Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1903
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-29-24 02:48 PM - Post#366680
In response to slane
Like I've said, I am fine with watching pure amateur athletics. But I don't think it would be legal anymore for the Ivy or Patriot leagues to enforce amateurism. You would be asking for all the schools and athletes fall in line - which would be collusion. So any team that wants to win more than the rest would provide some sort of benefit.
So we're left with a pretty awkward situation. We probably can't play the all-out NIL / scholarship war, but the D3 approach isn't that pristine either.
Maybe an approach for the D3 category of schools is to do something different - have a portal of athletes that agree to certain principles of athletics participation. Those principles would spell out the financial elements. The schools would not run the portal, but they would recruit their pool of athletes from a common pool of athletes that agree to the terms in order to be in the portal. The portal allows for the schools to provide admissions favoritism and no outside compensation to those athletes that agree to it. In other words, it levels the playing field of compensation and attracts real student athletes who mainly care about admission to college. How is it different from the past? First, athletes volunteer to be on this portal. It probably isn't an anti-trust concern as long as there is no exclusivity. Both schools and athletes can elect to use the portal or not. It creates a pool of schools and athletes that commit themselves to limited compensation of some shape or form. It establishes the financial terms of athlete's participation with a third party, so the schools are not themselves taking unfair advantage of athletes.
Returning to the topic of a plan, I do think it behooves our team to be slightly ahead of the pack and to set the tone. The risk of being an innovator is to waste some money or to raise the stakes in a way which forces a counter-response from the other Ivies. That said, it does return us to the key drivers of success: Recruiting (including compensation) and coaching/leadership.
My first recommendation would be an advisory board of alumni players and boosters that works with the program. I've found that the athletic department is not very good at long range planning. They just worry day-to-day about keeping the programs afloat and dealing with NCAA compliance. I think it is left to the coaches to make an overall plan for a program, and most simply aren't good at it. Neither is the Athletic Department. There are alumni who are seasoned executives who have enough separation to think about the bigger picture and drive accountability. These alumni boards also tend to be good at raising funds - the organization of a core group tends to activate their broader community. This is good for the athletic department, the coaches, and most importantly the program overall. The board also allows sensitive subjects to be raised with school administrators. For example, the AD or coach can tell the school President "our advisory board has requested..."
An early first milestone would be to build enough success to keep season ticket holders. The members of this board who are objecting to season tickets aren't doing it just because the team is losing. We've been doing that well for a long time. They are objecting to bad scheduling, bad service to ticket-holders, and no end in sight for the program. We have a tone-deaf school that doesn't seem to care. The athletic department just isn't accountable enough and service oriented enough to fans. A core of season ticket holders would add another base-line of financial support for the program.
I am a big believer in professional sports that alignment from ownership to front-office to coaches and to players breeds sustainable success. It is clear that our program suffers at multiple layers. An advisory board would help to provide leadership to an otherwise rudderless program.
|
