The next wave of amenities....

[Crimson Crush]

I really would like to see IU do this next:

We have to keep up with the times....

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kans...ig-12/university-of-kansas/article336824.html

 

[i'vegotwinners]

the term is indirect compensation.

personally, i have no problem at all with IU deciding to sell mom and dad with the idea that their son or daughter will live as, and among, other students, if they stay on campus.

 

[YOTHN]

the term is indirect compensation.

personally, i have no problem at all with IU deciding to sell mom and dad with the idea that their son or daughter will live as, and among, other students, if they stay on campus.

Precisely. It's compensation. Plain and simple. The thing people keep p!$$ing and moaning about unfairness of big programs advantage over the little guys. It already exists....

 

[oldcougar77]

Precisely. It's compensation. Plain and simple. The thing people keep p!$$ing and moaning about unfairness of big programs advantage over the little guys. It already exists....

This is precisely where the Presidents of the universities that make up the NCAA either have to put up or shut up. If there is any intent on the part of Presidents to restore the notion of "student-athlete" or make a less-than-laughable effort at maintaining amateurism, this is where they have to draw lines in the sand. Otherwise, just wave the white flag and pay the players.

What Kansas is doing is essentially segregating basketball players from the rest of the student population and creating a separate university for athletes (primarily basketball players). That's what Oklahoma has done for football and it can be expected that everyone else will follow suit. The end result - millions of dollars spent and no one gains anything on the opposition. The very definition of an arms race. The only change is that athletes in the "marquee" sports become even less connected to the university experience.

What these schools are doing is simply following the model of North Carolina and its avenue around blatant academic fraud. They allow a miniscule number of non-athletes to live in the luxury suite with the athletes so that it isn't an "exclusive" benefit. With Kansas, they will allow women's basketball players to live there to satisfy Title IX questions. In reality, we all know what and who this is really for.

It has been suggested here and on the bball board that the notion of not paying players is an archaic model that should change to fit the modern reality of big-time college sports. I'm going to suggest that the notion of university sponsorship of what is essentially professional club sports is what might be outdated. If this is what college football and basketball have become, maybe it's time to do away with those sports and turn it over to corporate sponsorship with various levels of leagues like they do in Europe. Then return the money invested in athletics back to academic pursuits.

 

[RBB89]

I hate the separate dorm thing. I’m all good with the nice dining facility at the stadium and all the outstanding training facilities, but they should have to live with the rest of the student body. And most of our dorms have been renovated recently.

Appreciate the link though. It’s a never ending battle.

 

[YOTHN]

This is precisely where the Presidents of the universities that make up the NCAA either have to put up or shut up. If there is any intent on the part of Presidents to restore the notion of "student-athlete" or make a less-than-laughable effort at maintaining amateurism, this is where they have to draw lines in the sand. Otherwise, just wave the white flag and pay the players.

What Kansas is doing is essentially segregating basketball players from the rest of the student population and creating a separate university for athletes (primarily basketball players). That's what Oklahoma has done for football and it can be expected that everyone else will follow suit. The end result - millions of dollars spent and no one gains anything on the opposition. The very definition of an arms race. The only change is that athletes in the "marquee" sports become even less connected to the university experience.

What these schools are doing is simply following the model of North Carolina and its avenue around blatant academic fraud. They allow a miniscule number of non-athletes to live in the luxury suite with the athletes so that it isn't an "exclusive" benefit. With Kansas, they will allow women's basketball players to live there to satisfy Title IX questions. In reality, we all know what and who this is really for.

It has been suggested here and on the bball board that the notion of not paying players is an archaic model that should change to fit the modern reality of big-time college sports. I'm going to suggest that the notion of university sponsorship of what is essentially professional club sports is what might be outdated. If this is what college football and basketball have become, maybe it's time to do away with those sports and turn it over to corporate sponsorship with various levels of leagues like they do in Europe. Then return the money invested in athletics back to academic pursuits.

I don't believe the players are segregated from the student body. When Kentucky built theirs, 50% of the residents in the dorm have to be normal student body members (or of that ilk). So I think they have a lottery system that decides who gets access to half of that dorm and the same amenities. I would assume Kansas is abiding by that same protocol.

 

[ESalum86]

In the spring of 1980 I got to visit Wildcat Lodge at Kentucky (and met Sam Bowie) as part of a tour one of their assistant coaches gave us. It was a beautiful dorm built for the basketball team. The NCAA told UK they couldn't do that for just hoops players, it had to house regular students, too. How did UK respond? They allowed a dozen or students, who just happened to be high school valedictorians and great students at UK, to live there and "tutor" the basketball team.

 

[oldcougar77]

I don't believe the players are segregated from the student body. When Kentucky built theirs, 50% of the residents in the dorm have to be normal student body members (or of that ilk). So I think they have a lottery system that decides who gets access to half of that dorm and the same amenities. I would assume Kansas is abiding by that same protocol.

The article referenced the new facility at Oklahoma. If I recall correctly it said that 150 of the180 residents would be football players. Thirty spots open for non-players. My guess is that those 30 are also high achievers who can be used as tutors.

I remember when John Cooper was coaching at OSU and he got crucified for suggesting that football players be allowed to have their classes held and take tests in the athletic facilities. People were outraged. How far away from that are we now ?

The number of games and the times they are scheduled now make it almost impossible for basketball players to experience the life of a true student. Placing them in exclusive "lodges" makes that all the more likely.

We need to decide in this country whether we want high-level athletics to be played by college students or paraprofessionals. If the choice is for the latter, we need to change the model to corporate sponsorship and return our universities to their academic focus. There's a reason that university curricula does not typically include courses of study that are best accomplished by on-the-job apprenticeships. If someone wants to major in football or basketball, let them play at whatever level their abilities allow. University sponsorship should not be a part of that equation and colleges should not be operating as de facto minor leagues.

 

[YOTHN]

The article referenced the new facility at Oklahoma. If I recall correctly it said that 150 of the180 residents would be football players. Thirty spots open for non-players. My guess is that those 30 are also high achievers who can be used as tutors.

I remember when John Cooper was coaching at OSU and he got crucified for suggesting that football players be allowed to have their classes held and take tests in the athletic facilities. People were outraged. How far away from that are we now ?

The number of games and the times they are scheduled now make it almost impossible for basketball players to experience the life of a true student. Placing them in exclusive "lodges" makes that all the more likely.

We need to decide in this country whether we want high-level athletics to be played by college students or paraprofessionals. If the choice is for the latter, we need to change the model to corporate sponsorship and return our universities to their academic focus. There's a reason that university curricula does not typically include courses of study that are best accomplished by on-the-job apprenticeships. If someone wants to major in football or basketball, let them play at whatever level their abilities allow. University sponsorship should not be a part of that equation and colleges should not be operating as de facto minor leagues.

I understand the thought process but if the top 50 recruits today went straight to the NBA, there would be a new top 50 and THOSE top kids would be offered these same amenities as the current top 50 kids. Mainly because the money in college sports entertainment will still exist. People lose sight of the idea that these types of amenities aren't driven by talent but by money. If the University can be better and make more money than they will invest more money in things like this. The only thing that would change is the bar for the top talent would be slightly lower. Because 3/4ths of the Mickey D recruits will still be going to college even if the NBA permitted kids to go pro early. We will still have a lot of one and done's. The thing that needs to change is peoples false perception of what college sports has been over the last 40 years. It's been this way forever and denying it will never help solve it. What you thought it was and what you're sad about it not being anymore.....never was.

 

[Crimson Crush]

On a side note, and not saying this would necessarily have a cause and effect, but.....would having these “lodges” do anything at all to prevent these recent issues where athletes are living off campus and running a drug operation? Could putting athletes in a group setting prevent that kind of thing that happens when players are isolated? An accountability factor with athletes in close quarters?
Self mentions a downside with no security and the ability to come and go (possibly agents) into these housing units...or in his case, $100k deals going on with no monitoring.

 

[Daydreamer]

The article referenced the new facility at Oklahoma. If I recall correctly it said that 150 of the180 residents would be football players. Thirty spots open for non-players. My guess is that those 30 are also high achievers who can be used as tutors.

I remember when John Cooper was coaching at OSU and he got crucified for suggesting that football players be allowed to have their classes held and take tests in the athletic facilities. People were outraged. How far away from that are we now ?

The number of games and the times they are scheduled now make it almost impossible for basketball players to experience the life of a true student. Placing them in exclusive "lodges" makes that all the more likely.

We need to decide in this country whether we want high-level athletics to be played by college students or paraprofessionals. If the choice is for the latter, we need to change the model to corporate sponsorship and return our universities to their academic focus. There's a reason that university curricula does not typically include courses of study that are best accomplished by on-the-job apprenticeships. If someone wants to major in football or basketball, let them play at whatever level their abilities allow. University sponsorship should not be a part of that equation and colleges should not be operating as de facto minor leagues.

What's the "life of a true student"?
Most college students live at home and commute. The vast majority live off campus. Very few students live on campus in a dorm. The "lodge" model seems to me to be closer to that than letting them live off campus. At least coaches can keep a better eye on them so they (hopefully) don't get mixed up with unscrupulous agents or other potentially bad elements.
A "true student" goes to classes and gets a degree. That's about the only commonality. I don't disagree that college sports have become too professionalized but I'd rather give student-athletes more perks (all paid for with private funds) rather than pay them a salary. Paying them will ruin, if not completely end, college athletics.

 

[Crimson Crush]

Heddington Hall at OU:

IU Athletic Housing

Which one would you choose as a top flight athlete?

 

[turney333]

Nt

 

[turney333]

Couldn’t get the photo links to work, but most dorms have been remodeled and Briscoe where most athletes stay definitely has been updated

 

[oldcougar77]

Heddington Hall at OU:
I absolutely get what you're saying, and I don't disagree. The problem is that before long, everybody has built a facility like this so that advantage is gone. And regardless of how extravagant you build it, the next guy will one-up you. Ultimately, billions have been spent and no advantage has been gained.

And while these things are built with donor money, they are staffed and maintained with university money - taxpayer money if the university is public. What is the per-student cost of operating facilities like these ? How does that effect tuition and housing costs for other students ?

I definitely understand how important something like this is to selling your program to top recruits. I just think a better solution is for the NCAA to limit the extravagance to prevent the arms race in the first place. If your mission is really the education of athletes first and foremost, they should not be isolated and insulated from the university at-large. They should be engaged at the highest possible level with other students who are not athletes.

For athletes who have to manage time, rest, maintain a proper diet, and still complete coursework, some specialized facilities are appropriate. They need tutorial help. They need a training/dietary facility. They need a great weight and exercise program. Many of them need larger spaces with quiet hours. But I think there is a happy medium somewhere between the dorm and its cafeteria and living in Mar-a-lago.

IU Athletic Housing

Which one would you choose as a top flight athlete?

 

[turney333]

For the most part, I believe that university housing is minimally subsidized if at all by university spending/tax dollars and is a more direct cost to the student. It wouldn’t be fair to students that live off campus and is the primary reason on campus housing is so expensive. And NCAA rules dictate that the athletic department must pay full tuition and housing expenses for athletes to the University at large.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Couldn’t get the photo links to work, but most dorms have been remodeled and Briscoe where most athletes stay definitely has been updated

You sure are right. Briscoe is much nicer than it used to be. I was in Foster and had several football players on my floor. Briscoe is definitely updated and this doesn’t look anything like IU dorms from my days:

Separate bathrooms? A far cry from the IU bathrooms shared by the entire floor. I remember weekends not being able to use the showers because of all the puke in there from those who partied a bit too hard. Cleaning crews didn’t come in till Monday AM. Every shower stall covered in puke.