Don’t ask John Calipari a question if you don’t want to hear his answer, even if it is opinionated.
That’s why it was no surprise when the Kentucky coach was asked Wednesday during his basketball camp at Danville High School what he thought about recent suggestions that Division I athletes deserved a stipend in addition to their scholarships that he was more than ready with his answer.
Actually, Calipari had already expressed his ideas on Kentucky Sports Radio and had been criticized by ESPN.com and CBSSports.com writers. Not to worry. He wasn’t about to change his mind.
“The biggest thing to me is that when you say pay the players, that’s not what it is. It pays their expenses. In the old days, the players at Kentucky and other schools would get money for laundry and get movie money, and they called it expenses. Now it is called an extra benefit. Where along the way did it change? Probably budgets,” Calipari said. “But now you are talking about the expense of going to school for all sports, and not just basketball and football. The females ... do they live on earth in a different place than we do? We’re all in the same boat. Every athlete should have that expense money.”
Calipari asked media members where a quarter of a billion dollars could be found to pay Division I athletes.
“Not in the structure we have. You have 100 schools barely in Division I. If there was a vote, I would guess 60 schools would say let’s do this and 300 would say no,” Calipari said.
Calipari said he was “not the genius” who came up with an idea for four new super-conferences — one from each region of the country — that would feature 16 to 18 teams per conference that play both basketball and football. Basically, that’s what the BCS schools have in football. These 64 to 72 teams would not be part of the NCAA — or NCAA regulations.
“Each league has a football playoff, which they do now (in most conferences), and those four are semifinalists for the national title. The other schools will still play in a bowl, so you don’t hurt anything,” he said. “The money goes back to those 64 to 72 teams.”
Each super-conference team would play in an open national basketball tournament.
“The money stays with those teams,” Calipari said. “Now there is money for living expenses for athletes, which they do deserve. Two, there is money to square up Title IX. There is money for intramurals. And I would say to be honest with you, there is money to go back to the general fund of each of those 64 (or 72) teams.”
Calipari said previously he thought the super-conference athletes should receive $3,000 to $4,000 per year.
One valid concern with the super-conference proposals would be with schools like Butler, VCU, Marquette, Xavier and others that don’t field football teams. Remember, Butler has been to the Final Four the last two years and VCU made it last season. What would happen to those tantalizing Cinderella stories from the NCAA tournament?
“You would still have the other (NCAA) tournament. Maybe the two tournaments play off in a national title. So there you go. You have your Cinderella playing against the other team. I don’t have the particulars of it. That’s the only way I can see it,” Calipari said.
His controversial idea would enable super-conference teams to do one other thing — alter the basketball schedule.
“My opinion is we should have football in one term (semester) and basketball in the other term. My team should have 15 to 18 credit hours the first term when they are not playing basketball. The second term when they are playing basketball, they should have nine hours,” he said. “They are still on track to graduate, but why do you have to have 15 and 15. In football, they have less credits when they are playing and more (when they are not playing). Again, I am just a basketball coach.”
Calipari doesn’t pretend that this idea is without flaws. However, he’s confident he knows how a better idea might be developed.
“Someone asked me how you could do this financially. The greatest thing about the Big Blue Nation is that someone will come up with a better way, and I would like to see it. They will toss it around and someone will come up with ideas,” he said. “But that’s the only way I see it, or why are we talking about it? Why waste breath? There’s no votes for (paying players).”
He’s right. The majority of Division I schools could not afford to pay every scholarship athlete, something that should have to be mandatory if this ever happens. If that means a revolutionary reshaping of college athletics, then maybe this is the way to do it.
If not, then there’s certainly nothing wrong with Calipari’s blunt comments, which I’m sure a lot of Division I athletes are applauding today.
That’s why it was no surprise when the Kentucky coach was asked Wednesday during his basketball camp at Danville High School what he thought about recent suggestions that Division I athletes deserved a stipend in addition to their scholarships that he was more than ready with his answer.
Actually, Calipari had already expressed his ideas on Kentucky Sports Radio and had been criticized by ESPN.com and CBSSports.com writers. Not to worry. He wasn’t about to change his mind.
“The biggest thing to me is that when you say pay the players, that’s not what it is. It pays their expenses. In the old days, the players at Kentucky and other schools would get money for laundry and get movie money, and they called it expenses. Now it is called an extra benefit. Where along the way did it change? Probably budgets,” Calipari said. “But now you are talking about the expense of going to school for all sports, and not just basketball and football. The females ... do they live on earth in a different place than we do? We’re all in the same boat. Every athlete should have that expense money.”
Calipari asked media members where a quarter of a billion dollars could be found to pay Division I athletes.
“Not in the structure we have. You have 100 schools barely in Division I. If there was a vote, I would guess 60 schools would say let’s do this and 300 would say no,” Calipari said.
Calipari said he was “not the genius” who came up with an idea for four new super-conferences — one from each region of the country — that would feature 16 to 18 teams per conference that play both basketball and football. Basically, that’s what the BCS schools have in football. These 64 to 72 teams would not be part of the NCAA — or NCAA regulations.
“Each league has a football playoff, which they do now (in most conferences), and those four are semifinalists for the national title. The other schools will still play in a bowl, so you don’t hurt anything,” he said. “The money goes back to those 64 to 72 teams.”
Each super-conference team would play in an open national basketball tournament.
“The money stays with those teams,” Calipari said. “Now there is money for living expenses for athletes, which they do deserve. Two, there is money to square up Title IX. There is money for intramurals. And I would say to be honest with you, there is money to go back to the general fund of each of those 64 (or 72) teams.”
Calipari said previously he thought the super-conference athletes should receive $3,000 to $4,000 per year.
One valid concern with the super-conference proposals would be with schools like Butler, VCU, Marquette, Xavier and others that don’t field football teams. Remember, Butler has been to the Final Four the last two years and VCU made it last season. What would happen to those tantalizing Cinderella stories from the NCAA tournament?
“You would still have the other (NCAA) tournament. Maybe the two tournaments play off in a national title. So there you go. You have your Cinderella playing against the other team. I don’t have the particulars of it. That’s the only way I can see it,” Calipari said.
His controversial idea would enable super-conference teams to do one other thing — alter the basketball schedule.
“My opinion is we should have football in one term (semester) and basketball in the other term. My team should have 15 to 18 credit hours the first term when they are not playing basketball. The second term when they are playing basketball, they should have nine hours,” he said. “They are still on track to graduate, but why do you have to have 15 and 15. In football, they have less credits when they are playing and more (when they are not playing). Again, I am just a basketball coach.”
Calipari doesn’t pretend that this idea is without flaws. However, he’s confident he knows how a better idea might be developed.
“Someone asked me how you could do this financially. The greatest thing about the Big Blue Nation is that someone will come up with a better way, and I would like to see it. They will toss it around and someone will come up with ideas,” he said. “But that’s the only way I see it, or why are we talking about it? Why waste breath? There’s no votes for (paying players).”
He’s right. The majority of Division I schools could not afford to pay every scholarship athlete, something that should have to be mandatory if this ever happens. If that means a revolutionary reshaping of college athletics, then maybe this is the way to do it.
If not, then there’s certainly nothing wrong with Calipari’s blunt comments, which I’m sure a lot of Division I athletes are applauding today.
