Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    August 07, 2013
    Posts
    91

    Swarbrick on NCAA Governance changes

    I've been waiting for a statement from him on this issue.


    Swarbrick isn't quite as eager as some of his colleagues to make massive changes or divide up Division I the way it has been framed since the conference commissioners started talking publicly about it last month.

    "I get really nervous when you get consensus there has to be reform," Swarbrick said. "My 'spidey senses' start to tingle. I buy the premise. But a lot of what we're talking about now is treating symptoms, not the underlying problems. The law of unintended consequences is going to be so evident if we're not careful about stuff we do here."

    So if governance is the symptom, what's the disease?

    That word, Swarbrick said, is too harsh for his liking. But he's frustrated that this has been framed as a have/have-not issue, because he thinks it's far more complicated than simply a difference in athletic budgets between Ball State and Michigan. Why, for instance, is nobody talking about the difference between a Stanford, which sponsors 36 sports, and an SEC school that sponsors 16?

    "The economics of the two institutions aren't that different, so it's not a have/have-not problem, but what they're doing looks really different and has different implications," Swarbrick said.

    "Some of the haves and have-nots have much closer operating models than some of the haves do. So it has driven me nuts, and I'll use the stipend issue. Everyone wants to treat this as a have/have-not issue, and as a member of both committees who has dealt with this, it hasn't played out that way at all. There are fundamental differences in views among the haves over this stuff. And that goes to these other differences. We just have to work our way through those, and frankly it's just sloppy thinking to say it's a have/have-not issue, and when you look at votes on legislation, it rarely is."
    http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2666455
    Last edited by goldendomer; Sat Aug 17 2013 at 12:09 AM. Reason: Forgot to post link.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by goldendomer View Post
    I've been waiting for a statement from him on this issue.




    http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2666455

    No surprise here, Notre Dame wants to preserve the status quo.

    They won't join for football until absolutely forced to do so. A major shift to 4-5 conferences in a separate division would be that force.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    September 03, 2002
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by VT75 View Post
    No surprise here, Notre Dame wants to preserve the status quo.

    They won't join for football until absolutely forced to do so. A major shift to 4-5 conferences in a separate division would be that force.
    I do think he makes an interesting point about Stanford vs SEC. Fewer sports means SEC can leave more of that money in football

  4. #4

    Join Date
    December 28, 1999
    Posts
    7,959
    It seems like people want a split/stipend. Why is that good for VT? I don't know what to think about this. I don't see how being a member of a group of 60-80 schools is so much better than what we have now.

    Quote Originally Posted by VT75 View Post
    No surprise here, Notre Dame wants to preserve the status quo.

    They won't join for football until absolutely forced to do so. A major shift to 4-5 conferences in a separate division would be that force.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by goldendomer View Post
    "The economics of the two institutions aren't that different, so it's not a have/have-not problem, but what they're doing looks really different and has different implications," Swarbrick said.
    The economics of Stanford and an SEC school aren't that different? So, the next question becomes, "Is Swarbick impossibly stupid, or does he lie to people on purpose?"

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    August 07, 2013
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by VT75 View Post
    No surprise here, Notre Dame wants to preserve the status quo.

    They won't join for football until absolutely forced to do so. A major shift to 4-5 conferences in a separate division would be that force.
    Very true....

  7. #7

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Jessup View Post
    It seems like people want a split/stipend. Why is that good for VT? I don't know what to think about this. I don't see how being a member of a group of 60-80 schools is so much better than what we have now.
    The million or so dollars the stipend would cost is less than what can be gained from VT not having to share with Radford, Ferrum, App. St., etc... That is if they break entirely away from the NCAA.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    June 05, 2003
    Posts
    273
    I can agree with him on some of that. Why does LSU only sponsor 16 sports? Shouldn't they be relegated to the little league? Maybe the new division should require sponsorship of minimum of 22 varsity sports.
    Last edited by HOO86; Sat Aug 17 2013 at 12:51 PM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by VT75 View Post
    No surprise here, Notre Dame wants to preserve the status quo.

    They won't join for football until absolutely forced to do so. A major shift to 4-5 conferences in a separate division would be that force.
    Yep, ND's best move is to drag their feet. They won't be allowed to hold this up for long though. Eventually, as Spurrier mentioned, when the conference commissioners are meeting somebody is going to look over at Swarbrick and ask "why are you here?" The SEC and B1G don't want ND having such representation and other privileges. Those days are numbered.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    June 05, 2003
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiefan86 View Post
    I do think he makes an interesting point about Stanford vs SEC. Fewer sports means SEC can leave more of that money in football
    Yep. They should make it a requirement to sponsor a minimum of 22 sports to be in Division 4.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •