NCAA Troubles: Are we heading towards Congress Involvement?

[nelsonmuntz]

I thought this would end in a tornado of litigation, but it appears that many of the G5 schools are simply giving up, as evidenced by the MAC contract. They are not attempting to compete, and are happy to play at some level north of FCS but south of the P5. We may see more of that.

 

[upstater]

upstater said:
Many schools will have a lot of difficulty defending a professional system to parents (i.e. customers) in the future. I imagine only the SEC will get off scot-free in that regard, and maybe the B12.

CL82 said:
I think just the opposite may be true. "Amateur" athletic institutions may find it challenging to defend why their athletes receive less for the same commitment.​

I think this is where we started. I think, perhaps wishfully, you are underestimating the importance of athletics in college.

As in any thread, you have to take it in context. Parents have for years been spending money to help universities subsidize $10m losses in athletics. But unless you're a parent of a Rutgers or Maryland student, you have not yet experienced the joy of subsidizing $30m in losses.

Do the math: 20k students into $30m is $1500 per student per year.

I have been saying for many years that smaller schools should drop football. That's nothing new.

 

[CL82]

As in any thread, you have to take it in context. Parents have for years been spending money to help universities subsidize $10m losses in athletics. But unless you're a parent of a Rutgers or Maryland student, you have not yet experienced the joy of subsidizing $30m in losses.

Do the math: 20k students into $30m is $1500 per student per year.

I have been saying for many years that smaller schools should drop football. That's nothing new.

I can respond to what you write, not what you meant to write.

Regardless, as I noted above, there's a dichotomy between the haves and the have nots in sports that is only going to increase. I don't disagree that football is a losing venture for those who aren't able to play it at the highest level but the notion that sports don't bring value to academic side is just wrong in my opinion.

 

[upstater]

I can respond to what you write, not what you meant to write.

Regardless, as I noted above, there's a dichotomy between the haves and the have nots in sports that is only going to increase. I don't disagree that football is a losing venture for those who aren't able to play it at the highest level but the notion that sports don't bring value to academic side is just wrong in my opinion.

I don't see anything confusing about what I wrote.

But, moving on, no one really knows what value sports bring. It's been good for a few schools that upgraded. According to Andrew Zimbalist, it's been good for about 10%. Remember, someone always has to lose. Zimbalist actually made the point that Rutgers has suffered academically the last decade, and while he can't tie that to athletics, he did say that applicants to the school noted it has the sheen of losing. It rubs off.

 

[CL82]

I don't see anything confusing about what I wrote.

But, moving on, no one really knows what value sports bring. It's been good for a few schools that upgraded. According to Andrew Zimbalist, it's been good for about 10%. Remember, someone always has to lose. Zimbalist actually made the point that Rutgers has suffered academically the last decade, and while he can't tie that to athletics, he did say that applicants to the school noted it has the sheen of losing. It rubs off.

I'm sure you don't. Regardless, I suspect that this may be less causation and more correlation. Said differently, a lack of commitment to success often shows itself in more than one area. Just as a commitment to success does. Rutgers and UConn are good examples of this principal.

 

[upstater]

I'm sure you don't. Regardless, I suspect that this may be less causation and more correlation. Said differently, a lack of commitment to success often shows itself in more than one area. Just as a commitment to success does. Rutgers and UConn are good examples of this principal.

Rutgers is committed. That's why they just joined the B1G. They committed hundreds of millions to athletic facilities to prove that commitment. Meanwhile they were cutting academic programs willy nilly and dropping 20 places in the rankings. There are a lot of schools that built out. Many of them are losing, and dropping.

Others, that showed little commitment to athletics, and indeed so little that they dropped football, are rising. Most of the schools ranked in the top 50 universities in the USA do NOT have P5 or D1 football. Do they have a lack of commitment to athletic success? Yes. 32 out of the top 50 on US News.

In isolated cases, you'll find correlation between athletics and academic success. For most schools, that's an illusion, a dog and pony show.

Remember this: university presidents get paid a lot of money. For as long as they can hold onto their jobs, they will make millions. If they rock the boat, they can be fired. What's the incentive for them to make astute business-like decisions about cutting their losses? There is no incentive. This is why only strong leaders like John Silber at Boston U. (or leaders who realize the greater community probably won't care, as at Hofstra or maybe Temple in the future) can slash athletics when the school is losing big dough. Other people who makes similar decisions, like Elsa Benitez at Texas A&M (who asked the AD to pick up its surprise $18m shortfall one year) get the axe. She should have kept her mouth shut and continued to collect her half a million. When you pay people this much money, they have every incentive to do what they can to continue in their position as long as possible. This is more or less how the USA runs today.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Maybe congress should get involved between upstater and cl82...

 

[Pudge]

As in any thread, you have to take it in context. Parents have for years been spending money to help universities subsidize $10m losses in athletics. But unless you're a parent of a Rutgers or Maryland student, you have not yet experienced the joy of subsidizing $30m in losses.

Do the math: 20k students into $30m is $1500 per student per year.

I have been saying for many years that smaller schools should drop football. That's nothing new.

OK ... I get the small schools should drop football rant. How about some schools, ... newer schools ... that because of demographics & mission, they are growing like wildflowers. We have been around USF and UCF ... throw in Texas State (San Marcos) and UMass-Lowell and others. 25% growth rates. Are we foreclosing, by way of this Cartel, these dynamic Public Universities. The Football Gods have let in Wake Forest and Baylor - who have scant fanbases and a Private school mission/mentality - but none of the really driven new Universities.

But ... I think something unique drives the lawsuits. Like Title IX. Wake up one day and 15 schools dropped football AND 4 or 5 Women's sports, and that is the day that certain Senators are going to be irked and lawyers are coming.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think the only thing preventing antitrust suits from being filed is that many of the key schools like UConn and Cincinnati want to somehow be in the club and don't want to piss anyone off. I think that is a bad strategy. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[CL82]

I think the only thing preventing antitrust suits from being filed is that many of the key schools like UConn and Cincinnati want to somehow be in the club and don't want to piss anyone off. I think that is a bad strategy. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I think your right about not wanting to rock the boat; a lesson learned from the ACC lawsuit. If nothing is on the horizon then a law suit might make sense. The problem is it had to be more than why don't you like me? If P5 autonomy didn't give the option for other schools to play along, as originally contemplated, might have been an opportunity.

 

[upstater]

OK ... I get the small schools should drop football rant. How about some schools, ... newer schools ... that because of demographics & mission, they are growing like wildflowers. We have been around USF and UCF ... throw in Texas State (San Marcos) and UMass-Lowell and others. 25% growth rates. Are we foreclosing, by way of this Cartel, these dynamic Public Universities. The Football Gods have let in Wake Forest and Baylor - who have scant fanbases and a Private school mission/mentality - but none of the really driven new Universities.

But ... I think something unique drives the lawsuits. Like Title IX. Wake up one day and 15 schools dropped football AND 4 or 5 Women's sports, and that is the day that certain Senators are going to be irked and lawyers are coming.

This would apply to any school that is losing a ton of money. I think it's evident above that I think a loss of $10 million is manageable--unless of course the school is not fulfilling its basic mission and could otherwise use that $10 million on more important things.

 

[uconnell]

The Dept. of Commerce,Science and Transportation had a hearing on the NCAA and the P-5. Emert was questioned extensively, sometimes uncomfortably so. I believe the AD of WV and Temple and also a writer, Taylor Branch, who wrote a book "Cartel" something or other. Only caught glimpses of the program that ran for about 1 1/2 hour, with basically no conclusions drawn, or so it seemed. I believe it was on c-span.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think your right about not wanting to rock the boat; a lesson learned from the ACC lawsuit. If nothing is on the horizon then a law suit might make sense. The problem is it had to be more than why don't you like me? If P5 autonomy didn't give the option for other schools to play along, as originally contemplated, might have been an opportunity.

What lesson was learned from the ACC lawsuit? 4 of the plaintiffs are in P5 leagues.

There is nothing to be gained by dying on our knees. UConn needs to fight.

 

[CL82]

What lesson was learned from the ACC lawsuit? 4 of the plaintiffs are in P5 leagues.

There is nothing to be gained by dying on our knees. UConn needs to fight.

True Nelson, yet there is a perception that it has impacted our efforts to get into a P5 conference. I'm inclined to agree with you that it did not but I offered it as a rationale for UConn might "not want to piss anyone off" comment.

UConn, like any other institution or individual, should only take on a fight that it can win. What's your legal theory for a suit? Who would you sue?

 

[AZHuskiePop]

The part I found funniest/most ironic was this little nugget:

"OpenSecrets.org reported that as of June 30, the NCAA had already spent a yearly record of $240,000 on lobbying expenses in 2014. That's up from $160,000 the NCAA spent on lobbying in 2013."

But yeah, the NCAA is a "non-profit" organization.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ongress-yes-congress-help-ncaa-find-solutions

Wow that puts them in the top 1000 lobbyist.
This effort to destroy the NCAA is mindless nihilism. It's nothing more than a Homeowners Association set up To enforce rules that it's members agreed were necessary.
Replace the president if he is ineffective, and board if they are not doing the job
Change the rules if they are unenforceable.
But no society can exist without a rule of law and some body to enforce those rules.
The problems is a percentage of the school don't what to play by the rules.and like the spoiled rich kid of my day.If they don't get their way they will take their ball and go home

 

[nelsonmuntz]

True Nelson, yet there is a perception that it has impacted our efforts to get into a P5 conference. I'm inclined to agree with you that it did not but I offered it as a rationale for UConn might "not want to piss anyone off" comment.

UConn, like any other institution or individual, should only take on a fight that it can win. What's your legal theory for a suit? Who would you sue?

The perception is stupid. We got outsold. The worst part for us is we got outsold by basically our entire conference.

File an antitrust suit. It would win. The P5 are engaging in all kind of anti-competitive behavior, and their very existence is an anti-trust violation. Sports leagues do not have a great record in anti-trust cases. I think UConn needs to stop hoping to get into another conference and figure out a way to make more money and be able to compete being on the outside looking in.

 

[CL82]

I'm not so sure and anti-trust suit would prevail. What's it based upon? They haven't restrained trade. Nor have they monopolized trade. Any institution can play football, provided they meet the NCAA requirements. I'm not seeing it but I'm willing to hear your theory.

 

[MTHusky]

I'm not so sure and anti-trust suit would prevail. What's it based upon? They haven't restrained trade. Nor have they monopolized trade. Any institution can play football, provided they meet the NCAA requirements. I'm not seeing it but I'm willing to hear your theory.

It's amazing that I'm backing Nelson on this, but here it goes. When Conferences tell/strongly suggest to their members not to schedule non P5 teams to fill their schedule I would think that is borderline if not actual restraint of trade.

 

[CL82]

It's amazing that I'm backing Nelson on this, but here it goes. When Conferences tell/strongly suggest to their members not to schedule non P5 teams to fill their schedule I would think that is borderline if not actual restraint of trade.

Feel free, just because a cause of action doesn't leap off the page to me, doesn't mean it's not there. I suspect that you would need more than words, but sure if they stop scheduling G5 schools that's something to discuss. Is it worse than not scheduling FCS schools? I'm not so sure.