|
Post by vamosalaplaya on Aug 11, 2014 13:06:00 GMT -5
Great front page posts from DFW and I know more are coming.
For me, extending cost of attendance grants to men's and women's basketball is about all that is doable, and all that is right, for non-big 5 schools. (they need to do it to be competitive, I would guess). Feels like the Big East could pull it off.
But throwing more money to non-revenue scholarship athletes is ridiculous. Alot of these sports already have a partial scholarship set up where the money is divided up, so there is already a choppy playing field comparing one Division one team to another in terms of resources given to athletes. As schools across the spectrum struggle with need-blind admissions the last thing they should be doing is throwing more money at a student who plays sports versus all the other great skills applicants bring and who struggle to pay for it.
And indeed, one thing has nothing to do with the other - these minor sports are not net revenue generators for the schools and this entire discussion is only occurring because of football and basketball.
In minor sports as well - the value of the education is given more value in the equation, and the prestige of the school.
This might be a bridge too far when the smoke clears for the big football schools - more scholarship money at athletes of all stripes - and their sports programs are losing money, students are often paying fees to subside them, etc - where is the relative value? It is a slippery slope they are on - "we pay more to football players, so of course the tennis team now gets it too" - let them go down it by themselves and just circle hoops for now.
Again, I don't foresee a good ending to all this. I can see that the big 5 will form their own post season hoops tournament so they can write bigger stipend checks to their soccer, baseball, and lacrosse athletes, who they are now paying more money to because they needed to pay their football players.
Or something like that.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Aug 11, 2014 14:02:41 GMT -5
I subscribe to this theory, from CBT.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Aug 11, 2014 14:21:14 GMT -5
If you don't subscribe to the "Big Five will push to include their cellar dwellars in a tournament at the expense of good other-conference teams" theory, I argue these changes may help Georgetown.
Mental exercise - picture in your head the meeting where Big 5 organizers try to engage CBS to change the huge-television-contract NCAA tournament to one that only includes Big 5 teams. Do you really think that CBS or any other network is pushing for that change? Or wouldn't just laugh in their face? Most of the conference changes have been things the networks want. An NCAA tournament that excludes the large majority of conferences isn't.
The rule changes that would result from this change *help* Georgetown. We get to offer more money in terms of "cost of attendance" than most Big 5 schools because of our location in an expensive Eastern city and our lack of football, which might make the proposition onerous in terms of cost.
The changes in terms of agent contact are something that we have argued for years that we'd like to see, beginning with Allen Iverson.
Staff sizes for basketball are not likely to change much, and I don't think the recruiting rules will change that much either to our detriment. Anything that allowed recruits to officially commit before an official signing day would be a huge win for us.
While we'd lose political power, I think we have enough similarities to a lot of Big Five schools that we don't end out losing a lot in terms of the rule changes that would be enacted.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 11, 2014 16:02:51 GMT -5
Mental exercise - picture in your head the meeting where Big 5 organizers try to engage CBS to change the huge-television-contract NCAA tournament to one that only includes Big 5 teams. Do you really think that CBS or any other network is pushing for that change? Or wouldn't just laugh in their face? Most of the conference changes have been things the networks want. An NCAA tournament that excludes the large majority of conferences isn't. The other problem is that the Big 5 schools are now, I believe, 65 programs (adding Louisville and Rutgers). What are you going to do, have a tournament with all 65 schools? That might have some appeal to the awful Big 5 schools who never make the NCAA tournament, but that type of tournament takes away all selection-drama. Let's face it - the "Bracketology" type of media coverage has become huge and would basically be irrelevant if there was just a Big 5 tournament with all 65 schools (if you downsized to 32, the quality would be high, but then you basically give up arguably the best weekend of the tournament). Plus, the current format guarantees a high level of basketball throughout (aside from the auto-bids). A Big 5 only tournament might be better in that the really low auto-bids wouldn't exist, but it would also mean a lot of mediocre programs making a tournament that now never make it because they aren't good enough to win their auto bid or get an at large bid.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 11, 2014 16:37:19 GMT -5
Not sure why this hasn't been posted ( I've been on my Honeymoon so have not been on the boards for the past week +) but the BE already has said ( and Val said it months ago when the topic first got brought up) that the BE will match anything the big 5 do. www.bigeast.com/genrel/080714aaa.html
|
|
|
Post by hibbertfor3 on Aug 11, 2014 17:10:29 GMT -5
Why cant the Big 5 have the best of both worlds? Instead of individual conference tourney's have a B5 tourney, then still play in the NCAA tourney.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Aug 11, 2014 17:35:21 GMT -5
Why cant the Big 5 have the best of both worlds? Instead of individual conference tourney's have a B5 tourney, then still play in the NCAA tourney. It would be interesting to see a B5 early season tourney. It would kill most non-B5 ooc for a few weeks but it could work for them. Plus it would up the hype of College Basketball earlier in the year. Has anyone read if the 30-game limit is something that the B5 can change?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 11, 2014 18:06:02 GMT -5
I just don't think having a Big 5 tournament and an NCAA tournament is really feasible, unless you started the basketball season sooner or you got rid of the out of conference schedule. I am not sure there would be much appetite for giving up the OOC schedule.
You would basically start with a very short OOC schedule, then you'd have to go right into the conference schedule (which would almost certainly cross the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays), do the Big 5 tournament over a span of let's say 3-4 weeks (keeping in mind that many of the teams would lose after the first weekend and basically not play again for a month if they were NCAA eligible), and then do another 4 week tournament with the NCAA?
If I was in the Big 5 I would not want to do that.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 11, 2014 19:14:08 GMT -5
Eventually the Big 5 will push a tourney over the NCAA. Even if the tourney is worth less to CBS, they probably only get 1/2 to 2/3rds of the $ today -- getting 100% of a slightly smaller pie will appeal.
The key for Georgetown will be getting s seat at the table for a sixth group of strong programs. When the time comes, we will have to jettison the auto bids from crappy conferences and band together with the Gonzagas, UConns, etc.
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Aug 27, 2014 17:34:03 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 27, 2014 18:16:10 GMT -5
How much will Title IX thwart what the Big 5 want to do? And Georgetown's reaction to what they do?
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Aug 27, 2014 18:50:41 GMT -5
Not sure why this hasn't been posted ( I've been on my Honeymoon so have not been on the boards for the past week +) but the BE already has said ( and Val said it months ago when the topic first got brought up) that the BE will match anything the big 5 do. www.bigeast.com/genrel/080714aaa.htmlI am disappointed in your priorities young man.
|
|
|
Post by vamosalaplaya on Aug 28, 2014 9:05:16 GMT -5
While I still can't shake the feeling of a slow death march for non-Big 5 basketball, to Easy Ed's question, the fact these big 5 teams will have to fund all their initiatives for football programs - which have so many players and will cost so much, and then match for Title IX - and then probably the entire athletic program - Title IX, and also other quasi-political pressures they will be under - may make it easier for the Big East and other conferences to match the benefits they offer to men's (and women's) basketball. Stuff like paying for players parents to come to games will be expensive for a football program, and if you offer it to all scholarship athletes (as the Big 5 could do) - it will cost a fortune. But the non-Big 5 schools could match benefits only for revenue generating sports, or selectively, and at least have that.
|
|
hoyabinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by hoyabinx on Aug 28, 2014 9:22:14 GMT -5
How much will Title IX thwart what the Big 5 want to do? And Georgetown's reaction to what they do? This is what I am most interested in. If we give Men's basketball 13 stipends, does Title IX require 13 stipends for women's sports too? I don't mind, but that could have serious effects on other sports. If Title IX requires a 1:1 stipend ratio, then the Big 5 have offset an additional 50+ scholarships for their football team. That means out other women's sports are at a big comparative disadvantage because the big 5 are doling out extra cash to women players in soccer, etc. Again, I don't have a problem with it, just curious if it is an unintended result of the Big 5 vote.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 28, 2014 9:28:11 GMT -5
One of the reasons I am not worried about the Big 5 providing student athletes with more money is that there is only so much money they can give because of the size of football programs and the number of scholarships. I think it's very unlikely that the Big 5 would do anything outlandsish that the Big East could not keep up with simply because the costs of doing that are very high for the Big 5 schools. Yes, it's true that many of the Big 5 schools can afford it, but even within the Big 5, the bottom half or so is not as wealthy as one might think (there's a huge disparity between the top 15-20 or so programs and everybody else).
The one way in which men's basketball would be destroyed would be if the Big 5 totally broke from the NCAA or a "Division 4" was created for them. In such a scenario, the division between them and everyone else would be so stark that it would probably kill non-Big 5 basketball. I think that scenario is unlikely but possible in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 28, 2014 9:39:05 GMT -5
One of the reasons I am not worried about the Big 5 providing student athletes with more money is that there is only so much money they can give because of the size of football programs and the number of scholarships. I think it's very unlikely that the Big 5 would do anything outlandsish that the Big East could not keep up with simply because the costs of doing that are very high for the Big 5 schools. Yes, it's true that many of the Big 5 schools can afford it, but even within the Big 5, the bottom half or so is not as wealthy as one might think (there's a huge disparity between the top 15-20 or so programs and everybody else). The one way in which men's basketball would be destroyed would be if the Big 5 totally broke from the NCAA or a "Division 4" was created for them. In such a scenario, the division between them and everyone else would be so stark that it would probably kill non-Big 5 basketball. I think that scenario is unlikely but possible in the long term. I don't think it is possible for them to cut everyone else out. I don't think there are enough teams for Basketball and even less for non revenue sports for the Big 5 to make that work. There would only be like 10 really bad teams left for teams to play in the non conference schedule. Teams need gimmie games and not everyone can schedule TCU or Rutgers. And Only P12, B10, and ACC have Men's Soccer you can't have a 3 conference Division. They'll have to have other conferences join them for things other than football. I am worried about the title 9 implications and their impact on our women's sports. We can match the power 5 for men's and women's basketball, but doubt we can for women's soccer, and other women's sports that we compete in. I guess we can hope they shunt the money to sports we don't have or don't really compete in like: gymnastics, field hockey, and women's volley ball.
|
|
Just Cos
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Eat 'em up Hoyas
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by Just Cos on Aug 28, 2014 23:56:01 GMT -5
Don't you think it is short sighted to worry about laws with this group? At he same do you think it is realistic for this group to do anything so drastic? I see this as a "whatever" decision. As III said we will follow whatever they do and that is all recruits need to hear. We don't have to worry about this too much because we have a big contract with Fox and any radical change is so far way it is not worth worrying about...like global warming.
|
|