(02-08-2019 08:02 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: (02-08-2019 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-08-2019 02:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: Adding academic-oriented private schools, but accepted as not full qualifiers for football, but useful as projected cupcakes, makes a statement, and not a good one.
Then you obviously didn't read my post! I said that Vanderbilt would likely only keep two SEC teams on their schedule, Tennessee and Ole Miss. Nobody would make enough by playing them if they were treated like a G5. Hence, if Rice were added they wouldn't be playing anyone except maybe Texas and that's if they keep football at all after Alston. I also noted that Vanderbilt might not keep football.
They would be played in Hoops and Baseball and would only receive an equal revenue share for those two for profit televised sports.
Nobody would be adding a cupcake because those kinds of schools would not be playing an SEC schedule in football at all. They would be treated like a G5 non conference game if scheduled at all and most of our schools don't do home and home's with G5s.
I am not an expert on Alston and have followed the story lightly, perusing a few articles, here and there. From what I understood, it is a court case still on the docket. Perhaps the decision will be monumental (followed by appeals), maybe it will get tossed. I have expected something more moderate.
I read all the thoughts here. I am not opposed to the concept of adding Rice and Tulane with accommodation per football that allows them to reasonably compete in the sport. Major modifications in payouts would be obvious. Such could allow the privates to be even more competitive in bb and bb and garner more FB wins functioning in a more appropriate model.
My suggested approach is in terms of methodology, not in terms of earnings which would be inherent. Rather than conditional admittance, rules would allow an opt-out, in conference play (not dropping the sport) for a particular sport, available to any member through a window. Playing a more limited quantity of conference members in the opted sport does not need to be negated. Otherwise, I am not a proponent of the Tranghese-Marinatto approach to conference membership. That didn't work out so well for the long-term, much to the dismay of Boise State and SDSU, among other costly upheaval in the old BE. While that is not a fair comparison to the highly stable and strong SEC, it is going hybrid. But the ACC chose such with Notre Dame, so the fondness for it still exists.
I simply see it as the lesser of two evils. If Alston wins what it means is not only will pay for play be instituted but the Alston case specifically attacks the ruling on setting caps on compensation, especially compensation disguised as cost of living stipends. In short an end to amateurism.
It is highly doubtful that Northwestern, Wake Forest, or Vanderbilt could continue under such a model for football. Basketball has so few scholarships and baseball until now has mostly been half scholarships with a few full scholarships. Absorbing the costs there may be worth it to smaller privates in that it keeps their names viable and in the mind of the public.
Would it be good for their branding to leave their respective conferences? No. Would it be good for their conferences to have to play an even more diminished football product that they would place on the field? No.
I got what you suggested the first time you mentioned it. I don't think the conferences would have a problem with their schools keeping football and playing in a "scholarship only tier of the sport". But they shouldn't expect to play many conference games, which was my point.
Alston could sideline schools like Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest, and with cultural shifts under way in South Florida possibly even a school like Miami which already has a ticket sales problem. Then there is Duke? Like Miami they could go either way.
Privates like Southern Cal, Stanford, Brigham Young and Notre Dame would likely stay all in. T.C.U. could afford to, but what they and Baylor would ultimately do might be iffier than most would think. The monetary commitment has to be weighed carefully. Even public schools like Georgia Tech, Washington State and Oregon State might have some decisions to make.
Your new divide would be pay for play, pay for play with caps which could legally exist only because the option of no caps would be there, and scholarship only.
The first two would probably form their own association for football, hoops and baseball. The latter would remain under the NCAA.
It is out of that milieu that today's P privates would likely need the flexibility of remaining historically associated with their current conferences, but both they and the current conferences would need to play football on different tiers.
I believe all other sports would be easily reconciled within the conference structure.