I think the best strategy for everyone outside of the big conference is to poison the proposal.

"Oh you think we should pay the players $4,000 a year because they bring in so much money and to help pay for books? Well, that is no good. We think it would be more fair to pay players $5,000 a MONTH because they bring in so much revenue and due to the time commitment of being an athlete. Oh, and since it wouldn't be fair to exclude non-revenue sports, it should be $5,000 a month for all players, ALL sports. That would be fair to the student athlete!"

Of course the number is an exagerration to make the point, but you see the idea...MAC schools can't pay anyway, may as well up the ante to a point no one would do it.

Below is an article outlining a case to be made against the NCAA by I-AA/FCS schools under the Sherman Antitrust Act in the Vanderbilt Journal of Technology and Entertainment Law, written by a former DOJ prosecutor, with a good recap of the history of NCAA antitrust litigation. Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin were pushing action against the BCS and the Obama DOJ said they were looking into it, but that apparently fell by the wayside when the football playoff announcement happened (and, Utah admittance to the Pac-12 probably smoothed things over with Sen. Hatch). That seems to have inspired this article, and it could easily be applied to a Power 5-breakaway situation.

http://www.jetlaw.org/wp-content/journal-pdfs/Maney.pdf

It's difficult to predict whether such a case would succeed -- ie whether the court sees this as the naked power grab/money grab/illegal boycott that it is, awards an injunction and orders the Power 5 to pay treble damages and maybe even imposes criminal penalties... or whether it's seen as a reasonable restraint of trade -- and if it doesn't the MAC may be forced down into a division with I-AA schools, unless they can scrounge up the extra $1MM or so per year that may be required to fund the player stipend. Next year could be very interesting.

******* LEAVE ALREADY THEN!!! Promises, promises. STFU with the empty threats and just ******* leave then.

Mike Slive says SEC must pursue separation if NCAA autonomy isn't gained

(<-- Look, there's five crying b!tches, that's not a coincidence)

(07-14-2014 02:31 PM)TARDledo Wrote:  ******* LEAVE ALREADY THEN!!! Promises, promises. STFU with the empty threats and just ******* leave then.

Mike Slive says SEC must pursue separation if NCAA autonomy isn't gained

(<-- Look, there's five crying b!tches, that's not a coincidence)

Fine. Leave, call yourselved the NFL Farm League and do whatever you want. The rest of us will be free to watch college football without the hubris.

Would the MAC be better off if CUSA/SunBelt/AAC, etc can't afford changes?

Would we better off if the fat were trimmed?

Found this interesting from the other day.

martin rickman @martinrickman Wrote:wake coach dave clawson on power 5 autonomy: 'now that i'm here i'm for it a year ago i was against it that's called pocketbook voting'

This is part of the problem with the P5 wanting autonomy. No one in the GO5 will be completely outspoken about the P5 wanting to ruin college football because they don't want to get blacklisted and never be hired by the P5.

(07-24-2014 05:30 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  Found this interesting from the other day.

martin rickman @martinrickman Wrote:wake coach dave clawson on power 5 autonomy: 'now that i'm here i'm for it a year ago i was against it that's called pocketbook voting'

This is part of the problem with the P5 wanting autonomy. No one in the GO5 will be completely outspoken about the P5 wanting to ruin college football because they don't want to get blacklisted and never be hired by the P5.

Excellent point. Law suits need to be filed by GO5 institution loyalists.

(07-24-2014 10:04 PM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 05:30 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  Found this interesting from the other day.

martin rickman @martinrickman Wrote:wake coach dave clawson on power 5 autonomy: 'now that i'm here i'm for it a year ago i was against it that's called pocketbook voting'

This is part of the problem with the P5 wanting autonomy. No one in the GO5 will be completely outspoken about the P5 wanting to ruin college football because they don't want to get blacklisted and never be hired by the P5.

Excellent point. Law suits need to be filed by GO5 institution loyalists.

Yep. Sue the pants off of the NCAA and the Cartel.

Or, just go "old school" on them.

(07-24-2014 01:31 PM)TARDledo Wrote:  Would the MAC be better off if CUSA/SunBelt/AAC, etc can't afford changes?

Would we better off if the fat were trimmed?

That is a pure flame thread started by NBPirate. Some of us went over there to defend the MAC, and some of them think that we are trolling

What the AAC fanboys are proposing is even worst than P5 separation.

(06-05-2013 11:02 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  I propose paying only 5 football players and 1 basketball player in Each class (a total of 20 football and 4 basketball players per team.) If a guy redshirts the total still is capped at 20 football and 4 basketball. Women basketball players would get the same treatment. This would be great for the MAC since lots of guys who would not get any $ at the Big Ten or SEC level could get paid by mid majors. This would increase parity throughout the country.

Then find the title IX to match it up. In the end all or nearly all players will be covered.

(06-05-2013 11:35 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 11:02 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  I propose paying only 5 football players and 1 basketball player in Each class (a total of 20 football and 4 basketball players per team.) If a guy redshirts the total still is capped at 20 football and 4 basketball. Women basketball players would get the same treatment. This would be great for the MAC since lots of guys who would not get any $ at the Big Ten or SEC level could get paid by mid majors. This would increase parity throughout the country.

A very rational, logical compromise but it'll never fly for the big boys.

You already have student player lawsuits out there. You try this and they will sky rocket. What ever gets done will be across the board.

What about walk-ons? In big team sports like track and swimming there needs to be a lot of walk-ons that have to make the team in order for the team to be competitive numbers wise as some teams are hard-up for bodies. This means, (to be frank) that there is a lot of non-Div1 talent riding pine at a lot of schools. Not at Texas or Illinois, but at North Texas and Northern Illinois, for instance.

Are these kids worthy of paying them to play?

What Are The Headcount sports ?
Some say they are the only athletes getting the stipend.

(07-30-2014 04:03 AM)MJG Wrote:  What Are The Headcount sports ?
Some say they are the only athletes getting the stipend.

My understanding is that the head-count sports are:

- Football (FBS)
- Basketball (M,W)
- Volleyball (W)
- Gymnastics (W)
- Tennis (W)

Where did you hear this?

That would be interesting because of Title IX compliance.

Basketball scholarships would basically cancel themselves out. However, schools without Women's Volleyball, Gymnastics, and Tennis to offset the Football scholarships could find themselves in an interesting situation. I wonder if they would be allowed to grant full-cost scholarships to certain student-athletes of the equivalency sports.