Look for Division 4 to revolutionize college athletics

[red_n_black_attack]

By the way, once they start paying the players, it won't stop with a "stipend". The players will probably organize and want progressively more benefits and money all the time. It's going to be a mess, and I'm not sure I want my alma mater being in the middle of it.

A student-athlete-union! They could unite with UAW and surely have current presidential backing!

[mjv780]

I'm very interested in UC continuing to be a major participant in amateur collegiate sports.

I have no interest in UC participating or trying to compete in professional or quasi-professional sports.

It's not about "quitting" it's about what it is that we want to participate in. The landscape is rapidly changing along with the ground rules, and I, for one, am giving serious consideration as to whether I want to continue to participate and contribute.

This is a site for just such debate; I'll not go along just to get along any longer. The amounts of money spent on amateur athletics (especially football) is completely absurd, and in order to belong to the club, UC and the rest of us supporters and UCATS members are going to have to continue to pony up more and more. There is a limit to what I will be willing to give; I don't know what that limit is for me yet, but it is quickly approaching.

Roll over and play dead? Maybe it's more like wake up and smell the coffee.

This is nothing against UC at all. All we have done as a university in major sports for the last 10 years is give and give as donors, and our teams have consistently finished in the top 20-40 every year in football and basketball. And yet, we're still on the outside, watching others have dinner through the window. 2nd class citizens. There literally is nothing else we can do. Yes, go to the games, give more money, yada yada. To what end?

Bearcat Chris caught much grief here in the last few years advocating a return to the MAC. I'm not so sure now that he is wrong.

UC will NEVER be in any position of advantage as long as the governor of this state, the senate and the house all bend over backwards for OSU, and do nothing for the rest of the schools and team in the state.

I agree that it's not so much about rolling over and quitting. It is disheartening to have the goal posts (what allows a school to be considered 'major' in sports? - is it fan support? athletic budget? wins?) continue to be moved. In the past 5 years, every time UC has gotten close to feeling like they belong at a major level, in football at least, the definition of major gets changed. First, it was make it to a BCS conference, then it was end the season ranked, then win a championship in the conference, make it to a BCS Bowl, etc. Every time UC has done that, it's become evident that it's not enough. People have donated more, the attendance has improved, the administration has made efforts to show support to athletics, but again, nothing has been good enough. As it was said above, to what end does the university continue to burn through resources chasing these goals? I'm all for trying to compete at the highest level, but not at the expense of everything else - the university is an academic institution 1st. College athletics were intended to be a bonus to the school, not the main function of the institution. It's become backward.

[Rational Cat]

I'm all for trying to compete at the highest level, but not at the expense of everything else - the university is an academic institution 1st. College athletics were intended to be a bonus to the school, not the main function of the institution. It's become backward.

You said it far better than I did, and more clearly.

I am in total agreement.

[Rock]

Measurables?

To what measure can you say that "big time" athletics helps the university--attendance at the school, area support, notoriety, giving, etc. I know I am speaking for myself, but if UC wants my money, they need to be relevant in athletics (football included). I do not plan to give to my university to support the "biology lab"!

[richard k.]

Unfortunately, there will be ramifications in all other sports. Stipends are not going to be limited to football.

If you are going to provide $2 thou to each player on the football team, how will you not be REQUIRED to pay it to an equal number of women athletes. And if that is the case then male basketball players will expect it - the end result is that every intercollegiate athlete at the school will receive it, and once it starts who is putting money on it stopping at 2G's. I don't understand it, room, board,tuition, and expenses in today's world run well in excess of $50,000 at many (most) colleges. I have a grandson starting Otterbein next month, and he expects to be in the soccer team. As a division 3 there are no athletic scholarships! Try telling his parents that kids going to OSU to play soccer should get a free ride AND $2,000/year and see what their response is!

[Rational Cat]

To what measure can you say that "big time" athletics helps the university--attendance at the school, area support, notoriety, giving, etc. I know I am speaking for myself, but if UC wants my money, they need to be relevant in athletics (football included). I do not plan to give to my university to support the "biology lab"!

It all depends on what your definition of "relevant" is, Rock.

Absolutely I think that athletics has been great for UC, and probably being in the Big East was the best of times. But that ship has sailed.

If in the future "big time athletics" means Division 4 and players being paid and tickets twice the cost they are now, then maybe that's not for me, just speaking for myself.

I would support UC if they had a MAC sized program, or even if they had no football program at all. But that's just me, I have 2 degrees from the place, neither in football or basketball.

[Rock]

Great points!

Many of you are making great points! If money is an issue, what do you say if the bottom line, after all expenses including paying players is paid, is better then before. Bigger attendance, more giving, more TV money etc. But if you want to take a step back and lose money, because recruiting will suck, no TV revenue, attendance goes south, people do not give to the university!!
I believe the reason UC was left behind in the first place was because of a lack of vision, a conservative approach by the university, and lack of support from alumni. It is always more costly to try to catch up--like putting your foot on the accelerator of your car--it will use more gas! Now, we are paying the price, playing catch up--we are paying for our sins and hope to be forgiven!

[Best Body]

Yep, put me in the same camp. Guess I could be wrong, but if I'm an engaged parent of a Major college prospect, do I really want my kid going to one of these big football factories (with a bunch of kids like Maurice Clarett and Aaron Hernandez)??? If you think major college sports are ethically challenged now, wait till these kids are being paid a nice "stipend". By the way, once they start paying the players, it won't stop with a "stipend". The players will probably organize and want progressively more benefits and money all the time. It's going to be a mess, and I'm not sure I want my alma mater being in the middle of it.

I don't think there are more bad apples per bunch at the really high level than at lower levels of college football. I think you just hear about the higher profile cases. Tebow and plenty of other good citizens played with Hernandez and the other bad apples at Florida.

Plus, you know what they say about people who live in glass houses.........UC has had its share of athletes get in trouble.

Sorry, but it really just sounds like sour grapes from UC being excluded thus far. If UC were on the other side of the fence, we'd all be excited about division 4.

And if you were an engaged parent of a top prospect (if he is a potential pro), you should probably be considering his best chances at an NFL contract.

[bearcattom]

Grand Canyon University - For Profit joins WAC, Division 1

http://m.espn.go.com/ncb/story?story...12&src=desktop

[red_n_black_attack]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncb/story?story...12&src=desktop

I don't understand how being "for-profit" is any different than being a small private Jesuit college, like Evansville or Marquette. Having stockholders and being publicly traded is a little different, but most schools (private or public) have online students who don't set foot on campus. Higher student enrollment is the goal, with bringing in as much revenue as possible (whether it be research grants, alumni donations, or sporting events). The student athletes still have the same restrictions as governed by the NCAA (for as long as that lasts). This is just Arizona State crying foul. It's not much different than O$U trying to quell every other university in the state.

The is big business in colleges/universities. I don't see much difference if the profits go to stockholders or to deans, tenured faculty, and such. The difference here is the stockholders raised money for the school in sale of stock, and the school still has some stock they release periodically to raise a little more money when donations are low. IF there is a windfall, they probably buy some stock back. Personally, I think the Securities and Exchange Commission will make it run with less under-the-table student pay-offs than the NCAA. They are not at a competitive advantage, they simply thought of it first.

[blackattack]

I don't think there are more bad apples per bunch at the really high level than at lower levels of college football. I think you just hear about the higher profile cases. Tebow and plenty of other good citizens played with Hernandez and the other bad apples at Florida.

Plus, you know what they say about people who live in glass houses.........UC has had its share of athletes get in trouble.

Sorry, but it really just sounds like sour grapes from UC being excluded thus far. If UC were on the other side of the fence, we'd all be excited about division 4.

And if you were an engaged parent of a top prospect (if he is a potential pro), you should probably be considering his best chances at an NFL contract.

Nope you misunderstand. Youre making my point and you dont even realize it. Sour grapes over UC being left out of a BCS Conference? Yep you bet. But that's not what we're talking about here (at least not what I thought). Nope, this is about the first phase of the top 30 or so football programs breaking away from the NCAA so they can recruit and administrate by their own set of rules. They're calling it "transformative change". LOL. If that happens (and it sure looks like it will) then the new Div 4 will eventually be a no holds barred, anything goes cesspool. I'm assuming that UC would not be included in that group even if we were in a BCS conference, and neither will many of the programs that currently reside in the Power 5 ( Wake, Duke, Vandy, IU, UVa, Purdue, Iowa State, Northwestern, Minnesota, Washington State, Rutgers, Colorado, etc).

[bearcattom]

Tiered System Based on Revenue...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2...-for-reform/2/

[red_n_black_attack]

Though Tier II schools would be at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting, at least there would be equality within each separate tier.

It's only fair to be at a competitive disadvantage if Tier I and Tier II schools do not play games against each other. Today, FCS and FBS schools play each other, but only limited number of times. If the top 30-40 college teams split off, then they could play each other just like the NFL. A no loss season would be rare and meaningful. Every game would be prime time tv worthy for pure football fans.

On the flip side of this, what would paying players do to their egos and coachability? There are already primadonnas in sports. This would simply make it worse!

[bearcattom]

Speculation of 12-15 conferences in Tier 1

http://m.si.com/3201829/whats-next-i...ge-in-the-air/

[cpawstoney]

American wants into NCAA 'Division 4'? Get ready to pay up

Cincinnati athletic director Whit Babcock told CBSSports.com the league's athletic directors and coaches met with the conference on Monday and member schools are prepared to do whatever is necessary.

"Whatever it is, we deserve to be there and want a chance to go along with them," Babcock said.

To avoid antitrust complications, a subdivision likely would need entry rules that appear neutral and fair, even if they are impractical for some of the smaller schools. This would give hope for the American and others. All five of the smaller conferences should get at least a million per school in college playoff money in 2014. This alone would help pay a player stipend.

http://www.cbssports.com/general/blo...eady-to-pay-up