(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I think you have it about right, give or take a few schools.

(10-22-2018 11:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  There's another article from 2015 linked in the OP article where the schools are separated into two predicted tiers, though it doesn't really explain their method. Also, they're missing Duke, Eastern Michigan, Charlotte (soon to join FBS at the time of writing), and UAB (dropping FBS at the time), as well as Coastal Carolina and Liberty (neither FBS at the time). Duke is mentioned in the article as likely lower tier, and I assume the other 5 would be lower tier as well.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ociations/

Pay Tier (74)
ACC (10): Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami-FL, NC State, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
American (7): Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida
Big 12 (9): Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia
Big Ten (13): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin
CUSA (4): Louisiana Tech, Marshall, UTEP, Western Kentucky
Ind (1): BYU
MWC (6): Boise State, Colorado State, Nevada, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah State
Pac-12 (10): Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
SEC (13): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M
Sun Belt (1): Louisiana-Lafayette

Why would any of the G5 elect to be in the pay tier when they can't afford it?

The concept is ND and Stanford along with academically minded P5 decide to push the idea of a new split for those who want to stay the amateur route. With those schools moving down to essentially join the G5 and taking the bowl system with them it would benefit all the current G5.

The new non-pay tier keeps the bowl system but sets the rules to their liking. Requiring a 7-5 record (6-6 APR back up) would keep the number of bowls around 18 or 20. All conference champs guaranteed a NYD bowl with at-larges filled by ranking. Rose Bowl could be Notre Dame vs. Boise State for example. Orange Bowl could be Georgia Tech vs. UCF. It would be mainly P5 like schools in the very biggest bowl games but it would not preclude an Appy St. in there if they had a Top 10 team. Its just all the athletes would be 2 to 3 star athletes in the non-pay tier with out the 4-5 star studs.

Why would they not?
The Ivy League has no qualms about playing against pretty much all comers without scholarships in every sport except football (with some scheduling exceptions) and they cap their schedule such that playing scholarship programs isn't a need.

What is the difference in say Ohio playing Virginia when UVA has the advantage in coaching salaries and "consultants" who serve as coaches except cannot recruit or coach in a game and has the recruiting advantage of a major conference, great TV exposure, facilities, history, and attractive home schedules vs UVA having a player payroll of $1.7 million above the value of a scholarship?

Nothing is really changing the balance of power.

Nick Saban might have to actually boot Joe Dud instead of him seeking transfer for playing time because he doesn't want to give up the better pay.

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

Football is still unique in college sports. I could see a much smaller upper tier that competes for its own championship via a playoff along the lines of the NFL model. These schools are not eligible for bowls.

Organized something like this:

SEC East: Florida, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina
SEC Central: Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee
SEC West: Ole Miss, Mississippi St, LSU, Arkansas

Big Ten East: Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St
Big Ten Central: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri
Big Ten West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M

Each school plays every team in its division, two teams from the other divisions in its conference, and one team from each division in the other conference. Each team plays a total of ten games that count in determining eligibility for a 12 team playoff.

The two division champions with the best record in these ten games get a first round bye. The three non-champs with the best records join the third division champion in the first round. The playoff championship, called the College Bowl, is played on the first Monday night after New Year's Day.

Each team plays its first two regular season games (that don't count in the standings) against FBS opponents of their choosing. This allows teams to maintain long standing rivalries and fill their huge stadiums with buy games.

For all other sports, this top division competes in the NCAA Division I under whatever scholarship / compensation rules then apply.

Noticable by its absence are the PAC 12 and Notre Dame, which I believe would opt to compete against schools that don't pay their football players.

(10-22-2018 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I don't see that.

I think you could have some that say "not playing" and choose to not compensate and refuse to play those who do.

Everyone else will cobble along.

It probably won't make a big difference in results on the field other than some richer programs that struggle in recruiting can pay their way out of their recruiting disadvantages.

You will have those who compensate competitively, those who cap compensation will make up tier II, and those who cap compensation at low levels will make up tier III. There may be some among the Tier III everyone else that would step up to tier II, or maybe a few in tier II that would step up to Tier I or drop down to the Tier III, but I don't see any of them in Tier I or Tier II giving up football, or refusing to compensate at all.

I don't seen anyone listed in Tier I or Tier II that would simply refuse to pay at all. They all make too much off of athletics not to.

What I could see being dropped are non revenues beyond those women's sports that would satisfy Title IX. Men's football, basketball, baseball, and hockey would remain. Women's basketball, softball, & soccer would likely stay and toss in volleyball and gymnastics to keep up to enough scholarships to offset the men's sports. Country club sports and track and field might have to fall under the US Olympic committee and its rules.

Thats what I was wondering. If your paying them---and they are employess---then Title9 ceases to be an issue. Those 85 scholarships no longer need to be offset. Also, isnt that a major issue that missing in this pay-for-play argument? No, the athletes are not compensated like they would be on the "for profit free market"---but the "for profit free market" is also not required to lose revenue providing a women's league that has no reasonable chance of making any money. i mean, womens sports is largely a money losing proposition---and much of it only exists due to the Title9 need to offset those 85 mens scholarships with an adequate number of womens scholarship opportunities.

I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

Athletic Departments would likely add an accounting firm to their overhead to handle these matters for athletes.

But it would be interesting to see how it would play out.

Interesting stuff about Title IX here, but given the current composition of SCOTUS, I have a feeling that Title IX could be ruled unconstitutional in the coming years. That could A) Free schools to shut down all women's sports or B) Free schools to shut down all OTHER sports to feed the Football money machine.*

*Yeah, I could see universities drop hoops, even if those programs are profitable.

(10-23-2018 08:24 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just pointing out for everyone putting TCU in the lower bracket, you are clearly not familiar with the sheer amount of West Texas oil money that school commands.

Rice is even richer but will not choose to pay for play. TCU definitely will.

SMU is an interesting case.

They could actually afford it easily too and (ironically) legally buy their way back to the back time.

Baylor is the one that needs to be worried.

Of the Big 4 private schools they have the least money

Baylor is fine. Traditionally, the endowment is comparable to TCU/SMU, although that has ground to a halt over the past few years for obvious reasons. Baylor has a large alumni base relative to the other private schools and has demonstrated great success in fundraising.

Despite all the flak people like to throw at Baylor there is more fundamental reason they were able to go to the Big 12 at the time of formation that goes beyond mere politics. Baylor simply has a larger support base than the other private schools and Houston. Once the house gets back in order and the university can finally move forward, the base will return as always.

(10-23-2018 10:34 AM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 08:24 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just pointing out for everyone putting TCU in the lower bracket, you are clearly not familiar with the sheer amount of West Texas oil money that school commands.

Rice is even richer but will not choose to pay for play. TCU definitely will.

SMU is an interesting case.

They could actually afford it easily too and (ironically) legally buy their way back to the back time.

Baylor is the one that needs to be worried.

Of the Big 4 private schools they have the least money

Baylor is fine. Traditionally, the endowment is comparable to TCU/SMU, although that has ground to a halt over the past few years for obvious reasons. Baylor has a large alumni base relative to the other private schools and has demonstrated great success in fundraising.

Despite all the flak people like to throw at Baylor there is more fundamental reason they were able to go to the Big 12 at the time of formation that goes beyond mere politics. Baylor simply has a larger support base than the other private schools and Houston. Once the house gets back in order and the university can finally move forward, the base will return as always.

And then you'll have another scandal, move past it, and repeat. You may to admit this school has had tons of issues since 2000. I have no idea why this wouldn't continue in the future.

(10-22-2018 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

If the athletes are paid by the university, this can't work, unless each athlete is being paid the same amount.

If the university is paying football and men's basketball players and no one else, then they have the same problem they'd have if the only paid professors were men and they told all female professors to work for free.

They'd have to do something like permitting boosters to create a private corporation that operates the football and men's basketball programs, and license the use of the university's name and logos to the corporation and rent stadiums and arenas to it.

My top (pay) tier (Post #23) requires reshuffling of existing FBS conferences. My best guess:

Big Nine: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Vanderbilt

AAC (looks like OBE): Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia

ACC: Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Big 12: Baylor, Central Florida, Houston, Kansas State, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, TCU, Texas Tech

Now, some of these schools might be willing to pay for play. My take is that they wouldn't be invited by one of the two Big Dog conferences to join them.

I could see this pared down FBS (106 schools) deciding to cut back on the number of football scholarships (possibly 75 FTEs while allowing partial scholarships to bring the total scholarship roster as high as 90) to further reduce costs. This would allow a reduction of 20 FTEs (10 football and 10 women's sports) without running afoul of Title IX).

(10-23-2018 11:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

If the athletes are paid by the university, this can't work, unless each athlete is being paid the same amount.

If the university is paying football and men's basketball players and no one else, then they have the same problem they'd have if the only paid professors were men and they told all female professors to work for free.

They'd have to do something like permitting boosters to create a private corporation that operates the football and men's basketball programs, and license the use of the university's name and logos to the corporation and rent stadiums and arenas to it.

I've made this argument before. Direct payment creates far more problems for universities than it solves. Licensing at least alleviates many of the problems or moves them into an investor issue.

The schools will be under attack to get worker's comp coverage, to afford the same benefits given to other full-time university employees (ie. health insurance, paid leave, retirement). Protection from being fired without an escalated discipline system that includes remediation. Protection from being "fired" because the player didn't develop the breakaway speed expected at WR despite showing up every day, and performing their job duties but just not performing them at an elite level. Academic eligibility requirements would be suspect if college football becomes employment because they may run afoul of ADA. Five year employment limits would be suspect as well.

That's all before you get to gender issues.

Within the P5, if costs and expenses continue to escalate and transform college athletics into minor league football, I think there are a number of schools that would decide to take a step back and restrict spending. This would include, among possibly others, Baylor, Boston College, California, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, UCLA, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. Inevitably, you would practically have all the top state/public schools from within the P5 have its own division, and then the academic/private schools establish their own guidelines. This would not prevent schools from playing one another, but perhaps just have its own set of expectations/rules for programs to follow.

Taking these programs out of the P5, you could have the following:

ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
B1G: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia
PAC: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
SEC: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

Breaking those programs into five divisions:

Midwest: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Eastern: Louisville, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Penn State, Rutgers, South Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Southeast: Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Southwest: Arkansas, Kansas, Kansas State, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Oregon State, USC, Utah Washington, Washington State

For the 15 programs that de-emphasize football spending, they could be recognized as independents in football (but not granted access to the CFP) and schedule one another in football. For non-football sports, they can remain non-football members (i.e. California/Stanford/UCLA all remain in the PAC, Baylor can remain in the Big 12, Northwestern/Purdue can remain in the B1G, Vanderbilt can remain in the SEC).

@ the end of the CBS Article
"They (NCAA) are going to get routed. They're going to lose.
If I was them (NCAA),
I would have cut a deal [with the plaintiffs] a long time ago.”

It has been discussed B4
that the next P5 TV negotiations
Could “force” a realignment of the
Super P5 ’s from the rest of the Pack
Have their own network/playoffs/rules etc

24/36/48? Even up to 60 teams?

What happens when it becomes
A “free” market for athletes
Highest bidder gets the recruit?
How many P5’s can keep up?

Do the Big Networks really want
To pay Big $$$$
($100 million per team/per yr?}
Big Bucks $$$$ for lower tier P5’s as well as 4 any G5 teams?

(10-23-2018 11:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 11:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

If the athletes are paid by the university, this can't work, unless each athlete is being paid the same amount.

If the university is paying football and men's basketball players and no one else, then they have the same problem they'd have if the only paid professors were men and they told all female professors to work for free.

They'd have to do something like permitting boosters to create a private corporation that operates the football and men's basketball programs, and license the use of the university's name and logos to the corporation and rent stadiums and arenas to it.

I've made this argument before. Direct payment creates far more problems for universities than it solves. Licensing at least alleviates many of the problems or moves them into an investor issue.

The schools will be under attack to get worker's comp coverage, to afford the same benefits given to other full-time university employees (ie. health insurance, paid leave, retirement). Protection from being fired without an escalated discipline system that includes remediation. Protection from being "fired" because the player didn't develop the breakaway speed expected at WR despite showing up every day, and performing their job duties but just not performing them at an elite level. Academic eligibility requirements would be suspect if college football becomes employment because they may run afoul of ADA. Five year employment limits would be suspect as well.

That's all before you get to gender issues.

Your arguments always head for the rabbit hole. I suppose then that states that can terminate employees for any reason would have an advantage.

If we go down this path the players will be taxed. In college sports they won't hang around long enough to retire from anything. What universities provide will depend upon what expenses the players choose to shoulder to offset tax liability.

The change would flip collegiate sports on their ear, but like all things it would sort itself out within a few years. What we have right now is a massive and intentional gray area where things operate in ways less than above board. And these players won't command NFL wages. I think the greatest obstacle to it will be America's obvious propensity to deny reality when it comes to matters we invest our emotions into. People deny corruption within their religious systems, deny corruption within their political systems, deny corruption within their sports organizations, and do so because all are an extension of self and the last thing we want to take a close look at are our own motives.

Just what does the present system teach our athletes? Mostly that to get ahead you have to play the system and that everybody does it, but only a few unlucky ones are made an example of to sate the public's phony sense of morality. I call that nuts!

Pay the players above board, tax them appropriately, and teach them that there are right and wrong ways to live and that doing it the right way means living with a clear conscience. When our kids learn the benefits of that the lure of gangs and organized crime will be somewhat diminished. Paying the players above board will clean up a some of the sleaze that has become college athletics.

Whatever time it takes to for the rest of us to get use to the changes will have been worth it. How many Baylor, Penn State, Louisville, North Carolina situations, and how many bag men does it take to show just how corrosive the present system is?

BTW: It will also give most schools much better A.D.'s when those positions have to be accountable to the profitability of the programs rather than to function as pimps matching up donors with prospects whether they assist the hook ups or delegate that to a more expendable member of their staff like the coaches!

(10-23-2018 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 11:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 11:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

If the athletes are paid by the university, this can't work, unless each athlete is being paid the same amount.

If the university is paying football and men's basketball players and no one else, then they have the same problem they'd have if the only paid professors were men and they told all female professors to work for free.

They'd have to do something like permitting boosters to create a private corporation that operates the football and men's basketball programs, and license the use of the university's name and logos to the corporation and rent stadiums and arenas to it.

I've made this argument before. Direct payment creates far more problems for universities than it solves. Licensing at least alleviates many of the problems or moves them into an investor issue.

The schools will be under attack to get worker's comp coverage, to afford the same benefits given to other full-time university employees (ie. health insurance, paid leave, retirement). Protection from being fired without an escalated discipline system that includes remediation. Protection from being "fired" because the player didn't develop the breakaway speed expected at WR despite showing up every day, and performing their job duties but just not performing them at an elite level. Academic eligibility requirements would be suspect if college football becomes employment because they may run afoul of ADA. Five year employment limits would be suspect as well.

That's all before you get to gender issues.

Your arguments always head for the rabbit hole. I suppose then that states that can terminate employees for any reason would have an advantage.

If we go down this path the players will be taxed. In college sports they won't hang around long enough to retire from anything. What universities provide will depend upon what expenses the players choose to shoulder to offset tax liability.

The change would flip collegiate sports on their ear, but like all things it would sort itself out within a few years. What we have right now is a massive and intentional gray area where things operate in ways less than above board. And these players won't command NFL wages. I think the greatest obstacle to it will be America's obvious propensity to deny reality when it comes to matters we invest our emotions into. People deny corruption within their religious systems, deny corruption within their political systems, deny corruption within their sports organizations, and do so because all are an extension of self and the last thing we want to take a close look at are our own motives.

Just what does the present system teach our athletes? Mostly that to get ahead you have to play the system and that everybody does it, but only a few unlucky ones are made an example of to sate the public's phony sense of morality. I call that nuts!

Pay the players above board, tax them appropriately, and teach them that there are right and wrong ways to live and that doing it the right way means living with a clear conscience. When our kids learn the benefits of that the lure of gangs and organized crime will be somewhat diminished. Paying the players above board will clean up a some of the sleaze that has become college athletics.

Whatever time it takes to for the rest of us to get use to the changes will have been worth it. How many Baylor, Penn State, Louisville, North Carolina situations, and how many bag men does it take to show just how corrosive the present system is?

BTW: It will also give most schools much better A.D.'s when those positions have to be accountable to the profitability of the programs rather than to function as pimps matching up donors with prospects whether they assist the hook ups or delegate that to a more expendable member of their staff like the coaches!

Arena pays little more than gas money and there are plenty of players wanting to latch on there.

If you have played four years and aren't in position to make NFL or even CFL which likely would pay better than colleges, why wouldn't you want to play 8 years for a college?

Sure it would be wonderful to do something about the cheating. Hell look at the facilities spending to help recruiting, makes more sense to spend that money on the players, ditto the inflation of coaching salaries. If you "can't" pay the players you spend on what you can control.

But paying players comes with other costs and consequences. There is no free lunch.

(10-23-2018 12:06 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Within the P5, if costs and expenses continue to escalate and transform college athletics into minor league football, I think there are a number of schools that would decide to take a step back and restrict spending. This would include, among possibly others, Baylor, Boston College, California, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, UCLA, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. Inevitably, you would practically have all the top state/public schools from within the P5 have its own division, and then the academic/private schools establish their own guidelines. This would not prevent schools from playing one another, but perhaps just have its own set of expectations/rules for programs to follow.

Taking these programs out of the P5, you could have the following:

ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
B1G: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia
PAC: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
SEC: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M

Breaking those programs into five divisions:

Midwest: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Eastern: Louisville, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Penn State, Rutgers, South Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Southeast: Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Southwest: Arkansas, Kansas, Kansas State, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Oregon State, USC, Utah Washington, Washington State

For the 15 programs that de-emphasize football spending, they could be recognized as independents in football (but not granted access to the CFP) and schedule one another in football. For non-football sports, they can remain non-football members (i.e. California/Stanford/UCLA all remain in the PAC, Baylor can remain in the Big 12, Northwestern/Purdue can remain in the B1G, Vanderbilt can remain in the SEC).

I might split those 50 up a bit differently:

ACC ("East"): Clemson, Maryland, NC State, North Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers, South Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Big Ten ("North"): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Pac-10 ("West"): Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Texas Tech, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
SEC ("South"): Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisville, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Tennessee
SWC ("Central"): Arkansas, Kansas, Kansas State, LSU, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

Just did some musical chairs, with Clemson to ACC/East, Louisville to SEC/South, Missouri to SWC/Central, Nebraska to Big Ten/North, and Texas Tech to Pac-10/West. Splits Tech from the other Texas schools but unites the Kentucky schools and the South Carolina schools.

(10-23-2018 11:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

If the athletes are paid by the university, this can't work, unless each athlete is being paid the same amount.

If the university is paying football and men's basketball players and no one else, then they have the same problem they'd have if the only paid professors were men and they told all female professors to work for free.

They'd have to do something like permitting boosters to create a private corporation that operates the football and men's basketball programs, and license the use of the university's name and logos to the corporation and rent stadiums and arenas to it.

Thats a false comparison. Its like requiring the US military to hire as many women as men.

The only reason for football and basketball players to be paid is because they make money and a court is forcing the schools to treat football and mens basketball players as the private industry would treat free agents. Women's sports have no significant monetary value. In fact, they are typically a significant drain on athletic department resources. The only reason many womens college sports even exist is due to regulations.

I just dont see how the courts can have it both ways. If the schools must act like private industry, then release then from Title9 restrictions. On the other hand---if the courts find college athletics is something different from the typical free market private industry enterprise, then the amateur model should remain in place along with Title9 regulations.

I just dont see how you can have both a free market and Title9. They exist in two different realms.

Is this a case of "Be careful what you wish for cause you just might get it?"

Will this be a “whoever can do it” or will it be by invitation only? What I mean is, if there’s a separation and Colorado St can match whatever the top tier does, will they get a PAC invite or would they compete independently in the top tier?

(10-23-2018 01:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Is this a case of "Be careful what you wish for cause you just might get it?"

Whenever I see these breakouts no one ever talks about how those in the top league will still have to have winners and losers.

How long does, for example an Ole Miss or Arizona State want to be a whipping boy to the real power schools in the top league and watch their attendance and support fall off the ledge?

My guess is forever, actually, because the money will fall over itself to get into the Ole Miss or Arizona coffers. Never mind.

(10-23-2018 02:07 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Will this be a “whoever can do it” or will it be by invitation only? What I mean is, if there’s a separation and Colorado St can match whatever the top tier does, will they get a PAC invite or would they compete independently in the top tier?

If the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs were to be granted, then I presume it would be by invitation only. That is, they are asking that conferences be allowed to set their own rules. They aren't asking that conferences be required to accept all applicants.

(10-23-2018 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If we go down this path the players will be taxed.

Of course they will be taxed. Graduate student stipends are taxed. Undergrads who have work/study jobs like working in a university restaurant or bookstore have taxes, social security, etc. taken out of their paychecks, just as they would if they worked in an off-campus restaurant or store.