PDA

View Full Version : If the BCS schools leave the NCAA, where does it leave hockey?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

SCSU Euro
07-26-2013, 02:12 PM
First off, it's not Fox Snooze, it's FSC Atlantic. Second, they did this last year. Third, I'd put money on at least one person being a critic of the EZAC.

Start thinking of how you are gonna spend that money

Osorojo
07-26-2013, 05:39 PM
First off, it's not Fox Snooze, it's FSC Atlantic. Second, they did this last year. Third, I'd put money on at least one person being a critic of the EZAC.

The definition of "hidebound" makes your bet a sure (but sad) thing. Check it out.

Priceless
07-26-2013, 06:02 PM
In this NAU we've dreamt up, who are Alabama et al going to invite for four games a year to beat up and rack up statistics? This arrangement lacks the sacrificial lambs. The BCS as it is currently aligned works perfectly for the big schools. Five power conferences get to kick the stuffing out of the four smaller conferences four times a year so they have a nice preseason before the conference games start. Get rid of the lambs and the wolves will have to dine on each other, and half of them are going to lose...they can't have that.

darker98
07-26-2013, 06:42 PM
In this NAU we've dreamt up, who are Alabama et al going to invite for four games a year to beat up and rack up statistics? This arrangement lacks the sacrificial lambs. The BCS as it is currently aligned works perfectly for the big schools. Five power conferences get to kick the stuffing out of the four smaller conferences four times a year so they have a nice preseason before the conference games start. Get rid of the lambs and the wolves will have to dine on each other, and half of them are going to lose...they can't have that.
This makes a lot of sense.

Patman
07-26-2013, 06:52 PM
In this NAU we've dreamt up, who are Alabama et al going to invite for four games a year to beat up and rack up statistics? This arrangement lacks the sacrificial lambs. The BCS as it is currently aligned works perfectly for the big schools. Five power conferences get to kick the stuffing out of the four smaller conferences four times a year so they have a nice preseason before the conference games start. Get rid of the lambs and the wolves will have to dine on each other, and half of them are going to lose...they can't have that.

they're so overloaded on hubris right now I expect EXACTLY that

FloridaCat
07-26-2013, 07:26 PM
Check out this story from the Indianapolis Star.


http://www.indystar.com/article/20130725/SPORTS/307250079/Exclusive-NCAA-s-Emmert-vows-fundamental-change-how-top-division-makes-rules-policy

purpleinnebraska
07-26-2013, 11:52 PM
Get rid of the lambs and the wolves will have to dine on each other, and half of them are going to lose...they can't have that.

Look, we've already had the NCHC discussion. Let it go.

Oh wait, different topic, same conclusions.

Osorojo
07-27-2013, 08:57 AM
The NCAA rules DI hockey, period. How high a priority for the NCAA is the success of college hockey? Look at these facts and take a guess:

The University of Florida just gave head football coach Muschamp a $250K raise, putting his annual salary at $2,928,971 per season, the SEVENTH highest paid coach in the SEC, behind $5.47M, $3.8M, $3.3M, $3.2M, $3.2M, & $3.1M - and this is only one of many DI football conferences. How many DI hockey programs have a yearly budget as large as any one of these coach's yearly salary? How important is college hockey to the NCAA?

"So what?" you say. So might college hockey find or form a governing body which would better represent the best interests of college hockey, or will the NCAA always provide the best of all possible leadership for college hockey?

CLS
07-27-2013, 11:50 AM
The NCAA rules DI hockey, period. How high a priority for the NCAA is the success of college hockey? Look at these facts and take a guess:

The University of Florida just gave head football coach Muschamp a $250K raise, putting his annual salary at $2,928,971 per season, the SEVENTH highest paid coach in the SEC, behind $5.47M, $3.8M, $3.3M, $3.2M, $3.2M, & $3.1M - and this is only one of many DI football conferences. How many DI hockey programs have a yearly budget as large as any one of these coach's yearly salary? How important is college hockey to the NCAA?

"So what?" you say. So might college hockey find or form a governing body which would better represent the best interests of college hockey, or will the NCAA always provide the best of all possible leadership for college hockey?Complete non sequitur. Are the salaries of coaches in lacrosse, wrestling, bowling, DII and DIII football, pretty much all women's sports, or any other NCAA sport besides men's basketball more like college hockey or college football? The facts you cite present a better case for DI football to leave the NCAA, not for college hockey to leave the NCAA. That's what's actually being discussed, not what you suggest.

Osorojo
07-27-2013, 12:09 PM
Complete non sequitur. Are the salaries of coaches in lacrosse, wrestling, bowling, DII and DIII football, pretty much all women's sports, or any other NCAA sport besides men's basketball more like college hockey or college football? The facts you cite present a better case for DI football to leave the NCAA, not for college hockey to leave the NCAA. That's what's actually being discussed, not what you suggest.

DI College football and basketball seem to be thriving more than wrestling, women's sports, DIII football, or DI college hockey. Could this possibly be due in part to the amount of attention and effort and attention the NCAA lavishes or does not lavish on these sports? The NCAA is not foreordained to forever be the best of all possible governing bodies for DI college hockey, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. I would welcome any such evidence as a real contribution to what's being discussed. Until then I will maintain that college hockey could be better and more profitably governed.

darker98
07-27-2013, 01:44 PM
Look, we've already had the NCHC discussion. Let it go.

Oh wait, different topic, same conclusions.
Sure the Sioux and Denver would have gotten fat off the left overs, but we were at the mercy of the small school voting block. UND is a hockey school.

LynahFan
07-27-2013, 09:33 PM
DI College football and basketball seem to be thriving more than wrestling, women's sports, DIII football, or DI college hockey. Could this possibly be due in part to the amount of attention and effort and attention the NCAA lavishes or does not lavish on these sports? No. Definitely NO. The NCAA is just following the money, not leading the fans. I don't care how much "effort and attention" the NCAA gives to women's fencing, it's not going to become as popular as football.

The NCAA is not foreordained to forever be the best of all possible governing bodies for DI college hockey, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. I would welcome any such evidence as a real contribution to what's being discussed. Until then I will maintain that college hockey could be better and more profitably governed.Well, that's hardly debatable, considering that the NCAA itself is not-for-profit and is made up of individual institutions which are each not-for-profit. Since when has profit been the measure of goodness in college sports? Oh, that's right - never.

CLS
07-28-2013, 12:28 AM
DI College football and basketball seem to be thriving more than wrestling, women's sports, DIII football, or DI college hockey. Could this possibly be due in part to the amount of attention and effort and attention the NCAA lavishes or does not lavish on these sports?

The fact is that in the United States, hockey is much less popular than football or basketball, at ALL levels, youth high school, and professional, not just college. Do you also blame the NCAA for the fact that the NBA and NFL are orders of magnitude more successful than the NHL? In fact, I think it's quite remarkable that the NCAA manages to run a profitable D1 men's hockey tournament despite that fact that there are other sports, for example, soccer and baseball, in which there are many, many, more schools participating at the D1 college level and their tournaments are not profitable. Maybe the NCAA lavishes too much attention on on hockey?


The NCAA is not foreordained to forever be the best of all possible governing bodies for DI college hockey, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. I would welcome any such evidence as a real contribution to what's being discussed. Until then I will maintain that college hockey could be better and more profitably governed.Absolutely agree that the NCAA is not foreordained to forever be the best of all possible governing bodies for D1 college hockey. The NCAA is a voluntary organization. You're perfectly free to start your own competing organization to "better and more profitably" govern college hockey. Care to enlighten us with what you would do differently?

Osorojo
07-28-2013, 11:21 AM
NCAA Director Emmert made $1,600.000 dollars last year. His pay and the pay of his co-workers is determined by a "market survey," which to me means how much cash came in. Revenue from college B-ball and F-ball dwarf all other college sports. You may be assured that NCAA execs, who are not charity workers, devote the lion's share of their planning, promotion, and innovation to these big-two ball games to enhance their own market worth.

Note that the NHL, the NFL, and the NBA are separate entities, as are the governing bodies of all the various professional sports; not "one size fits all" as the NCAA claims to be. Each separate governing body in pro sports is devoted exclusively to the health of its own sport, for reasons which are quite obvious, if you think about it. Directing and governing a sports league, professional or amateur, is a thoroughly practical enterprise. The individual schools can and should regulate the academic aspects of college sports, but the planning, promotion, regulation and innovation of a college sports league should be in the hands of the people who know and value that sport best.

BTW: As to what changes"I" would make when I run a new college hockey league - an astonishingly fatuous suggestion - I will not lose my advantage by prematurely revealing my plans. Ha! Thought you could trick me, did you?

CLS
07-28-2013, 04:11 PM
NCAA Director Emmert made $1,600.000 dollars last year. His pay and the pay of his co-workers is determined by a "market survey," which to me means how much cash came in. Revenue from college B-ball and F-ball dwarf all other college sports. You may be assured that NCAA execs, who are not charity workers, devote the lion's share of their planning, promotion, and innovation to these big-two ball games to enhance their own market worth.

Note that the NHL, the NFL, and the NBA are separate entities, as are the governing bodies of all the various professional sports; not "one size fits all" as the NCAA claims to be. Each separate governing body in pro sports is devoted exclusively to the health of its own sport, for reasons which are quite obvious, if you think about it. Directing and governing a sports league, professional or amateur, is a thoroughly practical enterprise. The individual schools can and should regulate the academic aspects of college sports, but the planning, promotion, regulation and innovation of a college sports league should be in the hands of the people who know and value that sport best.
At all levels, other than college, the sports are regulated in just the way you want, by people who value the sports best. And at all levels, including college, football, basketball, and baseball, dwarf hockey. So the relative success of hockey has more to do with the fact that football, basketball, and baseball are more popular than hockey, not because hockey is ineptly managed, or managed by people who don't "value the sport best".


BTW: As to what changes"I" would make when I run a new college hockey league - an astonishingly fatuous suggestion - I will not lose my advantage by prematurely revealing my plans. Ha! Thought you could trick me, did you?No, wondering if you would ever deviate from your usual “Here’s what’s wrong” to a “Here’s how it could be better”. Too bad.

Osorojo
07-28-2013, 06:35 PM
I may need a wood burning kit to make myself clear to some. HERE'S HOW IT COULD BE BETTER: Rather than distracted general sports marketers and basket/foot ball specialists have an independent group of college hockey people plan, market, govern and regulate college hockey. One ruling body for one sport.

CLS
07-29-2013, 10:04 AM
I may need a wood burning kit to make myself clear to some. HERE'S HOW IT COULD BE BETTER: Rather than distracted general sports marketers and basket/foot ball specialists have an independent group of college hockey people plan, market, govern and regulate college hockey. One ruling body for one sport.And I need patience to understand that some, perhaps most, posters to internet bulletin boards deal in red herrings (like Mark Emmert’s salary) and dogma than the exchange of practical ideas. It’s particularly disheartening in this case, because the discussion doesn’t need to be entirely theoretical.

Rather than restating over and over again your “If I think it would be this way, it would be” reasoning, you could give us examples of how, at other levels of hockey in which it is ONE RULING BODY FOR ONE SPORT, hockey is run better. You could, for example, point out the relative success of the US Junior Hockey team in international competition. You could point out the how US youth hockey, which has a more centralized regulatory body than most other youth sports, is better run than most other youth sports. In fact, I think there’s a good argument to be made there. And you could point out how the NHL is better run than the … oh, scratch that;)

But you’d also have to explain how the idea would work relative to college presidents and ADs, who now have one regulatory body to deal with, but now would have at least one, and potentially many more to deal with depending on how you structure it.

In fact, I think there’s a good argument to be made that college basketball and college football could regulated separately and interact with the colleges at the college president level, that the NCAA exists for volleyball, etc., and that college hockey break away so that it can better deal with, for example, competition from junior leagues. In addition to the “people who know and love the sport . . . “ advantage, that would solve another salary and hypocrisy problem that exists today. D1 college football and basketball coaches aren’t the only salary anomaly. Many college ADs have seven figure salaries also, largely because they manage the football and basketball programs. In this model, the basketball and football coaches could report to the president, and the AD at a D1 school could look more like an AD at a D3 school (in fact, doesn't the AD at Vanderbilt, a D1 school, also run the intramural program?). Sports leagues could be assembled for practical reasons (hockey, other than the BTHC, is luckier than most other sports in that respect) based on the needs of the sports.

Osorojo
07-29-2013, 11:52 AM
Emmert's salary - and it's source - are anything but a red herring. Would you hire a financial advisor who receives 90+% of his fees from investments in two companies? You have added some powerful arguments in favor of a governing board exclusively dedicated to the furtherance of college hockey. Bravo. The bits of remaining ad hominem add heat but no light to the consideration of improving the governance of college hockey.

CLS
07-29-2013, 08:08 PM
Emmert's salary - and it's source - are anything but a red herring. Would you hire a financial advisor who receives 90+% of his fees from investments in two companies?
In the spirit of the discussion we're having, I would, if I thought that said financial advisor would do a better job managing my money than the alternatives I'd base my decision on real data, research, and performance, not on lazy assumptions. Is it possible that the two companies who use them do so because they do a good job of managing their money and would do a good job of managing your money also? Or are you going to just assume they wouldn't?


You have added some powerful arguments in favor of a governing board exclusively dedicated to the furtherance of college hockey. Bravo.

Thank you. Someone has to add some substance to your empty assumptions.


The bits of remaining ad hominem add heat but no light to the consideration of improving the governance of college hockey. I know nothing about you, nor do I care about you. Your arguments are evasive, full of red herrings and unsupported assumptions, and lack substance, though.

joecct
07-31-2013, 10:35 PM
No. Definitely NO. The NCAA is just following the money, not leading the fans. I don't care how much "effort and attention" the NCAA gives to women's fencing, it's not going to become as popular as football.Well if the women fencers wore bikinis and high heels and looked like some of the folks in the Kate Upton thread, I'd venture they'd have an audience.