http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090906372.html?nav=rss_email/components
How is it the NCAA can get away with this?
I realize the specifics regarding this case are vague, but that's precisely what's leaving this player in limbo. I realize the main purpose of college is to provide education.
However, it is clear that in this case, the player will do little else immediately after graduation besides try to play professional football. His jersey wasn't sold for terribly more than it would be worth anyway (ebay that jersey, and it would probably get over a grand). And the NCAA sells his jersey anyway, and keeps all the money from it.
The fact of the matter is the major sports (football and basketball, usually men's but sometimes women's) make a shitton of money for the NCAA and their respective schools. The players, those who produce this money, see little of it.
Assume that a semester at a public university costs $20,000, including everything. That makes a full ride worth $40,000 plus a few field trips. Let's say it's a private university, and everything costs twice as much, that makes it $80,000 the university is giving them.
The NFL rookie minimum salary in 2007 was $285,000, and it has probably risen slightly since then.
Athletics is a field in which there is not much time to make your money. These players are forgoing prime (or developmental depending on the person/position, either way important) years of their life on what amounts to a 4 year internship.
Switching gears, the NFL has also recently stated the season will soon go to 18 games, replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season ones. This kills rookies and fringe players chances of making the team and understanding the game. The NFL would do well to create some sort of minor league to facilitate this development and retainment that they are otherwise sorely losing. The NHL has the AHL, and MLB has the minor league system, hell even the NBA has some semblance of a minor league system in the d-league. The NFL has none of that. They have other leagues that don't pay as much, and often play with very different rules and formats -- The CFL has 12 on 12 football with 3 downs to get 10 yards, the Arena Football League encourages iron-man style play with it's archaic substitution system, and the UFL eschews popular NFL rules such as the tuck rule and a different form of intentional grounding.
The NFL risks collapsing under its own weight if it doesn't make some sort of change regarding this. This has nothing to do with my personal squabbles and boycott of the NFL. If the NFL doesn't amend itself in this way, it can very well lose the relevance it so enjoys -- maybe even people will discover the variety of non-NFL football during a lockout, which could damage its brand (think people discovering faster-paced European hockey with NHL level athletes during its lockout year).
Something's gotta give
-- Knuttel
Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
9.14.2010
6.08.2010
Conference Expansion: The end of the bcs?
If one were to listen to ESPN, one would assume all is peachy keen in bcs land, that this is the perfect system to last for eons, the constant force (which changes formulas almost every year) by which we decide who our College Football National Champion is.
Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.
You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).
As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.
Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.
Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.
East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.
West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.
This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.
IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.
The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.
Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.
Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.
Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.
The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).
I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.
So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.
The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.
The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.
Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?
Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.
Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).
The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.
People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.
-- Knuttel
Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.
You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).
As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.
Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.
Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.
East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.
West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.
This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.
IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.
The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.
Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.
Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.
Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.
The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).
I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.
So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.
The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.
The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.
Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?
Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.
Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).
The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.
People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.
-- Knuttel
3.25.2010
Madness? THIS IS MARCH; part 3
My results from the second round:
As one can see, I was actually 8/10 in games where my team had not been eliminated from the first round, and even then, both of the losses were only slated to win that game.
So no further elite 8's lost, etc.
But I wanted to try something else, as I had been indicating in previous posts. I wonder how this coin flipping strategy would work in a smaller field, in a more even field. So I reflipped, using a bracket of lesser quality (who makes sweet 16 brackets anyway?), and thusly didn't care about my own production values.
This time, Xavier does not play the upset champions, and only advances one more round. Cornell becomes the true cinderella this time, crashing all the way to the final four. But in the end, it ends up being number 1 Syracuse vs number 3 Baylor in the title game, both within the top 15 teams in the country. Baylor wins.
Let's see how this turns out.
As one can see, I was actually 8/10 in games where my team had not been eliminated from the first round, and even then, both of the losses were only slated to win that game.So no further elite 8's lost, etc.
But I wanted to try something else, as I had been indicating in previous posts. I wonder how this coin flipping strategy would work in a smaller field, in a more even field. So I reflipped, using a bracket of lesser quality (who makes sweet 16 brackets anyway?), and thusly didn't care about my own production values.
This time, Xavier does not play the upset champions, and only advances one more round. Cornell becomes the true cinderella this time, crashing all the way to the final four. But in the end, it ends up being number 1 Syracuse vs number 3 Baylor in the title game, both within the top 15 teams in the country. Baylor wins.
Let's see how this turns out.
3.20.2010
Madness, THIS IS MARCH! : Part 2, first round done
So the first round is done. I have crossed out all losers, wherever they may lie in the bracket.
As you can see, I'm really not in terrible shape.
I have lost half of my elite 8, yet only one final four. Even better, I have only lost 6 of my sweet 16.
In addition, I picked one of the biggest upsets of the tournament so far -- Murray State over Vanderbilt. However, I also got screwed over by another huge upset that I didn't pick -- Ohio over Georgetown.
So really, this bracket is turning out as planned. It's gonna take some hits early on, simply because most lower seeds don't have what it takes to play against upper seeds (I had only 5 of the top 8 seeds advancing; all 8 top seeds advanced). I think the heart of this theory lies once the weaker teams are weeded out. That's when the true coin flip happens.
Therefore, I will conduct another round of coin flipping after the second round is done, and possibly another for the semis/final.
-- Knuttel
by request I'll do a thingy on the upcoming Champions League Quarterfinals. God, I haven't written about soccer in almost a year.
3.19.2010
Madness? THIS IS MARCH!
OK, lame pun aside, I actually decided to fill out a bracket this year for fun, even though I am not taking part in any pools or anything.
I used a breakthrough method that is going to fundamentally change the way everybody looks at the NCAA tournament.
I flipped a coin to determine the winner of each game. Tails is the higher seed because of its slightly higher chance of landing -- the heads side of a quarter is hardly heavier, which makes it barely easier for the quarter to land heads side down.
You see, I don't really watch college basketball -- Penn State, though reigning NIT champs, have never really been able to maintain a decent men's basketball team, though the women had a long string of success which was pulled apart by player-coach feuds and allegations of lesbianism etc. Point is, if you go to Penn State, you watch football, you may also watch basketball, but it sure as hell isn't gonna be Penn State's.
And so here goes the bracket which will change the course of college basketball, if not human history.
Shit yeah, Xavier all the way.
Vermont is this year's Cinderella. You saw it here first.
-- Knuttel
I used a breakthrough method that is going to fundamentally change the way everybody looks at the NCAA tournament.
I flipped a coin to determine the winner of each game. Tails is the higher seed because of its slightly higher chance of landing -- the heads side of a quarter is hardly heavier, which makes it barely easier for the quarter to land heads side down.
You see, I don't really watch college basketball -- Penn State, though reigning NIT champs, have never really been able to maintain a decent men's basketball team, though the women had a long string of success which was pulled apart by player-coach feuds and allegations of lesbianism etc. Point is, if you go to Penn State, you watch football, you may also watch basketball, but it sure as hell isn't gonna be Penn State's.
And so here goes the bracket which will change the course of college basketball, if not human history.
Shit yeah, Xavier all the way.
Vermont is this year's Cinderella. You saw it here first.
-- Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)