College football fans have several reasons to smile these days.
The 2003 season just kicked off, and it's one of the few sports where the regular season still means something.
Last year, NCAA schools combined to set several attendance records. The season culminated in an overtime victory by Ohio State over Miami in arguably the most dizzying and competitive Bowl Championship Series title game ever staged.
What's more: Every team touted as a potential national champion appears to have a central question mark, setting the stage for upsets, drama and, in the end, spiked television ratings.
Yet this is a sport in peril. Financially and philosophically, college football wobbles to support immense growth and threatens to lose complete sight of its mission within the university.
A so-called arms race of escalating coaching salaries and multimillion-dollar athletic facilities shows no signs of slowing. Forced to bring in big bucks, athletic departments are up for sale to corporate sponsors and national marketing groups and forced to pursue aggressively season-ticket holders and boosters.
Money drives the latest frenzy, conference realignment. Seeking more annual revenues from its conference, the Miami Hurricanes swapped conferences. Effective next year, Miami and Virginia Tech will leave a suddenly staggered Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference, which has promised bigger checks every summer.
These are the first moves in what college officials believe will be a domino effect of conference membership changes.
Meanwhile, there's no evidence to suggest the sport's most disturbing trend is changing: The rich getting richer and the gap growing between rich and poor. In 2004, ABC will rain $90 million onto 62 BCS partners. Generously, they'll share $6 million of the windfall with 55 non-BCS schools.
Not surprisingly, infighting is reaching a crescendo. Presidents of some four dozen schools that don't share much of the BCS's riches formed their own coalition to tackle the BCS partners. The two sides meet Sept. 8 in Chicago, the Haves breaking bread with the Have Nots, with NCAA President Myles Brand looking on. (Who, we wonder, pays for lunch?)
One end-game scenario sees an agreement in which the Have Nots receive better postseason access and more money. Another depicts the ultimate landscape job: a federal antitrust lawsuit against BCS or the creation of a super division within the NCAA -- or perhaps beyond it. The dollars are too big to disregard such a concept.
Today it's time to offer some common-sense solutions. Some are more serious than others, but all are offered in good faith. They encompass some core beliefs.
Presidents not only should have their fingers on the pulse of the athletic department but also should pay for it. Academics are central to the college mission but not at the expense of personal privacy and, more importantly, personal enrichment. Football coaches shouldn't make so much money and shouldn't be under so much pressure to win or to graduate players.
Presidents pay bills
Little more than a decade ago, a highly regarded NCAA wonk said the goal of every Division I athletic department should be to generate enough money to fund all its programs. Like children to ice cream, we lapped it up. Now we all feel sick.
Take away direct and indirect university funding and 35 percent of I-A athletic departments bring in as much money as they spend. If a program is worth having, it's worth paying for, and presidents cut the big checks. Even at a time when universities across the country are increasing tuition and fees, this isn't much of an added burden.
Plus, this policy helps on several fronts. It drastically reduces reliance on commercialism and sponsorships. University budgets are so large even cash from ABC, CBS, ESPN and apparel giants Nike and Adidas gets dwarfed.
[In 2001-02, the Florida Gators had a $54.2 million athletic budget. That represented less than 3 percent of UF President Charles Young's $1.86 billion overall budget.]
Now athletic directors can do what they're supposed to do: manage coaches and run athletic events.
Scholarships get cut
All schools -- I-A and I-AA -- get 50. Unlike today's rules (85 grants for I-A, 63 for I-AA), let's allow coaches to divide the 50 into partial scholarships, much like baseball, softball and other college sports do now.
Coaches still can sign 25 recruits a year. They just have to make sure their 100-plus players only get money equivalent to 50 scholarships.
The rest of the squad comes from walk-ons.
Leatherneck football coaches will scream that such cuts will ruin the game. Baloney. Talent will get spread more evenly, but the reality is, even with scholarship cuts, the best coaches and best recruiters with the best facilities and fan followings are going to get the best players.
The reason for I-A and I-AA having an equal number of scholarships is because we propose:
Fluid membership
The NCAA last year voted in a new series of I-A membership requirements. The Haves see these as a way to ensure I-A is filled with like-minded, big-budget schools. The Have-Nots see them as a way for the Haves to shrink the number of schools that can lay claim to BCS and TV money.
We propose I-A and I-AA not be defined by sport sponsorship, scholarship totals and home-game attendance but by budget size. Schools with budgets, say, of $25 million or more are I-A. All those below $25 million are I-AA.
Allow schools to move up or down from one division to the other. (Hey, this happens all the time in the English Soccer League).
Once status is determined for the year, we set up a springtime schedulefest. No more game contracts done years in advance. Athletic directors and football coaches shape their schedules every spring. This would be a public-relations bonanza.
(Quick note: Using 2001-2002 data, our calculations show I-A would shrink from 117 schools to 68. Some big name schools would get sent to I-AA, including Oklahoma State, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Washington State, Ole Miss, Iowa State, Mississippi State, Army, Navy and, yes, UCF and South Florida.)
5 years of eligibility
At the same time, the practice known as redshirting -- sitting a player out of games while retaining four years of playing time -- will end. This is part and parcel of the scholarship cuts.
(An important aside here: In a perfect world, walk-ons would not count toward a school's gender-equity equation. As the law stands now, Title IX does not factor in a basic element of sport: How many players are allowed on the field/court at one time. More than anything else, it is that element -- and not pure opportunity -- that shapes scholarship maximums in the NCAA.)
Bowl system changes
The BCS can add a fifth game if it wants, but our aforementioned division by budget total takes care of any access issues. All I-A conference champions get BCS berths.
As concerned as presidents are about the bowls, they should be just as concerned about how stagnant the I-AA playoffs have become. Schools lose money traveling, and the on-campus setup -- done so that home crowds are possible -- doesn't do much for some programs.
Plus, I-AA has struggled to stage a worthy championship game. Like the Final Four, the semifinal games have turned into the most competitive, as schools expend all their energy just to reach a title game. Maybe it's time bowls are incorporated into I-AA.
Enrollment exceptions die
Many colleges already set their own entrance requirements, many of which exceed the NCAA minimums. Now we're asking they enforce them universally. Whatever rules apply to the general student body also apply to all athletes.
Players that can't do the work? Well, that's why there are junior colleges and Division II teams.
Also among our proposals is a package designed to make life more normal for football players:
The 20-hour rule, which restricts athletes to 20 hours a week for practices, meetings and games stays, but we're adding two restrictions. Fridays count as half days, and players get Sundays off. Period.
No morning games (this applies to Central, Mountain and Pacific time zone teams playing on TV) and no kickoffs after 7 p.m. local time. After all, if we're going to give players more time to enjoy their lives, let's try to get them home from road trips before 3 a.m.
As for midweek football games -- are you kidding? We've been playing mid-week basketball games for years. Given the number of charter planes out there, these guys will miss fewer classes than most students.
Teams that play in bowl games aren't allowed to have spring practice. That's because they've already had it -- in December. You think coaches like going to bowls for the travel experience with their families? Please. They like it because -- their words -- "It's like spring practice." Often freshmen and sophomores get the brunt of the practice time while upperclassmen heal up for the bowls.
If a coach leaves a school, new recruits or first- and second-year players gain unfettered transfer status.
The final piece in this reform package is simple: Coaches aren't permitted to follow their players to class or monitor class attendance. Going to college is about growing up, accepting responsibility (or not), learning on your own from bad decisions and navigating to make the right ones.
Frankly, it's downright liberating to cut a college class and still pass the next exam. Any student who doesn't hold at least a moderate interest in going to class probably doesn't want a degree that badly or else has some other priorities.
He can play football somewhere else, too. Perhaps for a school that used to be in the NCAA.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/orl-insfootball24082403aug24,0,3574754.story?coll=orl-sports-headlines
The 2003 season just kicked off, and it's one of the few sports where the regular season still means something.
Last year, NCAA schools combined to set several attendance records. The season culminated in an overtime victory by Ohio State over Miami in arguably the most dizzying and competitive Bowl Championship Series title game ever staged.
What's more: Every team touted as a potential national champion appears to have a central question mark, setting the stage for upsets, drama and, in the end, spiked television ratings.
Yet this is a sport in peril. Financially and philosophically, college football wobbles to support immense growth and threatens to lose complete sight of its mission within the university.
A so-called arms race of escalating coaching salaries and multimillion-dollar athletic facilities shows no signs of slowing. Forced to bring in big bucks, athletic departments are up for sale to corporate sponsors and national marketing groups and forced to pursue aggressively season-ticket holders and boosters.
Money drives the latest frenzy, conference realignment. Seeking more annual revenues from its conference, the Miami Hurricanes swapped conferences. Effective next year, Miami and Virginia Tech will leave a suddenly staggered Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference, which has promised bigger checks every summer.
These are the first moves in what college officials believe will be a domino effect of conference membership changes.
Meanwhile, there's no evidence to suggest the sport's most disturbing trend is changing: The rich getting richer and the gap growing between rich and poor. In 2004, ABC will rain $90 million onto 62 BCS partners. Generously, they'll share $6 million of the windfall with 55 non-BCS schools.
Not surprisingly, infighting is reaching a crescendo. Presidents of some four dozen schools that don't share much of the BCS's riches formed their own coalition to tackle the BCS partners. The two sides meet Sept. 8 in Chicago, the Haves breaking bread with the Have Nots, with NCAA President Myles Brand looking on. (Who, we wonder, pays for lunch?)
One end-game scenario sees an agreement in which the Have Nots receive better postseason access and more money. Another depicts the ultimate landscape job: a federal antitrust lawsuit against BCS or the creation of a super division within the NCAA -- or perhaps beyond it. The dollars are too big to disregard such a concept.
Today it's time to offer some common-sense solutions. Some are more serious than others, but all are offered in good faith. They encompass some core beliefs.
Presidents not only should have their fingers on the pulse of the athletic department but also should pay for it. Academics are central to the college mission but not at the expense of personal privacy and, more importantly, personal enrichment. Football coaches shouldn't make so much money and shouldn't be under so much pressure to win or to graduate players.
Presidents pay bills
Little more than a decade ago, a highly regarded NCAA wonk said the goal of every Division I athletic department should be to generate enough money to fund all its programs. Like children to ice cream, we lapped it up. Now we all feel sick.
Take away direct and indirect university funding and 35 percent of I-A athletic departments bring in as much money as they spend. If a program is worth having, it's worth paying for, and presidents cut the big checks. Even at a time when universities across the country are increasing tuition and fees, this isn't much of an added burden.
Plus, this policy helps on several fronts. It drastically reduces reliance on commercialism and sponsorships. University budgets are so large even cash from ABC, CBS, ESPN and apparel giants Nike and Adidas gets dwarfed.
[In 2001-02, the Florida Gators had a $54.2 million athletic budget. That represented less than 3 percent of UF President Charles Young's $1.86 billion overall budget.]
Now athletic directors can do what they're supposed to do: manage coaches and run athletic events.
Scholarships get cut
All schools -- I-A and I-AA -- get 50. Unlike today's rules (85 grants for I-A, 63 for I-AA), let's allow coaches to divide the 50 into partial scholarships, much like baseball, softball and other college sports do now.
Coaches still can sign 25 recruits a year. They just have to make sure their 100-plus players only get money equivalent to 50 scholarships.
The rest of the squad comes from walk-ons.
Leatherneck football coaches will scream that such cuts will ruin the game. Baloney. Talent will get spread more evenly, but the reality is, even with scholarship cuts, the best coaches and best recruiters with the best facilities and fan followings are going to get the best players.
The reason for I-A and I-AA having an equal number of scholarships is because we propose:
Fluid membership
The NCAA last year voted in a new series of I-A membership requirements. The Haves see these as a way to ensure I-A is filled with like-minded, big-budget schools. The Have-Nots see them as a way for the Haves to shrink the number of schools that can lay claim to BCS and TV money.
We propose I-A and I-AA not be defined by sport sponsorship, scholarship totals and home-game attendance but by budget size. Schools with budgets, say, of $25 million or more are I-A. All those below $25 million are I-AA.
Allow schools to move up or down from one division to the other. (Hey, this happens all the time in the English Soccer League).
Once status is determined for the year, we set up a springtime schedulefest. No more game contracts done years in advance. Athletic directors and football coaches shape their schedules every spring. This would be a public-relations bonanza.
(Quick note: Using 2001-2002 data, our calculations show I-A would shrink from 117 schools to 68. Some big name schools would get sent to I-AA, including Oklahoma State, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Washington State, Ole Miss, Iowa State, Mississippi State, Army, Navy and, yes, UCF and South Florida.)
5 years of eligibility
At the same time, the practice known as redshirting -- sitting a player out of games while retaining four years of playing time -- will end. This is part and parcel of the scholarship cuts.
(An important aside here: In a perfect world, walk-ons would not count toward a school's gender-equity equation. As the law stands now, Title IX does not factor in a basic element of sport: How many players are allowed on the field/court at one time. More than anything else, it is that element -- and not pure opportunity -- that shapes scholarship maximums in the NCAA.)
Bowl system changes
The BCS can add a fifth game if it wants, but our aforementioned division by budget total takes care of any access issues. All I-A conference champions get BCS berths.
As concerned as presidents are about the bowls, they should be just as concerned about how stagnant the I-AA playoffs have become. Schools lose money traveling, and the on-campus setup -- done so that home crowds are possible -- doesn't do much for some programs.
Plus, I-AA has struggled to stage a worthy championship game. Like the Final Four, the semifinal games have turned into the most competitive, as schools expend all their energy just to reach a title game. Maybe it's time bowls are incorporated into I-AA.
Enrollment exceptions die
Many colleges already set their own entrance requirements, many of which exceed the NCAA minimums. Now we're asking they enforce them universally. Whatever rules apply to the general student body also apply to all athletes.
Players that can't do the work? Well, that's why there are junior colleges and Division II teams.
Also among our proposals is a package designed to make life more normal for football players:
The 20-hour rule, which restricts athletes to 20 hours a week for practices, meetings and games stays, but we're adding two restrictions. Fridays count as half days, and players get Sundays off. Period.
No morning games (this applies to Central, Mountain and Pacific time zone teams playing on TV) and no kickoffs after 7 p.m. local time. After all, if we're going to give players more time to enjoy their lives, let's try to get them home from road trips before 3 a.m.
As for midweek football games -- are you kidding? We've been playing mid-week basketball games for years. Given the number of charter planes out there, these guys will miss fewer classes than most students.
Teams that play in bowl games aren't allowed to have spring practice. That's because they've already had it -- in December. You think coaches like going to bowls for the travel experience with their families? Please. They like it because -- their words -- "It's like spring practice." Often freshmen and sophomores get the brunt of the practice time while upperclassmen heal up for the bowls.
If a coach leaves a school, new recruits or first- and second-year players gain unfettered transfer status.
The final piece in this reform package is simple: Coaches aren't permitted to follow their players to class or monitor class attendance. Going to college is about growing up, accepting responsibility (or not), learning on your own from bad decisions and navigating to make the right ones.
Frankly, it's downright liberating to cut a college class and still pass the next exam. Any student who doesn't hold at least a moderate interest in going to class probably doesn't want a degree that badly or else has some other priorities.
He can play football somewhere else, too. Perhaps for a school that used to be in the NCAA.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/orl-insfootball24082403aug24,0,3574754.story?coll=orl-sports-headlines
