menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Reform
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
Alan Swank
4/2/2016 4:53 PM
This guy makes some interesting points - I like the budget cap myself.

http://americansportsnet.com/mark-adams-its-time-to-fix-c...
mail
OhioCatFan
4/2/2016 6:09 PM
Great article, Alan. I agree with most everything he says.
mail
person
Alan Swank
4/2/2016 6:27 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Great article, Alan. I agree with most everything he says.
Me too OCF. At least in the pros they operate on somewhat of a level playing field. Not so in the NCAA D1.
mail
OhioCatFan
4/2/2016 7:17 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Great article, Alan. I agree with most everything he says.
Me too OCF. At least in the pros they operate on somewhat of a level playing field. Not so in the NCAA D1.
A real key to me, Alan, is that -- as he emphasizes -- these are non-profit institutions. If they were profit-making enterprises, then I'm much less a fan of regulation of the type he is proposing. He's not even proposing a "level playing field" but just one with a little sanity around such issues as total budgets and OOC scheduling. Under his proposals, OHIO would still not be in the upper 25 percent in spending and resources, but it would making a playing field where good coaching and recruiting, plus wise use of resources, could give teams like OHIO a fighting chance to make a Final Four in a generation.
Last Edited: 4/2/2016 7:19:47 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/2/2016 7:50 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Great article, Alan. I agree with most everything he says.
Me too OCF. At least in the pros they operate on somewhat of a level playing field. Not so in the NCAA D1.
A real key to me, Alan, is that -- as he emphasizes -- these are non-profit institutions. If they were profit-making enterprises, then I'm much less a fan of regulation of the type he is proposing. He's not even proposing a "level playing field" but just one with a little sanity around such issues as total budgets and OOC scheduling. Under his proposals, OHIO would still not be in the upper 25 percent in spending and resources, but it would making a playing field where good coaching and recruiting, plus wise use of resources, could give teams like OHIO a fighting chance to make a Final Four in a generation.
So you have no issues with Ohio State then, because they are a self funded separate entity from their school.
mail
OhioCatFan
4/2/2016 8:15 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
So you have no issues with Ohio State then, because they are a self funded separate entity from their school.
I have a great problem with such a shame concept. Without going into great detail, Ohio universities often have their foundations set up as totally independent organizations, with their own boards of trustees, etc. Because of this they claimed that there were not state organizations were not subject to FOIA requests. A case involving the University of Toledo Foundation went to the Ohio Supreme Court which ruled, as I recall unanimously, that this was a total shame since the sole purpose of the UT Foundation was to support UT. See the analogy?
mail
OhioCatFan
4/2/2016 8:26 PM
More details on this UT case:

http://tinyurl.com/h9sx59p

IMHO, the state universities were acting very high and might and unreasonably aloof in their stances prior to this case. I remembering telling several colleagues at OHIO that I was almost certain how this case was going to come out. They, however, had their heads buried in the sand and felt that they had set up a legally separate entity that had great autonomy. They were wrong.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/2/2016 9:03 PM
It's not a foundation and it's not exempt from FOIA.
mail
OhioCatFan
4/2/2016 9:38 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
It's not a foundation and it's not exempt from FOIA.
But, they are playing the same game. Trying to disguise a university activity that exists for benefit of the university and particularly its students as a separate entity that operates at least somewhat independently. This kind of arrangement could potentially, I think, threaten the non-profit status and tax-exempt status of a state university. Neither you or I, however, are attorneys, maybe one of our several resident BA barristers will check in.
Last Edited: 4/2/2016 9:51:12 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
bornacatfan
4/2/2016 11:16 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
\

So you have no issues with Ohio State then, because they are a self funded separate entity from their school.
that's funny. Such an tO$U hanger on. Must get tough on the tri and biceps to find ways to hang from their nutsack. Never undeerstood why you constantly do that.

It does not matter how their fanbase puts their money into it, you still have to be smart enough to understand how they are skirting the point. Any way you slice it the money is benefiting the program and whether it is self funded or not it is slimy when it comes to the subject of "student athtletes", I would never expect you to take off your scarlet and grey spectacles to actually understand why the analysis is taking an end run around the idea of athlete and the concept of "school".
mail
bornacatfan
4/2/2016 11:26 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
This guy makes some interesting points - I like the budget cap myself.

http://americansportsnet.com/mark-adams-its-time-to-fix-c...
Mark Adamas has been a voice in the wilderness regarding the NCAA and it's inequities . I cited an article several weeks back Mark wrote about inequity of P5 schools and playing on the road. Mark is pretty g00d
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/3/2016 12:29 AM
You totally miss the point, OSU and several other schools are self funding and take no money from the general budgets of their schools. As for the rest of the insults you want to throw, if that makes you feel better and a superior person feel free.
mail
OUVan
4/3/2016 11:11 AM
Interesting article but who is going to drive the change? The parties that want the change don't have the power to force the change. The only way you can is for the 200 or so schools on the outside looking in to band together and refuse to play the big schools games but getting that many unaffiliated parties to come together is problematic. Heck, a good portion of our fanbase is fine with letting the big boys dictate the terms.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/3/2016 12:03 PM
You assume that schools want change, every school is looking to out resource the other in an effort to lure recruits and become the best. The sports world in general promotes this activity from the lowest levels of youth sports to the highest levels of professionals. When you have companies putting money and product into youth sports, how do you expect to curb the higher levels?
mail
person
colobobcat66
4/3/2016 12:19 PM
This is a problem for both bb and fb, so I'll address it as such.

Other than the possible effect of the reductions of scholarships many years ago, I have trouble thinking of much that has done anything to decrease the gap between the haves and have nots.

We have lost the arms race. Do all the have nots just drop out of a race we have lost or fight to get back in? Not playing the haves probably will not be the answer as too many people need the money. Any show of force (?) by the have nots will likely cause the haves to bolt from the rest.

I'm hard pressed to see any reasonable resolution of the increasing problem. Try to get some legislative solution-good luck with that.
Last Edited: 4/3/2016 12:22:03 PM by colobobcat66
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/3/2016 12:39 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
This is a problem for both bb and fb, so I'll address it as such.

Other than the possible effect of the reductions of scholarships many years ago, I have trouble thinking of much that has done anything to decrease the gap between the haves and have nots.

We have lost the arms race. Do all the have nots just drop out of a race we have lost or fight to get back in? Not playing the haves probably will not be the answer as too many people need the money. Any show of force (?) by the have nots will likely cause the haves to bolt from the rest.

I'm hard pressed to see any reasonable resolution of the increasing problem. Try to get some legislative solution-good luck with that.
+1
mail
OhioStunter
4/3/2016 11:49 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
This is a problem for both bb and fb, so I'll address it as such.

Other than the possible effect of the reductions of scholarships many years ago, I have trouble thinking of much that has done anything to decrease the gap between the haves and have nots.

We have lost the arms race. Do all the have nots just drop out of a race we have lost or fight to get back in? Not playing the haves probably will not be the answer as too many people need the money. Any show of force (?) by the have nots will likely cause the haves to bolt from the rest.

I'm hard pressed to see any reasonable resolution of the increasing problem. Try to get some legislative solution-good luck with that.
Agree, but I will only focus on fb here. If the "have nots" unilaterally banded together to charge more significantly more for games with the "haves", it could result in more of a forced "revenue sharing".

Big schools really will not have much of a choice -- pay more for "automatic" OOC wins or play other big schools in OOC games and encounter an enhanced risk of a loss that can cost you a shot at the Playoffs.

The key would be getting all of the non P5 to agree to a higher fee structure for the P5 and stick to it.
mail
person
colobobcat66
4/4/2016 10:22 AM
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
This is a problem for both bb and fb, so I'll address it as such.

Other than the possible effect of the reductions of scholarships many years ago, I have trouble thinking of much that has done anything to decrease the gap between the haves and have nots.

We have lost the arms race. Do all the have nots just drop out of a race we have lost or fight to get back in? Not playing the haves probably will not be the answer as too many people need the money. Any show of force (?) by the have nots will likely cause the haves to bolt from the rest.

I'm hard pressed to see any reasonable resolution of the increasing problem. Try to get some legislative solution-good luck with that.
Agree, but I will only focus on fb here. If the "have nots" unilaterally banded together to charge more significantly more for games with the "haves", it could result in more of a forced "revenue sharing".

Big schools really will not have much of a choice -- pay more for "automatic" OOC wins or play other big schools in OOC games and encounter an enhanced risk of a loss that can cost you a shot at the Playoffs.

The key would be getting all of the non P5 to agree to a higher fee structure for the P5 and stick to it.
Trying to get all the D-1 have nots and the FCS schools to stand together in this is like herding chickens, very difficult to say the least. Unfortunately the haves have the money that everybody else is chasing.
mail
OUVan
4/4/2016 10:23 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I'm hard pressed to see any reasonable resolution of the increasing problem. Try to get some legislative solution-good luck with that.
Yep, we saw what happened when they changed the RPI formula so that road games carried more weight. Instead of helping the mids the money just stopped paying attention to RPI during the selection process.
mail
person
Alan Swank
4/4/2016 11:13 AM
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
This is a problem for both bb and fb, so I'll address it as such.

Other than the possible effect of the reductions of scholarships many years ago, I have trouble thinking of much that has done anything to decrease the gap between the haves and have nots.

We have lost the arms race. Do all the have nots just drop out of a race we have lost or fight to get back in? Not playing the haves probably will not be the answer as too many people need the money. Any show of force (?) by the have nots will likely cause the haves to bolt from the rest.

I'm hard pressed to see any reasonable resolution of the increasing problem. Try to get some legislative solution-good luck with that.
Agree, but I will only focus on fb here. If the "have nots" unilaterally banded together to charge more significantly more for games with the "haves", it could result in more of a forced "revenue sharing".

Big schools really will not have much of a choice -- pay more for "automatic" OOC wins or play other big schools in OOC games and encounter an enhanced risk of a loss that can cost you a shot at the Playoffs.

The key would be getting all of the non P5 to agree to a higher fee structure for the P5 and stick to it.
I think on a conference basis that this could happen but not individual schools. What would the MAC have to lose if they did this?
mail
person
colobobcat66
4/4/2016 11:17 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
This is a problem for both bb and fb, so I'll address it as such.

Other than the possible effect of the reductions of scholarships many years ago, I have trouble thinking of much that has done anything to decrease the gap between the haves and have nots.

We have lost the arms race. Do all the have nots just drop out of a race we have lost or fight to get back in? Not playing the haves probably will not be the answer as too many people need the money. Any show of force (?) by the have nots will likely cause the haves to bolt from the rest.

I'm hard pressed to see any reasonable resolution of the increasing problem. Try to get some legislative solution-good luck with that.
Agree, but I will only focus on fb here. If the "have nots" unilaterally banded together to charge more significantly more for games with the "haves", it could result in more of a forced "revenue sharing".

Big schools really will not have much of a choice -- pay more for "automatic" OOC wins or play other big schools in OOC games and encounter an enhanced risk of a loss that can cost you a shot at the Playoffs.

The key would be getting all of the non P5 to agree to a higher fee structure for the P5 and stick to it.
I think on a conference basis that this could happen but not individual schools. What would the MAC have to lose if they did this?

Lose all the money games to the Sun Belt?
mail
OhioStunter
4/5/2016 12:08 AM
That's why it would only work if all of the other conferences banded together and stayed firm.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/5/2016 8:14 AM
Too many schools need the money from games to survive. This simply will not happen.
Showing Messages: 1 - 23 of 23
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)