[CTcard]

but U$€ committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so.  Thus I have zero sympathy for U$€,

Also often overlooked is that S.-C. got pummelled as much for refusing to take the case seriously - neither seriously investigating nor punishing internally and responding as if it were all merely jealousy on part of competitors - as it did for the initial violations themselves. That matters.

and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.

I think you mean that Penn State swept everything under the rug in the name of football. That is twig upon which the NCAA based their claim to jurisdiction.

The NCAA swept jurisdiction questions under the rug because they were too concerned about the media and immediate public perception. There was lots of harping to "do something" and that the NCAA should act because this was way more serious than cases from Ohio State, S.-C., whereever. Of course it was way more serious, I would argue too serious to be in the NCAA's purview.

But overall one should remember that punishing Penn State harshly was the media-popular result at the time.

On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference.  Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college.

The article itself is overly-dramatic, but such articles are.
If you want to see a quick run down of the new governance structure that was approved, there is a reasonably readable discussion here.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...-structure

The article is certainly correct that the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow.

A lot of the specifics in that article are not so clear they will happen. I have heard little about solid support for allowing the players to directly sell their likeness and images - though the vague idea will be woven into various settlements. This sentence, "The "power 5 conferences" will determine who enforces the rules and in some cases, what those rules are going to be." is roughly backwards from what I have heard elsewhere: the Power 5 can make many of their own rules but the NCAA would remain the backstop enforcement agency.

Overall, I think that mostly the Power 5 conferences are focussed on finding some viable way to continue to function. Anything short of a full professional model may not pass muster with the courts and anything too close to a full professional model may not pass muster with states and their laws and provisions for educational institutions. The feds are also rather schizophrenic on the issues.

I do wonder what Stanford would agree to. On the one hand, it is quite clear that many folks at Stanford are extremely uncomfortable with the 'loosely attached - professional' model that seems to be developing for football and basketball. On the other, Stanford has dropped h.u.g.e investments into sports and most of the administration seems to be enjoying the recent successes. It would take a lot to drop all of that - and would incur significant alumni wrath.


Finally, while the discussion is usually framed in terms of how much athletes will share in the revenue, "how much" is a little complicated idea. There is the question of how much money is directed toward the few, most marketable athletes  versus how many athletes will benefit. The how many includes both how many scholarships are available at athletically successful schools (as in how many non-revenue sports) but also how many institutions will continue to sponsor scholarship supported athletics.

[CTcard]

but U$€ committed a good old fashioned NCAA violation, and this was not the first time that they did so.  Thus I have zero sympathy for U$€,

Also often overlooked is that S.-C. got pummelled as much for refusing to take the case seriously - neither seriously investigating nor punishing internally and responding as if it were all merely jealousy on part of competitors - as it did for the initial violations themselves. That matters.

and while I'm not especially sympathetic to Penn State, and I'm bothered by the fact that everything was swept under the rug in the name of football, the NCAA had no jurisdiction and knew it.

I think you mean that Penn State swept everything under the rug in the name of football. That is twig upon which the NCAA based their claim to jurisdiction.

The NCAA swept jurisdiction questions under the rug because they were too concerned about the media and immediate public perception. There was lots of harping to "do something" and that the NCAA should act because this was way more serious than cases from Ohio State, S.-C., whereever. Of course it was way more serious, I would argue too serious to be in the NCAA's purview.

But overall one should remember that punishing Penn State harshly was the media-popular result at the time.

On the larger picture, many of the proposed changes are reasonable-ish, but the more that collegiate football like minor league professional football, the less compatible it is with Stanford playing in a Power 5 conference.  Rather than focusing on how to expand and share revenue with athletes, Power5 schools should focus on how to ensure that athletes really get the academic benefits of going to college.

The article itself is overly-dramatic, but such articles are.
If you want to see a quick run down of the new governance structure that was approved, there is a reasonably readable discussion here.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...-structure

The article is certainly correct that the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow.

A lot of the specifics in that article are not so clear they will happen. I have heard little about solid support for allowing the players to directly sell their likeness and images - though the vague idea will be woven into various settlements. This sentence, "The "power 5 conferences" will determine who enforces the rules and in some cases, what those rules are going to be." is roughly backwards from what I have heard elsewhere: the Power 5 can make many of their own rules but the NCAA would remain the backstop enforcement agency.

Overall, I think that mostly the Power 5 conferences are focussed on finding some viable way to continue to function. Anything short of a full professional model may not pass muster with the courts and anything too close to a full professional model may not pass muster with states and their laws and provisions for educational institutions. The feds are also rather schizophrenic on the issues.

I do wonder what Stanford would agree to. On the one hand, it is quite clear that many folks at Stanford are extremely uncomfortable with the 'loosely attached - professional' model that seems to be developing for football and basketball. On the other, Stanford has dropped h.u.g.e investments into sports and most of the administration seems to be enjoying the recent successes. It would take a lot to drop all of that - and would incur significant alumni wrath.


Finally, while the discussion is usually framed in terms of how much athletes will share in the revenue, "how much" is a little complicated idea. There is the question of how much money is directed toward the few, most marketable athletes  versus how many athletes will benefit. The how many includes both how many scholarships are available at athletically successful schools (as in how many non-revenue sports) but also how many institutions will continue to sponsor scholarship supported athletics.