Monday morning buffet

Have you tried the coronavirus special?

  • Moar doing it for the kids:“Former Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe has an even more radical idea: Colleges athletics should be broken into spectator sports (ones that make money) and participation sports (ones that don’t). Schools would provide athletic scholarships in spectator sports, but not in participation sports.  Participation sports then would not be subject to NCAA scholarship limits, would not require highly paid, full-time coaches and would play regional opponents, keeping costs down.”
  • Per Josh, rosters that have a 247Sports‘ Composite Average of .906 have a high likelihood of being selected by the committee.
  • Today’s emotional appeal:  don’t cut non-revenue sports, cut coaches’ salaries.
  • Ian Boyd explains the difference between RPOs, PROs and PPOs.
  • Here’s a look at college football recruiting during the time of shelter at home.
  • Dennis Dodd attempts to throw cold water on an expanded playoff as a solution for a coronavirus-caused revenue shortfall.
  • Another downside to no spring practice:  it’s harder for players making a position change to adapt. (h/t)


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, College Football, Recruiting, Strategery And Mechanics

11 responses to “Monday morning buffet

  1. Wouldn’t Berne’s solution run right into Title IX?


  2. MGW

    Dang. Call them “participation” sports and take their scholarships away. This guy really doesn’t like anything other than basketball or football does he?


  3. Skeptic Dawg

    I have been a long-standing college athletic romantic, and as a romantic I have have successfully resisted the “dark side” for a very long time. No longer! The evidence is too great to deny the filthy, dirty, nasty business that is college athletics. And I must admit, I do not like seeing the light…it is painful to accept the truth. As a romantic I held fast to the idea that college athletes were in fact student-athletes and these kids were valued beyond their on-field/court performance. Reading the article linked above removes all doubts that I once had. This quote from Arne Duncan needs not to be answered, but sums up the current NCAA/university/athletic director mindset “Budgets reflect our values,” said Arne Duncan, a former U.S. education secretary and now co-chair of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. “I think we’ll see now whether in a time of cutbacks, what gets prioritized. Is it the interest of adults and unbelievably high salaries? Or is it the interest of student-athletes and preserving their chance to compete and to put academics first?”. We as fans are largely to blame, myself included. We want large new facilities that will draw the attention of the next great 5 star who will alter our winning potential. We want trophies. We want big-time TV games. We want titles. But what about the kid that plays lacrosse? Do those kids not deserve the best as well? We will in deed see universities cut non-revenue sports and they will be happy to do so. Why? Well, so they can increase their reserve fund and continue to pour money into the football program. While I accept that money drives college athletics, I do not have to like it. I want kids to have the opportunity to represent their university or college while playing lacrosse, baseball, tennis or golf. I want the scholarship to have value. I want non-rev sports to have larger scholarship allotments. At the end of the day, seeing the light makes me dislike football and the greed that it creates. Who knew that in the midst of this pandemic that I could feel even worse?


    • Tony Barnhart

      Your thoughts and concerns are not unreasonable at all. I guess I would play the mild devil’s advocate and ask a couple things:

      –why/how is a kid playing a newly reconstituted “club” version of tennis not “representing the university?” I could argue that club sports always have and always will offer what is at the core of collegiate team sports activities. Why is that now changed just because he/she isn’t “getting as much” ? The fact that they aren’t receiving something sizeable in exchange for their time on the field hockey pitch shouldn’t affect what they’re really doing it for, right ? I’m pretty good at chess, and even though nobody cares and comes to watch me play chess, should I still receive room/board and half off tuition ?


      • Skeptic Dawg

        Your points are valid and well stated. I do agree that club sports define, or should define, what college athletics should represent. My question is, Why should college athletes in non-rev sports receive fractions of scholarships? Do these kids practice less? Do they compete with less passion on the field, court, diamond, or course? And I get it, ESPN pays millions for football and basketball because we watch it. Not so much for non-rev sports. AD’s have an opportunity to alter the landscape of college athletics for the better right here and now. Sadly, their decisions will be driven by money. How can we maintain the current TV revenue? What can I do to protect and grow the reserve fund? Sadly, not one AD will ask, “How can we protect our student-athletes and all of the sports that represent our university?”.


        • Skeptic, it was difficult when I saw the light as well. For me, it happened when AJ Green was suspended for doing something literally every other person on the planet can do … sell his personal property. If UGA had put that game-worn jersey in a silent auction to raise money for the athletic department, none of us would have batted an eye other than to say AJ was being a DGD to sign and donate that jersey. I’m not a pure pay-for-play guy, but if these jackasses can’t get NLI fixed, I hope Jeffrey Kessler burns the whole thing to the ground.

          On the topic of partial scholarships in non-revenue sports, it isn’t even now that the product isn’t marketable. Pretty much every SEC championship tournament is on the SEC Network. College baseball has become a big TV revenue generator during the regular season all the way to Omaha (it’s a travesty that college baseball has partial scholarships). Women’s softball less so, but a lot of people watch them as well. Golf Channel now broadcasts some of the regular season college events including the NCAA championships.

          All of this is enabled by the non-Power 5 D1 schools who can’t afford to give full TCOA scholarships to everyone.

          Another reason it’s time for the Power 5 to break away from the NCAA.