Hating on the $EC - Mostly Alabama (and a little Georgia too)

[Jeff Buchanan]

I like your idea AA ...... bilaterally and without fanfare withdraw university membership from the NCAA, compete for broadcast rights, or better yet, sue the NCAA for property rights infringement. Encourage all FBS and FCS programs to join in the fun with the promise of redistribution of TV revenues on some fair basis.

I think this was threatened recently (the nuclear option) with Delaney or someone leading the way. I can't remember the issue but it never got far. It's time to raise this again over the NCAAs stance on amateurism and the "Plantation" mentality towards student athletes. That kind of messaging would be particularly effective in this day and age. Maybe we could get BLM on board ...... on second thought, NO!!!

[AlabamAlum]

I like your idea AA ...... bilaterally and without fanfare withdraw university membership from the NCAA, compete for broadcast rights, or better yet, sue the NCAA for property rights infringement. Encourage all FBS and FCS programs to join in the fun with the promise of redistribution of TV revenues on some fair basis.

I think this was threatened recently (the nuclear option) with Delaney or someone leading the way. I can't remember the issue but it never got far. It's time to raise this again over the NCAAs stance on amateurism and the "Plantation" mentality towards student athletes. That kind of messaging would be particularly effective in this day and age. Maybe we could get BLM on board ...... on second thought, NO!!!

Coach Bryant actually started that in the 1970's over the NCAA's draconian TV rules. Remember the old days? You could only be on TV two times a regular season (three times, tops)? He helped form the CFA which changed the stranglehold the NCAA was using.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Coach Bryant actually started that in the 1970's over the NCAA's draconian TV rules. Remember the old days? You could only be on TV two times a regular season (three times, tops)? He helped form the CFA which changed the stranglehold the NCAA was using.

Yeah, I did a wiki search on the NCAA and found that it was the Board of Regents of the Universities of Oklahoma and UGA that started a serious raucous over TV broadcast rights. These even went back to the late '40s with the NCAA even then muscling in on nascent TV revenues flowing to ND and Penn. From Wiki:

In the late 1940s, there were only two colleges in the country, Notre Dame and Pennsylvania, with a national TV contract, a considerable source of revenue. In 1951, the NCAA voted to prohibit any live TV broadcast of college football games during the season. No sooner had the NCAA voted to ban television than public outcry forced it to retreat. Instead, the NCAA voted to restrict the number of televised games for each team to stop the slide in gate attendance. University of Pennsylvania president Harold Stassen defied the monopoly and renewed its contract with ABC. Eventually Penn was forced to back down when the NCAA, refusing Penn's request that the U.S. Attorney General rule on the legality of the NCAA's restrictive plan,[7][8] threatened to expel the Quakers from the association. Notre Dame continued televising its games through 1953, working around the ban by filming its games, then broadcasting them the next evening.

By the 1980s, televised college football had become a larger source of income for the NCAA. In September 1981, the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia Athletic Association filed suit against the NCAA in district court in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs stated that the NCAA's football television plan constituted price fixing, output restraints, boycott, and monopolizing, all of which were illegal under the Sherman Act. The NCAA argued that its pro-competitive and non-commercial justifications for the plan ? protection of live gate, maintenance of competitive balance among NCAA member institutions, and the creation of a more attractive "product" to compete with other forms of entertainment ? combined to make the plan reasonable. In September 1982, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the plan violated antitrust laws. It enjoined the Association from enforcing the contract. The NCAA appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, but lost in 1984 in the 7?2 ruling NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.[11] (If the television contracts the NCAA had with ABC, CBS, and ESPN had remained in effect for the 1984 season, they would have generated some $73.6 million for the Association and its members.)

It just boggles my mind that the NCAA gets away with this (controlling TV revenues) without a peep from University Presidents. Like I said up thread, nobody wants to upset the lucrative status quo; I think a large part of the reason behind that is that the Presidents don't want to be bothered by the complexity of it all, they are educators after all (heh, heh), or being shamed by making billions off student athletes who they don't compensate for their huge contributions to maintaining ALL their sports programs like they should. They've got a shit screen already well established in the NCAA and probably are perfectly happy to let that continue. Such a dirty mess they'd rather just not deal with.

[Da Geezer]

I have no tangible evidence of M's relative dirtiness or cleanliness.

No, I just gave you hard evidence of Beilein's cleanness, but you continue to claim some sort of moral equivalence. Remember, this started when Hack said that UM would gain relative to other schools.

Collin Sexton declared ineligible by the NCAA this morning. Evidently, he was being "recruited" by Chuck Person at Auburn, but picked Alabama.

[hack]

He's not going to give an inch. It's reasonable for AA to reject the concept that Michigan is clean and most others are not. That's a pretty black-and-white statement. It's reasonable to appreciate the many data points that point to the relative position of Michigan vis-a-vis others, but this is a sports forum. Either way, I continue to look forward to this. I hope Michigan is smart in recognizing its advantage and using its muscle to implement a system that works to its advantage. Which is no sure thing. Michigan doesn't have a history of doing that particularly well.

[AlabamAlum]

No, I just gave you hard evidence of Beilein's cleanness, but you continue to claim some sort of moral equivalence. Remember, this started when Hack said that UM would gain relative to other schools.

Collin Sexton declared ineligible by the NCAA this morning. Evidently, he was being "recruited" by Chuck Person at Auburn, but picked Alabama.

1) I was really talking football, not basketball. It was in response to the discussion on the university employing football players.

2) Even if we talk basketball, that article was not close to hard evidence. It was a "soft" article that mentions an alleged, unknown number of anonymous "sources" and is not hard evidence. Let me flip it for you: If I were to offer an article of the supposed anecdotal opinions of an unknown number of anonymous sources outside the program that suggested that M was dirty, would you just fold your hands, bow your head, and mutter, "Damn it. You got me. Michigan basketball IS dirty"? Of course not. That would be foolish.

3. I am not claiming moral equivalence per se; rather, I am claiming I have no conclusive evidence -one way or the other- to pronounce innocence or guilt in regards to M's activities in football recruiting.

[Da Geezer]

I like your idea AA ...... bilaterally and without fanfare withdraw university membership from the NCAA, compete for broadcast rights, or better yet, sue the NCAA for property rights infringement. Encourage all FBS and FCS programs to join in the fun with the promise of redistribution of TV revenues on some fair basis.

And if you actually take this to its logical conclusion, you have 40 or 48 schools withdraw and form their own league with the sale of broadcast rights. I think allowing the individual players to make as much money from their own name, image, or signature is a reasonable way to compensate players, in addition to scholarships. I'd picture that league having a serious enforcement arm and the punishment would be expulsion from the league.

[THE_WIZARD_]

[AlabamAlum]

He's not going to give an inch. It's reasonable for AA to reject the concept that Michigan is clean and most others are not. That's a pretty black-and-white statement. It's reasonable to appreciate the many data points that point to the relative position of Michigan vis-a-vis others, but this is a sports forum. Either way, I continue to look forward to this. I hope Michigan is smart in recognizing its advantage and using its muscle to implement a system that works to its advantage. Which is no sure thing. Michigan doesn't have a history of doing that particularly well.

No.

[hack]

It DOES have a history of doing that well?

[AlabamAlum]

As far as Collin Sexton, I have not heard the NCAA has made a determination. I know the University has ruled him ineligible pending the NCAA's determination. It would not surprise me if he is ruled ineligible. I have zero faith in any HS star who is involved in the AAU.

[AlabamAlum]

It DOES have a history of doing that well?

Michigan is the winningest team in the college football world. The Wolverines have more wins and a higher win% than Alabama.

[hack]

Unclear.

[Da Geezer]

2) Even if we talk basketball, that article with an unknown number of anonymous "sources" is hardly considered solid evidence.

These were other coaches, and there were 100 of them if I recall. That's a far cry from one or two anonymous sources in the NYT.

an unknown number of anonymous sources outside the program that suggested that M was dirty, would you just fold your hands, bow your head, and mutter, "Damn it. You got me. Michigan basketball IS dirty"? Of course not. That would be foolish.

The article deals with this objection in a totally upfront manner. It says that asking who is dirty would be poor statistical procedure because respondents would have an incentive to bad-mouth opponents. This poll is about clean coaches and programs, not dirty ones.

Cleanest programs :

1. John Beilein Michigan 26.6 percent
2. Mike Brey Notre Dame 10.5 percent
T3. Tony Bennett Virginia 7.6 percent
T3.Greg Gard Wisconsin 7.6 percent
5. Mark Few Gonzaga 5.7 percent
T6.Chris Holtmann Ohio State 4.8 percent
T6.Tom Izzo Michigan State 4.8 percent
T6. Bruce Weber Kansas State 4.8 percent

-- Every coach listed received at least 5 votes

Notice any pattern regarding the SEC?

The truth is that the SEC sits in the middle of a geographic area that has poorer performing government K-12 schools than other regions of the country, and the local students who matriculate to SEC schools do not have the test scores that students do in the rest of the country (which is why GPA is a pointless measure). When last we looked at college rankings, I remember Vanderbilt was highly rated, but the rest of the SEC schools were not. Your response was "Alabama is a fine school."

I believe you were indeed thinking of football and not basketball. What hack said was that UM would benefit from money being used to induce players to come to UM. Other than "cleanness" he added alumni and capital to his argument and concluded "...I think even if you somehow convince yourself that, ON A RELATIVE BASIS, Michigan is no cleaner than any program, despite considerable evidence, you're still not there. You have to consider the relative spending power of schools. Michigan has the largest alumni base, an endowment triple that of OSU and nine times that of Alabama, and, well, amongst that alumni base there's more than the school's fair share of heavy hitters. Depending on the parameters of any system in which the use of the university's capital or alumni capital is legitimized, this would be very exciting for us Michigan fans. I would very much welcome a cash-fueled arms race here.

Me too.

[AlabamAlum]

These were other coaches, and there were 100 of them if I recall.

We have no actual idea of who was polled, what all they were asked, or how they actually responded. Unnamed, anonymous sources where not even basic statistics, methods, or questions are detailed is anything but hard science or evidence-based. It's like one of grad students tried to cite wikipedia.

The article deals with this objection in a totally upfront manner. It says that asking who is dirty would be poor statistical procedure because respondents would have an incentive to bad-mouth opponents. This poll is about clean coaches and programs, not dirty ones.

If you are not clean you are essentially dirty - or at least that's what you are suggesting - as evidence to that, your next question:

Notice any pattern regarding the SEC?

For all anyone knows he did not interview coaches in the south (if he actually interviewed anyone).

The truth is that the SEC sits in the middle of a geographic area that has poorer performing government K-12 schools than other regions of the country, and the local students who matriculate to SEC schools do not have the test scores that students do in the rest of the country (which is why GPA is a pointless measure). When last we looked at college rankings, I remember Vanderbilt was highly rated, but the rest of the SEC schools were not."

1. This has zero to do with clean or dirty coaches.
2. ACT and SAT scores have issues, too.
3. It depends on the rankings that you use and what you determine as high. Top 10? Top 25, top 50, top 150? Most rankings are extremely flawed. None more so than USN&WR. But Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and a few others are well thought of generally in Academia.
4. Undergrad rankings are essentially worthless. There is very little difference in major accredited undergrad programs, or if you prefer, tier 1 schools.
5. State-run public universities should celebrate inclusion for a number of degree paths and definitely the core curriculum.