BleedGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 60,716
- Reaction score
- 15,963
- Points
- 113
per Bilas:
College basketball needs a commissioner
Basketball is the NCAA's biggest (really, only) revenue generator. In 1984, college football effectively broke away from NCAA control to operate separately from the NCAA office in Indianapolis. Therefore, since basketball is the NCAA's only real cash cow, basketball should have its own, separate governance structure. College basketball is a multibillion-dollar industry and should be governed in such a fashion.
The NCAA needs to appoint a commissioner of college basketball and confer upon the commissioner the appropriate power and authority to govern the game such that it can pivot and adapt to a changing landscape. There should be a small college basketball board of governors to whom the commissioner should answer, and the rest of the NCAA presidents should stay in their own lanes and run their own schools. The commissioner and board will govern only Division I basketball, and all other divisions can remain under the current structure or develop their own governance structure. Only Division I generates revenue and the resulting problems, and only Division I needs to be addressed in a special manner.
New rule book for basketball
This is not to be confused with rules of play. The commissioner and board of Division I need to formulate a rule book specifically for Division I basketball. It will not be difficult; it will be simple. Throw out the old rule book and allow only rules that are important to the overall health and welfare of the enterprise. The rest need to go.
Division I basketball must contract
No reasonable person can possibly believe that Division I is not far too big. There are 351 Division I teams in men's college basketball, and that is ridiculous. Division I should be reduced to approximately 120 teams. With a smaller number of Division I teams, there will be more quality players spread out over fewer units. Teams will have greater depth, talent and roster and lineup flexibility. With more talent spread out over fewer units, there will be more money spread out over fewer units, too. It is a no-brainer. Those not making the cut may certainly play in their own division and govern it the way they want. Division I can still invite lower-division teams to participate in its postseason tournament, but they would not play during the regular season.
Reformed adjudication system
The current "collegial" system does not work, and it has never worked. Not long after Emmert became NCAA president in 2010, he and I met to discuss issues facing college sports, specifically basketball, and he asked me about my feelings on certain infractions cases. When I said the system was in dire need of change, he disputed that and said he and the membership believe the system works quite well. Well, he was wrong then, and he is wrong now.
The NCAA needs an adversarial system of dispute resolution. The NCAA can and should have an enforcement arm, but that arm should investigate and bring cases, not decide cases. Both the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) have their disputes resolved before the American Arbitration Association. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for the NCAA. That way, schools, coaches and administrators can defend themselves against charges brought, and all cases can be adjudicated by a panel of independent arbitrators agreed upon by the parties. It would be simple, fast, consistent, authoritative and trustworthy. Right now, it is none of those things.
Exit the eligibility business
The NCAA is an athletic association and does a great job running tournaments and championships, and it does an extraordinary job of making money. It does not, however, do a very good job of determining eligibility of incoming players or current players. Those decisions should be up to each institution, just as the admission and education of each student is up to each institution. This is where the NCAA's high-minded rhetoric and moralizing have brought nothing but trouble. Having the NCAA regulate academics and academic eligibility is like having the NFL regulate medical practices at area hospitals in NFL cities. Each school is responsible for the admission and education of every non-athlete student with no oversight outside of accreditation. They can be trusted to do the same with athletes. NCAA involvement in eligibility, initial and otherwise, is costly, controversial and of very little value. There is no legitimate reason to continue. If conferences wish to perform such a function, knock yourselves out.
Dump amateurism
Mark Emmert falls all over himself to state that students cannot be employees, or else why should they even go to school? That is nonsense, and NCAA policy and the schools themselves prove it. All non-athlete students are allowed to work for the university they attend, and such employment has no bearing on their status as full-time students. Similarly, all non-athlete students are allowed to be employees of outside entities, and such employment has no bearing on their status as full-time students. The idea that students cannot be employed while enrolled is a lie. It always has been a lie. Similarly, athletes are allowed by NCAA rules to have jobs while in school (as long as those jobs are not based upon their athletic reputations). Therefore, there is no impediment to any athlete being employed while in school and playing a sport. The NCAA is lying when it states that students cannot be employed.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...gives-everything-need-know-college-basketball
Go Gophers!!
College basketball needs a commissioner
Basketball is the NCAA's biggest (really, only) revenue generator. In 1984, college football effectively broke away from NCAA control to operate separately from the NCAA office in Indianapolis. Therefore, since basketball is the NCAA's only real cash cow, basketball should have its own, separate governance structure. College basketball is a multibillion-dollar industry and should be governed in such a fashion.
The NCAA needs to appoint a commissioner of college basketball and confer upon the commissioner the appropriate power and authority to govern the game such that it can pivot and adapt to a changing landscape. There should be a small college basketball board of governors to whom the commissioner should answer, and the rest of the NCAA presidents should stay in their own lanes and run their own schools. The commissioner and board will govern only Division I basketball, and all other divisions can remain under the current structure or develop their own governance structure. Only Division I generates revenue and the resulting problems, and only Division I needs to be addressed in a special manner.
New rule book for basketball
This is not to be confused with rules of play. The commissioner and board of Division I need to formulate a rule book specifically for Division I basketball. It will not be difficult; it will be simple. Throw out the old rule book and allow only rules that are important to the overall health and welfare of the enterprise. The rest need to go.
Division I basketball must contract
No reasonable person can possibly believe that Division I is not far too big. There are 351 Division I teams in men's college basketball, and that is ridiculous. Division I should be reduced to approximately 120 teams. With a smaller number of Division I teams, there will be more quality players spread out over fewer units. Teams will have greater depth, talent and roster and lineup flexibility. With more talent spread out over fewer units, there will be more money spread out over fewer units, too. It is a no-brainer. Those not making the cut may certainly play in their own division and govern it the way they want. Division I can still invite lower-division teams to participate in its postseason tournament, but they would not play during the regular season.
Reformed adjudication system
The current "collegial" system does not work, and it has never worked. Not long after Emmert became NCAA president in 2010, he and I met to discuss issues facing college sports, specifically basketball, and he asked me about my feelings on certain infractions cases. When I said the system was in dire need of change, he disputed that and said he and the membership believe the system works quite well. Well, he was wrong then, and he is wrong now.
The NCAA needs an adversarial system of dispute resolution. The NCAA can and should have an enforcement arm, but that arm should investigate and bring cases, not decide cases. Both the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) have their disputes resolved before the American Arbitration Association. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for the NCAA. That way, schools, coaches and administrators can defend themselves against charges brought, and all cases can be adjudicated by a panel of independent arbitrators agreed upon by the parties. It would be simple, fast, consistent, authoritative and trustworthy. Right now, it is none of those things.
Exit the eligibility business
The NCAA is an athletic association and does a great job running tournaments and championships, and it does an extraordinary job of making money. It does not, however, do a very good job of determining eligibility of incoming players or current players. Those decisions should be up to each institution, just as the admission and education of each student is up to each institution. This is where the NCAA's high-minded rhetoric and moralizing have brought nothing but trouble. Having the NCAA regulate academics and academic eligibility is like having the NFL regulate medical practices at area hospitals in NFL cities. Each school is responsible for the admission and education of every non-athlete student with no oversight outside of accreditation. They can be trusted to do the same with athletes. NCAA involvement in eligibility, initial and otherwise, is costly, controversial and of very little value. There is no legitimate reason to continue. If conferences wish to perform such a function, knock yourselves out.
Dump amateurism
Mark Emmert falls all over himself to state that students cannot be employees, or else why should they even go to school? That is nonsense, and NCAA policy and the schools themselves prove it. All non-athlete students are allowed to work for the university they attend, and such employment has no bearing on their status as full-time students. Similarly, all non-athlete students are allowed to be employees of outside entities, and such employment has no bearing on their status as full-time students. The idea that students cannot be employed while enrolled is a lie. It always has been a lie. Similarly, athletes are allowed by NCAA rules to have jobs while in school (as long as those jobs are not based upon their athletic reputations). Therefore, there is no impediment to any athlete being employed while in school and playing a sport. The NCAA is lying when it states that students cannot be employed.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...gives-everything-need-know-college-basketball
Go Gophers!!