(05-21-2012 05:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:54 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:18 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Well, I am affraid that sitting and waiting will allow App and Ga. Southern to catch the first train smoking to the WAC. All the WAC needs are a few schools to make it FBS football again. If the entirety of the Southland Conference moved up (sans Northwestern State and Nicholls) along with adding App State, Ga Southern and Jax State, the entire SBC better be ready to crap a huge terd.

How do they move in the WAC? Sure they can count it as a bona fide invitation to an FBS league as long as the invite is issued by June 30, 2013.

But how do you complete year two of transition? That requires playing at least 8 FBS games and at least four have to be at home. Pretty hard to do in a league with two FBS members.

I thought the WAC was still operating under some sort of a waiver that was granted by the NCAA...

The waiver gives them two years to continue to vote as an FBS and be an FBS league, it does not exempt new members from complying with transition rules.

all the southland schools would not go or even be asked, but I could see Lamar and UCA and maybe sam houston and SFA along with Ga so and appy and a couple others making the jump..those are all schools at the top of fcs so they would be likely move-ups

(05-21-2012 05:40 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:18 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Well, I am affraid that sitting and waiting will allow App and Ga. Southern to catch the first train smoking to the WAC. All the WAC needs are a few schools to make it FBS football again. If the entirety of the Southland Conference moved up (sans Northwestern State and Nicholls) along with adding App State, Ga Southern and Jax State, the entire SBC better be ready to crap a huge terd.

How do they move in the WAC? Sure they can count it as a bona fide invitation to an FBS league as long as the invite is issued by June 30, 2013.

But how do you complete year two of transition? That requires playing at least 8 FBS games and at least four have to be at home. Pretty hard to do in a league with two FBS members.

The NCAA hates lawsuits. Everytime they lose, which they usually do, it cuts into their power and control. Judges use a lawsuit as an opportunity to punish what many view as a mafia type organization.

The NCAA will not risk losing a lawsuit over non BCS small dollar schools. They would just give them a waiver so that it would go away.

Actually the NCAA has a pretty good track record in litigation. Early indications are they will prevail on player likeness because they are winning the key early motions. They settled the case on cost of attendance because it was in line with what the power conferences wanted even though the NCAA was likely to prevail.

They settled NIT by buying the NIT. That was a case where case law was iffy and their worry wasn't the NIT but rather someone like Nike or ESPN would exploit the ruling to create an alternate tournament to the NCAA Tournament. They lost restricted earnings but any 2L would have seen that was violative. There are tons of smaller cases they've won easily.

Membership standards work under a different anti-trust analysis. There are a number of cases that allow trade associations to limit membership applying reasonable standards to insure a certain level of quality and committment. The NCAA standards for FBS membership would almost certainly withstand scrutiny.

For the NCAA to win, they have to show that the standards have been administered evenly, which they havent, with many FBS schools not reaching those standards. Cant tell FCS schools they cant do something because its against the rules, and then ignore FBS schools doing something against the rules.

(05-22-2012 08:50 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 05:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:54 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:18 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Well, I am affraid that sitting and waiting will allow App and Ga. Southern to catch the first train smoking to the WAC. All the WAC needs are a few schools to make it FBS football again. If the entirety of the Southland Conference moved up (sans Northwestern State and Nicholls) along with adding App State, Ga Southern and Jax State, the entire SBC better be ready to crap a huge terd.

How do they move in the WAC? Sure they can count it as a bona fide invitation to an FBS league as long as the invite is issued by June 30, 2013.

But how do you complete year two of transition? That requires playing at least 8 FBS games and at least four have to be at home. Pretty hard to do in a league with two FBS members.

I thought the WAC was still operating under some sort of a waiver that was granted by the NCAA...

The waiver gives them two years to continue to vote as an FBS and be an FBS league, it does not exempt new members from complying with transition rules.

all the southland schools would not go or even be asked, but I could see Lamar and UCA and maybe sam houston and SFA along with Ga so and appy and a couple others making the jump..those are all schools at the top of fcs so they would be likely move-ups

You aren't familiar with the UCA situation apparently.

They have been in a series of problems with the state auditors over exceeding state spending limits on athletics and cannot afford the outlay required to make the move.

Their stadium seats less than 8,000 and is essentially landlocked and would be hard to expand to the 25,000-30,000 range. They regularly report football crowds in excess of stadium capacity but oddly enough every TV clip and newspaper photo shows ample seats available at each game.

Their basketball facility would be the worst in the Sun Belt.

(05-22-2012 09:09 AM)Glassonion Wrote:  For the NCAA to win, they have to show that the standards have been administered evenly, which they havent, with many FBS schools not reaching those standards. Cant tell FCS schools they cant do something because its against the rules, and then ignore FBS schools doing something against the rules.

The NCAA is not a governmental entity. They have ultimate power over what they want to do, and the members can change the rules at any time.

Don't like it? Leave.

(05-22-2012 09:16 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  The NCAA is not a governmental entity. They have ultimate power over what they want to do, and the members can change the rules at any time.

Don't like it? Leave.

Uh, no they dont. If that were the case, Congress wouldnt be holding baseball players in contempt for perjury, would they?

(05-22-2012 09:09 AM)Glassonion Wrote:  For the NCAA to win, they have to show that the standards have been administered evenly, which they havent, with many FBS schools not reaching those standards. Cant tell FCS schools they cant do something because its against the rules, and then ignore FBS schools doing something against the rules.

What FBS school doesn't play a minimum of 8 FBS opponents?
What FBS school doesn't play a minimum of 5 home games, 4 against FBS?
What FBS school doesn't offer at least 16 sports or award at least 200 FTE's?
Attendance you say? The report you and I see is not the official report. Schools send in two sets of numbers. The publicly released and the private certification. Schools in attendance dilemma routinely arrange for donations and sponsorships to be done in the purchase of tickets. The donor/sponsor rather than giving the school $10,000 will be credited with purchasing say 2,000 tickets. Those tickets are then donated to the booster club and the booster club gives the donor/sponsor a receipt for a $10,000 gift. One future C-USA member received a warning letter from the NCAA that it was in danger of failing to meet the two year attendance average because someone failed to follow the steps on the transactions and the attendance audit picked it up. They quickly corrected the problem and haven't had any trouble since.

The NCAA has not granted any waiver from FBS membership rules, at least under these rules. The only membership waiver I recall having been granted was when Tulsa was found several years ago to have not had enough women track athletes entered in enough meets to count women's track as a sport one year, that placed them under the minimum sport sponsorship requirement. The NCAA placed Tulsa on probation but didn't kick them out of Division I and force them to restart the process to rejoin but they were awarding far more aid than was required to be Division I (thanks to football).

The closest thing to a similar situation was the waiting period for Houston Baptist. They started back into Division I thinking they had a four year waiting period. The NCAA informed them that the waiting period was 7 years due to an editorial revision. HBU did a little checking and discovered that the change had never been voted on. The NCAA got nailed not because the waiting period violated anti-trust but because they Association didn't follow its own rules.

There simply isn't an example the FCS move-ups can cite to a court to show an exemption from scheduling.

(05-22-2012 09:19 AM)Glassonion Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 09:16 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  The NCAA is not a governmental entity. They have ultimate power over what they want to do, and the members can change the rules at any time.

Don't like it? Leave.

Uh, no they dont. If that were the case, Congress wouldnt be holding baseball players in contempt for perjury, would they?

There have actually been a few court decisions saying, if you don't like the rules leave.

As long as the NCAA follows its rule book and doesn't alter the rulebook to restrict competition in an illegal way, love it or leave it is the rule of the day.

Not all restriction on competition is illegal. The four years to play five rule restricts competition, scholarship limits restrict competition, limits on the number of coaches per sport restrict competition, restricting participation to amateurs restricts competition and all have been upheld has reasonable restrictions essential to preservation of competitive balance and preserving the unique nature of the product.

Requiring potential members to actually play a minimum number of games vs members of the group is going to be permissible as long as the members don't conspire to boycott scheduling the potential member. The NCAA even encourages these games by permitting members to count a second year transitional as if they were a full member. They just don't let second year transitionals count other second year transitionals, but that would defeat the point of the rule, which is to require potential members to play a schedule meeting a minimum standard.

Many of those schools that didnt make the attendance barrier, did not in fact, have it covered by donations. They merely ANNOUNCED attendance that was higher. For example, CMU in 2011 averaged just over 4,000 fans a game, but had an announced attendance of 15,000.

They've also been counting football players, the band, cheerleaders, and staff in attendance numbers, which the NCAA rule specifically states are not to be counted.

Youre also stuck on the FCS/FBS scheduling issue, which is not a big deal.



http://www.cm-life.com/2012/02/05/footba...d-numbers/

(05-22-2012 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  There have actually been a few court decisions saying, if you don't like the rules leave.

As long as the NCAA follows its rule book and doesn't alter the rulebook to restrict competition in an illegal way, love it or leave it is the rule of the day.

Not all restriction on competition is illegal. The four years to play five rule restricts competition, scholarship limits restrict competition, limits on the number of coaches per sport restrict competition, restricting participation to amateurs restricts competition and all have been upheld has reasonable restrictions essential to preservation of competitive balance and preserving the unique nature of the product.

Requiring potential members to actually play a minimum number of games vs members of the group is going to be permissible as long as the members don't conspire to boycott scheduling the potential member. The NCAA even encourages these games by permitting members to count a second year transitional as if they were a full member. They just don't let second year transitionals count other second year transitionals, but that would defeat the point of the rule, which is to require potential members to play a schedule meeting a minimum standard.

How is dictating the number of scholarships that institutions are allowed to issue not restricting competition?

FBS/FCS teams play, 63 schollies, 85 schollies.

It also dictates how much $ a school recieves from the pot, and unfairly locks them into that amount without a reasonable system of growth.

The NCAA garners its dollars on the backs of these institutions and their athletes. If you think Congress isnt waiting for an invitation to poke around, youre seriously mistaken. This is a billion dollar business.

As long as the NCAA is catering to conferences, whose soul purpose is now making money, and not its individual members institutions, college athletics will continue its downward spiral. That downward spiral is just as bad for the mid tier teams as it is for the FCS.

Congress isnt really too keen on poking around because most Congressmen root for Big State U. The NCAA and the big boys are not dumb. The moratorium will be in place just long enough for FCS to create the next crop of UTSAs and Charlottes.

(05-22-2012 10:05 AM)Glassonion Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  There have actually been a few court decisions saying, if you don't like the rules leave.

As long as the NCAA follows its rule book and doesn't alter the rulebook to restrict competition in an illegal way, love it or leave it is the rule of the day.

Not all restriction on competition is illegal. The four years to play five rule restricts competition, scholarship limits restrict competition, limits on the number of coaches per sport restrict competition, restricting participation to amateurs restricts competition and all have been upheld has reasonable restrictions essential to preservation of competitive balance and preserving the unique nature of the product.

Requiring potential members to actually play a minimum number of games vs members of the group is going to be permissible as long as the members don't conspire to boycott scheduling the potential member. The NCAA even encourages these games by permitting members to count a second year transitional as if they were a full member. They just don't let second year transitionals count other second year transitionals, but that would defeat the point of the rule, which is to require potential members to play a schedule meeting a minimum standard.

How is dictating the number of scholarships that institutions are allowed to issue not restricting competition?

FBS/FCS teams play, 63 schollies, 85 schollies.

It also dictates how much $ a school recieves from the pot, and unfairly locks them into that amount without a reasonable system of growth.

The NCAA garners its dollars on the backs of these institutions and their athletes. If you think Congress isnt waiting for an invitation to poke around, youre seriously mistaken. This is a billion dollar business.

As long as the NCAA is catering to conferences, whose soul purpose is now making money, and not its individual members institutions, college athletics will continue its downward spiral. That downward spiral is just as bad for the mid tier teams as it is for the FCS.

Those restrictions aren't illegal because the courts have found them reasonable.

Basic anti-trust law. Reasonable barriers to competition are legitimate.

Scholarship limits force some talented players to opt to participate at a school without a scholarship or sign with a school that has scholarship space. The spreads talent about making the playing field somewhat more level by preventing top programs from stockpiling a hundred or more players on scholarship in football. FCS doesn't require that you award ANY scholarships, it just says you can't offer more than 63 to gain a competitive advantage and upset the competitive balance.

The NCAA revenue distribution system is six-tiered. One pool is based on performance in the NCAA Tournament, one is based on the number of scholarships awarded by each school, one is based on the number of sports sponsored, two more are distributed equally to the conferences, and one is used to meet specific financial needs of players in financial distress.

I don't see how the NCAA "unfairly" "locks" a school into their spot in the distribution system. You can increase your share in one pool by adding sports and in another by awarding more scholarships. In yet another you can increase your share by playing better basketball and winning tournament games.

(05-22-2012 10:18 AM)panama Wrote:  Congress isnt really too keen on poking around because most Congressmen root for Big State U. The NCAA and the big boys are not dumb. The moratorium will be in place just long enough for FCS to create the next crop of UTSAs and Charlottes.

Congress has already said thanks but no thanks taking on the issue of the BCS and on the matter of a playoff.

If Congress were to ever step into this fray it would be to alter the tax code to take away non-profit status from the NCAA, the conferences and the highest grossing athletic departments or to eliminate the charitable deduction status of donations to large athletic departments in order to wrest a few more dollars of tax revenue and to try to re-direct some of these "charitable impulses" to actual charitable activities.

(05-22-2012 01:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Those restrictions aren't illegal because the courts have found them reasonable.

Basic anti-trust law. Reasonable barriers to competition are legitimate.

Scholarship limits force some talented players to opt to participate at a school without a scholarship or sign with a school that has scholarship space. The spreads talent about making the playing field somewhat more level by preventing top programs from stockpiling a hundred or more players on scholarship in football. FCS doesn't require that you award ANY scholarships, it just says you can't offer more than 63 to gain a competitive advantage and upset the competitive balance.

The NCAA revenue distribution system is six-tiered. One pool is based on performance in the NCAA Tournament, one is based on the number of scholarships awarded by each school, one is based on the number of sports sponsored, two more are distributed equally to the conferences, and one is used to meet specific financial needs of players in financial distress.

I don't see how the NCAA "unfairly" "locks" a school into their spot in the distribution system. You can increase your share in one pool by adding sports and in another by awarding more scholarships. In yet another you can increase your share by playing better basketball and winning tournament games.

Read what you just wrote.

You say scholarship limits are necessary, and yes they are, but every institution should be allowed to offer the same if they so choose. This is a classic case of separate, and not equal.

You say we may increase scholarships for growth, just not in football?

App already offers 18 Division 1 varsity sports, we can go to 30, and not be competative in any, but we cant go up to 85 in football and compete with the 130+ other institutions that we are most similar too? That is not reasonable.

So your basis of "reasonable restriction" is that we can win FCS Championships, where we would actually lose money in the process, but we cannot have a chance of a bowl game where we may actually make money? That is not reasonable.

The current NCAA stance allows money grubbing conferences to dictate who is equal, and not based on school performance either. Our laws are made to uphold a Free Market, and in this case, banning a university from reaching its goals regardless of success and justice is inherently un-American.

It has been going that way for a while, and has finally crossed a line. The past two years of realignment have shown that the NCAA is incapable of fairly managing its members, and at this point, no court is going to uphold that, especially with the recent Ga St, UNCC type examples. A free market would allow a conference based on performance, not media, and would let the people decide by choosing which they'd rather watch.

(05-22-2012 02:57 PM)Glassonion Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 01:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Those restrictions aren't illegal because the courts have found them reasonable.

Basic anti-trust law. Reasonable barriers to competition are legitimate.

Scholarship limits force some talented players to opt to participate at a school without a scholarship or sign with a school that has scholarship space. The spreads talent about making the playing field somewhat more level by preventing top programs from stockpiling a hundred or more players on scholarship in football. FCS doesn't require that you award ANY scholarships, it just says you can't offer more than 63 to gain a competitive advantage and upset the competitive balance.

The NCAA revenue distribution system is six-tiered. One pool is based on performance in the NCAA Tournament, one is based on the number of scholarships awarded by each school, one is based on the number of sports sponsored, two more are distributed equally to the conferences, and one is used to meet specific financial needs of players in financial distress.

I don't see how the NCAA "unfairly" "locks" a school into their spot in the distribution system. You can increase your share in one pool by adding sports and in another by awarding more scholarships. In yet another you can increase your share by playing better basketball and winning tournament games.

Read what you just wrote.

You say scholarship limits are necessary, and yes they are, but every institution should be allowed to offer the same if they so choose. This is a classic case of separate, and not equal.

You say we may increase scholarships for growth, just not in football?

App already offers 18 Division 1 varsity sports, we can go to 30, and not be competative in any, but we cant go up to 85 in football and compete with the 130+ other institutions that we are most similar too? That is not reasonable.

So your basis of "reasonable restriction" is that we can win FCS Championships, where we would actually lose money in the process, but we cannot have a chance of a bowl game where we may actually make money? That is not reasonable.

The current NCAA stance allows money grubbing conferences to dictate who is equal, and not based on school performance either. Our laws are made to uphold a Free Market, and in this case, banning a university from reaching its goals regardless of success and justice is inherently un-American.

It has been going that way for a while, and has finally crossed a line. The past two years of realignment have shown that the NCAA is incapable of fairly managing its members, and at this point, no court is going to uphold that, especially with the recent Ga St, UNCC type examples. A free market would allow a conference based on performance, not media, and would let the people decide by choosing which they'd rather watch.

You are going to fail your bar exam. Seperate but equal is a phrase that comes from an entirely different area of the law, equal protection and application of the post Civil War constitutional amendments as well as their extension of the bill of rights to state law. That is all about state actors. The NCAA is not a state actor. The US Supreme Court has specifically rejected arguments that those principles extend to the NCAA by virtue of the bulk of the members being state actors.

From a non-legal standpoint, you are free to go to 85 scholarships, you just have to join the NAIA to do it. NAIA members can set their own limit in football unless they changed it as part of their reform a bit back.

Anti-trust law on this point is well established. App does not have a right or even a property interest in being able to reclassify FBS. The NCAA limits are reasonable. If a school is going to hold itself out as FBS it is reasonable to expect that the school will play a minimum number of home games and that the school will play more FBS opponents than opponents from another classification.

One would contend that it is unreasonable to require a bona fide invitation from an existing conference but it wouldn't take long to do the math and show the difficulty of a new member securing games as a newly established independent.

Until the bona fide invite rule was adopted, the NCAA rule it replaced required that a school show that it had sufficient contracts in place to meet the schedule requirement for their first four years in the NCAA before their reclassification became final. In more than one instance thanks to the turmoil that has taken over schools were having to submit updates as games were cancelled and replaced. Instead of having to secure a minimum of 32 games contracted (at least 8 for each of the four seasons with half of those each season at home), the invite rule was adopted to make the process simpler.

So you attack the bona fide invitation rule and prevail? So what? The NCAA still has a valid protectable interest in insuring that anyone in FBS plays 8 of their 12 games against other FBS members, that program doesn't become the college equivalent of the Washington Generals playing an all road schedule and plays a minimum number of home games against FBS competition.

Look at the last four schools to drop FBS football and the year dropped.
Pacific 1995. Final season four home games all FBS, prior season five home games only three FBS.
Fullerton 1992. Final season 4 home games only 2 FBS, prior year 4 home games 3 FBS
Long Beach 1991. Final season 3 home games all FBS prior year 6 home games 2 non-FBS
Wichita State 1986 Final season 5 home and only one home game was against an FBS school. Prior season, only three of their five home games were against FBS schools.

The record demonstrates that FBS programs that don't play close to half their games at home and against FBS competition are unable compete and remain financially viable.

The NCAA has a vested interest in the 8 FBS opponent, 4 FBS out of 5 home games rules to protect the game and insure the membership isn't impacted by having to replace opponents because they have dropped football.

Get the bona fide invite rule out of your way and you still have to meet the schedule requirements and the odds of doing that as an independent not named Army, Navy, Notre Dame or BYU (who all have guarantees of their home games being telecast on at least a semi-national basis), are exceedingly slim.

(05-22-2012 02:57 PM)Glassonion Wrote:  Read what you just wrote.

You say scholarship limits are necessary, and yes they are, but every institution should be allowed to offer the same if they so choose. This is a classic case of separate, and not equal.

You say we may increase scholarships for growth, just not in football?

App already offers 18 Division 1 varsity sports, we can go to 30, and not be competative in any, but we cant go up to 85 in football and compete with the 130+ other institutions that we are most similar too? That is not reasonable.

So your basis of "reasonable restriction" is that we can win FCS Championships, where we would actually lose money in the process, but we cannot have a chance of a bowl game where we may actually make money? That is not reasonable.

The current NCAA stance allows money grubbing conferences to dictate who is equal, and not based on school performance either. Our laws are made to uphold a Free Market, and in this case, banning a university from reaching its goals regardless of success and justice is inherently un-American.

It has been going that way for a while, and has finally crossed a line. The past two years of realignment have shown that the NCAA is incapable of fairly managing its members, and at this point, no court is going to uphold that, especially with the recent Ga St, UNCC type examples. A free market would allow a conference based on performance, not media, and would let the people decide by choosing which they'd rather watch.

Holy crap on a cracker......you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

In addition to not understanding the basic legal concept of "reasonableness", you fail to recognize that the two-year realignment saga has been a brilliant example of pure, unadulterated, free-market capitalism. Conferences have been free to pick who they want, for what ever reason they want. However, you would like to set-up some sort of regulatory structure that would be the arbiter of which teams are "worthy" and which ones are not. However, such a structure is inherently antithetical to free markets!

What you want is for schools that have inherent disadvantages (like a small-market location in the mountains of North Carolina) to receive special consideration and for a conference to be forced to take them, whether they want them or not. This is not a free-market action, it is a socialist action.

Performance is not the only measure of viability in a free market - if it were, we would all be driving Corvettes and Porsche's because only high-performance cars would succeed. Rather, the free market takes into account the entire picture and makes its determinations without exterior coercion.

(05-22-2012 04:16 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 02:57 PM)Glassonion Wrote:  Read what you just wrote.

You say scholarship limits are necessary, and yes they are, but every institution should be allowed to offer the same if they so choose. This is a classic case of separate, and not equal.

You say we may increase scholarships for growth, just not in football?

App already offers 18 Division 1 varsity sports, we can go to 30, and not be competative in any, but we cant go up to 85 in football and compete with the 130+ other institutions that we are most similar too? That is not reasonable.

So your basis of "reasonable restriction" is that we can win FCS Championships, where we would actually lose money in the process, but we cannot have a chance of a bowl game where we may actually make money? That is not reasonable.

The current NCAA stance allows money grubbing conferences to dictate who is equal, and not based on school performance either. Our laws are made to uphold a Free Market, and in this case, banning a university from reaching its goals regardless of success and justice is inherently un-American.

It has been going that way for a while, and has finally crossed a line. The past two years of realignment have shown that the NCAA is incapable of fairly managing its members, and at this point, no court is going to uphold that, especially with the recent Ga St, UNCC type examples. A free market would allow a conference based on performance, not media, and would let the people decide by choosing which they'd rather watch.

Holy crap on a cracker......you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

In addition to not understanding the basic legal concept of "reasonableness", you fail to recognize that the two-year realignment saga has been a brilliant example of pure, unadulterated, free-market capitalism. Conferences have been free to pick who they want, for what ever reason they want. However, you would like to set-up some sort of regulatory structure that would be the arbiter of which teams are "worthy" and which ones are not. However, such a structure is inherently antithetical to free markets!

What you want is for schools that have inherent disadvantages (like a small-market location in the mountains of North Carolina) to receive special consideration and for a conference to be forced to take them, whether they want them or not. This is not a free-market action, it is a socialist action.

Performance is not the only measure of viability in a free market - if it were, we would all be driving Corvettes and Porsche's because only high-performance cars would succeed. Rather, the free market takes into account the entire picture and makes its determinations without exterior coercion.

Ruh Roh...they done opened up the can of GSU Law now...

(05-22-2012 04:32 PM)panama Wrote:  Ruh Roh...they done opened up the can of GSU Law now...

You don't have to be a JD to see how stupid that post was.

(05-22-2012 04:16 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 02:57 PM)Glassonion Wrote:  Read what you just wrote.

You say scholarship limits are necessary, and yes they are, but every institution should be allowed to offer the same if they so choose. This is a classic case of separate, and not equal.

You say we may increase scholarships for growth, just not in football?

App already offers 18 Division 1 varsity sports, we can go to 30, and not be competative in any, but we cant go up to 85 in football and compete with the 130+ other institutions that we are most similar too? That is not reasonable.

So your basis of "reasonable restriction" is that we can win FCS Championships, where we would actually lose money in the process, but we cannot have a chance of a bowl game where we may actually make money? That is not reasonable.

The current NCAA stance allows money grubbing conferences to dictate who is equal, and not based on school performance either. Our laws are made to uphold a Free Market, and in this case, banning a university from reaching its goals regardless of success and justice is inherently un-American.

It has been going that way for a while, and has finally crossed a line. The past two years of realignment have shown that the NCAA is incapable of fairly managing its members, and at this point, no court is going to uphold that, especially with the recent Ga St, UNCC type examples. A free market would allow a conference based on performance, not media, and would let the people decide by choosing which they'd rather watch.

Holy crap on a cracker......you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

In addition to not understanding the basic legal concept of "reasonableness", you fail to recognize that the two-year realignment saga has been a brilliant example of pure, unadulterated, free-market capitalism. Conferences have been free to pick who they want, for what ever reason they want. However, you would like to set-up some sort of regulatory structure that would be the arbiter of which teams are "worthy" and which ones are not. However, such a structure is inherently antithetical to free markets!

What you want is for schools that have inherent disadvantages (like a small-market location in the mountains of North Carolina) to receive special consideration and for a conference to be forced to take them, whether they want them or not. This is not a free-market action, it is a socialist action.

Performance is not the only measure of viability in a free market - if it were, we would all be driving Corvettes and Porsche's because only high-performance cars would succeed. Rather, the free market takes into account the entire picture and makes its determinations without exterior coercion.

I think what throws people in analysis is that the top leagues aren't tossing the tapeworn (parasite) programs aside, at least not yet. I tend to think the ACC if it were so inclined could replace Wake Forest with ECU, maybe even App and generate more dollars. But the dynamics would have to change significantly for that to happen.

Things that could do that?
- The TV model could change. That could be because the advertising market changes. If sports were no longer over-weighted in advertiser dollar decisions the market would collapse. That could happen if someone finally figures out a good internet/mobile device ad system. It could happen if Congress were to pass ala carte TV and no one pays for ESPN as part of basic cable/satellite. Then people would pay a basic fee for the connectivity and then per channel based on the subscription rate for each channel. ESPN loses big in that model. On demand delivery could increase and improve so that we don't even think in terms of channel but rather what program do I want to watch without associating it with a network/channel.
- Congress might finally say we are losing X million per year for donations to college athletics to fund fat salaries and the race to build the largest video board. If you spend more than this amount on your athletic program donations are no longer tax deductible. Congress might do it as a response to the ever rising cost of a college education and the constant funding requests for Pell grants and student loans and declare that a school spending more than X on athletics isn't eligible to participate in Federal financial aid programs to encourage diversion of athletic resources into reducing the wild inflation that has beset college education. Might even declare that student fees for athletics cannot be taken into account in calculating cost of attendance for financial aid purposes.
- Schools might want to pull big-time football out from under the NCAA and have it administered by a different body just as there are non-NCAA bodies that regulate a number of sports schools participate in outside of the NCAA (men's bowling and rugby for two examples, the cheer and dance associations for another couple). With football as a standalone entity conference composition for football no longer has to be tied to conference membership in other sports.
- Playoff could continue to grow larger than just four schools.

If you are capping your spending on athletics some schools might have different priorites, others might actually become more driven to increase football revenue so they can offer more attractive scholarships on the academic side, build nicer academic facilities and be more competitive in hiring.

If there are no longer fat conference football contracts and TV revenue is more subscriber based Alabama might ask why it is sharing money from its 500,000 subscribers with Vandy and their 20,000 subscribers.

If you can create a football conference that has no bearing on where your other sports play do you care if football is still aligned with a historic, close school like Mississippi State when your other sports can remain aligned with them?

If you can be in a playoff rated 16 or better and no autobids and the money is fat, if you are Alabama you would have been in the last four years and five of the last seven, do you still need the SEC in football?

(05-22-2012 04:16 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 02:57 PM)Glassonion Wrote:  Read what you just wrote.

You say scholarship limits are necessary, and yes they are, but every institution should be allowed to offer the same if they so choose. This is a classic case of separate, and not equal.

You say we may increase scholarships for growth, just not in football?

App already offers 18 Division 1 varsity sports, we can go to 30, and not be competative in any, but we cant go up to 85 in football and compete with the 130+ other institutions that we are most similar too? That is not reasonable.

So your basis of "reasonable restriction" is that we can win FCS Championships, where we would actually lose money in the process, but we cannot have a chance of a bowl game where we may actually make money? That is not reasonable.

The current NCAA stance allows money grubbing conferences to dictate who is equal, and not based on school performance either. Our laws are made to uphold a Free Market, and in this case, banning a university from reaching its goals regardless of success and justice is inherently un-American.

It has been going that way for a while, and has finally crossed a line. The past two years of realignment have shown that the NCAA is incapable of fairly managing its members, and at this point, no court is going to uphold that, especially with the recent Ga St, UNCC type examples. A free market would allow a conference based on performance, not media, and would let the people decide by choosing which they'd rather watch.

Holy crap on a cracker......you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

In addition to not understanding the basic legal concept of "reasonableness", you fail to recognize that the two-year realignment saga has been a brilliant example of pure, unadulterated, free-market capitalism. Conferences have been free to pick who they want, for what ever reason they want. However, you would like to set-up some sort of regulatory structure that would be the arbiter of which teams are "worthy" and which ones are not. However, such a structure is inherently antithetical to free markets!
What you want is for schools that have inherent disadvantages (like a small-market location in the mountains of North Carolina) to receive special consideration and for a conference to be forced to take them, whether they want them or not. This is not a free-market action, it is a socialist action.

Performance is not the only measure of viability in a free market - if it were, we would all be driving Corvettes and Porsche's because only high-performance cars would succeed. Rather, the free market takes into account the entire picture and makes its determinations without exterior coercion.

In the free market system you have the choice of being hired by an existing firm or going out on your own to start a new business and compete in the free market.

In the NCAA, you can only be picked by an existing conference (company) and you are not allowed to start your own business (moving up as an independent) or partner with other people that want to start a business (form a new conference).

Sounds more like a country club membership than a free market enterprise. And lets remember that there is a lot of public tax money tied up in these Universities.