Assumptions:

NIL and Stipend Rulings Financially Disadvantage Less Funded Schools Causing Some To Drop Out of The Current P5 and Opening All GORs Permitting a More Comprehensive Re-alignment.

The ACC Is Serious About Surviving And Doing What It Takes To Do So

Wake Forest and Boston College Opt Out of Pay For Play.

Options:
1. At 12 and a partial offer Texas and the other 3 B12 Texas schools.
2. Offer Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
3. Add six schools creating a conference with 3 divisions:

I choose to illustrate #3:

Big East Division:
Notre Dame, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia, Virginia Tech

Eastern Core Division:
Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Old B12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Louisville, Missouri, Texas, Texas Tech

In this scenario Florida State is exchanged for Missouri. The SEC loses Vanderbilt to NIL and replaces them with TCU. The SEC adds the Oklahoma schools.

SEC:
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Texas Christian
Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

The Big 10 suffers defections over pay for play and merges with the best of the PAC:

B1G: (Purdue and Northwestern opt out / Rutgers is realigned)

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State

Central:
Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

West:
Arizona, California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Washington

Stanford opts out and USC stays in Pay for Play.

If Stanford stays in you add Utah to the Central, Stanford to the West and keep Rutgers in the East and the conference moves to 21.


The AAC grows stronger with P5 remnants and becomes the 4th upper tier conference. Baylor, Kansas State, San Diego State, B.Y.U., Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State all would be solid additions.

If they breakaway from the NCAA they could negotiate a new contract as a league and level out the media payouts.

So ACC at 18, B1G/PAC at 18 or 21, and SEC at 16.

I don't believe that NIL alone would cause anyone to opt out. Then it will depend on the details of what constitutes pay for play (PFP) after the dust settles.

If all athletes must be paid, regardless of their talent level or the economic justification for their sport, then a lot of schools would probably opt out. In fact, all schools might opt out, with the elite programs finding a way to still be associated with professional teams based on some sort of licencing/facilities leasing arrangement.

If athletes are deemed to be employees - the thing the NCAA and its member schools fear the most - the lawsuits won't stop coming for many years. Partial scholarships could disappear if those athletes have to be paid the same as full scholarship athletes are. Even walk-ons would want in on the action. Are they not working just as hard as the stars? The end result would almost surely be significant reductions in roster sizes in nearly all sports and chaos would ensue.

At some point, Congress would realize they have created a monster, but they may never be able to undo the damage.

ACC needs to play defence.
They need plan B if NC and VA jump ship.
Plan C if Big-12 decides to take 8.
Texas is not gonna play step child

(07-05-2021 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that NIL alone would cause anyone to opt out. Then it will depend on the details of what constitutes pay for play (PFP) after the dust settles.

If all athletes must be paid, regardless of their talent level or the economic justification for their sport, then a lot of schools would probably opt out. In fact, all schools might opt out, with the elite programs finding a way to still be associated with professional teams based on some sort of licencing/facilities leasing arrangement.

If athletes are deemed to be employees - the thing the NCAA and its member schools fear the most - the lawsuits won't stop coming for many years. Partial scholarships could disappear if those athletes have to be paid the same as full scholarship athletes are. Even walk-ons would want in on the action. Are they not working just as hard as the stars? The end result would almost surely be significant reductions in roster sizes in nearly all sports and chaos would ensue.

At some point, Congress would realize they have created a monster, but they may never be able to undo the damage.

Ken, politicians like to think that splitting the baby resolves all problems. SCOTUS, IMO will see the confusion this year wrought by NIL, will assess the damage it will have created, and will also split the baby when they rule on stipends next summer. I suspect, which is why I've worded all my posts on stipends to mention significantly raising the caps (but not simply removing them) as an option.

I think this will ultimately decide the fate of who is in and who is out of an upper tier in both football and basketball.

Yes it will cause a paring down of roster sizes (which will mitigate expense and spread athletes around), but you will have 48 to 60 schools nationally who make that jump. TV money will actually improve as the field is culled at the top and two new products emerge, semi professional college football and amateur college football and the same in hoops. The public will then decide which to endorse, but I suspect both will still have a following. The former will replace scholarships with contracts and the latter will eliminate them and restore the notion of student athlete free for the most part of the seamy nature of what we have now.

Those paid will pay taxes, and smaller, less funded, schools will no longer need subsidies, or run red ink, for athletics. Those who pay will likely not have to deal with transfer portals and will have much stronger contractual means of dealing with players who break social behavior policies established as part of employment. But most of all the kids themselves will finally be given a chance to remain above board rather than be forced into the afore mentioned seamy arrangements, which in my estimation has been the most hypocritical and disgusting byproduct of the horribly outdated NCAA system and oversight.

I think the main question would be can you stay in a certain conference and drop down for football.

(07-05-2021 01:13 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think the main question would be can you stay in a certain conference and drop down for football.

If you mean moving to hoops as your only pay for play sport I'd say it was possible, especially to preserve 100 year old relationships. But I think it would have to everything but football and I don't think it would be possible or practical for either if hoops and football were non pay.

(07-05-2021 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that NIL alone would cause anyone to opt out. Then it will depend on the details of what constitutes pay for play (PFP) after the dust settles.

If all athletes must be paid, regardless of their talent level or the economic justification for their sport, then a lot of schools would probably opt out. In fact, all schools might opt out, with the elite programs finding a way to still be associated with professional teams based on some sort of licencing/facilities leasing arrangement.

If athletes are deemed to be employees - the thing the NCAA and its member schools fear the most - the lawsuits won't stop coming for many years. Partial scholarships could disappear if those athletes have to be paid the same as full scholarship athletes are. Even walk-ons would want in on the action. Are they not working just as hard as the stars? The end result would almost surely be significant reductions in roster sizes in nearly all sports and chaos would ensue.

At some point, Congress would realize they have created a monster, but they may never be able to undo the damage.

Ken, politicians like to think that splitting the baby resolves all problems. SCOTUS, IMO will see the confusion this year wrought by NIL, will assess the damage it will have created, and will also split the baby when they rule on stipends next summer. I suspect, which is why I've worded all my posts on stipends to mention significantly raising the caps (but not simply removing them) as an option.

I think this will ultimately decide the fate of who is in and who is out of an upper tier in both football and basketball.

Yes it will cause a paring down of roster sizes (which will mitigate expense and spread athletes around), but you will have 48 to 60 schools nationally who make that jump. TV money will actually improve as the field is culled at the top and two new products emerge, semi professional college football and amateur college football and the same in hoops. The public will then decide which to endorse, but I suspect both will still have a following. The former will replace scholarships with contracts and the latter will eliminate them and restore the notion of student athlete free for the most part of the seamy nature of what we have now.

Those paid will pay taxes, and smaller, less funded, schools will no longer need subsidies, or run red ink, for athletics. Those who pay will likely not have to deal with transfer portals and will have much stronger contractual means of dealing with players who break social behavior policies established as part of employment. But most of all the kids themselves will finally be given a chance to remain above board rather than be forced into the afore mentioned seamy arrangements, which in my estimation has been the most hypocritical and disgusting byproduct of the horribly outdated NCAA system and oversight.

I would love to see what kind of twisted logic SCOTUS would have to apply if they require raising caps on stipends instead of removing them. Essentially, they would have to argue that it's OK if you are just a little bit pregnant. I suppose they would then have to either defer to Congress to establish just how pregnant you can be before you cross the line, or require that a collective bargaining agreement must be in place that will provide a safe harbor.

(07-05-2021 02:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that NIL alone would cause anyone to opt out. Then it will depend on the details of what constitutes pay for play (PFP) after the dust settles.

If all athletes must be paid, regardless of their talent level or the economic justification for their sport, then a lot of schools would probably opt out. In fact, all schools might opt out, with the elite programs finding a way to still be associated with professional teams based on some sort of licencing/facilities leasing arrangement.

If athletes are deemed to be employees - the thing the NCAA and its member schools fear the most - the lawsuits won't stop coming for many years. Partial scholarships could disappear if those athletes have to be paid the same as full scholarship athletes are. Even walk-ons would want in on the action. Are they not working just as hard as the stars? The end result would almost surely be significant reductions in roster sizes in nearly all sports and chaos would ensue.

At some point, Congress would realize they have created a monster, but they may never be able to undo the damage.

Ken, politicians like to think that splitting the baby resolves all problems. SCOTUS, IMO will see the confusion this year wrought by NIL, will assess the damage it will have created, and will also split the baby when they rule on stipends next summer. I suspect, which is why I've worded all my posts on stipends to mention significantly raising the caps (but not simply removing them) as an option.

I think this will ultimately decide the fate of who is in and who is out of an upper tier in both football and basketball.

Yes it will cause a paring down of roster sizes (which will mitigate expense and spread athletes around), but you will have 48 to 60 schools nationally who make that jump. TV money will actually improve as the field is culled at the top and two new products emerge, semi professional college football and amateur college football and the same in hoops. The public will then decide which to endorse, but I suspect both will still have a following. The former will replace scholarships with contracts and the latter will eliminate them and restore the notion of student athlete free for the most part of the seamy nature of what we have now.

Those paid will pay taxes, and smaller, less funded, schools will no longer need subsidies, or run red ink, for athletics. Those who pay will likely not have to deal with transfer portals and will have much stronger contractual means of dealing with players who break social behavior policies established as part of employment. But most of all the kids themselves will finally be given a chance to remain above board rather than be forced into the afore mentioned seamy arrangements, which in my estimation has been the most hypocritical and disgusting byproduct of the horribly outdated NCAA system and oversight.

I would love to see what kind of twisted logic SCOTUS would have to apply if they require raising caps on stipends instead of removing them. Essentially, they would have to argue that it's OK if you are just a little bit pregnant. I suppose they would then have to either defer to Congress to establish just how pregnant you can be before you cross the line, or require that a collective bargaining agreement must be in place that will provide a safe harbor.

They would acknowledge that NIL would establish the difference on performance and that a baseline needed to established closer to market value for non stars. No more twisted than that. In it they would also acknowledge that universities were substantively different from franchises and that relationships were terminal with relationship to matriculation and/or a set time. I wouldn't surprised to see an hours x wage arrangement set up with a cap on both.

(07-05-2021 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 02:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that NIL alone would cause anyone to opt out. Then it will depend on the details of what constitutes pay for play (PFP) after the dust settles.

If all athletes must be paid, regardless of their talent level or the economic justification for their sport, then a lot of schools would probably opt out. In fact, all schools might opt out, with the elite programs finding a way to still be associated with professional teams based on some sort of licencing/facilities leasing arrangement.

If athletes are deemed to be employees - the thing the NCAA and its member schools fear the most - the lawsuits won't stop coming for many years. Partial scholarships could disappear if those athletes have to be paid the same as full scholarship athletes are. Even walk-ons would want in on the action. Are they not working just as hard as the stars? The end result would almost surely be significant reductions in roster sizes in nearly all sports and chaos would ensue.

At some point, Congress would realize they have created a monster, but they may never be able to undo the damage.

Ken, politicians like to think that splitting the baby resolves all problems. SCOTUS, IMO will see the confusion this year wrought by NIL, will assess the damage it will have created, and will also split the baby when they rule on stipends next summer. I suspect, which is why I've worded all my posts on stipends to mention significantly raising the caps (but not simply removing them) as an option.

I think this will ultimately decide the fate of who is in and who is out of an upper tier in both football and basketball.

Yes it will cause a paring down of roster sizes (which will mitigate expense and spread athletes around), but you will have 48 to 60 schools nationally who make that jump. TV money will actually improve as the field is culled at the top and two new products emerge, semi professional college football and amateur college football and the same in hoops. The public will then decide which to endorse, but I suspect both will still have a following. The former will replace scholarships with contracts and the latter will eliminate them and restore the notion of student athlete free for the most part of the seamy nature of what we have now.

Those paid will pay taxes, and smaller, less funded, schools will no longer need subsidies, or run red ink, for athletics. Those who pay will likely not have to deal with transfer portals and will have much stronger contractual means of dealing with players who break social behavior policies established as part of employment. But most of all the kids themselves will finally be given a chance to remain above board rather than be forced into the afore mentioned seamy arrangements, which in my estimation has been the most hypocritical and disgusting byproduct of the horribly outdated NCAA system and oversight.

I would love to see what kind of twisted logic SCOTUS would have to apply if they require raising caps on stipends instead of removing them. Essentially, they would have to argue that it's OK if you are just a little bit pregnant. I suppose they would then have to either defer to Congress to establish just how pregnant you can be before you cross the line, or require that a collective bargaining agreement must be in place that will provide a safe harbor.

They would acknowledge that NIL would establish the difference on performance and that a baseline needed to established closer to market value for non stars. No more twisted than that. In it they would also acknowledge that universities were substantively different from franchises and that relationships were terminal with relationship to matriculation and/or a set time. I wouldn't surprised to see an hours x wage arrangement set up with a cap on both.

There are already wage and hour laws in effect that have passed constitutional muster. SCOTUS can't be in the business of declaring what specific dollar amounts constitute "fair market value" for any athlete (or coach). There is no legal principle involved that would do that. I believe they can establish a floor based on existing minimum wage laws, but can't impose ceilings based on any constitutional principle.

(07-05-2021 02:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 02:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that NIL alone would cause anyone to opt out. Then it will depend on the details of what constitutes pay for play (PFP) after the dust settles.

If all athletes must be paid, regardless of their talent level or the economic justification for their sport, then a lot of schools would probably opt out. In fact, all schools might opt out, with the elite programs finding a way to still be associated with professional teams based on some sort of licencing/facilities leasing arrangement.

If athletes are deemed to be employees - the thing the NCAA and its member schools fear the most - the lawsuits won't stop coming for many years. Partial scholarships could disappear if those athletes have to be paid the same as full scholarship athletes are. Even walk-ons would want in on the action. Are they not working just as hard as the stars? The end result would almost surely be significant reductions in roster sizes in nearly all sports and chaos would ensue.

At some point, Congress would realize they have created a monster, but they may never be able to undo the damage.

Ken, politicians like to think that splitting the baby resolves all problems. SCOTUS, IMO will see the confusion this year wrought by NIL, will assess the damage it will have created, and will also split the baby when they rule on stipends next summer. I suspect, which is why I've worded all my posts on stipends to mention significantly raising the caps (but not simply removing them) as an option.

I think this will ultimately decide the fate of who is in and who is out of an upper tier in both football and basketball.

Yes it will cause a paring down of roster sizes (which will mitigate expense and spread athletes around), but you will have 48 to 60 schools nationally who make that jump. TV money will actually improve as the field is culled at the top and two new products emerge, semi professional college football and amateur college football and the same in hoops. The public will then decide which to endorse, but I suspect both will still have a following. The former will replace scholarships with contracts and the latter will eliminate them and restore the notion of student athlete free for the most part of the seamy nature of what we have now.

Those paid will pay taxes, and smaller, less funded, schools will no longer need subsidies, or run red ink, for athletics. Those who pay will likely not have to deal with transfer portals and will have much stronger contractual means of dealing with players who break social behavior policies established as part of employment. But most of all the kids themselves will finally be given a chance to remain above board rather than be forced into the afore mentioned seamy arrangements, which in my estimation has been the most hypocritical and disgusting byproduct of the horribly outdated NCAA system and oversight.

I would love to see what kind of twisted logic SCOTUS would have to apply if they require raising caps on stipends instead of removing them. Essentially, they would have to argue that it's OK if you are just a little bit pregnant. I suppose they would then have to either defer to Congress to establish just how pregnant you can be before you cross the line, or require that a collective bargaining agreement must be in place that will provide a safe harbor.

They would acknowledge that NIL would establish the difference on performance and that a baseline needed to established closer to market value for non stars. No more twisted than that. In it they would also acknowledge that universities were substantively different from franchises and that relationships were terminal with relationship to matriculation and/or a set time. I wouldn't surprised to see an hours x wage arrangement set up with a cap on both.

There are already wage and hour laws in effect that have passed constitutional muster. SCOTUS can't be in the business of declaring what specific dollar amounts constitute "fair market value" for any athlete (or coach). There is no legal principle involved that would do that. I believe they can establish a floor based on existing minimum wage laws, but can't impose ceilings based on any constitutional principle.

We both are speculating, but a backup lineman is worth more to the university than a sales clerk at WALMART. A minimum value for a non starting football team is going to have to be valued higher. I'd say the baseline pay, which will be the stipend is other than unskilled labor and a new baseline will be established, if not by SCOTUS then by Congress and the average retail clerk does not face the same bodily injury risk. To equate the two is absurd and therein resides the impetus for interpretation.

(07-05-2021 01:13 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think the main question would be can you stay in a certain conference and drop down for football.

Big East would gladly take any ACC dropouts.

(07-05-2021 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  If all athletes must be paid, regardless of their talent level or the economic justification for their sport, then a lot of schools would probably opt out.
...
If athletes are deemed to be employees - the thing the NCAA and its member schools fear the most - the lawsuits won't stop coming for many years. ...

It is the athletes that are recruited as athletes and then given scholarships because the NCAA insists that all of the athletes working for your football or basketball team must be formally enrolled as full time students that are evidently, to any disinterested third party observers, unpaid workers for the big football and basketball enterprises structured as non-profit enterprises.

A student gaining admission to a University first and then pursuing an athletic scholarship so they don't have to take a part time job and can have more time to devote to the team ... that seems like it can withstand the lawsuits.

So spinning off the big money football and basketball teams as for profit corporations with an affiliation agreement with the school paying a negotiated license fee for the use of the University name and with the athletes having the right to attend University classes if they wish would clean up most of the most serious legal jeopardy. For most of the Olympic sports, the need to give preferential admission to targeted athletes for the teams is only an arms-race requirement, and if nobody was allowed to do it without risk of being caught and losing post season competition access, there would be less pressure to do it.

Indeed, it might be the second tier regional "breakeven" college sports ... baseball in parts of the South, hockey in parts of the North, lacrosse in the East ... where it might be the hardest to sort things out.

I really think the best move for about 2/3rds of the ACC is to split up—

8 schools to the Big 12 (forming an East division w/ WVU)
2 schools to the SEC
2 schools to the Big Ten

That only leaves 3 programs out in the cold.

New Playoff Format:

Division winners from the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12 (6 bids) + PAC 12 champ + non-P5 champ + 4 at larges