NCAA threatening to ban California schools from championships?

Politics.....the root of all that's evil.....

BamaInMo1 said:

I would like to see the state of Alabama and other states with blueblood, moneymaking programs do this and force the NCAA's hand.

Click to expand...

If you do that you end college athletics. Just watch and see.

You need a governing body. Even though this one has flaws you can’t just let things go ungoverned.

The top 40 head coaches' salaries' are > $3 million/year. The top 65 are > $2 million per year. The top 82 are > $1 million / year.

These numbers roughly fit my "Take the Power 5 + 1 out of the NCAA and create something new" suggestion. These schools should only play each other. This would solve a LOT of problems about "inequity," "ambition," "underfunding" etc.

I really don't care _AT ALL_ what happens to the other 60+ teams. They're wannabes and only get their money playing P5+1 teams at $1mm - $2mm per game. That can be most of the school's entire athletics budget. If they really wanted to actually compete on the field, their fan base would contribute - just like most of the P5 have - and they would build huge stadiums, practice facilities, etc etc etc.

They have no place among the big boys. Let them go back to D1AA or D2. Maybe there could be some kind of program like elevation and relegation in European soccer so that if you didn't keep up you would have to move down and if you really excelled (like UCF has in recent years) you could move up. The problem is I don't want P5+1 teams playing D1aa & D2 teams. So you would never know how they REALLY competed against the big boys until they got there.

Now that you've created the P5+1 system, pay the players for their likeness. HOWEVER, here's how I would do it: Let them have 1/2 now and the rest goes into some kind of pension-type fund that grows over the next 40 years. I don't know how you do this - legally and ethically - but it's what should be done. How do you control who makes how much ? Do all players get paid? How do you keep the #1 guy from making all the $$$? Again, I don't know but it must be done.

I would also create academic majors in Football, Basketball, etc. Why not athletics (I'm not talking about coaching type majors in schools of education.. I'm talking about actually majoring in football). I'm not saying this is actually a smart thing to do from the athlete's standpoint or society's standpoint (other than keeping them eligible and interested). But, why not? We have majors in art, theater, music, etc. Athletes are people too!

If you want to go to a pay for play system, you have to figure these things out and enforce them.

It strikes me as really a professional / amateur / eligibility issue -- which puts the NCAA in a real bind.

If players who get monetary compensation for playing college ball are professionals, why are these teams not vacating every game? That's what happens when a player who has received money from a booster actually participates in on-field competition (unless, of course, you're Auburn or North Carolina, but that's another rant).

So why are the California teams threatened only with not being allowed to win championships? Why not an official 0-0 record?

My take is that they're trying to split the baby -- as in, "OK, we won't make your whole season meaningless -- which our rules would ordinarily require us to do. But we will ban you from winning the big prize."

If they allow players who get monetary compensation to actually play, they're opening up the gates to outright and open buying of recruits, which I think only the have-nots in big media markets want. I mean, instantaneously, teams that just happen to be in big markets become real contenders because of the endorsement opportunities. Rutgers, Temple, Georgetown, DePaul, and any Podunk school within 100 miles of Los Angeles just got a big seat at the table for every 5-star out there.

You also create chaos in the locker room. Even at Alabama, only a few players would command really big money. But you think parents and entourages are clamoring for playing time now? Wait until they perceive real money on the line. Expect lawsuits over lack of playing time and/or disciplinary benchings / suspensions.

One of my pet peeves is people throwing rocks at an idea without offering an alternative solution. So here's my suggestion: Pay players for their football time like work-study students. They already get room, incredible food, tuition, academic help, books, everything. At 20 hours a week on football, plus extra for the time on gameday, that would be $600 - $1,000 a month pure spending money (everything else is already handled), and everybody would get it, not just the stars.