NCAA Rules and MSU

Discuss anything and everything relating to Bobcat Football here.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

[cat_bracket]
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5869
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:35 am
Location: RNC Headquarters

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by [cat_bracket] » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:15 am

John K wrote:
[cat_bracket] wrote:I believe the main metric will be money. If that second tier lowers its scholarship limit from 85 to 70-75, then maybe MSU will look at it. Adding 22 scholarships (from the current 63 to 85) to the budget is probably asking too much of the BOR and especially the MT legislature. Adding 22 men's schollies means adding roughly the same women's. Also need coaches, travel for the new women's team(s). There may be some more revenue coming from the NCAA, but I doubt it covers much of that.
You can bet that the main winners financially from this reorganization, will be the schools in the "big 5" conferences. FCS and lower tier FBS schools won't see much, if any, increase in revenue from TV contracts, et al. I think it's impossible to predict all the future ramifications with any degree of accuracy, except that the rich will get richer.
Yes, the rich will get richer and they have more to gain than anyone from this, but from what I've heard the selling point from the Big 5 is that they will share and it will benefit everyone in the NCAA. The NCAA isn't going to go for something that is going to be a drain on the rest of its schools.

I highly doubt it will share enough for MSU to be able to afford to jump up a level, especially if that level is at 85 scholarships. I don't think jumping to the second tier will be lucrative enough to offset the cost of doing it. The state will need to kick in more money to athletics for that to happen. I don't see the legislature doing that. The BOR is more likely to do that, but I doubt that it would. The BOR option would include a significant increase in prices of tickets, concessions, apparel, etc.



John K
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by John K » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:29 am

[cat_bracket] wrote:
John K wrote:
[cat_bracket] wrote:I believe the main metric will be money. If that second tier lowers its scholarship limit from 85 to 70-75, then maybe MSU will look at it. Adding 22 scholarships (from the current 63 to 85) to the budget is probably asking too much of the BOR and especially the MT legislature. Adding 22 men's schollies means adding roughly the same women's. Also need coaches, travel for the new women's team(s). There may be some more revenue coming from the NCAA, but I doubt it covers much of that.
You can bet that the main winners financially from this reorganization, will be the schools in the "big 5" conferences. FCS and lower tier FBS schools won't see much, if any, increase in revenue from TV contracts, et al. I think it's impossible to predict all the future ramifications with any degree of accuracy, except that the rich will get richer.
Yes, the rich will get richer and they have more to gain than anyone from this, but from what I've heard the selling point from the Big 5 is that they will share and it will benefit everyone in the NCAA. The NCAA isn't going to go for something that is going to be a drain on the rest of its schools.

I highly doubt it will share enough for MSU to be able to afford to jump up a level, especially if that level is at 85 scholarships. I don't think jumping to the second tier will be lucrative enough to offset the cost of doing it. The state will need to kick in more money to athletics for that to happen. I don't see the legislature doing that. The BOR is more likely to do that, but I doubt that it would. The BOR option would include a significant increase in prices of tickets, concessions, apparel, etc.
I didn't mean to imply that this reorganization will result in "a drain on the rest of its schools", only that FCS and lower tier FBS schools won't gain much from it...at least not nearly as much as the "big boys".



[cat_bracket]
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5869
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:35 am
Location: RNC Headquarters

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by [cat_bracket] » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:59 am

John K wrote:
[cat_bracket] wrote:
John K wrote:
[cat_bracket] wrote:I believe the main metric will be money. If that second tier lowers its scholarship limit from 85 to 70-75, then maybe MSU will look at it. Adding 22 scholarships (from the current 63 to 85) to the budget is probably asking too much of the BOR and especially the MT legislature. Adding 22 men's schollies means adding roughly the same women's. Also need coaches, travel for the new women's team(s). There may be some more revenue coming from the NCAA, but I doubt it covers much of that.
You can bet that the main winners financially from this reorganization, will be the schools in the "big 5" conferences. FCS and lower tier FBS schools won't see much, if any, increase in revenue from TV contracts, et al. I think it's impossible to predict all the future ramifications with any degree of accuracy, except that the rich will get richer.
Yes, the rich will get richer and they have more to gain than anyone from this, but from what I've heard the selling point from the Big 5 is that they will share and it will benefit everyone in the NCAA. The NCAA isn't going to go for something that is going to be a drain on the rest of its schools.

I highly doubt it will share enough for MSU to be able to afford to jump up a level, especially if that level is at 85 scholarships. I don't think jumping to the second tier will be lucrative enough to offset the cost of doing it. The state will need to kick in more money to athletics for that to happen. I don't see the legislature doing that. The BOR is more likely to do that, but I doubt that it would. The BOR option would include a significant increase in prices of tickets, concessions, apparel, etc.
I didn't mean to imply that this reorganization will result in "a drain on the rest of its schools", only that FCS and lower tier FBS schools won't gain much from it...at least not nearly as much as the "big boys".
You didn't imply that. I was just pointing it out. You're right the big boys are the big gainers. The FCS won't get much, but could if the NCAA makes it possible for FCS teams to profit on home games. Things like that, while minor in comparison, could be significant for FCS teams.

Colter/Kyle: did you talk to Emmert about any of this?



oedipuss
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by oedipuss » Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:40 pm

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the new power conference subdivision will basically have it's own autonomy while the group of five will still be voting with FCS schools for any rules changes at the D-1 Level? So, basically, the Group of Five (60+ schools) is the minority voting block to the FCS (100+) schools? If that's correct then the FCS basically can shape D-1 football however they want can't they?



Macneil4025
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:25 am

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by Macneil4025 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:29 am

The NCAA is pathetic and will probably be non existent in 10 years!! However, If student athletes don't want to come to college and get a free education while playing the game they love, go somewhere else!! Student athletes are already getting paid, it's called a scholarship!!



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:55 am

Macneil4025 wrote:The NCAA is pathetic and will probably be non existent in 10 years!! However, If student athletes don't want to come to college and get a free education while playing the game they love, go somewhere else!! Student athletes are already getting paid, it's called a scholarship!!
So what's wrong with that scholarship including a stipend, just like many other (non-athletic) scholarships do?



User avatar
TIrwin24
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Bow, WA

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by TIrwin24 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:16 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Why is it okay for a kid on an academic scholarship to receive these kinds of things, but not for student-athletes?
-Last time I checked, most students that get an academic scholarship to a university, also are receiving additional scholarships on top to help supplement with the additional costs of college. Athletes have this capability as well, provided that they actually applied themselves in high school and were held to some sort of an academic standard.
Or, for that matter, why shouldn't athletes be able to earn whatever the free market will bear?
-They should go pro if they're concerned about getting paid. Going to college, whether you're an athlete or not, is to get an education so that you can earn a living in the free market.


"I've always followed in my father's footsteps, not necessarily because I wanted to, but because it is in my spirit."

-Singlefin Yellow

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:24 pm

TIrwin24 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Why is it okay for a kid on an academic scholarship to receive these kinds of things, but not for student-athletes?
-Last time I checked, most students that get an academic scholarship to a university, also are receiving additional scholarships on top to help supplement with the additional costs of college. Athletes have this capability as well, provided that they actually applied themselves in high school and were held to some sort of an academic standard.
Or, for that matter, why shouldn't athletes be able to earn whatever the free market will bear?
-They should go pro if they're concerned about getting paid. Going to college, whether you're an athlete or not, is to get an education so that you can earn a living in the free market.
So, again, why is there one set of rules that apply to academic scholarships and another set of rules that apply to athletic scholarships, in your mind? There is no cap on how much cash a student on academic scholarship can get -- they can get stipends and cash bonuses and whatever the two parties agree to.

Why do so many people embrace socialism (a hard cap on the amount players are allowed to earn in exchange for making money/raising the stature of a university) when it comes to athletes, but we don't apply that same socialistic mindset to students who make money or raise the stature of the university in non-athletic ways?

You are also certainly aware that players aren't allowed to go pro until a certain age in basketball and football, so they don't have the option of going pro right out of high school.



User avatar
TIrwin24
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Bow, WA

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by TIrwin24 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:00 pm

So, again, why is there one set of rules that apply to academic scholarships and another set of rules that apply to athletic scholarships, in your mind? There is no cap on how much cash a student on academic scholarship can get -- they can get stipends and cash bonuses and whatever the two parties agree to.

Why do so many people embrace socialism (a hard cap on the amount players are allowed to earn in exchange for making money/raising the stature of a university) when it comes to athletes, but we don't apply that same socialistic mindset to students who make money or raise the stature of the university in non-athletic ways?

You are also certainly aware that players aren't allowed to go pro until a certain age in basketball and football, so they don't have the option of going pro right out of high school.
-My knowledge of academic student loans is only limited to private student scholarships. I'm unaware of how student scholarships through the university are conducted and how cash bonuses and stipends are dealt with.

-I firmly believe that the number 1 priority of going to college is getting an education. I also feel that revenue generated by a good football team (or whatever sport is revenue generating) needs to be fed back into the university to help improve facilities, pay educators, research, etc.

-I am aware of the age requirements for pro athletes. Currently, I'm still on the fence on whether or not I agree with the requirement. I think that if an athlete has the skill to be hired by an NBA or NFL team, who are we to get in the way? On the other hand, if these athletes fail at being pro, the likelyhood of them going back to college is probably pretty minimal... So, I don't know what the right answer is here.


"I've always followed in my father's footsteps, not necessarily because I wanted to, but because it is in my spirit."

-Singlefin Yellow

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:03 pm

TIrwin24 wrote:-I firmly believe that the number 1 priority of going to college is getting an education. I also feel that revenue generated by a good football team (or whatever sport is revenue generating) needs to be fed back into the university to help improve facilities, pay educators, research, etc.
Just to play devil's advocate, do you think that students working on research projects (which also bring money into the University) should be restricted from accepting cash in excess of the value of their scholarships? Or is it okay if they receive a stipend, or even an hourly wage, for working on those kinds of things for the benefit of the university?



John K
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by John K » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:19 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
TIrwin24 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Why is it okay for a kid on an academic scholarship to receive these kinds of things, but not for student-athletes?
-Last time I checked, most students that get an academic scholarship to a university, also are receiving additional scholarships on top to help supplement with the additional costs of college. Athletes have this capability as well, provided that they actually applied themselves in high school and were held to some sort of an academic standard.
Or, for that matter, why shouldn't athletes be able to earn whatever the free market will bear?
-They should go pro if they're concerned about getting paid. Going to college, whether you're an athlete or not, is to get an education so that you can earn a living in the free market.
So, again, why is there one set of rules that apply to academic scholarships and another set of rules that apply to athletic scholarships, in your mind? There is no cap on how much cash a student on academic scholarship can get -- they can get stipends and cash bonuses and whatever the two parties agree to.

Why do so many people embrace socialism (a hard cap on the amount players are allowed to earn in exchange for making money/raising the stature of a university) when it comes to athletes, but we don't apply that same socialistic mindset to students who make money or raise the stature of the university in non-athletic ways?


You are also certainly aware that players aren't allowed to go pro until a certain age in basketball and football, so they don't have the option of going pro right out of high school.
I don't understand why this debate always seems to be framed within the context of the minuscule percentage of college athletes who may eventually become pros. The overwhelming majority of college athletes will never play pro sports. The overwhelming majority of college athletes aren't really making money for, or raising the stature of the university, at least not beyond the value of their scholarships. For every Johnnie Football who might be worth millions in a quasi free market system, you'd have a hundred female golfers, and male cross country runners, and 3rd string offensive linemen, who might not even even get scholarships anymore. I just don't believe that you can have it both ways. In implementing a system that would allow a handful of star players to reap the benefit of their full market value, all the athletes who participate in non-revenue sports, as well as the end of the bench guys in FB and MBB would be the losers.

I think the current model works pretty well for the vast majority of athletes who will never make a living from playing their sport. As for those few star players who do bring in a bunch of money to the university, and who will become pros, don't forget that it's a two way street. The colleges give them an opportunity to hone their skills, and a platform to showcase their ability. The athletes benefit greatly from the exposure they receive while playing for their schools. As for athletes not being able to turn pro until a certain age, there's plenty of other career paths in which some sort of low paid (or sometimes even unpaid) apprenticeship or internship is required. And there's also plenty of career paths that require you to achieve a certain level of education, and/or achieve some sort of degree, before you can enter that profession, even if a person might theoretically be qualified to perform that job before completing the educational requirements. Is that really any different than the age requirements for prospective pro athletes, which by the way are mandated by the professional leagues, not by the NCAA?



User avatar
grizzh8r
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6897
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:23 pm
Location: Billings via Livingston

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by grizzh8r » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:11 pm

John K wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
TIrwin24 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Why is it okay for a kid on an academic scholarship to receive these kinds of things, but not for student-athletes?
-Last time I checked, most students that get an academic scholarship to a university, also are receiving additional scholarships on top to help supplement with the additional costs of college. Athletes have this capability as well, provided that they actually applied themselves in high school and were held to some sort of an academic standard.
Or, for that matter, why shouldn't athletes be able to earn whatever the free market will bear?
-They should go pro if they're concerned about getting paid. Going to college, whether you're an athlete or not, is to get an education so that you can earn a living in the free market.
So, again, why is there one set of rules that apply to academic scholarships and another set of rules that apply to athletic scholarships, in your mind? There is no cap on how much cash a student on academic scholarship can get -- they can get stipends and cash bonuses and whatever the two parties agree to.

Why do so many people embrace socialism (a hard cap on the amount players are allowed to earn in exchange for making money/raising the stature of a university) when it comes to athletes, but we don't apply that same socialistic mindset to students who make money or raise the stature of the university in non-athletic ways?


You are also certainly aware that players aren't allowed to go pro until a certain age in basketball and football, so they don't have the option of going pro right out of high school.
I don't understand why this debate always seems to be framed within the context of the minuscule percentage of college athletes who may eventually become pros. The overwhelming majority of college athletes will never play pro sports. The overwhelming majority of college athletes aren't really making money for, or raising the stature of the university, at least not beyond the value of their scholarships. For every Johnnie Football who might be worth millions in a quasi free market system, you'd have a hundred female golfers, and male cross country runners, and 3rd string offensive linemen, who might not even even get scholarships anymore. I just don't believe that you can have it both ways. In implementing a system that would allow a handful of star players to reap the benefit of their full market value, all the athletes who participate in non-revenue sports, as well as the end of the bench guys in FB and MBB would be the losers.

I think the current model works pretty well for the vast majority of athletes who will never make a living from playing their sport. As for those few star players who do bring in a bunch of money to the university, and who will become pros, don't forget that it's a two way street. The colleges give them an opportunity to hone their skills, and a platform to showcase their ability. The athletes benefit greatly from the exposure they receive while playing for their schools. As for athletes not being able to turn pro until a certain age, there's plenty of other career paths in which some sort of low paid (or sometimes even unpaid) apprenticeship or internship is required. And there's also plenty of career paths that require you to achieve a certain level of education, and/or achieve some sort of degree, before you can enter that profession, even if a person might theoretically be qualified to perform that job before completing the educational requirements. Is that really any different than the age requirements for prospective pro athletes, which by the way are mandated by the professional leagues, not by the NCAA?
GREAT post John, and I agree completely. You said what I and others with the same opinion (TIrwin, et. al.) couldn't take the time to and/or have the ability to articulate. Thank you. =D^


Eric Curry STILL makes me sad.
94VegasCat wrote:Are you for real? That is just a plain ol dumb paragraph! You just nailed every note in the Full Reetard sing-a-long choir!!!
:rofl:

User avatar
grizzh8r
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6897
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:23 pm
Location: Billings via Livingston

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by grizzh8r » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:18 pm

And in other words..

Image


Eric Curry STILL makes me sad.
94VegasCat wrote:Are you for real? That is just a plain ol dumb paragraph! You just nailed every note in the Full Reetard sing-a-long choir!!!
:rofl:

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: NCAA Rules and MSU

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:23 pm

John K wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
TIrwin24 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Why is it okay for a kid on an academic scholarship to receive these kinds of things, but not for student-athletes?
-Last time I checked, most students that get an academic scholarship to a university, also are receiving additional scholarships on top to help supplement with the additional costs of college. Athletes have this capability as well, provided that they actually applied themselves in high school and were held to some sort of an academic standard.
Or, for that matter, why shouldn't athletes be able to earn whatever the free market will bear?
-They should go pro if they're concerned about getting paid. Going to college, whether you're an athlete or not, is to get an education so that you can earn a living in the free market.
So, again, why is there one set of rules that apply to academic scholarships and another set of rules that apply to athletic scholarships, in your mind? There is no cap on how much cash a student on academic scholarship can get -- they can get stipends and cash bonuses and whatever the two parties agree to.

Why do so many people embrace socialism (a hard cap on the amount players are allowed to earn in exchange for making money/raising the stature of a university) when it comes to athletes, but we don't apply that same socialistic mindset to students who make money or raise the stature of the university in non-athletic ways?


You are also certainly aware that players aren't allowed to go pro until a certain age in basketball and football, so they don't have the option of going pro right out of high school.
I don't understand why this debate always seems to be framed within the context of the minuscule percentage of college athletes who may eventually become pros. The overwhelming majority of college athletes will never play pro sports. The overwhelming majority of college athletes aren't really making money for, or raising the stature of the university, at least not beyond the value of their scholarships. For every Johnnie Football who might be worth millions in a quasi free market system, you'd have a hundred female golfers, and male cross country runners, and 3rd string offensive linemen, who might not even even get scholarships anymore. I just don't believe that you can have it both ways. In implementing a system that would allow a handful of star players to reap the benefit of their full market value, all the athletes who participate in non-revenue sports, as well as the end of the bench guys in FB and MBB would be the losers.

I think the current model works pretty well for the vast majority of athletes who will never make a living from playing their sport. As for those few star players who do bring in a bunch of money to the university, and who will become pros, don't forget that it's a two way street. The colleges give them an opportunity to hone their skills, and a platform to showcase their ability. The athletes benefit greatly from the exposure they receive while playing for their schools. As for athletes not being able to turn pro until a certain age, there's plenty of other career paths in which some sort of low paid (or sometimes even unpaid) apprenticeship or internship is required. And there's also plenty of career paths that require you to achieve a certain level of education, and/or achieve some sort of degree, before you can enter that profession, even if a person might theoretically be qualified to perform that job before completing the educational requirements. Is that really any different than the age requirements for prospective pro athletes, which by the way are mandated by the professional leagues, not by the NCAA?
I agree that, in order to maintain the status quo of college sports as we know them now, it's necessary for college sports to essentially be run under a socialist system. If we allowed the free market approach to take hold, it would definitely create haves and have-nots (even worse than we see currently), and would probably make most teams uncompetitive while a few programs would dominate. And further, the revenue programs do currently subsidize the non-revenue programs, and most of us are pretty happy about that.

That said, I do love the idea of letting athletes have a bit more spending cash as part of the deal (let's think of it as "raising the maximum wage for college athletes"). We'd still have the competitive balance of the socialistic system we have now, but it would give the athletes a bit less incentive to break the rules in order to afford a pizza.



Post Reply