OSU says the Quiet Part our loud- FBS Football Existing without the NCAA

Submitted by XM - Mt 1822 on May 3rd, 2022 at 10:55 PM

Mates,

Not necessarily shocking but OSU's AD, the one who was lucky Tressel didn't fire, has said the quiet part out loud:  "We [can] create our own rules, create our own governance structure, have our own enforcement, we have our own requirements, whatever that might be,"

He apparently wants to carve off FBS football from the NCAA and create its own fiefdom. One can only imagine what the rules would be or how they would be enforced. With the wild west of a billion dollar B10 TV Network contract in the offing, and the NIL money ramping up to potentially incredible heights, things could really break apart.   If they haven't already, any sentiments about how college football 'used to be' would be finally crushed.  4 year commitments, school spirit, rah-rah for 'our team' would likely go to the grave with it.  The true fairness of paying players could be so much of a game-changer that the sport is greatly diminished.  Sad, but perhaps the price that has to be paid. 

Link to the ESPN article: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33851549/just-throwing-ideas-ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-proposes-fbs-leagues-operate-umbrella-college-football-playoff-their-own-rules

Your thoughts? 

Take care,

XM 

 

PhillipFulmersPants

May 4th, 2022 at 11:04 AM ^

The NCAA doesn't feed OSU, at least not financially.  The conferences generate the $billions for football and reg season MBB, not the NCAA. NCAA basically has the TV contracts for the MBB tournament and that's 95% of their rev generation, and some of that goes back to the conferences to distribute among schools anyway.  I guess if you mean "hand that feeds them" in the sense it has largely turned a blind eye to programs that have been skirting the rules for years, sure.  But there basically are no rules anymore. All the more reason OSU (or any big, powerful school) doesn't need the NCAA.  

Ihatebux

May 4th, 2022 at 11:19 AM ^

I kinda think this is inevitable and not necessarily a bad idea.   However, it still doesn't absolve schools to follow Title IX.   This probably means if schools pay male basketball and football players directly they will also need to pay female players equally.   I'm not an attorney and I didn't stay at Holiday Inn Express, but I think this still holds.

MGlobules

May 4th, 2022 at 12:33 PM ^

I kinda think it's inevitable, but I won't--for the most part--be watching. My viewership has tapered considerably already, and that of friends I talk to most about this with it. Football, with its endless commercials and WWE announcers, is just often pretty fucking boring. I watch Michigan football pretty exclusively nowadays, and if we're a permanent ten steps down the ladder? Still in the dark about why people thought this was a good thing.

I'm not necessarily the target audience, anyway--for me a semi-pro league dominated by mediocre universities just is not appealing. I get that a lot of people will watch anyway, but some serious slice of the audience falls off with me. College football as we knew it is over, and--very, very predictably--the University of Michigan is not in a hurry to embrace changes that the people in charge see as borderline corrupt. A union, across-the-board payment to players with additional pay when their likenesses are used--these would have been changes worth embracing. Millionaires luring whole teams to Miami (and some fans applauding?). . . State legislatures will mostly want in on the corrupt end--on the side of the millionaires--not of equity and sportsmanship.   

 

93Grad

May 3rd, 2022 at 11:02 PM ^

That is the logical conclusion of everything that has happened with college football over the last couple decades.
 

It’s all pretty much for the worse of course, and I’d rather go back to the pre-BCS days when the Rose Bowl was the Holly Grail and Michigan had a better chance of competing with the top programs.  
 

But we don’t live in those times anymore and the genie isn’t going back in the bottle.  So I suspect we are very much on track for the future Smith is envisioning. 

Buckeye_Impaler8124

May 3rd, 2022 at 11:19 PM ^

So this could be good or bad for Michigan. On one hand, we will absolutely need transfer players because they will be coming and going to the highest bidder, Michigan’s credit transfer situation may hinder that, but also, it may not matter because if you’re hell bent on NFL or bust, maybe top players don’t care if they graduate.

Carpetbagger

May 4th, 2022 at 10:20 AM ^

I would think it would be good for Michigan. Either the school joins the new "FBS" league, and follows those rules, or there will be an alternative league, and Michigan will follow those rules.

Right now they can keep falling back on the whole "our athletes are not professionals" and "the school if for education first" excuses for things. New league rules will likely make it clear how they have to compete. (I say that as someone who supports both of those sentiments, but understands that's not where things are going).

Beilein 4 Life

May 4th, 2022 at 10:26 AM ^

The issue with our transfer credit problem isn’t that kids won’t be on track to graduate, it’s that they need enough credits to transfer over to stay eligible to play when they get here. You can’t be a sophomore at another school and then transfer to Michigan with only enough credits to be a freshman and still be eligible to play

swn

May 3rd, 2022 at 11:21 PM ^

There's been two separate issues: (1) how to deal with the death of bowl games and the move to playoffs and (2) paying players. The NCAA has done a horrendous job on both accounts always defaulting to preserving status quo until absolutely forced to do otherwise.

stephenrjking

May 3rd, 2022 at 11:22 PM ^

It might not happen and it might not work...

But it's not absurd. Football already has its own postseason. The NCAA is an unwieldy and ineffective behemoth that doesn't meet the needs of the revenue members, and in trying to meet those needs often shortchanges the non-revenue members. And if this is limited to football, it doesn't even destroy the NCAA, since its revenue is generated from the basketball tournament.

Meanwhile, schools will still be bound by title IX et al. They just won't have all these NCAA regs that don't work. They could bargain with the players without affecting other sports, which could actually involve cutting down on transfers and NIL abuses while codifying best practices. A more nimble governance structure would be able to see problems and address them much more rapidly. An actual commissioner could be retained (and then relentlessly booed as a proper figurehead heel). 

I'm not saying it's a good idea, or that it would work... just that I can see the idea, and just because it's the OSU AD doesn't mean I hold it against them that he's mentioning this. 

Brian Griese

May 4th, 2022 at 9:06 AM ^

I would honestly be curious for some powerful (Gene Smith or otherwise) college sports figure to explain what the long term goal of a "carve out" of the NCAA would be.  I read the article and it seemed like more of headline baiting more so than anything much of substance in the actual text.  For example, is the goal to directly compensate players? Become a G league for the NFL? Hire lobbyist to make Title IX changes? What don't they like that the NCAA is doing that is independent of Title IX obligations? I would be genuinely curious to hear it. 

Kilgore Trout

May 4th, 2022 at 9:59 AM ^

I agree that there is a lot to figure out, but it's not impossible. One positive that I think could come out of something like this is that if you could actually sign a player to a contract that they can actually bargain for, you can hold them to the commitment and you would see a lot less player movement. Lot of in between steps to get that though. 

rice4114

May 3rd, 2022 at 11:28 PM ^

Pre Michigan Money Cannon - Clearly behind a handful of schools somewhere in the 6th to 10th spot in overall football recruiting.

NIL Fully functional Michigan Money Cannon - I honestly feel we will be out of the top ten more often than not. Even MSU threw 9 million at a 1 hit wonder coach whos ceiling was pretty much our coaches floor most years. 

Wish we had one edgy motivated young billionaire to lead the NIL charge. 

WeimyWoodson

May 4th, 2022 at 9:46 AM ^

It is easy for us as regular fans to make comments about super-rich Michigan fans just dropping off bags to high school kids, but in reality, what is the benefit for them there? I would say my level of fandom is an 8.5-9 on a scale of 10 but even if I was loaded I have zero interest in just giving away huge chunks of money to high school kids. Heck, even when they get on the team I do not want to do that. 

I'm sure a lot of these investors want an ROI and has there been anything shown that paying these kids has given the investors that? an

Eph97

May 5th, 2022 at 2:32 AM ^

Exactly. I'm not really itching to pay high school players who will become highly paid NFL players in a few years. I'd rather donate my money to legit charities. I think that will be the attitude of most well to do people in the B1G footprint. SEC boosters are really different. Maybe let the SEC go its own way and let the rest of college football function without the SEC?

XM - Mt 1822

May 4th, 2022 at 5:52 AM ^

my post was as vanilla as it gets so i'm not sure what got you so charged up.  you must have been having a bad day, and given your inaccurate double post with the gargle of grammar which makes your comments unintelligible, maybe you were a bit 'in your cups', as they say.  as to your double post below, remember, a boatload of folks on this list know me personally, have met my family, been to the farm, etc.   what you said is wrong. 

SanDiegoWolverine

May 4th, 2022 at 12:25 AM ^

Extramelanin. When presented with being as black republican unicorn your answer was, " pretty close." Not sure you have much credibility left on this blog. Rod F vouched for you so I guess it's cool though.