NCAA to create new divisons for Power Conferences?

• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sherm03;1570583 wrote:Except that most schools would not be able to support non-revenue sports if the football and basketball teams left the athletic department. Seriously...what do you think pays the bills for those sports?

  That's okay. All non-big time basketball and football schools are faced with this, yet they generally offer non-revenue sports. There's no reason a school needs to have anymore varsity sports than it can afford either. If some of the marginal ones can't be continued, yet there is interest, the club team model would be best.
• wildcats20

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1570629 wrote:You are right. The current set up (and I'm referring to football and basketball only in the big conferences) has two sports whose structures don't relate to college much either. Continuing it this way only leads to more problems. If Ohio State, for example, sponsored a minor league team, there would be all the benefits of the current program without the ridiculousness of it. Requiring kids who have no interest to attend class would be unnecessary. If a player wanted to attend school, he could use is salary that way. But he'd face the same requirements for admission as anyone else.

  Why then have it attached to a school?
  
  You are trying to make 2 completely separate entities, one. If it's a "minor league" team, why does it need the school's affiliation? Just have it be the Columbus Buckeyes. Minor league football and basketball teams, that are affiliated with the NFL and the NBA.
  
  If an athlete wants to use his/her money to pay for school, they will do so at whatever school they want.
• WebFire

  wildcats20;1570632 wrote:
  You are trying to make 2 completely separate entities, one. If it's a "minor league" team, why does it need the school's affiliation? Just have it be the Columbus Buckeyes.

  This. Boogie's idea makes no sense to me. The idea of free tuition for playing a sport does not seem ridiculous to me. What is ridiculous is that kids/parents don't see the value in it, and they THINK it's a ticket to the NFL.
• wildcats20

  

  If you want to have the school's name attached, regardless of pay for play, then those athletes must be held to the same exact standard as ALL other students.
• wildcats20

  

  And to be honest, I don't give a shit if the athletes are paid. They receive insanely more benefits than a normal student who will, more than likely, go on to be more successful than said athlete.
  
  Athletes receive a stipend, extra tutoring, ability to miss class with no penalty, as well as free chartered trips around the country.
• sherm03

  

  wildcats20;1570635 wrote:And to be honest, I don't give a shit if the athletes are paid. They receive insanely more benefits than a normal student who will, more than likely, go on to be more successful than said athlete.
  
  Athletes receive a stipend, extra tutoring, ability to miss class with no penalty, as well as free chartered trips around the country.

  I agree with this. I don't care if athletes are paid, either. But I feel that if you pay them, there should be no athletic scholarships that go along with it. It is nobody's fault but the athlete if they are not currently taking advantage of all the things that are afforded to them in college. Every athlete that receives a full ride comes out ahead of most of the people coming out of college (even if the athlete has no shot at going pro) because they have no student loan debt. In a time when kids are coming out of college with insane amount of debt, that's a big advantage.
  
  Winston's idea makes no sense to me. But that's par for the course.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1570483 wrote:Why would it be interesting? Football players aren't majoring in football.

  That is the number one reason many if not most major conferrence D1 football players attend college. Not to mention that they are encouraged to stay away from the more challenging majors, even if they're capable of handling them.
• queencitybuckeye

  wildcats20;1570635 wrote:And to be honest, I don't give a shit if the athletes are paid. They receive insanely more benefits than a normal student who will, more than likely, go on to be more successful than said athlete.
  

  If you play for a major program and don't end up on the police blotter or say something exceedingly stupid on Twitter, you will be taken care of should you not reach the NFL. That's why the argument that a small percentage makes the pros is accurate but doesn't tell the real story.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570695 wrote:That is the number one reason many if not most major conferrence D1 football players attend college.

  And that's sad, when less than 2% will move on to the pros. Sad that kids/parents can't understand that and only see fame and money as an end.
• Al Bundy

  WebFire;1570698 wrote:And that's sad, when less than 2% will move on to the pros. Sad that kids/parents can't understand that and only see fame and money as an end.

  More than 2% of the football players from BCS conferences spend one or more years in the NFL. Even if they make the league minimum for only one season, they have made more money than most students will make through their 20's.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  wildcats20;1570632 wrote:Why then have it attached to a school?
  
  You are trying to make 2 completely separate entities, one. If it's a "minor league" team, why does it need the school's affiliation? Just have it be the Columbus Buckeyes. Minor league football and basketball teams, that are affiliated with the NFL and the NBA.
  
  If an athlete wants to use his/her money to pay for school, they will do so at whatever school they want.

  It's already two separate entities in everything but name only. Pretending that it is one is what leads to all the trouble. The "Ohio State Buckeyes" under my idea is no different than it is now except the players aren't required to be students. Currently they are, so games are played to keep then students. In fact many have no desire to be students and have nothing in common with the student body.
• WebFire

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1571043 wrote:It's already two separate entities in everything but name only. Pretending that it is one is what leads to all the trouble. The "Ohio State Buckeyes" under my idea is no different than it is now except the players aren't required to be students. Currently they are, so games are played to keep then students. In fact many have no desire to be students and have nothing in common with the student body.

  Fine, then someone start a true farm system. I have no idea why you would marry independent players and universities in the scenario you are suggesting.
• WebFire

  Al Bundy;1570879 wrote:More than 2% of the football players from BCS conferences spend one or more years in the NFL. Even if they make the league minimum for only one season, they have made more money than most students will make through their 20's.

  CFB is not just the BCS schools. Nor can it be.
• wildcats20

  

  WebFire;1571047 wrote:Fine, then someone start a true farm system. I have no idea why you would marry independent players and universities in the scenario you are suggesting.

  Exactly.
  
  It's either, pay them and have them be students OR separate them 100% from the school. You can't have both, IMO.
  
  You can't pay them, have them be affiliated with a school, and then say they don't have to be students. There is literally no point in the college/university affiliation.
  
  And you also can't tell them where they are allowed to spend their money, IMO.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1571047 wrote:Fine, then someone start a true farm system. I have no idea why you would marry independent players and universities in the scenario you are suggesting.

  Because the reality is that the universities aren't going to give up that money. Also, even if the level of play were exactly the same, you aren't getting 105,000 to see the Columbus Buckeyes minor league football team.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1571071 wrote:Because the reality is that the universities aren't going to give up that money. Also, even if the level of play were exactly the same, you aren't getting 105,000 to see the Columbus Buckeyes minor league football team.

  Of course they aren't. But Boogie's scenario isn't the answer. It makes no sense. I guess I am more for putting the college back into College Football, than I am for removing it.
  
  The horror that the kids are forced to get an education. How dare them!
• wildcats20

  

  WebFire;1571083 wrote:Of course they aren't. But Boogie's scenario isn't the answer. It makes no sense. I guess I am more for putting the college back into College Football, than I am for removing it.
  
  The horror that the kids are forced to get an education. How dare them!

  Same here.
• Sonofanump

  I think that Cincinnati and the rest of the AAC aka old Big East aka Sun Belt 2004, is going to lose out big time on this.
• Al Bundy

  WebFire;1571048 wrote:CFB is not just the BCS schools. Nor can it be.

  This thread is about the BCS schools taking a different path. I was just pointing out that your percentages do not apply to BCS schools. They could easily form their own organization and still make a ton of money. Conferences are big enough now that you could easily go to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule and have 2 or 3 non-conference games. You would have much better football in September. The non-conference schedules for the Buckeyes were much better before they started adding all of the MAC games and FCS games.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1571083 wrote:Of course they aren't. But Boogie's scenario isn't the answer. It makes no sense. I guess I am more for putting the college back into College Football, than I am for removing it.
  
  The horror that the kids are forced to get an education. How dare them!

  Don't misunderstand, I'd be fine with that. Please understand that REALLY doing this would mean those recruits that academically have no business near a university wouldn't be there (20%? 35%? 50% or more?). The level of play would go down. Would that be acceptable to the ticket-buying and viewing public?
• WebFire

  Al Bundy;1571133 wrote:This thread is about the BCS schools taking a different path. I was just pointing out that your percentages do not apply to BCS schools. They could easily form their own organization and still make a ton of money. Conferences are big enough now that you could easily go to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule and have 2 or 3 non-conference games. You would have much better football in September. The non-conference schedules for the Buckeyes were much better before they started adding all of the MAC games and FCS games.

  They can split and create their own organization, but it still needs to be related to college. I'm not really in favor of paying college players in general, but I think no matter what the college part has to remain, unlike what Boogie is proposing.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1571142 wrote:Don't misunderstand, I'd be fine with that. Please understand that REALLY doing this would mean those recruits that academically have no business near a university wouldn't be there (20%? 35%? 50% or more?). The level of play would go down. Would that be acceptable to the ticket-buying and viewing public?

  That is an interesting point. Theoretically, if the level went down for everyone, I don't know that you'd see that much drop-off. But with the way CFB is no, this would never happen. Schools would figure out ways to get those kids in anyway. Kind of like it is now.
• Al Bundy

  WebFire;1571147 wrote:They can split and create their own organization, but it still needs to be related to college. I'm not really in favor of paying college players in general, but I think no matter what the college part has to remain, unlike what Boogie is proposing.

  
  I agree with that and do not see it changing in that aspect any time soon. It all comes down to $$$$$$. If the schools were running a for profit minor league system where the players weren't students, their status as non-profit organization could be challenged.