[Goose]

The basic problem with this situation is that there is a payout at all to anyone. If we are speaking of student-athletes they are all amateurs. They are playing for the love of the game and the glory of their schools. Whenever somebody else is making money off of this, you are going to have a problem of some kind. No matter how that money is distributed, it can't be "fair". If the schools just got their expenses paid and the rest of the money (if any) went to charity them maybe it could be argued it was "fair". Absent something like that, there will always be problems ensuring the money went to the "right" places. Their will be somebody who (possibly justifiably) feels they are slighted.

Different issue.  And honestly if you pay the athletes, how is that done equitably?

It most certainly won't be done "equitably", but employment never is. People get paid what they demand/the traffic will bear/etc. If college sports were professional sports (everybody gets paid), nobody would be talking about "fairness" or "Title IX". It would be a business and the rules would be that of normal commerce. As of now, college sports are not "professional", and for that reason it isn't a "different issue" IMHO. If the schools get paid, and the NCAA gets paid, there is no way that can jibe with "amateur" athletics and can't possibly be fair. If all the schools got was direct costs of the sport in question, you could possibly approach "fair" Once the schools and the NCAA get to keep more than that (i.e. profit), then it isn't going to be fair no matter what you do. The fact the schools may use their "profit" for other sports doesn't make it "fair". The athletes are still getting short changed, as are probably lots of others who donate time and effort to the program in question.
 I would have no problem with the NCAA donating all profits to the Red Cross or spread it out across many legitimate charities. That is "fair". None of the participants benefit directly, so we don't need to argue about who should get what. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.

[Goose]

The basic problem with this situation is that there is a payout at all to anyone. If we are speaking of student-athletes they are all amateurs. They are playing for the love of the game and the glory of their schools. Whenever somebody else is making money off of this, you are going to have a problem of some kind. No matter how that money is distributed, it can't be "fair". If the schools just got their expenses paid and the rest of the money (if any) went to charity them maybe it could be argued it was "fair". Absent something like that, there will always be problems ensuring the money went to the "right" places. Their will be somebody who (possibly justifiably) feels they are slighted.

Different issue.  And honestly if you pay the athletes, how is that done equitably?

It most certainly won't be done "equitably", but employment never is. People get paid what they demand/the traffic will bear/etc. If college sports were professional sports (everybody gets paid), nobody would be talking about "fairness" or "Title IX". It would be a business and the rules would be that of normal commerce. As of now, college sports are not "professional", and for that reason it isn't a "different issue" IMHO. If the schools get paid, and the NCAA gets paid, there is no way that can jibe with "amateur" athletics and can't possibly be fair. If all the schools got was direct costs of the sport in question, you could possibly approach "fair" Once the schools and the NCAA get to keep more than that (i.e. profit), then it isn't going to be fair no matter what you do. The fact the schools may use their "profit" for other sports doesn't make it "fair". The athletes are still getting short changed, as are probably lots of others who donate time and effort to the program in question.
 I would have no problem with the NCAA donating all profits to the Red Cross or spread it out across many legitimate charities. That is "fair". None of the participants benefit directly, so we don't need to argue about who should get what. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.

[82lsju]

[82lsju]

[terry]

Good for Tara.

[terry]

Good for Tara.

[chimera]

Tara knows what's up.  Good for her.

[chimera]

Tara knows what's up.  Good for her.

[pefloresjr]

The basic problem with this situation is that there is a payout at all to anyone. If we are speaking of student-athletes they are all amateurs. They are playing for the love of the game and the glory of their schools. Whenever somebody else is making money off of this, you are going to have a problem of some kind. No matter how that money is distributed, it can't be "fair". If the schools just got their expenses paid and the rest of the money (if any) went to charity them maybe it could be argued it was "fair". Absent something like that, there will always be problems ensuring the money went to the "right" places. Their will be somebody who (possibly justifiably) feels they are slighted.

Different issue.  And honestly if you pay the athletes, how is that done equitably?

It most certainly won't be done "equitably", but employment never is. People get paid what they demand/the traffic will bear/etc. If college sports were professional sports (everybody gets paid), nobody would be talking about "fairness" or "Title IX". It would be a business and the rules would be that of normal commerce. As of now, college sports are not "professional", and for that reason it isn't a "different issue" IMHO. If the schools get paid, and the NCAA gets paid, there is no way that can jibe with "amateur" athletics and can't possibly be fair. If all the schools got was direct costs of the sport in question, you could possibly approach "fair" Once the schools and the NCAA get to keep more than that (i.e. profit), then it isn't going to be fair no matter what you do. The fact the schools may use their "profit" for other sports doesn't make it "fair". The athletes are still getting short changed, as are probably lots of others who donate time and effort to the program in question.
 I would have no problem with the NCAA donating all profits to the Red Cross or spread it out across many legitimate charities. That is "fair". None of the participants benefit directly, so we don't need to argue about who should get what. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

The basic problem with this situation is that there is a payout at all to anyone. If we are speaking of student-athletes they are all amateurs. They are playing for the love of the game and the glory of their schools. Whenever somebody else is making money off of this, you are going to have a problem of some kind. No matter how that money is distributed, it can't be "fair". If the schools just got their expenses paid and the rest of the money (if any) went to charity them maybe it could be argued it was "fair". Absent something like that, there will always be problems ensuring the money went to the "right" places. Their will be somebody who (possibly justifiably) feels they are slighted.

Different issue.  And honestly if you pay the athletes, how is that done equitably?

It most certainly won't be done "equitably", but employment never is. People get paid what they demand/the traffic will bear/etc. If college sports were professional sports (everybody gets paid), nobody would be talking about "fairness" or "Title IX". It would be a business and the rules would be that of normal commerce. As of now, college sports are not "professional", and for that reason it isn't a "different issue" IMHO. If the schools get paid, and the NCAA gets paid, there is no way that can jibe with "amateur" athletics and can't possibly be fair. If all the schools got was direct costs of the sport in question, you could possibly approach "fair" Once the schools and the NCAA get to keep more than that (i.e. profit), then it isn't going to be fair no matter what you do. The fact the schools may use their "profit" for other sports doesn't make it "fair". The athletes are still getting short changed, as are probably lots of others who donate time and effort to the program in question.
 I would have no problem with the NCAA donating all profits to the Red Cross or spread it out across many legitimate charities. That is "fair". None of the participants benefit directly, so we don't need to argue about who should get what. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Griffins78]

I’m so glad Tara did this. They’re the #1 overall seed and she’s up for NCAA Coach of the year. It’s powerful coming from her and this is such a strong statement.

[Griffins78]

I’m so glad Tara did this. They’re the #1 overall seed and she’s up for NCAA Coach of the year. It’s powerful coming from her and this is such a strong statement.

[old spanish trail]

It's a great statement, really. Kudos to Tara and whomever helped her put it together.

[old spanish trail]

It's a great statement, really. Kudos to Tara and whomever helped her put it together.

[81alum]

Good for Tara.  And bad for Geno.  Her ethics and leadership are major reasons I can be a sports fan at all.  Contrast her principled statement with Geno's lame "kids like to eat a lot" and the contrast could hardly be greater.

[81alum]

Good for Tara.  And bad for Geno.  Her ethics and leadership are major reasons I can be a sports fan at all.  Contrast her principled statement with Geno's lame "kids like to eat a lot" and the contrast could hardly be greater.

[Goose]

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  


Cheers,

Pete F.

I totally agree that the commercial model of just about anything isn't "fair" and doesn't claim to be. That is the problem with the NCAA functioning as a hybrid of a commercial and a not-for-profit organization. The commercial, for profit part makes money from selling the rights to various parts of college sports. Some sports really aren't commercially "profitable" at all to the NCAA, and actually cost the NCAA money. Others are profitable to different degrees. No matter what definition of "fairness" for the distribution of this profit one chooses, the question will be: Should the NCAA maximize profit or maximize fairness? Profit and fairness have different units, so it makes them difficult to compare. Some actions may benefit both profit and fairness but to greatly different degrees. If one chooses a "hybrid" goal, which is where we are now, the two dimensions will always be in conflict with each other, as will conflicting definitions of how to measure "fairness".

It may appear that attempting to modulate the NCAA "fairness" metric is a good way to go. I think it is a hopeless task, becoming more hopeless every day as more "dimensions" are continually added to the fairness metric. It might work if the sports public would settle for "good enough", but it seems improbable that will happen. Someone will always be outraged about something (unfortunately justly so in many cases). IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

It may be that a separate regulatory body should be created that is composed of college presidents (or some such) that has no profit/loss motive at all. A second independent body then is hired to market the sports. The regulatory body spends the profits in as fair a way as possible and takes all the heat on the fairness side. Might work better that way? At least under those conditions it would be clear where the responsibilities lay. The marketing organization would make no decisions about how the profits were to be spent or distributed. If there was a "fairness" issue, the parent organization would be where the buck would stop. It would obviously be important to not have a "tail wag the dog" situation with the marketing organization, but at least if that was happening it would be obvious that the parent organization was at fault in not asserting control. Right now, it is impossible to know what the NCAA "management" is really thinking.

[Goose]

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  


Cheers,

Pete F.

I totally agree that the commercial model of just about anything isn't "fair" and doesn't claim to be. That is the problem with the NCAA functioning as a hybrid of a commercial and a not-for-profit organization. The commercial, for profit part makes money from selling the rights to various parts of college sports. Some sports really aren't commercially "profitable" at all to the NCAA, and actually cost the NCAA money. Others are profitable to different degrees. No matter what definition of "fairness" for the distribution of this profit one chooses, the question will be: Should the NCAA maximize profit or maximize fairness? Profit and fairness have different units, so it makes them difficult to compare. Some actions may benefit both profit and fairness but to greatly different degrees. If one chooses a "hybrid" goal, which is where we are now, the two dimensions will always be in conflict with each other, as will conflicting definitions of how to measure "fairness".

It may appear that attempting to modulate the NCAA "fairness" metric is a good way to go. I think it is a hopeless task, becoming more hopeless every day as more "dimensions" are continually added to the fairness metric. It might work if the sports public would settle for "good enough", but it seems improbable that will happen. Someone will always be outraged about something (unfortunately justly so in many cases). IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

It may be that a separate regulatory body should be created that is composed of college presidents (or some such) that has no profit/loss motive at all. A second independent body then is hired to market the sports. The regulatory body spends the profits in as fair a way as possible and takes all the heat on the fairness side. Might work better that way? At least under those conditions it would be clear where the responsibilities lay. The marketing organization would make no decisions about how the profits were to be spent or distributed. If there was a "fairness" issue, the parent organization would be where the buck would stop. It would obviously be important to not have a "tail wag the dog" situation with the marketing organization, but at least if that was happening it would be obvious that the parent organization was at fault in not asserting control. Right now, it is impossible to know what the NCAA "management" is really thinking.

[81alum]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

[81alum]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

[Goose]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more compromises made with academic values, the more student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Don't disagree. That is why I proposed an organization where the management was a "non-profit" organization that distributed the proceeds. They would (and must) pay attention to the "fairness" side of the equation. The organization they hire to market the college sports would have no say in that. The SEC may not sign on to such an arrangement, but they might not have a choice. I think separating the two functions into distinct organizations, one of which is a "contractor" to the other is the only way to ensure the "collegiate" influence has any chance of asserting itself.
Actually, Stanford isn't exiting the "high level" sports. They are exiting some very important sports that don't make money. I also don't think we can in any way blame this on the NCAA. This is a totally self-inflicted wound, which makes it all the worse.

[Goose]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more compromises made with academic values, the more student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Don't disagree. That is why I proposed an organization where the management was a "non-profit" organization that distributed the proceeds. They would (and must) pay attention to the "fairness" side of the equation. The organization they hire to market the college sports would have no say in that. The SEC may not sign on to such an arrangement, but they might not have a choice. I think separating the two functions into distinct organizations, one of which is a "contractor" to the other is the only way to ensure the "collegiate" influence has any chance of asserting itself.
Actually, Stanford isn't exiting the "high level" sports. They are exiting some very important sports that don't make money. I also don't think we can in any way blame this on the NCAA. This is a totally self-inflicted wound, which makes it all the worse.

[lex24]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Not sure what you mean by “high level sports”  There are  two income producing sports. Men’s basketball and football.  My guess is all others lose money.  Stanford dropped non incoming producing sports. 

Asking what is ”equality” on this is more difficult.  Leave aside the current FUBAR with the way the NCAA handled resources/ facilities at the Tourney. 

If you are to pay athletes, do you do so only for revenue producing sports?  And of course, how do you slice the pie.  Does DeVonta Smith get paid the same as the 4th string center? 

I’m all for players getting paid for use of their name and likeness.  But that will be limited to a few.  But in the end, if you go to any type of employment model, that will be the end of intercollegiate sports. (In fact, the only ones that possibly could survive would be football and Men’s Hoops.)   And I’m not sure how that helps.

[lex24]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Not sure what you mean by “high level sports”  There are  two income producing sports. Men’s basketball and football.  My guess is all others lose money.  Stanford dropped non incoming producing sports. 

Asking what is ”equality” on this is more difficult.  Leave aside the current FUBAR with the way the NCAA handled resources/ facilities at the Tourney. 

If you are to pay athletes, do you do so only for revenue producing sports?  And of course, how do you slice the pie.  Does DeVonta Smith get paid the same as the 4th string center? 

I’m all for players getting paid for use of their name and likeness.  But that will be limited to a few.  But in the end, if you go to any type of employment model, that will be the end of intercollegiate sports. (In fact, the only ones that possibly could survive would be football and Men’s Hoops.)   And I’m not sure how that helps.

[magnus]

FYI, here's the new women's weight room

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/ncaawbb/status/1373305427857903620?s=20[/tweet]

[magnus]

FYI, here's the new women's weight room

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/ncaawbb/status/1373305427857903620?s=20[/tweet]

[WBB fan]

Another cheer for Tara -- so well said, such a strong statement. Dawn's was good too, but Tara's is even stronger.

[WBB fan]

Another cheer for Tara -- so well said, such a strong statement. Dawn's was good too, but Tara's is even stronger.

[old spanish trail]

When March Madness began in the way back, its popularity increased slowly and then multiplied as the NCAA realized they might have a nifty game to publicize. They threw big $$ into advertising and monetized everything as they went along. What we don't know is what would have been the result if the same money, energy and attention had been given to WBB. I don't think the result would have been equal popularity but I have no doubt it would have been much greater than it is today. That unfortunately is another example of the historical sexism that has characterized the NCAA's approach.

[old spanish trail]

When March Madness began in the way back, its popularity increased slowly and then multiplied as the NCAA realized they might have a nifty game to publicize. They threw big $$ into advertising and monetized everything as they went along. What we don't know is what would have been the result if the same money, energy and attention had been given to WBB. I don't think the result would have been equal popularity but I have no doubt it would have been much greater than it is today. That unfortunately is another example of the historical sexism that has characterized the NCAA's approach.

[BostonCard]

Speaking of inequality...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/march-madne...yURL_share

The reason for that absence [of the phrase "March Madness" from the women's tournament] is that the NCAA has withheld use of the “March Madness” brand from women’s college basketball. It has used the memorable phrase to turn the men’s tournament into a billion-dollar juggernaut, and at the same time declined to use it for the women’s tournament that has grown in popularity in recent years.

BC

[BostonCard]

Speaking of inequality...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/march-madne...yURL_share

The reason for that absence [of the phrase "March Madness" from the women's tournament] is that the NCAA has withheld use of the “March Madness” brand from women’s college basketball. It has used the memorable phrase to turn the men’s tournament into a billion-dollar juggernaut, and at the same time declined to use it for the women’s tournament that has grown in popularity in recent years.

BC

[martyup]

March Madness?  We can come up with something better.  Bring on the ideas.

[martyup]

March Madness?  We can come up with something better.  Bring on the ideas.

[PVTree]

Hoops Hysteria®
Brackets Binge®
Finals Frenzy®
Elimination Ecstasy ®

[PVTree]

Hoops Hysteria®
Brackets Binge®
Finals Frenzy®
Elimination Ecstasy ®

[martyup]

Hoops Hysteria®
Brackets Binge®
Finals Frenzy®
Elimination Ecstasy ®

It would be nice to somehow work the female gender into the name.  I like using "hoops" in the name.  Something that engenders climbing the mountain?  Reaching the peak?

[martyup]

Hoops Hysteria®
Brackets Binge®
Finals Frenzy®
Elimination Ecstasy ®

It would be nice to somehow work the female gender into the name.  I like using "hoops" in the name.  Something that engenders climbing the mountain?  Reaching the peak?

[CompSci87]

I actually saw March Madness used for the women's tournament today, in the Comcast streaming app. No idea if Comcast did that on their own or if it somehow came from the NCAA.

[CompSci87]

I actually saw March Madness used for the women's tournament today, in the Comcast streaming app. No idea if Comcast did that on their own or if it somehow came from the NCAA.