Notre Dame isn’t joining a conference unless it has to. If it is forced to join a conference, national coast-to-coast exposure and strong academic associations would need to occur IMO. These factors, coupled with the NBC/B1G relationship moving forward make it more likely a B1G association would be more likely than an SEC one. However, $$$ always wins out.

(07-09-2023 10:43 AM)goofus Wrote:  The more I think about it, the more likely it is to me that when ACC GOR is done, the Big boys of the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Notre Dame will leave their respective conferences to form a P1 football conference of 16-24 schools.

Alternatively there will be a P1 basketball conference that also plays football that will include basketball blue bloods like Kansas, Indiana, Duke, UConn, Cuse, Louisville, etc.

Small quibble: when I list bluebloods, I don't lump Kentucky and Carolina in with "etc."

(07-09-2023 12:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Notre Dame isn’t joining a conference unless it has to. If it is forced to join a conference, national coast-to-coast exposure and strong academic associations would need to occur IMO. These factors, coupled with the NBC/B1G relationship moving forward make it more likely a B1G association would be more likely than an SEC one. However, $$$ always wins out.

Notre Dame is one of the few places where your last sentence isn't true.

(07-09-2023 01:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 12:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Notre Dame isn’t joining a conference unless it has to. If it is forced to join a conference, national coast-to-coast exposure and strong academic associations would need to occur IMO. These factors, coupled with the NBC/B1G relationship moving forward make it more likely a B1G association would be more likely than an SEC one. However, $$$ always wins out.

Notre Dame is one of the few places where your last sentence isn't true.

Even for them though, it has to be within reason. 10 years from now, if NBC or the market can only offer 80 million, but a conference affiliation can pay $120 or $130 million annually, is ND going to continue to operate at that type of disadvantage over a decade? I don’t think so.

Right now, terms are within the same ballpark so it works. Who knows what it looks like in a decade.

(07-09-2023 06:06 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 01:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 12:21 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Notre Dame isn’t joining a conference unless it has to. If it is forced to join a conference, national coast-to-coast exposure and strong academic associations would need to occur IMO. These factors, coupled with the NBC/B1G relationship moving forward make it more likely a B1G association would be more likely than an SEC one. However, $$$ always wins out.

Notre Dame is one of the few places where your last sentence isn't true.

Even for them though, it has to be within reason. 10 years from now, if NBC or the market can only offer 80 million, but a conference affiliation can pay $120 or $130 million annually, is ND going to continue to operate at that type of disadvantage over a decade? I don’t think so.

Right now, terms are within the same ballpark so it works. Who knows what it looks like in a decade.

It'll probably depend how their new football TV deal turns out in the next year or two. If it pays out well enough to stay competitive with the B1G and SEC (total payout probably within $20-30 mil), they'll remain where they are until at least the next media deal some time around 2030 or so. If they end up in a similar situation as the PAC where it can't get a competitive deal and/or media partners try low balling them, then it might force their hand, and we see some more movement happen somewhere between the PAC saga and the ACC 7 potentially taking on the GOR.

I don't think Notre Dame will join a conference in full in the short term.

I think it's entirely possible ND could land a partial deal with either the Big Ten or SEC.

That's the next round of crazy...however that works out could spark a lot of changes. If nothing else, their departure from the ACC would leave quite a wake.

(04-19-2023 09:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='UCbball21' pid='18903636' dateline='1681957826']
I


Second, it would be ESPN going full Death Star, not the SEC. Should that happen I do not anticipate anyone being dropped, I can see ESPN raising the minimum level of investment in facilities, salaries, and roster size, and number of other sports to a level where a Vandy, Miss State, or a few others would have to consider dropping down. So yes there would likely be a culling, but not one that would come from the SEC, but rather from a contracting entity imposing some fairly high minimums.

And I would see that happening post 2036 when the sport would need to consolidate and tie the major players into Southern California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, and other recruiting hot beds, and do so utilizing only the strongest brands (think 24 to 32 schools). It would be a last ditch approach to milk a dying sport and would seek to make it a novelty. The NFL would have a vested interest as well.

The bolded part up top, JR, depresses me. Even as someone who loves realignment, the bolded quote depresses me. Even more depressed than I was after Texas & Oklahoma left for the SEC. The truth is we need more Commissioner Bowlsbys, not just one. I do remember how I felt when BYU, Cincy, UCF, & Houston joined. I felt that all wasn't lost. I felt like a new day had dawned. The ACC and the PAC, even though they probably look down their nose at both of them, need a Bowlsby and a Yormark, IMHO. And the Big XII needs to continue to fight, IMO. It may be the only way college football is rescued from dying.

(04-19-2023 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:25 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  If only Notre Dame wanted to join a conference. They could be kingmakers plus get revenge over the bigotry of Fielding Yost.

More likely, Notre Dame sticks to its independent core. They ride the ACC train as long as possible. Assuming football is 75+% of revenues, the SEC continues its championship dominance and the ACC destabilizes…then ND will eventually negotiate a partial deal with the B1G. Michigan and Ohio State will adapt the guiding principles of the B1G.

In a world were the B1G is threatened due to lack of football depth, they can use their media financial payouts advantage to entice programs with proven championship caliber teams. They could expand with ND partial, plus Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech. Underneath the bravado of AAU membership, the fundamental interest is in promoting academic research. ND, Miami, Georgia Tech and Florida State all have strong academic research commitments. Clemson is the only modest outlier…strong undergrad educational reputation without a large research portfolio. IMHO, even amongst B1G-affiliated academics Clemson would be less controversial than Nebraska. The Southern wing of the ACC makes more media revenue than their SEC rivals, while also maintaining a viable path to elite recruits and football championships.

Except they likely wont have much of a media revenue advantage if any. We are passing, if we haven't passed, peak oil and travel will be more costly than ever. The coming supreme court ruling on pay for play is the odds-on favorite to kill off amateurism and institute pay for play, and SEC schools make more total revenue than any conference and have for years. And that event is the end of the connection between athletics and being an AAU school. And if Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson let the Big 10 into the Deep South the SEC would never schedule another single game with them. Between the 3 of them they can each play 2 games in the Deep South and one will be away. Other than that, their home slates will be filled with Northern schools that only their immediate fan base, which would shrink significantly from lack of t shirt fans, would support. Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson have one game each which predicates all of their donations and each of those games is against an in-state SEC rival. Say bye-bye to your donation games. Miami is unique. So far away it doesn't impact the SEC much so I don't think they matter so much.

And where do you think Southern recruits will go? To the conference where they family and friends can watch them play regularly, and close by. To the conference which places more players on NFL rosters than any other. To the conference that has dominated championships for the past two decades plus.

What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

(07-10-2023 02:40 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?

To your general tenor, it's a bit nonsensical. The NFL is by no means all powerful and they can't simply "get the law changed" if they don't like it. For one, the NFL maintains certain legal advantages as well. If we want an environment of pure competition then it's not a one-sided equation. The NFL is a private enterprise that exists purely to make money, colleges do not exist for that reason which alters the dynamics from several different perspectives.

If for no other reason, college football already undercuts the NFL's ability to make its highest profit. Yes, the NFL wins one on one in broadcast windows, but they do that with everyone else too. Even the World Series doesn't compete against the NFL and MLB is plenty rich.

There are reasons these laws exist. The same Congress you're talking about represents the people and communities those schools benefit. They won't get the shaft when it comes to Federal law. The only thing they're getting now is pushback from generations of poor labor practices, nothing different than any other industry would get. To my point, they're pretty much the last holdout in that regard. if that doesn't speak to their favored place in society then I don't know what would.

Remember, all the members Congress went to school somewhere...they get their donations from somewhere...and they have all sorts of economic ties to institutions and industries back home. Major universities are almost as tied to the fabric of our society as religion is. Is it any wonder they generate somewhat similar levels of passion?

(07-10-2023 06:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 02:40 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?

To your general tenor, it's a bit nonsensical. The NFL is by no means all powerful and they can't simply "get the law changed" if they don't like it. For one, the NFL maintains certain legal advantages as well. If we want an environment of pure competition then it's not a one-sided equation. The NFL is a private enterprise that exists purely to make money, colleges do not exist for that reason which alters the dynamics from several different perspectives.

If for no other reason, college football already undercuts the NFL's ability to make its highest profit. Yes, the NFL wins one on one in broadcast windows, but they do that with everyone else too. Even the World Series doesn't compete against the NFL and MLB is plenty rich.

There are reasons these laws exist. The same Congress you're talking about represents the people and communities those schools benefit. They won't get the shaft when it comes to Federal law. The only thing they're getting now is pushback from generations of poor labor practices, nothing different than any other industry would get. To my point, they're pretty much the last holdout in that regard. if that doesn't speak to their favored place in society then I don't know what would.

Remember, all the members Congress went to school somewhere...they get their donations from somewhere...and they have all sorts of economic ties to institutions and industries back home. Major universities are almost as tied to the fabric of our society as religion is. Is it any wonder they generate somewhat similar levels of passion?

Well, think how much more overhead the NFL would have to have if colleges didn't play football. The NFL would have to organize, and stage events, at a feeder level, meaning develop a minor league. College Football is a free supply of talent to the NFL in as much as the NFL pays the colleges nothing for what they produce.

(07-10-2023 06:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 02:40 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?

To your general tenor, it's a bit nonsensical. The NFL is by no means all powerful and they can't simply "get the law changed" if they don't like it. For one, the NFL maintains certain legal advantages as well. If we want an environment of pure competition then it's not a one-sided equation. The NFL is a private enterprise that exists purely to make money, colleges do not exist for that reason which alters the dynamics from several different perspectives.

If for no other reason, college football already undercuts the NFL's ability to make its highest profit. Yes, the NFL wins one on one in broadcast windows, but they do that with everyone else too. Even the World Series doesn't compete against the NFL and MLB is plenty rich.

There are reasons these laws exist. The same Congress you're talking about represents the people and communities those schools benefit. They won't get the shaft when it comes to Federal law. The only thing they're getting now is pushback from generations of poor labor practices, nothing different than any other industry would get. To my point, they're pretty much the last holdout in that regard. if that doesn't speak to their favored place in society then I don't know what would.

Remember, all the members Congress went to school somewhere...they get their donations from somewhere...and they have all sorts of economic ties to institutions and industries back home. Major universities are almost as tied to the fabric of our society as religion is. Is it any wonder they generate somewhat similar levels of passion?

"What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?"


I don't know how to explain any better that this isn't how the SCOTUS ruling would work, nor what SCOTUS would actually be deciding as it pertains to employment law. I blame the media for treating judicial decisions as a team-based sporting event where the headline is about specific scenarios/outcomes that immediately result from a SCOTUS decision, rather than any attempt to actually convey or explain the ruling in detail.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 protected the amateur leagues of college and high schools sports while they are in-season from being trampled by the NFL. If college sports no longer have any claim to amateur status, then there is no basis for the US government to restrict the NFL from broadcasting on Saturdays.

(07-10-2023 02:40 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:25 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  If only Notre Dame wanted to join a conference. They could be kingmakers plus get revenge over the bigotry of Fielding Yost.

More likely, Notre Dame sticks to its independent core. They ride the ACC train as long as possible. Assuming football is 75+% of revenues, the SEC continues its championship dominance and the ACC destabilizes…then ND will eventually negotiate a partial deal with the B1G. Michigan and Ohio State will adapt the guiding principles of the B1G.

In a world were the B1G is threatened due to lack of football depth, they can use their media financial payouts advantage to entice programs with proven championship caliber teams. They could expand with ND partial, plus Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech. Underneath the bravado of AAU membership, the fundamental interest is in promoting academic research. ND, Miami, Georgia Tech and Florida State all have strong academic research commitments. Clemson is the only modest outlier…strong undergrad educational reputation without a large research portfolio. IMHO, even amongst B1G-affiliated academics Clemson would be less controversial than Nebraska. The Southern wing of the ACC makes more media revenue than their SEC rivals, while also maintaining a viable path to elite recruits and football championships.

Except they likely wont have much of a media revenue advantage if any. We are passing, if we haven't passed, peak oil and travel will be more costly than ever. The coming supreme court ruling on pay for play is the odds-on favorite to kill off amateurism and institute pay for play, and SEC schools make more total revenue than any conference and have for years. And that event is the end of the connection between athletics and being an AAU school. And if Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson let the Big 10 into the Deep South the SEC would never schedule another single game with them. Between the 3 of them they can each play 2 games in the Deep South and one will be away. Other than that, their home slates will be filled with Northern schools that only their immediate fan base, which would shrink significantly from lack of t shirt fans, would support. Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson have one game each which predicates all of their donations and each of those games is against an in-state SEC rival. Say bye-bye to your donation games. Miami is unique. So far away it doesn't impact the SEC much so I don't think they matter so much.

And where do you think Southern recruits will go? To the conference where they family and friends can watch them play regularly, and close by. To the conference which places more players on NFL rosters than any other. To the conference that has dominated championships for the past two decades plus.

What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

Re: Georgia Tech

Beepbeepjeep, want to know the quickest way Georgia Tech can get a SEC invitation?? Flirt with B1G. I kid you not. Other universities have done it, and because E$PN i$ $o protective of it$ monopoly, it pulled out everything to $ave its monopoly. If Georgia Tech has to decide between a B1G invite and a SEC invite, Sankey would have the GT president at his front door before he could get a chance to hang up!! Trust me on this one!!

Re: Vandy

I don't see anything happening to Vandy until we get to a super league, and I'm kind of hoping we never do. Vandy has been a very good friend to the SEC over the years. They have provided many doctors to heal us and attorneys/lawyers to right wrongs against us. (An old favorite doctor of mine graduated from Vanderbilt.) You don't go after friends; you go after enemies!!!

(07-10-2023 07:07 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 06:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 02:40 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?

To your general tenor, it's a bit nonsensical. The NFL is by no means all powerful and they can't simply "get the law changed" if they don't like it. For one, the NFL maintains certain legal advantages as well. If we want an environment of pure competition then it's not a one-sided equation. The NFL is a private enterprise that exists purely to make money, colleges do not exist for that reason which alters the dynamics from several different perspectives.

If for no other reason, college football already undercuts the NFL's ability to make its highest profit. Yes, the NFL wins one on one in broadcast windows, but they do that with everyone else too. Even the World Series doesn't compete against the NFL and MLB is plenty rich.

There are reasons these laws exist. The same Congress you're talking about represents the people and communities those schools benefit. They won't get the shaft when it comes to Federal law. The only thing they're getting now is pushback from generations of poor labor practices, nothing different than any other industry would get. To my point, they're pretty much the last holdout in that regard. if that doesn't speak to their favored place in society then I don't know what would.

Remember, all the members Congress went to school somewhere...they get their donations from somewhere...and they have all sorts of economic ties to institutions and industries back home. Major universities are almost as tied to the fabric of our society as religion is. Is it any wonder they generate somewhat similar levels of passion?

"What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?"


I don't know how to explain any better that this isn't how the SCOTUS ruling would work, nor what SCOTUS would actually be deciding as it pertains to employment law. I blame the media for treating judicial decisions as a team-based sporting event where the headline is about specific scenarios/outcomes that immediately result from a SCOTUS decision, rather than any attempt to actually convey or explain the ruling in detail.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 protected the amateur leagues of college and high schools sports while they are in-season from being trampled by the NFL. If college sports no longer have any claim to amateur status, then there is no basis for the US government to restrict the NFL from broadcasting on Saturdays.

Fair enough on the last point, but that doesn't really address why Congress would be interested in such a law in the first place. Amateurism isn't the key component, it's the fact that the institutions we're talking about carry an importance beyond simply entertainment or revenue generation through broadcasting. Remember that the money colleges and conferences are making is a relatively new phenomenon.

That trend didn't begin until after Georgia and Oklahoma sued the NCAA. That's what allowed schools to actually own their rights. Before that ruling, the NCAA owned everything and these schools certainly weren't making millions of dollars off of TV back in the 60s. Hardly anyone was even on TV back then. Really, it wasn't even until the advent of cable TV that conferences were in a position to earn much of anything.

Speaking of cable TV, some argue the Sports Broadcasting Act was only supposed to apply to OTA broadcasting anyway. In other words, leagues combining their rights to go on linear cable wouldn't necessarily violate antitrust laws. Considering that's a pretty sizable loophole over the course of the last 3 decades, I think it's interesting that no one has ever pushed the envelope.

More to the point, the Act pertains to specific professional leagues and specific antitrust exemptions. It's not simply a catch-all for anything that's professional. I don't see any reason to assume it's authority would completely dissipate in the wake of college athletes becoming employees.

My overall conclusion, especially considering the developmental advantages that colleges provide the NFL, is there are reasons beyond the Sports Broadcasting Act that keep detente, if you will.

But I think you're glossing over my question about the potential SCOTUS ruling. Employment law is fairly well established, certainly at the Federal level. Outside of a tweak here and there, what are schools/conferences going to do that would circumvent a court ruling that classified college athletes as employees? I repeat the question because your initial point didn't seem to rely on the legalities of amateurism in order to establish the ability of schools to govern their own affairs in such a regard.

Quote:And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees.

Not trying to be pedantic, but this doesn't sound like an argument rooted in the Sports Broadcasting Act.

But anyway, the potential pitfalls of employment has actually been my argument all along as people have desired that athletes get straight payments. You're either a student or an employee of a university. You can be both in some sense, sure, but one always supersedes the other. If college athletes are making big money and are classified as employees then I don't see any wiggle room.

I think some are correct when they say schools/conferences will simply come up with a contract structure that keeps everything in working order and hopefully those contracts emphasize the importance of education or the NFL will be the least of college football's problems.

(07-09-2023 08:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think Notre Dame will join a conference in full in the short term.

I think it's entirely possible ND could land a partial deal with either the Big Ten or SEC.

That's the next round of crazy...however that works out could spark a lot of changes. If nothing else, their departure from the ACC would leave quite a wake.

Agree they won't join in the short term.

There is no way the SEC or Big 10 gives them a partial deal. It will be all or nothing.

I think in the 2030s Notre Dame will come to the realization that Texas and OU did, that they need to join one of the big two conferences to stay competitive. Its not just about money, but its about perception and exposure.

(07-10-2023 07:07 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 06:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 02:40 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?

To your general tenor, it's a bit nonsensical. The NFL is by no means all powerful and they can't simply "get the law changed" if they don't like it. For one, the NFL maintains certain legal advantages as well. If we want an environment of pure competition then it's not a one-sided equation. The NFL is a private enterprise that exists purely to make money, colleges do not exist for that reason which alters the dynamics from several different perspectives.

If for no other reason, college football already undercuts the NFL's ability to make its highest profit. Yes, the NFL wins one on one in broadcast windows, but they do that with everyone else too. Even the World Series doesn't compete against the NFL and MLB is plenty rich.

There are reasons these laws exist. The same Congress you're talking about represents the people and communities those schools benefit. They won't get the shaft when it comes to Federal law. The only thing they're getting now is pushback from generations of poor labor practices, nothing different than any other industry would get. To my point, they're pretty much the last holdout in that regard. if that doesn't speak to their favored place in society then I don't know what would.

Remember, all the members Congress went to school somewhere...they get their donations from somewhere...and they have all sorts of economic ties to institutions and industries back home. Major universities are almost as tied to the fabric of our society as religion is. Is it any wonder they generate somewhat similar levels of passion?

"What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?"


I don't know how to explain any better that this isn't how the SCOTUS ruling would work, nor what SCOTUS would actually be deciding as it pertains to employment law. I blame the media for treating judicial decisions as a team-based sporting event where the headline is about specific scenarios/outcomes that immediately result from a SCOTUS decision, rather than any attempt to actually convey or explain the ruling in detail.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 protected the amateur leagues of college and high schools sports while they are in-season from being trampled by the NFL. If college sports no longer have any claim to amateur status, then there is no basis for the US government to restrict the NFL from broadcasting on Saturdays.

As someone else said, they will keep the law because they want to. NFL is not going to be playing on Saturdays during the college football season.

(07-10-2023 09:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 07:07 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 06:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 02:40 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  What, exactly, is Georgia Tech supposed to do then? They aren't getting an invite to rejoin the SEC, and the other southern schools are going to blackball them for making a smart choice for themselves if the B1G invites them?

This doesn't bode well for how Vanderbilt is going to be treated in the future if things get tough.


Side note, travel isn't going to be more costly than ever. At minimum, airline fuel costs will stay static or decrease as there will be a surplus of high grade oil (refined into Jet-A) as EVs grab ever increasing shares of the number of cars on the road. The US, Canada, and probably parts of Australia/Russia are the only places where current EV tech isn't sufficient (mostly due to range concerns and the impact of cold weather on range) to replace nearly all existing passenger vehicles. And we're not even getting into what 10 more years of battery tech improvements will look like (e.g. solid state batteries and their energy density improvements).

And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees. Which, as another reminder, the universities could make their student athletes full employees today if they wanted to, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

Nor does the NFL/NBA want to see college sports become a professional league competitor (which it would be if you removed the student [and thus 5 years of eligibility rule] part). The NFL and NBA choose to restrict who they can draft based on age in order to let colleges be a de facto minor league (less so for the NBA lately given the G-League and rising Euro importance). If they see a threat in the top 30-50 universities becoming (or licensing their brands to) unrestricted pro sports leagues that compete on their turf they will simply bury them. The NFL will get the no playing on Saturdays rule eliminated, because it's not going to have any reason to stand that they cannot play on Saturdays simply to protect a now professionalized "college" football league. The NFL will also start drafting 17/18 year olds and put them in a minor league baseball-esque development league, probably one that plays in the late winter/early spring, and probably one that's located in cities the NFL isn't fully in, like Birmingham, or Norman, or Columbia (either), etc.

Which leads me to my main point - your scenarios all envision how the SEC is going to triumph over the B1G, which I'd evaluate as ill-founded, petty, and extremely unlikely to happen anyway, but even if you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, your plan completely misses the point that if that ever happens then the NFL is going to squash the super SEC like a bug. It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best. College football exists as it does today and has grown into this giant money maker BECAUSE THE NFL IS RESTRICTED (partially by choice, partially by law) FROM COMPETING WITH IT.

What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?

To your general tenor, it's a bit nonsensical. The NFL is by no means all powerful and they can't simply "get the law changed" if they don't like it. For one, the NFL maintains certain legal advantages as well. If we want an environment of pure competition then it's not a one-sided equation. The NFL is a private enterprise that exists purely to make money, colleges do not exist for that reason which alters the dynamics from several different perspectives.

If for no other reason, college football already undercuts the NFL's ability to make its highest profit. Yes, the NFL wins one on one in broadcast windows, but they do that with everyone else too. Even the World Series doesn't compete against the NFL and MLB is plenty rich.

There are reasons these laws exist. The same Congress you're talking about represents the people and communities those schools benefit. They won't get the shaft when it comes to Federal law. The only thing they're getting now is pushback from generations of poor labor practices, nothing different than any other industry would get. To my point, they're pretty much the last holdout in that regard. if that doesn't speak to their favored place in society then I don't know what would.

Remember, all the members Congress went to school somewhere...they get their donations from somewhere...and they have all sorts of economic ties to institutions and industries back home. Major universities are almost as tied to the fabric of our society as religion is. Is it any wonder they generate somewhat similar levels of passion?

"What are universities going to do to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling on the nature of employment for college athletes?"


I don't know how to explain any better that this isn't how the SCOTUS ruling would work, nor what SCOTUS would actually be deciding as it pertains to employment law. I blame the media for treating judicial decisions as a team-based sporting event where the headline is about specific scenarios/outcomes that immediately result from a SCOTUS decision, rather than any attempt to actually convey or explain the ruling in detail.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 protected the amateur leagues of college and high schools sports while they are in-season from being trampled by the NFL. If college sports no longer have any claim to amateur status, then there is no basis for the US government to restrict the NFL from broadcasting on Saturdays.

Fair enough on the last point, but that doesn't really address why Congress would be interested in such a law in the first place. Amateurism isn't the key component, it's the fact that the institutions we're talking about carry an importance beyond simply entertainment or revenue generation through broadcasting. Remember that the money colleges and conferences are making is a relatively new phenomenon.

That trend didn't begin until after Georgia and Oklahoma sued the NCAA. That's what allowed schools to actually own their rights. Before that ruling, the NCAA owned everything and these schools certainly weren't making millions of dollars off of TV back in the 60s. Hardly anyone was even on TV back then. Really, it wasn't even until the advent of cable TV that conferences were in a position to earn much of anything.

Speaking of cable TV, some argue the Sports Broadcasting Act was only supposed to apply to OTA broadcasting anyway. In other words, leagues combining their rights to go on linear cable wouldn't necessarily violate antitrust laws. Considering that's a pretty sizable loophole over the course of the last 3 decades, I think it's interesting that no one has ever pushed the envelope.

More to the point, the Act pertains to specific professional leagues and specific antitrust exemptions. It's not simply a catch-all for anything that's professional. I don't see any reason to assume it's authority would completely dissipate in the wake of college athletes becoming employees.

My overall conclusion, especially considering the developmental advantages that colleges provide the NFL, is there are reasons beyond the Sports Broadcasting Act that keep detente, if you will.

But I think you're glossing over my question about the potential SCOTUS ruling. Employment law is fairly well established, certainly at the Federal level. Outside of a tweak here and there, what are schools/conferences going to do that would circumvent a court ruling that classified college athletes as employees? I repeat the question because your initial point didn't seem to rely on the legalities of amateurism in order to establish the ability of schools to govern their own affairs in such a regard.

Quote:And as I've said repeatedly, the Supreme Court won't rule that student-athletes are employees now and forever, they'd rule that student-athletes should be classified as employees under the existing rules that universities apply to them. And then the universities will change the rules and guidelines applied so that legally the student-athletes are not considered employees.

Not trying to be pedantic, but this doesn't sound like an argument rooted in the Sports Broadcasting Act.

But anyway, the potential pitfalls of employment has actually been my argument all along as people have desired that athletes get straight payments. You're either a student or an employee of a university. You can be both in some sense, sure, but one always supersedes the other. If college athletes are making big money and are classified as employees then I don't see any wiggle room.

I think some are correct when they say schools/conferences will simply come up with a contract structure that keeps everything in working order and hopefully those contracts emphasize the importance of education or the NFL will be the least of college football's problems.

They will not be able to get around it. And many don't really want to.
Maybe Division III can change their rules enough. Make it look more like club sports. Hard to see Division II being able to. No way Division I can.

(07-11-2023 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 08:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think Notre Dame will join a conference in full in the short term.

I think it's entirely possible ND could land a partial deal with either the Big Ten or SEC.

That's the next round of crazy...however that works out could spark a lot of changes. If nothing else, their departure from the ACC would leave quite a wake.

Agree they won't join in the short term.

There is no way the SEC or Big 10 gives them a partial deal. It will be all or nothing.

I think in the 2030s Notre Dame will come to the realization that Texas and OU did, that they need to join one of the big two conferences to stay competitive. Its not just about money, but its about perception and exposure.

Fortunately for the Irish if the reports are true (NBC paying about $60 Million per year), that they can take their time to assess any reduction in their competitiveness before they make any sort of conference decision.

Notre Dame is in the unique position that they can modify their non-ACC football schedule to make it as National as they want (something that Texas was not able to do and still try to compete in the Big 12). They could show recruits a much tougher schedule in their current situation than they could if they were members of the Big Ten. The only think they couldn't tout is the ability to win a conference championship in football (which would not be the case in all of their other sports).
It could be stated that the competition the Irish get in sports in general (other than football, which does not apply) in the ACC is equal or better than they could find in any other conference, plus the Irish have the ability to compete for conference championships in those sports as well.

(07-12-2023 03:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-11-2023 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 08:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think Notre Dame will join a conference in full in the short term.

I think it's entirely possible ND could land a partial deal with either the Big Ten or SEC.

That's the next round of crazy...however that works out could spark a lot of changes. If nothing else, their departure from the ACC would leave quite a wake.

Agree they won't join in the short term.

There is no way the SEC or Big 10 gives them a partial deal. It will be all or nothing.

I think in the 2030s Notre Dame will come to the realization that Texas and OU did, that they need to join one of the big two conferences to stay competitive. Its not just about money, but its about perception and exposure.

Fortunately for the Irish if the reports are true (NBC paying about $60 Million per year), that they can take their time to assess any reduction in their competitiveness before they make any sort of conference decision.

Notre Dame is in the unique position that they can modify their non-ACC football schedule to make it as National as they want (something that Texas was not able to do and still try to compete in the Big 12). They could show recruits a much tougher schedule in their current situation than they could if they were members of the Big Ten. The only think they couldn't tout is the ability to win a conference championship in football (which would not be the case in all of their other sports).
It could be stated that the competition the Irish get in sports in general (other than football, which does not apply) in the ACC is equal or better than they could find in any other conference, plus the Irish have the ability to compete for conference championships in those sports as well.

None of this is an accident. It is the result of ND never making quick decisions or panic decisions.

It is the result of ND staying a football independent when just about everyone else abandoned it and sticking to their guns despite lots of outside pressure attempts to "force" ND to abandon independence and join a football conference..

It is the result of some very good maneuvering throughout the BCS and playoff eras.

It is the result of having good people at the negotiating table.

Jack Swarbrick has done an outstanding job guiding ND through the CR turmoil of the past thirteen years or so.

It appears (from the evidence to date) that ND will again walk that tightrope and avoid football joining the Big Ten when lots of people thought it a done deal, just like in 2010-12.

IF ND gets $60 million from NBC plus $17.5 million from the ACC (like it did in 2022) with no payment of an exit fee, GOR buyout, breach of any contract and without football joining a conference, then Swarbrick deserves a statue near ND Stadium.