OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 215,361
- Like
- 375,501
Hmmm. Was there a trip to Charlottesville on your itinerary, perchance?Shocked tennis wasn't one of them. I've been lucky enough to go on some D1 Head Coaching interviews over the past month - and the landscape for college tennis is certainly changing.
Had numerous friends, during my 4 years, on the baseball team. Think this is a pathetic move. I realize UB wants to be a football school but it absolutely should not come at the expense of other high priority, rising programs.
UB just threw in the towel for being the premier state school in New York, in my opinion.
Think this will fix the donor situation? Good luck.
Hmmm. Was there a trip to Charlottesville on your itinerary, perchance?
I disagree. The academics will step in and schools will drop to whatever level doesn't have to pay players rather than drop sports.Get ready for a lot more of this if and when they start paying revenue sports players.
Virginia is going to drop a level? Or Syracuse? These schools will have to get the $$ from somewhere to pay student athletes from revenue sports. I think it will come at the expense of sports that don't provide revenue but to provide costs.I disagree. The academics will step in and schools will drop to whatever level doesn't have to pay players rather than drop sports.
Just to bang the drum...Get ready for a lot more of this if and when they start paying revenue sports players.
And when the money isn't there, what do they do? I don't think they could cover the cost of being competitive in football and both basketballs even if they cut off all non-revs. The Ivies play in D-1 but follow D-3's rules. I think that if paid players ever came about and the present scholarship set-up was ended, there would be a division set up to follow the Ivy rules and a lot of familiar names would be in it.Virginia is going to drop a level? Or Syracuse? These schools will have to get the $$ from somewhere to pay student athletes from revenue sports. I think it will come at the expense of sports that don't provide revenue but to provide costs.
Shocked tennis wasn't one of them. I've been lucky enough to go on some D1 Head Coaching interviews over the past month - and the landscape for college tennis is certainly changing.
I thought schools liked tennis because it is pretty cheap. Equipment is cheap, small rosters (especially to travel), can double up coaches on the men's and women's teams.
To be honest - if you want a "good" division one program, it's hard to have the same person coaching two programs. It's almost inevitable that one program suffers. It's actually not as cheap as you may think, as booking tennis court time is very expensive, and if you live in the NE, Midwest, PNW - you are playing indoors for 3/4 of the season. With the way conferences currently are - you have people flying for 4 days at a time to play conference schools, which adds up very quickly. Here in Seattle, in the past 10 days I have spent three days in Arizona and 3 days in Kansas City playing conference tennis matches. For a sport that really brings no revenue in to the school, it's an easy thing to cut to help save a dime here or there.
Heck, look at UAlbany women's tennis. They made the NCAA tournament last season but had their program cut. It's happening all over the country.
Just to bang the drum...
If you let all student-athletes profit from their name and likeness, it doesn't have to go the slash sports way.
You don't control it.This always get brought up... how do you control it? Is there a cap? All checks must be sent to the NCAA first? What stops Phil Knight from giving the PG or QB 10 million dollars for his autograph?
Sounds like it would work. No problem.You don't control it.
It would. It would be different, and yes, we'd see different winners and losers from what we expect now.Sounds like it would work. No problem.
You don't control it.
Yeah, but see, that's a good thing.If you could have an independent group determining the fair market value of athletes, then sure it could work. Don't see that as being feasible though, and then all you have done is taken the boosters out of the shadows and given them direct access to the players, creating an even shadier situation where schools that have boosters with bottomless pockets buying up players left and right. If we think that the competitive balance of major college athletics is off-kilter now, just wait and see how much something like this would separate the haves from the have-nots.