Copeland at the Table on NCAA Reform

[Water Pony]

Saw this report from the A.D. Not very revealing, but SMU is at the table with Tulane, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Iowa and Miss. State

Copeland AD Report: July 2, 2004

Last Saturday, I spent the day in Indianapolis at the NCAA’s headquarters. No, it isn’t anything the SMU faithful should be concerned about. In fact, my visit to the NCAA last weekend and a trip there back in January reaffirmed my conviction that SMU is doing it the right way.

Here’s the background to my story:

Last December, I was invited by Myles Brand, President of the NCAA, along with a handful of other athletic directors from around the country to sit in with an ad-hoc group called the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) to talk about reform in college sports.

COIA is a group of faculty governance leaders on each NCAA Division IA campus that began to organize and focus on intercollegiate athletics a little more than two years ago. These faculty members have significant credibility on their respective campuses and their aim is to positively reform college athletics.

Brand had met with COIA on two occasions prior to my first meeting in January. Before they got too far in talks, he wanted to get COIA together in the same room with athletic administrators from around the country to exchange thoughts.

Other athletic directors that have joined me in the meetings include: Bob Bowlsby of Iowa, Rick Dickson of Tulane, Andy Geiger of Ohio State, Larry Templeton of Mississippi State and Kevin White of Notre Dame.

In addition to the athletic directors present, four representatives of COIA, four NCAA staff members and two faculty athletic representatives from around the country were involved in the meetings.

COIA’s platform document, “A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform”, around which most of our meetings agenda have centered, includes the following five areas: academic integrity, student-athlete welfare, governance, finances and over-commercialization.

The focus of the meetings has been to get the perspectives of each group. Surprisingly to some, there has been more agreement than disagreement in the two meetings. The discussion has reinforced my belief that we do things the right way at SMU. We lead by example in operating with integrity and placing the correct emphasis on the term student-athlete.

I’m not sure what exactly will come from our meetings although proposed NCAA legislation from either faculty athletic representatives or athletics directors is a good guess. We haven’t scheduled our next meeting yet but after we do meet again, I will be sure to update you on our progress.

I won’t be writing a column the next two weeks as I will be on vacation on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. If you are going on vacation soon, enjoy yourself, be careful and I look forward to seeing you this fall.

Until next time, Go Mustangs!

Jim

[Stallion]

I read that too and was immediately concerned that an athletic director could feel so proud of his accomplishments with a tenure of what 8-9 years(?) and a (a) Football Team at O-12, (b) a BB Team which had never reached the NCAA Tourney or won a league or conference tourney championship and (c) a FB team which has never won a championship or gone a bowl or had better than single 6-5 winning season. Great Job Big Jim-you haven't proved SMU is doing it the right way when both the SMU FB team and BB team have accomplished NOTHING during your TENURE.

[Sam I Am]

Agreed that the right way is if a school has good academics and also wins. Who is that?

[No Cal Pony]

Stallion, I too am concerned. I appreciate a balance, but, there is no balance when the coaches aren't given tools to win. When the kids don't get the support to have the drive to win. Last season was horrible. It was bad enough to be doing poorly, rock bottom to go 0-12.

Sam, depends I think on what you consider. Do we consider stanford? duke? bc? syracuse? I don't consider some or many of the large state schools (mich., fla., ucla, among them) as some of them have wonderful areas, and others that blow.

I know SMU is a fine school, but can't we really find some "balance?"

Go Ponies!

[Water Pony]

Our peer group for like-minded private schools, who are successful in FB and BB and not a member of a BCS conference. Here is a short list of privates for comparison:

Privates/BCS:

Notre Dame (special circumstance)
Stanford (Pac 10)
USC (PAC10)
Baylor (Big 12)
Nortwestern (Big Ten)
Vanderbilt (SEC)
Duke (ACC)
Wake Forest (ACC)
Miami (ACC)
Syracuse (Big East)
Pittsburgh (Big East)
Boston College (Big East/ACC)
Louisville (CUSA/Big East)

Privates/non BCS:

BYU (MWC)
TCU (CUSA/MWC)
Tulane (CUSA)
Tulsa (WAC/CUSA)
Rice (WAC/CUSA)

and us (WAC/CUSA)

Excluding the Service Academies, who we should compete with, this is a rather short list of peers with few success stories, e.g. Notre Dame, USC, Miami, BYU and, most recently, TCU. In BB is list is a bit different with Duke, Wake Forest, Stanford and, last year, Vanderbilt.

In today's college sports econony, the formula for success is very difficult without being a public school with the built in advantages of BCS revenue, enrollments and alumni/state fans, etc. For non BCS, BYU, Tulane and TCU need to be models we need to replicate and succeed at. The business model combined with winning seasons and post seasons are the only realistic path for the Mustangs.

[NavyCrimson]

like i said 2 million times before - until we or whoever breaks the bcs-bs monopoly, figure us dead & buried!

we will never have an opportunity to compete again on an equal basis - plain & simple!!!

where are our leaders to fight this monopoly??!!

whimps!!!

[Stallion]

REBUTTAL: TCU-I rest my case.

[Charleston Pony]

I think you can pretty safely assume it's just a matter of time before one of the "non-BCS" schools earns an invitation to one of the BCS games. When it finally happens, that program will become an immediate media darling. Just look at how much ink Tulane, Marshall and TCU have gotten in recent years for having come close. It's going to take an unbeaten season and given the disparity of schedules between most BCS vs non-BCS conferences (the jury is out on the Big East), I think it's safe to assume that even with an undefeated season, any "non-BCS" qualifier had better own a win againt at least one BCS school if they want to be considered.

[NavyCrimson]

but stallion - i don't care how good tcu has become...they will always be 2nd fiddle & never be able to truly compete for the talent, the #1 ranking, & the top tier bowls...end of story...

plus - when it gets down to the wire, they or whoever will always be left out b/c of the above reasons ...after all, the bcs-bs set up that way - EXCLUSION!!!

that's life in the new bcs-ncaa football league!

we WILL become better but will never be able to compete one-on-on as well as any other non-bcs team...that is why the damn thing was set up in the first place & we all know that.

[jtstang]

but stallion - i don't care how good tcu has become...they will always be 2nd fiddle & never be able to truly compete for the talent, the #1 ranking, & the top tier bowls...end of story...

Brilliant analysis. The only thing standing between SMU and competing for "top tier bowls" and national championships is the BCS. Somehow I think you may be missing something here...

[Water Pony]

The point made was that even if you execute your strategy perfectly, you are not assured of a top bowl unless you schedule and convincingly beat one or more top tier teams - - Not just a BCS school.

Datapoints: Tulane's undefeated season or the pre-BCS results for one season by BYU to win National Championship. Non-BCS schools will need to be 12-0, beat top ten/quality teams, and appeal to bowl selection committees.

[jtstang]

The point made was that even if you execute your strategy perfectly, you are not assured of a top bowl unless you schedule and convincingly beat one or more top tier teams - - Not just a BCS school.

Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems to me his point was as long as there is a BCS, SMU can never get to a "top tier" bowl or #1, no matter what. My response to that is SMU does not need to worry at this point what changes in the structure of college football need to come about for it to get into a "top tier" bowl or challenge for a national championship--if the BCS were to fold tomorrow, we'd still be light years away from having anything close to "top tier" aspirations based on the current state of SMU football. SMU needs to try to fix what it can, not what it cannot.

[PK]

You are basically right jt, but it sure couldn't hurt to be able to have access through our conference to a bigger share of the football money pie that is out there (which is currently hoarded by the BCS) like Baylor does. Does that get us in to a bowl? Of course not, at least not directly, but it would give us more cash to put into recruiting, coaches, facilities, athletic friendly courses, etc. That is not the end all cure, but it would help.

[jtstang]

Unquestionably, PK--an extra influx of cash might even help speed up the healing process. But to blame the BCS on SMU's current woes is just silly.

[PK]

I think you may have read something into Navy &Crimson's post that he didn't say jt. I don't believe he blamed our current situation on the BSC-bs as he puts it. I think he was talking about the future when he said "...we will never have an opportunity to compete again on an equal basis - plain & simple!!! "