[b]

(03-08-2014 12:07 PM)Newetimes Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:50 AM)Newetimes Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:44 AM)Newetimes Wrote:  The issue is the current policy of the NCAA and their admittance of teams to move from FCS to FBS. Not a moral issue. Why would you bring this into the discussion?

The central issue of Dale v Boy Scouts involved the ability of a private association to determine its membership standards.

This has nothing to do with the moral questions involved in that case, but rather of the rights affirmed by the court as a result of it. It just happens that the case was initiated as a result of those issues.

The NCAA isn't a monopoly either.

As FCS and FBS teams are a member of the NCAA, and FCS teams are seeking a higher membership status, a moral issue that seems important to you, but has no bearing on membership on FCS or FBS, is immaterial.

I'm not commenting on the fairness of the rule, but on the likely outcome of any litigation that a lawsuit might engender.

The Courts ruled that private associations can have just about whatever membership rules they see fit in the Dale case. And the NCAA is a private organization. Furthermore, if a school can sue and force the NCAA to take them, then why can't a school sue the SEC and force them to take them?

The NCAA is not a monopoly. There are two other college athletic associations. Nor is there an embargo on FBS schools playing a team from another conference.

Good points but there are other viewpoints that likely carry more merit. If a ACC team sued to belong to the SEC, that would be weak. Even if a MAC or SBC team sued to belong to a higher conference, that would be weak. The position of the NCAA seems vulnerable if qualified teams are denied membership. The NCAA sets standards, and if a team meets those standards, then membership is only eligible to those who receive an invite. There is the potential problem. If the policy was amended to allow those teams who meet the criteria, but for whatever reason, don't receive an invite, to join as an independent, that would seem the more valid position. The invite rule seems to place the decision on the conferences, which may or may not be the Achilles heel.

I see no legal theory that would preclude a private organization from having two admission criteria (such as minimum facilities, and conference sponsorship). I also, see no legal theory that would preclude a conference from grandfathering teams that are already members from having to qualify as members all over again.

I just don't see this as a viable option. I also don't see any discrimination claims based upon Liberty's religious content as bearing any legal fruit either. Liberty is hardly the only school that is sitting on the outside looking in as a result of this. The rule appears to be applied evenly.

This lawsuit route has been posited multiple times before. I just don't see that as being a route that is going to be successful.

FBS is an exclusive club, as are the P5 conferences. Exclusive clubs by their very nature exclude, and they can exclude whoever they please.

(03-08-2014 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the standards for FBS football are way too low. The standards need to be raised to eliminate the schools that don't belong, and IMO some of 'em are in P5 conferences. The minimum stadium size should be 50K, and minimum attendance 40K. Hell, it was 30K half a century ago, and that's never changed. But nobody enforces it. They should raise the minimums and enforce them. Anyone not able to maintain isn't worthy IMO.

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.

(03-08-2014 12:17 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  [b]

(03-08-2014 12:07 PM)Newetimes Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:50 AM)Newetimes Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The central issue of Dale v Boy Scouts involved the ability of a private association to determine its membership standards.

This has nothing to do with the moral questions involved in that case, but rather of the rights affirmed by the court as a result of it. It just happens that the case was initiated as a result of those issues.

The NCAA isn't a monopoly either.

As FCS and FBS teams are a member of the NCAA, and FCS teams are seeking a higher membership status, a moral issue that seems important to you, but has no bearing on membership on FCS or FBS, is immaterial.

I'm not commenting on the fairness of the rule, but on the likely outcome of any litigation that a lawsuit might engender.

The Courts ruled that private associations can have just about whatever membership rules they see fit in the Dale case. And the NCAA is a private organization. Furthermore, if a school can sue and force the NCAA to take them, then why can't a school sue the SEC and force them to take them?

The NCAA is not a monopoly. There are two other college athletic associations. Nor is there an embargo on FBS schools playing a team from another conference.

Good points but there are other viewpoints that likely carry more merit. If a ACC team sued to belong to the SEC, that would be weak. Even if a MAC or SBC team sued to belong to a higher conference, that would be weak. The position of the NCAA seems vulnerable if qualified teams are denied membership. The NCAA sets standards, and if a team meets those standards, then membership is only eligible to those who receive an invite. There is the potential problem. If the policy was amended to allow those teams who meet the criteria, but for whatever reason, don't receive an invite, to join as an independent, that would seem the more valid position. The invite rule seems to place the decision on the conferences, which may or may not be the Achilles heel.

I see no legal theory that would preclude a private organization from having two admission criteria (such as minimum facilities, and conference sponsorship). I also, see no legal theory that would preclude a conference from grandfathering teams that are already members from having to qualify as members all over again.

I just don't see this as a viable option. I also don't see any discrimination claims based upon Liberty's religious content as bearing any legal fruit either. Liberty is hardly the only school that is sitting on the outside looking in as a result of this. The rule appears to be applied evenly.

This lawsuit route has been posited multiple times before. I just don't see that as being a route that is going to be successful.

This is a discussion about FCS schools and no single school has been stated. It's about teams seeking FBS that may not get an invite. It is a theoretical point of what could happen. Anyone, any entity, can be sued.

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

(03-08-2014 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the standards for FBS football are way too low. The standards need to be raised to eliminate the schools that don't belong, and IMO some of 'em are in P5 conferences. The minimum stadium size should be 50K, and minimum attendance 40K. Hell, it was 30K half a century ago, and that's never changed. But nobody enforces it. They should raise the minimums and enforce them. Anyone not able to maintain isn't worthy IMO.

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.

Each schools path to FBS is different. And each candidate has different challenges.

(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:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the standards for FBS football are way too low. The standards need to be raised to eliminate the schools that don't belong, and IMO some of 'em are in P5 conferences. The minimum stadium size should be 50K, and minimum attendance 40K. Hell, it was 30K half a century ago, and that's never changed. But nobody enforces it. They should raise the minimums and enforce them. Anyone not able to maintain isn't worthy IMO.

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.

(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:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the standards for FBS football are way too low. The standards need to be raised to eliminate the schools that don't belong, and IMO some of 'em are in P5 conferences. The minimum stadium size should be 50K, and minimum attendance 40K. Hell, it was 30K half a century ago, and that's never changed. But nobody enforces it. They should raise the minimums and enforce them. Anyone not able to maintain isn't worthy IMO.

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 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.

(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.

A likely scenario would be if desiring teams don't receive invites with the anticipated June timeline, then grumblings could develop. It could be as simple as a threat from a few member FCS schools. Don't dismiss the discussion of of a combined suit and the impact that could have.

(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.

If they did lead the conversation, serious discussions could develop of at a minimum a revamping of the current policy.

(03-08-2014 11:36 AM)Newetimes Wrote:  The thought of a strong group of regional FCS schools, and possibly in the footprint FBS teams (even though this is a real stretch), creating a new conference, could easily be justified from the point monetarily.

However, those particular Go5 FBS schools would have to want to join, and given the status and profile reasons for subsidizing football, as they do, they wouldn't want to join a conference which would immediately become the bottom level "Go6" conference.

(03-08-2014 12:59 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:36 AM)Newetimes Wrote:  The thought of a strong group of regional FCS schools, and possibly in the footprint FBS teams (even though this is a real stretch), creating a new conference, could easily be justified from the point monetarily.

However, those particular Go5 FBS schools would have to want to join, and given the status and profile reasons for subsidizing football, as they do, they wouldn't want to join a conference which would immediately become the bottom level "Go6" conference.

That may be true, and what also may be true, is the belief or hope once they received FBS status, greener pastures (higher conference desirability) would be available. Agreed it is a long shot, but when lots of money is at stake, those that have it want to keep it, and those that don't have it want to those with it to share it.

(03-08-2014 12:53 PM)Newetimes 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.

If they did lead the conversation, serious discussions could develop of at a minimum a revamping of the current policy.

That legal framework would likely go nowhere. A conference could, for example, just claim that they didn't want to associate with a school that engages in employment discrimination. The courts would see that as a legitimate interest (especially for a private organization) and dismiss the case.

Now if a conference said, "No religiously affiliated schools", now that MIGHT be different. But I think Dale v BSA still gets them off the hook there. Dale v BSA was a powerful ruling. It was also, IMHO, the correct ruling (although it caused much consternation amongst many)

Nor do I think the NCAA is going to get involved either in such a case or change the rules to help teams move up. Unless a school that removed (compromised) the other objections to membership and STILL was denied (eliminating other reasons for rejection). If they did that, then why wouldn't they make an exception for non-religious schools denied moveup status? If the NCAA made an exception for religious schools, they might have to make that exception available to all schools. Furthermore, that revamping of the policy would be decided by....the existing membership of FBS. I seriously doubt an exception would be granted by that group.

I think that if this were a legally fruitful path, BYU would have sued to get in the PAC12. I wouldn't be surprised if the term Mormon came up in those discussions. And the PAC12 has private schools.

Discrimination claims are really hard to prove, regardless of their merit.

And I doubt the courts would compel association with an overtly religious institution, especially if that club is comprised, completely, of non-religious institutions.

(03-08-2014 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:53 PM)Newetimes 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.

If they did lead the conversation, serious discussions could develop of at a minimum a revamping of the current policy.

That legal framework would likely go nowhere. A conference could, for example, just claim that they didn't want to associate with a school that engages in employment discrimination. The courts would see that as a legitimate interest (especially for a private organization) and dismiss the case.

Now if a conference said, "No religiously affiliated schools", now that MIGHT be different. But I think Dale v BSA still gets them off the hook there. Dale v BSA was a powerful ruling. It was also, IMHO, the correct ruling (although it caused much consternation amongst many)

Nor do I think the NCAA is going to get involved either in such a case or change the rules to help teams move up. Unless a school that removed (compromised) the other objections to membership and STILL was denied (eliminating other reasons for rejection). If they did that, then why wouldn't they make an exception for non-religious schools denied moveup status? If the NCAA made an exception for religious schools, they might have to make that exception available to all schools. Furthermore, that revamping of the policy would be decided by....the existing membership of FBS. I seriously doubt an exception would be granted by that group.

I think that if this were a legally fruitful path, BYU would have sued to get in the PAC12. I wouldn't be surprised if the term Mormon came up in those discussions. And the PAC12 has private schools.

Discrimination claims are really hard to prove, regardless of their merit.

And I doubt the courts would compel association with an overtly religious institution, especially if that club is comprised, completely, of non-religious institutions.

Again, several valid points you are making. Discrimination is a different area. When one is usually charged with discrimination, the usual direction is the one who is being charged is the one who has to prove their innocence. Yes, their must be a valid claim but in the Fair Housing Law, when Realtors are charged with discrimination, the National Association of Realtors strongly urges it's members to keep strong records to prove the member innocence. Rather than the Dale/BS ruling, the contest is likely to be in the realm of the organization and setup. What BYU has or has not done is unique to BYU. What a group of disgruntled FCS schools may do, if they see no other option, is to challenge the NCAA structure. What defense and court cases the NCAA would use, in this exploratory conversation, is well beyond our scope of "being in the know".

(03-08-2014 12:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the standards for FBS football are way too low. The standards need to be raised to eliminate the schools that don't belong, and IMO some of 'em are in P5 conferences. The minimum stadium size should be 50K, and minimum attendance 40K. Hell, it was 30K half a century ago, and that's never changed. But nobody enforces it. They should raise the minimums and enforce them. Anyone not able to maintain isn't worthy IMO.

That proposal will go nowhere for the precise reason that it would upset many a P5 apple cart.

I personally like the European system, with relegation and promotion based upon athletic results. Also, not going to happen.

The only P5 conference that would be greatly effected would be the ACC, because that would eliminate about half the conference. The B1G, P12, and B12 would lose nobody. The SEC might lose Vandy, which would be no great loss athletically.

However, you can grandfather the P5 schools that don't qualify, with a proviso that within 5 years they must meet the standards. That would give them a chance to step up their game. If their fans don't care enough to keep them eligible, they don't deserve to remain IMO.

What about Washington State

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the standards for FBS football are way too low. The standards need to be raised to eliminate the schools that don't belong, and IMO some of 'em are in P5 conferences. The minimum stadium size should be 50K, and minimum attendance 40K. Hell, it was 30K half a century ago, and that's never changed. But nobody enforces it. They should raise the minimums and enforce them. Anyone not able to maintain isn't worthy IMO.

I agree but that will never happen. I think leaving it at 30k would serve it's purpose as long as it is enforced properly.

-If you miss the 30k attendance average you go into probation.
-While in probation you must average once within the next three seasons.

If the second condition is not the team should be subject to a vote of removal by all FBS athletic directors.

(This would put most of the MAC, SBC, CUSA, MWC in FCS) which would be better for everyone IMO because it would make FCS watchable.

(03-08-2014 04:36 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 12:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 11:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the standards for FBS football are way too low. The standards need to be raised to eliminate the schools that don't belong, and IMO some of 'em are in P5 conferences. The minimum stadium size should be 50K, and minimum attendance 40K. Hell, it was 30K half a century ago, and that's never changed. But nobody enforces it. They should raise the minimums and enforce them. Anyone not able to maintain isn't worthy IMO.

That proposal will go nowhere for the precise reason that it would upset many a P5 apple cart.

I personally like the European system, with relegation and promotion based upon athletic results. Also, not going to happen.

The only P5 conference that would be greatly effected would be the ACC, because that would eliminate about half the conference. The B1G, P12, and B12 would lose nobody. The SEC might lose Vandy, which would be no great loss athletically.

However, you can grandfather the P5 schools that don't qualify, with a proviso that within 5 years they must meet the standards. That would give them a chance to step up their game. If their fans don't care enough to keep them eligible, they don't deserve to remain IMO.

What about Washington State

They are going to meet the requirement as long as they have Oregon, Washington, and USC on the schedule.

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.

(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.

Well said. The ability to leave as an independent but not join as one seems inconsistent and a point of contention.

(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.