Macro Makeovers

[Cat In The Cradle]

The Wildcats have not finished a season ranked within the top ten since the 1995 season, and the Program has not held the top ranked slot at any time since mid-season 1962. The ascent from the Dark Ages can be explained, in part, by reductions the NCAA placed on scholarships shortly before Barnett assumed the helm. This prevented traditional powerhouse programs from stockpiling talent and allowed that talent to flow to programs lesser known at the time where they benefited from meaningful playing time.

What NCAA-wide reforms of similar ilk would break the cartel of the fifteen or so elite programs and otherwise benefit NU's program and recruits generally? Here's my take:

Crack down on programs like Alabama evading the scholarship limit via such artifices as abusing the medical hardship waiver.

Crack down on programs that consistently oversign the number of permitted recruits, condemning such practices as per se violations, especially since they have later to manufacture reasons (forced transfers, medical hardships, etc.) for those who cannot make the cut.

Enforce the rules, enact stiffer penalties, and stick to those penalties - what the NCAA did with Penn State, restoring the scholarship limit prior the earlier proscribed time period was a travesty. And give a few universities the death penalty: the University of Southern California, for one, does not deserve a college football program.

 

[shakes3858]

I don't like the idea of the death penalty. The coaches get NFL jobs. The players that cheated go to the NFL too. The players that aren't good enough to go pro stay, but they probably aren't the ones that are getting paid under the table. As such, you're not punishing the cheaters, you're just allowing them to leave the bill with other people. What the NCAA needs to do instead is to start a fining coaches and administrators that are cheating. I'm not talking little fines either. If you get a 1.5 million dollar bonus for winning the national title but you cheated to win, 1.5 million dollar fine. That would make guys think twice.

If your only goal is to level the playing field, I see a couple options (that'll never happen).

Limit the spending (except for scholarships) on football. This would force a cut in coaches' salaries for richer schools. As such, a school like Notre Dame would be unable to poach Brian Kelly from Cincinnati. He might still want to make a change, but it won't be for money. Additionally, this would make everything from recruiting to facilities far more equitable. Extra money taken in by the athletic department would be given to their University's general scholarship fund and would be used for financial aid for non-athletes.

This next one is more of a silly idea, but I'm bored and think it's a fun one. You have a draft. Every recruit comes up with a list of schools that are allowed to draft them. This way a student that cares more about academics can list Northwestern, Stanford, and Duke while a student that loves good weather can list Miami and USC. Or a player can pick the type of system they're in. There's no limit on the amount of schools a player can list, but I would put a minimum number on it because you can't have a draft if only 1 team can draft you.

If a player lists your school, the admissions department pre-approves their application. Then you have a draft. A coach can stop drafting players at any time and hold on to their scholarships.

Players can add schools to their list at anytime, but then risks having their application denied. This way if you're a QB and you want to play in the Big Ten in a prostyle offense, you put down Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, MSU, Penn State. If all those schools start taking QBs and you get worried you'll be left out, you start adding MAC schools. Also, you could remove a school. Again, if you're a QB that wants to go to NU, but you see NU taking a QB early, the recruit could cut NU off the list because he doesn't want to be the 2nd QB.

 

[Turk]

The Wildcats have not finished a season ranked within the top ten since the 1995 season, and the Program has not held the top ranked slot at any time since mid-season 1962. The ascent from the Dark Ages can be explained, in part, by reductions the NCAA placed on scholarships shortly before Barnett assumed the helm. This prevented traditional powerhouse programs from stockpiling talent and allowed that talent to flow to programs lesser known at the time where they benefited from meaningful playing time.

What NCAA-wide reforms of similar ilk would break the cartel of the fifteen or so elite programs and otherwise benefit NU's program and recruits generally? Here's my take:

Crack down on programs like Alabama evading the scholarship limit via such artifices as abusing the medical hardship waiver.

Crack down on programs that consistently oversign the number of permitted recruits, condemning such practices as per se violations, especially since they have later to manufacture reasons (forced transfers, medical hardships, etc.) for those who cannot make the cut.

Enforce the rules, enact stiffer penalties, and stick to those penalties - what the NCAA did with Penn State, restoring the scholarship limit prior the earlier proscribed time period was a travesty. And give a few universities the death penalty: the University of Southern California, for one, does not deserve a college football program.

With the academic standing of the private University of Southern California, I'm surprised they have allowed such things.

 

[Figrating]

"If all the richest men in the world pooled their money and divided it equally among themselves, there wouldn't be enough to go around." Pink Floyd

 

[NJCat83588]

Limit the spending (except for scholarships) on football. This would force a cut in coaches' salaries for richer schools. As such, a school like Notre Dame would be unable to poach Brian Kelly from Cincinnati. He might still want to make a change, but it won't be for money. Additionally, this would make everything from recruiting to facilities far more equitable. Extra money taken in by the athletic department would be given to their University's general scholarship fund and would be used for financial aid for non-athletes.

I actually think this is a good idea. At some point, the arms race must end. The amount of money being spent on football versus eduction is way out of whack. The problem is, money is like a drug addition, and the top schools will never allow the revenue to be capped. Which is a shame, because a more level playing field would actually make the game better now worse.

One additional suggestion: allow one unrestricted transfer for players. And allow an additional unrestricted transfer for any school which is put on probation. If the players aren't going to get paid, at least allow them to play without sitting out a year. There are kids who will never see the field at OSU or Bama who could probably start or at least be significant contributors at NU.

 

[shakes3858]

One additional suggestion: allow one unrestricted transfer for players. And allow an additional unrestricted transfer for any school which is put on probation. If the players aren't going to get paid, at least allow them to play without sitting out a year. There are kids who will never see the field at OSU or Bama who could probably start or at least be significant contributors at NU.

I like it, but I think it also opens up some terrible issues. What happens when a school like NU finds a "diamond in the rough." How often would this player transfer to OSU or Alabama to get more exposure and training that will send him to the NFL. Would NU have kept Sutton after his freshman year? He openly wrote an article saying that he grew to not like NU. Would he have jumped to OSU if given a chance? Are you ok with that? Now how much of the 2nd and 3rd tier teams become a minor league for the big guys?

I liked Jim Delaney's solution. If a player transfers, he has to sit out a year but it's treated like a redshirt year and doesn't count against a player's eligibility. I think this allows for players to transfer and not lose anything by doing it.

 

[Sheffielder]

As far as enacting rules that actually deter the behavior go, I think the NCAA needs to hold athletic directors accountable for anything that happens on their watches. If they were on the hook to take the fall for improprieties, I think we'd see an immediate change in the culture of plausible deniability. ADs get to largely lurk in the shadows while coaches enjoy the pros and cons of celebrity. For the most part, I think we've seen enough evidence that indicates cheating is worth the risk under the status quo.

On the coaching front, the NCAA could forbid buyouts - make contracts "ironclad" for the duration signed by both parties, whether that's a one year or a 10-year contract. Maybe then a coach can jump to the NFL but not to another NCAA institution. I'd also make infractions stick to coaches from one institution to another...so if you left School A to coach at School B but committed a bunch of infractions at School A, when the axe falls you may be suspended from coaching anywhere, including School B - would ideally make coaches think twice about cheating and make schools think twice about hiring coaches with a checkered past. I just think this would impact how schools buy and sell coaches with no real consequence other than financial (which we don't ever really see impact actual on-the-field competition).

I'm only for closing the loophole on medical hardship scholarship waivers if the programs and conferences in question move to standard four-year scholarships. My fear is that without the medical hardship option, many players will simply be released with absolutely no safety net.

 

[Deeringfish]

I like it, but I think it also opens up some terrible issues. What happens when a school like NU finds a "diamond in the rough." How often would this player transfer to OSU or Alabama to get more exposure and training that will send him to the NFL. Would NU have kept Sutton after his freshman year? He openly wrote an article saying that he grew to not like NU. Would he have jumped to OSU if given a chance? Are you ok with that? Now how much of the 2nd and 3rd tier teams become a minor league for the big guys?

I liked Jim Delaney's solution. If a player transfers, he has to sit out a year but it's treated like a redshirt year and doesn't count against a player's eligibility. I think this allows for players to transfer and not lose anything by doing it.

I like it too because it gives the kids more options, but another issue is schools who can consistently land the highly regarded players will actually get better if their second tier players move on early. So lets say a guy is a highly regarded 5 star but lacks the work ethic at the next level or has some nagging injuries, coaches would be able to move him along in hopes of landing another younger star who will serve the team better for more years. I doesn't level the playing field in a way I would like it to, it actually culls the already talented herd.

I'd like to see some incentives for scholastic excellence. In years where a team graduates 90-95% of its players (create some rules for transfers, early draft entry, etc.) they get an extra scholarship. School that really work on academics potentially have 4 extra guys on the roster. This enhances the "Student" in student athlete.

 

[NJCat83588]

I like it, but I think it also opens up some terrible issues. What happens when a school like NU finds a "diamond in the rough." How often would this player transfer to OSU or Alabama to get more exposure and training that will send him to the NFL. Would NU have kept Sutton after his freshman year? He openly wrote an article saying that he grew to not like NU. Would he have jumped to OSU if given a chance? Are you ok with that? Now how much of the 2nd and 3rd tier teams become a minor league for the big guys?

I liked Jim Delaney's solution. If a player transfers, he has to sit out a year but it's treated like a redshirt year and doesn't count against a player's eligibility. I think this allows for players to transfer and not lose anything by doing it.

I agree that once in a while NU could lose someone. But if the player is unhappy, why hold him? And I still think the big guys will get more than their fair share of top talent and doubt that the second tier schools become minor leagues. And at the end of the day, transfers would be a relative minority of the players.

 

[Cat In The Cradle]

Limit the spending (except for scholarships) on football. This would force a cut in coaches' salaries for richer schools. As such, a school like Notre Dame would be unable to poach Brian Kelly from Cincinnati. He might still want to make a change, but it won't be for money. Additionally, this would make everything from recruiting to facilities far more equitable. Extra money taken in by the athletic department would be given to their University's general scholarship fund and would be used for financial aid for non-athletes.

Excellent point and consistent with the findings in the O'Bannon decision:

The academic consensus on this issue is not surprising given that many of the NCAA’s other rules and practices suggest that the association is unconcerned with achieving competitive balance. Several witnesses testified that the restrictions on studentathlete compensation lead many schools simply to spend larger portions of their athletic budgets on coaching, recruiting, and training facilities. Id. 296:14-297:18 (Noll); 865:11-866:2, 910:2-911:7 (Rascher). In the major conferences, for instance, the average salary for a head football coach exceeds $1.5 million. Id. 1151:20-1152:14 (Staurowsky). The fact that high-revenue schools are able to spend freely in these other areas cancels out whatever leveling effect the restrictions on student-athlete pay might otherwise have. The NCAA does not do anything to rein in spending by the high-revenue schools or minimize existing disparities in revenue and recruiting. In fact, Dr. Emmert specifically conceded that it is “not the mission of the association to . . . try and take away the advantages of a university that’s made a significant commitment to facilities and tradition and all of the things that go along with building a program.” Trial Tr. 1774:23-1775:6.

(emphasis mine)

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

I agree that once in a while NU could lose someone. But if the player is unhappy, why hold him? And I still think the big guys will get more than their fair share of top talent and doubt that the second tier schools become minor leagues. And at the end of the day, transfers would be a relative minority of the players.

I was thinking the flow would actually go more in the other direction...tier 2 guys at the "factories" being more likely to transfer "down" to lesser FBS programs.

 

[rwesley264]

Hey Cat in The Cradle : Get your facts straight on USC. The worst thing that happened was they let a female tennis player from Eastern Europe call home from a university phone. USC is not Bama.

 

[StreamCat]

Hey Cat in The Cradle : Get your facts straight on USC. The worst thing that happened was they let a female tennis player from Eastern Europe call home from a university phone. USC is not Bama.

Refresh my memory. Wasn't there a Bush and a house and a lost trophy? Can't quite remember.

 

[shakes3858]

Refresh my memory. Wasn't there a Bush and a house and a lost trophy? Can't quite remember.

How about OJ Mayo?