Hot seat: SEC school NIL deals. Cool throne: politician pockets getting deeper

[bnwtwg]

What will be the impact to our nonrevenue sport and when will we begin to feel the effects of this?

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/30/sec-meetings-nil-athlete-employment-collectives-hot-topics

 

“It reminds me of a rigged marketplace,” says Julie Sommer, an attorney and expert on NIL matters who works for the Drake Group, an organization whose mission is to defend academic integrity at universities. “Federally funded institutions running these enterprises for private gain? The first big question is, what’s the IRS going to do?”

While debates over field storming and a future scheduling format have captured attention, SEC power brokers have a much more pressing issue at hand: the distribution of money to college athletes.

How to do it? What is right and wrong? Where is the enforcement?

There are disagreements. Frustrated administrators. Ticked-off school presidents. And a commissioner, Greg Sankey, who is handcuffed as his unruly programs fight to dip their hands in the NIL money pit."

[Formally140]

This is part of why I think the poaching has gotten so bad. I think some coaches are trying to win as much as they can before it all crashes down

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

The SEC used to be a college wrestling powerhouse, as recently as the 1980s.   Now it's poised to resume being so, having recently added the Oklahoma Sooners subsequent to the Mizzou Tigers.   Several existing SEC programs used to be strong in wrestling, as did SEC candidate Clemson:   

https://johnnythompsonnum1.blogspot.com/2022/09/gone-lost-forgotten-collegiate-teams-of.html

[ionel]

42 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

The SEC used to be a college wrestling powerhouse, as recently as the 1980s.   

wait ... when?  

[Offthemat]

Are those guys still alive?

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

36 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Are those guys still alive?

In their 60s and 70s, yes.   

[MPhillips]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

wait ... when?  

Non recency bias...

[ionel]

10 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Non recency bias...

I was recently a young pup. 

[RYou]

On 5/30/2023 at 11:15 AM, bnwtwg said:

What will be the impact to our nonrevenue sport and when will we begin to feel the effects of this?

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/30/sec-meetings-nil-athlete-employment-collectives-hot-topics

"The 12th Man Foundation funds facilities renovations and construction at Texas A&M."

The Georgia Athletic Association has been handling these chores for the University of Georgia for years.  It receives maintenance, etc. and whatever is leftover at the end of the fiscal years, gets donated to the University.  The past few years that value has exceeded $100 million.  Other SEC and ACC universities have similar structures though not as lucrative.

[Wrestleknownothing]

On 5/31/2023 at 2:26 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

The SEC used to be a college wrestling powerhouse, as recently as the 1980s.   Now it's poised to resume being so, having recently added the Oklahoma Sooners subsequent to the Mizzou Tigers.   Several existing SEC programs used to be strong in wrestling, as did SEC candidate Clemson:   

https://johnnythompsonnum1.blogspot.com/2022/09/gone-lost-forgotten-collegiate-teams-of.html

The SEC was not a powerhouse. They had a single individual champ in 1953 (Dan McNair - Auburn) and another in 1985 (Chris Edmonds - Tennessee). The other 8 schools of the eighties had a goose egg.

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

10 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The SEC was not a powerhouse. They had a single individual champ in 1953 (Dan McNair - Auburn) and another in 1985 (Chris Edmonds - Tennessee). The other 8 schools of the eighties had a goose egg.

The U. of Minnesota won the NCAAs circa 2001 without a single finalist.   Meanwhile Arizona State didn't have a single champ when winning it all at the NCAAs in 1988.   Were they not powerhouse wrestling programs then, though?

My guess is that you are used to backing a conference which has lots of champions.   Probably the Big 10, a wrestling conference which we all admittedly admire.  But another characteristic to consider when assessing if a conference is or was a wrestling powerhouse involves how far removed it is, geographically, from the mainstream wrestling movement.  If we fail to take that into account, wrestling risks becoming even more of a mere regional sport (like men's gymnastics, which has all but died at the NCAA D1 level).   Sponsors, school administrators, athletes and even the Olympics committee take mere regional status into account when deciding if and when to back our sport.   

Isn't it worth asking ourselves which programs' coaches and administrators are the "Johnny Appleseeds" of college wrestling which are particularly worthy of our appreciation and support?     

My point has been that the SEC had some high ranking teams along the way.   I guess our definitions of "powerhouse" are different.   I understand your point.   At any rate, here's the link from above, for those who are just arriving at this discussion:

https://johnnythompsonnum1.blogspot.com/2022/09/gone-lost-forgotten-collegiate-teams-of.html
 

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 hours ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

The U. of Minnesota won the NCAAs circa 2001 without a single finalist.   Meanwhile Arizona State didn't have a single champ when winning it all at the NCAAs in 1988.   Were they not powerhouse wrestling programs then, though?

My guess is that you are used to backing a conference which has lots of champions.   Probably the Big 10, a wrestling conference which we all admittedly admire.  But another characteristic to consider when assessing if a conference is or was a wrestling powerhouse involves how far removed it is, geographically, from the mainstream wrestling movement.  If we fail to take that into account, wrestling risks becoming even more of a mere regional sport (like men's gymnastics, which has all but died at the NCAA D1 level).   Sponsors, school administrators, athletes and even the Olympics committee take mere regional status into account when deciding if and when to back our sport.   

Isn't it worth asking ourselves which programs' coaches and administrators are the "Johnny Appleseeds" of college wrestling which are particularly worthy of our appreciation and support?     

My point has been that the SEC had some high ranking teams along the way.   I guess our definitions of "powerhouse" are different.   I understand your point.   At any rate, here's the link from above, for those who are just arriving at this discussion:

https://johnnythompsonnum1.blogspot.com/2022/09/gone-lost-forgotten-collegiate-teams-of.html
 

Using team placement weakens the argument. In the 80's the SEC had three eighth place team finishes, one ninth place finish, and one tenth place finish.

I, too, want wrestling to be more popular, but claiming something that wasn't won't make that happen.

 

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

On 6/6/2023 at 6:22 AM, Wrestleknownothing said:

Using team placement weakens the argument. In the 80's the SEC had three eighth place team finishes, one ninth place finish, and one tenth place finish.

I, too, want wrestling to be more popular, but claiming something that wasn't won't make that happen.

 

Perhaps the 1970s were considerably more favorable?   Personally I'd prefer to be a Johnny Appleseed-style activist wrestling fan than an entrenched winner's, any day of the week.   I prioritize trying to keep the sport alive at the college & Olympics level.  I'm not saying that you' don't, admittedly.   But I've lived throughout the South (in various different U.S. states) and I see lots of still unrealized potential.   Please feel free to join the crusade however you see fit. 

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

Here's an interesting article that's right on point regarding how the SEC wrestlers performed at the NCAAs during the 1970s and such:

http://johnnythompsonnum1.blogspot.com/2017/09/solving-mystery-that-was-sec.html

I apologize that the linking above from the same author is focused on Texas.   Mistakes happen when one's juggling other tasks while trying to share potentially helpful info.     

[gimpeltf]

By the time I was involved with the D1 event (I started in '87), the main determination for the number of qualifiers per conference was the collective conference team score. Apparently, the Southern and SEC had waned considerably by then.  The committee asked me to do the conference team score calculations and give my conclusions. The algorithm was simply (total conference score / total tournament score) * 330. IIRC, D2, D3 were always 20 and 10. I assume that by conclusions they weren't looking for wise-ass but wanted the number of qualifiers. But I decided to use this one as a loophole. As it turned out one of the conferences "earned" 0.6 qualifiers and the other 0.4. So in conclusion I suggested merging the conference and qualifying only the OW. 

They didn't use my conclusion.