(02-15-2020 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 02:59 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 02:27 PM)chester Wrote:  I wouldn't be too concerned about caps in lower divisions until such time as they're challenged, which will be probably be never.

Which will happen as soon as the all of FBS avoids the entire issue by dropping down a division. I suspect all the P5 schools would rather do that than have student athlete employees and have to pay players. Will it really matter to them or TV if its 63 scholarships instead of 85? The NCAA will of course allow them to create their FCS-A division with its own playoff that---surprise surprise---looks like the FBS post season. FCS-B wiil continue on as the old FCS. Then we start the whole law suit over again?

If the option exists, Im pretty sure the P5 administrators are going to simply say---then we choose "scholarship only" football. Either its legal for everyone or its legal for nobody....or you modify the law (which is what Ive been saying).

Few if any P5 schools would do that, IMO. Certainly not all. One conference or another would say, Hey wait a second. We would own the whole scene by forming our own division or association. The fans of the remaining P5s would then demand that their own schools follow them. After all, those fans are used to competing at the top level.

The NCAA will give those schools whatever they want. They would gladly allow them to jump to FCS, and then give them a sub-division that looks exactly like FBS. It would be the top level of college football--just as it is now. Heck, that top level has had several different names over the decades---University division, D1-A, and now FBS. The name is irrelevant. I suspect what is more important to them than the name is not paying players. Here is what Big10 commissioner Jim Delany said a few years ago.

...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."


https://www.thedailygopher.com/2013/3/19...on-lawsuit

If your going to allow the "scholarship only" model to exist, then there the schools that want to use the model will use it. In fact, if your going to allow schools to use the scholarship only model---then there is no basis to make FBS schools discard it. Either it is illegal or its not.

I actually thought about that quote a moment ago and considered bringing it up. Anyway, it's nonsense. If Alston appellees end up getting the relief they want and B1G schools don't pay players, than SEC schools and others surely will. And if other schools are paying players, the B1G surely will.