Ohio State AD Gene Smith on College Football Future

[Harry]

Q: There’s been some speculation that the NCAA could become obsolete, that the power conferences could essentially supersede the NCAA. Do you share that opinion?

A: Not really. That’s the wrong conversation. The NCAA is going through change. But I do believe we need to pause and look at our structure. I do believe we need to think of a different structure for certain schools like Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska and Alabama and so on. There are probably 60-70 schools that are different than everybody else. We need to think about a different division for them, within the NCAA structure, not outside of it, a division that allows those schools to have its own legislation. The best example I can use is the $2,000 stipend (toward) the cost of attendance. There are schools that can afford it and there are schools that can’t. As far as the recruiting rules, our recruiting rules should be different than it is at Middle Tennessee State. They’re Division I and they’re voting on our legislation or the legislation we believe is applicable to our level. I think we need to pause. I think we need to have a conversation about, ‘Should there be a different division within the NCAA structure that allows X number of schools to be legislated differently, but within the structure?’

Q: You’ve given it some thought, obviously.

A: Oh yeah. A lot.

Q: Are you a leader in that movement?

A: There’s a lot of conversation right now. Yeah, I’m having conversations with a lot of my colleagues. We don’t know what that would take, but the conversation has started.

Q: Is there a time frame?

A: We’re not even on that. We’re just having the conversation about what’s the answer to the challenges that we have with our current structure. There are other ideas out there. My idea is not the only one. You’ll probably read and hear the ideas of other ADs and commissioners. The conversation has started about, ‘How do we address our challenges?’

Q: What do you think is different for the Middle Tennessee States than it is for the Ohio States?

A: We’ve created this monster, first of all. The membership has. Everyone says the NCAA like it’s some people sitting in Indianapolis in the back of a smoke-filled room. We voted all this stuff in and it’s flawed, a lot of it. One of the flaws that we used to have was so many pieces of our legislation that tried to take into consideration competitive balance and competitive equality, and that makes no sense. Really it doesn’t. You can’t take the Ohio State University and create legislation that allows a Middle Tennessee State to be as competitive as we are. It doesn’t happen. You can have all these rules where we’re operating under the same rules, but we still have an engine that they don’t have.

That’s no disrespect to them. When I was at Eastern Michigan University, I had a track coach come to me and talk about the things that Michigan and Michigan State had that we didn’t have. I said, ‘You’re awesome. You’re really good. If that’s where you want to be, go apply for a job at Michigan or Michigan State. I want to beat Toledo. I want to beat Bowling Green. I want to beat Central Michigan.’ I remember those times. I know what it’s like at that level. Eastern Michigan is not Michigan. In basketball, if they play 10 times, Eastern Michigan might get them one time. We’ve tried to legislate a level playing field when there’s no level playing field. What I’m proposing – and there are other models you’ll see surface – is to have a division inside the NCAA that says, ‘These schools can afford to pay a stipend. Let them do it.’ You can’t afford to do it. That’s fine. But don’t inhibit their ability to create opportunities for their young people.

Q: You’re talking about the five super conferences?

A: That’s really what it comes down to.

Q: The devil’s advocate argument is probably that you’ll make the difference between the haves and have-nots even greater.

A: Your point? Your point? See, that’s the argument, that we’ve always said, ‘We shouldn’t do that.’ I say, “Why? Isn’t that divide huge anyway? Do you think they’re going to be in the (football) playoff.’ When you look at the last 10 Final Fours, how many Cinderellas did you really have?

That’s why I say you stay within the NCAA structure because basketball is a different beast than football. You be a part of the NCAA basketball tournament that generates so much revenue that it helps those schools, because you can have some equalizers there periodically. So don’t break away from that. Do not do that because that hurts those opportunities at those schools that we contribute to. That’s just one example. You stay in the structure and you create ways where we’re beneficial to the structure to help those schools, but we’re not limited. All I’m talking about is legislation. I’m not talking about anything else.

Q: What about recruiting rules?

A: I would take eight top experienced coaches, maybe four or two ADs, a couple experienced faculty reps, maybe four really experienced compliance officers. Look them in a room and give them maybe 14 months and say you guys need to come out with new legislation on recruiting. We need to engage our practitioners at are level and let them be a part of trying to redefine our direction.

Read more: http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/05/05/0505-ohio-state-gene-smith-interview.html

[UNT90]

If he is serious, he needs to learn how to spell antitrust.

[meangreener]

What a pretentious douchebag. Loved how he used MTSU because of their name. No disrespect my ass. What a tool.

Aww, boohoo. You have to deal with MTSU wanting a fair playing field. Shouldn't be competing with you? What makes you so righteous?

I wish MTSU would schedule up a series with the Bucks now.

Edited May 8, 2013 by meangreener

[GrandGreen]

The usual swill. Instead of addressing the issue of continued escalation and nonsensical spending in college athletics; advocate the separation of the have and have-nots. Why would anyone pay any attention to someone's view on the problems in college big time sports, who benefits from the current system? The use of the stipend issue is especially heinous, bringing the poor athlete into the equation. There are very few football programs that can't afford the 170K annual cost of these stipends, the Belt has already voted to do it. It takes a lot of nerve to use that issue as a rationale for a separation of the divisions with the current coaching salary structure and the millions that teams like OSU spend on frills.

I also wonder why he thinks that the anointed 60 or 70 teams, he suggests in the top division would not soon develop the same problems. There is a lot of difference between the UT, Ohio State and few more budgets compared the bottom 40 in his scenario. I guess the top division could be halfed again, leaving a group about the size of the NFL, but without the parity they have because of the draft and at least some budget restrains.

I would really like to see Ohio State and say the other nine biggest spenders, create their own conference. Have no academic requirements and bid on players they want to sign. They want to GO big time, let them really have separation. They would lose their non-profit status and could go head to head against the NFL for audiences.

[UNTexas]

Pompous asshole... Regardless on anyone's stance on the issue. I agree with the antitrust angle too. Additionally, if the NCAA wants to screw around then let Congress get involved with the monopoly issue and end the bowls nonprofit status while they are at it.

Hypothetically, how about small rosters like the NFL and playoffs. That would make college football really interesting.

Edited May 9, 2013 by UNTexas

[forevereagle]

I liked the part where he talked about his time at EMU. "When I was down with the peons, all I wanted to do was beat other peons and compete with other peons and never wanted to beat the wonderful nobles of college football. See, I was one of you once upon a time so I understand your point of view and you should just be happy where you are. I was, and look where it landed me."

[JesseMartin]

The underlying issue that he seemed to be skirting around is that there is currently a development of parity, where mid-majors are becoming more competitive. Ohio State almost got hit with a big upset in football last year, how embarrassing. Maybe if they could pay their athletes and the mid-majors can't, then that becomes less likely.

See, to me, it almost seemed like he was trying to say that the rest of us SHOULDN'T be able to compete with them on a level playing field in football, just in basketball, so that's where we should stay equal and then let them do whatever they want to stay ahead of everyone else in football.

Yes, pretentious tool, douche, antitrust monopolizer, he certainly sounds like all of those. But his pretentious douchiness does seem to have a tinge of concern that MTSU and others might actually be able to topple them as things continue to equalize.

[Harry]

Now that I am an important person, I could give a rats ass about any of you but I can certainly identify what it is like at a lessor institution like yours.

He's an ass but I blame ESPN for this. They've given them so much damn money that they don't have enough ways to spend it.

[untjim1995]

I've posted on this subject many times in the past, but the real Division 1 split is coming--whether its with the NCAA or not. The NCAA knows that it will lose everything if the big AQs split off, so they aren't going to stop this train. They know that the networks, politicians, and bowls won't stop this, either. The top dogs have too much power, both economically and politically.

I'm not sure who will get included in the top qualification, but my guess is that there will be probably be about 80 teams that make it in the top level. The current AQ leagues make up 64 teams. Add in BYU and Notre Dame and you are at 66. It could just stop there, but my guess is that teams like the higher end teams in the MWC and AAC will gain admittance, as well, teams like UConn, USF, Cincy, UH, UCF, ECU, Memphis, Fresno State, Boise State, San Diego State, UNLV, Nevada, Colorado State, and New Mexico. You could see 4 leagues of 20 or 5 leagues of 16 in that arrangement.

That way, you gain control of almost every major state legislature and the NCAA, ESPN, Fox, and the other networks are happy, as is the big media that covers them.

What I have wondered about often is how a team like SMU will react at being left behind in the arrangement I just listed above. Here in Denton, we are used to playing the dregs of FBS football. Hell, we've been used to playing FCS schedules. Its not like it would be that different to play Louisiana-Monroe as a new i-aa opponent again. But a team like SMU, whose fans and alums watched them go from being a SWC power to falling down to where they are today, could really suffer if it has to sell its fans on playing as a new 1-aa program. I can almost see them quit football before accepting that.

[UNTLifer]

You can’t take the Ohio State University and create legislation that allows a Middle Tennessee State to be as competitive as we are.

This is the sentence that really pissed me off. Where was the follow up question?

[untjim1995]

This is the sentence that really pissed me off. Where was the follow up question?

It was ignored by the guy who loves following Ohio State/Big Ten/AQ Football for his job...in other words, almost every single college football media member. Remember a few years ago, when a survey was done about media coverage of AQs versus non-AQs? The non-AQs got decent coverage from 5% of the respondents.

The follow-up questions are in line with almost saying, "How can we help you get this done ASAP?"

[PlummMeanGreen]

From The Far Side...

Let the elite "We've Got It & You Don't" 20 or 25 top schools play "ONLY" each other and then lets see how the TV monies will flow for schools with 6 & 5 and 5 & 6 W/L records who seem to want to be the NFL 2.0.

AND.....if they have so damn much more monies which they obviously do not want to share with our Go5 conferences, then let them put all their extra revenues into each of their respective general academic scholarship funds for heavens sake. (I still think the Go5 group should get a good group of attornies to help get more FBS revenue).

The Super Big Boys are just about maxing out their budgets as it is. For a new project idea maybe they need to build matching under-ground football stadiums to flaunt all they have; you know...... "if you've got it---flaunt it?. This group gets so much money they are getting bored and runnning out of ideas where to spend it.

Stipends they now want? Well, what happens when UT goes into a bidding war for Super Blue Chipper and tells him "our stipend will be much larger than Ohio State's? More wide open can of worms with that IMO and......will this ever stop? .

Edited May 9, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen

[ragpicker]

The usual swill. Instead of addressing the issue of continued escalation and nonsensical spending in college athletics; advocate the separation of the have and have-nots. Why would anyone pay any attention to someone's view on the problems in college big time sports, who benefits from the current system? The use of the stipend issue is especially heinous, bringing the poor athlete into the equation. There are very few football programs that can't afford the 170K annual cost of these stipends, the Belt has already voted to do it. It takes a lot of nerve to use that issue as a rationale for a separation of the divisions with the current coaching salary structure and the millions that teams like OSU spend on frills.

I also wonder why he thinks that the anointed 60 or 70 teams, he suggests in the top division would not soon develop the same problems. There is a lot of difference between the UT, Ohio State and few more budgets compared the bottom 40 in his scenario. I guess the top division could be halfed again, leaving a group about the size of the NFL, but without the parity they have because of the draft and at least some budget restrains.

I would really like to see Ohio State and say the other nine biggest spenders, create their own conference. Have no academic requirements and bid on players they want to sign. They want to GO big time, let them really have separation. They would lose their non-profit status and could go head to head against the NFL for audiences.

What they would be are NFL farm teams. I say good luck and good riddance. Let the rest of us play real college football with real student athletes.

[oldguystudent]

I really don't ever want to be Ohio State or some SEC school with a 100,000 capacity monstrosity of a stadium.<br /><br />I kinda like being part of the community of what will inevitably become 1aa.2 or whatever they eventually deem it.

[LongJim]

If the day ever comes--and I hope it does--that the by-God University of North Texas has enough alumni willing to support its athletic department at a level at which it does not depend on a student fee, does not take any subsidy whatsoever, and in fact is self-sustaining, I will NEVER suggest that they do not deserve that status or should share or limit their spending in any way, shape, or form.

Edited May 10, 2013 by LongJim

[Aquila_Viridis]

On behalf of our brethren MT, I would like to send out a big FLICK YOU to Gene and Ohio State, cause you could just as well substitute 'North Texas' or several other similarly situated schools wherever he mentions MT.

[3XL]

Best thread year to date...proud of the insight and views from our alumni...

The whole David vs Goliath aspect is really part of what makes college sports so great.

Yes...many times there is pain & heartache...but the upsets and the building of programs from obscurity...how exciting is that?