Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Thought this article that appeared in today's Chronicle of Higher Education might be of interest to Vermont fans and others whose colleges are contemplating constructing new athletic facilities. I'm including the entire article as this is a pay site.

http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/03/2006033108n.htm

Today's News

Friday, March 31, 2006

NCAA President Calls on Colleges to Show Restraint in Athletics Spending

By BRAD WOLVERTON

Indianapolis--On the eve of college basketball's Final Four, Myles Brand, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, urged colleges to curb unnecessary spending on athletics facilities to avert a fiscal crisis in college sports.

Athletics budgets have been growing two to three times as fast as overall university budgets in recent years. Stadium and arena projects alone have accounted for half of the annual athletics increases over the past three years, Mr. Brand said during a news conference on Thursday.

While some colleges have made facility improvements to meet code requirements, many athletics programs have taken on long-term debt to finance elaborate practice facilities, skyboxes, and fancy arena upgrades.

Mr. Brand said he worried that many universities view such improvements as a necessary cost to remain competitive with other institutions that have poured millions of dollars into new athletics facilities.

But what happens, Mr. Brand asked, when teams start losing and athletics programs begin to bring in less revenue? He is concerned that many universities will have to bail out their athletics departments, leaving less money for academic programs.

An NCAA panel of 50 college leaders is expected to present a report later this year with proposals for curtailing the high costs of college sports. One idea being discussed is to create a universal accounting system under which athletics departments would have to explicitly detail their revenue and expenses. Tax forms now allow athletics programs to obscure their spending.

Mr. Brand's concern over escalating athletics costs is shared by members of Congress. Staff members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means are investigating what they see as excessive spending by college athletics departments (The Chronicle, March 24). Their inquiry is focused on the "arms race" in facilities spending as well as the increasing sums universities are paying coaches.

Many of those college basketball coaches are meeting here this weekend. One of them, Jim Boeheim, the head basketball coach at Syracuse University, on Thursday called on the NCAA to expand the field for the men's basketball tournament.

Mr. Brand said the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors has discussed that idea but is unlikely to add teams anytime soon. "Why fix something that isn't broken?" he asked.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
Many of those college basketball coaches are meeting here this weekend. One of them, Jim Boeheim, the head basketball coach at Syracuse University, on Thursday called on the NCAA to expand the field for the men's basketball tournament.
How in the world would that help curb spending on athletics? And what about the notion that post-season tourneys should reward exemplary performance during the season?!

What the NCAA should do is cap the number of programs that can receive an NCAA tourney bid from any single conference. That way, the big schools are only competing against themselves for a set number of places, freeing up more spaces for the low and mid-major programs who, thus, wouldn't feel the need to compete with the majors in terms of facilities in order to be more competitive and nab the few spots they traditionally have received. If a major gets tired of missing out on the tourney b/c it consistently finishes at the bottom of its league, then it can consider moving to a different league where it can be more competitive.

Pipe dream, I know . . . . but pro football and baseball essentially do the same thing. If you win your division, you get in the playoffs, regardless of how bad your record is.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,052 Posts
Interesting article, definitely aimed squarely at the BCS schools, and specifically the lower-tier BCS schools who are spending like their successful counterparts, without the return on investment to show for it. Specifically at a school like Vermont...they've been holding the finances in check for 100 years. Now it's time to loosen the belt a little!

As for Boeheim's "proposal", there was a blurb about it in the paper this morning...hmmm, surprise surprise, coaches (particularly associates of Boeheim) would be in favor of expanding the field. Maybe...because they don't want to lose their jobs?! Sure, put 80 teams in...another 16 mediocre BCS coaches who can say "Well, I have made the NCAA tournament, as a 14-seed, the past 2 seasons...give me an extension!" Better than UB's suggestion, if a major gets tired of missing out on the tourney because it consistantly finishes at the bottom of its league...win some freakin' games, and stop finishing 8th!!! This isn't "Everyone Gets a Trophy" Day. The key to reversing failure isn't lowering the standards, it's identifying the problem areas and correcting them.

Sure, If/When the Big East splits into 2 conferences, they'll likely move to 66 teams. But let's keep it at that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,433 Posts
GoCatsGo said:
Interesting article, definitely aimed squarely at the BCS schools, and specifically the lower-tier BCS schools who are spending like their successful counterparts, without the return on investment to show for it. Specifically at a school like Vermont...they've been holding the finances in check for 100 years. Now it's time to loosen the belt a little!

As for Boeheim's "proposal", there was a blurb about it in the paper this morning...hmmm, surprise surprise, coaches (particularly associates of Boeheim) would be in favor of expanding the field. Maybe...because they don't want to lose their jobs?! Sure, put 80 teams in...another 16 mediocre BCS coaches who can say "Well, I have made the NCAA tournament, as a 14-seed, the past 2 seasons...give me an extension!" Better than UB's suggestion, if a major gets tired of missing out on the tourney because it consistantly finishes at the bottom of its league...win some freakin' games, and stop finishing 8th!!! This isn't "Everyone Gets a Trophy" Day. The key to reversing failure isn't lowering the standards, it's identifying the problem areas and correcting them.

Sure, If/When the Big East splits into 2 conferences, they'll likely move to 66 teams. But let's keep it at that.
GoCatsGo,

Well said, I completely agree. Expending it anymore would just dilute the level of competition where basically everyone makes it in. Make the field 66 and no more!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,742 Posts
bosiydid said:
GoCatsGo,

Well said, I completely agree. Expending it anymore would just dilute the level of competition where basically everyone makes it in. Make the field 66 and no more!
I agree, letting more in cheapens the feel of the whole thing. Making the field is a tremendous accomplishment, it should stay that way.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
The thing is, everyone has a chance to make the field of 64 (65) right now - by going out and winning their conference tournament. Why should a team that goes 7-9 in the Big 10 and loses their first round tournament game get a chance at another at large bid? It makes virtually no sense (from a tournament quality discussion) to expand the field beyond 65. There are other ways to enhance the tournament, including bringing more sunshine to the selection process, guaranteeing tournament champions a spot in the field of 64, and doing a better job at making this a true neutral site tournament.

The problem is, expanding the field will enhance revenue, and despite Brand's admonitions, that is usually the underlying reason behind decisions like this.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top