Conference Realignment

[Root4GT]

Root, It became greedy when title nine was implemented, I watched it happen. Don't know that it was coming or not, no way for me to tell that. I did not see it coming at that time and nothing today says to me it was coming. TV began ramping up about the time title nine came along and help feed the greed monster. I am one that believes you let these sort of things happen naturally and it will end up where it is supposed to be. I expect people that did not own Coca Cola stock thought Asa Candler was greedy to since they did not buy the stock. Those, I have found over the years, are the ones usually screaming the loudest yet they could have bought the stock. I've always thought that type person really was mad at themselves but just cannot own it. As far as I'm concerned it the same type person always yelling greed no matter where it's coming from. Academia is full of people of this nature, that is one of the reasons they're in academia and will never make it in the real world. There are do ers and the rest teach.

I would say the Georgia and Okalahoma lawsuit vs the NCAA in 1981 was the turning point. Title IX became law in June 1972. I think you are conflating correlation and causation.

Hard to imagine what life would be had Title IX not come about. It was both logical and necessary in the athletic environment.

Oklahoma and Georgia’s lawsuit dramatically changed funding for college football from primarily thru attendance and donations to making TV revenue a major source of programs budgets.

 

[MWBATL]

I would say the Georgia and Okalahoma lawsuit vs the NCAA in 1981 was the turning point. Title IX became law in June 1972. I think you are conflating correlation and causation.

Hard to imagine what life would be had Title IX not come about. It was both logical and necessary in the athletic environment.

Oklahoma and Georgia’s lawsuit dramatically changed funding for college football from primarily thru attendance and donations to making TV revenue a major source of programs budgets.

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

 

[billga99]

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

I think the issue that made Title IX possible is how to argue that only revenue producing sports should exist. That really pointed out the discrimation against women participants particularly when a large percent of Division I schools were public universities. Prior to Title IX, most schools had multiple men's sports but very few women's sports. However, my personal hangup on this is in most schools, the number of men's sports went down due to football having such a large number of scholarships versus any other men or women sports teams. FSU 8 men, 11 women, UNC 12 men, 14 women are 2 examples.

 

[Root4GT]

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

The mandating was not designed against College Football. In a nutshell Title IX said- "It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government." Pretty much all Federal Government spending prohibits discrimination in any form.

That to me it is logical in every sense of the word. As with any Law it it has second and third order impacts. College football charted it's own path to greed. The NCAA has always been an ineffective "Governing Body." They simply joined the money train!

 

[iceeater1969]

The mandating was not designed against College Football. In a nutshell Title IX said- "It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government." Pretty much all Federal Government spending prohibits discrimination in any form.

That to me it is logical in every sense of the word. As with any Law it it has second and third order impacts. College football charted it's own path to greed. The NCAA has always been an ineffective "Governing Body." They simply joined the money train!

The ncaa is run by college presidents who are for the students but are more for tv money to make football exciting.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

College wasn't supposed to be "professional sports" when Title IX was enacted. Providing varsity opportunities to both men and women relative to their proportion of the student body is reasonable. I was always of the opinion that revenue sports (that pay for everything else) should be exempt from Title IX, i.e., the number of student-athletes in a revenue-generating varsity sport does not count in the Title IX allocation. When I was at Tech, the varsity sports that were revenue-generating at Auburn were Football and Women's Basketball. (I don't think this has to be a political discussion)

 

[eetech]

Root, It became greedy when title nine was implemented, I watched it happen. Don't know that it was coming or not, no way for me to tell that. I did not see it coming at that time and nothing today says to me it was coming. TV began ramping up about the time title nine came along and help feed the greed monster. I am one that believes you let these sort of things happen naturally and it will end up where it is supposed to be. I expect people that did not own Coca Cola stock thought Asa Candler was greedy to since they did not buy the stock. Those, I have found over the years, are the ones usually screaming the loudest yet they could have bought the stock. I've always thought that type person really was mad at themselves but just cannot own it. As far as I'm concerned it the same type person always yelling greed no matter where it's coming from. Academia is full of people of this nature, that is one of the reasons they're in academia and will never make it in the real world. There are do ers and the rest teach.

College football being led by an SEC stooge who vehemently resisted the formation of players unions that the colleges could bargain with is what led to this mess.

The fact that players were gonna be paid was inevitable. With conferences signing billion dollar contracts and HCs being paid more than their NFL counterparts there was no way the “amateur” argument to not pay players would stand. Heck, this was so obvious that South Park released an episode comparing the state of affairs then to freaking slavery 13 years ago.

The only question was whether the NCAA would do it in a manner that placed limits and regulations, which would require a players union, or would leap into this situation in an uncontrolled and chaotic manner.

For whatever reason, the SEC stooge led NCAA chose the latter.

 

[iceeater1969]

College football being led by an SEC stooge who vehemently resisted the formation of players unions that the colleges could bargain with is what led to this mess.

The fact that players were gonna be paid was inevitable. With conferences signing billion dollar contracts and HCs being paid more than their NFL counterparts there was no way the “amateur” argument to not pay players would stand. Heck, this was so obvious that South Park released an episode comparing the state of affairs then to freaking slavery 13 years ago.

The only question was whether the NCAA would do it in a manner that placed limits and regulations, which would require a players union, or would leap into this situation in an uncontrolled and chaotic manner.

For whatever reason, the SEC stooge led NCAA chose the latter.

Back then the president of board of governors of NCAA was Gt Prez Bud Peterson. A helluva engineer. At that Gt had near bottom in donations in acc and near the highest debt in nation. Cpj had a high school coach coordinate recruiting due to minimal budget. Great vision.

 

[orientalnc]

My UNC connection says this 70-school proposal will actually be 72 teams divided into four or eight regional divisions. The SEC and B1G want to keep their branding, but the equity folks want professional leagues with more balance throughout. They want to see big games like uga and Bama playing tOSU and Oregon during the regular season, followed by real playoffs that are earned on the field. Disney is on board with the equity folks because this would be a huge money deal for ESPN at a time when the revenue forecasts are shrinking.

While SEC and Big Ten leaders mull major changes, a new Super League concept could radically alter college sports

As SEC and Big Ten leaders prepare to meet this week in Nashville for a historic summit of the industry’s two powers, there is an unreported undercurrent driving the discussion: Project Rudy.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[roadkill]

My UNC connection says this 70-school proposal will actually be 72 teams divided into four or eight regional divisions. The SEC and B1G want to keep their branding, but the equity folks want professional leagues with more balance throughout. They want to see big games like uga and Bama playing tOSU and Oregon during the regular season, followed by real playoffs that are earned on the field. Disney is on board with the equity folks because this would be a huge money deal for ESPN at a time when the revenue forecasts are shrinking.

While SEC and Big Ten leaders mull major changes, a new Super League concept could radically alter college sports

As SEC and Big Ten leaders prepare to meet this week in Nashville for a historic summit of the industry’s two powers, there is an unreported undercurrent driving the discussion: Project Rudy.

sports.yahoo.com

This proposal seems to be well-received by the ADs who have seen it. It also utilizes a relegation and promotion system that has been discussed on this board.

I’m most interested to see how the new league governance would work. I assume it would not retain much if any connection to the current NCAA governance model, but more importantly, how would it go about getting the leadership of all P4 conferences to relinquish some of their authority and adhere to league-wide rules?

One part of the proposal that would be a non-starter for me is potentially having 8 permanent tier 1 teams. If you freeze the top 8 positions at presumably their current rankings (or worse yet, be arbitrary), that disrespects many storied programs, ignores the cyclical history of most football powers, and provides the top teams with a permanent revenue advantage. I'd much rather see a success initiative reward program if unbalanced revenue is a requirement.

 

[orientalnc]

One part of the proposal that would be a non-starter for me is potentially having 8 permanent tier 1 teams. If you freeze the top 8 positions at presumably their current rankings (or worse yet, be arbitrary), that disrespects many storied programs, ignores the cyclical history of most football powers, and provides the top teams with a permanent revenue advantage. I'd much rather see a success initiative reward program if unbalanced revenue is a requirement.

I agree with you about this. I also think the relegation idea has issues as well. How would you relegate UVA and keep VT when Va State law requires the two remain in the same conference? I am sure the NC legislature would pipe in as well if Duke was relegated. If some schools are relegation proof, there are serious fairness issues.

 

[CEB]

This proposal seems to be well-received by the ADs who have seen it. It also utilizes a relegation and promotion system that has been discussed on this board.

I’m most interested to see how the new league governance would work. I assume it would not retain much if any connection to the current NCAA governance model, but more importantly, how would it go about getting the leadership of all P4 conferences to relinquish some of their authority and adhere to league-wide rules?

One part of the proposal that would be a non-starter for me is potentially having 8 permanent tier 1 teams. If you freeze the top 8 positions at presumably their current rankings (or worse yet, be arbitrary), that disrespects many storied programs, ignores the cyclical history of most football powers, and provides the top teams with a permanent revenue advantage. I'd much rather see a success initiative reward program if unbalanced revenue is a requirement.

Probably too early to hang up on the numbers but I balk immediately at the notion that tier 1 is getting paid 2x tier two and 4x tier three.
Incentive is good and relegation is good, but with such a disproportionate payment structure, you effectively nullify both.

 

[T-Bone Burdell]

If you want to level the playing field then we should have no rules. Let any school have any 11 players they want on the field at any given time. Have a hard date for the roster to be closed - say August 1st. Then play ball. If UGA wants to have 200 players on the team let them and their coaching staff deal with that. If you want all millionaires then let the coaching staff deal with it. Any rules you put in place will be manipulated by many and whoever is the enforcement branch of those rules will be bought off. The next step is having AI ref the games digitally so you don’t have homer refs determining the winner.

So back to 1894.
(This isn't a criticism, just an observation.)

 

[LT 1967]

An interesting article about the B1G-SEC meetings today and tomorrow in Nashville. SEC Commissioner Sankey seems to refute some of the reporting concerning automatic bids. I understand that his comments are likely tailored to fit the occasion. Also claims to be sensitive to the needs of the other autonomous conferences.

However, I think the article is worth a read.

MSN

 

[stinger78]

I agree with you about this. I also think the relegation idea has issues as well. How would you relegate UVA and keep VT when Va State law requires the two remain in the same conference? I am sure the NC legislature would pipe in as well if Duke was relegated. If some schools are relegation proof, there are serious fairness issues.

Public universities are state institutions and are controlled by all manner of state laws. To create a national conference that relegates certain state U programs below others will run into myriad legal issues.

Just another unintended consequence of taking what were established as amateur entities and forcing them into a pro model.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

An interesting article about the B1G-SEC meetings today and tomorrow in Nashville. SEC Commissioner Sankey seems to refute some of the reporting concerning automatic bids. I understand that his comments are likely tailored to fit the occasion. Also claims to be sensitive to the needs of the other autonomous conferences.

However, I think the article is worth a read.

MSN

Sankey is the perfect “tip of the spear” for SEC interests. When others are going along with plans that work for the SEC he is all reasonable and conciliatory. Who wouldn’t like this guy?

When the SEC isn’t getting exactly what they want he is a feisty pit bull. Who would dare cross this guy?

 

[roadkill]

Public universities are state institutions and are controlled by all manner of state laws. To create a national conference that relegates certain state U programs below others will run into myriad legal issues.

Just another unintended consequence of taking what were established as amateur entities and forcing them into a pro model.

Agree with your first sentence, not so sure about the second. Yes, some states have legislated some rivalries, which I assume is what you are referring to. I may have missed your point, though.

Currently, in most states, there are many state universities that not only don't play each other regularly, but they aren't even in the same conferences.

Scheduling might get more complicated, but carve-outs could be done to ensure that certain teams in different tiers continue to play each other, like VT and UVA or FSU and Florida. If the proposed elimination of FCS games happens, it should make scheduling P4 opponents easier.

 

[RonJohn]

I agree with you about this. I also think the relegation idea has issues as well. How would you relegate UVA and keep VT when Va State law requires the two remain in the same conference? I am sure the NC legislature would pipe in as well if Duke was relegated. If some schools are relegation proof, there are serious fairness issues.

I agree that having permanent tier 1 schools would be a problem.

How are the VA and NC laws written? If a super-league was formed, then there would be no "conferences". There would be a league with different "tiers" and "divisions". A stronger play could be made by the league. IF VA or NC laws required that those in state schools had to be in the same tier and division, then the league could just exclude them totally for that reason. If that were to happen, the laws would change pretty quickly.

 

[stinger78]

Agree with your first sentence, not so sure about the second. Yes, some states have legislated some rivalries, which I assume is what you are referring to. I may have missed your point, though.

Currently, in most states, there are many state universities that not only don't play each other regularly, but they aren't even in the same conferences.

Scheduling might get more complicated, but carve-outs could be done to ensure that certain teams in different tiers continue to play each other, like VT and UVA or FSU and Florida. If the proposed elimination of FCS games happens, it should make scheduling P4 opponents easier.

Yes, it’s uneven state to state. For example, the GA state legislature would like nothing more than to give UGAg a permanent upper hand. They are absolutely that petty at times.

Still, yes, carve outs can be made but that landscape will be complicated. For example, if certain teams get carve outs, what to preclude one that doesn’t from suing to get one? The unevenness will become a huge issue state to state.

 

[GTpdm]

Yes, it’s uneven state to state. For example, the GA state legislature would like nothing more than to give UGAg a permanent upper hand. They are absolutely that petty at times.

Still, yes, carve outs can be made but that landscape will be complicated. For example, if certain teams get carve outs, what to preclude one that doesn’t from suing to get one? The unevenness will become a huge issue state to state.

Do you really think that a school—let's say, for sake of argument, FSU—would sue the league management to get what they want?