(03-08-2014 06:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 04:50 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Has any court ruled that the NCAA is a private organization? The NCAA is composed of mostly public institutions so I'd be (mildly) surprised if that were the case. Even so, the government imposes rules and regulations (Title IX, for example) on private organizations.

My argument would be that the NCAA contradicts itself <gasp!>. On one hand the NCAA says you can't move up to FBS football unless you join a FBS conference. On the other hand they say you can leave that conference and become a FBS independent. Johns hopkins is a D3 school but plays D1 Lacrosse as an independent. I don't know this, but I'd bet the NCAA had independents in every sport at every level. That would make the rule about having to join a FBS conference arbitrary and some would argue punitive.

The NCAA is private association that has some public institutions as members. It is not a governmental agency. I don't think anyone would question that.

The NCAA probably has the right to do whatever it wants regarding membership. Heck, in the Dale v BSA case, the court ruled that private associations can even violate non-discrimination laws to constitute its membership.

The NCAA probably can be as arbitrary as it wants regarding exemptiosn to rules too.

Again, the Dale v BSA is not related, in a far stretch, to FCS schools wanting to become FBS members. Keeping this discussion within the frame work of the thread, and not bringing in far reaching, non-related personal interest, keeps us on track with the topic at hand.

It has bearing in that if the NCAA is in fact a private organization that is allowed to make its own rules and exceptions then the choices for FCS are:

1) comply with those rules and find a sponsor

2) Attempt to change the NCAA rules from within

or

3) Leave the NCAA and found their own collegiate athletic association where they are that league's "FBS"

(03-08-2014 06:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It has bearing in that if the NCAA is in fact a private organization that is allowed to make its own rules and exceptions then the choices for FCS are:

1) comply with those rules and find a sponsor

2) Attempt to change the NCAA rules from within

or

3) Leave the NCAA and found their own collegiate athletic association where they are that league's "FBS"

Agreed on your 3 points. When and if rules are inconsistent, give others advantages over others or deemed unfair, they can be challenged. Due to the tremendous money with collegiate sports, it's likely to be challenged due to that fact along.

(03-08-2014 12:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The only school I see any case for is Liberty. They have all of the qualifications to transition to FBS, wish to do so, but cannot find any FBS conference to accept them. If their religious beliefs and activities have played any part in that, they may have a case.

The USA guarantees freedom of religion. But they don't guarantee that everyone has to accept that religion, whether they want to or not.

Anyone filing a lawsuit based on religious grounds is fighting a losing battle. Conferences are exclusive clubs, and can invite or exclude whoever they want, without government interference. The fact that they might exclude some based on issues related to their religious preferences is just the same as excluding some based on academic standards. It's a choice that an exclusive club has made. Exclusive by its very definition means "to exclude".

Any lawyer filing such a lawsuit would be laughed out of the courtroom, and he'd deserve to be. Only an idiot would attempt it.

(03-08-2014 08:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The only school I see any case for is Liberty. They have all of the qualifications to transition to FBS, wish to do so, but cannot find any FBS conference to accept them. If their religious beliefs and activities have played any part in that, they may have a case.

The USA guarantees freedom of religion. But they don't guarantee that everyone has to accept that religion, whether they want to or not.

Anyone filing a lawsuit based on religious grounds is fighting a losing battle. Conferences are exclusive clubs, and can invite or exclude whoever they want, without government interference. The fact that they might exclude some based on issues related to their religious preferences is just the same as excluding some based on academic standards. It's a choice that an exclusive club has made. Exclusive by its very definition means "to exclude".

Any lawyer filing such a lawsuit would be laughed out of the courtroom, and he'd deserve to be. Only an idiot would attempt it.

Agreed on the point of religious grounds. I doubt any reasonable group or team would use those point and expect to win. Religious grounds would be weak and laughable. If the complaining team(s) could assert their position as lose of income, and the millions they could claim as potential lost income, the NCAA would likely buckle as a suit could delve into the inequitable distribution of the income of the FCS and FBS members.

(03-08-2014 06:22 PM)Newetimes Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 06:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 04:50 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Has any court ruled that the NCAA is a private organization? The NCAA is composed of mostly public institutions so I'd be (mildly) surprised if that were the case. Even so, the government imposes rules and regulations (Title IX, for example) on private organizations.

My argument would be that the NCAA contradicts itself <gasp!>. On one hand the NCAA says you can't move up to FBS football unless you join a FBS conference. On the other hand they say you can leave that conference and become a FBS independent. Johns hopkins is a D3 school but plays D1 Lacrosse as an independent. I don't know this, but I'd bet the NCAA had independents in every sport at every level. That would make the rule about having to join a FBS conference arbitrary and some would argue punitive.

The NCAA is private association that has some public institutions as members. It is not a governmental agency. I don't think anyone would question that.

The NCAA probably has the right to do whatever it wants regarding membership. Heck, in the Dale v BSA case, the court ruled that private associations can even violate non-discrimination laws to constitute its membership.

The NCAA probably can be as arbitrary as it wants regarding exemptiosn to rules too.

Again, the Dale v BSA is not related, in a far stretch, to FCS schools wanting to become FBS members. Keeping this discussion within the frame work of the thread, and not bringing in far reaching, non-related personal interest, keeps us on track with the topic at hand.

The background facts of the case, while interesting, from the perspective of one of the schools seeking to join FBS, aren't relevant to the issue here. The ruling in that particular case, is central towards the OP, which involves the question as to the likely outcome of legal action of a school challenging the NCAA requirement of conference sponsorship for admission to FBS or a legal challenge to a rejection by a particular conference of an applicants membership request.

I would imagine that Dale would be the first precedent cited by a defense attorney in any dispute regarding admission denials to an organization.

I see NCAA rules changes as usually having an agenda.
The five home game rule makes trying to move up as an independent almost impossible.
I doubt they would want a whole conference to be able to move up together.
A future rule could be four current FBS members can invite an equal amount of FCS call ups. This would allow spread out conferences to tighten their geography. The SBC could invite two schools with a agreement the two leave with Idaho and NMSU.

C-USA may look to split if their new TV deal is bad and members see no reason for such a spread out conference. Allowing four or five to leave could benefit all that are involved.

(03-08-2014 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:37 PM)Newetimes Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:21 PM)Newetimes Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Bit I agree.

Those attendance mins figures could be tricky. But for newbies wanting to join, and if meet they current regs, will they be content to stand pat if they feel they are being shunned? With the perceived potential of lost revenue, I doubt it. If one follows the money one can usually find a clear motive. Especially in the "amateur" athletes of the NCAA.

The same argument you make (presumably regarding the Sun Belt and therefore FBS blocking you guys) could be made by a Sun Belt team demanding entrance into the AAC, or by an AAC team demanding entrance into a P5 conference.

No one has made any representations to Liberty that if they spend x dollars on a new stadium that they'd be admitted.

However, if existing schools in FBS get thrown out of FBS, then those schools MIGHT have a case, especially if they meet the requirements of the other schools. You see, schools already in FBS do have an expectation of association and have spent money on facilities based upon those expectations. However, a case such as that would not be a slam dunk.

Liberty has a path to FBS. Its called compromise. I feel much more sorry for advocates of FBS inclusion at North Dakota State, which beats Kansas State and wins national championships in FCS in a row and really has no path to FBS because of their geography.

If you choose to make comments about Liberty, please direct your comments to the Liberty thread. This is a thread discussing a NCAA policy.

Fair enough. But just pointing out that every candidate has their challenges. I think if there was a lawsuit path towards membership in FBS, that some school would have already made that case.

The rule requiring an invitation is fairly new. And 9 schools have been invited and accepted just in the last 3 years or so. I think there is a decent chance that rule could fail if challenged in court. In any event, the NCAA would have to spend a lot of money defending it and I don't think anyone in Division II or III would approve of that type of expenditure.

From a practical standpoint, they would have trouble surviving as a football independent, so no one would really want to do it.

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)MJG Wrote:  I see NCAA rules changes as usually having an agenda.
The five home game rule makes trying to move up as an independent almost impossible.
I doubt they would want a whole conference to be able to move up together.
A future rule could be four current FBS members can invite an equal amount of FCS call ups. This would allow spread out conferences to tighten their geography. The SBC could invite two schools with a agreement the two leave with Idaho and NMSU.

C-USA may look to split if their new TV deal is bad and members see no reason for such a spread out conference. Allowing four or five to leave could benefit all that are involved.

The conference invite rule is probably because the NCAA won't enforce its own rules on FBS. The conferences are the proxy. The 5 game rule is to keep out schools who can't afford it without multiple subsidies from the Floridas and Michigans. A whole conference can't move up because you have to have a certain % against established division members. Otherwise, most of the North Central may have moved up from Division II to Division I. Instead, North Dakota St. and South Dakota St. came up together, Northern Colorado came up at a different time, North Dakota and South Dakota came up together and then Nebraska-Omaha came up.

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)MJG Wrote:  I see NCAA rules changes as usually having an agenda.
The five home game rule makes trying to move up as an independent almost impossible.
I doubt they would want a whole conference to be able to move up together.
A future rule could be four current FBS members can invite an equal amount of FCS call ups. This would allow spread out conferences to tighten their geography. The SBC could invite two schools with a agreement the two leave with Idaho and NMSU.

C-USA may look to split if their new TV deal is bad and members see no reason for such a spread out conference. Allowing four or five to leave could benefit all that are involved.

Honestly---what's the point of even having a football team if you might only play 4 home games? If the only way a school can survive is by playing 7, 8, or more roadie-pay-check games every year---they are really not financially able to compete at the FBS level. The rule is simply a way of weeding out the schools that have no real intention of trying to compete. We have enough of those schools in D1 basketball right now. We don't need them flooding into FBS football as well.

the real answer to all of this is simple

academics are going to be brought back into the picture......with the UNC deal, FSU having a similar situation and others having academic imbeciles littering their university something is going to have to be done about it

the only reasons schools sign those morons is because of they don't others will......and some will complain about the "quality of play", but unless they are blind or they just like really really bad football all you have to do is look at the "quality of play" between the NFL and D1-A college football.......I can think of dozens of D1-A football games in just the last season that were more exciting than most of the "exciting" games in the crap called the NFL

so excluding fools and buffoons and mush mouthed morons to the drive thru, D1-AA, or some future NFL minor league is not an issue as long as any and all schools are required to make that exclusion and "quality of play" will not matter because several hundred idiots that can't read did not get to waste time and effort and space and air for 2-3 years max on a college campus before they went pro, failed out, or went to jail or otherwise were kicked out of the university

LSU never missed ryan perillouexzzzz, tOSU never missed maurice (this is a stick up) clarettet and many other schools will not miss similar fools and halfwits

the NCAA is going to bump up standards for players to play their freshman year, the are going to continue to bump up APR rates (and put teeth behind them with meaningful classes required) and they are going to make it where schools #96-124+ in the D1-A pecking order either have idiots to choose from or players that are clearly not at the D1-A level of play......many will try and go with the idiots at first to "make a splash", but when they find themselves coddling losers for 2+ years that never see the field because the can't ever meet the NCAA mandates for participation and when they find themselves bowl ineligible in their "big season" because of APR issues they will be in a world of hurt as will their conference when several teams in a conference are facing the same issues

no decent team/university will want many of these dolts as long as they know that no one else can have them either or if they take a risk on them the chances are it will damage their program for a long period of time

either meet HIGH standards as a freshman and be allowed to play or take a redshirt and meet HIGH progress standards TOWARDS A DEGREE as a redshirt freshman or sit out again as a sophomore and burn eligibility and schools will either graduate players, send them to the pros in good academic standards or have them otherwise leave in good academic standing or they will lose bowl eligibility, NCAA distributions and other financial issues will be faced dealing with money the NCAA and or conferences control

if that doesn't work start limiting the amount that academics and students can subsidize an athletics program and have penalties in place for exceeding that amount

make it financially and competitively impossible for schools (even big ones) to sign future felons and drive thru operators and that will cut down on the schools looking to move up because it cuts down on the pool of available "athletes" that have no desire to be in college and cutting down on those clowns also ends the "pay for play" BS as well and there is ZERO issue about "competitiveness" for not having academic losers littering college campuses especially since many of them turn out to be a time and money waste anyway when they fail out or get arrested or both

(03-09-2014 12:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)MJG Wrote:  I see NCAA rules changes as usually having an agenda.
The five home game rule makes trying to move up as an independent almost impossible.
I doubt they would want a whole conference to be able to move up together.
A future rule could be four current FBS members can invite an equal amount of FCS call ups. This would allow spread out conferences to tighten their geography. The SBC could invite two schools with a agreement the two leave with Idaho and NMSU.

C-USA may look to split if their new TV deal is bad and members see no reason for such a spread out conference. Allowing four or five to leave could benefit all that are involved.

Honestly---what's the point of even having a football team if you might only play 4 home games? If the only way a school can survive is by playing 7, 8, or more roadie-pay-check games every year---they are really not financially able to compete at the FBS level. The rule is simply a way of weeding out the schools that have no real intention of trying to compete. We have enough of those schools in D1 basketball right now. We don't need them flooding into FBS football as well.

No one said that was a bad rule just tough for an independent to pull off.
I am sure an independent could usually get five home but not always.

nm

(03-08-2014 06:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It has bearing in that if the NCAA is in fact a private organization that is allowed to make its own rules and exceptions then the choices for FCS are:

1) comply with those rules and find a sponsor

2) Attempt to change the NCAA rules from within

or

3) Leave the NCAA and found their own collegiate athletic association where they are that league's "FBS"

The NCAA argued point 3 in the Tarkanian cases and the courts held that there was no adequate alternative to the NCAA so that argument was without merit.

The NCAA has a great argument to support the invite rule.

The Association used to require schools reclassifying to demonstrate that they had signed enough agreements to meet the then schedule requirement of playing 7 I-A opponents (location irrelevant then). From a practical standpoint it was a mess for the NCAA because schools would have the games lined up at the time of application then someone would dump them and they would have to contemplate a possible waiver if they could not find a replacement. It basically kept the file open and busy.

The invite rule got the NCAA out of the business of having to keep an eye on a school's schedule negotiations.

I think if it were challenged the NCAA would probably cave and give schools the chance to use the old way of demonstrating they had adequate games secured to meet the requirement and limit waivers to situations where a game is cancelled less than say a year out.

(03-09-2014 07:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The invite rule got the NCAA out of the business of having to keep an eye on a school's schedule negotiations.

I think if it were challenged the NCAA would probably cave and give schools the chance to use the old way of demonstrating they had adequate games secured to meet the requirement and limit waivers to situations where a game is cancelled less than say a year out.

They might do that, but it's a moot point unless a move-up team can secure 5 home games a year, every year, without a conference affiliation that forces at least 4 teams to give the move-up team a home game. NMSU and Idaho lasted exactly one year as indies. There's no reason to believe that a typical move-up team could make viable indy schedules for much longer than that. They'd be asking for a waiver of the 5-home-game rule more often than not.

And the 5-home-game rule is absolutely defensible, as several commenters mentioned above.

(03-09-2014 08:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  And the 5-home-game rule is absolutely defensible, as several commenters mentioned above.

Especially since you can count one "neutral" site game as a home game, like say playing Arkansas in Little Rock or Texas at Reliant Stadium etc, so it's a minimum of 4 FBS home games. (Maybe 3, because you can count 1 FCS game, but I'm not sure if that counts here--NCAA rule is unclear.)

Yes, it can technically be 3 FBS home games, 1 FCS home game, and 1 FBS game at a neutral site with your program as the designated home team (you actually wouldn't be able to play Arkansas in Little Rock because it is a part-time home stadium for them, but you could play Missouri in St. Louis or Kansas City, LSU in New Orleans, or Michigan State in Detroit).

I would love to see a minimum home game requirement for basketball - if a school can't play 12 of its 30 games at home, it doesn't need to be in Division I. Besides, even though my Wildcats have the 10th toughest schedule in the country this season, I would love to see them play a true road game somewhere other than Louisville or Chapel Hill once in a while.

(03-09-2014 08:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 07:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The invite rule got the NCAA out of the business of having to keep an eye on a school's schedule negotiations.

I think if it were challenged the NCAA would probably cave and give schools the chance to use the old way of demonstrating they had adequate games secured to meet the requirement and limit waivers to situations where a game is cancelled less than say a year out.

They might do that, but it's a moot point unless a move-up team can secure 5 home games a year, every year, without a conference affiliation that forces at least 4 teams to give the move-up team a home game. NMSU and Idaho lasted exactly one year as indies. There's no reason to believe that a typical move-up team could make viable indy schedules for much longer than that. They'd be asking for a waiver of the 5-home-game rule more often than not.

And the 5-home-game rule is absolutely defensible, as several commenters mentioned above.

NMSU had schedules in place to keep them afloat for the next few years. Of course it helped that they had long-term home/homes with UTEP, UNM, and Idaho. I don't recall seeing any deals that led me to think Idaho was in as good of a position.

I had suggested to the administration at Arkansas State that we sign a four game contract with both. Two in Jonesboro, one on the road, and one in Little Rock that would be the visitors home game. Sun Belt mooted that idea.

(03-09-2014 09:40 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Yes, it can technically be 3 FBS home games, 1 FCS home game, and 1 FBS game at a neutral site with your program as the designated home team (you actually wouldn't be able to play Arkansas in Little Rock because it is a part-time home stadium for them, but you could play Missouri in St. Louis or Kansas City, LSU in New Orleans, or Michigan State in Detroit).

I would love to see a minimum home game requirement for basketball - if a school can't play 12 of its 30 games at home, it doesn't need to be in Division I. Besides, even though my Wildcats have the 10th toughest schedule in the country this season, I would love to see them play a true road game somewhere other than Louisville or Chapel Hill once in a while.

Bold part is incorrect. ULM played several games in Little Rock as the home team against Arkansas (including the last one when ULM won).

I never liked that deal because it wasn't within the spirit of the rule. ULM got a flat $500k for playing there and Ark controlled all the tickets except the few they sent to ULM and Arkansas sold it as part of their two game Little Rock package.

To me if it looks like a buy game, it's a buy game. If the team that is the home team is responsible for the rent, the game promotion, and has the potential to lose money or make more than a mere guarantee, it's a legit deal