Superconferences & Realignment

[greyhammer90]

There's nothing strictly immoral about it, but "keeping up with the Joneses" would require spending on a level that spins the football program off from the university's larger mission.



It's not just about staying in the black. It's about the balance of power between the school and the football program. Right now, the program is clearly subservient to the school (as it should be). But would that remain the case if the program grew to 10, 15 or 20% of the total budget? That sort of arrangement almost guarantees corruption.



Again, I don't disagree. It could be argued that ND has been compromising its Catholic educational mission with regards to the football team for a long time. But ND has become guilty about the "worldliness" of its football program, self-sanctioned, and fallen out of prominence many times in the past. It seems like Swarbrick and Jenkins are genuinely trying to balance ND's moral imperatives against the competitive requirements of modern CFB (see all the recent back-office hires), but they also see the writing on the wall with deregulation coming. And they aren't willing to completely commodotize the program, so they're preparing for an inevitable split between the collegiate programs and the semi-pro programs.

I guess I just hope that permanent and drastic decisions about the future of NDs football program aren't made on the basis of prophetic and nebulous fears of "corruption".

 

[Cali_domer]

Some of this may just be a negotiation like what the bug ten said a few months ago. Delaney stated that they would drop to a d-3 model if they were paid in top of stipends.

 

[Irish#1]

There's nothing strictly immoral about it, but "keeping up with the Joneses" would require spending on a level that spins the football program off from the university's larger mission.

Two thoughts....
1. There's going to a be ceiling to the arms race. Schools and networks won't be able to continue spend. I'm not smart enough to know when, but I'm guessing after the football playoffs are about ten years old we'll see things slow down considerably.
2. Much of this is being driven by the academic arms race going on. Schools are building new classrooms, research buildings, etc. to try and attract students, similar to how athletics are building or upgrading facilities. Schools are looking for revenue from football and basketball to go along with fund raising to build these facilities. Some schools are requiring athletics to stand on their own so funds previously used for athletics can be diverted to academics.

 

[ulukinatme]

The saddest part for me was hearing ND wont' play ball and just win straight from the horses mouth...

I called this a while ago though, I stated if they arent' gonna win at all costs then they should move towards their own academic league...

What though the odds be great or small....just join a league of powder puff teams

 

[stlnd01]

2. Much of this is being driven by the academic arms race going on. Schools are building new classrooms, research buildings, etc. to try and attract students, similar to how athletics are building or upgrading facilities. Schools are looking for revenue from football and basketball to go along with fund raising to build these facilities. Some schools are requiring athletics to stand on their own so funds previously used for athletics can be diverted to academics.

I think that's what some schools like to tell themselves. At the elite levels of college football I'm not really sure that it's true. And there's so much money in modern-day TV contracts for the P5 conferences that there's almost no way for those programs not to make money.

As for us, I think we can remain competitive in the current structure while maintaining academic and university integrity. Actually I think that integrity is a big part of why we do remain competitive - both in terms of recruiting and fan base. There are still enough big-time recruits who want a real education.
But if at some point we're forced to choose between one or the other I guess I'd like to see Notre Dame lead some breakout conference of schools that care about academics (along with Stanford, NW, Duke, BC, Vandy, Wake and Navy, for starters, maybe some remnants of the Big Ten). It might mean we're playing "second-tier" ball, but the university will be better for it. And I don't think big-time sports will be as important to the reputation/recruiting ability of universities in the 21st century as they often were in the 20th.

 

[ND NYC]

love Jack, trust Jack....but he's startin to freak me out a little bit here...not sure i'm buyin' what he's sellin'.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Two associations would reflect differing academic approaches. Schools could conceivably still play each other -- as long as the public can digest a $20,000-a-year Isaiah Taylor from Texas bringing it up against Duke's Tyus Jones.

That vision portends a future when schools won't necessarily be defined by their conferences but by their core beliefs. College leaders are already being forced to consider outright compensation, a concept that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

Athletes are already being compensated with the new cost of attendance. If the NCAA loses the O'Bannon case, players could make up to $20,000 in a trust fund payable after they leave school. Several lawsuits against the NCAA and Power Five conferences are calling for the full-on payment of athletes.

$20,000 when they leave is what this is all about? That's $5,000 x 85 = $425,000/year. That's not going to be trouble for P5 schools. Even $20,000 x 85 is only $1,700,000/year. Schools generate more revenue these days with all of the games being on TV; they can cover it.

It needs to be said though (forgive me if it has been) that the school's brand is responsible for most of that worth. How many years does the average starter start? Two years? You aren't there long enough to establish your name. Most of the guys on the field have the fame/"worth" because of the uniform they wear, and I hope courts would see it that way. The linebacker with 5,000 Twitter followers has his small amount of fame due to the fact that he plays at Texas instead of Toledo. The Heisman candidate from Ohio State simply wouldn't be one if he were at Wake Forest.

Simply saying, the brand makes the money. Do I think players should get paid? Sure, but ESPN/Jon Oliver/etc neglect to bring up that the amount they would get paid is actually pretty small. $20k? Whooooaaaaaaa. Even if EA sports paid players $50mil/yr, divided by (85 x 120) 10,200 it's only $4901/yr. Players aren't making real money off of the video game. Education will still be the biggest value for a recruit.

Limit the number of scholarships a program can give out over a four-year period (say, 105). Make schools care about keeping players in school. A player who doesn't graduate is a loss of scholarship for a few years. A little Congressional oversight would be nice; if you fake students' classes, congratulations see you in federal court.

 

[wizards8507]

$20,000 when they leave is what this is all about? That's $5,000 x 85 = $425,000/year. That's not going to be trouble for P5 schools. Even $20,000 x 85 is only $1,700,000/year. Schools generate more revenue these days with all of the games being on TV; they can cover it.

I agree that universities crying "poverty" as a reason not to pay players is a stupid argument. I don't want players paid but it's for principled reasons other than that one.

It needs to be said though (forgive me if it has been) that the school's brand is responsible for most of that worth. How many years does the average starter start? Two years? You aren't there long enough to establish your name. Most of the guys on the field have the fame/"worth" because of the uniform they wear, and I hope courts would see it that way.

Exactly right. I spent $100 on a Notre Dame jersey, $200 on Notre Dame tickets, and many hours in front of the television watching Notre Dame football last year because I love Notre Dame, not because of any individual on that team (and lots of people spend a hell of a lot more than I do). Sure, maybe I picked the #5 jersey because of Manti Te'o, but I would have bought the jersey regardless, just maybe with a different number. The notion that players are responsible for bringing the cash completely ignores the fact that college athletics, unlike professional athletics, are not star-driven sports.

 

[irishtrain]

Depends on your definition of 'true national championship.' I'd be way more into college sports if there were more true amateurism. Alabama may be the best in the land but I don't like watching them. I strongly suspect that the economic incentives to not pay athletes will make the 'academic' side larger than you'd think. If the majority of schools stay 'academic' , you can still make a good case for winning a national championship---- especially since in my mind winning a semi-pro league is very different from winning a true collegiate league.

My hat is off sir for your eloquence and to the very point-could not imagine it said any better. The use of amateur vs semi pro is the point. I used to be in the court of do what everyone else is doing but not any more.

 

[stlnd01]

The "pay players" horse is rapidly leaving the barn at this point and that's probably OK. Got no problem with players getting an equal, modest sum - say $20k/year - given the money many schools rake in off their labor.
But Bluth is dead-on when he says very few individual players have any real value in the market, especially when they're high school recruits signing these deals. The value is in the brand, the university. Most players, to be honest, are commodities.
And that's not even counting the free education - worth, what, $60k a year now at Notre Dame? - and world-class coaching and development they receive, which enables them to get to the NFL. It's not a bad deal, at least in theory.
To me the real trouble is that too many schools don't hold up their end. Guaranteeing four-year scholarships and forcing schools to provide a real education, along with a modest paycheck, would go a long way toward ending the perception that players are being exploited here.

 

[wizards8507]

The "pay players" horse is rapidly leaving the barn at this point and that's probably OK. Got no problem with players getting an equal, modest sum - say $20k/year - given the money many schools rake in off their labor.
But Bluth is dead-on when he says very few individual players have any real value in the market, especially when they're high school recruits signing these deals. The value is in the brand, the university. Most players, to be honest, are commodities. And that's not even counting the free education - worth, what, $60k a year now at Notre Dame? - and world-class coaching and development they receive, which enables them to get to the NFL. It's not a bad deal, at least in theory.

You're kind of talking out both ends here. Players are commodities and the value lies in the universities' brand, but players should be paid because the money is being raked in "off their labor."

1. It's not labor. Yes, it's hard work and long hours but so are marathon running, being a chemical engineering major, being on the women's fencing team, etc.

2. The money is made on the brand, not the athlete. You acknowledged this point yourself.

To me the real trouble is that too many schools don't hold up their end. Guaranteeing four-year scholarships and forcing schools to provide a real education, along with a modest paycheck, would go a long way toward ending the perception that players are being exploited here.

Oh come on with that. "Forcing the schools to provide a real education"!? Players that go to football factories don't want a real education. I'm sure that any football player at Oklahoma or Ole Miss that wants to major in accounting or pre-med is free to do so. Those clowns intentionally pick schools where they won't get an education.

 

[pkt77242]

You're kind of talking out both ends here. Players are commodities and the value lies in the universities' brand, but players should be paid because the money is being raked in "off their labor."

1. It's not labor. Yes, it's hard work and long hours but so are marathon running, being a chemical engineering major, being on the women's fencing team, etc.

2. The money is made on the brand, not the athlete. You acknowledged this point yourself.


Oh come on with that. "Forcing the schools to provide a real education"!? Players that go to football factories don't want a real education. I'm sure that any football player at Oklahoma or Ole Miss that wants to major in accounting or pre-med is free to do so. Those clowns intentionally pick schools where they won't get an education.

I think that your statement is a little harsh. While some recruits do pick a school because they won't have to do a lot (or even any) schoolwork but many schools push athletes towards certain majors because they want the athlete to focus on football (or don't want them to become academically ineligible due to a hard major). Recruits have a tendency to focus on things besides academics (such as depth chart/playing time, national exposure, maybe even girls) but that doesn't mean that they choose to go to a school because they won't have to do schoolwork.

 

[NDRock]

If we're going to the minors it may be time to rethink the whole Crossroads project.

 

[stlnd01]

You're kind of talking out both ends here. Players are commodities and the value lies in the universities' brand, but players should be paid because the money is being raked in "off their labor."

1. It's not labor. Yes, it's hard work and long hours but so are marathon running, being a chemical engineering major, being on the women's fencing team, etc.

2. The money is made on the brand, not the athlete. You acknowledged this point yourself.
.

I'm not a big advocate of paying players free-agent style where they go to the highest bidder, because I think in reality very few have much individual value when they show up in campus, and year-to-year contracts are impractical. But I acknowledge it's unseemly that schools and players make big money while players get nothing. I'd be fine paying them, say, $10-$20k apiece to supplement scholarships (remember these kids can't hold jobs, etc). I'd be fine with that being across all sports, fwiw. But it's not something I feel strongly about.

.[/QUOTE]
Oh come on with that. "Forcing the schools to provide a real education"!? Players that go to football factories don't want a real education. I'm sure that any football player at Oklahoma or Ole Miss that wants to major in accounting or pre-med is free to do so. Those clowns intentionally pick schools where they won't get an education.[/QUOTE]

I think the primary justification for not paying players is the value of the education they get for free. If that's not worth the paper the degree is printed on, that's the school's fault.
I agree some kids have no interest in education from day one. I also think a lot of kids, once on campus at various schools, get steered away from serious academic programs or held to such low academic standards that they absorb the message that they're just there to play ball.
But if we're just going to give up on the educational end of things we ought just call it minor league football. If the education's supposed to mean something, the schools/programs ought to be held accountable for it.

 

[gkIrish]

dublinirish posted in another thread that Cincinnati may soon be invited to join the Big 12 along with another team.

 

[IrishLax]

dublinirish posted in another thread that Cincinnati may soon be invited to join the Big 12 along with another team.

I've heard they've considered raiding the American for awhile to get to 12 teams and have a conference championship. Popular choices in addition to Cinci are SMU and Houston, but that'd be sooooo many concentrated Texas schools. The other team that gets constantly floated out there is Boise (but no one wants to travel to Boise) and BYU( because their whole run as an independent isn't really working).

 

[Cali_domer]

I've heard they've considered raiding the American for awhile to get to 12 teams and have a conference championship. Popular choices in addition to Cinci are SMU and Houston, but that'd be sooooo many concentrated Texas schools. The other team that gets constantly floated out there is Boise (but no one wants to travel to Boise) and BYU( because their whole run as an independent isn't really working).

That guy is never right, a WVU fan who is banned for WVU scout for having multiple accounts pretending to be an insider(Talked with himself pretending to confirm his information).

He is a big reason the boneyard(UConn board) has a non-key tweet thread because of all the crap they predict(Dude of WVU, Minnesota insider are some other "insiders").

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

BYU makes a ton of sense but scuttling their media deals may be a big hurdle for them.

Just going off the top of my head here but Memphis would seem like a fit even if their football program is just having a miracle season right now.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

That guy is never right, a WVU fan who is banned for WVU scout for having multiple accounts pretending to be an insider(Talked with himself pretending to confirm his information).

He is a big reason the boneyard(UConn board) has a non-key tweet thread because of all the crap they predict(Dude of WVU, Minnesota insider are some other "insiders").

You're no fun.

If the Big 12 gets shut out of the playoff again I would expect they expand to get that conference championship game.

 

[irishfan]

Houston and BYU make a lot of sense. I doubt the Texas schools would agree to letting Houston join though. TCU's rise didn't lead to the fall Texas has been on the last few years, but it certainly didn't help. I doubt they'd want to let another Texas school join.

Memphis would be interesting as mentioned. Cincy as well. UCF is in a good market with massive student enrollment.

Colorado State also randomly has good facilities and is in a good market. I feel like the Big-12 could go to 14 relatively easily if they wanted to.

 

[IrishLion]

Damn, got my hopes all up.

I would love to see Texas/Oklahoma/Baylor/TCU every other year in Cincy.

EDIT: Cincinnati is probably left out of matchups with the Texas teams based on divisions, regardless of whether they would be North/South or East/West

They used to be CUSA foes with TCU, so maybe that could be their cross-divisional locked matchup each year, but I'd rather see one of the traditional powers or Baylor.

 

[dublinirish]

Big12 should take Memphis before others come calling.

 

[Cali_domer]

Those who are interested here is the "non-key tweet thread" Non-Key Tweets | Page 266 | The Boneyard

For conference realignment stuff with a lot of different fan bases go here CSNbbs - College Sports and Conference Realignment

 

[Cali_domer]

Big12 should take Memphis before others come calling.

Who else will take Memphis beside the Big 12? The ACC won't take them because of academics, SEC won't double down in Tennessee and not chance of the Big 10 calling them up. There only hope really is the Big 12.

Cincy has options maybe, the ACC would look at them and the Big 12.

UConn has options, the Big 10 and the ACC maybe

 

[Wild Bill]

Not that it'll ever happen but Nebraska belongs in the big 12. I'm speaking strictly from a college football fan's perspective.

 

[Cali_domer]

Not that it'll ever happen but Nebraska belongs in the big 12. I'm speaking strictly from a college football fan's perspective.

I agree, the loss of the OU and Nebraska rivalry is a shame.

 

[ACamp1900]

Why wouldn't Boise State try to move to the big 12, seems like a need meets need situation there..... the locale is a bit off but not any more than other conference moves we've seen lately.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I agree, the loss of the OU and Nebraska rivalry is a shame.

Also, I think the Big 10 affiliation has eroded Nebraska's ability to recruit in Texas and has doomed their program to mediocrity. I think Oklahoma is basically the same program but maintained their ties to the region.

It's also an illustration of why it was good for ND to join the ACC rather than a Midwestern conference (IMO).

 

[Cali_domer]

Why wouldn't Boise State try to move to the big 12, seems like a need meets need situation there..... the locale is a bit off but not any more than other conference moves we've seen lately.

They could try all they want but the Big 12 doesn't want them(Small market and horrible academics)... WVU is on island already and if the Big 12 expands they will likely try to bridge that gap.

 

[Cali_domer]

Also, I think the Big 10 affiliation has eroded Nebraska's ability to recruit in Texas and has doomed their program to mediocrity. I think Oklahoma is basically the same program but maintained their ties to the region.

It's also an illustration of why it was good for ND to join the ACC rather than a Midwestern conference (IMO).

Nebraska is really struggling.