(10-23-2018 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Was just about to dive into this.

If the case unfolds as people project it to then we've got an interesting situation.

The TV contracts will still be paramount because that's where the variable in money comes from, but I think something interesting in the article was the idea that culture more than economics would be a factor in determining who's willing to spend on players. That and the idea of conferences potentially deciding their own rules rather than a structure being forced on them from the NCAA.

1. I do agree that the SEC would be all in, but I don't see Vanderbilt or most of the other privates surviving this.

2. I think there are a ton of ACC schools that would pony up some cash, but would cap the limits around football and essentially align themselves in a fashion that emphasized basketball success as much as anything. The Dukes and UNCs of the world like competing against each other and I'm sure it would be no holds barred for basketball recruits, but you don't have a ton of basketball players. It would be financially wise to limit expenditures on football players because there are so many and you're probably not getting the best ones anyway.

Schools like Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech are probably allowed to bolt under certain conditions.

3. The Big Ten is an interesting case. Some schools are elite while most are kind of middling. I could see most of them paying the going rate while some of the schools dropped down perhaps although not many.

4. The Big 12 is probably getting divided up anyway.

5. The PAC 12 is in a tough position. I don't know that very many of those schools would want to pay the highest rates and there's really nowhere for any of those schools to go if they wanted to move to a higher spending league.

(10-23-2018 10:58 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Was just about to dive into this.

If the case unfolds as people project it to then we've got an interesting situation.

The TV contracts will still be paramount because that's where the variable in money comes from, but I think something interesting in the article was the idea that culture more than economics would be a factor in determining who's willing to spend on players. That and the idea of conferences potentially deciding their own rules rather than a structure being forced on them from the NCAA.

1. I do agree that the SEC would be all in, but I don't see Vanderbilt or most of the other privates surviving this.

2. I think there are a ton of ACC schools that would pony up some cash, but would cap the limits around football and essentially align themselves in a fashion that emphasized basketball success as much as anything. The Dukes and UNCs of the world like competing against each other and I'm sure it would be no holds barred for basketball recruits, but you don't have a ton of basketball players. It would be financially wise to limit expenditures on football players because there are so many and you're probably not getting the best ones anyway.

Schools like Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech are probably allowed to bolt under certain conditions.

3. The Big Ten is an interesting case. Some schools are elite while most are kind of middling. I could see most of them paying the going rate while some of the schools dropped down perhaps although not many.

4. The Big 12 is probably getting divided up anyway.

5. The PAC 12 is in a tough position. I don't know that very many of those schools would want to pay the highest rates and there's really nowhere for any of those schools to go if they wanted to move to a higher spending league.

Would be very interesting if those football ACC schools found a loophole to leave if the ACC didn’t set their spending limits to match the other top conferences. The ACC could decide to match the spending limits on players versus other conferences and just let their schools decide what they want to spend. I could easily see the majority of SEC schools spending at or near that limit yearly while maybe a handful of ACC schools would. That would seem par for the course with the next question being how will this alter recruiting?

On a side note, paying players might actually improve the basketball product. Less one and done players and more second round picks staying a year or two longer will really improve the talent across the sport/league(s).

(10-23-2018 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:58 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Was just about to dive into this.

If the case unfolds as people project it to then we've got an interesting situation.

The TV contracts will still be paramount because that's where the variable in money comes from, but I think something interesting in the article was the idea that culture more than economics would be a factor in determining who's willing to spend on players. That and the idea of conferences potentially deciding their own rules rather than a structure being forced on them from the NCAA.

1. I do agree that the SEC would be all in, but I don't see Vanderbilt or most of the other privates surviving this.

2. I think there are a ton of ACC schools that would pony up some cash, but would cap the limits around football and essentially align themselves in a fashion that emphasized basketball success as much as anything. The Dukes and UNCs of the world like competing against each other and I'm sure it would be no holds barred for basketball recruits, but you don't have a ton of basketball players. It would be financially wise to limit expenditures on football players because there are so many and you're probably not getting the best ones anyway.

Schools like Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech are probably allowed to bolt under certain conditions.

3. The Big Ten is an interesting case. Some schools are elite while most are kind of middling. I could see most of them paying the going rate while some of the schools dropped down perhaps although not many.

4. The Big 12 is probably getting divided up anyway.

5. The PAC 12 is in a tough position. I don't know that very many of those schools would want to pay the highest rates and there's really nowhere for any of those schools to go if they wanted to move to a higher spending league.

Would be very interesting if those football ACC schools found a loophole to leave if the ACC didn’t set their spending limits to match the other top conferences. The ACC could decide to match the spending limits on players versus other conferences and just let their schools decide what they want to spend. I could easily see the majority of SEC schools spending at or near that limit yearly while maybe a handful of ACC schools would. That would seem par for the course with the next question being how will this alter recruiting?

On a side note, paying players might actually improve the basketball product. Less one and done players and more second round picks staying a year or two longer will really improve the talent across the sport/league(s).

I'm not sure there would be spending limits on the upper tier if this happens. I think what would define the upper tier from an emerging mid tier would be that the mid tier would insist upon caps.

I do believe that 13 of the SEC schools would move to the upper tier. I can see about 8 of the present Big 10 schools doing the same. I don't think that Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa, Rutgers or Maryland would be a part of it.

The ACC schools would fool you. I can foresee Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville all moving to upper tier. I believe that Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Duke, and Wake Forest would not. The question marks here would be Miami and Notre Dame whose fan bases may lean upper tier but whose administration might lean in favor of caps.

The Big 12 would break down by State vs Private. I think even Kansas and Iowa State would seek to be top tier. I believe that while T.C.U. and Baylor would want to be that ultimately they would seek a cap and settle into the conference that would primarily be made up of privates.

In California (as in all things) I believe the state schools would seek a cap and that USC would seek to move upper tier. Stanford in this case would side with the state schools and seek a cap and this might help the N.D. administration sell their decision to do the same.

Oregon, Washington, the two Arizonas, Colorado, and Utah would go likely go upper tier IMO. Colorado although could go the other way.

Anyway I think the upper tier could have between 38 to 44 schools depending on which way the ones on the fence jumped.

(10-23-2018 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To put this into a visible idea:

B1G:
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

PAC:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

SEC:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

ACC:
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

B12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia

So how do you pare those down into divisions?

South:

Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Southwest:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

North:

Iowa, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin

West:

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

(10-23-2018 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To put this into a visible idea:

B1G:
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

PAC:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

SEC:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

ACC:
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

B12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia

So how do you pare those down into divisions?

South:

Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Southwest:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

North:

Iowa, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin

West:

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

(10-23-2018 05:53 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To put this into a visible idea:

B1G:
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

PAC:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

SEC:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

ACC:
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

B12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia

So how do you pare those down into divisions?

South:

Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Southwest:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

North:

Iowa, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin

West:

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

Two questions:

1) Does the model allow for schools to transition upward? Downward would be easier, I presume. I suspect there’d be something to allow for a school to move up as an indepdent with the hopes of gaining an invite.

2) Does this effect basketball and other sports or would football conferences be a completely separate entity?

(10-23-2018 06:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 05:53 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To put this into a visible idea:

B1G:
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

PAC:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

SEC:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

ACC:
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

B12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia

So how do you pare those down into divisions?

South:

Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Southwest:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

North:

Iowa, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin

West:

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

Two questions:

1) Does the model allow for schools to transition upward? Downward would be easier, I presume. I suspect there’d be something to allow for a school to move up as an indepdent with the hopes of gaining an invite.

2) Does this effect basketball and other sports or would football conferences be a completely separate entity?

1. I believe movement upwards and downwards would be much easier in this model. It would simply be a matter of removing salary caps for players or imposing them. No caps and you move up. Implement caps and you move down. Since the tier would be the new conference and individual schools simply grouped regionally your only limitation to expansion would be balance of scheduling. You would probably have to move up when one dropped down from your region, or move up in groups of 4.

2. Does this affect basketball and other sports? I expect basketball to be a salary cap no salary cap division as well. The rest of the sports not so much with the exception that if men's sports are paid it will affect the number of women's sports that have to offered under Title IX. I expect to see women's sports keep basketball, softball, soccer, and volleyball. I would think that golf, tennis, gymnastics, and possibly volleyball and soccer to fall under the guidance of the IOC.

(10-23-2018 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To put this into a visible idea:

B1G:
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

PAC:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

SEC:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

ACC:
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

B12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia

So how do you pare those down into divisions?

South:

Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Southwest:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

North:

Iowa, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin

West:

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

(10-23-2018 09:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To put this into a visible idea:

B1G:
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

PAC:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

SEC:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

ACC:
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

B12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia

So how do you pare those down into divisions?

South:

Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Southwest:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

North:

Iowa, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin

West:

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, Washington

Let me take a stab at this...

I think they'd probably limit divisions to 8 members so they could leave room for interdivisional play. That and the geography would be a little tighter for those annual games.

That and I think the promise of huge money may lead a few schools to join up.

West:
UCLA, USC, Stanford, California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Arizona State

Central:
Utah, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Nebraska

Midwest:
Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State

South:
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama

East:
Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Atlantic:
Notre Dame, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State

I think 48 schools fits very neatly and I would imagine that some schools might persuade some of their old rivals to come along just to make everything congruent. That and if the requirement is to agree to no caps then some of these schools will be fine not landing top recruits. Some of these schools aren't concerned with competing at the highest level while membership with the highest level schools might pay dividends even if they don't win a ton of games.

At the end of the season you could take the 6 division winners along with 2 wildcards and play an 8 team CFP. You've effectively replaced the conference championship round at that point so no additional games are added to the schedule.

(10-23-2018 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:58 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Was just about to dive into this.

If the case unfolds as people project it to then we've got an interesting situation.

The TV contracts will still be paramount because that's where the variable in money comes from, but I think something interesting in the article was the idea that culture more than economics would be a factor in determining who's willing to spend on players. That and the idea of conferences potentially deciding their own rules rather than a structure being forced on them from the NCAA.

1. I do agree that the SEC would be all in, but I don't see Vanderbilt or most of the other privates surviving this.

2. I think there are a ton of ACC schools that would pony up some cash, but would cap the limits around football and essentially align themselves in a fashion that emphasized basketball success as much as anything. The Dukes and UNCs of the world like competing against each other and I'm sure it would be no holds barred for basketball recruits, but you don't have a ton of basketball players. It would be financially wise to limit expenditures on football players because there are so many and you're probably not getting the best ones anyway.

Schools like Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech are probably allowed to bolt under certain conditions.

3. The Big Ten is an interesting case. Some schools are elite while most are kind of middling. I could see most of them paying the going rate while some of the schools dropped down perhaps although not many.

4. The Big 12 is probably getting divided up anyway.

5. The PAC 12 is in a tough position. I don't know that very many of those schools would want to pay the highest rates and there's really nowhere for any of those schools to go if they wanted to move to a higher spending league.

Would be very interesting if those football ACC schools found a loophole to leave if the ACC didn’t set their spending limits to match the other top conferences. The ACC could decide to match the spending limits on players versus other conferences and just let their schools decide what they want to spend. I could easily see the majority of SEC schools spending at or near that limit yearly while maybe a handful of ACC schools would. That would seem par for the course with the next question being how will this alter recruiting?

On a side note, paying players might actually improve the basketball product. Less one and done players and more second round picks staying a year or two longer will really improve the talent across the sport/league(s).

I'm not sure there would be spending limits on the upper tier if this happens. I think what would define the upper tier from an emerging mid tier would be that the mid tier would insist upon caps.

I do believe that 13 of the SEC schools would move to the upper tier. I can see about 8 of the present Big 10 schools doing the same. I don't think that Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa, Rutgers or Maryland would be a part of it.

The ACC schools would fool you. I can foresee Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville all moving to upper tier. I believe that Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Duke, and Wake Forest would not. The question marks here would be Miami and Notre Dame whose fan bases may lean upper tier but whose administration might lean in favor of caps.

The Big 12 would break down by State vs Private. I think even Kansas and Iowa State would seek to be top tier. I believe that while T.C.U. and Baylor would want to be that ultimately they would seek a cap and settle into the conference that would primarily be made up of privates.

In California (as in all things) I believe the state schools would seek a cap and that USC would seek to move upper tier. Stanford in this case would side with the state schools and seek a cap and this might help the N.D. administration sell their decision to do the same.

Oregon, Washington, the two Arizonas, Colorado, and Utah would go likely go upper tier IMO. Colorado although could go the other way.

Anyway I think the upper tier could have between 38 to 44 schools depending on which way the ones on the fence jumped.

(10-25-2018 02:17 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:58 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Was just about to dive into this.

If the case unfolds as people project it to then we've got an interesting situation.

The TV contracts will still be paramount because that's where the variable in money comes from, but I think something interesting in the article was the idea that culture more than economics would be a factor in determining who's willing to spend on players. That and the idea of conferences potentially deciding their own rules rather than a structure being forced on them from the NCAA.

1. I do agree that the SEC would be all in, but I don't see Vanderbilt or most of the other privates surviving this.

2. I think there are a ton of ACC schools that would pony up some cash, but would cap the limits around football and essentially align themselves in a fashion that emphasized basketball success as much as anything. The Dukes and UNCs of the world like competing against each other and I'm sure it would be no holds barred for basketball recruits, but you don't have a ton of basketball players. It would be financially wise to limit expenditures on football players because there are so many and you're probably not getting the best ones anyway.

Schools like Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech are probably allowed to bolt under certain conditions.

3. The Big Ten is an interesting case. Some schools are elite while most are kind of middling. I could see most of them paying the going rate while some of the schools dropped down perhaps although not many.

4. The Big 12 is probably getting divided up anyway.

5. The PAC 12 is in a tough position. I don't know that very many of those schools would want to pay the highest rates and there's really nowhere for any of those schools to go if they wanted to move to a higher spending league.

Would be very interesting if those football ACC schools found a loophole to leave if the ACC didn’t set their spending limits to match the other top conferences. The ACC could decide to match the spending limits on players versus other conferences and just let their schools decide what they want to spend. I could easily see the majority of SEC schools spending at or near that limit yearly while maybe a handful of ACC schools would. That would seem par for the course with the next question being how will this alter recruiting?

On a side note, paying players might actually improve the basketball product. Less one and done players and more second round picks staying a year or two longer will really improve the talent across the sport/league(s).

I'm not sure there would be spending limits on the upper tier if this happens. I think what would define the upper tier from an emerging mid tier would be that the mid tier would insist upon caps.

I do believe that 13 of the SEC schools would move to the upper tier. I can see about 8 of the present Big 10 schools doing the same. I don't think that Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa, Rutgers or Maryland would be a part of it.

The ACC schools would fool you. I can foresee Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville all moving to upper tier. I believe that Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Duke, and Wake Forest would not. The question marks here would be Miami and Notre Dame whose fan bases may lean upper tier but whose administration might lean in favor of caps.

The Big 12 would break down by State vs Private. I think even Kansas and Iowa State would seek to be top tier. I believe that while T.C.U. and Baylor would want to be that ultimately they would seek a cap and settle into the conference that would primarily be made up of privates.

In California (as in all things) I believe the state schools would seek a cap and that USC would seek to move upper tier. Stanford in this case would side with the state schools and seek a cap and this might help the N.D. administration sell their decision to do the same.

Oregon, Washington, the two Arizonas, Colorado, and Utah would go likely go upper tier IMO. Colorado although could go the other way.

Anyway I think the upper tier could have between 38 to 44 schools depending on which way the ones on the fence jumped.

Why don't you think Iowa would be a part of the upper tier? Iowa is usually top 20 in revenue and has good fan support.

(10-25-2018 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 02:17 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:58 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Was just about to dive into this.

If the case unfolds as people project it to then we've got an interesting situation.

The TV contracts will still be paramount because that's where the variable in money comes from, but I think something interesting in the article was the idea that culture more than economics would be a factor in determining who's willing to spend on players. That and the idea of conferences potentially deciding their own rules rather than a structure being forced on them from the NCAA.

1. I do agree that the SEC would be all in, but I don't see Vanderbilt or most of the other privates surviving this.

2. I think there are a ton of ACC schools that would pony up some cash, but would cap the limits around football and essentially align themselves in a fashion that emphasized basketball success as much as anything. The Dukes and UNCs of the world like competing against each other and I'm sure it would be no holds barred for basketball recruits, but you don't have a ton of basketball players. It would be financially wise to limit expenditures on football players because there are so many and you're probably not getting the best ones anyway.

Schools like Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech are probably allowed to bolt under certain conditions.

3. The Big Ten is an interesting case. Some schools are elite while most are kind of middling. I could see most of them paying the going rate while some of the schools dropped down perhaps although not many.

4. The Big 12 is probably getting divided up anyway.

5. The PAC 12 is in a tough position. I don't know that very many of those schools would want to pay the highest rates and there's really nowhere for any of those schools to go if they wanted to move to a higher spending league.

Would be very interesting if those football ACC schools found a loophole to leave if the ACC didn’t set their spending limits to match the other top conferences. The ACC could decide to match the spending limits on players versus other conferences and just let their schools decide what they want to spend. I could easily see the majority of SEC schools spending at or near that limit yearly while maybe a handful of ACC schools would. That would seem par for the course with the next question being how will this alter recruiting?

On a side note, paying players might actually improve the basketball product. Less one and done players and more second round picks staying a year or two longer will really improve the talent across the sport/league(s).

I'm not sure there would be spending limits on the upper tier if this happens. I think what would define the upper tier from an emerging mid tier would be that the mid tier would insist upon caps.

I do believe that 13 of the SEC schools would move to the upper tier. I can see about 8 of the present Big 10 schools doing the same. I don't think that Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa, Rutgers or Maryland would be a part of it.

The ACC schools would fool you. I can foresee Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville all moving to upper tier. I believe that Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Duke, and Wake Forest would not. The question marks here would be Miami and Notre Dame whose fan bases may lean upper tier but whose administration might lean in favor of caps.

The Big 12 would break down by State vs Private. I think even Kansas and Iowa State would seek to be top tier. I believe that while T.C.U. and Baylor would want to be that ultimately they would seek a cap and settle into the conference that would primarily be made up of privates.

In California (as in all things) I believe the state schools would seek a cap and that USC would seek to move upper tier. Stanford in this case would side with the state schools and seek a cap and this might help the N.D. administration sell their decision to do the same.

Oregon, Washington, the two Arizonas, Colorado, and Utah would go likely go upper tier IMO. Colorado although could go the other way.

Anyway I think the upper tier could have between 38 to 44 schools depending on which way the ones on the fence jumped.

Why don't you think Iowa would be a part of the upper tier? Iowa is usually top 20 in revenue and has good fan support.

Sorry, I meant to say Indiana. In other posts on this issue I've included Iowa every time as I have Minnesota as well.

Illinois I exclude because of state budget support and woeful performance. Maryland and Rutgers, Indiana and Purdue because of emphasis (although Purdue is up right now), and Northwestern are the six I see as most likely not to make the jump.

(10-25-2018 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 02:17 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:58 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Was just about to dive into this.

If the case unfolds as people project it to then we've got an interesting situation.

The TV contracts will still be paramount because that's where the variable in money comes from, but I think something interesting in the article was the idea that culture more than economics would be a factor in determining who's willing to spend on players. That and the idea of conferences potentially deciding their own rules rather than a structure being forced on them from the NCAA.

1. I do agree that the SEC would be all in, but I don't see Vanderbilt or most of the other privates surviving this.

2. I think there are a ton of ACC schools that would pony up some cash, but would cap the limits around football and essentially align themselves in a fashion that emphasized basketball success as much as anything. The Dukes and UNCs of the world like competing against each other and I'm sure it would be no holds barred for basketball recruits, but you don't have a ton of basketball players. It would be financially wise to limit expenditures on football players because there are so many and you're probably not getting the best ones anyway.

Schools like Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech are probably allowed to bolt under certain conditions.

3. The Big Ten is an interesting case. Some schools are elite while most are kind of middling. I could see most of them paying the going rate while some of the schools dropped down perhaps although not many.

4. The Big 12 is probably getting divided up anyway.

5. The PAC 12 is in a tough position. I don't know that very many of those schools would want to pay the highest rates and there's really nowhere for any of those schools to go if they wanted to move to a higher spending league.

Would be very interesting if those football ACC schools found a loophole to leave if the ACC didn’t set their spending limits to match the other top conferences. The ACC could decide to match the spending limits on players versus other conferences and just let their schools decide what they want to spend. I could easily see the majority of SEC schools spending at or near that limit yearly while maybe a handful of ACC schools would. That would seem par for the course with the next question being how will this alter recruiting?

On a side note, paying players might actually improve the basketball product. Less one and done players and more second round picks staying a year or two longer will really improve the talent across the sport/league(s).

I'm not sure there would be spending limits on the upper tier if this happens. I think what would define the upper tier from an emerging mid tier would be that the mid tier would insist upon caps.

I do believe that 13 of the SEC schools would move to the upper tier. I can see about 8 of the present Big 10 schools doing the same. I don't think that Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa, Rutgers or Maryland would be a part of it.

The ACC schools would fool you. I can foresee Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville all moving to upper tier. I believe that Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Duke, and Wake Forest would not. The question marks here would be Miami and Notre Dame whose fan bases may lean upper tier but whose administration might lean in favor of caps.

The Big 12 would break down by State vs Private. I think even Kansas and Iowa State would seek to be top tier. I believe that while T.C.U. and Baylor would want to be that ultimately they would seek a cap and settle into the conference that would primarily be made up of privates.

In California (as in all things) I believe the state schools would seek a cap and that USC would seek to move upper tier. Stanford in this case would side with the state schools and seek a cap and this might help the N.D. administration sell their decision to do the same.

Oregon, Washington, the two Arizonas, Colorado, and Utah would go likely go upper tier IMO. Colorado although could go the other way.

Anyway I think the upper tier could have between 38 to 44 schools depending on which way the ones on the fence jumped.

Why don't you think Iowa would be a part of the upper tier? Iowa is usually top 20 in revenue and has good fan support.

Sorry, I meant to say Indiana. In other posts on this issue I've included Iowa every time as I have Minnesota as well.

Illinois I exclude because of state budget support and woeful performance. Maryland and Rutgers, Indiana and Purdue because of emphasis (although Purdue is up right now), and Northwestern are the six I see as most likely not to make the jump.

(12-10-2018 12:28 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did this case wrap up and is now in the hands of the Judge?

(12-10-2018 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:28 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did this case wrap up and is now in the hands of the Judge?

Possibly. I haven't seen a recent posting or news headline on it.