"Big 5" Conference Automony from NCAA vote. First step in secession from NCAA?

[BallSoHard4Cy]

We are lucky to be on the inside looking out. However, among the teams on the inside, we will be at the low end, and we won't be able to offer all of the amenities that Texas, Alabama, etc will be offering. And those big dogs will be offering amenities because the current restrictions will be loosened.

We'll get to swim in the big pond, but we'll be among the smaller fish.

It would actually benefit us more than hurt us. We would have an edge on the teams we usually compete against for recruits. We're not going after the players Bama and Texas are. I think we could beat out Wake Forest and Washington State for recruits, no?

 

[alarson]

How is that different than now?

Because right now, when voting occurs that might hurt the low end, we have a whole bunch of other Div1\div1-A schools that will vote on our side. "our" component of the vote becomes lessened if you remove a bunch of those schools from the vote.

 

[Bamacyclone]

Because right now, when voting occurs that might hurt the low end, we have a whole bunch of other Div1\div1-A schools that will vote on our side. "our" component of the vote becomes lessened if you remove a bunch of those schools from the vote.

Yes.

Sad to see college athletics being driven by money. Wish the pro's would set up true minor league system in football and basketball and leave college to true student-athletes.

But I'm a nostalgic dreamer....

 

[dtISU]

Remember when money didn't have anything to do with where an athlete went to school?

Yeah - me neither.

 

[Cycsk]

I could see a time when the power conferences become quasi-pro teams with a salary cap that can be used for a small number of players on each team.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

This is a good thing for everybody.

The power 5 can split off and do their own thing. The playoffs will expand. Traditional Bowls will continue and they'll get to a point where everybody gets a 'postseason game' of some sort. This tier will maintain the current 85 scholarship limit.

The next FBS tier will merge with the upper tier FCS (your UNIs, Montanas, and NDSUs of the world) and have a fairly significant number (20-25) of regional bowl games in mid size cities. TV will pay for it and football on TV draws no matter who is playing. This tier will end up giving somewhere around 70 scholarships.

The bottom half of FCS will merge with DII and continue with a regionalized on-campus playoff system. This tier will give 40-45 scholarships with partials allowed.

DIII will remain completely unchanged and they will allow the current FCS Non-Scholarship (Drake, Butler, etc) to reclassify to this level and keep DI basketball.

Basketball will remain unchanged because they get too much money for the tournament from CBS/Turner. Though, if you cut off the bottom half of DI and took the best 14 leagues only, you'd have the greatest sporting event on the planet. Imagine if the 16 seeds were at a MAC or WCC level instead of a MEAC or SWAC level. Every game would be competitive.

The leagues involved should be- Big 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC, PAC12, AAC, MWC, Big East A10, WCC, MVC, MAC, CUSA, and Horizon.

 

[Clonefan94]

I admit the NFL as a non profit is a bad example. So let's think of it another way. If the 65 break away and lose their nonprofit status what is the effect? While I think most of us would be concerned with the revenues from the media deals. It would be the athletes that would suffer. As I think this would cause everything they receive to become taxable. Correct me if I am wrong.

So just talking football and MBB. You have 5,525 football scholarships and 845 basketball scholarships. Roughly no more than 400 of them go on to play professional sports per year so of the 6k+ that played this past year less than 1600 of them will play professionally. This doesn't include all the none revenue sports supported by football and MBB. Find it hard to believe the government would pull nonprofit status based on the fact that the ADs are still meeting their stated goal.

Having to pay taxes would be the least of any schools problems if they lost non-profit status. The big problem will be with the donors not getting a tax break on that donation. Do you think T-Boone would be dropping a couple hundred million in an account for OK St. if it wasn't tax free?

The schools will not lose non-profit status, they know they couldn't afford it because donations would drop off a cliff.

 

[MLawrence]

This tier will maintain the current 85 scholarship limit.

I have been wondering if pay for play does eventually happen if the NCAA or the Big 5 conferences would try and eliminate some scholarships in football in order to try and lower some of their expenses.

 

[Judoka]

Basically the only reason I'm kind of okay with this is that I'm for anything that solidifies ISU in the "haves" for as long as possible.

 

[Cycsk]

I have been wondering if pay for play does eventually happen if the NCAA or the Big 5 conferences would try and eliminate some scholarships in football in order to try and lower some of their expenses.

Lower expenses? I see little evidence that any big school is truly trying to lower expenses. Rather, they are rapidly increasing expenses (e.g. coaches salaries) in an attempt to win and be profitable.

I think it is more likely that they increase expenses as they respond to the unionization of players. For instance, they could allow some sort of limited pay-for-play, such as each team having a salary cap that it can use to pay a certain number of players.

 

[brett108]

How is that different than now?

In football it doesn't. But football pays for other sucessesful programs. In our case MBB, where we are going to be competing with the big boys. The problem will now be that Texas, who doesn't have a great program at this point, but has big bucks from football and donors, will be able to offer their hoops players alot more than we will. We will not be able to go after the same talent.

Submarining our best current program does not seem that great an idea to me, personally.

 

[Judoka]

Lower expenses? I see little evidence that any big school is truly trying to lower expenses. Rather, they are rapidly increasing expenses (e.g. coaches salaries) in an attempt to win and be profitable.

I think it is more likely that they increase expenses as they respond to the unionization of players. For instance, they could allow some sort of limited pay-for-play, such as each team having a salary cap that it can use to pay a certain number of players.

The Northwestern unionization is not about pay for play beyond full cost of attendance scholarships.

 

[Cycsk]

The Northwestern unionization is not about pay for play beyond full cost of attendance scholarships.

The recognition of players as employees may well lead to much more than this. I just spit-balling what may happen. It is hard to imagine a pre-NFL pro league (though MLB has it). The only way that I can imagine the NFL and NBA still requiring college is to make a provision where the one-and-dones can get something substantive while in college. Allowing for a limited number of salaries under a total salary cap seems like a way it could move forward and address the current inequity.

 

[shadow]

The recognition of players as employees may well lead to much more than this. I just spit-balling what may happen. It is hard to imagine a pre-NFL pro league (though MLB has it). The only way that I can imagine the NFL and NBA still requiring college is to make a provision where the one-and-dones can get something substantive while in college. Allowing for a limited number of salaries under a total salary cap seems like a way it could move forward and address the current inequity.

I was reading thru a tax letter I get every month and they were saying one of the unintended consequences of unionizing would be that all the $ for scholarships, living expenses, etc. would be fully taxable in contrast to now where it is not taxed. I also read somewhere else that the main push of unionization was health care costs.

 

[kingcy]

I was reading thru a tax letter I get every month and they were saying one of the unintended consequences of unionizing would be that all the $ for scholarships, living expenses, etc. would be fully taxable in contrast to now where it is not taxed. I also read somewhere else that the main push of unionization was health care costs.

The only winners to unionization will the unions themselves. They want to get their hands on NCAA money and this has opened the door to that. There are better ways to solve the health costs and cost of living issues than forming a union. Just wait until the first player gets the tax bill for the $60,000 benefit of an education and everything that goes with it. If these players are classified as employees their education benefit will be subject to tax, their living stipen will be, and all the freebees they get will also be subject to taxes.

 

[00clone]

The Northwestern unionization is not currently about pay for play beyond full cost of attendance scholarships.

Fixed. If you don't think that's the end goal for the steelworkers' union that's paying the bills currently, you're naive.