Power conferences seek "autonomy"

[Eurostar]

"NCAA leaders are exploring ways to alter their governing structure, which would allow the schools that can afford it to pay for certain expenses currently prohibited. That includes offering stipends for the costs of attending school not covered by scholarships."


Another reason (or the primary reason) why these schools are trying to realign into power conferences.

espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10121476/power-conferences-seeking-more-autonomy-ncaa

[IDenj]

It's a power play. Either they get their wishes or up yours, we are out of here. And we are taking the money programs with us.

It's bound to happen so I'm glad Georgetown took care of their small piece of the pie.

[hoyasaxa2003]

If these additional payments are allowed, it will be horrible for Georgetown, which will not be able to compete. Once guys like Calipari can (legally) give money to players, it will make recruiting at schools like Georgetown even harder. Hopefully if they do allow this it will be confined to football.

[sleepy]

Dec 11, 2013 22:53:21 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

If these additional payments are allowed, it will be horrible for Georgetown, which will not be able to compete. Once guys like Calipari can (legally) give money to players, it will make recruiting at schools like Georgetown even harder. Hopefully if they do allow this it will be confined to football.

I'm not sure that's accurate, depending on how they do it. Calapari is already paying his players, along with a handful of other college coaches. Assuming there are regulations on payments and some sort of cap, it's just going to take away the advantage's for the Calaparis of the world because he will have more competition. Now how this will effect Georgetown and other similar schools will depend on how it is implemented.
The possibilities of the actual payment system, imo, are pretty limited. You would clearly have to have a cap for each team on how much they can pay, even just considering the BCS schools. Then I think you would have to make sure your paying each player on each team equally, otherwise it would just be a mess. You would have public recruiting battles over 15 and 16 year olds throwing different sums of money at them, kids having schools match prices of other schools. The added pressure of playing a kid you and the boosters are paying an extra $15,000 for but is too raw to contribute right away. Then you add in the agents who will get involved and you are just asking for bad decisions to be made.
And that's not even getting into the ethics of paying these players. Yes, some schools make a lot of money off of them and "only" get compensated with a free college education, they aren't doing anymore work than their athletic peers. How is it right to pay a male basketball star an extra $10,000 a year for doing the same thing his female counterpart is doing? What about the schools with far more successful crew or lacrosse teams that work just as hard as football athletes(possibly harder depending upon the school's interpretation of student-athlete), but they don't get any compensation? How Title IX will play into this whole thing could be interesting. Also how college athletics will remain tax exempt in the face of all this money grabbing seems to be a challenge as well.
Reading that article I am more convinced than ever that the conference presidents are going to destroy their own pot of honey. They don't seem to be thinking practically long-term. Is a 5 conference organization actually sustainable for all sports? Are they actually investing in anything that will improve the overall product of the sports they are trying to benefit off of? Not that I can see. They seem to planning everything as if the status quo will always remain the same, which I happen to think is foolish. With all the changes and transformations taking place in the advertising world, I'd say it would be unsafe to bet on tv money being in the same ballpark a decade or two down the line. It might be but it's not guaranteed. While football may always be king, will sports, specifically college sports, always remain as profitable as they are now? And if they don't, then what? What are they doing, besides changing the identity of college athletics, to ensure that they stay as profitable and popular long term? Instead they seem solely focused on increasing their current profitability. There is nothing wrong with that, but I just think their arrogance is blinding them to potential future problems. Though they could have the next 50 years planned out, but based on public actions and comments I have trouble believing it.

[cheer48]

big time college, esp. state universities, have been, are and always will be nothing more nor anything less than minor professional athletic entertainment in my opinion,( humble or not ).

[vamosalaplaya]

As most folks on this board understand, the economics of big time football - and other sports - at these big state schools are a joke. The arms race in "non-revenue generating" sports at big schools, in addition to the size and scope of what it takes to run the football program, is sucking all these extra TV revenue into the system. It's a textbook example of how a large, highly political, static, market protected/distorted/monopolistic organization would behave - the government behaves this way, as did cable TV and telephone companies in the private sector, utility and mass transit organizations still do, as do teacher's unions, you could argue insurance companies in highly regulated environments - basically - all increases in revenue get sucked into new constituencies that then demand more. So whether it's through huge coaches salary - the most public manifestation - or over-the-top investments in non-revenue generating sports, or dedicated dorms for football teams - the economics of Maryland's athletic department are a recent example of how an orgy of spending can break the bank at state schools - feeding this beast just means it gets bigger and demands more.

Does it really stop at paying a small stipend to college football players and basketball players? No - every athlete on scholarship will cost an extra X thousand dollars a year to have in addition to the price of their education, room and board. And in order to compete at the highest levels of Division 1 basketball you have to field teams with scholarships in most sports across the board.

And ratcheting back the cost of the system is going to be difficult. What may come eventually is a cap on coaches salaries. But at smaller universities, if the costs of providing athletic scholarships goes up, and they can't afford it - particularly in an era of declining enrollment that is affecting many private schools (not Georgetown) - the response is simple - cut sports.

I am not trying to offer an opinion on whether a kid with no family resources should be given some spending money by the school. I am just offering an observation that for the last 30 years the net affect of every single move by big time college football programs has been to increase the cost of running an athletic department.

It will take years to play out, and Georgetown may not face an immediate crisis. But depending on the rules and how they are applied it could have negative affects on the ability of non-D1-football schools, without equity shares in TV networks, to fund teams. At a minimum at schools like Georgetown it will put more pressure on fundraising for sports, and will raise questions about investing in sports programs at the expense of other priorities.

[cheer48]

vamo, I agree........"true and pure" sports activity`s last bastion is tentatively found in high school sports where total enrollment is probably no higher than 2500 students....from there up it becomes more and more a delusion, if not an illusion. The final reflection is "pay and shut up" or wake up to the very real fact that you (not personal) are subscribing to professional sports "more or less" depending on one`s cynical prospectus......"so be it" i.e. amen, over and out.

[DFW HOYA]

Dec 12, 2013 10:37:58 GMT -5 vamosalaplaya said:

As most folks on this board understand, the economics of big time football - and other sports - at these big state schools are a joke. The arms race in "non-revenue generating" sports at big schools, in addition to the size and scope of what it takes to run the football program, is sucking all these extra TV revenue into the system.

Interesting discussion, though I am not sure I buy all the points. A few thoughts:

1. "In order to compete at the highest levels of Division 1 basketball you have to field teams with scholarships in most sports across the board." In many cases, not, which is why the leading schools are itching for their own subdivision. many I-A schools compete at the NCAA minimum for Division I participation, namely six men's sports and 14 overall. They look at schools which chronically underspend in football and other sports (cough, cough...) and ask why these schools get a larger piece of the basketball pie than schools which have many more kids on scholarship, cost disparity notwithstanding and albeit in fewer sports. West Virginia spends $4.8 million in financial aid among just 286 male student athletes, of which nearly half play football. Georgetown spends $3.7 million in financial aid among 393 male student athletes. Who has more of a commitment? The answer is in the eye of the beholder.

2. "The economics of Maryland's athletic department are a recent example of how an orgy of spending can break the bank at state schools." The lion's share of Maryland's economics have to do with capital spending, not annual spending. UMd. was warned by consultants the region could not absorb any more luxury box sales. They didn't listen, built Tyser Tower, now they pay...OK, now the Big Ten Network pays. It's not unlike the land rush to put a Chase or a BofA branch on every other corner, desptie the fact that online banking threatens to make bricks and mortar obsolete. People make decisions all the time despite the presence of logic.

3. "Every athlete on scholarship will cost an extra X thousand dollars a year to have in addition to the price of their education, room and board." Yes, but it's probably about $1800 per scholarship that the cost-of-living allowance will net out to. Can schools absorb this? Those with a good TV deal can. Can Georgetown? Yes.

4. "But at smaller universities, if the costs of providing athletic scholarships goes up, and they can't afford it - particularly in an era of declining enrollment that is affecting many private schools (not Georgetown) - the response is simple - cut sports." Cutting sports is not just about cost. It's usually about presidential bluster cloaked in Title IX, or an end-around to fund sports which can gain the school more nortoriety. Does anyone seriously think Boston University (enrollment: 29,935) couldn't afford a football team that would have ended up in the Patriot League? No, it was all about John Silber giving the one fingered salute to those who questioned his dominion on Commonwealth Avenue.

5. "At a minimum at schools like Georgetown it will put more pressure on fundraising for sports, and will raise questions about investing in sports programs at the expense of other priorities." Athletics accounts for 3 percent of Georgetown's budget. (At Holy Cross, athletics accounts for 15 percent of its entire budget.) I would argue not enough is being spent on an an athletic program where 10 percent of the undergraduate population participates in, while at the same time too much is probably spent on men's basketball overhead. But those at GU know the numbers better than us, and the Georgetown model for athletics remains a good one, even though it puts more pressure on an athletic director than one which can cut to the NCAA minimum and rely on TV money to pay his salary.

[calhoya]

No excuse for Georgetown not playing with the big boys on this issue--at least with respect to basketball. Although most of us like to believe that at the Hilltop the emphasis is on academics and not athletics, the reality is that the basketball program is a critical part of the school's marketing cachet. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of people learned first about the university because of its basketball prowess. The school needs to have a successful basketball program which is highly visible and attracts quality players. The lack of a quality IAC has already been disadvantage enough. It is time to drop the pretense and acknowledge that Georgetown is a stronger name brand because of its basketball program. Invest in the team and devote the resources necessary to attract quality players, who are also quality individuals. It's okay to lose a player because he wants to be paid under the table at another program. It should not be acceptable to lose a player because the school draws the line at paying monthly supplemental stipends. I hope that the school supports this initiative and embraces it as a necessary step to maintaining a quality program.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Dec 12, 2013 14:43:56 GMT -5 calhoya said:

No excuse for Georgetown not playing with the big boys on this issue--at least with respect to basketball. Although most of us like to believe that at the Hilltop the emphasis is on academics and not athletics, the reality is that the basketball program is a critical part of the school's marketing cachet. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of people learned first about the university because of its basketball prowess. The school needs to have a successful basketball program which is highly visible and attracts quality players. The lack of a quality IAC has already been disadvantage enough. It is time to drop the pretense and acknowledge that Georgetown is a stronger name brand because of its basketball program. Invest in the team and devote the resources necessary to attract quality players, who are also quality individuals. It's okay to lose a player because he wants to be paid under the table at another program. It should not be acceptable to lose a player because the school draws the line at paying monthly supplemental stipends. I hope that the school supports this initiative and embraces it as a necessary step to maintaining a quality program.

Ironically, I think Georgetown University as an institution probably "needs" the basketball program less than at any time in its history. I fully acknowledge that the basketball program is important for Georgetown, it gets the university attention, and generally I think it a huge positive for the university. In fact, the great teams of the 1980s were in large part responsible for moving Georgetown from a regional Jesuit university to a national brand in the 1990s and beyond. There is no doubt Georgetown is a stronger brand because of its basketball program - I think that's the only reason the school has devoted as much money to the program as it has in retaining John Thompson III and building the IAC.

Since then, Georgetown's academic brand has continually increased and it seems on an upward trajectory. Some of the same problems with basketball plague the academic side (facilities, etc.), but the university has made some good strides in that direction, and seems to be continually trying to improve. Even since 2003 when I graduated, the academic side has seen a ton of construction on campus that has provided better spaces for classes, better science facilities, etc.

I am a huge supporter of both the university and the basketball team. I firmly believe that a strong investment in basketball is important for the university, and it's something that I hope continues into the future. However, if for some reason, a time comes when the basketball program cannot occupy the place it has now, I think the university would be fine. I might add that in the years I was on campus (1999-2003), things weren't too far from that point - Esherick was fielding terrible teams, interest was waning, and there was no hope on the horizon because many people believed Esherick would have the coaching job as long as he wanted it.

Of course, that all changed with JTIII. That's why I think I have a different perspective when people complain about our March failures. Sure, the March failures are not good, but what we have had the last several years is far and away better than what the basketball program was when I was on campus - even with the March failures.

[vamosalaplaya]

The issue is about where the choice should lie. Making it more expensive to operate other sports because the university chooses to compete in men's division basketball(outside of Title IX compliance) is where this has already gone, and is headed further, and that's a waste of resources if a school wouldn't want to do it otherwise.

Student athletes in non-revenue sports get their education highly subsidized or paid for based on the level of their scholarship, they get preferred admission to the school, and their images and likeness are not being exploited for financial gain by the university. And indeed, in many of these non-revenue sports the student athletes involved are certainly no less well off financially than the typical Georgetown students so they don't need stipends.

Not sure what the exact number would be, but spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year extra to provide even more financial support for student athletes isn't a necessary expenditure of resources.

Best case, the scenario here is GU has to spend more money than it would have otherwise to field teams - in large part to student's whose need for the money certainly isn't bigger than a representative GU students. Feels like that might come in the next 2-3 years. GU could handle that, but other school's couldn't, and it's a shame.

Worst case, this a long term move by the "Big 5" conference members to ultimately carve out their future in all sports separate from schools outside the Big 5 - it would be driven by continued, voracious need for revenue (and not wanting to share it outside their group)- keep an eye on what sort of organization they try and form going forward and imagine if it might set the stage for a Big 5-only basketball organization down the road.

Hope it doesn't come to pass of course.

[jgalt]

What are the legal ramifications of "paying" players at state funded schools. Do the players become state employees? Are they subject to the legal protections that other employees are? Do they have collective bargaining rights? Can the schools legally justify paying some players more than others? What about paying players at different state schools different amounts (such as UCLA vs UCSB)? Any lawyers with speculation on this? My initial thinking is that navigating these issues would be so untenable that state higher ed systems would be more likely to just drop sports than pay.

Im not too worried about this issue having an effect on Gtown. For one I dont think we will ever see players paid on a market basis. There will always be large constituencies fighting against it. School presidents, coaches, state governments, tax payers etc. I also dont think that the money is really there for donors to start shelling out $100k to pay a kid to play at Alabama.

Now that doesnt mean I am morally against players getting paid. I dont think that the schools have any moral reason to pay the kids more than they get from the scholarship. Yeah it may be a ty deal for many of them, but the school says "this is what you get in exchange for coming here" and the players accept or dont. And I dont think that players think the schools are screwing them in this regard either. If the players only wanted more economic value they would choose the schools that had the highest tuitions to maximize the "value" of their scholarship package. Furthermore, most kids arent actually worth their scholarships. If Tyler Adams had to get paid on the open market would he be worth $50k a year? No way. And that is true for probably 85% of players in DI CFB and CBB. They are worth less than their scholarships under a market system. Of course you need those guys to fill our a roster, but their economic worth is very low.

Players should "get paid" in a different way than they do now, just not from the schools. The moral liability lies with the NCAA who profits from the players but gives them nothing back. Even more so the NCAA prevents athletes from capitalizing on their talents while enrolled in school. The NCAA should pay every NCAA athlete (yes every) a flat stipend per semester (this would vary based on division level as revenue are different for each division and likely be $1-2,000 for DI). The NCAA should also set into escrow an amount equal to the market rate every time they use a players likeness in advertising or promotional materials, reflecting the economic value that player provides the NCAA. This amount would be paid out when the player has left school (whether they graduate or not). The NCAA should also allow athletes to profit from their likeness or talents outside of school. Shoe and clothing deals, magazine spreads, no-show jobs, sure, doesnt matter. If Paris Hilton went to college (stop laughing) than she could do this so why not Andrew Wiggins?

Would this ruin college sports? No. Would this lead to widespread corruption where athletes are seen only as an economic commodity? Not any more than they are now. Would this create dramatic stratification in college sports, where some schools are banished to constant losing? Already is that way now. What this system does do is allow the NCAA to focus its resources on making sure that the student part of "student-athlete" is getting fulfilled instead of wasting time, money, and resources investigating whether Bruce Pearl had his players over for a barbecue. And we may actually see athletes staying in school longer. There would be less economic pressure to jump to the pros if you are college start but a likely borderline pro.

[DanMcQ]

espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10119750/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-insists-pay-play-model-coming

Despite a growing public perception that college athletes in revenue-generating sports should be compensated beyond their scholarships, NCAA president Mark Emmert reaffirmed Wednesday that his conversations with school presidents don't echo that sentiment.

"There's certainly no interest in turning college sports into the professional or semi-professional," Emmert said at the IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York City.

Emmert also talked about his disdain for the NBA's 19-year-old minimum age for draft eligibility rule, which has led to a one-and-done trend in that sport.

NCAA president Mark Emmert says that players should be allowed to enter the NBA right out of high school: "It's illogical to force someone to go to college when they want to do something else."
"It's illogical to force someone to go to college when they want to do something else," Emmert said.

He dismissed the idea that having better high school players play one season in college has substantively made the college game more marketable.

"When LeBron went [to the NBA], we still had a Final Four and it was pretty good and people showed up and we had good numbers," Emmert said. "And nobody said college basketball sucked because Kobe went."

He also conceded that schools and the NCAA haven't done a particularly good job in recent years of explaining the value of scholarships.

"The countervailing voices of this notion that student-athletes are being taken advantage of has been the dominant theme and had played out pretty loudly in a variety of outlets," Emmert said. "The reality is schools are spending in between $100,000 and $250,000 on each student-athlete."

[calhoya]

Although I do not always enjoy Jay Bilas' preaching, it is increasingly difficult to defend the system he attacks when NCAA leadership continues to try and sell this "head in the sand" approach to justifying the current system. The organization has become increasingly arbitrary and delusional. No matter how much it benefits the Hoya program, it is hard to reconcile the decision to allow Smith to play for two years with many other transfer rulings that have come out in recent months/years.

The overwhelming number of student athletes are receiving benefits that are equitable and those who are serious students cannot complain about the value of a scholarship to a college or university. But to toss out numbers designed to "impress" the public at large with the monetary contribution that schools make to their athletes is disingenuous at best. Assuming as suggested by Emmert's statement that the 4 year cost of scholarships to this year's Hoya team is around $3 million, this number pales in comparison to the money the university will make during the same time period from ticket sales, television appearances, appearances in the NCAA and royalty payments for the likeness and name of the team, its players and coach on clothng and other articles of interest to fans.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Dec 13, 2013 10:32:48 GMT -5 calhoya said:

Assuming as suggested by Emmert's statement that the 4 year cost of scholarships to this year's Hoya team is around $3 million, this number pales in comparison to the money the university will make during the same time period from ticket sales, television appearances, appearances in the NCAA and royalty payments for the likeness and name of the team, its players and coach on clothng and other articles of interest to fans.

The inherent problem with valuing student athletes is that it's very difficult to do that. First, most student athletes - I'd say probably 90-95% - are not profitable to universities because the scholarships they are provided probably outweighs any financial benefit they bring to the university.

The two notable exceptions are football and basketball. Both bring in revenue to universities (though at the lower levels - like the Patriot League, CAA, or other small conferences - I am not so sure they are profitable either), but because there are significant expenses associated with both sports, especially football, I am not so sure most universities are profiting handsomely.

There is a huge gap between the top 20-30 football schools that bring in huge revenue streams and everybody else. For Texas, LSU, Alabama, etc., clearly football brings the university a ton of money, and it's a net positive. I am not so sure that's true when you get to some of the mid-level ACC, AAC, and Conference USA. Make no mistake - all of these changes that are being suggested are purely for the benefit of the top 20-30 schools that can afford it. I would be shocked if the other football schools - especially the bottom 50% of the FBS schools - actually want a regime in place where they have to pay athletes more money.