Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

[The Paragon of Virtue]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

You specifically called out Michigan and Minnesota

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

Who says St. Cloud State doesn't provide a meaningful education!

tPOV, as usual, figured it out. Can't say I'm surprised.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

Ok, fair enough. I knew someone else could explain it. I don't agree with him, but I think it's a fair argument to make.

Either way Minnesota and Michigan and partly at fault in his argument. So, I fail to see why he protests so much.

[LynahFan]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

You specifically called out Michigan and Minnesota and blamed them for this possibility. So, I'm not sure anyone gets your point. Anyone here (besides Red Cloud cause he'll just call me a dumbass) want to explain to me what Red Cloud's point was? Cause I don't get it either.

Ooooh, Oooh! Me! Me!!!

So...um...let's see....well...nope. I got nothing. No clue at all.

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

Wow, that makes us feel special. He could have used his own conference teams, but I guess that would have been an oxymoron.

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Either way Minnesota and Michigan and partly at fault in his argument. So, I fail to see why he protests so much.

Because I wasn't putting them "at fault" for anything, numbnuts. That's just your expectation of persecution at work.

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Because I wasn't putting them "at fault" for anything, numbnuts. That's just your expectation of persecution at work.

"The Michigans and Minnesotas of the world seemed to shrug their shoulders at those developments without considering the possibility of losing the 16-team tournament."

That suggests blame, albeit directed at those schools or schools of "their size and power".

Now, who is calling people names?

Either way, you fail. You still haven't explained exactly what they were suppose to do about it compared to the organization that has the big stick in the fight.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

"The Michigans and Minnesotas of the world seemed to shrug their shoulders at those developments without considering the possibility of losing the 16-team tournament."

That suggests blame, albeit directed at those schools or schools of "their size and power".

Now, who is calling people names?

Either way, you fail. You still haven't explained exactly what they were suppose to do about it compared to the organization that has the big stick in the fight.

He has an out cause he makes wimpy statements. Using the word "seemed" and pluralizing Michigan and Minnesota is his cover. Then when someone calls him on it like you have he calls you an idiot because he left himself an out. It's a game he plays all the time so he can call everyone a dumbass and make himself feel smart.

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Anyway, dragging this thread away from the streaker/Scooby romper room and back on topic...

The idea of a 58-team contract for apparel was brought up. I don't suppose this is done anywhere else in the NCAA, but at the same time, there aren't really any other sports with this small membership that produces revenue with its championship. I suppose it could be done, but, as was said, it would have to be graduated in order to compensate for schools with long-term contracts for apparel, and there'd have to be some pretty solid support for it all around. I could see a tangible marketing benefit to Reebok or Nike getting such a contract but how would the revenues be split? Would probably have to be by each individual school's sales.

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Classic political move. Change the topic and ignore it. Better pull up your pants, your slip is showing.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

It seems that a good deal of the underlying impetus for these proposals comes from the "Division II Life in Balance Initiative" which is linked within Alton's original link or can be found here.

It often denies that the proposed shortened seasons are financially motivated, but rather financial savings are just an extra benefit of better balancing the life of student athletes. It's a great justification and a great sell to the presidents and chancellors, but I'm not sure I buy it. Universities and specifically athletics are increasingly run on private business models in which cost savings are paramount.

It seems one of the primary motivators behind DII even taking this up was this:
"Division II student athletes in some sports are devoting almost as much time to athletics -if not more- then their Division I counterparts"

It seems clear to everybody, even the DII people that there is quite a difference between DI and DII athletes and athletics. Yet it seems the DI board wants to adopt the DII proposals to DI. That seems inconsistent.

As far as maintaining the same number of contests in a shorter season, the DII people repeatedly say "nuts to that." The oft repeated rationale is "Maintaining the same number of contests or dates of competition in a shorter season is detrimental to student athlete well being"

Good Lord. If the NCAA becomes convinced they can act in a noble way and save $$ at the same time, well, who on the comittee is going to vote against that?

-------------------------------------------------------------

I think a big obstacle to the apparell contract thing is that schools like MI, WI, OH St., etc. just arent going to give up control of future, potentially lucrative private contracts without a huge fight. I wouldn't. And I just don't think the NCAA will be able to force them to. Although you make a good point about the split being on a sales basis Red Cloud.

[wolverine318]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Anyway, dragging this thread away from the streaker/Scooby romper room and back on topic...

The idea of a 58-team contract for apparel was brought up. I don't suppose this is done anywhere else in the NCAA, but at the same time, there aren't really any other sports with this small membership that produces revenue with its championship. I suppose it could be done, but, as was said, it would have to be graduated in order to compensate for schools with long-term contracts for apparel, and there'd have to be some pretty solid support for it all around. I could see a tangible marketing benefit to Reebok or Nike getting such a contract but how would the revenues be split? Would probably have to be by each individual school's sales.

Legally it is next to impossible with the current setup. NMU8405 has the best explanation. The NCAA for all intents is just a governing body with minimal financial interests in the survival of its membership AD's. The central goal of the NCAA is to insure fair competition between its membership, not to make a profit. The NHL on the other hand has a central goal of making a profit and insuring fair competition. The NCAA could care less how individual universities run their AD's. They do not have the legal power to call for a single endorsement deal across each university according to the central constitution of the NCAA. Sure it would make financial sense, but it will never occur. Financially and legally, each university is a single entity. The NCAA would open itself up to a whole mess of litigation by both Nike and Adidas if it attempted this.

[unhpuckfan2001]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

your slip is showing.

I didn't pay for the uscho.com upgrade, so I'm not sure I should be able to see that.

[wolverine318]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

I am aware of this, and addressed a potential solution in post #47.

Existing athletic dept. contracts would be honored until they expire.

Which is impossible due to the central constitution of the NCAA. The NCAA has zero legal power to force a central sponsorship deal down the throat of its membership. Each university is a single entity. Why should individual AD members care about a central sponsorship deal, when individual contracts are more individually lucrative.

For all it posturing over recruiting/student academic violations, the NCAA really has minimal legal power over the member athletic departments. The NCAA rarely can take serious action unless the Feds step in (ie the Fab Five).

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Which is impossible due to the central constitution of the NCAA. The NCAA has zero legal power to force a central sponsorship deal down the throat of its membership.

That's why it would have to be a solid majority of the member schools interested in doing it for it to pass.