(09-10-2015 01:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's still Minnesota v Wisconsin, Michigan v Ohio St, etc., even if none of the teams have NFL draft picks.

No, it's not. If the top 25% of CFB players are all playing in other conferences, then Michigan-Ohio State would have an appeal closer to Harvard-Yale than Alabama-Auburn.

The Big Ten knows that. Notre Dame knows that. The enormous revenue stream goes away if you start playing Ivy-like football. That's why this is a bluff.

It is only an "enormous revenue stream" for the athletic department.

For the university, it is a small amount of money.

Restructure things in the athletic department, then the need for high athletic revenues decreases markedly.

I thought it was a bluff the first time Jack Swarbrick said. After he repeated it, I wondered.

Now, the president of the university goes out of his way to specifically go on the record on this.........

(09-10-2015 06:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 01:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's still Minnesota v Wisconsin, Michigan v Ohio St, etc., even if none of the teams have NFL draft picks.

No, it's not. If the top 25% of CFB players are all playing in other conferences, then Michigan-Ohio State would have an appeal closer to Harvard-Yale than Alabama-Auburn.

The Big Ten knows that. Notre Dame knows that. The enormous revenue stream goes away if you start playing Ivy-like football. That's why this is a bluff.

It is only an "enormous revenue stream" for the athletic department.

For the university, it is a small amount of money.

Restructure things in the athletic department, then the need for high athletic revenues decreases markedly.

I thought it was a bluff the first time Jack Swarbrick said. After he repeated it, I wondered.

Now, the president of the university goes out of his way to specifically go on the record on this.........

Me too, now I think this is more then just a bluff. Seems like a warning to the fan-base of what could happen.

I am in favor of the players being employees and getting paid a salary.

Father Jenkins may not be.....

ND without a football program (or a much scaled down one)? Interesting to think about.....

A bluff? Possibly. Re-read his comments and tell me he is bluffing. I am not so sure.

Father Jenkins went out of his way to go on the record and even mentions that.

ND's administration has always been uncomfortable with its football program (while knowing it was responsible for its growth) and has periodically de-emphasized it.

"They are a different bunch of squirrels over there." (Father Cavanaugh in "Rudy").

Who knows? It is unusual to me that Father Jenkins would work so hard and go out on such a limb to pull a "bluff". That puts his personal credibility on the line.

On the other hand, there is that $400 million dollar construction project going on at Notre Dame Stadium (although, in fairness, most of that is for academic buildings grafted on to the stadium).

Interesting times.

(09-10-2015 04:13 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 03:57 PM)shere khanft7 Wrote:  Does this mean notre dame won't pay the COA or is this just useless talk

COA is fine,employee model not so much

So just talk. Just a little payout without the hassle of having an employee.

Bout what I thought

(09-10-2015 12:56 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Give Notre Dame a A for standing up to the for profit model the rest of the NCAA seems to be migrating to. CFB maybe ruined we just don't know it, yet.

This entire stance is ridiculous posturing and the height of hypocrisy.

Only now that the tide is turning from exploitation of players is he coming out with this.

Where was the outrage 20 years ago when they signed the NBC deal?

I think the problem he (and many others) has is the thought of sharing their ill gotten gains with the people who actually earned it.

Typical bourgeoisie thought process.

If he finds the whole thing so troubling just go ahead and close up shop.

But he doesn't have the guts and he doesn't have the conviction to do it.

(09-10-2015 11:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  We need more Presidents to take the same public stand. Greed will ruin college athletics (if it's already not too late).

I'll take greed any day over an organized program of cheating to keep players eligible.

That is far, far worse.

Wouldn't you agree??

(09-10-2015 09:14 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 11:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  We need more Presidents to take the same public stand. Greed will ruin college athletics (if it's already not too late).

I'll take greed any day over an organized program of cheating to keep players eligible.

That is far, far worse.

Wouldn't you agree??

I love it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I've been saying for years that the Pac-12, B1G, ND and a few select teams in the ACC really don't like the SEC/Big 12 model and really don't want to be put in the same category as them. That, more than anything else, has kept the P5 schools from breaking away from the NCAA. This confirms it. IF, it ever came to be that the Pac-12, B1G and ND, along with Duke, Virginia Wake, Ga Tech and BC, would stand firm against the SEC, Big XII along with Miami, FSU, Clemson VaTech, UNC, NCState, and Syracuse, I think that the latter would not find as much money from the networks as they would expect. Television absolutely loves the B1G, Pac-12, ND and Duke. They have national brands and brings eyes to the screen. Except for Alabama, Auburn, Fla, Ga. Tennessee, LSU, Texas and Oklahoma (and Ky Basketball) the others don't have enough teams that move the needle.

(09-10-2015 06:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 01:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's still Minnesota v Wisconsin, Michigan v Ohio St, etc., even if none of the teams have NFL draft picks.

No, it's not. If the top 25% of CFB players are all playing in other conferences, then Michigan-Ohio State would have an appeal closer to Harvard-Yale than Alabama-Auburn.

The Big Ten knows that. Notre Dame knows that. The enormous revenue stream goes away if you start playing Ivy-like football. That's why this is a bluff.

It is only an "enormous revenue stream" for the athletic department.

For the university, it is a small amount of money.

Restructure things in the athletic department, then the need for high athletic revenues decreases markedly.

I thought it was a bluff the first time Jack Swarbrick said. After he repeated it, I wondered.

Now, the president of the university goes out of his way to specifically go on the record on this.........

Welcome to the IVY League or even Division two.

So if the teams of the Big 10, Pac 12, many of the ACC, ND and other more academically minded schools, MAC, Big East, A10, etc decided to leave the NCAA over the employment model, do you really think all of a sudden they will just become the IVY League? No they will set up a different system, that might rely more on merit aid and scholarships than athletic scholarships, but they would still be the same universities with the same facilities and the same values. They would draw many student athletes, both for their level of education as well as the opportunities they will provide athletically. They would still get on TV, and would set up their own tournaments and bowls and the like. Just in a new system.

(09-10-2015 06:49 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I am in favor of the players being employees and getting paid a salary.

Father Jenkins may not be.....

ND without a football program (or a much scaled down one)? Interesting to think about.....

A bluff? Possibly. Re-read his comments and tell me he is bluffing. I am not so sure.

Father Jenkins went out of his way to go on the record and even mentions that.

ND's administration has always been uncomfortable with its football program (while knowing it was responsible for its growth) and has periodically de-emphasized it.

"They are a different bunch of squirrels over there." (Father Cavanaugh in "Rudy").

Who knows? It is unusual to me that Father Jenkins would work so hard and go out on such a limb to pull a "bluff". That puts his personal credibility on the line.

On the other hand, there is that $400 million dollar construction project going on at Notre Dame Stadium (although, in fairness, most of that is for academic buildings grafted on to the stadium).

Interesting times.

I think he believes what he says. But its easier to talk the talk than walk the walk.

(09-11-2015 04:03 PM)bostonspider Wrote:  So if the teams of the Big 10, Pac 12, many of the ACC, ND and other more academically minded schools, MAC, Big East, A10, etc decided to leave the NCAA over the employment model, do you really think all of a sudden they will just become the IVY League? No they will set up a different system, that might rely more on merit aid and scholarships than athletic scholarships, but they would still be the same universities with the same facilities and the same values. They would draw many student athletes, both for their level of education as well as the opportunities they will provide athletically. They would still get on TV, and would set up their own tournaments and bowls and the like. Just in a new system.

And they would do it for a fraction of the money they earn now. See Wedge's post.

I am saying it will be a different system, but not necessarily a down graded one. There are lots of NFL level players in college football today. Not all will want to be employees, with all that entails, in the south. There will still be a huge amount of money in the "non NCAA" system, do not kid yourself.

(09-11-2015 04:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 04:03 PM)bostonspider Wrote:  So if the teams of the Big 10, Pac 12, many of the ACC, ND and other more academically minded schools, MAC, Big East, A10, etc decided to leave the NCAA over the employment model, do you really think all of a sudden they will just become the IVY League? No they will set up a different system, that might rely more on merit aid and scholarships than athletic scholarships, but they would still be the same universities with the same facilities and the same values. They would draw many student athletes, both for their level of education as well as the opportunities they will provide athletically. They would still get on TV, and would set up their own tournaments and bowls and the like. Just in a new system.

And they would do it for a fraction of the money they earn now. See Wedge's post.

I'm not so sure there will be a hit or as much of a hit many here think there will be. TV networks will still have pay for the PAC and Big 10 conferences that still provide stellar ratings from fans who still will watch OSU/UM and USC/UCLA. The fans of college football aren't going to disappear because and athlete isn't an employee, the population of over 130 million people that the 2 conferences cover.

(09-11-2015 03:08 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  I've been saying for years that the Pac-12, B1G, ND and a few select teams in the ACC really don't like the SEC/Big 12 model and really don't want to be put in the same category as them. That, more than anything else, has kept the P5 schools from breaking away from the NCAA. This confirms it. IF, it ever came to be that the Pac-12, B1G and ND, along with Duke, Virginia Wake, Ga Tech and BC, would stand firm against the SEC, Big XII along with Miami, FSU, Clemson VaTech, UNC, NCState, and Syracuse, I think that the latter would not find as much money from the networks as they would expect. Television absolutely loves the B1G, Pac-12, ND and Duke. They have national brands and brings eyes to the screen. Except for Alabama, Auburn, Fla, Ga. Tennessee, LSU, Texas and Oklahoma (and Ky Basketball) the others don't have enough teams that move the needle.

I hope none of yall are dumb enough to think that college football players at any of the schools you listed above meet the same entry requirements as the general student populations.

Please tell me you guys aren't that dumb

(09-10-2015 05:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 05:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 02:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 01:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's still Minnesota v Wisconsin, Michigan v Ohio St, etc., even if none of the teams have NFL draft picks.

No, it's not. If the top 25% of CFB players are all playing in other conferences, then Michigan-Ohio State would have an appeal closer to Harvard-Yale than Alabama-Auburn.

The Big Ten knows that. Notre Dame knows that. The enormous revenue stream goes away if you start playing Ivy-like football. That's why this is a bluff.

Yes, I agree. It's a complete bluff.

Too many college football fans have blinders in thinking that paying players or other professionalization-type measure will supposedly turn it into "semi-pro football" (as if that's some type of insult). Let's have a reality check: college football has been "semi-pro football" for a looooooooooooong time. Why do people keep pretending that it has been anything other than that with the money that's already flowing through the system?

Call me crazy, but I'm not betting on the University of Illinois to give up $40 million or more per year from the Big Ten when the state of Illinois has slashed its budget to the bone. Same thing for the University of Minnesota, University of Michigan and every other school in the Big Ten. Notre Dame and the Big Ten are straight up lying on this issue and I wish they would stop pretending that they have the high road on this matter (and I say that as a Big Ten guy). Why do these universities suddenly get religion on revenue with sports when they're openly funding tech startups that are purely for-profit ventures? I have no tolerance for sanctimonious B.S. from these universities.

I'm a pure free market capitalist: let the money flow freely through college sports. The Big Ten should be able to make as much money as it wants... and so should the Big Ten players. No one should be ashamed of that fact. Just admit it and 99% of the TV viewing audience will say, "I don't care. I just want to watch some more football."

The reason the B1G schools need that $40million is because they have to have absurd budgets.

Dropping down means those expenses go away, and thus the need for that revenue goes away.


So your argument's basis is false.

You mean the accounting shenanigans that colleges use absurd budgets to show that athletic departments supposedly have a loss? They're really blowing through that money when G5 FBS schools are making 10% of the TV revenue by comparison? And even if you believe them, the largest expense is scholarships based on tuition prices that the school artificially sets itself? Don't let these univeristy presidents fool you with their spin. If a school is in a power conference, then they're making a TON of profit on football and men's basketball (and more than enough to pay the athletes fair market value for their services). Whether they shift around budget numbers to show a loss or how other sports take up expenses are another matter, but make no mistake about it: power conference football and men's basketball are *extremely* profitable. I call BS on any power school that claims that it would ever willingly drop down from the very highest level. They have been running capitalist semipro teams for a loooooong time, so they can cry me a river if they actually have to start paying their labor at fair market value like capitalists ought to be doing

No offense, but your post sure reads like a bunch of really hot air ... that doesn't do anything except go out the window.

You're free to call "BS" on anything you want to. You can call BS on the sky being blue, if it makes you feel better.


Numbers are facts.

I'm not asking you to break into the school's computers and steal the accounting books. I'm just asking you to lay out a hypothetical scenario that proves your point. Pick any school in the B1G, PAC, etc. and work off the data from the DOEd Office of Postsecondary Education reporting website for Equity in Athletics, for example.


I think you'll have a very difficult time trying to make even a hypothetical case that the revenue coming in from football and men's basketball actually results in a huge profit for the athletic department and that it's artificially spending money just for the appearance of breaking even or being at a loss.

(09-10-2015 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 04:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 03:03 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Don't all players dream of playing in the NFL? Even Ivy league players get in the NFL as well as FCS/D2/D3 and NAIA. I'm pretty sure the PAC and Big 10 will still have their elite players they have before.
But, all this talk would only apply if athletes are employees. If that is the case then I think you'll see the vast majority go along with the new model. It'll be more or less like the days of old but the fans will see watch their teams. I don't think Cal fans and alumns will stop watching to see if Cal will win the PAC title and go to the Rose bowl against the Big 10 Champ. The alums aren't going to stop giving money to athletics for buildings and equipment and give it Florida State Univ are they?

I believe most Cal alums that are sports fans would absolutely care about whether their schools are playing at the very highest level possible. By definition, if they opt to not participate in an athlete/employee world while the SEC schools do, then they are no longer playing at that highest level. In a world where being in a power conference essentially means everything and they control the college sports universe, you don't just unilaterally give that all up and, "Nah, no thanks. We're going to play with the Ivies now at a lower level and not make money anymore. We'll also tank the TV network that we created and rip up our deals with ESPN and Fox, too."

The unique allure of top level college football and college basketball is rooted in that they combine (a) the highest level of play before the major leagues and (b) the special passion that comes from being a student/alum or having some other direct relationship with a school. Those two factors are inextricably intertwined and what have made the power conferences so powerful.

Without (a), you have FCS or lower level sports that draw virtually no interest from the broader public. Without (b), you have the equivalent of minor league baseball or hockey, which also draw virtually no interest from the broader public. You might have some diehard fans in either scenario, but absolutely none of the national interest or benefits that have made the power conferences so valuable.

The point is that there is that the "old days" are not an option no matter what these hypocritical sanctimonious university presidents might tell reporters. The Big Ten is going out to sign new TV contracts that will provide them revenue that's more than many MLB, NBA and NHL teams. There is NO going back to the quaint "old days" for them. It's the same thing for all of the other power schools, including Notre Dame.

Right. Cal recently spent $350 million on new training facilities, renovated football stadium, etc. Part of the premise is that ongoing donations from football boosters, luxury box/premium seating sales, and other football season tickets will provide most of the money to pay back the bonds issued. People make those large donations, they buy those boxes and premium seats with the mandatory five-figure or low six-figure donations per seat on top of that, to see Pac-12 football played by teams that have a lot of future NFL players. Not to see Ivy League football played by one-star recruits wearing Cal and USC uniforms. It's delusional to think that the boosters who make large donations will be happy with that.

And multiply that by 10 for schools like USC or Ohio State where the diehards and generous boosters are both more numerous and more hardcore. At places like that, the university presidents would be ousted if they tried to downgrade football, and the boosters would demand that the schools leave their current conferences if that's what it takes to keep playing at the top level.

Well, that's entirely the argument. That literally is what makes it or not.

The idea that a fan will only pay for a ticket if he/she knows the players underneath the uniforms are the "top level" players. That a donor will only give money if he/she knows the players underneath the uniforms are the "top level" players.


And this argument could just as easily extend to the NFL.


What's more important: the players or the team?


You claim that people only care about the players. You have no proof.

I claim that people only care about the team. I have no proof.

(09-10-2015 06:49 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I am in favor of the players being employees and getting paid a salary.

Father Jenkins may not be.....

ND without a football program (or a much scaled down one)? Interesting to think about.....

A bluff? Possibly. Re-read his comments and tell me he is bluffing. I am not so sure.

Father Jenkins went out of his way to go on the record and even mentions that.

ND's administration has always been uncomfortable with its football program (while knowing it was responsible for its growth) and has periodically de-emphasized it.

"They are a different bunch of squirrels over there." (Father Cavanaugh in "Rudy").

Who knows? It is unusual to me that Father Jenkins would work so hard and go out on such a limb to pull a "bluff". That puts his personal credibility on the line.

On the other hand, there is that $400 million dollar construction project going on at Notre Dame Stadium (although, in fairness, most of that is for academic buildings grafted on to the stadium).

Interesting times.

Would it bother you if the players on ND's team were only employees? In other words, "non-academic employees", no different than a janitor. Just with much larger contracts.

Would it bother you if they had never matriculated at Notre Dame?

Would it both you if they were 33 years old?



I for one find that offensive. College football should only be played by students at that university, of appropriate age (18-22 years old). That's my opinion.

Otherwise, just make the NFL start-up minor league teams and watch those.

No, based on your hypothetical, we would not have many areas of disagreement.

(09-12-2015 12:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  No, based on your hypothetical, we would not have many areas of disagreement.

Ok.

So you want students playing the game, of appropriate age.

You just want to pay them, instead of giving them scholarships?


What's your justification for breaking such a long standing tradition?