The Rest of College Football

[iam416]

Dave Zirin, who is sports editor for the New Yorker, made an interesting observation on Morning Joe today. He said that Woody Hayes at his peak in 1977 was earning 42K per year at Ohio State. Fast forward to today: Urban Meyer just signed at the same school for 4.5 Million! When asked how the NCAA might institute reforms on this incredible trend he said that would be like asking The Sopranos to regulate the local drug dealers

One thing the NCAA could do is to stop paying their President $2M.

[Hannibal]

Supply and demand.

If you want to affix blame, look in the mirror. We pay the ticket prices and the seat licenses and we demand wins.

[hodgkal]

"One thing the NCAA could do is to stop paying their President $2M."

Zirin also mentioned there are 14 NCAA vice-presidents who each earn at least 400K per year!

I may have misquoted what he said re the Lions and Saints. He may have been referring to the last two teams to emerge in the NFC. I don't buy it anyway. The Lions are a year or two away from this level IMO. But it will make watching football on Sundays more pleasurable next year.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Dave Zirin, who is sports editor for the New Yorker, made an interesting observation on Morning Joe today. He said that Woody Hayes at his peak in 1977 was earning 42K per year at Ohio State. Fast forward to today: Urban Meyer just signed at the same school for 4.5 Million! When asked how the NCAA might institute reforms on this incredible trend he said that would be like asking The Sopranos to regulate the local drug dealers.

So, this commentator is asking the NCAA to do something about high salaries among CFB coaches?

Right ...... the NCAA is not in any position to do that. What they should be doing is nurturing discussions among their member institutions about amateurism and how to redefine it in the modern era of CFB.

High coaching salaries are reflective of the economic conditions that are pushing college athletics far beyond the role that they were intended to play in a college education. It's big business and I don't think that is going to change .... for good or for bad.

The historically strained relationships between college presidents striving to keep athletics as part of the collegiate experience and athletic directors trying to find ways to elevate their product's value and increase revenue makes for an interesting tug of war. The side that is increasing revenue and making their football programs and, by extension, their schools look good by doing that are winning. There's no turning back.

I don't think we should be worry about high coaching salaries. So, that guy is asking the wrong question. What he should be asking is what is the NCAA doing about nurturing forward thinking that enables the athletes who are producing this windfall for their schools and generating these kinds of salaries through their play to benefit in a meaningfully way and consistent with their prodigious efforts .......

...... and while they're at it, they might start asking how all these old farts in their ridiculously colored sports coats and all of their good ol'e boy local connections are siphoning off millions from the bowls these players play in during the post season. Huge scheme that wrongly diverts big money into their hands and needs to be identified for what it is.

Yeah, its about the money. A lot of it that is involved in college basketball and football. Figure out how to make that money get channeled in ways that tend to shape the way we'd all like college athletics to look and a lot of the problems we associate with this aspect of our society disappear.

[hack]

I don't read that as the guy saying the NCAA should do something about it. Seems to me he's saying the NCAA isn't in a position to.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack .... I think that was the response given by Zarin and I agree with your interpretation of what Zarin said (like asking the Sopranos to regulate the local drug dealers).

But Morning Joe asked the question and it was, to me, illinformed and reflective of a general lack of understanding among fans and probably among sports journalists about what the NCAA is and what it does.

I get tired of that.

[iam416]

I think he's actually saying the NCAA has no interest in doing so; that they're in bed with big $$$$, which they are.

There is, of course, a perfectly rational way to justify big money programs. Ohio State funds the largest FBS atheltic department (in terms of sports and scholarship opportunities) in the nation. The vast bulk of those athletes are truly living the "student athlete" experience that the NCAA idolized many decades ago. Without football, significant number of those student-ahletes would be lost.

I know football only funds sports at a relatively limited number of institutions, BUT, we are talking about the influence of money in CFB, so we're talking exactly about those institutions.

It's easy to mindlessly bemoan the almighty dollar and its seemingly always negative influence. But, the reality is money buys opportunities for numerous other student-athletes. If the AD is being run according to fundamental principles of higher education, then the money raised by the "important" sport(s) is reinvested into the University.

A $5M head coach may be a product of the "big money" nature of CFB, but so are numerous student athlete opportunities in true student-athlete sports.

[hack]

I think that what people are saying is that when presented with grotesque mutations from the original idea, such as the athletic department at your university, its at the point where the good outweighs the bad.

[WM Wolverine]

People are paid salaries what their employers feel they are worth, Gee/Smith are 'valued' at those prices by their superiors, board of regents.

[Optimus Prime]

Michigan "Stallion" Les Miles lands Gunner Kiel, *uck ND.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-12-27/gunner-kiel-top-qb-lsu-tigers-indiana-hoosiers

[lineygoblue]

I'd rather see him at Ellis Ewe instead of ND.

[UMStan White]

"Having teams starting the season 0-3 because they stepped up to the plate and scheduled top 10 teams because these kinds of game are more challenging is stupid."

Absoulutly right. Unfortuneatly those who are truly "stupid" are the fans who continue to pay "licensing fees"and ticket prices to see their team kick the crap out of Delaware State, Akron South Carolina state etc etc etc. As the product for which we spend our entertainment dollar declines. we as consumers are forced to make a hard decision. I for one have decided that I won't support those crap games. Appy State proved one thing--you win that game and nobody cares pr remembers-you lose and the whole world is watching. As high as you can be leaving the stadium after last year's ND and OshitU game is offset by the shock of getting your ass kicked by a lower division team a the Bg house. Since it really doesn't matter if a we play in the championship game because it isn't a "championship game" and we get the same piece of the pie as though we were in the "BCS Championship Game" (or any other BCS insignificant bowl game), I for one, would much rather see us play a big name opponent than see us scheduler a "rematch" with Appy state.

[entropy]

New SEC schedules

Texas A&M

09/08/12 Florida
09/29/12 vs. Arkansas
10/06/12 at Ole Miss
10/20/12 LSU
10/27/12 at Auburn
11/03/12 at Miss. St.
11/10/12 at Alabama
11/24/12 Missouri

Mizzou

09/08/12 vs. Georgia
09/22/12 at South Carolina
10/06/12 vs. Vanderbilt
10/13/12 vs. Alabama
10/27/12 vs. Kentucky
11/03/12 at Florida
11/10/12 at Tennessee
11/24/12 at Texas A&M

[Jamie H]

If you made entry into an 8-team playoff mostly dependent on winning your CONFERENCE, non-con games would be scheduled more like basketball, where you get great matchups pre-conference schedule to get things ready. The "every game counts" mantra leads to more wussy scheduling, because if every game counts equally, who wants to add more tough games to their plate?

If you knew that winning your conference got you into the playoffs, scheduling a great non-con game would be a great thing for your team without the huge penalty for losing that currently exists. Why NOT travel and play someone tough if you can still make the playoffs regardless of the outcome?

[iam416]

There's still a considerable money issue. Right now, "big" programs seem comfortable giving up 0.5 home games per year.

As far as hoops go, you can schedule a few marquee games b/c you still play gads of cupcakes at home. And that's generally what happens. Maybe 3 good home and homes, maybe a "tourney" -- but, by and large, lots of home games.

While I whole-heartedly support a "conference champions tournament," I think the impact it on OoC would be marginal.