Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
'A nightmare for college athletics'
Author Message
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 222
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #81
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
The "reasonable solution that works for everyone"...is allowing players to capitalize on their NIL and still prohibiting direct pay for play by the school. The only entities which might find that it doesn't work are the small subset of schools (a couple dozen out of 1000+ in the NCAA) in the G5 who are using significant (tens of millions) money above what athletics actually generates to chase the dream of a P5 invite, or at least to be the next Boise State. Unfortunately for them, they might have to choose between running up even larger deficits or deemphasizing athletics and giving up that dream. But that's hardly a compelling reason not to move forward with something close to what California has already passed into law.
02-14-2020 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #82
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-14-2020 12:00 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  The "reasonable solution that works for everyone"...is allowing players to capitalize on their NIL and still prohibiting direct pay for play by the school. The only entities which might find that it doesn't work are the small subset of schools (a couple dozen out of 1000+ in the NCAA) in the G5 who are using significant (tens of millions) money above what athletics actually generates to chase the dream of a P5 invite, or at least to be the next Boise State. Unfortunately for them, they might have to choose between running up even larger deficits or deemphasizing athletics and giving up that dream. But that's hardly a compelling reason not to move forward with something close to what California has already passed into law.

Why would NIL affect school budgets at all? The answer is---"It wouldnt". Thats the beauty of the plan.

That said---NIL wont do anything for that vast majority of college athletes---which is why law suits on behalf of that vast majority of athletes will continue to attack the model on the basis of anti-trust violations. Those suits point out the real problem that needs solving. NIL is just a minor side show that only affects a tiny percentage of athletes. Its like the one and done issue. Yeah---its an issue--but its not something that really affects the vast majority of the athletes in the NCAA.
02-14-2020 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 222
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #83
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
I believe the argument you had put forth before was that NIL would be a thinly-veiled pay for play scheme as boosters would pay athletes directly and crowd out donations that currently fund various elements of the department's budget, no? If that were true, it wouldn't hurt the power conference schools with $50M in media rights, and it wouldn't hurt the 200-250 schools who have no boosters to speak of to begin with. Now if that's not the argument anymore, OK - I do get confused as folks arguments for the current model are so scattershot.
02-14-2020 07:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #84
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-14-2020 07:25 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  I believe the argument you had put forth before was that NIL would be a thinly-veiled pay for play scheme as boosters would pay athletes directly and crowd out donations that currently fund various elements of the department's budget, no? If that were true, it wouldn't hurt the power conference schools with $50M in media rights, and it wouldn't hurt the 200-250 schools who have no boosters to speak of to begin with. Now if that's not the argument anymore, OK - I do get confused as folks arguments for the current model are so scattershot.

Thats certainly a potential issue---but most of what Ive seen indicates that there are plans to take steps to prevent it. If its done in a manner where only deals that economically legitimate are allowed---then only a handful of the brightest college stars will benefit. Heck--only a few guys off each NFL team even have endorsement deals. NFL ratings are 10X college ratings. Thus, the number of college players that would truly get a real world endorsement deal is an EXTREMELY small number. Thus, it would do nothing for the vast majority of athletes....which I dont think is really what the public has in mind. Furthermore----if the NCAA is sitting in judgement of whats a real deal and what isnt---I suspect your right back to having an anti-trust issue.

Thats just another reason I think an anti-trust exemption (even if its limited) has got to be part of the final answer---assuming the idea is to preserve as many of the teams (and thus, as many of the scholarship opportunities) as possible. Now---if you dont care if the entire college sports thing disappears---then just do free agency pay for play and college sports will largely be gone in a few years. A small XFL type league will be emerge in its place for football. Some sort of basketball league might possibly remain. Both will have extremely limited value and appeal to a tiny niche market because most existing college sports fans will no longer have a dog in the hunt---thus they likely wont have much of a compelling reason to care about the new XFL. Im thinking maybe 20 schools might make enough to support athletic program using the pro football model. Beyond that, the rest of college sports will probably be gone since it will be against the law to limit player compensation to just scholarships or to have a D3 type amateur league where any compensation is prohibited. Those would be the same monopolistic anti-trust type activities currently under attack now.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2020 08:17 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-14-2020 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 222
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #85
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Every single Power 5 school will soon have $100M in revenue. $15M in scholarships (and let's remember that's a price, not a cost) and another $15M (hugely overstated) for "salaries" in the very unlikely scenario of direct pay for play. That gives even the poorest schools $70M to have a robust and diverse athletics program and fund facilities, coaches, travel, etc. But 40 schools won't be able to figure out how to do that, even though they ran a department (including that scholarship bill) on half of that ten years ago? Nope.

If change comes, what it might do is force, say, Old Dominion to take a hard look at whether 85 scholarship FBS football actually makes sense for them, and if it does, whether it makes sense to also pay a coach nearly $1M and have an athletics program that sends its teams from Norfolk to El Paso and Houston and Miami. But that's a good thing. Better late than never that those conversations happen.
02-14-2020 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #86
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-14-2020 08:33 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Every single Power 5 school will soon have $100M in revenue. $15M in scholarships (and let's remember that's a price, not a cost) and another $15M (hugely overstated) for "salaries" in the very unlikely scenario of direct pay for play. That gives even the poorest schools $70M to have a robust and diverse athletics program and fund facilities, coaches, travel, etc. But 40 schools won't be able to figure out how to do that, even though they ran a department (including that scholarship bill) on half of that ten years ago? Nope.

If change comes, what it might do is force, say, Old Dominion to take a hard look at whether 85 scholarship FBS football actually makes sense for them, and if it does, whether it makes sense to also pay a coach nearly $1M and have an athletics program that sends its teams from Norfolk to El Paso and Houston and Miami. But that's a good thing. Better late than never that those conversations happen.

Those schools may have 100 million in revenue---but hardly any of them have much of a profit. Remember--salaries are a new cost. If your at roughly break even--your losing money after a new and significant expense line for salaries kicks in. Frankly, the expense part isnt really the reason it wont work. Since everyone else is closing shop---you'll probably be able to scare up a roster of players for a few million. But if the top 5 to 10 schools can get the very best 500-1000 athletes because they pay far more than everyone else--nobody is going to keep coming to your games to watch you get your brains smashed in every week. Add in free-transfer rules, and you wont even be able to hang on to your home grown talent you develop in-house. They will be lured away by the schools with the money. Like I said---I suspect maybe 20 schools at most can play in this kind of system---the rest will fold immediately or within a few years due to rapidly dwindling interest from their fan base. There is a reason that virtually no professional leagues in the US have full no holds barred free agency. Even leagues with free agency at least have contracts and dont allow players to transfer to another team anytime and on any whim. They use drafts and salary caps to distribute talent relatively evenly. People who think just full on "give the players whatever they want" free agency is going to work haven't really thought this through. The resulting league will be unwatchable for most people.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2020 08:59 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-14-2020 08:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 222
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #87
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
They don't make a profit because there is no point to them making a profit. That's not a thing they intend to do. Their costs are not fixed. If schools suddenly find themselves in a deficit, they'll pay a baseball coach $400k instead of half a million, and reduce other line items similarly. Any Power 5 Athletic Director who would make the case that they can't run a twenty sport athletic department on $100M, with or without amateurism, is either telling a bald faced lie or is really bad at a job they are paid well to do.
02-14-2020 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #88
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-14-2020 09:18 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  They don't make a profit because there is no point to them making a profit. That's not a thing they intend to do. Their costs are not fixed. If schools suddenly find themselves in a deficit, they'll pay a baseball coach $400k instead of half a million, and reduce other line items similarly. Any Power 5 Athletic Director who would make the case that they can't run a twenty sport athletic department on $100M, with or without amateurism, is either telling a bald faced lie or is really bad at a job they are paid well to do.

Your missing the point. Why are coaches making 7 million right now? Cuz some schools have way more money than other schools and they arent allowed by rule to use that money paying players. So, they use that money to get a competitive advantage by spending it on coaches and facilities.

When the schools can use the money on players, the 5 to 10 schools that have a 80,000 to 100,000 fans in the stands every Saturday will simply buy the top 1000 athletes. There are many more athletes than coaches--so thats going to get very expensive very fast. Even if your non-big money team hangs around skimps and saves and finds a few diamonds in the rough---they will transfer to where the bigger paycheck is after year one. Its going to shake out the same way any way you look at it. In the end---nobody wants to watch a 0-12 team get blown out 75-3 game after game year after year. If you arent in that top 5- to 10 teams in revenue---you wont have sports in a few years because you will lose so often that your revenue will dry up as your fan base withers. You'll need to be a top 20 in revenue to even hang around. Thats how the free market works. Amazon takes out Sears. One by one the other competitors go broke trying to compete and exit the market. If your want a full on no holds barred free market---thats what a free market looks like in a sports leagues with no caps or controls (cuz caps and controls violate antitrust laws). The big boys run the little boys out of the marketplace. The league gets smaller and smaller---slowly constricting the size of the interested audience. Its not really a business plan that makes college football a growing healthy expanding league.

Simply put---there is a reason no pro league does it that way. Pro leagues want their franchises to survive. They want their games to be competitive. Thats why there are contracts in pro leagues. Thats why there are salary caps in pro leagues. Thats why there are drafts in pro leagues with the worst teams picking first. Thats why applying wild west free agency pro concepts to college ball is like trying to use basketball rules in a hockey game.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 02:49 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-14-2020 10:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,130
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 163
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #89
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-14-2020 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---there is a reason no pro league does it that way. Pro leagues want their franchises to survive. They want their games to be competitive. Thats why there are contracts pro leagues. Thats why there are salary caps in pro leagues. Thats why there are drafts in pro leagues with the worst teams picking first. Thats why applying wild west free agency pro concepts to college ball is like trying to use basketball rules in a hockey game.


And before someone jumps in and says that the big European soccer leagues don't have those same rules, remember that they have different rules. For instance, the number of international players allowed by the national football association ... and since the name of the game is qualifying to play the UEFA Champions League, that'd be equivalent to a cap on the number of out of state scholarship players.

Plus, in addition to transfers, they have loan deals, so if the Buckeyes had a young fourth string linebacker that they thought could benefit from the style of linebacker coaching at some MAC school, they could loan him out for a season.
02-14-2020 11:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,673
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #90
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-14-2020 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-14-2020 09:18 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  They don't make a profit because there is no point to them making a profit. That's not a thing they intend to do. Their costs are not fixed. If schools suddenly find themselves in a deficit, they'll pay a baseball coach $400k instead of half a million, and reduce other line items similarly. Any Power 5 Athletic Director who would make the case that they can't run a twenty sport athletic department on $100M, with or without amateurism, is either telling a bald faced lie or is really bad at a job they are paid well to do.

Your missing the point. Why are coaches making 7 million right now? Cuz some schools have way more money than other schools and they arent allowed by rule to use that money paying players. So, they use that money to get a competitive advantage by spending it on coaches and facilities.

When the schools can use the money on players, the 5 to 10 schools that have a 80,000 to 100,000 fans in the stands every Saturday will simply buy the top 1000 athletes. There are many more athletes than coaches--so thats going to get very expensive very fast. Even if your non-big money team hangs around skimps and saves and finds a few diamonds in the rough---they will transfer to where the bigger paycheck is after year one. Its going to shake out the same way any way you look at it. In the end---nobody wants to watch a 0-12 team get blown out 75-3 game after game year after year. If you arent in that top 5- to 10 teams in revenue---you wont have sports in a few years because you will lose so often that your revenue will dry up as your fan base withers. You'll need to be a top 20 in revenue to even hang around. Thats how the free market works. Amazon takes out Sears. One by one the other competitors go broke trying to compete and exit the market. If your want a full on no holds barred free market---thats what a free market looks like in a sports leagues with no caps or controls (cuz caps and controls violate antitrust laws). The big boys run the little boys out of the marketplace. The league gets smaller and smaller---slowly constricting the size of the interested audience. Its not really a business plan that makes college football a growing healthy expanding league.

Simply put---there is a reason no pro league does it that way. Pro leagues want their franchises to survive. They want their games to be competitive. Thats why there are contracts in pro leagues. Thats why there are salary caps in pro leagues. Thats why there are drafts in pro leagues with the worst teams picking first. Thats why applying wild west free agency pro concepts to college ball is like trying to use basketball rules in a hockey game.

This doesn't make much sense to me. First, your middle paragraph describing how things will sort out is highly speculative. We've already had two lawsuits filed against schools demanding that they pay players and both have so far lost in federal court. Second, it's not clear that a pay for play scheme would involve unlimited pay. We know it wouldn't because even without salary caps there is no unlimited pay merely because no employer has unlimited revenue. Third, and most importantly, NCAA football is ALREADY based on a model that doesn't allow everyone to compete at the same level. There is FBS, where you have to offer 85 scholarships and X number of sports, FCS which is 60 scholarships, and then D2, and D3, which offer no scholarships.

So there is already an entire array of options for schools that do not have the resources to compete at a given level. If your scenario does come to fruition, So What? Why should federal law be changed to preserve any school's ability to compete at a particular level of football? Whether the "top level" of football has 130 schools or 200 schools or 40 schools is of zero national concern. Why on earth should the Feds intervene merely because if market forces are unleashed that might mean that school X has to drop down from FBS to FCS? Or D2? Oh the Horror!

So now instead of protecting taxpayers as you said before, it seems like the real reason you want federal intervention is to preserve the ability of all the 130 current FBS members to continue to compete at that level. From a societal POV, that's a total Nothingburger issue. Whether San Diego State or Eastern Michigan fields an FBS, FCS, or D3 football team is of zero societal concern, just as it is of no societal concern that 200 or so schools currently field D3 teams.

Also, comparisons to NFL or NBA are poor because college football is not those kinds of leagues. FBS was never created as such, and in fact no pro league would ever allow new members to self-select themselves into the league merely by meeting the low-bar standards that the NCAA has for joining FBS. Imagine the NFL saying 'anyone can form a club football team, and if you can attract 20,000 fans for two years and then agree to pay 55 players a salary you automatically are in the NFL'. Crazy.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 12:19 PM by quo vadis.)
02-15-2020 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #91
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics
(02-15-2020 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-14-2020 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-14-2020 09:18 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  They don't make a profit because there is no point to them making a profit. That's not a thing they intend to do. Their costs are not fixed. If schools suddenly find themselves in a deficit, they'll pay a baseball coach $400k instead of half a million, and reduce other line items similarly. Any Power 5 Athletic Director who would make the case that they can't run a twenty sport athletic department on $100M, with or without amateurism, is either telling a bald faced lie or is really bad at a job they are paid well to do.

Your missing the point. Why are coaches making 7 million right now? Cuz some schools have way more money than other schools and they arent allowed by rule to use that money paying players. So, they use that money to get a competitive advantage by spending it on coaches and facilities.

When the schools can use the money on players, the 5 to 10 schools that have a 80,000 to 100,000 fans in the stands every Saturday will simply buy the top 1000 athletes. There are many more athletes than coaches--so thats going to get very expensive very fast. Even if your non-big money team hangs around skimps and saves and finds a few diamonds in the rough---they will transfer to where the bigger paycheck is after year one. Its going to shake out the same way any way you look at it. In the end---nobody wants to watch a 0-12 team get blown out 75-3 game after game year after year. If you arent in that top 5- to 10 teams in revenue---you wont have sports in a few years because you will lose so often that your revenue will dry up as your fan base withers. You'll need to be a top 20 in revenue to even hang around. Thats how the free market works. Amazon takes out Sears. One by one the other competitors go broke trying to compete and exit the market. If your want a full on no holds barred free market---thats what a free market looks like in a sports leagues with no caps or controls (cuz caps and controls violate antitrust laws). The big boys run the little boys out of the marketplace. The league gets smaller and smaller---slowly constricting the size of the interested audience. Its not really a business plan that makes college football a growing healthy expanding league.

Simply put---there is a reason no pro league does it that way. Pro leagues want their franchises to survive. They want their games to be competitive. Thats why there are contracts in pro leagues. Thats why there are salary caps in pro leagues. Thats why there are drafts in pro leagues with the worst teams picking first. Thats why applying wild west free agency pro concepts to college ball is like trying to use basketball rules in a hockey game.

This doesn't make much sense to me. First, your middle paragraph describing how things will sort out is highly speculative. We've already had two lawsuits filed against schools demanding that they pay players and both have so far lost in federal court. Second, it's not clear that a pay for play scheme would involve unlimited pay. We know it wouldn't because even without salary caps there is no unlimited pay merely because no employer has unlimited revenue. Third, and most importantly, NCAA football is ALREADY based on a model that doesn't allow everyone to compete at the same level. There is FBS, where you have to offer 85 scholarships and X number of sports, FCS which is 60 scholarships, and then D2, and D3, which offer no scholarships.

So there is already an entire array of options for schools that do not have the resources to compete at a given level. If your scenario does come to fruition, So What? Why should federal law be changed to preserve any school's ability to compete at a particular level of football? Whether the "top level" of football has 130 schools or 200 schools or 40 schools is of zero national concern. Why on earth should the Feds intervene merely because if market forces are unleashed that might mean that school X has to drop down from FBS to FCS? Or D2? Oh the Horror!

So now instead of protecting taxpayers as you said before, it seems like the real reason you want federal intervention is to preserve the ability of all the 130 current FBS members to continue to compete at that level. From a societal POV, that's a total Nothingburger issue. Whether San Diego State or Eastern Michigan fields an FBS, FCS, or D3 football team is of zero societal concern, just as it is of no societal concern that 200 or so schools currently field D3 teams.

Also, comparisons to NFL or NBA are poor because college football is not those kinds of leagues. FBS was never created as such, and in fact no pro league would ever allow new members to self-select themselves into the league merely by meeting the low-bar standards that the NCAA has for joining FBS. Imagine the NFL saying 'anyone can form a club football team, and if you can attract 20,000 fans for two years and then agree to pay 55 players a salary you automatically are in the NFL'. Crazy.

What? First off, to be clear, I’m not just making a tax payer argument—I’m making several arguments. I’m saying tax payers, fans, AND the vast majority of current scholarship athletes get hurt under complete free agency while only a handful of high value athletes and a few school programs survive. I’m also saying the long term prospects for the emerging fully free agent league are not good because it’s not constructed in a way that will provide an interesting compelling product and that it will lose most of its audience as the fans of all the other schools eliminated have little reason to watch anymore.

On the other hand, your position is that the antitrust laws are perfectly fine for this situation and should not change (as if we don’t amend and change laws every year when we find something needs a slight tweak). Furthermore, you and most everyone here believes that the players should have full unrestrained free agency and that the current NCAA scholarship model violates anti-trust law (I think the NCAA model probably does violate anti-trust law). Then suddenly in the post above, you switch positions entirely and say that the law doesn’t matter and that the schools that can’t spend enough to make a profit (which is almost everyone) can drop down to capped "scholarship only" divisions (compensation capped at scholarship) and "non-scholarship" divisions (compensation capped at zero). Both of these divisions would be capped models just like FBS and would violate antitrust laws. So how can they drop down to a division that won’t exist because the NCAA has been told by a court it’s illegal? I mean---if those "scholarship only" levels will exists---then whats this whole thing about? Ohio St, Texas, Penn St, Michigan have made it clear they dont want to pay players. Why cant they play in that "scholarship only" league you have suddenly made "legal" with a swipe of your magic hand?

Either it’s illegal or it’s not. Can’t have it both ways. I think your post is reflective of not having thought this through. It seems to me you are starting to come around to where I’m at that college football really doesn’t fit the traditional business model because there really isn’t any profit to be had. In fact—you have made several posts that show just how the vast majority of schools are losing money and that there really is no true profit motive. As a group, the 130 FBS schools lose a great deal of money on sports. Only a handful make any money at all—and other than a few exceptions, most schools that are making a “profit” are just slightly over break even (say within a million or two). All the lower level schools are losing money (some quite a bit). Thats the real reason there is no "competitor" to the NCAA. Yeah, the conferences have some nice TV deals, but the expenses required to produce the product far exceeds the revenue.

So, the public interest lies in this question—Is it better to destroy a system that has provided a free college education to tens of thousands of students over the years just so a few hundred kids can get paid in a league that likely fails in few years, or is there a better option that can be crafted to preserve all those scholarship opportunities—-but allow the kids to participate in some sort of revenue sharing while not gouging tax payers any more than we already are? The latter makes more sense to me—but will violate anti-trust law. That’s the way I see it at this point. So, you either destroy most of the opportunities and likely the sport in the long term by strictly following existing law—or you carve an exception (something you will frequently find in most any legislation passed these day) to make an existing model more fair to the student athletes (along with an oversight committee of congressmen to oversee and regulate college sports because the NCAA can’t be trusted on its own).
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 11:42 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-15-2020 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #92
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
I wouldn't be too concerned about caps in lower divisions until such time as they're challenged, which will be probably be never.
02-15-2020 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #93
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 02:27 PM)chester Wrote:  I wouldn't be too concerned about caps in lower divisions until such time as they're challenged, which will be probably be never.

Which will happen as soon as the all of FBS avoids the entire issue by dropping down a division. I suspect all the P5 schools would rather do that than have student athlete employees and have to pay players. Will it really matter to them or TV if its 63 scholarships instead of 85? The NCAA will of course allow them to create their FCS-A division with its own playoff that---surprise surprise---looks like the FBS post season. FCS-B wiil continue on as the old FCS. Then we start the whole law suit over again?

If the option exists, Im pretty sure the P5 administrators are going to simply say---then we choose "scholarship only" football. Either its legal for everyone or its legal for nobody....or you modify the law (which is what Ive been saying).
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 02:52 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-15-2020 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #94
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:27 PM)chester Wrote:  I wouldn't be too concerned about caps in lower divisions until such time as they're challenged, which will be probably be never.

Which will happen as soon as the all of FBS avoids the entire issue by dropping down a division. I suspect all the P5 schools would rather do that than have student athlete employees and have to pay players. Will it really matter to them or TV if its 63 scholarships instead of 85? The NCAA will of course allow them to create their FCS-A division with its own playoff that---surprise surprise---looks like the FBS post season. FCS-B wiil continue on as the old FCS. Then we start the whole law suit over again?

If the option exists, Im pretty sure the P5 administrators are going to simply say---then we choose "scholarship only" football. Either its legal for everyone or its legal for nobody....or you modify the law (which is what Ive been saying).

Few if any P5 schools would do that, IMO. Certainly not all. One conference or another would say, Hey wait a second. We would own the whole scene by forming our own division or association. The fans of the remaining P5s would then demand that their own schools follow them. After all, those fans are used to competing at the top level.
02-15-2020 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #95
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 02:59 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:27 PM)chester Wrote:  I wouldn't be too concerned about caps in lower divisions until such time as they're challenged, which will be probably be never.

Which will happen as soon as the all of FBS avoids the entire issue by dropping down a division. I suspect all the P5 schools would rather do that than have student athlete employees and have to pay players. Will it really matter to them or TV if its 63 scholarships instead of 85? The NCAA will of course allow them to create their FCS-A division with its own playoff that---surprise surprise---looks like the FBS post season. FCS-B wiil continue on as the old FCS. Then we start the whole law suit over again?

If the option exists, Im pretty sure the P5 administrators are going to simply say---then we choose "scholarship only" football. Either its legal for everyone or its legal for nobody....or you modify the law (which is what Ive been saying).

Few if any P5 schools would do that, IMO. Certainly not all. One conference or another would say, Hey wait a second. We would own the whole scene by forming our own division or association. The fans of the remaining P5s would then demand that their own schools follow them. After all, those fans are used to competing at the top level.

The NCAA will give those schools whatever they want. They would gladly allow them to jump to FCS, and then give them a sub-division that looks exactly like FBS. It would be the top level of college football--just as it is now. Heck, that top level has had several different names over the decades---University division, D1-A, and now FBS. The name is irrelevant. I suspect what is more important to them than the name is not paying players. Here is what Big10 commissioner Jim Delany said a few years ago.

...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."


https://www.thedailygopher.com/2013/3/19...on-lawsuit

If your going to allow the "scholarship only" model to exist, then the schools that want to use the model will use it. In fact, if your going to allow schools to use the scholarship only model---then there really is no basis to make FBS schools discard it. Either it is illegal or its not.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 03:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-15-2020 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #96
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:59 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:27 PM)chester Wrote:  I wouldn't be too concerned about caps in lower divisions until such time as they're challenged, which will be probably be never.

Which will happen as soon as the all of FBS avoids the entire issue by dropping down a division. I suspect all the P5 schools would rather do that than have student athlete employees and have to pay players. Will it really matter to them or TV if its 63 scholarships instead of 85? The NCAA will of course allow them to create their FCS-A division with its own playoff that---surprise surprise---looks like the FBS post season. FCS-B wiil continue on as the old FCS. Then we start the whole law suit over again?

If the option exists, Im pretty sure the P5 administrators are going to simply say---then we choose "scholarship only" football. Either its legal for everyone or its legal for nobody....or you modify the law (which is what Ive been saying).

Few if any P5 schools would do that, IMO. Certainly not all. One conference or another would say, Hey wait a second. We would own the whole scene by forming our own division or association. The fans of the remaining P5s would then demand that their own schools follow them. After all, those fans are used to competing at the top level.

The NCAA will give those schools whatever they want. They would gladly allow them to jump to FCS, and then give them a sub-division that looks exactly like FBS. It would be the top level of college football--just as it is now. Heck, that top level has had several different names over the decades---University division, D1-A, and now FBS. The name is irrelevant. I suspect what is more important to them than the name is not paying players. Here is what Big10 commissioner Jim Delany said a few years ago.

...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."


https://www.thedailygopher.com/2013/3/19...on-lawsuit

If your going to allow the "scholarship only" model to exist, then there the schools that want to use the model will use it. In fact, if your going to allow schools to use the scholarship only model---then there is no basis to make FBS schools discard it. Either it is illegal or its not.

I actually thought about that quote a moment ago and considered bringing it up. Anyway, it's nonsense. If Alston appellees end up getting the relief they want and B1G schools don't pay players, than SEC schools and others surely will. And if other schools are paying players, the B1G surely will.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 03:33 PM by chester.)
02-15-2020 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #97
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 03:31 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:59 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:27 PM)chester Wrote:  I wouldn't be too concerned about caps in lower divisions until such time as they're challenged, which will be probably be never.

Which will happen as soon as the all of FBS avoids the entire issue by dropping down a division. I suspect all the P5 schools would rather do that than have student athlete employees and have to pay players. Will it really matter to them or TV if its 63 scholarships instead of 85? The NCAA will of course allow them to create their FCS-A division with its own playoff that---surprise surprise---looks like the FBS post season. FCS-B wiil continue on as the old FCS. Then we start the whole law suit over again?

If the option exists, Im pretty sure the P5 administrators are going to simply say---then we choose "scholarship only" football. Either its legal for everyone or its legal for nobody....or you modify the law (which is what Ive been saying).

Few if any P5 schools would do that, IMO. Certainly not all. One conference or another would say, Hey wait a second. We would own the whole scene by forming our own division or association. The fans of the remaining P5s would then demand that their own schools follow them. After all, those fans are used to competing at the top level.

The NCAA will give those schools whatever they want. They would gladly allow them to jump to FCS, and then give them a sub-division that looks exactly like FBS. It would be the top level of college football--just as it is now. Heck, that top level has had several different names over the decades---University division, D1-A, and now FBS. The name is irrelevant. I suspect what is more important to them than the name is not paying players. Here is what Big10 commissioner Jim Delany said a few years ago.

...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."


https://www.thedailygopher.com/2013/3/19...on-lawsuit

If your going to allow the "scholarship only" model to exist, then there the schools that want to use the model will use it. In fact, if your going to allow schools to use the scholarship only model---then there is no basis to make FBS schools discard it. Either it is illegal or its not.

I actually thought about that quote a moment ago and considered bringing it up. Anyway, it's nonsense. If Alston appellees end up getting the relief they want and B1G schools don't pay players, than SEC schools and others surely will. And if other schools are paying players, the B1G surely will.

The SEC doesnt want employee players anymore than the Big10. They want what they have. They arent seeking change. If the "scholarship only" option exists, they are going to take it--as will everyone else. There is not a single college president that wants to deal with having players who are employees of the school.

Besides, do you think anyone will notice any difference if Alabama is "FCS Super Division" or "FBS"? On Tv and in person it will be no different than it is today. Same opponents. Same players. Same stadiums and crowds. Same TV money and exposure. Thats why those options cant be left standing if your concerned about anti-trust compliance. It all has to go....or, you can modify the law to craft a reasonable solution that makes sense---which is all Ive been saying.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 04:09 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-15-2020 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #98
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 04:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 03:31 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:59 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Which will happen as soon as the all of FBS avoids the entire issue by dropping down a division. I suspect all the P5 schools would rather do that than have student athlete employees and have to pay players. Will it really matter to them or TV if its 63 scholarships instead of 85? The NCAA will of course allow them to create their FCS-A division with its own playoff that---surprise surprise---looks like the FBS post season. FCS-B wiil continue on as the old FCS. Then we start the whole law suit over again?

If the option exists, Im pretty sure the P5 administrators are going to simply say---then we choose "scholarship only" football. Either its legal for everyone or its legal for nobody....or you modify the law (which is what Ive been saying).

Few if any P5 schools would do that, IMO. Certainly not all. One conference or another would say, Hey wait a second. We would own the whole scene by forming our own division or association. The fans of the remaining P5s would then demand that their own schools follow them. After all, those fans are used to competing at the top level.

The NCAA will give those schools whatever they want. They would gladly allow them to jump to FCS, and then give them a sub-division that looks exactly like FBS. It would be the top level of college football--just as it is now. Heck, that top level has had several different names over the decades---University division, D1-A, and now FBS. The name is irrelevant. I suspect what is more important to them than the name is not paying players. Here is what Big10 commissioner Jim Delany said a few years ago.

...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."


https://www.thedailygopher.com/2013/3/19...on-lawsuit

If your going to allow the "scholarship only" model to exist, then there the schools that want to use the model will use it. In fact, if your going to allow schools to use the scholarship only model---then there is no basis to make FBS schools discard it. Either it is illegal or its not.

I actually thought about that quote a moment ago and considered bringing it up. Anyway, it's nonsense. If Alston appellees end up getting the relief they want and B1G schools don't pay players, than SEC schools and others surely will. And if other schools are paying players, the B1G surely will.

The SEC doesnt want employee players anymore than the Big10. They want what they have. They arent seeking change. If the "scholarship only" option exists, they are going to take it--as will everyone else. Do you think anyone will notice any difference if Alabama is "FCS Super Division" or "FBS"? On Tv and in person it will be no different than it is today. Same opponents. Same players. Same stadiums and crowds. Same TV money and exposure. Thats why those options cant be left standing if your concerned about anti-trust compliance. It all has to go.

Let's get real. We both know that ALL FBS & D1 men's & women's basketball programs can't evade a Federal court ruling by simply rebranding themselves as "D2" or "D3" or whatever. Another lawsuit would quickly follow.

What I meant by "forming another division" was that, in the silly event that they all do try to evade the courts by joining a lower division, they would just jump right back to "FBS" and "D1" b'ball, because they are, by nature, competitive and they have the money to compete. In other words, they wouldn't drop down to a lower division to begin with. They would obey the court order and stop colluding to cap compensation, and, inevitably, they would begin to pay players.
02-15-2020 04:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,562
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #99
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 04:20 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 04:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 03:31 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 02:59 PM)chester Wrote:  Few if any P5 schools would do that, IMO. Certainly not all. One conference or another would say, Hey wait a second. We would own the whole scene by forming our own division or association. The fans of the remaining P5s would then demand that their own schools follow them. After all, those fans are used to competing at the top level.

The NCAA will give those schools whatever they want. They would gladly allow them to jump to FCS, and then give them a sub-division that looks exactly like FBS. It would be the top level of college football--just as it is now. Heck, that top level has had several different names over the decades---University division, D1-A, and now FBS. The name is irrelevant. I suspect what is more important to them than the name is not paying players. Here is what Big10 commissioner Jim Delany said a few years ago.

...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."


https://www.thedailygopher.com/2013/3/19...on-lawsuit

If your going to allow the "scholarship only" model to exist, then there the schools that want to use the model will use it. In fact, if your going to allow schools to use the scholarship only model---then there is no basis to make FBS schools discard it. Either it is illegal or its not.

I actually thought about that quote a moment ago and considered bringing it up. Anyway, it's nonsense. If Alston appellees end up getting the relief they want and B1G schools don't pay players, than SEC schools and others surely will. And if other schools are paying players, the B1G surely will.

The SEC doesnt want employee players anymore than the Big10. They want what they have. They arent seeking change. If the "scholarship only" option exists, they are going to take it--as will everyone else. Do you think anyone will notice any difference if Alabama is "FCS Super Division" or "FBS"? On Tv and in person it will be no different than it is today. Same opponents. Same players. Same stadiums and crowds. Same TV money and exposure. Thats why those options cant be left standing if your concerned about anti-trust compliance. It all has to go.

Let's get real. We both know that ALL FBS & D1 men's & women's basketball programs can't evade a Federal court ruling by simply rebranding themselves as "D2" or "D3" or whatever. Another lawsuit would quickly follow.

What I meant by "forming another division" was that, in the silly event that they all do try to evade the courts by joining a lower division, they would just jump right back to "FBS" and "D1" b'ball, because they are, by nature, competitive and they have the money to compete. In other words, they wouldn't drop down to a lower division to begin with. They would obey the court order and stop colluding to cap compensation, and, inevitably, they would begin to pay players.

What Im suggesting is---it is legal or it is not. If a "scholarship only" sports is legal, then the schools are not "avoiding" anything by opting to compete at that level and are in full compliance with the law. Look---whatever happens is going to require mass reorganization within the NCAA--so the fact that it might be messy is irrelevant---its going to be messy either way. The last time there was a sea change in organization anything like this was in the late 1970's when entire conferences moved to different divisions. You can agree or disagree all you like---but if school administrators have the option of continuing with "scholarship only" sports playing against the exact same schools they play now---thats going to be the option they select. I can guarantee you there is not one single college president that has any interest in competing in a bidding war for college players in order to "compete" as long as a "scholarship only" model is available. If that option remains open---then you'll find everyone---including the P5---sitting in a "FCS Super Subdivision" that looks a whole lot like FBS.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 05:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-15-2020 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #100
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-15-2020 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Im suggesting is---it is legal or its not. If i"scholarship only" sports is legal, then the schools are not "avoiding" anything and are in full compliance with the law. Look---whatever happens is going to require mass reorganization within the NCAA--so the fact that it might be messy is irrelevant---its going to be messy either way. The last time there was a sea change in organization anything like this was in the late 1970's when entire conferences moved to different divisions. You can agree or disagree all you like---but if school administrators have the option of continuing with "scholarship only" sports playing against the exact same schools they play now---thats going to be the option they select. I can guarantee you there is not one single college president that has any interest in competing in a bidding war for college players in order to "compete" as long as a "scholarship only" model is available.

Hey, I see that you have argued that NCAA compensations caps are either legal or illegal, and I personally believe that caps on any and all NCAA sports across all divisions ought to be declared illegal. But I don't think that would happen unless a class that includes literally all NCAA sports at all levels file suit.

I agree that if Alston appellees end up with what they want, there would be reorganization. And basketball could play a big part, too. Some might seperate from the NCAA altogether.
02-15-2020 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.