Interesting... The article hints that now he's got the new deal and network up and running, he's gonna look at more "long-term" goals...
Wonder what he's thinking? :smile2: I bet they won't like it in ft. fun!
and more:
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Larry Scott says something very interesting about the NCAA
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
Interesting... The article hints that now he's got the new deal and network up and running, he's gonna look at more "long-term" goals...
Wonder what he's thinking? :smile2: I bet they won't like it in ft. fun!
and more:
I dunno, while I'm not a Ram fan, I certainly don't wish for the death of any of those programs...which is where things are rapidly headed. I grew up in the Springs and loved going to Air Force games as a kid, didn't go to my first CU game till I started college. I hope there continues to be a place for the mid-tier programs to thrive and occasionally play giant-killers. A massive upset on the scale of Boise over Oklahoma is one of the things that absolutely makes college football great. I'm just not sure how that happens given the revenue discrepancies and the state of funding for higher education and rapidly escalating costs.
All I know is I am damn happy we have a seat at the big kids table with the absolute mother****ing most brilliant conference commisioner out there.
Division I-A football (or FBS, if you will) is definitely the have's and the have-not's. Nobody in their right mind would believe that it's truly 120 equal teams. So let's just make it official and separate the have's from the have-not's.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
No you don't. We have been a "have" for nearly 50 years, and most certainly area a "have" now.
We don't need to ask ourselves that question. Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, some of the Big East schools, BYU, and schools in the Mountain West and Conference USA need to be asking that question of themselves at this point.
Tractor
Club Member
I don't like where this is going either. Sure, we're on the right side of the tracks this time, but that doesn't make it right.
I used to argue with people that college athletics was so much better than pro because you could feel the emotion. If a team starts feeling it, they can beat any other team any day of the week. App. State can go into Michigan and win if everything falls into place. Why do you want to take that away from those kids? They'll never forget that moment.
In the NFL, people play for paychecks, and I really think you can tell the difference. The Bills will never beat the Steelers in Pittsburg...ever
WTF are we doing to college athletics? It's not broken. It will never be "fair" but you still need to at least allow these teams a chance to play each other. Splitting away again eliminates the chance for David to beat Goliath. I don't think CSU and CU are "equal" but CSU can still win and has won in the past. I don't think CU and USC are "equal," but we're still going to clownhammer them this fall.
I used to argue with people that college athletics was so much better than pro because you could feel the emotion. If a team starts feeling it, they can beat any other team any day of the week. App. State can go into Michigan and win if everything falls into place. Why do you want to take that away from those kids? They'll never forget that moment.
In the NFL, people play for paychecks, and I really think you can tell the difference. The Bills will never beat the Steelers in Pittsburg...ever
WTF are we doing to college athletics? It's not broken. It will never be "fair" but you still need to at least allow these teams a chance to play each other. Splitting away again eliminates the chance for David to beat Goliath. I don't think CSU and CU are "equal" but CSU can still win and has won in the past. I don't think CU and USC are "equal," but we're still going to clownhammer them this fall.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
The best thing the NCAA can do to "save themselves" is to allow the power schools/conference to form a "true" Division I. At the very least relegate the lower tier I-FBS teams into the I-FCS division. Football is the difference maker between programs here, so that is the division that needs to exist; maintaining the "duality" of D-I hoops is fine by me.
In football, there truly is no tangible difference between schools like San Jose State and Montana, Appalachian State and Troy. But none of them are within a fraction of where USC or Florida are.
I don't think they should put a "limit" on who gets in based on number of teams, but the standards for classification need to be wholly revamped. Minimum paid football attendance of 25,000 should be the basic criteria. Football stadium capacity of at least 30,000. Institutional support (to include student athletic fees) must total less than 10% of annual revenues to the athletic department (for schools like Vandy without an "AD" they would still be required to keep athletic-related financials). Instead of each school hiring "compliance directors" each D-I FBS school would be required to pay an increased membership assessment to the NCAA, who would then hire a school-specific compliance agent that would essentially be a field agent for them. These NCAA staff members would be rotated semi-annually to ensure that relationships would not impede their impartiality.
A school would have to prove the ability to support all of those criteria over a 5-year review period BEFORE they would be allowed to move up to D-I FBS. Schools would have to maintain those criteria for a 5-year period to retain their status as well.
Borderline schools for attendance would then be:
New Mexico
Memphis
Marshall
San Diego State
Montana
Appalachian State
Schools like Boise, East Carolina, Air Force, Central Florida, Hawaii, Fresno State, Navy, Army, Southern Miss, Houston, and UTEP who draw big enough crowds to qualify would then have to review their financial ability to play at that level. This would certainly result in a re-shuffling of conference affiliation since none of the "BCS" schools would be left behind (Wazzou and Duke are the closest but would still pass). BYU and Notre Dame would certainly be "in" at the next level; and I could see the case for all 3 service academies being Independent in that "new world".
CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, Rice, SMU, Nevada, Central Michigan, etc. would basically now become the "Bigger Fish in the Smaller Pond" which is probably PERFECT for them. Meaningless bowl games for those schools would be replaced by the FCS playoffs and possible nationally televised home games. While we're at it, how come the I-FCS schools don't pool their football TV rights and form an "FCS Network" of their own? They would still be "top tier" in all other sports except football, travel costs would be minimized as regional conferences would be much easier to arrange.
Stricter guidelines on certification of bowl games, monitoring of their financial activities, and/or review of a playoff system for the new D-I FBS would then be possible.
Otherwise, I could just see the "BCS conferences + Notre Dame/BYU" splitting from the NCAA and forming their own governing body. This would be much more expensive, and IMO much more damaging to the other schools that remain in the NCAA, so they should be supportive of the bigger schools' needs for a restructured NCAA.
In football, there truly is no tangible difference between schools like San Jose State and Montana, Appalachian State and Troy. But none of them are within a fraction of where USC or Florida are.
I don't think they should put a "limit" on who gets in based on number of teams, but the standards for classification need to be wholly revamped. Minimum paid football attendance of 25,000 should be the basic criteria. Football stadium capacity of at least 30,000. Institutional support (to include student athletic fees) must total less than 10% of annual revenues to the athletic department (for schools like Vandy without an "AD" they would still be required to keep athletic-related financials). Instead of each school hiring "compliance directors" each D-I FBS school would be required to pay an increased membership assessment to the NCAA, who would then hire a school-specific compliance agent that would essentially be a field agent for them. These NCAA staff members would be rotated semi-annually to ensure that relationships would not impede their impartiality.
A school would have to prove the ability to support all of those criteria over a 5-year review period BEFORE they would be allowed to move up to D-I FBS. Schools would have to maintain those criteria for a 5-year period to retain their status as well.
Borderline schools for attendance would then be:
New Mexico
Memphis
Marshall
San Diego State
Montana
Appalachian State
Schools like Boise, East Carolina, Air Force, Central Florida, Hawaii, Fresno State, Navy, Army, Southern Miss, Houston, and UTEP who draw big enough crowds to qualify would then have to review their financial ability to play at that level. This would certainly result in a re-shuffling of conference affiliation since none of the "BCS" schools would be left behind (Wazzou and Duke are the closest but would still pass). BYU and Notre Dame would certainly be "in" at the next level; and I could see the case for all 3 service academies being Independent in that "new world".
CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, Rice, SMU, Nevada, Central Michigan, etc. would basically now become the "Bigger Fish in the Smaller Pond" which is probably PERFECT for them. Meaningless bowl games for those schools would be replaced by the FCS playoffs and possible nationally televised home games. While we're at it, how come the I-FCS schools don't pool their football TV rights and form an "FCS Network" of their own? They would still be "top tier" in all other sports except football, travel costs would be minimized as regional conferences would be much easier to arrange.
Stricter guidelines on certification of bowl games, monitoring of their financial activities, and/or review of a playoff system for the new D-I FBS would then be possible.
Otherwise, I could just see the "BCS conferences + Notre Dame/BYU" splitting from the NCAA and forming their own governing body. This would be much more expensive, and IMO much more damaging to the other schools that remain in the NCAA, so they should be supportive of the bigger schools' needs for a restructured NCAA.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
I don't like where this is going either. Sure, we're on the right side of the tracks this time, but that doesn't make it right.
I used to argue with people that college athletics was so much better than pro because you could feel the emotion. If a team starts feeling it, they can beat any other team any day of the week. App. State can go into Michigan and win if everything falls into place. Why do you want to take that away from those kids? They'll never forget that moment.
In the NFL, people play for paychecks, and I really think you can tell the difference. The Bills will never beat the Steelers in Pittsburg...ever
WTF are we doing to college athletics? It's not broken. It will never be "fair" but you still need to at least allow these teams a chance to play each other. Splitting away again eliminates the chance for David to beat Goliath. I don't think CSU and CU are "equal" but CSU can still win and has won in the past. I don't think CU and USC are "equal," but we're still going to clownhammer them this fall.
I agree that "splitting" without playing is a bad idea, which is why I think the NCAA should re-structure their divisions. Teams could still play against the other division, especially if it is a rivalry game. (just like your Appy St vs Michigan example). Appy State better be supportive of the "BCS" guys needs for a different monitoring structure, or they might lose the chance to repeat that upset in the future.
superdeluxe
Member
Larry Scott is awesome. he is basically saying (even though he was trying to deny it), thatnot everyone should be held to the same standard. If you have a seat at the big boys table, you should be able to get more food then those at the anklebiter's table.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
There will be "haves" and "have nots" in every division, regardless of the division.
If the BCS conferences split apart from the rest of college football there would still be different levels of support within the new BCS. Texas will always have more support and more money than Iowa State, even if both are in the same conference. Vanderbilt is a BCS team but it doesn't have nearly the support that Alabama or LSU do. Alabama & LSU = haves. Vanderbilt = have not.
The only difference between some of the current BCS conference schools and teams like Boise State, TCU, Tulsa, etc. is that when conferences were formed 50+ years ago, some schools were in, while others were not. Boise State and TCU weren't even playing div. 1-a ball back then. If you look at the current landscape of college football, Boise State, TCU, Utah - all have been much more competitive in the grand scheme of college football than teams like Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, etc.
What concerns me is that if the paying players scheme ever comes into being, Colorado is not going to be able to afford such a program under their current athletic department structure.
If the BCS conferences split apart from the rest of college football there would still be different levels of support within the new BCS. Texas will always have more support and more money than Iowa State, even if both are in the same conference. Vanderbilt is a BCS team but it doesn't have nearly the support that Alabama or LSU do. Alabama & LSU = haves. Vanderbilt = have not.
The only difference between some of the current BCS conference schools and teams like Boise State, TCU, Tulsa, etc. is that when conferences were formed 50+ years ago, some schools were in, while others were not. Boise State and TCU weren't even playing div. 1-a ball back then. If you look at the current landscape of college football, Boise State, TCU, Utah - all have been much more competitive in the grand scheme of college football than teams like Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, etc.
What concerns me is that if the paying players scheme ever comes into being, Colorado is not going to be able to afford such a program under their current athletic department structure.
Of course it would. Or, more accurately, it wouldn't have to. The way it would be structured is that the conferences would be making the payments. Now, you can argue that doing so would cut into CU's share of the conference distribution, and that's accurate. However, it would cut into everybody else's at the same rate. The issue isn't whether CU can afford it. The issue is whether all the conferences could agree to make the payouts the same. Beyond that, it's a matter of dealing with BYU, UT and ND who are all either independent or de-facto independent. If they have no conference affiliation, and no NCAA, they're free to pay whatever they want.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
If the money comes from the conferences, and all athletes receive the same pay regardless of gender or sport --- I am all for it.
:wow:
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
Hes just mad CU didnt go to the MWC.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
He is saying the same thing Gordon Gee said last year but more diplomatically. The big six conference bring in the vast majority of the money in college football and shouldn't be required to share the stage equally.
superdeluxe
Member
Mind=blown
Have fun with that. College football is king for a very good reason. Nothing compares to it.
true
cmon.... REALLY? It is a have and have-not.... not subdivisions within subdivisions within subdivisions......
You are trying to parse more divisions than there actually are. It is clear... if you are in a BCS conference, you are a have.... if you are not in one, you are a have not... there are a few teams that are have nots that are desperately trying to move into the Haves..... and there are a few teams in non-revenue sharing conferences that are desperately trying to not move to the have-nots....
Colorado, in the Pac-12 and the current TV deal... is a HAVE.... we may not be a USC Upper eschelon have... but we are a have....
so state sponsored socialism is what you want instead of market forces?
I know... these are mostly state run entities so the fairness doctrine should rule.... but where do you stop? Shouldnt Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and Tulsa (well, all Oklahoma football teams) get the same revenue? or should each school be allowed to take what it makes?
I see no consistency in any rules to have the fairness doctrine rule as to the mens soccer player getting the same as the mens football player....
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
I see no way that state sponsored Universities will be able to provide pay for male student athletes (i.e. football and basketball players) without also providing pay for female student athletes. Title IX already makes that pretty much impossible.
As for whether soccer players get the same as men's football players -- won't soccer, swimming, track and field, etc. be televised on the Pac 12 network? Why wouldn't those sports/players be entitled to that money? How do you differentiate when all the money is pooled and co-mingled together and distributed out to the schools?
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
We're in the "not-being-chased-by-the-ncaa" group. How 'bout you?
I don't like where this is going either. Sure, we're on the right side of the tracks this time, but that doesn't make it right.
I used to argue with people that college athletics was so much better than pro because you could feel the emotion. If a team starts feeling it, they can beat any other team any day of the week. App. State can go into Michigan and win if everything falls into place. Why do you want to take that away from those kids? They'll never forget that moment.
In the NFL, people play for paychecks, and I really think you can tell the difference. The Bills will never beat the Steelers in Pittsburg...ever
WTF are we doing to college athletics? It's not broken. It will never be "fair" but you still need to at least allow these teams a chance to play each other. Splitting away again eliminates the chance for David to beat Goliath. I don't think CSU and CU are "equal" but CSU can still win and has won in the past. I don't think CU and USC are "equal," but we're still going to clownhammer them this fall.
"Fair" is what the market says it is. Supply & Demand based on the quality of the product offered and its timing and location in the market-place. We used to call that "progress" in this country. Now we feel the need to apologize for success and make excuses for failure.
unless....
The school doesn't pay the revenue makers... football players....
how do you ask?
well, smart people make rules... smarter people know their way around them....
the football players get paid for their "work" or "advertising" on the TV stations that they are on....
now this is a dream... it will never happen... but those who want to see the revenue sport players get some of what they give to the university... there ARE ways around it...
shoot... Oklahoma football players were getting paid to work at a car dealership... make that "legal."
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
fairness doctrine pertains to political speech on the radio/TV due to the (then) "scarcity" of the electromagnetic spectrum . it was repealed by the FCC a long time ago. it has nothing (nothing) to do with "state sponsored socialism" wrt to profit sharing among universities of any kind. nor could it.
I think they'd have to pay the starting QB the exact same amount as the #3 singles player on the women's tennis team. If the argument is that the kids are facing financial difficulties from not being able to buy a pizza or go to the movies, all students have those same issues. Once you start going down the road of "this player brings in more than that player does", you're in the realm of professional athletics. Might as well take away any pretense at that point. That's not a road I want to go down.