|
Post by myownwords on Jun 23, 2021 8:55:16 GMT -8
I think you're over-estimating how many 16-22 years olds really care that much about 'major sports' at their university. Sociologically, I think there's going to be decreasing interest across the board (while recognizing that there will be major geographic differences, eg. the midest & south vs northeast & west coast). I would be totally happy for revenue-producing "semi-pro" NCAA sports to totally break off and actually become true semi-pro entities completely separate from colleges and universities. Even just football... start up a semi-pro league of 64 teams to replace current division 1 football, and the NCAA can run a D2 or D3 league. Let true "student athletes" compete for their schools. Unless of course, colleges bolstered their flagging numbers with Esports. THEN you'd get the teen-something's attention.
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Jun 23, 2021 9:27:53 GMT -8
As some of you know, I tend to mock the "Chicken Littles" on this board who go a little berserk every time we lose a football/basketball game, a mascot, or hire a new coach not to their liking. But you can definitely call me Chicken Little re this decision. I fear soon the sky WILL be falling. Too many schools don't have SEC TV contracts and billionaire boosters.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 23, 2021 9:48:12 GMT -8
As some of you know, I tend to mock the "Chicken Littles" on this board who go a little berserk every time we lose a football/basketball game, a mascot, or hire a new coach not to their liking. But you can definitely call me Chicken Little re this decision. I fear soon the sky WILL be falling. Too many schools don't have SEC TV contracts and billionaire boosters. This definitely isn't good news for at least 80-90 of the nearly 130 FBS football programs, and probably 250 of the 350-ish basketball programs. It'll just create an even bigger divide than exists now. It's simply more of the rich getting richer, even within P5/P6 conferences. While this may be "landmark" for athlete's rights, SCOTUS has no clue as to how athletic programs operate & they're not helping to keep college athletics viable. They're destroying the model that's allowed us to be competitive. Hopefully this works itself out & isn't as devastating as it appears, but I wish the states & SCOTUS would just stay out of the way of trying to cripple the competitive balance, whatever still exits of it in college athletics.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 23, 2021 10:17:35 GMT -8
As some of you know, I tend to mock the "Chicken Littles" on this board who go a little berserk every time we lose a football/basketball game, a mascot, or hire a new coach not to their liking. But you can definitely call me Chicken Little re this decision. I fear soon the sky WILL be falling. Too many schools don't have SEC TV contracts and billionaire boosters. This definitely isn't good news for at least 80-90 of the nearly 130 FBS football programs, and probably 250 of the 350-ish basketball programs. It'll just create an even bigger divide than exists now. It's simply more of the rich getting richer, even within P5/P6 conferences. While this may be "landmark" for athlete's rights, SCOTUS has no clue as to how athletic programs operate & they're not helping to keep college athletics viable. They're destroying the model that's allowed us to be competitive. Hopefully this works itself out & isn't as devastating as it appears, but I wish the states & SCOTUS would just stay out of the way of trying to cripple the competitive balance, whatever still exits of it in college athletics. I just disagree, I think the players will now unionize. Once that happens, the power of the conferences will diminish drastically. The will Union require a much bigger piece of the pie. The Union will look to have as large a membership as possible as to enforce a work stoppage. They can't do that if they only try and represent the top 1% of athletes who have marketable value. Hence the net will be big. The majority of the pie will come from the Michigan's, Notre Dame's and others of the world. State's cost will increase but only proportionally. The Universities will eliminate any minimum for sponsored sports. They will move to the Club model for Olympic sports. That will free up the $'s necessary to pay the athletes. Less mouths to feed. All of this will be tempered by Title IX as well. I see it as a problem, but not for State.
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Jun 23, 2021 10:56:30 GMT -8
This definitely isn't good news for at least 80-90 of the nearly 130 FBS football programs, and probably 250 of the 350-ish basketball programs. It'll just create an even bigger divide than exists now. It's simply more of the rich getting richer, even within P5/P6 conferences. While this may be "landmark" for athlete's rights, SCOTUS has no clue as to how athletic programs operate & they're not helping to keep college athletics viable. They're destroying the model that's allowed us to be competitive. Hopefully this works itself out & isn't as devastating as it appears, but I wish the states & SCOTUS would just stay out of the way of trying to cripple the competitive balance, whatever still exits of it in college athletics. I just disagree, I think the players will now unionize. Once that happens, the power of the conferences will diminish drastically. The will Union require a much bigger piece of the pie. The Union will look to have as large a membership as possible as to enforce a work stoppage. They can't do that if they only try and represent the top 1% of athletes who have marketable value. Hence the net will be big. The majority of the pie will come from the Michigan's, Notre Dame's and others of the world. State's cost will increase but only proportionally. The Universities will eliminate any minimum for sponsored sports. They will move to the Club model for Olympic sports. That will free up the $'s necessary to pay the athletes. Less mouths to feed. All of this will be tempered by Title IX as well. I see it as a problem, but not for State. I certainly hope you are correct. That's definitely not how things have been trending the last couple decades, whether the NCAA was directly involved or not. Until it's proven otherwise, I will continue to believe the "haves" will get richer, and the "have-nots" will continue to have no choice but to drop out, or at least be relegated to virtual irrelevance. (Unfortunately, SDSU does not fall under the definition of "Haves".)
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 23, 2021 11:06:22 GMT -8
Will definitely be interesting to see how things shake out .
Do agree that the Money the P5 schools already get and now could it be the players also , could separate schools even more .Rich get richer scenario could easily come into play
Should we also toss in the No Sit transfer rule - where a school could say- look at what our guys are getting and compare that to what you are getting now
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 23, 2021 12:59:04 GMT -8
This definitely isn't good news for at least 80-90 of the nearly 130 FBS football programs, and probably 250 of the 350-ish basketball programs. It'll just create an even bigger divide than exists now. It's simply more of the rich getting richer, even within P5/P6 conferences. While this may be "landmark" for athlete's rights, SCOTUS has no clue as to how athletic programs operate & they're not helping to keep college athletics viable. They're destroying the model that's allowed us to be competitive. Hopefully this works itself out & isn't as devastating as it appears, but I wish the states & SCOTUS would just stay out of the way of trying to cripple the competitive balance, whatever still exits of it in college athletics. I just disagree, I think the players will now unionize. Once that happens, the power of the conferences will diminish drastically. The will Union require a much bigger piece of the pie. The Union will look to have as large a membership as possible as to enforce a work stoppage. They can't do that if they only try and represent the top 1% of athletes who have marketable value. Hence the net will be big. The majority of the pie will come from the Michigan's, Notre Dame's and others of the world. State's cost will increase but only proportionally. The Universities will eliminate any minimum for sponsored sports. They will move to the Club model for Olympic sports. That will free up the $'s necessary to pay the athletes. Less mouths to feed. All of this will be tempered by Title IX as well. I see it as a problem, but not for State. Bigger piece of WHAT pie? 90% of athletic departments barely breakeven or lose money, and that requires a lot of donations to do so. I definitely do not see universities going to a model that only includes 2-4 sports - a national championship based on 50-60 "profitable" programs/universities? The gap will only grow, and that includes SDSU compared to its P5 brethren. It may help SDSU compared to a Fresno St or Wyoming, but not compared to the P5's. I doubt there's a single college athletics administrator who sees this as a good thing for G5's/mid-major universities.
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Jun 23, 2021 13:04:06 GMT -8
I think you're over-estimating how many 16-22 years olds really care that much about 'major sports' at their university. Sociologically, I think there's going to be decreasing interest across the board (while recognizing that there will be major geographic differences, eg. the midest & south vs northeast & west coast). I would be totally happy for revenue-producing "semi-pro" NCAA sports to totally break off and actually become true semi-pro entities completely separate from colleges and universities. Even just football... start up a semi-pro league of 64 teams to replace current division 1 football, and the NCAA can run a D2 or D3 league. Let true "student athletes" compete for their schools. I am with you here, the VAST majority of college football players, even those playing D1 realize they arent gonna be using it as a spring board to the NFL. Most, are using it as an opportunity to get a free education. I love that model, I hope this does nothing to diminish that. If that means SDSU ends up more on a relative level to the FCS, well then so be it. But if this in the long run costs kids, and kids from all sports, an opportunity to have their college paid for- then that is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 23, 2021 14:32:14 GMT -8
I just disagree, I think the players will now unionize. Once that happens, the power of the conferences will diminish drastically. The will Union require a much bigger piece of the pie. The Union will look to have as large a membership as possible as to enforce a work stoppage. They can't do that if they only try and represent the top 1% of athletes who have marketable value. Hence the net will be big. The majority of the pie will come from the Michigan's, Notre Dame's and others of the world. State's cost will increase but only proportionally. The Universities will eliminate any minimum for sponsored sports. They will move to the Club model for Olympic sports. That will free up the $'s necessary to pay the athletes. Less mouths to feed. All of this will be tempered by Title IX as well. I see it as a problem, but not for State. Bigger piece of WHAT pie? 90% of athletic departments barely breakeven or lose money, and that requires a lot of donations to do so. I definitely do not see universities going to a model that only includes 2-4 sports - a national championship based on 50-60 "profitable" programs/universities? The gap will only grow, and that includes SDSU compared to its P5 brethren. It may help SDSU compared to a Fresno St or Wyoming, but not compared to the P5's. I doubt there's a single college athletics administrator who sees this as a good thing for G5's/mid-major universities. The players will unionize. Kavanaugh is almost asking them to do so. As you note, athletic departments are not flooded with money, therefore they will look to reduce costs. That means they will no longer require a set number of sports be sponsored. They will not be in a position where they pay the players and keep paying for ancillary sports. Not to mention that the Union will look to have their constituency be as large as possible and will want the ancillary sports to be paid. That will almost ensure the sports are eliminated. I don't think any AD loves anything about this, but the vast majority of the pain will be borne by the people that have created the problem. It will sap them of resources and they will have an unruly union to deal with going forward. JMO.
|
|