(07-15-2014 10:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:51 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:27 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:47 PM)Ghis Wrote:  So tell me, how will their lawyers restore the tax exempt status the schools will lose after leaving NCAA?

Short answer: they won't. Hence, threat to leave and form own association is hollow and a non-starter. Slive and his cohorts need to stop their bull...t threats and negotiate better.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the schools tax exempt status. Most all were tax exempt educational entities from the start. Joining the NCAA doesn't make you tax exempt and leaving the NCAA doesn't make you lose your tax exempt status. There are all universities--most of which are government owned--their tax exempt status is not in danger.

You are correct for academics but not academics. Also to limit risk many athletic programs are legally their own entity. The schools wouldn't loose it but the athletic revenue would


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The NCAA is a tax exempt association, thereby making its associate members tax exempt with respect to sponsored sporting events. Very important if you charge admission to events, sell concessions, collect money for parking, and collect money from television; all income.

If you leave a tax exempt association, you lose tax exempt status for income derived from sporting events. All institutions who choose to leave NCAA will lose that tax exemption; plus IRS will not grant new tax exempt status due to preexisting income generated from television.

This is reality of situation. That's why Slive's and Delaney's comments are all hollow threats.

IMO they are not leaving the NCAA, just forming a seperate division.

They aren't leaving to form a separate division.

1) The P5 wants to protect itself from lawsuits.
2) The P5 wants to maximize the success of their athletes.
3) The P5 wants to rebalance the voting structure following a few years of realignment. The WAC and Big East are gone as football conferences for example and there is a new 10 conference post season structure.

The P5 I imagine will get what they want and the G5 will try to get as much power for themselves as junior partners in the process. The gap between G5 and FCS is going to get even wider with the new voting structure. Its going to become all but automatic to join even the SBC just to get out of FCS purgatory, IMO.

(07-15-2014 10:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:51 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:27 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The NCAA has nothing to do with the schools tax exempt status. Most all were tax exempt educational entities from the start. Joining the NCAA doesn't make you tax exempt and leaving the NCAA doesn't make you lose your tax exempt status. There are all universities--most of which are government owned--their tax exempt status is not in danger.

You are correct for academics but not academics. Also to limit risk many athletic programs are legally their own entity. The schools wouldn't loose it but the athletic revenue would


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The NCAA is a tax exempt association, thereby making its associate members tax exempt with respect to sponsored sporting events. Very important if you charge admission to events, sell concessions, collect money for parking, and collect money from television; all income.

If you leave a tax exempt association, you lose tax exempt status for income derived from sporting events. All institutions who choose to leave NCAA will lose that tax exemption; plus IRS will not grant new tax exempt status due to preexisting income generated from television.

This is reality of situation. That's why Slive's and Delaney's comments are all hollow threats.

IMO they are not leaving the NCAA, just forming a seperate division.

They aren't leaving to form a separate division.

1) The P5 wants to protect itself from lawsuits.
2) The P5 wants to maximize the success of their athletes.
3) The P5 wants to rebalance the voting structure following a few years of realignment. The WAC and Big East are gone as football conferences for example and there is a new 10 conference post season structure.

The P5 I imagine will get what they want and the G5 will try to get as much power for themselves as junior partners in the process. The gap between G5 and FCS is going to get even wider with the new voting structure. Its going to become all but automatic to join even the SBC just to get out of FCS purgatory, IMO.

Sunbelt, MAC and CUSA should form their own division. Play a championship game and decide their own champ. They could then play the FCS champ a Super WGAF chamionship game in Peoria.

leave us out of it hot shot.

(07-15-2014 09:51 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:27 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:47 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 01:30 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  You can bet the P5 have an army of lawyers already working on how they can get this through as trouble free as they possibly can.

So tell me, how will their lawyers restore the tax exempt status the schools will lose after leaving NCAA?

Short answer: they won't. Hence, threat to leave and form own association is hollow and a non-starter. Slive and his cohorts need to stop their bull...t threats and negotiate better.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the schools tax exempt status. Most all were tax exempt educational entities from the start. Joining the NCAA doesn't make you tax exempt and leaving the NCAA doesn't make you lose your tax exempt status. There are all universities--most of which are government owned--their tax exempt status is not in danger.

You are correct for academics but not academics. Also to limit risk many athletic programs are legally their own entity. The schools wouldn't loose it but the athletic revenue would


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The NCAA is a tax exempt association, thereby making its associate members tax exempt with respect to sponsored sporting events. Very important if you charge admission to events, sell concessions, collect money for parking, and collect money from television; all income.

If you leave a tax exempt association, you lose tax exempt status for income derived from sporting events. All institutions who choose to leave NCAA will lose that tax exemption; plus IRS will not grant new tax exempt status due to preexisting income generated from television.

This is reality of situation. That's why Slive's and Delaney's comments are all hollow threats.

I think you are off base here. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with whether or not a school even sponsors sports.

(07-16-2014 12:56 AM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:51 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:27 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:47 PM)Ghis Wrote:  So tell me, how will their lawyers restore the tax exempt status the schools will lose after leaving NCAA?

Short answer: they won't. Hence, threat to leave and form own association is hollow and a non-starter. Slive and his cohorts need to stop their bull...t threats and negotiate better.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the schools tax exempt status. Most all were tax exempt educational entities from the start. Joining the NCAA doesn't make you tax exempt and leaving the NCAA doesn't make you lose your tax exempt status. There are all universities--most of which are government owned--their tax exempt status is not in danger.

You are correct for academics but not academics. Also to limit risk many athletic programs are legally their own entity. The schools wouldn't loose it but the athletic revenue would


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The NCAA is a tax exempt association, thereby making its associate members tax exempt with respect to sponsored sporting events. Very important if you charge admission to events, sell concessions, collect money for parking, and collect money from television; all income.

If you leave a tax exempt association, you lose tax exempt status for income derived from sporting events. All institutions who choose to leave NCAA will lose that tax exemption; plus IRS will not grant new tax exempt status due to preexisting income generated from television.

This is reality of situation. That's why Slive's and Delaney's comments are all hollow threats.

I think you are off base here. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with whether or not a school even sponsors sports.

Sure it does. You're confusing sponsorship of sports with membership in NCAA. They are two separate issues. Delany and Slive are talking about leaving NCAA to form their own sports association. Can they do that? Sure. The issue will be what are the consequences of such a move?

The primary problem is loss of tax exemption allocated to each school as a result of being an associate member of the NCAA. That problem will not go away because any new association that may be developed will not be entitled to tax exempt status due to fact that the Group of 5 are all generating income from outside sources (ie: television). If you doubt it, I suggest you start reading section 503 of the internal revenue code and see what entities actually are entitled to tax exempt status. Remember, association with NCAA is different from status as an institution of higher education.

(07-16-2014 02:06 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 12:56 AM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:51 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:27 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The NCAA has nothing to do with the schools tax exempt status. Most all were tax exempt educational entities from the start. Joining the NCAA doesn't make you tax exempt and leaving the NCAA doesn't make you lose your tax exempt status. There are all universities--most of which are government owned--their tax exempt status is not in danger.

You are correct for academics but not academics. Also to limit risk many athletic programs are legally their own entity. The schools wouldn't loose it but the athletic revenue would


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The NCAA is a tax exempt association, thereby making its associate members tax exempt with respect to sponsored sporting events. Very important if you charge admission to events, sell concessions, collect money for parking, and collect money from television; all income.

If you leave a tax exempt association, you lose tax exempt status for income derived from sporting events. All institutions who choose to leave NCAA will lose that tax exemption; plus IRS will not grant new tax exempt status due to preexisting income generated from television.

This is reality of situation. That's why Slive's and Delaney's comments are all hollow threats.

I think you are off base here. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with whether or not a school even sponsors sports.

Sure it does. You're confusing sponsorship of sports with membership in NCAA. They are two separate issues. Delany and Slive are talking about leaving NCAA to form their own sports association. Can they do that? Sure. The issue will be what are the consequences of such a move?

The primary problem is loss of tax exemption allocated to each school as a result of being an associate member of the NCAA. That problem will not go away because any new association that may be developed will not be entitled to tax exempt status due to fact that the Group of 5 are all generating income from outside sources (ie: television). If you doubt it, I suggest you start reading section 503 of the internal revenue code and see what entities actually are entitled to tax exempt status. Remember, association with NCAA is different from status as an institution of higher education.

Someone posted a study. It is almost impossible to remove tax exempt status no matter what they do. We need to stop leaning on that idea because it is almost an impossibility.

Becoming a separate monopoly power, having anti-trust oversight, and not being allowed to engage in any anticompetitive behavior anymore would be the real danger for them and would become a real possibility.

(07-16-2014 02:18 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:06 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 12:56 AM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:51 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:27 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  You are correct for academics but not academics. Also to limit risk many athletic programs are legally their own entity. The schools wouldn't loose it but the athletic revenue would


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The NCAA is a tax exempt association, thereby making its associate members tax exempt with respect to sponsored sporting events. Very important if you charge admission to events, sell concessions, collect money for parking, and collect money from television; all income.

If you leave a tax exempt association, you lose tax exempt status for income derived from sporting events. All institutions who choose to leave NCAA will lose that tax exemption; plus IRS will not grant new tax exempt status due to preexisting income generated from television.

This is reality of situation. That's why Slive's and Delaney's comments are all hollow threats.

I think you are off base here. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with whether or not a school even sponsors sports.

Sure it does. You're confusing sponsorship of sports with membership in NCAA. They are two separate issues. Delany and Slive are talking about leaving NCAA to form their own sports association. Can they do that? Sure. The issue will be what are the consequences of such a move?

The primary problem is loss of tax exemption allocated to each school as a result of being an associate member of the NCAA. That problem will not go away because any new association that may be developed will not be entitled to tax exempt status due to fact that the Group of 5 are all generating income from outside sources (ie: television). If you doubt it, I suggest you start reading section 503 of the internal revenue code and see what entities actually are entitled to tax exempt status. Remember, association with NCAA is different from status as an institution of higher education.

Someone posted a study. It is almost impossible to remove tax exempt status no matter what they do. We need to stop leaning on that idea because it is almost an impossibility.

Becoming a separate monopoly power, having anti-trust oversight, and not being allowed to engage in any anticompetitive behavior anymore would be the real danger for them and would become a real possibility.

Ya, I don't think the majority of the G5 would appreciate giving up the profitability of football or basketball because the other bigger kids won't play with them. There would be tons of lawsuits piled into a single larger case. It would probably go to the Supreme Court and I don't think the P5 has a good case for exclusion of schools that have been playing football against them for more than 100 years.

(07-16-2014 02:31 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:18 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:06 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 12:56 AM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:51 PM)Ghis Wrote:  The NCAA is a tax exempt association, thereby making its associate members tax exempt with respect to sponsored sporting events. Very important if you charge admission to events, sell concessions, collect money for parking, and collect money from television; all income.

If you leave a tax exempt association, you lose tax exempt status for income derived from sporting events. All institutions who choose to leave NCAA will lose that tax exemption; plus IRS will not grant new tax exempt status due to preexisting income generated from television.

This is reality of situation. That's why Slive's and Delaney's comments are all hollow threats.

I think you are off base here. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with whether or not a school even sponsors sports.

Sure it does. You're confusing sponsorship of sports with membership in NCAA. They are two separate issues. Delany and Slive are talking about leaving NCAA to form their own sports association. Can they do that? Sure. The issue will be what are the consequences of such a move?

The primary problem is loss of tax exemption allocated to each school as a result of being an associate member of the NCAA. That problem will not go away because any new association that may be developed will not be entitled to tax exempt status due to fact that the Group of 5 are all generating income from outside sources (ie: television). If you doubt it, I suggest you start reading section 503 of the internal revenue code and see what entities actually are entitled to tax exempt status. Remember, association with NCAA is different from status as an institution of higher education.

Someone posted a study. It is almost impossible to remove tax exempt status no matter what they do. We need to stop leaning on that idea because it is almost an impossibility.

Becoming a separate monopoly power, having anti-trust oversight, and not being allowed to engage in any anticompetitive behavior anymore would be the real danger for them and would become a real possibility.

Ya, I don't think the majority of the G5 would appreciate giving up the profitability of football or basketball because the other bigger kids won't play with them. There would be tons of lawsuits piled into a single larger case. It would probably go to the Supreme Court and I don't think the P5 has a good case for exclusion of schools that have been playing football against them for more than 100 years.

They very well might be able to exclude us...but would face judicial oversight to make sure they did not engage in any anticompetitive behavior.

That is most likely something they would prefer to avoid.

I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

You could set a standard that is actually enforced that starts in 5 years to give colleges time to adjust. If you can not average 20,000 fans a game you shouldn't be FBs (that is my opinion) Budget should be atleast 20 million as well. Schools should have to meet those for 3 years in a row and then be allowed to move up\ stay FBS

(07-16-2014 03:32 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

You could set a standard that is actually enforced that starts in 5 years to give colleges time to adjust. If you can not average 20,000 fans a game you shouldn't be FBs (that is my opinion) Budget should be atleast 20 million as well. Schools should have to meet those for 3 years in a row and then be allowed to move up\ stay FBS

Old Dominion is a good example of a school that is ready for D1

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

Firmly agree with the view. There were minimum requirements put in place back in '78 that separated D1. Schools spent money, built infrastructure and added programs to meet the minimum standards. It's fine if the majority believe it's time to relook those minimum requirements for inclusion into the upper echelon, but the Contract Conferences act like they are the only ones who have a say concerning what those requirements should be and which schools make the cut. If they don't get their way, they take their ball and run home with it and break off from the rest. It's total nonsense.

(07-16-2014 03:32 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

You could set a standard that is actually enforced that starts in 5 years to give colleges time to adjust. If you can not average 20,000 fans a game you shouldn't be FBs (that is my opinion) Budget should be atleast 20 million as well. Schools should have to meet those for 3 years in a row and then be allowed to move up\ stay FBS

You will have a difficult time moving the bar for those who are already in FBS due to what I already stated. You'll have to explain your reasoning to a judge and prove you aren't picking an arbitrary number or trying to engineer an outcome.

You also have schools scheduling years in advance and then a year before the game...they suddenly have an FCS opponent?

Do you count tickets sold or butts in seat?

There are lots of issues there.

(07-16-2014 03:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:32 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

You could set a standard that is actually enforced that starts in 5 years to give colleges time to adjust. If you can not average 20,000 fans a game you shouldn't be FBs (that is my opinion) Budget should be atleast 20 million as well. Schools should have to meet those for 3 years in a row and then be allowed to move up\ stay FBS

You will have a difficult time moving the bar for those who are already in FBS due to what I already stated. You'll have to explain your reasoning to a judge and prove you aren't picking an arbitrary number or trying to engineer an outcome.

You also have schools scheduling years in advance and then a year before the game...they suddenly have an FCS opponent?

Do you count tickets sold or butts in seat?

There are lots of issues there.

Let's be real honest. If you can't average 10k actual butts in the seats, you don't deserve to be playing in the top division. The bar was actually 15k but it wasn't enforced. Ncaa creates new rules all the time and you have to follow them. I would even allow weather issues to allow to specific games not to be counted with the average.

We have a bunch of programs that have no business in upper level football.

(07-16-2014 04:01 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:32 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

You could set a standard that is actually enforced that starts in 5 years to give colleges time to adjust. If you can not average 20,000 fans a game you shouldn't be FBs (that is my opinion) Budget should be atleast 20 million as well. Schools should have to meet those for 3 years in a row and then be allowed to move up\ stay FBS

You will have a difficult time moving the bar for those who are already in FBS due to what I already stated. You'll have to explain your reasoning to a judge and prove you aren't picking an arbitrary number or trying to engineer an outcome.

You also have schools scheduling years in advance and then a year before the game...they suddenly have an FCS opponent?

Do you count tickets sold or butts in seat?

There are lots of issues there.

Let's be real honest. If you can't average 10k actual butts in the seats, you don't deserve to be playing in the top division. The bar was actually 15k but it wasn't enforced. Ncaa creates new rules all the time and you have to follow them. I would even allow weather issues to allow to specific games not to be counted with the average.

We have a bunch of programs that have no business in upper level football.

This would have been done already but unfortunately you have P5 members that fit this criteria who can't be booted from their conferences....

(07-16-2014 04:29 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 04:01 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:32 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

You could set a standard that is actually enforced that starts in 5 years to give colleges time to adjust. If you can not average 20,000 fans a game you shouldn't be FBs (that is my opinion) Budget should be atleast 20 million as well. Schools should have to meet those for 3 years in a row and then be allowed to move up\ stay FBS

You will have a difficult time moving the bar for those who are already in FBS due to what I already stated. You'll have to explain your reasoning to a judge and prove you aren't picking an arbitrary number or trying to engineer an outcome.

You also have schools scheduling years in advance and then a year before the game...they suddenly have an FCS opponent?

Do you count tickets sold or butts in seat?

There are lots of issues there.

Let's be real honest. If you can't average 10k actual butts in the seats, you don't deserve to be playing in the top division. The bar was actually 15k but it wasn't enforced. Ncaa creates new rules all the time and you have to follow them. I would even allow weather issues to allow to specific games not to be counted with the average.

We have a bunch of programs that have no business in upper level football.

This would have been done already but unfortunately you have P5 members that fit this criteria who can't be booted from their conferences....

P5 members can't average a number like 10 or 15k?

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:07 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:50 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Does anyone really believe this has anything to with the welfare of student athletes?

Nope but that's how they're going to continue selling it. Personally, I hope they get what they want so that all the lawsuits can begin.

Lawsuits by who? Athletes? That might have impact. G5 conferences? Dead on Arrival.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

(07-15-2014 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 01:30 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  You can bet the P5 have an army of lawyers already working on how they can get this through as trouble free as they possibly can.

The only legal issue would be if a move to a separate division or exiting the NCAA would result in a breach of contract, e.g., if the P5 decided to leave as of 2017, and set up there own playoff system, thus breaching the agreement they signed with the G5 conferences setting up the CFP that will run for the next 12 years.

But even the P5 wouldn't be dumb enough to breach a contract, so I doubt legal issues are likely to arise.

You are very naïve. The conventional wisdom for years was that the O'Banon case was just a nuisance and had no chance. Most view it just the opposite now and believe the O'Bannon will actually win their case. The P5 just carved our 85 million dollars a year along with a prized access slot in the new CFP and handed it to the G5. They didn't do that because they are such nice guys. The P5 has been anything but nice guys over the last 20 years. They did it because they know there is significant danger in cutting out the G5. If they split there will be a number of lawsuits and the G5 plaintiffs will have a very good chance of winning. A split would literally destroy the G5---so the potential damages that the P5 could be looking at if they lost such a case could be astronomical. The slight increase in dollars isn't worth the risk to the P5.

While you may believe that in a split scenerio, a G5 collusion/anit-trust case is "DOA"---the actions of the P5 indicate that the P5 doesn't share the same view.

Disagree about the actions of the P5: The P5 are giving the G5 approximately 18% of the CFP/Access money because that is about what we are worth. We are not completely valueless.

But lawsuits? The G5 has no inherent right to 'exist' if that existence depends on interacting with the P5, and the P5 has no inherent obligation to play athletic games versus G5 schools. No judge would ever say otherwise.

Bottom line: G5 schools are free to compete amongst themselves and anyone else willing to compete against them, but nobody is obligated to.

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:07 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:50 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Does anyone really believe this has anything to with the welfare of student athletes?

Nope but that's how they're going to continue selling it. Personally, I hope they get what they want so that all the lawsuits can begin.

Lawsuits by who? Athletes? That might have impact. G5 conferences? Dead on Arrival.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

Hmmm.

(07-16-2014 03:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 02:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I would like to see tougher standards to join division 1 and stay in Div 1. Maybe that is the compromise? We have a bunch of programs in div 1 that can't even get real crowds of 10,000 or more. I don't think it would be bad to require a certain budget minimum for football and attendance minimums.

Teams that can't put 10,000 in the stands deserve the boot. P5 instantly gets more power by dropping members out of div 1.

Closing the door is different than kicking people out the door.

Many schools spent a great deal of money meeting current requirements. They gave up home games for neutral sites, the gave up postseason eligibility, built facilities or seating add-ons....all to move into the top level.

Moving the bar just to exclude them again after making them jump through hoops may be problematic to a judge. And if you try to kick people down a judge will definitely see it.

That might be an incentive for the P5 to exit the NCAA and form their own organization. A G5 school could possibly have a case, suing the NCAA if the NCAA (at the behest of the P5) passes new requirements for being in FBS (or a new "Division Four") that exclude that school.

But the school would have nothing to sue about if the P5 left the NCAA to form their own organization.