Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

One of the assistant coaches mentioned that number on twitter...is that "master plan" tomfoolery or did I miss an announcement on fixing the place?

Sweet!

According to this it looks like they were studying their options at the very least:

http://ci.oaks.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx? ... D&tabid=67

Before a certain professor accuses the administration of personally running his union members' paychecks through a shredder and mixing them into the FieldTurf, a $200+ million upgrade of academic facilities was also announced a couple years ago.

mscarn wrote:Sweet!

According to this it looks like they were studying their options at the very least:

http://ci.oaks.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx? ... D&tabid=67

Before a certain professor accuses the administration of personally running his union members' paychecks through a shredder and mixing them into the FieldTurf, a $200+ million upgrade of academic facilities was also announced a couple years ago.

All bases are covered.

$50 THOUSAND dollars was earmarked to the study of renovating the stadium.

transfer2BGSU wrote:$50 THOUSAND dollars was earmarked to the study of renovating the stadium.

Who cares where the comma is or is supposed to be.....

transfer2BGSU wrote:$50 THOUSAND dollars was earmarked to the study of renovating the stadium.

It looks like any of the recommendations will involve a significant infusion of cash to the stadium. It was commissioned in October and cost estimates were supposed to be provided by April 2013. I don't know how many channels it has to go through before something gets finalized but they might know something that we don't about the direction they're going.

I'm personally unfamiliar with the RFP process in the architecture world. So the responses were due last month. Is the list of firms who responded made public? I assume that the responses themselves are considered confidential. How long does it generally take between response due date and decision? And ... with an AD search in process, who all reviews the responses? There's no permanent AD and many who would normally be involved in the process of deciding a winner for the stadium RFP are reaching out to AD candidates right now. I can only assume the response review process would be delayed given the circumstances.

Better get it done before the O$U AD has his way.

OSU AD Gene Smith(from OSU Scout site):

The main thrust of Smith’s argument is that the top 60 to 70 schools in Division I should be placed into a new division that allows those schools – the top revenue producers in college sports – to play by what he considers a more sane set of rules.

Smith presented his ideas to a group of about 80 athletics directors that met a few weeks ago in California and has some support for his theory.

“People have been talking about moving away from the NCAA, but I am not a supporter of that. That makes no sense to me, but creating a structure within the NCAA that allows us to legislate a new division where we come up with a way to identify those 60 or 70 schools – which is pretty easy – and say, you know what, we’re going to legislate them differently.”

One of the top issues Smith points to as an example is the proposed yearly stipend of as much as $2,000 that would be provided to some athletes, including those in football and basketball that are already on full scholarships.

“Our scholarship model is old,” Smith said. “That model has been in place for 40 years, so to me, we have to go to cost of attendance. I’m fine with the $2,000 cap that has been identified. I’m fine if we just do it for need-based kids, but we have to do something. But we can’t get it done because all of Division I votes on that piece of legislation."

For me, it’s all sports. For others, maybe it’s just football. That’s part of the conversation that is going on. I think you do it for all sports, but I’m open because some of my colleagues think we should just do it for football and some of them say just football and basketball.”

So Smith wants his athletes to take a pay cut?

He throws around numbers like 60-70 when it's really 10-15. They just need the others to have people to play and beat.

What's "old" is pretending that cohort has any real desire to educate anyone. Just detatch them from the schools and allow them to function as a minor/develomental league.

Smith is forgetting that Title IX isn't an NCAA mandate...it's a mandate from the Feds. If he pays football players...even if it's part of a group spun off of the NCAA...he's still going to have to deal with Title IX and the prospect of paying female athletes too. Could he argue that football is special because it generates revenue? He could...but from what I've gathered no one has ever mounted a successful challenge to Title IX on that basis

The profitable 10-15 could definitely pay them all while the others most likely could not. That's his problem.

There's already a competitive imbalance between the Ohio State's and the Kent's. Paying them all would place a financial strain on the Minnesota's of the world and further widen the gap between them and their supposed peers in the same conference.

Smith's problem is that there are more schools who fit Minnesota's model than his own.

Gene Smith is an IDIOT who should've been fired along with a certain ex- FB coach at the school in Columbus.... An AD who didn't know this stuff was/had been going on? C'mon!

mscarn wrote:The profitable 10-15 could definitely pay them all while the others most likely could not. That's his problem.

There's already a competitive imbalance between the Ohio State's and the Kent's. Paying them all would place a financial strain on the Minnesota's of the world and further widen the gap between them and their supposed peers in the same conference.

Smith's problem is that there are more schools who fit Minnesota's model than his own.

I doubt if Minnesota or anyone else in the Big Ten has any financial problems. In 2012 the league split up $284 million among its members from TV and NCAA tournament revenues. If Smith gets his way the big schools will be playing in a newly created division with the MAC in some new subdivision. The fact is that the schools in the five power conferences have the power and money to make the NCAA do anything they want.

OSU AD Gene Smith(from OSU Scout site) wrote:
The main thrust of Smith’s argument is that the top 60 to 70 schools in Division I should be placed into a new division that allows those schools – the top revenue producers in college sports – to play by what he considers a more sane set of rules.

Smith presented his ideas to a group of about 80 athletics directors that met a few weeks ago in California and has some support for his theory.

“People have been talking about moving away from the NCAA, but I am not a supporter of that. That makes no sense to me, but creating a structure within the NCAA that allows us to legislate a new division where we come up with a way to identify those 60 or 70 schools – which is pretty easy – and say, you know what, we’re going to legislate them differently.”

One of the top issues Smith points to as an example is the proposed yearly stipend of as much as $2,000 that would be provided to some athletes, including those in football and basketball that are already on full scholarships.

“Our scholarship model is old,” Smith said. “That model has been in place for 40 years, so to me, we have to go to cost of attendance. I’m fine with the $2,000 cap that has been identified. I’m fine if we just do it for need-based kids, but we have to do something. But we can’t get it done because all of Division I votes on that piece of legislation."

For me, it’s all sports. For others, maybe it’s just football. That’s part of the conversation that is going on. I think you do it for all sports, but I’m open because some of my colleagues think we should just do it for football and some of them say just football and basketball.”

They don't want to play a more set of sane rules, they want to play by THEIR rules.

"We can't get it done because all of Division I votes on that piece of legislation" - that's right Geno. If it was a good piece of legislation, then everyone in Division I would approve it. These students are provided a college education that has a face value of at least $50,000 minimum and most are worth far more than that. Go out and start your own collegiate rules association if you wish to pay your athlete-students. Your Big 5 conferences have the power and ability to start your own association that is not the NCAA or NAIA.

transfer2BGSU wrote:These students are provided a college education that has a face value of at least $50,000 minimum and most are worth far more than that. Go out and start your own collegiate rules association if you wish to pay your athlete-students. Your Big 5 conferences have the power and ability to start your own association that is not the NCAA or NAIA.

Great point.

Bob Stoops went on a rant a few weeks ago about this very topic. He said all of his players get a free $250,000 education and they'll leave college debt-free, distinguising them from about 95% of their peers. They get five years of free housing, free books and a personal nutritionist designing and paying for their every meal. They get five years of personal training through their strength and conditioning program and five years of personalized, free tutoring through the academic advisement program.