Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

Duke was working toward this in the 80's and 90's but eventually there was a come to Jesus meeting where the ACC office told Duke it was time to spend some money on football. The question would be what happens to games between those paid and those unpaid. If WF and Duke "dropped down" NC State and UNC will still play them in Football as long as they field a team.

Duke and Wake Forest have endowments to compete on whatever level they wish to compete.

(02-09-2019 10:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke was working toward this in the 80's and 90's but eventually there was a come to Jesus meeting where the ACC office told Duke it was time to spend some money on football. The question would be what happens to games between those paid and those unpaid. If WF and Duke "dropped down" NC State and UNC will still play them in Football as long as they field a team.

They would have to be treated like a G5 on the schedule and would of course not count as a conference game.

The privates would not go paid for play in any sports. That means major musical chairs as the P5 privates drop out.

Big 10:Northwestern and Butler out.
SEC:TCU, Vanderbilt, Rice and Tulane out.
ACC:Boston College, Notre Dame, Duke, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Miami, Catholic 7 and Baylor out.
PAC 12:Stanford, USC, Gonzaga, Pepperdine, San Diego, St. Mary's are out. Mount St. Mary's in California is not in NCAA nor they are NAIA yet. They have been taken to court by Mount St. Mary's of Maryland for using the same school name.

Big 10:Northern Illinois and Milwaukee
SEC:Memphis, UAB, FGCU, Charlotte
ACC:Navy, UMass., Delaware, Temple, Georgia State, UCF, USF and VCU.
PAC 12:Hawaii, San Diego State, UC-Irvine, Colorado State, Boise State, Fullerton State, Wyoming, New Mexico and North Texas and maybe Montana State.

if schools have to pay, schools will give 1099 for cost of atten.
players will be alowed to have endorsment, sneaker money & fake jobs

I don't see the SEC or Big 10 doing hybrids.

(02-12-2019 10:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  I don't see the SEC or Big 10 doing hybrids.

You could very well be right about the SEC. However, I see a much greater divide among Big 10 members which could best be resolved by hybrid arrangements.

In the SEC Vanderbilt would likely be the only school jolted enough by Alston to have to decide to step it down in football. But in the Big 10 pay for play could foist major decisions on state schools as well as Northwestern. Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, and even Maryland might all need to reconsider their economic model if pay for play hits for all revenue sports (which is what I think that Alston will truly impact). Pay for hoops and hockey/baseball would be much more manageable for a lot of these schools than trying to tackle the scope of football and the projected value of football players.

Extreme issues call for extreme solutions. If it were any other subject but pay for play I would agree with you wholeheartedly. I think this is much greater in overall impact and therefore much more likely to alter what had been considered gestalt associations.

(02-09-2019 10:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke was working toward this in the 80's and 90's but eventually there was a come to Jesus meeting where the ACC office told Duke it was time to spend some money on football. The question would be what happens to games between those paid and those unpaid. If WF and Duke "dropped down" NC State and UNC will still play them in Football as long as they field a team.

The ACC football coaches were talking about football player allowances in the 80's. UNC's Crum was for it as was Clemson's coach and about half the conference.

It's not a new idea and I doubt it will have much impact at the FBS level, much less the P5.

I am 100000% for Georgetown joining the ACC.

I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

I'd be for Georgetown joining that league as well. I'm tired of being in a league with other schools that aren't like-minded academically.

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

I don't think any school wants a scenario akin to Major League Baseball with no bounds to scholarships and spending. I believe level-heads will prevail. The athletes should be played like other student employees considering they are working for the school to make money at the gate and in the bookstore via merch.

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

I don't think any school wants a scenario akin to Major League Baseball with no bounds to scholarships and spending. I believe level-heads will prevail. The athletes should be played like other student employees considering they are working for the school to make money at the gate and in the bookstore via merch.

Obviously you haven't read up on Alston. The whole point of the case is that there will be no fixing of caps of any kind, nor collusion among the conferences. It is to be an open market for determining value. That's why this case is radically different than anything the NCAA has faced previously.

(02-12-2019 12:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

I'd be for Georgetown joining that league as well. I'm tired of being in a league with other schools that aren't like-minded academically.

I think what you mean is similar in academic prestige, not like-minded academically. Villanova, Marquette, DePaul, Seton Hall and St. John's are all national universities, similar to Georgetown (but, Georgetown is a top-25 university, where Villanova/Marquette are in the top-100). Butler, Creighton, Xavier and Providence are all considered regional institutions, albeit they have very high rankings for each. Georgetown is clearly the elite academic institution within the Big East, but I don't think they is a wide disparity in like-mindedness as you suggest.

I do think there is value, from the perspective of Georgetown, with institutional peers such as Marquette, Creighton and Xavier as Jesuit institutions. There is also value in historical athletic affiliations with St. John's, Villanova, Seton Hall and Providence. Additionally, I believe Georgetown enjoys being an "anchor" of a conference - leading in conference vision and oversight - rather than being a second fiddle to others.

The issue pay for play could be for all sports. I think many of the privates would go non-scholies for all sports. This could open spots up in the P5 in a major way. Notre Dame and Northwestern are completely against this. 1AA for all sports for private schools who do not want to pay their players.

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

FWIW, both Jack Swarbrick and Father John Jenkins (ND's president) have said this a couple of times.

I understand the people doubting this, but the Holy Cross fathers have been uncomfortable with the football program's notoriety for decades (while scooping up all of the cash).

They hate when football overshadows academics and have never liked when the football coach and program gets "too big for its britches". They corralled/put the brakes on the program under Frank Leahy, Ara Parseghian and Lou Holtz.

This might be a way to finally completely de-emphasize football, like they have always wanted to do.

Now, can they sell the "champions of the student-athlete" stance to alumni and boosters?

Who knows? That will be a tough sell, indeed. A really tough sell.

We shall definitely see, as I am almost certain the Judge will rule for the plaintiffs.

(I think that ND will end up agreeing with pay to play, but that is a guess)

If they do opt out of paying players, why assume that ND would then want to have football involved in a conference?

They may likely put all of the other sports in a conference but try to keep football indy.

(02-12-2019 03:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

FWIW, both Jack Swarbrick and Father John Jenkins (ND's president) have said this a couple of times.

I understand the people doubting this, but the Holy Cross fathers have been uncomfortable with the football program's notoriety for decades (while scooping up all of the cash).

They hate when football overshadows academics and have never liked when the football coach and program gets "too big for its britches". They corralled/put the brakes on the program under Frank Leahy, Ara Parseghian and Lou Holtz.

This might be a way to finally completely de-emphasize football, like they have always wanted to do.

Now, can they sell the "champions of the student-athlete" stance to alumni and boosters?

Who knows? That will be a tough sell, indeed. A really tough sell.

We shall definitely see, as I am almost certain the Judge will rule for the plaintiffs.

(I think that ND will end up agreeing with pay to play, but that is a guess)

If they do opt out of paying players, why assume that ND would then want to have football involved in a conference?

They may likely put all of the other sports in a conference but try to keep football indy.

That's true. ND would not need to be part of a such a conference. My thinking was that it would just be a way for certain high-academic schools within the FBS to join together and brand themselves as the "elite" academic/athletic schools, that choose to not follow pay-for-play model (and essentially become minor league for professional sports).

It is most likely that ND would prefer to remain as non-football member within the ACC, assuming they would not be asked to leave due to theoretical resistance to the hypothetical model.

I guess the most curious topic would be whether current power conferences would allow members to not follow the new pay-for-play scale, or if conferences would decide to follow such a model unilaterally. Of all the current power conferences, I could see the ACC being the most divided, considering their public/private splits.

(02-09-2019 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

I wonder if its much easier to find a road back to amateurism than what we may think. Basically, the plantiffs have said caps are ok within a league. In fact, almost every league has some sort of financial limitations to keep all teams within the league competitive. Could undermining Alston be as easy as placing the NCAA back in control of the TV deals? Would a single deal and a NCAA run playoff make FBS essentially a single big league?

(02-12-2019 04:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

I wonder if its much easier to find a road back to amateurism than what we may think. Basically, the plantiffs have said caps are ok within a league. In fact, almost every league has some sort of financial limitations to keep all teams within the league competitive. Could undermining Alston be as easy as placing the NCAA back in control of the TV deals? Would a single deal and a NCAA run playoff make FBS essentially a single big league?

It could, but the thing is the presidents have bought into the football revenue gravy train. I don't think they will hop off anytime soon. And I suppose if we did as you suggested the players would then file the same suit and strike the conference competitiveness issue and make it per school. That would make Terry D. happy in that it would in effect make all schools independent again. But it would kill network money for conference product.

We aren't done for sure.

As to Notre Dame being able to remain independent from an upper tier there are other obstacles. If the upper tier has no caps then those who are in it will want anyone who competes with them to have the same lack of constraints which by implication will escalate expenses. I don't see that tier sharing anything with Notre Dame unless they agree to join.

It is why I think we will have layers within a tier. Those who have no cap for football, basketball, or baseball/hockey. Those who opt not to compete in a non caps tier in football, but who will participate that way in basketball or baseball/hockey, and those who issue scholarships only with no compensation (which would be legal as long as an uncapped tier exists).