(02-09-2019 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

Speaking about Duke.......where are they on your list JR?

(02-12-2019 04:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

Speaking about Duke.......where are they on your list JR?

I know why I left them out, and it was an error on my part, but I really wrestled with whether Duke would stay all in with football or not. You could put them with Wake, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Duke stayed all in.

P.S.: My reasoning was that Notre Dame, Stanford, and Southern Cal will all likely stay all in. I think Duke would see themselves as more a part of that grouping than they would a Vanderbilt or Wake Forest. Their sports are too important to their brand (basketball) to go pure Ivy. And I don't think they would want to be seen as being lumped in with lesser funded or sports committed privates.

(02-12-2019 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 04:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

I wonder if its much easier to find a road back to amateurism than what we may think. Basically, the plantiffs have said caps are ok within a league. In fact, almost every league has some sort of financial limitations to keep all teams within the league competitive. Could undermining Alston be as easy as placing the NCAA back in control of the TV deals? Would a single deal and a NCAA run playoff make FBS essentially a single big league?

It could, but the thing is the presidents have bought into the football revenue gravy train. I don't think they will hop off anytime soon. And I suppose if we did as you suggested the players would then file the same suit and strike the conference competitiveness issue and make it per school. That would make Terry D. happy in that it would in effect make all schools independent again. But it would kill network money for conference product.

We aren't done for sure.

As to Notre Dame being able to remain independent from an upper tier there are other obstacles. If the upper tier has no caps then those who are in it will want anyone who competes with them to have the same lack of constraints which by implication will escalate expenses. I don't see that tier sharing anything with Notre Dame unless they agree to join.

It is why I think we will have layers within a tier. Those who have no cap for football, basketball, or baseball/hockey. Those who opt not to compete in a non caps tier in football, but who will participate that way in basketball or baseball/hockey, and those who issue scholarships only with no compensation (which would be legal as long as an uncapped tier exists).

Yeah---plus, even if you put the NCAA in charge of the actual contract---the payouts to each league would have to look essentially like they do now to get everyone on board. Thus, the plantiffs could probably say its still really 10 different leagues.

(02-12-2019 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 04:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

I wonder if its much easier to find a road back to amateurism than what we may think. Basically, the plantiffs have said caps are ok within a league. In fact, almost every league has some sort of financial limitations to keep all teams within the league competitive. Could undermining Alston be as easy as placing the NCAA back in control of the TV deals? Would a single deal and a NCAA run playoff make FBS essentially a single big league?

It could, but the thing is the presidents have bought into the football revenue gravy train. I don't think they will hop off anytime soon. And I suppose if we did as you suggested the players would then file the same suit and strike the conference competitiveness issue and make it per school. That would make Terry D. happy in that it would in effect make all schools independent again. But it would kill network money for conference product.

We aren't done for sure.

As to Notre Dame being able to remain independent from an upper tier there are other obstacles. If the upper tier has no caps then those who are in it will want anyone who competes with them to have the same lack of constraints which by implication will escalate expenses. I don't see that tier sharing anything with Notre Dame unless they agree to join.

It is why I think we will have layers within a tier. Those who have no cap for football, basketball, or baseball/hockey. Those who opt not to compete in a non caps tier in football, but who will participate that way in basketball or baseball/hockey, and those who issue scholarships only with no compensation (which would be legal as long as an uncapped tier exists).

As to the upper, pay for play tier, I didn't comment on independence.

Too many moving parts. That would have to play out.

My reference to continued football independence was for the "student-athlete" tier.

(02-12-2019 04:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 04:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alston could cause change in all P conferences. But I seriously doubt that schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest would want to give up old affiliations. They have academic ties, and their branding is tied to their current conferences. But committing resources to fund a pay for play football would probably be untenable for them and more than a few other privates now in the upper tier.

Thankfully, Notre Dame has shown how a hybrid relationship might be workable. So what if your future upper tier looked something like this:

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

*Northwestern all but football

Considerations for other partial members: *Connecticut all but football, *Butler all but football.


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Missouri

Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*Vanderbilt all but football

Other considerations for all but football: *Rice, *Tulane,


ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

*Wake Forest all but football,

Other considerations for all but football: *Tulane, Members of the Catholic 7, Connecticut


PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, Utah

Colorado, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

*Gonzaga all but football.

Other considerations for all but football: *Mount St. Mary's, *Pepperdine, *San Diego, *New Mexico State, *Nevada Las Vegas


If we moved toward having essentially two tiers within a conference:

1. Pay for play in Football, Basketbal, and Baseball.

2. Pay for play in Basketball and Baseball only with Football either having been dropped or operational at a scholarship only tier.

Under that format P4 conferences might be able to augment their basketball and baseball (or hockey) value without having to cut the participants in on an equal share of football revenue. Such a construction would help to accommodate strong basketball only schools into the overall conference value.

Thoughts?

I wonder if its much easier to find a road back to amateurism than what we may think. Basically, the plantiffs have said caps are ok within a league. In fact, almost every league has some sort of financial limitations to keep all teams within the league competitive. Could undermining Alston be as easy as placing the NCAA back in control of the TV deals? Would a single deal and a NCAA run playoff make FBS essentially a single big league?

It could, but the thing is the presidents have bought into the football revenue gravy train. I don't think they will hop off anytime soon. And I suppose if we did as you suggested the players would then file the same suit and strike the conference competitiveness issue and make it per school. That would make Terry D. happy in that it would in effect make all schools independent again. But it would kill network money for conference product.

We aren't done for sure.

As to Notre Dame being able to remain independent from an upper tier there are other obstacles. If the upper tier has no caps then those who are in it will want anyone who competes with them to have the same lack of constraints which by implication will escalate expenses. I don't see that tier sharing anything with Notre Dame unless they agree to join.

It is why I think we will have layers within a tier. Those who have no cap for football, basketball, or baseball/hockey. Those who opt not to compete in a non caps tier in football, but who will participate that way in basketball or baseball/hockey, and those who issue scholarships only with no compensation (which would be legal as long as an uncapped tier exists).

As to the upper, pay for play tier, I didn't comment on independence.

Too many moving parts. That would have to play out.

My reference to continued football independence was for the "student-athlete" tier.

Terry D, I understood your position precisely, and found no contradiction contained within it.

I was merely saying that in a pay for play upper tier, should the Irish decide to join in it would be in an all in manner because nobody in that tier would make an exception for anything less.

Now therein lies the decision for Notre Dame. I just feel in the end, and given the identity that football has given N.D. that in spite of statements to the contrary by your leadership that they will go all in. Name me one other religious private that has this kind of notoriety who hasn't already sold out their religious identity to maintain it? USC: Methodist now Secular. T.C.U. separated its seminary and formally adopted its initials to distance itself from their "Christian Church protestant denominational roots. Duke which has a seminary, and Vanderbilt which had a seminary have now distanced themselves from Methodism.

Notre Dame is the only successful high profile religiously integrated school out there. You guys have held onto both success and your religious ties and in part because of football success. I can't think of any other significant private Catholic Universities with this kind of recognition nationally. That's why I don't think your school will abandon such a major part of its identity.

I certainly don't place Baylor or B.Y.U. in Notre Dame's category but neither of those have abandoned their religious association, although Baylor has certainly damaged theirs.

(02-12-2019 01:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

I don't think any school wants a scenario akin to Major League Baseball with no bounds to scholarships and spending. I believe level-heads will prevail. The athletes should be played like other student employees considering they are working for the school to make money at the gate and in the bookstore via merch.

Obviously you haven't read up on Alston. The whole point of the case is that there will be no fixing of caps of any kind, nor collusion among the conferences. It is to be an open market for determining value. That's why this case is radically different than anything the NCAA has faced previously.

I read up on it. I just don't think it will make giant realignment waves. I also don't think universities really want an open system like the wild west, certainly school presidents don't. We'll see, but I will remain skeptical for now.

The part I added about athletes being paid an hourly wage is just my personal belief.

I don't think this works unless conferences give up on the idea that you should play everybody else in the conference frequently and get even bigger.

There is MORE value for the ACC in having LESS members of the conference on the schedule. I can see in this scenario where it would make sense for the ACC to add Villanova or Georgetown or UCONN for basketball only. For example:

ACC Pod 1: BC, Cuse, ND, Pitt
ACC Pod 2: UVA, VT, UofL, Villanova

ACC Pod 3: Wake, NCST, Duke, UNC
ACC Pod 4: GT, CU, FSU, Miami

You play a home and home round robin against your pod. That is 6 games. You then play home and home against another 3 permanent crossovers. That is 12 games in total now. One home and home rotational through each of the other three pods. Tahdah 18 conference games. And I guarantee you this is more lucrative on TV and at the gate than the existing ACC schedule. Let's look at what this generates as a home schedule for a few schools every single year.

UNC: Wake, NCST, Duke, GT, Clemson, UVA, (BC/Cuse/ND/Pitt), (VT/UofL/Nova), (FSU/Miami)

Cuse: BC, ND, Pitt, UofL, Duke, CU, (UVA/VT/Nova), (Wake/NCST/UNC), (GT/FSU/Miami)


If you want to make more money you need to give conferences the ability to put geography and traditional rivals back into the mix as the PRIMARY dish being served, not the desert. Imagine how much the SEC could make applying this approach to football. But I don't think they'd do it because of the risk of kneecapping their ability to send two teams to a 4 team CFP. The gamble is this gimmick in scheduling generating 2 CFP births is worth more money than the increased face ticket value, attendance, alumni donations, and TV money from serving more rivalry games.

(02-13-2019 07:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I don't think this works unless conferences give up on the idea that you should play everybody else in the conference frequently and get even bigger.

There is MORE value for the ACC in having LESS members of the conference on the schedule. I can see in this scenario where it would make sense for the ACC to add Villanova or Georgetown or UCONN for basketball only. For example:

ACC Pod 1: BC, Cuse, ND, Pitt
ACC Pod 2: UVA, VT, UofL, Villanova

ACC Pod 3: Wake, NCST, Duke, UNC
ACC Pod 4: GT, CU, FSU, Miami

You play a home and home round robin against your pod. That is 6 games. You then play home and home against another 3 permanent crossovers. That is 12 games in total now. One home and home rotational through each of the other three pods. Tahdah 18 conference games. And I guarantee you this is more lucrative on TV and at the gate than the existing ACC schedule. Let's look at what this generates as a home schedule for a few schools every single year.

UNC: Wake, NCST, Duke, GT, Clemson, UVA, (BC/Cuse/ND/Pitt), (VT/UofL/Nova), (FSU/Miami)

Cuse: BC, ND, Pitt, UofL, Duke, CU, (UVA/VT/Nova), (Wake/NCST/UNC), (GT/FSU/Miami)


If you want to make more money you need to give conferences the ability to put geography and traditional rivals back into the mix as the PRIMARY dish being served, not the desert. Imagine how much the SEC could make applying this approach to football. But I don't think they'd do it because of the risk of kneecapping their ability to send two teams to a 4 team CFP. The gamble is this gimmick in scheduling generating 2 CFP births is worth more money than the increased face ticket value, attendance, alumni donations, and TV money from serving more rivalry games.

If Alston wins big change is coming. The name of the game will be content and the upper tier gets smaller, not larger. Schools on large subsidies (Every G5 gets 25% or greater) will be literally priced down to another tier. Privates everywhere and poorly funded public schools will have decisions to make.

We won't be worried about CFP slots. They would be played in slots from winning a division. And the regular season content will represent the largest increase in the revenue. It would be exactly what networks are looking for, but it will rearrange the present conference lineup.

i only see 20 schools that think it would work
Mich, OSU, PSU, Wisc, Neb
Tex, Okla
Clem, Louv. FSU
10 from SEC

(02-12-2019 03:48 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 03:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I could see the "creation" of a new national high academic/athletic league that features Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Boston College and Tulane, along with possibly the service academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) to have a solid scheduling of games for football, and enough of a core for Olympic sports. Obviously, such an arrangement would only be enacted if these schools decided to discontinue spending at the levels of where college sports might end up heading. I seem to recall quotes from Swarbrick indicating that ND would have little-to-no-interest in a pay-for-play model, but who knows if that stance changes if the university saw the potential loss in branding/opportunities in disassociating itself with the top level of FBS.

FWIW, both Jack Swarbrick and Father John Jenkins (ND's president) have said this a couple of times.

I understand the people doubting this, but the Holy Cross fathers have been uncomfortable with the football program's notoriety for decades (while scooping up all of the cash).

They hate when football overshadows academics and have never liked when the football coach and program gets "too big for its britches". They corralled/put the brakes on the program under Frank Leahy, Ara Parseghian and Lou Holtz.

This might be a way to finally completely de-emphasize football, like they have always wanted to do.

Now, can they sell the "champions of the student-athlete" stance to alumni and boosters?

Who knows? That will be a tough sell, indeed. A really tough sell.

We shall definitely see, as I am almost certain the Judge will rule for the plaintiffs.

(I think that ND will end up agreeing with pay to play, but that is a guess)

If they do opt out of paying players, why assume that ND would then want to have football involved in a conference?

They may likely put all of the other sports in a conference but try to keep football indy.

That's true. ND would not need to be part of a such a conference. My thinking was that it would just be a way for certain high-academic schools within the FBS to join together and brand themselves as the "elite" academic/athletic schools, that choose to not follow pay-for-play model (and essentially become minor league for professional sports).

It is most likely that ND would prefer to remain as non-football member within the ACC, assuming they would not be asked to leave due to theoretical resistance to the hypothetical model.

I guess the most curious topic would be whether current power conferences would allow members to not follow the new pay-for-play scale, or if conferences would decide to follow such a model unilaterally. Of all the current power conferences, I could see the ACC being the most divided, considering their public/private splits.

This is my reading, as well. I think the ACC will be affected to its core. With 7 Privates and 8 Publics (in All Sports other than Football), they are the most potentially fracturable group. How they resolve this will be interesting.

Some of the privates do have legal nightmares right now being sued.

Baylor's Rapegate fiasco.
BYU's boot rape victims out of the university because they had sex when they were not married.
Miami Florida still have the feds locking up some of their money because of gifts and money donations from a ponzi schemers.

Those 3 can not afford it.

Tulsa is the weakest link in the AAC since they are the smallest school in FBS, and could be hurt. Unless they sell the school to the state to become Oklahoma Tech to gain students? I do think they would go Pioneer League route.

Tulane would also be hurting from this as well.

Rice would be hurt the worst in C-USA. Not winning in the key sports that makes money will hurt them.

I could see schools like Creaighton and Saint Louis move out of the eastern conferences to conferences like MVC if basketball players have to be paid as well.

FCS non-scholarship former FBS schools.
Notre Dame
Duke
Wake Forest
Tulsa
Rice
SMU
Syracuse
Boston College
Miami
Baylor
TCU
Vanderbilt
Northwestern
USC
Stanford
BYU
Tulane

Teams could drop to FCS with less scholarships.
La.-Monroe
New Mexico State
Charlotte
Coastal Carolina
Eastern Michigan
FIU
FAU
Georgia State
Kent State
San Jose State
South Alabama
Texas State


Schools that could actually make it at FBS for attendance to pay players from FCS.
Eastern Washington
Weber State
Montana
Montana State
North Alabama
Delaware
James Madison
Towson
Beth.-Cook.
Florida A&M
North Carolina A&T
North Carolina Central
North Dakota State
Northern Iowa
Illinois State
South Dakota State
Youngstown State
Jacksonville State
Tennessee State
Lafayette
Lehigh
Chattanooga
Lamar
McNeese State
Alabama State
Grambling
Alcorn State
Jackson State
Southern
Texas Southern
D2 Tuskegee

This could be some major shake ups in realignment.

(02-12-2019 02:01 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think what you mean is similar in academic prestige, not like-minded academically. Villanova, Marquette, DePaul, Seton Hall and St. John's are all national universities, similar to Georgetown (but, Georgetown is a top-25 university, where Villanova/Marquette are in the top-100). Butler, Creighton, Xavier and Providence are all considered regional institutions, albeit they have very high rankings for each. Georgetown is clearly the elite academic institution within the Big East, but I don't think they is a wide disparity in like-mindedness as you suggest.

Admissions selectivity by school:

Georgetown: 16%
Villanova: 36%
Providence: 57%
St. John's: 65%
Creighton: 71%
Xavier: 72%
DePaul: 72%
Marquette: 74%
Seton Hall: 76%

More on Georgetown's latest numbers: