Thinking about Alston, GORs, and other economic variables; I decided to mull over the idea that a new alliance between East and West could form out of all this.

That sounds a little dramatic, but really I'm just talking about a mutually beneficial arrangement between 2 leagues. The SEC and Big 12 already have one, but I think the Alston case could actually provide a foundation for an even stronger one to form.

Let's consider:

-Assuming the Alston case causes a massive wave of realignment then a lot of possibilities open up.

-Networks are always after an edge and if the Big 12 can survive then I believe they have a path to a conference network. What if the SEC Network was bundled nationally with a Big 12 Network?

-Since the Big Ten and SEC don't cooperate on much, what if the SEC teamed up with the Big 12 instead of trying to raid them? What if the SEC could be economically satisfied elsewhere?

-The ACC is perhaps the most vulnerable to the ruling of the Alston case. It's likely that about half the league wouldn't want to operate in a world with no caps on spending. This could cause chaos.

So let me present a system that I think solves more problems than it creates.

What if the SEC left the Big 12 to itself and raided the ACC?

Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, and Duke are all obvious moves. I think there are a few more that makes sense as well. I think the politicians in the state of GA will work to get Georgia Tech included. At that, I think the same thing will happen in NC. NC State is pretty important so I think they get included. We're up to 6 additions now.

I would say the same thing about KY, but I'm not sure Louisville is entrenched enough to pull it off. I think Virginia Tech is a very good option to access broader Eastern markets. At this point, I think West Virginia makes a lot of sense because if we're cooperating with the Big 12 then their Easternmost partner that happens to be an outlier as it is needs to be taken care of.

I would say we should stop at 22. Basically, all we have to do is set up a division less schedule and 22 works just fine. All you really need are even numbers and the schedule can be very flexible. Odd numbers are harder to work with because at least one school is required to have an off week at all times which limits a league's ability to maximize content at any given time.

Now what about the Big 12?

They may just have an opportunity to reorganize and add pieces from the Pac 12. There are schools getting a little antsy out there and they obviously are struggling with their network. That's causing a ripple effect among their major programs. I won't go into all their issues here, but they are many.

Texas and Oklahoma are a huge stabilizing force. If they want to be together then there's a lot of schools that would hitch themselves to that wagon. Texas needs to learn to play a little nicer, but the potential is there because both schools are so valuable. No reason at this point for Texas to go West, but maybe the West can come to Texas.

What if a collection of current Pac schools decided to leave behind their issues and start over? We've all talked about it, but a collection of Pac 12 schools and Big 12 schools would work economically as two major regions would be united. In short, Pac 12 schools need dedicated viewers and Big 12 schools need markets for their product outside of their smallish footprint.

What if UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado came calling? Basically, all the strongest growing markets in Pac 12 territory could move at one time. The Big 12 was at 9 with the loss of West Virginia, and now they are back to 15. I actually think Oregon makes a lot of sense for the 16th. I'm not sure the other Pac schools would be terribly interested.

So now what if the Big 12 could parlay a network out of this...perhaps a reformatted LHN? What if ESPN bundled them together from coast to coast? What if the Sugar Bowl became a battle between the champions of these 2 leagues?

So much depends on what the new cost of doing business is and who can/will do it

There’s the very real possibility that most schools can’t afford all the sports they do now and would shrink down based on their priorities

Someone like Virginia might be very willing to sacrifice FB to keep Basketball, baseball and lacrosse while someone like Boise might be willing to sacrifice all its other sports to keep football (not that I think the NCAA would let them) which brings up another point. How does Title IX work in this brave new world? There’s no more athletic scholarships if you’re just paying players. So if you have 120 FB spots do you have to have 120 female sports slots? Or do you just have to find them equally? That makes FB a very expensive prospect to most? You would probably see the allowed number of players in FB drop drastically so schools could afford say just a FB team, WBB and maybe Wsoccer or softball

(02-17-2019 06:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So much depends on what the new cost of doing business is and who can/will do it

There’s the very real possibility that most schools can’t afford all the sports they do now and would shrink down based on their priorities

Someone like Virginia might be very willing to sacrifice FB to keep Basketball, baseball and lacrosse while someone like Boise might be willing to sacrifice all its other sports to keep football (not that I think the NCAA would let them) which brings up another point. How does Title IX work in this brave new world? There’s no more athletic scholarships if you’re just paying players. So if you have 120 FB spots do you have to have 120 female sports slots? Or do you just have to find them equally? That makes FB a very expensive prospect to most? You would probably see the allowed number of players in FB drop drastically so schools could afford say just a FB team, WBB and maybe Wsoccer or softball

All of which the concept of pay for play will have many cans of squiggly worms to address and resolve. Title IX requires equivalency in the number of sports offered, but not the number of overall athletes. Pay for play offered to just football (85 people in FBS right there) and the men's basketball players will not fly. I expect the judge has received the briefs on this matter and related, much of which may be external to the parameters for the decision, but are auxillary factors to the impact of the decision.
College student athletes sign grant-in-aid scholarships. It is a contract of sorts for promised revenue for educational costs in exchange for sport participation. Student athletes have broke them; some colleges have reneged on agreements. Pay for play will be salary, and variations will develop, just as it does for pro sports.
It will be very messy because college governance is way more decentralized compared to pro sports organizations such as the NFL and the NBA. If a player of legal age did not sign a contract to receive salary/added benefits, and knowing the conditions there-in, but still plays, then later claims entitlements not promised, that is what spearheaded the original dispute. Is every former player or their beneficiaries everywhere going to sue for prior compensation that was never promised or contracted? It's completely unrealistic. Regardless of how much the school and coaches profit from the player's services, player entitlement of a portion of that revenue, as an ad-hoc process has very shaky, at best, legal grounds. However, the contention is to allow pay for play, for those that choose so, as a valid and authorized mechanism going forward. I expect this will happen in some fashion, but the technicalities in delivering such will become complex and further controversy will ensue. Even pro sports don't have distributions all refined and consistent as much as they try.