The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

This article is a prime example why it is imperative for UAB to diligently position itself as strongly as possible and as quickly as possible.

Why it could make a lot of financial sense for the top 100 teams to break from the NCAA

Quote:The top 100 football-playing universities have to consolidate their athletic media rights to maximize their worth in the future, a powerful Oregon official told CBS Sports.

"Why? Because there's [not enough] money for athletics," Pat Kilkenny said recently. Kilkenny is a former Oregon athletic director who now consults for multiple schools and is a longtime confidant of Nike CEO Phil Knight...

The 100 schools would more or less include the 65 Power Five schools, Notre Dame, the AAC, the Mountain West and selected others...

So, breaking it down:

14 - ACC
14 - B10
10 - B12
12 - P12
14 - SEC
01 - ND
65

12 - AAC
12 - MtnW
89

Assuming the happened and assuming they did settle on 100 schools, that would leave 11 additional spots up for grabs from C-USA, MAC, SBC and the Indys. Who gets them? My guess is Army and BYU are givens.

Who could the other 9 be?

1. BYU
2. Army
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Most people responding to this article think that the magic number is going to be somewhere in the 80s range. Not 100. This guy has been beating the top 100 teams break away from the NCAA drum for a while now.

(04-24-2019 01:28 PM)WhatIsThisFeeling Wrote:  Most people responding to this article think that the magic number is going to be somewhere in the 80s range. Not 100. This guy has been beating the top 100 teams break away from the NCAA drum for a while now.

That's why I said assuming and assuming....

(04-24-2019 01:40 PM)blazerjay Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:28 PM)WhatIsThisFeeling Wrote:  Most people responding to this article think that the magic number is going to be somewhere in the 80s range. Not 100. This guy has been beating the top 100 teams break away from the NCAA drum for a while now.

That's why I said assuming and assuming....

You know I read that but didn't dawn on me we were going into hypotheticals my bad, forgot my coffee today

In that case...I think the number to get in may be bigger because some of the AAC are not going to be included in that top 100. Could be more room for those in conferences similar to ours.

What can we do that we're not doing now? A new president would probably be the most useful but that ain't happenin.

Could probably start with taking basketball, baseball, and soccer seriously.

(04-24-2019 04:32 PM)BlazinBham Wrote:  Could probably start with taking basketball, baseball, and soccer seriously.

Soccer doesnt really register for these purposes, but should be on the upswing soon. Baseball and definitely basketball matter, but in both cases what is needed is money. Both baseball and basketball need major capital projects to bring them out of the 80's and we dont have the cash to even dream about doing them at the moment.

Interesting that the writer chooses to ignore the possible tax implications of such a move which imo could kill the whole thing.

(04-25-2019 05:59 AM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  Interesting that the writer chooses to ignore the possible tax implications of such a move which imo could kill the whole thing.

And the Title IX implications. Late in the article he mentions NCAA doing away with sports-sponsorship minimums and schools dropping minor sports to unsupported club programs. Good luck in court with that...

(04-25-2019 09:18 AM)BatesUAB Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 05:59 AM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  Interesting that the writer chooses to ignore the possible tax implications of such a move which imo could kill the whole thing.

And the Title IX implications. Late in the article he mentions NCAA doing away with sports-sponsorship minimums and schools dropping minor sports to unsupported club programs. Good luck in court with that...

Doing away with minimums wouldn't absolve a school of compliance with Title IX. As long as scholarships were reduced proportionally to their male/female student ration, schools would still be in compliance.

(04-25-2019 10:24 AM)blazerjay Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 09:18 AM)BatesUAB Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 05:59 AM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  Interesting that the writer chooses to ignore the possible tax implications of such a move which imo could kill the whole thing.

And the Title IX implications. Late in the article he mentions NCAA doing away with sports-sponsorship minimums and schools dropping minor sports to unsupported club programs. Good luck in court with that...

Doing away with minimums wouldn't absolve a school of compliance with Title IX. As long as scholarships were reduced proportionally to their male/female student ration, schools would still be in compliance.

That's my point. If the NCAA (or whatever new organization gets formed) says, "There's no minimum number of sports the school has to sponsor," and the schools then say, "Cool, we'll just have football and basketball and maybe baseball sponsored, everything else is now a club sport without scholarships..." That's when the Title IX lawsuits get filed, and the schools are F'd in the A. The article above completed breezed over that aspect.