Next on the agenda - the P5's own enforcement rules?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...o-scrub-it

...It's a matter of what the membership wants, Delany said, “because nobody is comfortable with some of the tactics, aggressive tactics. Some people thought they [investigators] crossed the line. Be that as it may, we have to bring cases that can be proven not just bring cases. Are there other ways to do this?”

This is part of a picture being framed in early talks over how autonomy might affect enforcement. The Power Five conferences will have unprecedented power if, as expected, autonomy is granted in August. Those conferences – Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten – would have control over voting in legislation specific to those high-resource schools.

Delany said enforcement changes could be made that affect mostly the 65 schools in the Big Five – Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, ACC – or all of the 351 schools in Division I....

Well it seems the P5 will break away piece by piece by piece or all at once. They don't seem to care which.

Right -- and if this 'idea' is being made public now you know it's been knocked around among the P5 for awhile. I wonder how much the kind of separate enforcement discussed would cost -- and if Aresco would want to follow. It appears Autonomy will probably allow the Power 5 to originate their own separate set of rules on every issue -

It seems like they're playing this game so that they are "forced" to separate from Division 1 bc the majority of Div 1 schools are just too selfish and rigid and will not make necessary changes.

If they're going to do it, I'd prefer they go ahead and break away. I no longer give a .

Well, it seems as if the lead O'Bannon lawyer may be fixin' to challenge any P5 mandated decisons...not a done deal at all when lawyers get involved.

Quote:In May, Hausfeld sent a letter to Arizona State president Michael Crow asking what voice athletes would have under the Pac-12's proposed reforms. Hausfeld raised antitrust concerns by the Power 5 because they collectively discussed what rules -- such as cost of attendance stipends -- to create. In terms of antitrust law, Hausfeld said last week that the conferences would have been better off unilaterally deciding rules based on prices in their market rather than 65 schools joining together.

"I don't think it's acceptable to the law," Hausfeld said.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ing-played

If it plays out as he suggests, then there is no need for DIV or a breakaway. Survival of the fittest?

(06-17-2014 11:46 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Well, it seems as if the lead O'Bannon lawyer may be fixin' to challenge any P5 mandated decisons...not a done deal at all when lawyers get involved.

Quote:In May, Hausfeld sent a letter to Arizona State president Michael Crow asking what voice athletes would have under the Pac-12's proposed reforms. Hausfeld raised antitrust concerns by the Power 5 because they collectively discussed what rules -- such as cost of attendance stipends -- to create. In terms of antitrust law, Hausfeld said last week that the conferences would have been better off unilaterally deciding rules based on prices in their market rather than 65 schools joining together.

"I don't think it's acceptable to the law," Hausfeld said.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ing-played

If it plays out as he suggests, then there is no need for DIV or a breakaway. Survival of the fittest?

That was a May letter in response to an even earlier Pac-12 proposal. Wonder if all that pre-dates the switch to the 'permissive / everyone can vote to change' formula?

"Overhaul enforcement..." or in other words, "Allow Big Ten teams to get away with anything and everything."

(06-17-2014 01:02 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  "Overhaul enforcement..." or in other words, "Allow Big Ten teams to get away with anything and everything."

You betcha.

I lived in Columbus during "Tattoo-gate", which resulted in Jim Tressel resigning, the Buckeyes sitting out a bowl game and some light sanctions for the Buckeyes. All I could hear from tOSU fans was how persecuted they felt they were. They got off pretty light if you ask me and actually finished stronger in the long run because of it.

Had any AAC school knowingly lied to the NCAA, had players receiving free tats, free cars and cash, etc. that school would likely would not have played a bowl game again this decade.

(06-17-2014 12:16 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 11:46 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Well, it seems as if the lead O'Bannon lawyer may be fixin' to challenge any P5 mandated decisons...not a done deal at all when lawyers get involved.

Quote:In May, Hausfeld sent a letter to Arizona State president Michael Crow asking what voice athletes would have under the Pac-12's proposed reforms. Hausfeld raised antitrust concerns by the Power 5 because they collectively discussed what rules -- such as cost of attendance stipends -- to create. In terms of antitrust law, Hausfeld said last week that the conferences would have been better off unilaterally deciding rules based on prices in their market rather than 65 schools joining together.

"I don't think it's acceptable to the law," Hausfeld said.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ing-played

If it plays out as he suggests, then there is no need for DIV or a breakaway. Survival of the fittest?

That was a May letter in response to an even earlier Pac-12 proposal. Wonder if all that pre-dates the switch to the 'permissive / everyone can vote to change' formula?

P5 on P5 crime? Sounds like it pertains to current lawsuits. Ugh, what a MESS!

Quote:In late May, former West Virginia football player Nick Kindler sued the NCAA and the Power Five conferences over cost of attendance. Kindler's suit, filed by the same lawyers as Alston's, was created largely to centralize the case in the Northern District of California. Also, the Kindler suit alleged the Power Five are still acting as a cartel in ongoing cost-of-attendance talks, citing a letter in May by Pac-12 presidents to the other major conferences. Kindler wants an antitrust compliance monitor appointed.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ship-cases

These P5 commissioners are disgusting. Only 1 of 2 things will happen if this greed and lack of ethics keeps going. A major reform brought on from G5, lawyers, and fans or the end of what makes college football so fun for the fans and its schools.

(06-17-2014 11:17 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If they're going to do it, I'd prefer they go ahead and break away. I no longer give a .

Since the Power 5 have no reason to continue their association with the G5 I think they'd do it given a safe opportunity. Problem is -- I think most G5ers like whatever crumbs are thrown their way. A game versus a P5 every now and then and that micro chance at a real national championship. And heck, "we want to be them" according to Aresco --- so it's best to play nice (which means by their rules).