http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2015/story/_/id/12...
The NCAA pays conferences for the performances of their teams in a tournament over a six-year period beginning in the next year. Teams earn a unit per game played, except the championship game, which is not included.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The best part about this is we get the satisfaction of UVA losing and then getting to blame them for not helping the conference.
As opposed to us who didn't even make it and not help the conference?
Shhhhhh...
VT and 287 other teams.
I didn't even read your comment. Mojo Jojo gets a leg just on principle.
When my kids were in elementary school we loved us some Powerpuff Girls.
OMG...I saw that, kinda recognized it, but didn't put it together.
Powerpuff Girls
Well...I'm still breathing, anyway...
And....stunning one two gif punch, Ohherro, lol.
When I lived in Vawter, I loved me some Powerpuff Girls...
This is yet another example of NCAA hypocrisy. I don't want to start a pay for play discussion, but I do think it's at the least very suspect that a non-profit rewards schools based on the performance of non-employees. Just further evidence of how broken the NCAA is.
Edit for clarification:
Comment was not meant to be start a conversation about student athletes getting paid, just meant to describe how backwards the NCAA is. Right now, the NCAA and its member institutions are in this middle ground of for-profit business and being a not-for-profit institution, and it's creating (at the very least) a conflict of interest.
The NCAA projects a moral image, but often fails to enforce the rules that ensure a level playing field. However, we often see institutions break these rules (ie, UNC). UNC has established a brand over time, so when they do well, the NCAA does well. When UNC breaks rules they get an advantage over other schools. This advantage gives them the ability to travel deeper in the NCAA tournament. The NCAA is now rewarding schools directly on how deep they go in the tournament. The NCAA has now created a system where it is mutually beneficial for the NCAA and certain universities to cheat.
Another issue - what happens when a school gets less money based on a team's/player's performance? Say a team underacheives, and misses out on the tourney, and thus a paycheck. Coach feels heat from AD, Coach has no available scholarships, so he yanks schollies from a couple mediocre players and gives them to a new, high profile recruit. We now have a situation where an amatruer loses his 'job' due to a performance. I'm sure this happens now, but I could see it happening even more often in the future since the relationship between revenue and performance will be more direct. Are you ok with this?
It's just a fair way to distribute the huge amount of money that is paid for by the networks for the rights of the tournament. I don't see any hypocrisy or any thing suspect here. Should the NCAA just give away all broadcasting rights? Should the money be distributed equally to all conferences in division 1?
agreed, They are rewarding schools for athletic achievement. Same happens on high school level. Schools take that money and use it for their sports programs or academic side. Where else should that money go to? Now with P5 schools upping the ante for school's commitment to players like full cost of tuition, increased stipends, etc they have shown the willingness to increased benefits and meet a larger responsibility toward their athletes, and more money could mean more benefits.
I know loads of people that get upset about the billion dollar industry that is the NCAA. But the money side is not the problem, it's the administration. And even then the ever increasing income of the NCAA and collegiate sports has led to ever increasing benefits and protections for athletes. Compare what athletes have today to early 80's when college sports was just starting it's national television trend. It's night and day, or even more extreme than that. More money has led to huge advances in facilities, medical support, strength & conditioning programs, nutrition programs, etc. All of that has value, and deemed necessary minimal things that schools need to provide, but it's only available because schools have the increased income to provide it.
It is simply a way of distributing the income generated by the tournament to the teams that participate in it / participate in it the most.
it's a payment for games played, not an award for games won....
But the more games you win, the more you play, so it really is a reward for games won.
^^^ Above posters - Bar's point is college athletes (non-employees) are generating 100s of millions of dollars with this tournament with extremely little compensation ($30K education plus food).
(I extrapolated from Bar's comment, but I think this gets the gist of his point)
I get your and his point, but saying all they get is a "$30,000 education and food" is misleading. They get access to facilities that many of us would pay double the rate of a 5 star hotel just to hang out their for a day. Furthermore, they get also get a personal trainer, dietician, and exposure towards NFL/ NBA or Euro scouts. Not to mention the fact that they get to learn from some of the best in the business Buzz, Foster, Gray, Wiles, Stiney (TE), Loeffler (you can question his skill as an OC, but he's a heck of a QB coach).
If they were to only award payouts to schools and players participating, all the players would flock to the big schools and you'd have 2 dozen Kentucky/Bama esque programs who are able to pay their players because they get those payouts consistently by making the NCAA's and CFP. (You could argue this is already happening with the Power 5 split though...)
yes, exactly. There is so much value not being recognized when you say players ONLY get education. There is so much more there. That's the problem with market based arguments for players to receive payments.
If you really want to do that then you need to add all the value on either side of the table and see who is giving the other more.
Is the student athlete who is there for short-term, and has a less than 2% chance of being such a star as to transfer to the pro's providing more value than the education, living, food, training, coaching, use of facilities, advertising/PR on national television for hours at a time, etc that the school is providing? If you really want to look at a pay for play scenario then you have to do it like this, and I believe that the value put into athletes far exceeds the value that athletes transfer to the schools.
Again, I want to say I fully support increased living and benefits for athletes, just not market based pay for play scenarios.
Almost any job generates more money than it receives as compensation. I've yet to meet a person whose job pays them every dollar they generate. In fact many jobs do not generate any money yet still receive a paycheck, me for example I make no money for my fire dept.
It wasn't even meant to be about student-athlete compensation. Just pointing out how backwards the NCAA is.
They're a non-profit that rewards institutions based on the performance of amateurs.EDIT: See above update
Their mission as a non-profit is the support of student(amateur) athletes and the institution's they play for. So it makes sense that they as a non-profit reward the excellence of an institution's athletic achievements, no?
sorry, not seeing what the issue is.
Yes, the NCAA generates $100s of millions. However, after administration and operating expenses the leftover money is distributed back to the schools based off of certain metrics. This goes back to help non revenue sports too. They don't just cut massive checks to their executives, board, and shareholders then laugh their way to the banks. Yes, the execs can make a lot of money, but should they work for free just because it's a non profit? The CEO of the Red Cross gets paid.
And for every athlete that makes more than he gets in compensation there are dozens that don't come close.
there are several points you are raising here.
First, I think there is the money issue. They are a billion dollar revenue generating monster with non-profit status, but they give out most of the "profit" back to schools and programs supporting athletics. Rewarding performance in March Madness being one of them. That reward is there to support and promote excellence in athletics. I don't see the problem with that and I don't understand why that would be a problem. It happens in high school as well, obviously for much less money.
The administration of the rules to create level playing fields is another issue you raise, but it's a separate issue. this is my major beef with the NCAA as well. Their administration is unbelievably dumb. It needs complete and total overhaul. At this point everything they do is abject FAIL. Yet, I don't think they are actively trying to create a system whereby schools and the NCAA are in cahoots in some symbiotic relationship to cheat and win more money. They just REALLY suck at administrating their governance and investigating things.
The issue you raised with scholarships are less common these days and the P5 conferences are in fact making sure this doesn't happen by guaranteeing full cost of tuition and soon non-revocable scholarships.
I don't see why you wouldn't be OK with them giving money back to schools for athletic success.
You're correct, there are several issues. Issue #2 leads me to be very weary of the NCAA's true intent, which makes Issues #1 and #3 more suspect. If I genuinely felt that the NCAA's end goal was to improve life of student athletes, Issues #1 and #3 would be non-issues. However, being the skeptic that I am, I believe that there are ulterior motives that are far more important to the higher ups at the NCAA than student livelihood.
I could deal with athletes getting paid if the payments came from the NCAA level and not left up to the schools themselves to handle. Let the kids apply for a scholarship at the NCAA level, and if they get it, the NCAA will cover all expenses for the kids in school and set an industry standard stipend for the kids to have, at the very least covering full cost of tuition including full medical coverage the NCAA offers while they're there.
Take all of that onus off the schools and make everything on an even playing field. Also, if a kid has a scholarship at the NCAA level, and a coach decides to cut him from the team, he is free to search for and immediately start on another team, because the scholly is handled by the NCAA. And if a team the kid plays on makes a certain round of the playoffs or whatever, the NCAA has a set standard 'bonus' that gets put into a trust account under the athlete's name that can be accessed after graduation.
Yes, this would cause the NCAA to really have to get its act together, but if they did this, they could really stand to make more money long term while becoming a more powerful organization that legitimately is looking out for the athletes themselves. It would also help eliminate a lot of the shadiness that currently exists in college sports.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-tournament-r...
Just over 35 million coming to the ACC.
Words cant describe how warm and fuzzy that statement made my insides feel