(05-02-2018 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

Many of the stipend packages already include insurance for the players. So that's built in to a certain extent for some conferences already. But it does raise a solid point about making that kind of coverage universal. I would assume the fair thing to do would be to adjust coverage to meet the higher requirements so that it would be uniformed.

(05-02-2018 03:17 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:21 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:22 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Jrsec, do you know when this court ruling will be ?

It's under the same Federal judge that handled the case related to rights to personal images (the O'Bannon case I believe). The legality of a cap on stipends is being challenged as a restraint upon free trade and remuneration. There was no date set on the ruling and these kinds of cases usually take some time to play out. I think the O'Bannon case took over a year. I'm sure when there is an outcome it will be appealed and then we will wait on that ruling too.

But I do feel somewhat confident that this will be wrapped up prior to any further realignment. I wouldn't be surprised if this case took until 2020 to settle after appeal, and the next waive of realignment probably won't occur until 2023-5.

I link the two because the ruling of this case could change the composition of every NCAA conference. There are schools who could afford to pay players and there are schools who can't afford to go down that road and that divide will stretch from the FCS to the A5. I see it as being potentially the single most disruptive force the game has faced.

I think it will prove very interesting if it does happen. I also think that it will open the eyes of some on these boards as to who is inflating/deflating their expenses to appear to be nearly "breaking even" in athletics and who are keeping the true figures hidden to hide either larger deficits or larger gains.

Cheers,
Neil

When scholarships are counted in the 10's of thousands for each athlete and the TV revenue alone is counted in the 10's of millions for some of these conferences, is it really that hard to figure out which is which?

Likewise when some conferences earn TV revenue in the single digits of millions and the average football team will spend between 2 to 3 million in travel per season is it really that hard to figure out which is which?

I think the surprises would be found nearer the bottom 1/3rd of the the A5 and the top 1/3rd of the G5.

But are scholarships (or at least the tuition portion of them) truly counted or are they an accounting illusion?

Do athletic scholarships really count toward whatever number of students an institution needs to pay 'x' tuition to reach that annual operating budget or is the institutional budget for that year truly 'x' number of students outside of athletic scholarships plus the athletic scholarship recipients as over and above the budgetary estimates? Is there a difference between how state schools must report this to their respective states versus privates who have more autonomous control?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Cheers,
Neil

I've never delved into that aspect of things so I don't know. But it would seem to me that if things change a standardized accounting system should be one of the implementations of the whatever becomes the oversight committee.

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What ends up happening in pay/play is what baseball coaches deal with already. Who gets a full ride? Who gets 50%? Who gets a quarter ride?

It's analogous to baseball IF the coaches are in control of who gets paid and how much. If boosters, agents, and shoe companies decide who to give their money to, that's very different.

I see what arkstfan is saying. Baseball does operate that way now. But I believe the gist of moving to this kind of system would be to get away from direct gifts to players and for the University to have oversight of all revenue distributed to its employees. Don't corporations insist upon the same? I think depending upon how the athletes employment is defined that it is possible for a legal avenue to be created with regard to donor and sponsors. Cleaning it up requires that we provide a legal pathway that is clear for both the players and the sponsors & donors.

I can visualize top players sitting at a big table “ Sotheby’s style “ waiting on the highest bidder
Networks would go crazy to televise such an event

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What ends up happening in pay/play is what baseball coaches deal with already. Who gets a full ride? Who gets 50%? Who gets a quarter ride?

It's analogous to baseball IF the coaches are in control of who gets paid and how much. If boosters, agents, and shoe companies decide who to give their money to, that's very different.

I have a hard time imagining a system where the athletic department isn't doing the bulk of doling out. If you are Cal do you trust Nike to allocate dollars or push athletes in a direction that represents your best interests? Do you trust agents to not be on the dole from another school or trying to curry favor with another school?

More likely the schools pay and if the player can earn extra, so be it but let's remember why the NCAA rules are so convoluted, no one trusts anyone else. Adding outside income sources magnifies that.

(05-02-2018 04:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it's just the nature of the beast that college football will always sit right on the edge between amateurism and semi-professionalism.

I think the cost of attendence payments were meant to try help reduce the flow of under the table cash moving around. Letting athletes receive endorsement money I think only serves to make the system more corrupt.

[b][b]The solution is for the top conferences/programs to pull their football out of the NCAA into an organization that can set and enforce its own rules[/b][/b]. The trick is going to be finding a way to provide players compensation with having to treat them like employees.

That's what the NCAA is.

There really is only one incurable flaw in the NCAA (aside from the members tending to pass reactionary regulations) and that is that it the one-size fits system means none of the sports are optimally governed.

It would be an administrative mess but it would make far more sense to have track and field governed by USATF, soccer by USSF, and so on.

With the academy system growing soccer would be better served with changes such as permitting players to play on pro teams even if they remain "amateur". You can play on an amateur team against pros but cannot be on the same squad. That makes no sense for soccer at all.

The only sport that I might not want to put under the national sport governing body might be basketball, for hoops moving to AAU makes the colleges the beast in the organization and gives them the leverage to direct governance of AAU hoops.

(05-02-2018 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

Many of the stipend packages already include insurance for the players. So that's built in to a certain extent for some conferences already. But it does raise a solid point about making that kind of coverage universal. I would assume the fair thing to do would be to adjust coverage to meet the higher requirements so that it would be uniformed.

The thing is if for example the athlete goes on payroll in Pennsylvania he has to be covered under worker's comp UNLESS he has coverage as the result of collective bargaining. Penn State, Pitt, Temple need collective bargaining. Pitt's conference mates Virginia and Virginia Tech cannot engage in collective bargaining with their employees.

It's just not easily cleaned up so everyone is just going to have to accept that there will be less than ideal outcomes for some.

Chatting with a friend who is a recruitnik and former college assistant coach, he raises an interesting point I hadn't considered.

A high school football player who signs a contract in December of his senior year would be ineligible in many states to participate in basketball, baseball and track in the spring unless the state federations change their rules.

(05-02-2018 11:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have a hard time imagining a system where the athletic department isn't doing the bulk of doling out. If you are Cal do you trust Nike to allocate dollars or push athletes in a direction that represents your best interests? Do you trust agents to not be on the dole from another school or trying to curry favor with another school?

That's already true with the system we have now, especially but not exclusively for basketball. Can the Cal coach really trust that an AAU coach, or an Under Armour rep, is really helping him persuade an elite player to go to Cal, or are those guys turning around and telling the kid to go to another UA program, like UCLA, instead? (They probably are.) High school coaches, "advisors", etc., already can't necessarily be trusted by college coaches. That's one reason recruiting is so volatile and there are so many athletes who change their minds at the last minute, because different people with different agendas are pulling them in many directions.

(05-03-2018 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

Many of the stipend packages already include insurance for the players. So that's built in to a certain extent for some conferences already. But it does raise a solid point about making that kind of coverage universal. I would assume the fair thing to do would be to adjust coverage to meet the higher requirements so that it would be uniformed.

The thing is if for example the athlete goes on payroll in Pennsylvania he has to be covered under worker's comp UNLESS he has coverage as the result of collective bargaining. Penn State, Pitt, Temple need collective bargaining. Pitt's conference mates Virginia and Virginia Tech cannot engage in collective bargaining with their employees.

It's just not easily cleaned up so everyone is just going to have to accept that there will be less than ideal outcomes for some.

I'd have to think that they would not be state employees anymore and therefore free to form unions. As you said earlier to form a separation between the school, a state funded and tax-exempt entity and what would then be a professional sports entity the school would likely lease the name/images to the new entity. So these new for profit entities would have to be fully-self sufficient. No money from the state, school or student fees. No tax deductible donations. TV, licensing and ticket revenue but the licensing would probably still stay with the school. It'd be a mess and IMO unsustainable. Nobody will go rushing in to a situation where their athletes are no longer considered amateurs. College athletics is amateur sports. Schools will try their damnedest to continue to walk the line.

(05-03-2018 12:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Chatting with a friend who is a recruitnik and former college assistant coach, he raises an interesting point I hadn't considered.

A high school football player who signs a contract in December of his senior year would be ineligible in many states to participate in basketball, baseball and track in the spring unless the state federations change their rules.

That's actually a good thing. The whole early signing garbage has gotten way out of control. There needs to be a narrow and defined window for signing. I never understood why we got away from that. And it's been a while since I had to brush up on contract law, but couldn't a high school athlete sign a letter of intent, and follow that up with an actual contract his first day on campus?

(05-03-2018 11:05 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

Many of the stipend packages already include insurance for the players. So that's built in to a certain extent for some conferences already. But it does raise a solid point about making that kind of coverage universal. I would assume the fair thing to do would be to adjust coverage to meet the higher requirements so that it would be uniformed.

The thing is if for example the athlete goes on payroll in Pennsylvania he has to be covered under worker's comp UNLESS he has coverage as the result of collective bargaining. Penn State, Pitt, Temple need collective bargaining. Pitt's conference mates Virginia and Virginia Tech cannot engage in collective bargaining with their employees.

It's just not easily cleaned up so everyone is just going to have to accept that there will be less than ideal outcomes for some.

I'd have to think that they would not be state employees anymore and therefore free to form unions. As you said earlier to form a separation between the school, a state funded and tax-exempt entity and what would then be a professional sports entity the school would likely lease the name/images to the new entity. So these new for profit entities would have to be fully-self sufficient. No money from the state, school or student fees. No tax deductible donations. TV, licensing and ticket revenue but the licensing would probably still stay with the school. It'd be a mess and IMO unsustainable. Nobody will go rushing in to a situation where their athletes are no longer considered amateurs. College athletics is amateur sports. Schools will try their damnedest to continue to walk the line.

Well I guess that will be determined by how the court sees stipends and what might be considered legal grant and aid or cost of living vs actual pay for play.

But I certainly agree that what you suggest could be a logical outcome. But anyone with any time spent around major college athletics understands that amateurism as the Olympics once defined it, is extinct. College athletics lost its virginity a long long time ago and the money involved has certainly swamped any reasonable understanding of "amateur" status. So while schools may want to do their damnedest to walk that line, the courts may rule that the line has been obliterated and that the further pursuit an athletic business that grosses in some cases over 200 million a year (Texas) is indeed what it is, a for profit business run by an agent of the state, that really has an unfair advantage over other for profit models of athletic entertainment. And that the schools are indeed profiting by and off the backs of laborers who are not compensated for their contributions to that endeavor in any proportionate or meaningful way.

We can play word games, and our legal system loves to do that, but prima facie there can really only be one outcome. It's a taxable business and for many of the players these may be their peak earning years that are being taken from them under the guise of getting an education.

(05-03-2018 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 11:05 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

Many of the stipend packages already include insurance for the players. So that's built in to a certain extent for some conferences already. But it does raise a solid point about making that kind of coverage universal. I would assume the fair thing to do would be to adjust coverage to meet the higher requirements so that it would be uniformed.

The thing is if for example the athlete goes on payroll in Pennsylvania he has to be covered under worker's comp UNLESS he has coverage as the result of collective bargaining. Penn State, Pitt, Temple need collective bargaining. Pitt's conference mates Virginia and Virginia Tech cannot engage in collective bargaining with their employees.

It's just not easily cleaned up so everyone is just going to have to accept that there will be less than ideal outcomes for some.

I'd have to think that they would not be state employees anymore and therefore free to form unions. As you said earlier to form a separation between the school, a state funded and tax-exempt entity and what would then be a professional sports entity the school would likely lease the name/images to the new entity. So these new for profit entities would have to be fully-self sufficient. No money from the state, school or student fees. No tax deductible donations. TV, licensing and ticket revenue but the licensing would probably still stay with the school. It'd be a mess and IMO unsustainable. Nobody will go rushing in to a situation where their athletes are no longer considered amateurs. College athletics is amateur sports. Schools will try their damnedest to continue to walk the line.

Well I guess that will be determined by how the court sees stipends and what might be considered legal grant and aid or cost of living vs actual pay for play.

But I certainly agree that what you suggest could be a logical outcome. But anyone with any time spent around major college athletics understands that amateurism as the Olympics once defined it, is extinct. College athletics lost its virginity a long long time ago and the money involved has certainly swamped any reasonable understanding of "amateur" status. So while schools may want to do their damnedest to walk that line, the courts may rule that the line has been obliterated and that the further pursuit an athletic business that grosses in some cases over 200 million a year (Texas) is indeed what it is, a for profit business run by an agent of the state, that really has an unfair advantage over other for profit models of athletic entertainment. And that the schools are indeed profiting by and off the backs of laborers who are not compensated for their contributions to that endeavor in any proportionate or meaningful way.

We can play word games, and our legal system loves to do that, but prima facie there can really only be one outcome. It's a taxable business and for many of the players these may be their peak earning years that are being taken from them under the guise of getting an education.

Amateurism as the Olympics once defined it, is indeed extinct, especially in the Olympics. And good riddance to it. Somehow, over time, the public got this notion that amateurism was some sort of ideal state. It was never an ideal. It certainly wasn't a part of the Olympics in ancient Greece.

The modern Olympics adopted "amateurism" as a way to keep the common folk from participating. Its founders were trying to create a venue in which the aristocracy could compete against their peers without having to rub shoulders with commoners. The Olympics were intended as a playground for wealthy people who could afford to play without the burden of having to work for a living. They meant to exclude people like Jim Thorpe, whose medals were stripped from him because he didn't fit in with their world.

So, let's just give amateurism the burial it so richly deserves, and let the market set the rules for participation at every level of competition.

(05-03-2018 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 11:05 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

Many of the stipend packages already include insurance for the players. So that's built in to a certain extent for some conferences already. But it does raise a solid point about making that kind of coverage universal. I would assume the fair thing to do would be to adjust coverage to meet the higher requirements so that it would be uniformed.

The thing is if for example the athlete goes on payroll in Pennsylvania he has to be covered under worker's comp UNLESS he has coverage as the result of collective bargaining. Penn State, Pitt, Temple need collective bargaining. Pitt's conference mates Virginia and Virginia Tech cannot engage in collective bargaining with their employees.

It's just not easily cleaned up so everyone is just going to have to accept that there will be less than ideal outcomes for some.

I'd have to think that they would not be state employees anymore and therefore free to form unions. As you said earlier to form a separation between the school, a state funded and tax-exempt entity and what would then be a professional sports entity the school would likely lease the name/images to the new entity. So these new for profit entities would have to be fully-self sufficient. No money from the state, school or student fees. No tax deductible donations. TV, licensing and ticket revenue but the licensing would probably still stay with the school. It'd be a mess and IMO unsustainable. Nobody will go rushing in to a situation where their athletes are no longer considered amateurs. College athletics is amateur sports. Schools will try their damnedest to continue to walk the line.

Well I guess that will be determined by how the court sees stipends and what might be considered legal grant and aid or cost of living vs actual pay for play.

But I certainly agree that what you suggest could be a logical outcome. But anyone with any time spent around major college athletics understands that amateurism as the Olympics once defined it, is extinct. College athletics lost its virginity a long long time ago and the money involved has certainly swamped any reasonable understanding of "amateur" status. So while schools may want to do their damnedest to walk that line, the courts may rule that the line has been obliterated and that the further pursuit an athletic business that grosses in some cases over 200 million a year (Texas) is indeed what it is, a for profit business run by an agent of the state, that really has an unfair advantage over other for profit models of athletic entertainment. And that the schools are indeed profiting by and off the backs of laborers who are not compensated for their contributions to that endeavor in any proportionate or meaningful way.

We can play word games, and our legal system loves to do that, but prima facie there can really only be one outcome. It's a taxable business and for many of the players these may be their peak earning years that are being taken from them under the guise of getting an education.

You're right if it's still considered a stipend but there would almost have to be a cap if that's the case. And FYI these are currently taxable to the student-athlete. Everything but the academic scholarship is taxable. So room, board and COA stipend they should pay taxes on.

Amateurism in college sports is still the majority of the activities. It's just football and men's basketball that break that mold. If school's do leave the amateur model either by choice or force there's a lot of legal and tax pitfall's that in the long run would not be good for the programs IMO. It'll be interesting to see what happens to say the least. Congress may have to step in and create carve outs in the laws but with rising college costs many taxpayers might be asking why more of those profits aren't flowing back into the schools instead of perpetuating an arms race of athletic facilities and coaching salary spending. I'm surprised it hasn't already.

(05-03-2018 11:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 11:05 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Many of the stipend packages already include insurance for the players. So that's built in to a certain extent for some conferences already. But it does raise a solid point about making that kind of coverage universal. I would assume the fair thing to do would be to adjust coverage to meet the higher requirements so that it would be uniformed.

The thing is if for example the athlete goes on payroll in Pennsylvania he has to be covered under worker's comp UNLESS he has coverage as the result of collective bargaining. Penn State, Pitt, Temple need collective bargaining. Pitt's conference mates Virginia and Virginia Tech cannot engage in collective bargaining with their employees.

It's just not easily cleaned up so everyone is just going to have to accept that there will be less than ideal outcomes for some.

I'd have to think that they would not be state employees anymore and therefore free to form unions. As you said earlier to form a separation between the school, a state funded and tax-exempt entity and what would then be a professional sports entity the school would likely lease the name/images to the new entity. So these new for profit entities would have to be fully-self sufficient. No money from the state, school or student fees. No tax deductible donations. TV, licensing and ticket revenue but the licensing would probably still stay with the school. It'd be a mess and IMO unsustainable. Nobody will go rushing in to a situation where their athletes are no longer considered amateurs. College athletics is amateur sports. Schools will try their damnedest to continue to walk the line.

Well I guess that will be determined by how the court sees stipends and what might be considered legal grant and aid or cost of living vs actual pay for play.

But I certainly agree that what you suggest could be a logical outcome. But anyone with any time spent around major college athletics understands that amateurism as the Olympics once defined it, is extinct. College athletics lost its virginity a long long time ago and the money involved has certainly swamped any reasonable understanding of "amateur" status. So while schools may want to do their damnedest to walk that line, the courts may rule that the line has been obliterated and that the further pursuit an athletic business that grosses in some cases over 200 million a year (Texas) is indeed what it is, a for profit business run by an agent of the state, that really has an unfair advantage over other for profit models of athletic entertainment. And that the schools are indeed profiting by and off the backs of laborers who are not compensated for their contributions to that endeavor in any proportionate or meaningful way.

We can play word games, and our legal system loves to do that, but prima facie there can really only be one outcome. It's a taxable business and for many of the players these may be their peak earning years that are being taken from them under the guise of getting an education.

You're right if it's still considered a stipend but there would almost have to be a cap if that's the case. And FYI these are currently taxable to the student-athlete. Everything but the academic scholarship is taxable. So room, board and COA stipend they should pay taxes on.

Amateurism in college sports is still the majority of the activities. It's just football and men's basketball that break that mold. If school's do leave the amateur model either by choice or force there's a lot of legal and tax pitfall's that in the long run would not be good for the programs IMO. It'll be interesting to see what happens to say the least. Congress may have to step in and create carve outs in the laws but with rising college costs many taxpayers might be asking why more of those profits aren't flowing back into the schools instead of perpetuating an arms race of athletic facilities and coaching salary spending. I'm surprised it hasn't already.

Yep, in another thread on the main board I strongly suggested that there be a mandate to send a % (I recommended 20 to 25%) of the Gross profits of the Athletic Department back into the general budget of the Academic side of the school.

I feel that this will keep the A.D. more frugal with how the profits are spent and also keep all schools accountable to their main mission.

Such a mandate might be able to preserve the tax exempt status of the money making sports and in so doing leave only the taxable portions of full attendance funds to athletes taxable. I don't know if this is possible but it seems to me to be a good compromise.

(04-30-2018 10:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Going with JR’s list and X’s ACC opt outs (but including Miami who wasn’t listed on either), we could see these new conferences:

B1G
West: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, TCU
Central: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
North: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
Central: Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
North: Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia
East: Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Georgia, Florida, Florida St, Miami

How about this instead?

Big 40
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, NC State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
North: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
Central: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Tennessee
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington

(05-03-2018 05:33 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 10:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Going with JR’s list and X’s ACC opt outs (but including Miami who wasn’t listed on either), we could see these new conferences:

B1G
West: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, TCU
Central: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
North: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
Central: Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
North: Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia
East: Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Georgia, Florida, Florida St, Miami

How about this instead?

Big 40
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, NC State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
North: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
Central: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Tennessee
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington

If you're telling me the Hokies get to play Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, NC State, South Carolina and West Virginia every year... SIGN ME UP! The only drawback I see: no way could I afford season tickets!

(05-01-2018 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What would payroll be collegiate semi-pro football?

Are colleges really going to be willing to eschew all traces of amateurism and strike out with a bold new plan like this?

In the South you could concievably have a a fall amateur season and then in spring hold a semi-pro, 10 week season where seniors, underclassmen declaring for the draft, and alums playing.

The trouble with previous start up leagues is finding a fan base but if the teams were directly tied to major universities with big fan bases the fans are already built in. Finding fans for a Birmingham XFL or AAF team might be a challenge but if you put that team in Crimson I think you pick up a substantial following. Eventually you might see a shift to where fans care more about the spring league than the fall league and the top H.S. players skip he amateur team and go straight to semi-pro.

Also, they are closer to being student-athletes than they were a generation ago. You can't get somebody through now who can't read like Dexter Manley. NCAA minimums exist.

(05-04-2018 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What would payroll be collegiate semi-pro football?

Are colleges really going to be willing to eschew all traces of amateurism and strike out with a bold new plan like this?

In the South you could concievably have a a fall amateur season and then in spring hold a semi-pro, 10 week season where seniors, underclassmen declaring for the draft, and alums playing.

The trouble with previous start up leagues is finding a fan base but if the teams were directly tied to major universities with big fan bases the fans are already built in. Finding fans for a Birmingham XFL or AAF team might be a challenge but if you put that team in Crimson I think you pick up a substantial following. Eventually you might see a shift to where fans care more about the spring league than the fall league and the top H.S. players skip he amateur team and go straight to semi-pro.

Also, they are closer to being student-athletes than they were a generation ago. You can't get somebody through now who can't read like Dexter Manley. NCAA minimums exist.

You can get a star athlete into college who acquired his HS diploma a year early by taking lightly-regulated online courses, and then, if he's a basketball player, all that same athlete has to do is stay barely eligible for one semester before turning pro after March Madness.

Also, maybe other schools don't have an institutionalized easy path for athletes that is quite as egregious as what was uncovered at North Carolina, but IMO it's very likely that many other schools have their own easy path for athletes to stay eligible for 3 or 4 years, even if it stays a little or a lot closer to a legitimate college curriculum than UNC's path did.

So I'm still going to roll my eyes when Mark Emmert or some conference commissioner uses the phrase "student-athlete" two or three times in each sentence.

(05-04-2018 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What would payroll be collegiate semi-pro football?

Are colleges really going to be willing to eschew all traces of amateurism and strike out with a bold new plan like this?

In the South you could concievably have a a fall amateur season and then in spring hold a semi-pro, 10 week season where seniors, underclassmen declaring for the draft, and alums playing.

The trouble with previous start up leagues is finding a fan base but if the teams were directly tied to major universities with big fan bases the fans are already built in. Finding fans for a Birmingham XFL or AAF team might be a challenge but if you put that team in Crimson I think you pick up a substantial following. Eventually you might see a shift to where fans care more about the spring league than the fall league and the top H.S. players skip he amateur team and go straight to semi-pro.

Also, they are closer to being student-athletes than they were a generation ago. You can't get somebody through now who can't read like Dexter Manley. NCAA minimums exist.

You can get a star athlete into college who acquired his HS diploma a year early by taking lightly-regulated online courses, and then, if he's a basketball player, all that same athlete has to do is stay barely eligible for one semester before turning pro after March Madness.

Also, maybe other schools don't have an institutionalized easy path for athletes that is quite as egregious as what was uncovered at North Carolina, but IMO it's very likely that many other schools have their own easy path for athletes to stay eligible for 3 or 4 years, even if it stays a little or a lot closer to a legitimate college curriculum than UNC's path did.

So I'm still going to roll my eyes when Mark Emmert or some conference commissioner uses the phrase "student-athlete" two or three times in each sentence.

With the available rules for most regular students being utilized (including academic probation) by athletes as well just about any kind of a recruit can stay in school and play for a year, particularly in football where the semester starts in the Fall. Toss in enough crip courses and keep the course load to a minimum and two years is easily doable by simply keeping the gpa up and it doesn't mean a darn thing about how well the kid can perform in the classroom. The third year is the toughest to get by. That's when tutors basically drill test questions into their heads. Some actually don't make that cut and the fact that they don't make it is astounding considering what they are taking and how much help they have at their disposal.

So no, I'm not buying the "student-athlete" moniker at all. It's all fan fiction to believe that the bulk of these kids are getting it done in the classroom. As with Auburn basketball this year we had 1 kid (Mclemore) who passed admission at M.I.T.. Those kids can go anywhere, play anywhere, and still succeed. But that's 1 in 500 maybe. Then you have those who can play and remain average or slightly above in the classroom. That's maybe 1 in 50. The rest, not so much, and then the blame is at the high school level where they were permitted to slide in order to please the local touchdown and hoops clubs.