(05-01-2018 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 02:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:50 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  What about basketball?

I could see a lot of schools dropping football if that were to happen, but keeping basketball. Its one thing to do it for 15 players, quite another to do it for 100.

You could have an eastern private league-BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Tulane, maybe Miami.

I could easily see Pitt in that lineup as well along with a few others. Temple, UConn, etc. I realize UConn is a public but I think there would be some that would opt for this kind of conference.

I would assume that if the change were only applied to football, and that other remedies address the problems with basketball, that any schools that opted for a pay for play model in some form for football would no longer be welcome in their old conferences for other sports. If that makes for more rational conferences, that would be a good outcome.

We would then get a definitive answer to the as of now hypothetical question about what % of a conference's media contract is attributable to football vs basketball. I suspect the answer is different for each conference.

As I look at the initial list of potential defectors from (the pretense of) amateur football, I wonder if all those schools really would go that route when decision time comes. Would, for example, USC and UCLA really leave Cal and Stanford behind? Or maybe it goes the other way, and those two also leave the amateur ranks?

What if, at the end of the day, only a couple of dozen schools break away? Does that mean they could only play against each other? How many of them would come to regret being in a zero sum game against their athletic peers in which everyone wins only half the time in the long run?

And will those breakaway schools end up dropping a lot of sports because football is keeping all the money for itself? If it's a separate business entity deemed unrelated to the university's tax exempt purpose, I assume under current tax law that they would be limited as to how much of their profits they could "donate" back to their university as a pre-tax deduction. That would put a big squeeze on a lot of Olympic sports.

I'm just not sure anybody is ready to take such a big step in the face of so many unknowns. College presidents and faculty are pretty risk-averse by nature, and there are some huge risks here.

(05-01-2018 09:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 02:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:50 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  What about basketball?

I could see a lot of schools dropping football if that were to happen, but keeping basketball. Its one thing to do it for 15 players, quite another to do it for 100.

You could have an eastern private league-BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Tulane, maybe Miami.

I could easily see Pitt in that lineup as well along with a few others. Temple, UConn, etc. I realize UConn is a public but I think there would be some that would opt for this kind of conference.

I would assume that if the change were only applied to football, and that other remedies address the problems with basketball, that any schools that opted for a pay for play model in some form for football would no longer be welcome in their old conferences for other sports. If that makes for more rational conferences, that would be a good outcome.

We would then get a definitive answer to the as of now hypothetical question about what % of a conference's media contract is attributable to football vs basketball. I suspect the answer is different for each conference.

As I look at the initial list of potential defectors from (the pretense of) amateur football, I wonder if all those schools really would go that route when decision time comes. Would, for example, USC and UCLA really leave Cal and Stanford behind? Or maybe it goes the other way, and those two also leave the amateur ranks?

What if, at the end of the day, only a couple of dozen schools break away? Does that mean they could only play against each other? How many of them would come to regret being in a zero sum game against their athletic peers in which everyone wins only half the time in the long run?

And will those breakaway schools end up dropping a lot of sports because football is keeping all the money for itself? If it's a separate business entity deemed unrelated to the university's tax exempt purpose, I assume under current tax law that they would be limited as to how much of their profits they could "donate" back to their university as a pre-tax deduction. That would put a big squeeze on a lot of Olympic sports.

I'm just not sure anybody is ready to take such a big step in the face of so many unknowns. College presidents and faculty are pretty risk-averse by nature, and there are some huge risks here.

Risk Averse??? Then why are they running illicit pay for play which they have to deny and fixing up bogus classes to keep money makers around? Many of them have already made this decision. They will just regret losing tax exempt status to run the legal program, but the risk averse part is to issue that W2 to players and hope that a trimmed down upper tier TV contract more than pays for everything else.

I wonder how risk averse Spanier feels or the former president at Michigan State, or Kenneth Starr?

(05-01-2018 08:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  AL.com says Bama had a surplus of $15.6 million. Spread that around in football and basketball and you are looking at an average wage of roughly $200,000 assuming all the surplus goes to wages and is on top of what is already allocated for scholarships and stipends.

*If* this ever comes to pass, I would be extremely surprised to see every player getting an equal salary, whether it's at Alabama or anyplace else. The third-string O-linemen who is only a practice player and insurance against a bad run of injuries won't get nearly as much as the QB who is going to be a top-10 NFL draft choice or the 5-star linebacker who leads the conference in tackles.

But I think many schools would decline to have their football and basketball teams play against teams that are paying hefty salaries above board, and opt for something that they think is amateurism. Might depend on the influence that donors have at each school.

It might also have weird effects in "non-revenue" sports. I am willing to bet that for every non-revenue sport, there are at least a few teams with wealthy donors who would pay at least the "ringers" on their teams if allowed to do so above board. A former Cal tennis player who has made it big in Sili Valley recently donated about $3 million to endow the Cal men's tennis coaching position. Stanford has many coaching positions that have been endowed by very wealthy alums. I can easily imagine someone with that much disposable money using some of it to pay the best players to play at their alma mater.

(04-30-2018 08:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  In the ACC, 8 would be out for sure:
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
UVa
Duke
Wake Forest
Carolina
Georgia Tech

BTW, Notre Dame is on record as saying that they would be "out" too.

Duke is already paying their coach $9M/year and bringing in a bunch of one and dones who are enrolled solely as they pass through Durham to the NBA. Somehow I doubt that (openly) paying players is their line.

In fact, I'm guessing that very, very few P schools would elect to de-emphasize athletics if things went that direction, although there's no question that we'd hear a lot of bluster threatening that (see also: Jim Delaney taking the B1G to Division III).

I would be interested in knowing whether some of the high resource schools in FBS could opt out of football within the NCAA while remaining for all other sports, if they decided to form a semi-pro type league. Clearly they could stay in D-I if they dropped the sport altogether. So why couldn't they stay if they had a separate governing body for their small football league?

Would the existence of that alternative to NCAA football be enough to allow the remaining FBS schools to retain an amateur(ish) model much like we have now?

(05-02-2018 09:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would be interested in knowing whether some of the high resource schools in FBS could opt out of football within the NCAA while remaining for all other sports, if they decided to form a semi-pro type league. Clearly they could stay in D-I if they dropped the sport altogether. So why couldn't they stay if they had a separate governing body for their small football league?

Would the existence of that alternative to NCAA football be enough to allow the remaining FBS schools to retain an amateur(ish) model much like we have now?

Whether or not they're "high resource," I'd say probably none would opt out but I'd think the following might at least consider it if they could keep the same share:

PAC: None
XII: Kansas and Iowa St
B1G: Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois
SEC: None
ACC: Wake Forest, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, and Syracuse
AAC: Temple, Connecticut
MWC: San Jose St, Nevada, UNLV, New Mexico
CUSA: None
SBC: UL Monroe, Georgia St, Coastal Carolina
MAC: Eastern Michigan, Bowling Green St, Akron, Kent St

Perhaps more than this or maybe none of the above.

Q: when will this ruling be ?
If this does in fact take place will it affect FCS too
If any FBS school can pay players any amount they want then it will instantly create a giant bidding war, I can see schools like rice out bidding most anybody and is true for a lot of lesser known FBS schools
SMU comes to mind, they were paying players with reckless abandon and the state governor was the main pusher
All hell will break lose, pay rolls will hit 30 million a year instantly
HS 5* players will get a signing bonus with a sliding scale performance pay
Iam not sure if this will change the private club that the p5 already is but my force TV to cover more non p5 teams that are loaded with bought talent and I think there will be more than just a few g5 schools that pony up the big bucks year in and year out

(05-02-2018 10:05 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  All hell will break lose, pay rolls will hit 30 million a year instantly

Not anywhere near that much. If this ever happens, any "salary" money will be coming from boosters, agents, shoe companies, etc. They're not going to overpay every player on a football team. Even with basketball, where the money would have the most impact, they would pay top dollar for elite players but not much for most others. Nike, adidas, and sports agents have no interest in paying players who are not going to make it to the NBA or NFL.

A role player would get ... not much. Minor league baseball players get around $1500-3000 a month and are paid only during baseball season. The marketplace would pay that at most (might pay even less) to college football or basketball players who are basically practice-squad guys, and that's several players on every college team including the best teams. Look at a close basketball game between elite teams, e.g. Kansas-Duke in the elite eight this season. The game went into OT, but Kansas still used only 7 players. Duke used 8, but one played only 2 minutes. There are 13 scholarships in D-I men's basketball. These teams are among the best in college hoops but each has 5 guys on scholarship who didn't play at all.

The next poster who starts a P6 debate in a thread not about that topic will be banned immediately. Keep that on the AAC board. This thread isn't about whether the AAC is a P conference. It's about how a court ruling might affect college sports and its composition.

And an added warning. If somebody tries to derail a thread with P6 comments report them. If you respond to them and argue the point you too will be banned.

Jrsec, do you know when this court ruling will be ?

(05-02-2018 12:22 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Jrsec, do you know when this court ruling will be ?

It's under the same Federal judge that handled the case related to rights to personal images (the O'Bannon case I believe). The legality of a cap on stipends is being challenged as a restraint upon free trade and remuneration. There was no date set on the ruling and these kinds of cases usually take some time to play out. I think the O'Bannon case took over a year. I'm sure when there is an outcome it will be appealed and then we will wait on that ruling too.

But I do feel somewhat confident that this will be wrapped up prior to any further realignment. I wouldn't be surprised if this case took until 2020 to settle after appeal, and the next waive of realignment probably won't occur until 2023-5.

I link the two because the ruling of this case could change the composition of every NCAA conference. There are schools who could afford to pay players and there are schools who can't afford to go down that road and that divide will stretch from the FCS to the A5. I see it as being potentially the single most disruptive force the game has faced.

Thanks

(05-02-2018 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:22 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Jrsec, do you know when this court ruling will be ?

It's under the same Federal judge that handled the case related to rights to personal images (the O'Bannon case I believe). The legality of a cap on stipends is being challenged as a restraint upon free trade and remuneration. There was no date set on the ruling and these kinds of cases usually take some time to play out. I think the O'Bannon case took over a year. I'm sure when there is an outcome it will be appealed and then we will wait on that ruling too.

But I do feel somewhat confident that this will be wrapped up prior to any further realignment. I wouldn't be surprised if this case took until 2020 to settle after appeal, and the next waive of realignment probably won't occur until 2023-5.

I link the two because the ruling of this case could change the composition of every NCAA conference. There are schools who could afford to pay players and there are schools who can't afford to go down that road and that divide will stretch from the FCS to the A5. I see it as being potentially the single most disruptive force the game has faced.

I think it will prove very interesting if it does happen. I also think that it will open the eyes of some on these boards as to who is inflating/deflating their expenses to appear to be nearly "breaking even" in athletics and who are keeping the true figures hidden to hide either larger deficits or larger gains.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-01-2018 11:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  AL.com says Bama had a surplus of $15.6 million. Spread that around in football and basketball and you are looking at an average wage of roughly $200,000 assuming all the surplus goes to wages and is on top of what is already allocated for scholarships and stipends.

*If* this ever comes to pass, I would be extremely surprised to see every player getting an equal salary, whether it's at Alabama or anyplace else. The third-string O-linemen who is only a practice player and insurance against a bad run of injuries won't get nearly as much as the QB who is going to be a top-10 NFL draft choice or the 5-star linebacker who leads the conference in tackles.

But I think many schools would decline to have their football and basketball teams play against teams that are paying hefty salaries above board, and opt for something that they think is amateurism. Might depend on the influence that donors have at each school.

It might also have weird effects in "non-revenue" sports. I am willing to bet that for every non-revenue sport, there are at least a few teams with wealthy donors who would pay at least the "ringers" on their teams if allowed to do so above board. A former Cal tennis player who has made it big in Sili Valley recently donated about $3 million to endow the Cal men's tennis coaching position. Stanford has many coaching positions that have been endowed by very wealthy alums. I can easily imagine someone with that much disposable money using some of it to pay the best players to play at their alma mater.

Oh there is very little reason to think anyone would pay the starting QB the same as the third string QB who holds on placekicks and gets to play QB in the fourth quarter of the annual rout of an FCS. Just threw the number out there for illustration purposes.

What ends up happening in pay/play is what baseball coaches deal with already. Who gets a full ride? Who gets 50%? Who gets a quarter ride?

That may actually make FBS football even more competitive than it now is. Coastal Carolina won CWS to some degree because they could offer a good player 50% when Clemson was offering 25% or offer 100% when South Carolina was offering 50%.

AState's starting QB last two years and likely the starter this year, transferred from OU because he realized he wasn't likely to ever be the man.

In a pay for system, the G5 we know will have less to offer but can throw what they have at a few key positions. OU might have paid Mayfield $500,000 a year to insure he didn't transfer but because they won't have unlimited funds, there will be guys at OU who are getting a full scholarship and maybe $750 a month. The AState's, Houston's, Boise's of the world can target those guys and afford them.

(05-02-2018 02:21 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:22 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Jrsec, do you know when this court ruling will be ?

It's under the same Federal judge that handled the case related to rights to personal images (the O'Bannon case I believe). The legality of a cap on stipends is being challenged as a restraint upon free trade and remuneration. There was no date set on the ruling and these kinds of cases usually take some time to play out. I think the O'Bannon case took over a year. I'm sure when there is an outcome it will be appealed and then we will wait on that ruling too.

But I do feel somewhat confident that this will be wrapped up prior to any further realignment. I wouldn't be surprised if this case took until 2020 to settle after appeal, and the next waive of realignment probably won't occur until 2023-5.

I link the two because the ruling of this case could change the composition of every NCAA conference. There are schools who could afford to pay players and there are schools who can't afford to go down that road and that divide will stretch from the FCS to the A5. I see it as being potentially the single most disruptive force the game has faced.

I think it will prove very interesting if it does happen. I also think that it will open the eyes of some on these boards as to who is inflating/deflating their expenses to appear to be nearly "breaking even" in athletics and who are keeping the true figures hidden to hide either larger deficits or larger gains.

Cheers,
Neil

When scholarships are counted in the 10's of thousands for each athlete and the TV revenue alone is counted in the 10's of millions for some of these conferences, is it really that hard to figure out which is which?

Likewise when some conferences earn TV revenue in the single digits of millions and the average football team will spend between 2 to 3 million in travel per season is it really that hard to figure out which is which?

I think the surprises would be found nearer the bottom 1/3rd of the the A5 and the top 1/3rd of the G5.

Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

(05-02-2018 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 02:21 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:22 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Jrsec, do you know when this court ruling will be ?

It's under the same Federal judge that handled the case related to rights to personal images (the O'Bannon case I believe). The legality of a cap on stipends is being challenged as a restraint upon free trade and remuneration. There was no date set on the ruling and these kinds of cases usually take some time to play out. I think the O'Bannon case took over a year. I'm sure when there is an outcome it will be appealed and then we will wait on that ruling too.

But I do feel somewhat confident that this will be wrapped up prior to any further realignment. I wouldn't be surprised if this case took until 2020 to settle after appeal, and the next waive of realignment probably won't occur until 2023-5.

I link the two because the ruling of this case could change the composition of every NCAA conference. There are schools who could afford to pay players and there are schools who can't afford to go down that road and that divide will stretch from the FCS to the A5. I see it as being potentially the single most disruptive force the game has faced.

I think it will prove very interesting if it does happen. I also think that it will open the eyes of some on these boards as to who is inflating/deflating their expenses to appear to be nearly "breaking even" in athletics and who are keeping the true figures hidden to hide either larger deficits or larger gains.

Cheers,
Neil

When scholarships are counted in the 10's of thousands for each athlete and the TV revenue alone is counted in the 10's of millions for some of these conferences, is it really that hard to figure out which is which?

Likewise when some conferences earn TV revenue in the single digits of millions and the average football team will spend between 2 to 3 million in travel per season is it really that hard to figure out which is which?

I think the surprises would be found nearer the bottom 1/3rd of the the A5 and the top 1/3rd of the G5.

But are scholarships (or at least the tuition portion of them) truly counted or are they an accounting illusion?

Do athletic scholarships really count toward whatever number of students an institution needs to pay 'x' tuition to reach that annual operating budget or is the institutional budget for that year truly 'x' number of students outside of athletic scholarships plus the athletic scholarship recipients as over and above the budgetary estimates? Is there a difference between how state schools must report this to their respective states versus privates who have more autonomous control?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-02-2018 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just want to throw out another potential monkey wrench JR's 800lb gorilla is capable of tossing.

Workers compensation. Move out of the amateur realm and you get a real minefield.

Some states exclude professional athletes from workers comp (California jumped in to that pile around 5-6 years ago), some states exclude only if there is collective bargaining agreement that provides for some sort of injury compensation (I think Pennsylvania is one), and other states permit claims.

The cost of doing business could end up varying greatly by state and creates a potential added minefield.

Penn State might want collective bargaining in order to limit liability but some states sharply restrict employees of state agencies ability to bargain collectively or bar it outright.

Another interesting point. +3

Cheers,
Neil

(05-02-2018 02:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What ends up happening in pay/play is what baseball coaches deal with already. Who gets a full ride? Who gets 50%? Who gets a quarter ride?

It's analogous to baseball IF the coaches are in control of who gets paid and how much. If boosters, agents, and shoe companies decide who to give their money to, that's very different.

I think it's just the nature of the beast that college football will always sit right on the edge between amateurism and semi-professionalism.

I think the cost of attendence payments were meant to try help reduce the flow of under the table cash moving around. Letting athletes receive endorsement money I think only serves to make the system more corrupt.

The solution is for the top conferences/programs to pull their football out of the NCAA into an organization that can set and enforce its own rules. The trick is going to be finding a way to provide players compensation with having to treat them like employees.