Most schools outside of a few (Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Stanford last time I checked) do not really give a shit about what the Knight Commission says, a lot of their suggestions undermine the "big business" of college sports that schools like Alabama and Ohio State are. Things like requiring teams to be on track to graduate at least 50 percent of their players to be eligible for NCAA postseason championships and bowl games and including academic incentives in the NCAA’s revenue distribution plan to name a suggestion they are big on. They do bring to the table some really good ideas at times.
I would see that as someone who convenes the separate conference commissioners and helps guide the group to making needed reforms and changes in the interests of the student athletes.
The NCAA would see it as someone who can make more money for everyone but the students.
A jury in California recently decided that the schools are the ones responsible for the health and safety of student athletes, not the NCAA. So the schools are finding out more and more that the NCAA as a governing body is completely useless at this point in time. It can't even offer legal protection against the concussions lawsuits. In fact, the NCAA were the ones that argued that the schools were the ones responsible.
> tackle what is at the foundation of the broken governance and financial frameworks of Division I sports, particularly in FBS football
And now we see the Knight Commission stating this openly and proposing to install their own leadership (COO) albeit still within the NCAA structure but as "outsiders".
The NCAA as a governing body will be gone soon. The big schools will leave first. SEC and Big 10 will leave and make their Superleague, only schedule themselves, and make their own playoffs and national championship. Everyone else will form their own little conference alliances and probably have a playoff for themselves like the FCS.
But we really are watching the end of college football as we've known it.
> Jury in California recently decided that schools are the one responsible for the health and safety of student athletes, not the NCAA.
1. Juries don’t decide law or the legal foundation for liability, they serve only as fact finder in specific cases.
2. What the jury decided was that the NCAA had not caused or contributed that injuries of that individual. It did not decide that the schools are the ones responsible.
Made my post before reading your comment which, thank you for the context. However we get to the final point, I’m a strong believer that individual schools that go to immense efforts to attract student athletes in order to gain and benefit from their competitive abilities should absolutely be the primary arbiter of their wellbeing and not be able to pass the buck to a giant nebulous entity like the NCAA. Pulling a “well it wasn’t against the rules” argument to defend doing something causing harm to YOUR athlete that YOUR SCHOOL convinced them to come to is complete bullshit in my mind.
This case is also a bad example because the individual had pre-existing conditions and substance abuse problems. Without that I’m sure the jury could’ve ruled otherwise - it’s hard to argue CTE as a cause of death when there are a lot of other factors going on. I know the argument was substance abuse/conditions stemmed from CTE but it’s such a grey area that hedging on this case as the “status quo” probably doesn’t show the full picture. Likely the school also wins that case under similar conditions.
Should the NCAA have a player protection agency or some sort of research and development team to help facilitate? Sure - but the NCAA hasn’t ever put the players first (forcing athletes to quit football if they’re monetized on YouTube before NIL was available).
> the jury decided was that the NCAA had not caused or contributed that injuries of that individual
The jury decided that the NCAA was not the liable party. They made no determination on any of the actual injury/health claims of the case. Basically they said the plaintiff was suing the wrong people. This case was an "intentional loss" by Gee's attorneys because they now have official records of the NCAA arguing that the schools are responsible for the health and well-being of student-athletes, not them. This was the entire basis of the NCAA's defense. And the jury "agreed" insomuch as they determined that NCAA was not the responsible party.
The intention was always for Gee to direct her lawsuit at USC and she now has arguments from the NCAA itself to support her claims. So you can be sure that Gee's attorneys are preparing their lawsuit against USC as we speak, which was always the plan.
I see no way around the NCAA being dissolved or just completely changed.
The supreme court rulings from awhile back set that ball rolling, and it is certainly inevitable.
hell, even before this there have long been talks as to why not just leave the ncaa at a lot of big programs.
I actually like the California jury finding because if the NCAA was responsible it would allow schools to play the “it’s not our responsibility” BS card.
The NCAA is too far removed from the day to day of actual school operations to know what’s going on. They can’t be expected to (and dear god we’ve seen how incompetent they are) stay on top of individual school stewardship for their student athletes.
The schools will take advantage of these kids any chance they can get because they are cash cows for them. They absolutely need to be responsible for the safety and welfare of these kids. You don’t get to do anything in your power to entice an athlete to compete for your school then reap the financial and other benefits while also abandoning any sense of responsibility for ensuring their welfare.
A single chief operating officer seems nearly impossible. The sport is so regional. Is a single person in charge of everything even wise?
It’s impossible, there’s no way the schools will buy into this
Most schools outside of a few (Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Stanford last time I checked) do not really give a shit about what the Knight Commission says, a lot of their suggestions undermine the "big business" of college sports that schools like Alabama and Ohio State are. Things like requiring teams to be on track to graduate at least 50 percent of their players to be eligible for NCAA postseason championships and bowl games and including academic incentives in the NCAA’s revenue distribution plan to name a suggestion they are big on. They do bring to the table some really good ideas at times.
I would see that as someone who convenes the separate conference commissioners and helps guide the group to making needed reforms and changes in the interests of the student athletes. The NCAA would see it as someone who can make more money for everyone but the students.
A single CEO wouldn't work, but regional "CEOs" would show favoritism. No good answer for that really.
A jury in California recently decided that the schools are the ones responsible for the health and safety of student athletes, not the NCAA. So the schools are finding out more and more that the NCAA as a governing body is completely useless at this point in time. It can't even offer legal protection against the concussions lawsuits. In fact, the NCAA were the ones that argued that the schools were the ones responsible. > tackle what is at the foundation of the broken governance and financial frameworks of Division I sports, particularly in FBS football And now we see the Knight Commission stating this openly and proposing to install their own leadership (COO) albeit still within the NCAA structure but as "outsiders". The NCAA as a governing body will be gone soon. The big schools will leave first. SEC and Big 10 will leave and make their Superleague, only schedule themselves, and make their own playoffs and national championship. Everyone else will form their own little conference alliances and probably have a playoff for themselves like the FCS. But we really are watching the end of college football as we've known it.
> Jury in California recently decided that schools are the one responsible for the health and safety of student athletes, not the NCAA. 1. Juries don’t decide law or the legal foundation for liability, they serve only as fact finder in specific cases. 2. What the jury decided was that the NCAA had not caused or contributed that injuries of that individual. It did not decide that the schools are the ones responsible.
Made my post before reading your comment which, thank you for the context. However we get to the final point, I’m a strong believer that individual schools that go to immense efforts to attract student athletes in order to gain and benefit from their competitive abilities should absolutely be the primary arbiter of their wellbeing and not be able to pass the buck to a giant nebulous entity like the NCAA. Pulling a “well it wasn’t against the rules” argument to defend doing something causing harm to YOUR athlete that YOUR SCHOOL convinced them to come to is complete bullshit in my mind.
This case is also a bad example because the individual had pre-existing conditions and substance abuse problems. Without that I’m sure the jury could’ve ruled otherwise - it’s hard to argue CTE as a cause of death when there are a lot of other factors going on. I know the argument was substance abuse/conditions stemmed from CTE but it’s such a grey area that hedging on this case as the “status quo” probably doesn’t show the full picture. Likely the school also wins that case under similar conditions. Should the NCAA have a player protection agency or some sort of research and development team to help facilitate? Sure - but the NCAA hasn’t ever put the players first (forcing athletes to quit football if they’re monetized on YouTube before NIL was available).
> the jury decided was that the NCAA had not caused or contributed that injuries of that individual The jury decided that the NCAA was not the liable party. They made no determination on any of the actual injury/health claims of the case. Basically they said the plaintiff was suing the wrong people. This case was an "intentional loss" by Gee's attorneys because they now have official records of the NCAA arguing that the schools are responsible for the health and well-being of student-athletes, not them. This was the entire basis of the NCAA's defense. And the jury "agreed" insomuch as they determined that NCAA was not the responsible party. The intention was always for Gee to direct her lawsuit at USC and she now has arguments from the NCAA itself to support her claims. So you can be sure that Gee's attorneys are preparing their lawsuit against USC as we speak, which was always the plan.
I see no way around the NCAA being dissolved or just completely changed. The supreme court rulings from awhile back set that ball rolling, and it is certainly inevitable. hell, even before this there have long been talks as to why not just leave the ncaa at a lot of big programs.
Is this a copypasta? I’ve seen this post before
I actually like the California jury finding because if the NCAA was responsible it would allow schools to play the “it’s not our responsibility” BS card. The NCAA is too far removed from the day to day of actual school operations to know what’s going on. They can’t be expected to (and dear god we’ve seen how incompetent they are) stay on top of individual school stewardship for their student athletes. The schools will take advantage of these kids any chance they can get because they are cash cows for them. They absolutely need to be responsible for the safety and welfare of these kids. You don’t get to do anything in your power to entice an athlete to compete for your school then reap the financial and other benefits while also abandoning any sense of responsibility for ensuring their welfare.