Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #481
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-03-2014 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  One of the things that is creating a problem for a break-away is the issue of paying players. The "true cost" of attending a particular school may vary widely from one institution to another. If every P5 school gave the players the same amount, it would be a lawsuit in the making, because we would be back to where we started.
There will be no break away until all other alternatives within the NCAA have been exhausted. Then and only then will the P5 form committees, hold conferences and propose rules well before there is any serious consideration of leaving the NCAA.

Full cost is full cost. The issue is spending money and that can be set equally everywhere. There are obstructionists within the P5 that are desperately clinging to the favoritism that the NCAA has shown them and one cluster of them is in the state of North Carolina. Your school and Wake speak as though they are part of the P5 but you are really playing both sides to keep your status quo. Everyone knows it. You'll be bypassed if you hold out too long. There is too much at stake for the rest to put up with it. The only true thing necessary for the breakaway is a consensus between Slive and Delany. If the Big 10 and SEC decide to do something everyone else will either get in line or get left behind and that is the reality. Besides there is no better way for the networks to triage overhead than to utilize a breakaway as the excuse to do so.

When this happens Clemson, Florida State, and Virginia Tech will be leaving if you don't get out in front on this. You may even get blindsided by some basketball first schools that simply want more of their revenue. Texas won't lag for long and Oklahoma will be all over it. U.S.C., Oregon, and the Arizona's will jump on board as well. And where U.S.C. leads others will follow.

But really whether North Carolina, N.C. State, Duke, or Wake Forest come on board or not is really irrelevant to football. And without Clemson and Florida State the value of the ACC plummets. That's the kind of pressure that will force Virginia Tech to leave as well. While it would be nice to have everyone on the same page I think most realize that is likely not to happen but when you look at those who aren't willing to make the move the list is mostly comprised of dead weight when it comes to the gridiron. So it's nobody's loss but theirs. If Northwestern and Purdue decided to drop football do you think the states of Michigan and Ohio would care? They would keep them in the academic alliance and life would go on.

The breakaway will be comprised of the top brands in college football and anyone else who doesn't want to be left out. Everyone else who gets on board will be doing so for survival. Those who don't want to make the jump will only make it more profitable for everyone else. Of the three prima donnas of college athletics (Notre Dame, Texas, and North Carolina) I don't believe any of them are stupid enough to sit it out. Texas's alumni would force them to if they were reluctant. But Texas and Notre Dame both have a tremendous independent streak so I think they will go along. Besides who would they play if they didn't? Certainly they wouldn't play any folks that could pack the seats. Your sports won't mean a thing if you aren't playing peers.

What you say about it taking a bit more time may happen, but it won't take long. Critical mass will be reached fairly shortly given the lethargy the NCAA has in responding to changing times and the amount of money left on the table because of the handling of basketball. If it is only 48 schools that make the jump that would be great, but I bet there are a lot more who will say, "Take me, take me" when the time comes.
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2014 08:52 AM by JRsec.)
04-03-2014 08:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #482
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-01-2014 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe the ACC and SEC will come to realize that they can gain share money by eliminating the Big 12. If each took 4 schools they could dissolve the conference. Then the ACC and SEC could partner and they would be 36 schools plus Notre Dame, they would have 7 of the top 10 schools in revenue between them, they could all share one whopper of a network if they chose to do so and ESPN would essentially own the two most rabid fan bases in college football (Big 12 and SEC) and the largest footprint in college sports (ACC) which added to the SEC and Big 12 would stretch from Texas to New York and Massachusetts and be inclusive of everything in between. It is an end game scenario for ESPN and should be one for the SEC and ACC.

I think you've stumbled upon another great idea JR. In fact, I think even the inkling of such a move would force the PAC to get off the pot and add more teams. ESPN could even make it work without assistance from the B10. The ACC could open with the partial membership to Texas and full membership to OU, TT, TCU and KSU. The SEC would 'counter' with OKST, KU, Baylor and ISU (or WVU).

With valuable CTZ properties looking to head east, along with the floundering P12 network, Larry Scott may well decide to sell ESPN partial media righst in exchange for brokering a deal for 4 former B12 schools. With the WWL moving the pieces, Bristol finally makes changes to the college conference landscape that only realignment nuts like us could only dream of. The final shakeout results in:

Texas*, OKST, KSU, TCU, UConn ----> ACC
NSCU, VT, Baylor, WVU ----> SEC
OU, KU, TT, ISU ----> PAC

ESPN's methodology IMO if they got partial PAC rights would consist of:
- increasing visibility to the PAC, which 4 CTZ teams accomplish
- providing credibility to the ACC, done by adding Texas and OKST
- and not screwing the SEC, having to eat Baylor and WVU can be offset
by getting into NC and VA as well plus increasing the undervalued SEC
contract.
04-04-2014 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #483
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Oklahoma to the West

West Virginia to the East

done deal, no more expanding!
04-04-2014 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
grapes Offline
GTG
*

Posts: 2,718
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: MEMPHIS/AAC
Location: Chicago & Memphis
Post: #484
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I don't think the SEC will ever had a school thats not the flagship for the state.
Vandy & Auburn are exceptions.

I think Oklahoma & West Virginia are perfect SEC schools.
But I also think Kansas would bring a ton of value with the basketball and im sure could get there football back going with the add to the SEC.
04-05-2014 01:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #485
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
One thing to remember is that OU really wants to stay with at least one of Texas and OSU. If they had to play both out of conference they would have only 1 game a year to schedule flexibly - 9 conference games plus UT and OSU would be set. They can't drop Texas because it drives donations for both universities. OSU would be easier to drop (it is an extremely one sided rivalry), but it is a state rivalry game and it might be legislated that they play OSU annually. If the SEC wants OU for 15 they have to get Texas or OSU for 16.

OU would have been in the SEC already, if the SEC had been receptive to adding OSU, like OU required. Problem is nobody, but the PAC, has been open to adding both and duplicating a smaller market (even then the rumor is, unless Texas comes, OSU isn't academically acceptable to Standford/Cal).
04-06-2014 11:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #486
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-06-2014 11:47 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  One thing to remember is that OU really wants to stay with at least one of Texas and OSU. If they had to play both out of conference they would have only 1 game a year to schedule flexibly - 9 conference games plus UT and OSU would be set. They can't drop Texas because it drives donations for both universities. OSU would be easier to drop (it is an extremely one sided rivalry), but it is a state rivalry game and it might be legislated that they play OSU annually. If the SEC wants OU for 15 they have to get Texas or OSU for 16.

OU would have been in the SEC already, if the SEC had been receptive to adding OSU, like OU required. Problem is nobody, but the PAC, has been open to adding both and duplicating a smaller market (even then the rumor is, unless Texas comes, OSU isn't academically acceptable to Standford/Cal).

The trick there is for the SEC to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State (but the problem would be cultural fit). Let the ACC take Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech and Kansas State. Or the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State and Baylor and the ACC takes Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and T.C.U. (which they would hate). The ACC needs more football help anyway. I don't see an equitable way for the ACC and SEC both to move to 16 without a swap. Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC and Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the ACC. If the SEC can't land two large markets it's not going to double down in Oklahoma, or repeat territory in Texas, or take Oklahoma State & Kansas State or Iowa State and it's not taking two small states with Oklahoma State and West Virginia.

So either the SEC takes 4 and the ACC takes 4 (or 5 if Texas gets an N.D. like deal) or a swap occurs. Unless of course there is a breakaway and just one big whopper of a merger.
(This post was last modified: 04-07-2014 12:11 AM by JRsec.)
04-07-2014 12:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #487
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-07-2014 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-06-2014 11:47 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  One thing to remember is that OU really wants to stay with at least one of Texas and OSU. If they had to play both out of conference they would have only 1 game a year to schedule flexibly - 9 conference games plus UT and OSU would be set. They can't drop Texas because it drives donations for both universities. OSU would be easier to drop (it is an extremely one sided rivalry), but it is a state rivalry game and it might be legislated that they play OSU annually. If the SEC wants OU for 15 they have to get Texas or OSU for 16.

OU would have been in the SEC already, if the SEC had been receptive to adding OSU, like OU required. Problem is nobody, but the PAC, has been open to adding both and duplicating a smaller market (even then the rumor is, unless Texas comes, OSU isn't academically acceptable to Standford/Cal).

The trick there is for the SEC to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State (but the problem would be cultural fit). Let the ACC take Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech and Kansas State. Or the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State and Baylor and the ACC takes Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and T.C.U. (which they would hate). The ACC needs more football help anyway. I don't see an equitable way for the ACC and SEC both to move to 16 without a swap. Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC and Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the ACC. If the SEC can't land two large markets it's not going to double down in Oklahoma, or repeat territory in Texas, or take Oklahoma State & Kansas State or Iowa State and it's not taking two small states with Oklahoma State and West Virginia.

So either the SEC takes 4 and the ACC takes 4 (or 5 if Texas gets an N.D. like deal) or a swap occurs. Unless of course there is a breakaway and just one big whopper of a merger.

It all revolves around Texas for the ACC. I think without Texas it is just not worth going that far west for them. The ACC would be OU's last choice unless Texas goes there, so OU is not an option without Texas. As you noted, the ACC needs another helmet program (or 2) in FB badly and so does the PAC. The PAC is just protected from direct competition out west, while the ACC is battling it out with the SEC and to a lesser extent the B1G. In FB, the ACC has a knife (FSU) versus the SEC M-16 (Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee - if they recover) and the B1G AK-47 (OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, PSU). It would be easier just to merge the SEC/ACC and take the B12 schools you want rather than fighting over who goes where.

I think in the end there will be a merger (sooner or later). I think the ACC is not seeing a network during this contract so they will not be able to keep up financially under their current contract. The SEC contract is undervalued because they signed in 2008 before the PAC/B12 (and soon to be B1G) got the deals they did. Merging would allow them to rework their deals for T1 and T2 and their network for more money. It would result in a win/win for both conferences. B12 schools would gain stability and more exposure as well as money in most cases (maybe not Texas). ESPN would love a merged ACC/SEC/B12 conference for all the blue bloods in BB and helmet FB programs they would control, especially if they redid the contracts where they got a 20-25 year exclusive contract out of it so they keep that content from other networks, Google, Hulu, NetFlix, etc while content delivery is undergoing changes.
04-07-2014 01:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #488
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-05-2014 01:05 AM)grapes Wrote:  I don't think the SEC will ever had a school thats not the flagship for the state.
Vandy & Auburn are exceptions.

I think Oklahoma & West Virginia are perfect SEC schools.
But I also think Kansas would bring a ton of value with the basketball and im sure could get there football back going with the add to the SEC.

What about Mississippi State? And then there is South Carolina which is an enigma. How can the little brother STEM school (Clemson) be rated almost twice as high academically as south carolina which is supposed to be the state's flagship? Whew!
04-07-2014 07:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #489
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-07-2014 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-06-2014 11:47 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  One thing to remember is that OU really wants to stay with at least one of Texas and OSU. If they had to play both out of conference they would have only 1 game a year to schedule flexibly - 9 conference games plus UT and OSU would be set. They can't drop Texas because it drives donations for both universities. OSU would be easier to drop (it is an extremely one sided rivalry), but it is a state rivalry game and it might be legislated that they play OSU annually. If the SEC wants OU for 15 they have to get Texas or OSU for 16.

OU would have been in the SEC already, if the SEC had been receptive to adding OSU, like OU required. Problem is nobody, but the PAC, has been open to adding both and duplicating a smaller market (even then the rumor is, unless Texas comes, OSU isn't academically acceptable to Standford/Cal).

The trick there is for the SEC to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State (but the problem would be cultural fit). Let the ACC take Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech and Kansas State. Or the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State and Baylor and the ACC takes Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and T.C.U. (which they would hate). The ACC needs more football help anyway. I don't see an equitable way for the ACC and SEC both to move to 16 without a swap. Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC and Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the ACC. If the SEC can't land two large markets it's not going to double down in Oklahoma, or repeat territory in Texas, or take Oklahoma State & Kansas State or Iowa State and it's not taking two small states with Oklahoma State and West Virginia.

So either the SEC takes 4 and the ACC takes 4 (or 5 if Texas gets an N.D. like deal) or a swap occurs. Unless of course there is a breakaway and just one big whopper of a merger.
Jr is right on this. There are the Saturday game day "what-ifs" where we start dreaming about some of these matchups. I fall in this category much to often, I admit. The real side is the money side. Financially, the SEC would greatly benefit financially by cracking the Virginia/North Carolina markets. I worry that allowing the ACC to grab both Texas and Oklahoma, plus OSU and the Kansas BB machine might be too high of a price for the SEC to pay for two non-flagship schools in NC/VA.
(This post was last modified: 04-07-2014 12:34 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
04-07-2014 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #490
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
ESPN should encourage the ACC to release N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC and to add Texas, Oklahoma, and Baylor to the ACC. The requirement for the move should be Notre Dame going all in. If the Irish refuse add Oklahoma State to get to 16.

Kansas can go to the Big 10 along with either Iowa State or Connecticut.

If the Irish go all in then Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech go to the PAC.

Such a move would give the ACC 4 national brand football schools (Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Florida State) Clemson is a strong regional brand and Miami's name has outlived their umph.

This move would please the SEC with markets without making them stronger in football or weaker in football. And the move would essentially make the ACC an equal with the Big 10 and SEC.

There's not much you can do for the PAC except give them 4 central time zone slots to with which to sell more inventory. Texas and Oklahoma would lose money moving to the PAC.

With the new guidelines Slive has been speaking about if anyone drops out of the P5 because of the increased cost you have West Virginia, T.C.U., B.Y.U., Connecticut and Cincinnati to back fill with. If there are 8 eligible G5 schools and former P5 schools willing to go all in on the new measures then simply increase the existing conference by two each.

It's time to get her done and get on with other things like reforming basketball to make it more profitable.
04-22-2014 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #491
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-22-2014 10:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  With the new guidelines Slive has been speaking about if anyone drops out of the P5 because of the increased cost you have West Virginia, T.C.U., B.Y.U., Connecticut and Cincinnati to back fill with. If there are 8 eligible G5 schools and former P5 schools willing to go all in on the new measures then simply increase the existing conference by two each.

I doubt anyone drops out of the P5 unless the union issues get to the smaller private schools. I think quite a few G5 schools will spend the money necessary, probably BYU, most of the AAC, and some of the MWC, plus 1 or 2 others perhaps. My fear is the B12, since it has the fewest members, will be "encouraged" to add 4-6 of these types of schools (thus hamstringing it's future TV contracts and competitiveness with deadweight schools). Shoot me now if that happens. Hopefully there is just a sixth conference created from the best of the G5. Expand the playoffs to 8 and have 6 conference champs, plus 2 at large schools, battle for it all.

The most likely way to cut down on the number of schools playing at the highest level, besides the increased expenses required by paying stipends, etc., would be an attendance number of say 30K-40k. Right now there is an attendance requirement for FBS, but it is not enforced and is fairly low anyway.

I would hate for the scholarship limits to get raised. Sure it will take athletes from the G5 and lower, but the helmet schools will also take those extra scholarships and fill them with players that currently go to the Mississippi States, Utahs, Wake Forest, Iowa State, etc schools. There is more parity in CFB since the reductions went in. Talent is more evenly spread than it used to be which has helped make CFB better IMO. Going back up would not help the college game, unless you want Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Texas, etc. to be even more dominant than they are now.

I still hold out hope that the P5 make demands that the smaller schools refuse to accept and the P5, plus any friends, just breakaway. The NCAA is just such a farce at this point in time. However, the smaller schools will probably bow down because they want to keep suckling at the NCAA money teat.
04-23-2014 01:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #492
RE: If the SEC did expand again
(04-22-2014 10:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN should encourage the ACC to release N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC and to add Texas, Oklahoma, and Baylor to the ACC. The requirement for the move should be Notre Dame going all in. If the Irish refuse add Oklahoma State to get to 16.

Kansas can go to the Big 10 along with either Iowa State or Connecticut.

If the Irish go all in then Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech go to the PAC.

Such a move would give the ACC 4 national brand football schools (Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Florida State) Clemson is a strong regional brand and Miami's name has outlived their umph.

This move would please the SEC with markets without making them stronger in football or weaker in football. And the move would essentially make the ACC an equal with the Big 10 and SEC.

There's not much you can do for the PAC except give them 4 central time zone slots to with which to sell more inventory. Texas and Oklahoma would lose money moving to the PAC.

With the new guidelines Slive has been speaking about if anyone drops out of the P5 because of the increased cost you have West Virginia, T.C.U., B.Y.U., Connecticut and Cincinnati to back fill with. If there are 8 eligible G5 schools and former P5 schools willing to go all in on the new measures then simply increase the existing conference by two each.

It's time to get her done and get on with other things like reforming basketball to make it more profitable.

The glacial movements of the NCAA is starting to bite the leaders of college athletics in the backside. People have been writing books and blogs about this matter for awhile, so the shock and confusion I see from their ranks regarding issues like the O'Bannon case or Unionization is quite baffling. Continued dithering will force the P5 to take some kind of action, if for no other reason than to mitigate the damage that's already been done.

I found the unlimited meal plan decision an instructive insight into the quagmire the NCAA faces. Emmert believes he has made a rational concession when in actuality he has fully lost control of the narrative. He's allowed columnists and authors to paint the NCAA as a money hoarding functionary when in actuality college athletics as a whole is a marginally profitable endeavor.

A more proactive leader would have quickly solicited and collated the grievances of the revenue generating athletes and worked towards addressing them as fast as possible. Meal plans didn't need to be highlighted during the Final Four to be resolved. Settling the issue a imagine licensing should have been a quickly handled as well, especially since EA Sports solved the problem for the NCAA. The only reason I can fathom for Emmert's reticence in dealing with these issues in a timely manner is that he is deathly afraid of challenging Title IX.
04-23-2014 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #493
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-23-2014 09:41 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(04-22-2014 10:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN should encourage the ACC to release N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC and to add Texas, Oklahoma, and Baylor to the ACC. The requirement for the move should be Notre Dame going all in. If the Irish refuse add Oklahoma State to get to 16.

Kansas can go to the Big 10 along with either Iowa State or Connecticut.

If the Irish go all in then Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech go to the PAC.

Such a move would give the ACC 4 national brand football schools (Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Florida State) Clemson is a strong regional brand and Miami's name has outlived their umph.

This move would please the SEC with markets without making them stronger in football or weaker in football. And the move would essentially make the ACC an equal with the Big 10 and SEC.

There's not much you can do for the PAC except give them 4 central time zone slots to with which to sell more inventory. Texas and Oklahoma would lose money moving to the PAC.

With the new guidelines Slive has been speaking about if anyone drops out of the P5 because of the increased cost you have West Virginia, T.C.U., B.Y.U., Connecticut and Cincinnati to back fill with. If there are 8 eligible G5 schools and former P5 schools willing to go all in on the new measures then simply increase the existing conference by two each.

It's time to get her done and get on with other things like reforming basketball to make it more profitable.

The glacial movements of the NCAA is starting to bite the leaders of college athletics in the backside. People have been writing books and blogs about this matter for awhile, so the shock and confusion I see from their ranks regarding issues like the O'Bannon case or Unionization is quite baffling. Continued dithering will force the P5 to take some kind of action, if for no other reason than to mitigate the damage that's already been done.

I found the unlimited meal plan decision an instructive insight into the quagmire the NCAA faces. Emmert believes he has made a rational concession when in actuality he has fully lost control of the narrative. He's allowed columnists and authors to paint the NCAA as a money hoarding functionary when in actuality college athletics as a whole is a marginally profitable endeavor.

A more proactive leader would have quickly solicited and collated the grievances of the revenue generating athletes and worked towards addressing them as fast as possible. Meal plans didn't need to be highlighted during the Final Four to be resolved. Settling the issue a imagine licensing should have been a quickly handled as well, especially since EA Sports solved the problem for the NCAA. The only reason I can fathom for Emmert's reticence in dealing with these issues in a timely manner is that he is deathly afraid of challenging Title IX.
Vandiver, the NCAA is a "money hoarding functionary". They bankroll into endowment between $60 - 70 million a year and most of that comes from the basketball tournament which the NCAA uses the proceeds and setup from to basically provide a type of welfare for the smaller programs. Since the smaller programs all have basketball whether they have football or not that buys the NCAA the majority of votes they need to maintain control of the schools that actually generate the revenue. The expansion of the tournament to include miniscule conferences was not about inclusion it was about control. There have been less than a handful of 15 and 16 seeds to make the sweet sixteen but their inclusion tipped the balance of political power within the NCAA. So while I agree with the rest of your post, I just wanted to say that the media didn't get their analysis wrong here.

Why does any oversight organization need to build a half billion dollar endowment and withhold 70 million in profits from schools that actually need it or earned it? It has become another quasi-governmental parasite attached to a host that presently has cache. The total capital reserves of the NCAA are now just over 3/4's of a billion.
04-23-2014 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #494
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
JR,

I fully understand that the NCAA, despite holding championships at all levels for multitudes of unprofitable sports, clears a pretty nice profit. I was simply trying to state that if I were in Emmert's shoes, that is the approach I would take. He is actively NOT defending his position in a way that my non-media savvy mind finds stupefying.
04-23-2014 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #495
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-23-2014 12:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  JR,

I fully understand that the NCAA, despite holding championships at all levels for multitudes of unprofitable sports, clears a pretty nice profit. I was simply trying to state that if I were in Emmert's shoes, that is the approach I would take. He is actively NOT defending his position in a way that my non-media savvy mind finds stupefying.

I totally agree with that Vandiver. And I did understand and agree with the tenor of your remarks, sorry if I misunderstood the implicit understanding of their self serving profits.
04-23-2014 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #496
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
It cool JR. Like I said, its just interesting to watch the NCAA ship burn to the waterline.
04-23-2014 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #497
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-23-2014 01:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It cool JR. Like I said, its just interesting to watch the NCAA ship burn to the waterline.

I just wish someone would open the scuttle cocks and finish her off!
04-23-2014 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #498
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-23-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-23-2014 01:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It cool JR. Like I said, its just interesting to watch the NCAA ship burn to the waterline.

I just wish someone would open the scuttle cocks and finish her off!
Wonder where the rats will all land after they jump ship...lol
04-25-2014 12:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #499
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-25-2014 12:53 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-23-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-23-2014 01:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It cool JR. Like I said, its just interesting to watch the NCAA ship burn to the waterline.

I just wish someone would open the scuttle cocks and finish her off!
Wonder where the rats will all land after they jump ship...lol

If the NCAA doesn't make it, I think the next governing body would be more closely tied to the conferences. The P5 would be the equivalent of the UN Security Council while everyone else sends a couple of reps. I think you would see enforcement and investigation dwindle significantly within this body.
04-25-2014 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #500
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-25-2014 07:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(04-25-2014 12:53 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-23-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-23-2014 01:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It cool JR. Like I said, its just interesting to watch the NCAA ship burn to the waterline.

I just wish someone would open the scuttle cocks and finish her off!
Wonder where the rats will all land after they jump ship...lol

If the NCAA doesn't make it, I think the next governing body would be more closely tied to the conferences. The P5 would be the equivalent of the UN Security Council while everyone else sends a couple of reps. I think you would see enforcement and investigation dwindle significantly within this body.

Bingo! That's the unstated reason the P5 are pursuing the present changes. Obviously the proposals address needs of the athletes. But the full cost of tuition, living expense stipends which include things like travel for the athletes families to the games, and other perks including access to agents all wipes out the vast majority of reasons for NCAA investigations. So the unstated reason for pursuing it is the elimination of a bloodsucking bureaucracy that indulges itself to the tune of 70 million a year.

Illegal substances, felonies, and other crimes are handled by the legal system. With the new rules there would be only 1 issue for enforcement and it should have been the only reason, inappropriate inducements. No property gifts, no cash gifts above the stipend and benefits and tuition, and no pimped sex for recruits. If the new organization can eliminate most of the inappropriate and illegal inducements then it will be doing its job. So when Nevin Shapiro runs a string of hookers to a party boat to recruit for the U he gets nailed instead of having politics bungle the investigation, on purpose.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2014 10:58 AM by JRsec.)
04-25-2014 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.