The absurdity of our circumstance

[Fishy]

As a former student athlete, and the parent of a son who is about to become a D1 student athlete, there are tremendous additional burdens placed upon athletes in P5 conferences. To claim otherwise is just plain dumb.

Tell me that there's more pressure at Syracuse than there is at UConn. Tell me that the travel is harder or the obligations are more oppressive.

That's what the P5 is saying. And ultimately, despite Aresco claiming that the conference will keep up, the new rules will make a scholarship at Syracuse much, much more appealing than a scholarship at UConn.

The P5 isn't looking for separation from Idaho - they already have that. They're looking to eliminate the American and MWC now. They've taken the bowls and the television money away completely and now they're looking to suck away the oxygen.

 

[noeynox]

How Do We Fight Back? Can We Fight Back? It's Obvious Kicking Their Butt Isn't Enough.

Tell me that there's more pressure at Syracuse than there is at UConn. Tell me that the travel is harder or the obligations are more oppressive.

That's what the P5 is saying. And ultimately, despite Aresco claiming that the conference will keep up, the new rules will make a scholarship at Syracuse much, much more appealing than a scholarship at UConn.

The P5 isn't looking for separation from Idaho - they already have that. They're looking to eliminate the American and MWC now. They've taken the bowls and the television money away completely and now they're looking to suck away the oxygen.

 

[uconndogs]

Tell me that there's more pressure at Syracuse than there is at UConn. Tell me that the travel is harder or the obligations are more oppressive.

That's what the P5 is saying. And ultimately, despite Aresco claiming that the conference will keep up, the new rules will make a scholarship at Syracuse much, much more appealing than a scholarship at UConn.

The P5 isn't looking for separation from Idaho - they already have that. They're looking to eliminate the American and MWC now. They've taken the bowls and the television money away completely and now they're looking to suck away the oxygen.

This is exactly right. And the reason is complete asinine. Syracuse believes by eliminating UCONN as a competitor, there is more of the pie for them regionally. And that thinking is just plain wrong, because that regional following for UCONN does not then go to Syracuse, if UCONN withers on the vine, it just goes away from college athletics entirely.

In the truest sense of the phrase, true competition benefits all parties.

Syracuse getting its kicked every other season by FSU and Clemson in the Carrier Dome will do nothing for regional interest over the long term. Start building solid long-term rivalries with UCONN and BC and Rutgers and you start to build something sustainable.

It would take tremendous courage for someone in the P5 to speak up on this issue and I just don't see it.

 

[uconndogs]

How Do We Fight Back? Can We Fight Back? It's Obvious Kicking Their Butt Isn't Enough.

It has nothing to do with athletic performance. Most folks can't even fathom that we played .500 football against Louisville since entering the Big East as a newbie D1A program.

Increasing the fan base and fan support is the only answer.

 

[Carl Spackler]

THe term student-athlete was coined a few decades ago - when there were issues around college football and compensation for injuries, and the work comp thing came up. These kinds of issues being discussed here by mavblues are not new. Current issues extend to all athletes, but make no mistake - the business of intercollegiate athletics starts and ends with football. Always has and will.

To me, issues only arise, when an athlete doesn't feel like there is a proportional benefit/reward for what they do. To me, it is the responsibility of the academic institution side of the equation to make sure that is not the case.

You can have SMU in the 1980s (who got caught) they weren't the only ones then or now - that make their athletes feel quite rewarded for what they do, and then you can have other ways of going about it too, where people, like hopefully the majority of UCONN athletes who feel like they might have actually gotten something out of going to UCONN for school - as well as to play their chosen sport.

The thing about the revenue gap - is this - and it applies to anything, is that having boatloads and boatloads of money doesn't necessarily equate to being successful at something, or better than others with less money - you have to spend it properly.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Tell me that there's more pressure at Syracuse than there is at UConn. Tell me that the travel is harder or the obligations are more oppressive.

That's what the P5 is saying. And ultimately, despite Aresco claiming that the conference will keep up, the new rules will make a scholarship at Syracuse much, much more appealing than a scholarship at UConn.

The P5 isn't looking for separation from Idaho - they already have that. They're looking to eliminate the American and MWC now. They've taken the bowls and the television money away completely and now they're looking to suck away the oxygen.

Ultimately, they can't do that without Congress stepping in. So here is where I can imagine this might go.

NCAA - All sports except football and basketball programs in the divisions below
Some version of the FBS with a new name - football
Some version of the FBS, but for D1 basketball

The wrinkle is that the conferences will not be in control. For NCAA sports, maximum size will be 10 members, no championship games. The emphasis will be on local traval, local rivals, allowing more "student" in student-athlete.

Teams that elect to join FBS for football will have to meet certain criteria, stadium size, facilities, etc. Anyone who meets the criteria will be placed in one of the conferences based on location, fit etc.

Teams that join the D1 basketball division will be broken out separately as well. Same system will apply. Some conferences might mirror football conferences, or even the NCAA conferences, others could be constructed anew. Many current D1 programs will need to think long and hard about competing at this level, including the Ivies and other small time conferences. This structure should allow a school like VCI to join a D1 hoops confernece while the rest of its "NCAA" league goes to D2.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It would take tremendous courage for someone in the P5 to speak up on this issue and I just don't see it.

....and all of UCONN will shut up about it all when we get the Big10 invite to cross the divide.

 

[okielite]

Clearly UConn has a P5 type AD and will likely be in at some point but keep in mind that BB and WBB are not what controls realignment. Quite frankly many of the teams who moved up are not BB schools. Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, aTm, WVU, Mizzou, TCU, and Rutgers have little BB or WBB history compared to FB. Heck some have no success in either sport but happen to be located in states with big populations.

In the end I think that every school has a value it brings to a TV contract. You can take the conference payout and guesstimate what each school actually brings to the table for value. Some schools like Rutgers have value to conferences with networks but dont' have value to conferences like the Big 12 where performance and national interest are more important than just location and population.

For example the Big 12 schools all make about 20 million from t-1/2. I think schools like UT are probably worth 40+ million to the contract and schools like ISU are likely worth around 10. That is not being mean, just being real. And to be honest I dont' think OSU brings 20 million $ of value to the conference. My guess would be closer to 15. I really only think UT, OU, and possibly KU are worth more than 20 million, everyone else is below 20 million.

It seems weird to look at it this way but I think it is more realistic than thinking that WBB accomplishments matter in realignment. UConn could win the next 10 WBB championships and I don't know that it would make a big difference. It all boils down to money.

I asked this question to WVU folks and it was pretty funny. They think they are one of the most valuable teams in the conference if you ask them. Unfortunately what they were being paid in the BE indicates their value is waaaaaay less than 20 million. Hard to claim you are worth 20 million by yourself when your entire conference was barely being paid 20 million per year just a few years ago.

I think this is quite common among conferences. Northwestern is not worth anything close to tOSU. Wake or BC are not worth squat compared to FSU.

So what do you think TV partners value is for UConn? More to the B1G who has a network or to ACC who does not? More/Less to the Big 12?

 

[SubbaBub]

This is exactly right. And the reason is complete asinine. Syracuse believes by eliminating UCONN as a competitor, there is more of the pie for them regionally. And that thinking is just plain wrong, because that regional following for UCONN does not then go to Syracuse, if UCONN withers on the vine, it just goes away from college athletics entirely.

In the truest sense of the phrase, true competition benefits all parties.

Syracuse getting its a kicked every other season by FSU and Clemson in the Carrier Dome will do nothing for regional interest over the long term. Start building solid long-term rivalries with UCONN and BC and Rutgers and you start to build something sustainable.

It would take tremendous courage for someone in the P5 to speak up on this issue and I just don't see it.

This is a point lost on the would be Kings of New England. If we are in the same conference, their TV games become more appealing to our market. And it is our market.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Clearly UConn has a P5 type AD and will likely be in at some point but keep in mind that BB and WBB are not what controls realignment. Quite frankly many of the teams who moved up are not BB schools. Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, aTm, WVU, Mizzou, TCU, and Rutgers have little BB or WBB history compared to FB. Heck some have no success in either sport but happen to be located in states with big populations.

In the end I think that every school has a value it brings to a TV contract. You can take the conference payout and guesstimate what each school actually brings to the table for value. Some schools like Rutgers have value to conferences with networks but dont' have value to conferences like the Big 12 where performance and national interest are more important than just location and population.

For example the Big 12 schools all make about 20 million from t-1/2. I think schools like UT are probably worth 40+ million to the contract and schools like ISU are likely worth around 10. That is not being mean, just being real. And to be honest I dont' think OSU brings 20 million $ of value to the conference. My guess would be closer to 15. I really only think UT, OU, and possibly KU are worth more than 20 million, everyone else is below 20 million.

It seems weird to look at it this way but I think it is more realistic than thinking that WBB accomplishments matter in realignment. It all boils down to money.

I asked this question to WVU folks and it was pretty funny. They think they are one of the most valuable teams in the conference if you ask them. Unfortunately what they were being paid in the BE indicates their value is waaaaaay less than 20 million. Hard to claim you are worth 20 million by yourself when your entire conference was barely being paid 20 million per year just a few years ago.

I think this is quite common among conferences. Northwestern is not worth anything close to tOSU. Wake or BC are not worth squat compared to FSU.

So what do you think TV partners value is for UConn? More to the B1G who has a network or to ACC who does not? More/Less to the Big 12?

I think value-wise it is B1G/Big12 and then ACC far on down the line.

The B1G obviously has a huge interest regarding their own network, but I am not sure that outstrips the Fox's interest in having the NYC area tune into FS1/FS2 (which they don't have much reason to now). If you put UConn up against TX/OU/OSU, etc in football I think you would see decent regional ratings. And in basketball I think we could be an immense help. If Fox really wants FS1 to rival ESPN they are going to need more East Coast exposure. We aren't the sole answer, but I am sure we can help in that regard.

ACC - I don't think we would move the needle enough for ESPN, quite frankly. They have enough content. If they took us, it would be purely defensive or an effort to avoid giving the AAC a raise in a few years.

 

[uconndogs]

This is a point lost on the would be Kings of New England. If we are in the same conference, their TV games become more appealing to our market. And it is our market.

Agree. But, BC is a different story. They are an insular and insecure institution which I can only assume is reflective of their leadership, or lack thereof. Any major college or university that would put up with GDF as their AD for the length of time that they did has some very serious leadership issues. He was not even remotely capable of managing an organization like that.

 

[pj]

So what do you think TV partners value is for UConn? More to the B1G who has a network or to ACC who does not? More/Less to the Big 12?

We're clearly worth the most to the B1G because the intense loyalty in Connecticut ensures they would be starting at $30 mn/year in BTN fees within the state, plus more from New England/New York and value of our national brand and marquee games.

We're not worth as much to the ACC because of their lack of a network - they care 80% about national TV ratings in football and 20% about national TV ratings in basketball. UConn does OK on those metrics but basically tied Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt on them and lost out on ACC expansion due to politics (BC, FSU).

The B12 is in the middle -- the B12 is more valuable to us than ACC money-wise because we would make a killing in Connecticut on Tier 3 rights, plus the conference revenue. However, by the same token, B12 conference revenue is heavily football driven so it's hard to guarantee we'd give the other B12 teams $20 mn of value with our Tier 3 rights excluded. It depends on how much the extra northeast exposure was worth to them. Probably we do. But they would have to decide if it's worth the extra travel to try to become a national conference, and whether 1-2 schools in the northeast is enough.

 

[SubbaBub]

I think value-wise it is B1G/Big12 and then ACC far on down the line.

The B1G obviously has a huge interest regarding their own network, but I am not sure that outstrips the Fox's interest in having the NYC area tune into FS1/FS2 (which they don't have much reason to now). If you put UConn up against TX/OU/OSU, etc in football I think you would see decent regional ratings. And in basketball I think we could be an immense help. If Fox really wants FS1 to rival ESPN they are going to need more East Coast exposure. We aren't the sole answer, but I am sure we can help in that regard.

ACC - I don't think we would move the needle enough for ESPN, quite frankly. They have enough content. If they took us, it would be purely defensive or an effort to avoid giving the AAC a raise in a few years.

I disagree. Every game against SU, Duke, UNC, Pitt, UL gets the ESPN Cuse v. Duke promotional treatment. That needle moves quite a bit.

BC games would be on the U, they are just not good enough to sell any game they are involved with.

 

[okielite]

I think there could be value to a conference that has not been discussed. The ACC screwed up and sold half their t-3 content to Raycom, who then sold some to FOX. Now the ACC wants that content back so they can have a real network instead of the streaming network that was announced for the ACC and a a slew of mid major conferences. Could the ACC get more content by adding UConn? Would it be enough to add to the content ESPN already owns and create a real Network for the ACC? I don't know but I do believe it would be more content for the conference which they need right now if they want to start a real network.

 

[upstater]

THe term student-athlete was coined a few decades ago - when there were issues around college football and compensation for injuries, and the work comp thing came up. These kinds of issues being discussed here by mavblues are not new. Current issues extend to all athletes, but make no mistake - the business of intercollegiate athletics starts and ends with football. Always has and will.

To me, issues only arise, when an athlete doesn't feel like there is a proportional benefit/reward for what they do. To me, it is the responsibility of the academic institution side of the equation to make sure that is not the case.

You can have SMU in the 1980s (who got caught) they weren't the only ones then or now - that make their athletes feel quite rewarded for what they do, and then you can have other ways of going about it too, where people, like hopefully the majority of UCONN athletes who feel like they might have actually gotten something out of going to UCONN for school - as well as to play their chosen sport.

The thing about the revenue gap - is this - and it applies to anything, is that having boatloads and boatloads of money doesn't necessarily equate to being successful at something, or better than others with less money - you have to spend it properly.

The designation of student for someone who provides labor isn't only for athletes, but it exists for any number of laborers on campus, people who are non-students as well. The recent Northwestern decision looked at an old labor case dealing with Brown "students" and in that case, the workers were not athletes.

 

[upstater]

So what do you think TV partners value is for UConn? More to the B1G who has a network or to ACC who does not? More/Less to the Big 12?

UConn's TV power is greater than Syracuse's, Pitt's, Louisville's, etc. Not greater than Rutgers' however. But greater than the ACC schools.

When SNY picked up the rights to the coaches shows for UConn as well as tier 3 content, it jacked up its fees in-sate from $1.60 a month per subscriber to $2.50 a month. AND, it was moved from the sports package tier to BASIC cable. This is for 1 million+ TV households in the state of Connecticut. That's power right there. The bball teams especially get high ratings in-state. Heck, the women have knocked Syracuse men's bball Big East games off their time slot in New York and New Jersey on SNY.

The market is pretty decent sized, and it's there.

UConn men's bball > Syracuse and Pitt (maybe Louisville, depending on tonight).
UConn women's bball > All the others
UConn football = Syracuse and Pitt (UConn actually is 6-1 and 5-2 against these schools in last 7 games)
UConn market > Cuse, Pitt, Louisville in terms of $$$

Consider that UConn's licensing and rights netted the school $24.8 million a year, which was double the next closest school in the old BE.

As we've said to our visiting guests here repeatedly, the reason UConn never joined the ACC has nothing to do with metrics and everything to do with being blackballed by former conference mates who want to see the programs die.

UConn doesn't fit in the B1G as well because the market isn't big enough to provide them a boost in their quest for $40m per school a year nor are the academics AAU (though football has done well against the B1G middlings).

 

[Husky25]

Untrue? LOL

Just like everything else on the Boneyard, we have a bunch of people with little or no experience in the matter telling others what is true and untrue. OK, have it your way: athletes at the P5 conferences do not have any additional burdens placed upon them than those at the smaller conferences.

Other than what I have posted here, you don't have the first clue of what I've experienced or in what matters, so let's just tone down your holier-than-thou attitude.

UConn, and several other schools, are currently not technically P5 (for now), but they certainly are considered P5 as it relates to this issue by virtue of how their AD's are setup. And whether or not you call it "P5", "Majors" vs. "Mid-Majors", or "Haves" vs "Have-nots", the issue is the same. Those programs competing at the highest level do face increased expectations, press coverage, practice/training expectations, offseason programs/workouts, etc. P5 is simply this month's broad definition of the "Have's" for football, and it's going to change.

Hell, my son is already facing this issue because he's a nationally ranked player (in another sport) and he's still a year and a half from college. People are watching his stats, checking his background, going to his games, performing scouting reports, making scholarship offers, etc. Guess where most of the aggressive following is coming from. (Hint: it ain't the small schools.) Because he has a 4.1 GPA, he has schools all over the gamut recruiting him, from Ivies to big public, to small private. On visits, coaches even acknowledge the different expectations of the various types of programs, and spin it to their advantage. Lesser programs will tell you that "you can still have a regular college student experience here", etc.

If you play at the "P5", "majors", or "have" level (whatever you want to call it), you are playing regularly against other programs of that caliber, and you are also (by default) traveling more. You are facing increased scrutiny whether it's from coaching staffs, fans/opposing fans, on internet message boards, or press coverage from what we affectionately refer to at UConn as "the Horde". You are training more, practicing more, and you have a well defined plan for your summer (summer leagues, national team tryouts, scout days, etc.) At the bigtime programs, coaches are constantly overcommitting their scholarship allotment, so they need to turn over the roster - if you're not a starter and you're not performing you're gone. No pressure there. Simply put, you cannot even begin to compare the two environments from a student athlete's perspective.

BTW, this is also not solely relegated to football, or even basketball anymore. In those sports it's just more noticeable to the average fan.

As far as expanded benefits for players, the fact of the matter is that nobody knows what's going to happen. I just had a conversation a few days ago with a college coach, and to quote him "nothing's been decided yet, and nobody has any idea how this is going to play out". He was speaking of athletes in other (non-football) sports and whether those athletes would be included in any expanded benefits.

Sorry to be so adamant, but I do know what I'm talking about on this issue.

And just for the record, I am against "pay for play". I am simply stating that the current system needs fundamental, and drastic change. The status quo does not work.

You never made that distinction and it is unfair to assume anyone would know what you mean when no one else uses the term P5 in that manner. P5 is a football term and each sport defines "Haves vs. Have-nots," differently. Is the A-10 a basketball Mid Major? In a demonstration of conference strength top to bottom, they sent 6 teams to the NCAA Tourney, while the SEC (a P5 football conference) sent only 3.

Division 1 is Division 1 is Division 1. They have to follow the same rules. The only difference is resources. If you are defining P5 along the resource lines, then there are schools in p5 conferences that really do not deserve to be included.

You saying that UConn is only not P5 in name only really makes my point. The line cannot be drawn at P5 vs. G5. Or major vs. mid-major. It is better drawn at the divisional level. That means FBS schools vs. FCS schools. That means FCS vs. Division 2 or 3. That means Division 1 vs. Division 2 in basketball.

Let me put it a different way. There is no doubt that basketball players at San Diego State (Mid major?) have different (More) pressures than those who play for Chaminade (Div. 2). But the pressures the Aztecs feel are by and large very similar as those facing Arizona.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't understand what's the beef here.

I can't speak for other sports, but I'm 100% sure that with football, With each increasing level of competition, the time, effort, responsibilities commitment that athletes need to make increases. I would think the same is true for other sports. The differences between the top level competition of say the Big 10, SEC vs. the bottom level competition of say the Sunbelt is significant, but it's all still division 1. The real difference has nothing to do with what demands are being placed on student-athletes by various institutions. Texas State - as of now and the forseeable future - still needs to abide by the same rules and regulations as Texas. Huge difference is the revenue streams around sports.

What athletes have recognized as unfair, is that the revenue streams are not proportional. That's why you have all the lawsuits now - and IMNSHO - the union is way too far and not thought out, but it's symptomatic that there needs to be a change. Badly. I'm hopeful there will be. There is MORE than enough money to go around, to fund things like stipends, and simple greed is corrupting intercollegiate athletics.

As for the AAC - I'm not sure if mavblues knows or not, but the AAC leadership is repeatedly on record about maintaining the same 'standards' whatever they may be, as a conference as the 'P5', should the P5 get to the point where they get to make rules that separate themselves from the rest of division 1A. Such a rules difference does not yet exist. The money difference is HUGE between the 'P5' and the rest of division 1A.

 

[CL82]

Also agreed. I used the AAC because I am a UConn alum, and I used the Big South because one of the schools that offered my son is in that conference. Just personal preference.

My overall point is that there is obviously a big difference in the expectations/commitments required at smaller D1 programs than there is at P5 schools. And yes, I'm including schools in the AAC in that category (P5).

There also are different rewards from being a so called P5 athlete and a smaller Div 1 schools. Odd how that parrots real life isn't it?

I have no problem with an examination of the needs of student athletes, but it shouldn't be limited to just the country club of the P5. Just to be clear for those from less affluent backgrounds (I think the cut off is @ $45k-55k), Pell grants are available. I believe JC said that these are about $7500/yr. I think a Stafford subsidized (interest free) loan is another $2500/yr but I'm not sure what the cut off is for this. That's decent spending money someone who already has tuition and fully room board paid for. These students aren't starving and they certainly have more available cash than I did as student.

So what you are talking about is providing disparate benefit to athletes in similar situations, all of whom are not deemed to be in financial need by the government. I'd suggest that is inherently unfair, but any reasonable standard. I don't think the time demands are as different as you seem to think. Practice hours are capped, so how much individual work out time do think they are spending? Do you really believe that non-P5 athletes aren't doing likewise?

I agree with other posters that this whole 'additional demand' by virtue of conference affiliation is an excuse to prevent competition for athletes. It is very clearly aimed at the UConn's of the world who have the audacity to want to compete at the highest level without being in the club.

 

[Husky25]

So what you are talking about is providing disparate benefit to athletes in similar situations, all of whom are not deemed to be in financial need by the government. I'd suggest that is inherently unfair, but any reasonable standard. I don't think the time demands are as different as you seem to think. Practice hours are capped, so how much individual work out time do think they are spending? Do you really believe that non-P5 athletes aren't doing likewise?

As an aside from my own experiences, I have a co-worker who's daughter is being looked at to play basketball at the next level. She is AAU caliber but physical attributes and other considerations may prevent her from competing at a Division 1 level. He said that they attended a workshop for college athletics recruitment and one thing that jives with what Mavblues said is that at Division 1, the school owns you. Yes there are caps on practice time, but that doesn't mean the athlete is not expected to put in their own time and a good deal of it at that. The other thing that they came away with was that the time split got more even with the decrease in division, but it got harder to move on to any other next level, as applicable (I.e. It is less likely to make the WNBA out of Bentley College than from Villanova).

My impression is (regardless of P5 vs. G5):
Division 1: Schools own the athlete's time but the chance to go pro in said sport is at its greatest.
Division 2: Student might possibly have a life in the off-season but not much.
Division 3: Student may as well be playing pick up games in the quad, but at least they have pads (as applicable), organized plays, and the school is partially paying their way.

 

[Carl Spackler]

As an aside from my own experiences, I have a co-worker who's daughter is being looked at to play basketball at the next level. She is AAU caliber but physical attributes and other considerations may prevent her from competing at a Division 1 level. He said that they attended a workshop for college athletics recruitment and one thing that jives with what Mavblues said is that at Division 1, the school owns you. Yes there are caps on practice time, but that doesn't mean the athlete is not expected to put in their own time and a good deal of it at that. The other thing that they came away with was that the time split got more even with the decrease in division, but it got harder to move on to any other next level, as applicable (I.e. It is less likely to make the WNBA out of Bentley College than from Villanova).

My impression is (regardless of P5 vs. G5):
Division 1: Schools own the athlete's time but the chance to go pro in said sport is at its greatest.
Division 2: Student might possibly have a life in the off-season but not much.
Division 3: Student may as well be playing pick up games in the quad, but at least they have pads (as applicable), organized plays, and the school is partially paying their way.

Absolutely - institutions own scholarship athletes. THe most significant breakthrough in years, was the discussion and changes about offering multiple year scholarships. having to sign a new scholarship contract every year - is really the key to the machine. It was a win in theory, but it's since disappeared into the void. I wonder how many multiple year division 1 scholarships have been awarded? actually, I'm not even sure if it was ever formally approved - I think it was.

Geno is a very intelligent guy, and his snide remarks at times are very very much on point. His remark to the unionization thing was simple - if they are going to be 'employee's' he wants to make sure he's got the right to fire them. Schools already have the right to 'fire' athletes by not renewing scholarships on an annual basis.

 

[upstater]

As an aside from my own experiences, I have a co-worker who's daughter is being looked at to play basketball at the next level. She is AAU caliber but physical attributes and other considerations may prevent her from competing at a Division 1 level. He said that they attended a workshop for college athletics recruitment and one thing that jives with what Mavblues said is that at Division 1, the school owns you. Yes there are caps on practice time, but that doesn't mean the athlete is not expected to put in their own time and a good deal of it at that. The other thing that they came away with was that the time split got more even with the decrease in division, but it got harder to move on to any other next level, as applicable (I.e. It is less likely to make the WNBA out of Bentley College than from Villanova).

My impression is (regardless of P5 vs. G5):
Division 1: Schools own the athlete's time but the chance to go pro in said sport is at its greatest.
Division 2: Student might possibly have a life in the off-season but not much.
Division 3: Student may as well be playing pick up games in the quad, but at least they have pads (as applicable), organized plays, and the school is partially paying their way.

There's no doubt that the system is exploitative, and there's no doubt that as non-profit educational institutions, schools should not exploit. The flip side, however, is to wonder what happens in a system outside of universities (and I think it has to happen outside because schools should NOT lower standards anymore, and that's really what the P5 want) when a student trains to become a professional athlete and fails. What happens to all those athletes all over Europe that have been playing club sports since the age of 10 and they are putting in the same amount of hours (if not more) than the college kids preparing for football and basketball? What happens to all the gymnasts and ice skaters etc. training for the Olympics? Can it really be said that the NCA is more exploitative than all these systems?

 

[uconNYC]

The one good thing about the AAC is that most of the schools are committed to big time athletics. If UConn/UC/Memphis sustain their BBall profiles the weaker schools will be inspired to try to catch-up to them (e.g. Kelvin Sampson to UH and Larry Brown to SMU). Hopefully the conference similarly develops 2-3 football heavy weights that will do the same on the football side. But already schools like UH and Tulane have poured money into their football facilities...

 

[gorskic]

There's no doubt that the system is exploitative, and there's no doubt that as non-profit educational institutions, schools should not exploit. The flip side, however, is to wonder what happens in a system outside of universities (and I think it has to happen outside because schools should NOT lower standards anymore, and that's really what the P5 want) when a student trains to become a professional athlete and fails. What happens to all those athletes all over Europe that have been playing club sports since the age of 10 and they are putting in the same amount of hours (if not more) than the college kids preparing for football and basketball? What happens to all the gymnasts and ice skaters etc. training for the Olympics? Can it really be said that the NCA is more exploitative than all these systems?

I think you need look no further than Canada's major junior hockey system for your answer.

I can't even begin to summarize all the problems with it for you, just read this and you'll get a sense of what happens.

http://www.puckworlds.com/2012/8/22/3259444/laraque-led-chlpa-tries-to-unionize-major-junior-players

The CHL has recently changed the education benefit slightly to give players a little bit more time to begin to use their education benefit.

However, STILL, if they ever play professionally, the entire benefit goes away. So...play three years of junior hockey, earn three years of benefit, sign a PTO with an AHL club and don't make it after a couple weeks? Whoops! There goes your three years of paid-for college!

 

[upstater]

I think you need look no further than Canada's major junior hockey system for your answer.

I can't even begin to summarize all the problems with it for you, just read this and you'll get a sense of what happens.

http://www.puckworlds.com/2012/8/22/3259444/laraque-led-chlpa-tries-to-unionize-major-junior-players

The CHL has recently changed the education benefit slightly to give players a little bit more time to begin to use their education benefit.

However, STILL, if they ever play professionally, the entire benefit goes away. So...play three years of junior hockey, earn three years of benefit, sign a PTO with an AHL club and don't make it after a couple weeks? Whoops! There goes your three years of paid-for college!

This is the problem right there. What's the alternative?