basketball and hockey) that get their entire education paid for and do not have to split single scholarships with teammates.


April 6th, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^

You can't split scholarships (called head count sports) in FBS football, M/WBB, women's gymnastics, women's tennis, women's volleyball.

Every other sport is split. In baseball 27 teammates split 11.7 scholarships, with a minimum of 25%. Hockey falls under this kind of scholarship limit (equivalency) with 18 scholarships for 30 athletes (men's and women's).


April 7th, 2011 at 5:18 AM ^

I think the lack of scholarship splitting with football has more to do with curbing abuses by coaches than anything else.  If you were a coach and could give 50 full scholarships to your best kids and then use 1/2 rides to lure away 70 more kids, you'd have the old Bear Bryant days where he'd nab a kid just to keep him away from competitors.  This feels like more of a competitive balance decision than a fairness one.

And for sports like Baseball and X-Country that split rides, that is unfortunately the shakes.  That said, athletes there do tend to receive partial academic rides as well, so maybe that is a way to help deserving kids get through school without a single free ride.

Hardware Sushi

April 6th, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^



"What's going to happen? Are the empty seats going to stop coming?"

This was a funny post, Brian. I enjoyed this angle. And man, Auburn's womens' program does not bring in shit for revenue.



April 6th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^

are mostly black people names that sound funny to white people--ha ha. And then you wonder why people of color don't. . . really. . . feel. . . all. . . that. . . comfortable with ya. 

Dubious. Dig a little deeper.