Big NCAA changes could be on the way

[OSU Flyer]

@jbook37
Holy smokes the NCAA is basically saying do whatever you want to do, they are done enforcing.

Rules will be up to each conference.

Unlimited coaches.

Direct payments from schools to players.

Analyst and QC coaches can go on the road to recruit.

https://footballscoop.com/news/repor...ing-staff-caps

[Jack D]

Wtf!

This paves the way for a super league of college football. With smaller schools being shut out.

[Smitty10]

WTH, how long before the NCAA makes it legal for the athletic departments to give the Refs a nice healthy tip before and after games?

[OSU Flyer]

Originally Posted by Jack D Wtf! This paves the way for a super league of college football. With smaller schools being shut out.

This is what Notre Dame's AD is predicting

With NCAA Embroiled in Chaos, Notre Dame’s Swarbrick Calls Division I Breakup ‘Inevitable’

Wholesale change is unavoidable in college athletics. The Fighting Irish athletic director thinks a total realignment of Division I is coming with it.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/04/2...ision-1-change

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Marysville Flyer Shouldn’t we at least let the dust from NIL and no sit transfer settle even a little before claiming college basketball is on life support? What is this like the 5th death of college basketball in the past 5-7 years ? Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by Gazoo Thank you for that, Captain Smith. (The captain of the Titanic.) What's that, like, the 5th "so-called" iceberg sighting?? Full speed ahead! Maybe there are people who are sighting icebergs who think maybe we should go a different direction BEFORE we hit one, not after. Maybe the outcome is somewhat predictable.

Marysville: hi.

[Marysville Flyer]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Marysville: hi.

So did I miss the ‘college basketball is forever cancelled’ announcement? Shucks as it seemed to me we were setup to have a great team and season next year.

All this sounds just like all the ‘end of a civilized society’ crap that many were spewing in the midst of the marijuana legalization era. I’d argue that at least that issue had some merit as if they were right it would affect all society not just some segment of entertainment where each of us decides whether it is worthy of our money.

Just because it may not be how some or even most of us want it to be like ‘back in the good old days’ doesn’t mean it’s dead.

It’s likely all this money has been being funneled to a few kids (and to shady others) for many years. Now the shades have been removed for all to see and all some are shocked and reacting to is what’s already been there - tons of money and gifts being funneled to kids, their families and handlers (houses, high paying coaching jobs etc.). It’s not going away if the NCAA outs it’s foot down and stops NIL or no sit transfer even if it could. At least now more than just a few will get a share of all the cash that’s out there and shared by just a greedy few.

So 1-5 years down the line when when the dust has settled and the pendulum slowed if there are 2 roads - one which is a free for all with ‘no rules’ for the best of the best and another where it is truly amateur like intended, is that death of college sports or is that better for college sports? If you truly love amateur sports at the college level, I’d argue that would make it better. That’s how it is now in most sports in college that aren’t Football or Basketball.

I will continue to wait and watch and then decide how to spend my entertainment dollars. Feel free to continue to play the role of Chicken Little.
Posted via Mobile Device

[UDGutter2]

Originally Posted by Marysville Flyer So 1-5 years down the line when when the dust has settled and the pendulum slowed if there are 2 roads - one which is a free for all with ‘no rules’ for the best of the best and another where it is truly amateur like intended, is that death of college sports or is that better for college sports? If you truly love amateur sports at the college level, I’d argue that would make it better. That’s how it is now in most sports in college that aren’t Football or Basketball. Posted via Mobile Device

I haven't heard anyone say its the end of college basketball, more like the end of it as we know it. I think many/some saw some of the changes and seen more coming, and projected the rest. As for making basketball/football like other college sports, if the crowds drop to the same level as those other sports I say it is the end as we know it.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Marysville Flyer So did I miss the ‘college basketball is forever cancelled’ announcement? Shucks as it seemed to me we were setup to have a great team and season next year. All this sounds just like all the ‘end of a civilized society’ crap that many were spewing in the midst of the marijuana legalization era. I’d argue that at least that issue had some merit as if they were right it would affect all society not just some segment of entertainment where each of us decides whether it is worthy of our money. Just because it may not be how some or even most of us want it to be like ‘back in the good old days’ doesn’t mean it’s dead. It’s likely all this money has been being funneled to a few kids (and to shady others) for many years. Now the shades have been removed for all to see and all some are shocked and reacting to is what’s already been there - tons of money and gifts being funneled to kids, their families and handlers (houses, high paying coaching jobs etc.). It’s not going away if the NCAA outs it’s foot down and stops NIL or no sit transfer even if it could. At least now more than just a few will get a share of all the cash that’s out there and shared by just a greedy few. So 1-5 years down the line when when the dust has settled and the pendulum slowed if there are 2 roads - one which is a free for all with ‘no rules’ for the best of the best and another where it is truly amateur like intended, is that death of college sports or is that better for college sports? If you truly love amateur sports at the college level, I’d argue that would make it better. That’s how it is now in most sports in college that aren’t Football or Basketball. I will continue to wait and watch and then decide how to spend my entertainment dollars. Feel free to continue to play the role of Chicken Little. Posted via Mobile Device

Keep the fire away from that straw man. Forever cancelled announcement? Good God. Yes, that's precisely what I said, word for word, there will never be another basketball game played, ever again. Not even a Nerf hoop in a dorm room! FFS dude.

As the article says, the door is opening wide to having the "haves" (P5 plus BE in basketball--maybe) to simply defect and make their own rules. The haves will pay their players and the have nots will simply not have the resources to keep up. The haves will have 20 scholarships and the have nots will not be able to fill half of theirs.

Just take your pride off the table for one second and answer: how is this good for Dayton sitting in the A10? How is having every conference make their own rules good for Dayton? C'mon man. I know you've already gone all in on a single answer ("there's nothing to see here") but take a breath and reassess the situation. This is at best not terrible, only bad for Dayton and college sports in general.

You're going to argue millions of dollars being more transparent is good, ask yourself if North Carolina is in favor or against this. They're in favor. Now they can keep doing what they were doing before but on a bigger scale and without having to hide it. That's not good for the A10.

[Piqua Flyer '66]

Seems to me that some ol fart up north in Miami County has been saying for
several years (5/6?) that the BIG boys (Power 5) were going to "take their ball and
run with it" and therefore the Flyers men had better win a D1 National hoops championship
soon because in the near future all UD will be playing for is a birth in the NIT.

Hate to say it but I told you so..............................

[Piqua Flyer '66]

........and not playing for the Natl Championship each year will
kill the Flyer Nation. You wont see 13,400 in the arena watching to see if their beloved Flyers will make the NIT.

SURE HOPE I'M WRONG!!

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Keep the fire away from that straw man. Forever cancelled announcement? Good God. Yes, that's precisely what I said, word for word, there will never be another basketball game played, ever again. Not even a Nerf hoop in a dorm room! FFS dude. As the article says, the door is opening wide to having the "haves" (P5 plus BE in basketball--maybe) to simply defect and make their own rules. The haves will pay their players and the have nots will simply not have the resources to keep up. The haves will have 20 scholarships and the have nots will not be able to fill half of theirs. Just take your pride off the table for one second and answer: how is this good for Dayton sitting in the A10? How is having every conference make their own rules good for Dayton? C'mon man. I know you've already gone all in on a single answer ("there's nothing to see here") but take a breath and reassess the situation. This is at best not terrible, only bad for Dayton and college sports in general. You're going to argue millions of dollars being more transparent is good, ask yourself if North Carolina is in favor or against this. They're in favor. Now they can keep doing what they were doing before but on a bigger scale and without having to hide it. That's not good for the A10.

When it comes to college basketball and recruiting and transfer and financial rule changes, the first thing I always ask myself is "how will this effect the Flyers?".

But that not all that it's about to me. If say only 80 teams had the resources to compete in this new basketball world and Dayton was one of those(Yeah, I don't believe that either but...), I still would lose my interest. I love that there are 350 division I teams and that it's not inconceivable that any one of them can pull a St. Peters at some point in time. If I want less teams with any chance to have moments in the sun, I'd be an NBA fan.

College basketball to me is that the Davey's get their shot at Goliath at some point. I love it when the good blue bloods play each other, I love it when the blue bloods play the mid-majors and lower conferences. I love watching it when to low ranked teams play each other sometimes. But it's great to know going into any year that there are going to be games(just about every week during OOC conference) where the "nobodies" compete against the "somebodies". And there are going to be the same type of games during March Madness also.

Yes, there will be college basketball no matter what. I never saw anyone saying the game will disappear. But just like the NFL and MLB, my interest is going to drop big time if not all together due to this. And I'm guessing the same is going to happen for lots of people that aren't entitled P5-Big East fans. And when it comes to college basketball, I don't know what percent of fans fall into that category, but I'm guessing it's very significant.

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 When it comes to college basketball and recruiting and transfer and financial rule changes, the first thing I always ask myself is "how will this effect the Flyers?". But that not all that it's about to me. If say only 80 teams had the resources to compete in this new basketball world and Dayton was one of those(Yeah, I don't believe that either but...), I still would lose my interest. I love that there are 350 division I teams and that it's not inconceivable that any one of them can pull a St. Peters at some point in time. If I want less teams with any chance to have moments in the sun, I'd be an NBA fan. College basketball to me is that the Davey's get their shot at Goliath at some point. I love it when the good blue bloods play each other, I love it when the blue bloods play the mid-majors and lower conferences. I love watching it when to low ranked teams play each other sometimes. But it's great to know going into any year that there are going to be games(just about every week during OOC conference) where the "nobodies" compete against the "somebodies". And there are going to be the same type of games during March Madness also. Yes, there will be college basketball no matter what. I never saw anyone saying the game will disappear. But just like the NFL and MLB, my interest is going to drop big time if not all together due to this. And I'm guessing the same is going to happen for lots of people that aren't entitled P5-Big East fans. And when it comes to college basketball, I don't know what percent of fans fall into that category, but I'm guessing it's very significant.

Great post. Sums up my thoughts better than I could do myself
Posted via Mobile Device

[NJFlyr71]

Originally Posted by Piqua Flyer '66 ........and not playing for the Natl Championship each year will kill the Flyer Nation. You wont see 13,400 in the arena watching to see if their beloved Flyers will make the NIT. SURE HOPE I'M WRONG!!

There's always the potential Gem City Jam to think about to pack the Arena.

[NJFlyr71]

Gazoo and Smithy your posts on this have been right on (with an un-named poster ..... not so much me thinks. )

From clippings and articles posted here within Pride there are mentions of even coaches that have seen the present and concerned with the future. As one described it - 'it's the wild wild west'.

These rascally billionaires (and millionaires) that can bias the fortunes of a school/team quite handily are out there.

Coaches have even dared to say out loud that what was happening behind closed doors for some schools (and maybe a conference or 2) has now been made 'legal'.

Since the genie has been let out of the bottle (and from my view, the only time I enjoyed seeing a genie leave the bottle was when Barbara Eden did so in I Dream of Jeannie {see below}).

How can you get control of this situation? Not sure. The fact that collectives can spring up in a instant (to keep a player at a school) tells you all you need to know about the environment.

I also get that the coaches livelihood is threatened as they have or could lose total control of their team makeup based upon a player and players family thinking there is more money to be made elsewhere in a heartbeat and transfer mid-season.

And now back to what matters:

[The Gem]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 When it comes to college basketball and recruiting and transfer and financial rule changes, the first thing I always ask myself is "how will this effect the Flyers?". But that not all that it's about to me. If say only 80 teams had the resources to compete in this new basketball world and Dayton was one of those(Yeah, I don't believe that either but...), I still would lose my interest. I love that there are 350 division I teams and that it's not inconceivable that any one of them can pull a St. Peters at some point in time. If I want less teams with any chance to have moments in the sun, I'd be an NBA fan. College basketball to me is that the Davey's get their shot at Goliath at some point. I love it when the good blue bloods play each other, I love it when the blue bloods play the mid-majors and lower conferences. I love watching it when to low ranked teams play each other sometimes. But it's great to know going into any year that there are going to be games(just about every week during OOC conference) where the "nobodies" compete against the "somebodies". And there are going to be the same type of games during March Madness also. Yes, there will be college basketball no matter what. I never saw anyone saying the game will disappear. But just like the NFL and MLB, my interest is going to drop big time if not all together due to this. And I'm guessing the same is going to happen for lots of people that aren't entitled P5-Big East fans. And when it comes to college basketball, I don't know what percent of fans fall into that category, but I'm guessing it's very significant.

That is what I like about it too. I think that is what the big shots at the big state schools hate that about it. I feel like UD would pony up the money to play with the big boys, but between consolidation and the top players who will start going to places like Overtime Elite instead of college it will turn into college baseball.

[Flyerferd]

A couple thoughts.
1. This is all about football. With the exception of maybe North Carolina, Kentucky, UCLA, and a handful of others, college basketball is “the side chick.“ how do I know this? I live in one of the most iconic football college cities in the country. If college basketball were as high of a priority to this particular institution, the Caverness, uninspiring, usually about 70% full with people knitting, 20,000 seat arena on the banks of the Olentangy would’ve been replaced by now instead of sitting there after 23 years of use. This just in, the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC networks do not make their money from Tuesday night December college basketball games.
2. I’m not sure if the blue bloods of college basketball, wow in the short term will unequivocally benefit from name, image, and likeness, Will ultimately be in a similar boat because they will be outbid for talent by the G league.
3. We need to win this year. When all of this is shaking out, we need to have multiple second weekend NCAA appearances. I still feel like the big east or whatever basketball centric conference comes out of all this, will be invited to whatever new organization is being formed.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Flyerferd A couple thoughts. 1. This is all about football. With the exception of maybe North Carolina, Kentucky, UCLA, and a handful of others, college basketball is “the side chick.“ how do I know this? I live in one of the most iconic football college cities in the country. If college basketball were as high of a priority to this particular institution, the Caverness, uninspiring, usually about 70% full with people knitting, 20,000 seat arena on the banks of the Olentangy would’ve been replaced by now instead of sitting there after 23 years of use. This just in, the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC networks do not make their money from Tuesday night December college basketball games. 2. I’m not sure if the blue bloods of college basketball, wow in the short term will unequivocally benefit from name, image, and likeness, Will ultimately be in a similar boat because they will be outbid for talent by the G league. Posted via Mobile Device

1. This might be more beneficial to the big football programs, and might be the reason it's been allowed to happen so quickly but that doesn't mean that there won't be a huge effect on college basketball. There will be.

2. The G-League will never be in a bidding war with college basketball. That would be like saying the NFL practice squads will be in a bidding war with college football.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by Flyerferd A couple thoughts. 1. This is all about football. With the exception of maybe North Carolina, Kentucky, UCLA, and a handful of others, college basketball is “the side chick.“ how do I know this? I live in one of the most iconic football college cities in the country. If college basketball were as high of a priority to this particular institution, the Caverness, uninspiring, usually about 70% full with people knitting, 20,000 seat arena on the banks of the Olentangy would’ve been replaced by now instead of sitting there after 23 years of use. This just in, the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC networks do not make their money from Tuesday night December college basketball games. 2. I’m not sure if the blue bloods of college basketball, wow in the short term will unequivocally benefit from name, image, and likeness, Will ultimately be in a similar boat because they will be outbid for talent by the G league. 3. We need to win this year. When all of this is shaking out, we need to have multiple second weekend NCAA appearances. I still feel like the big east or whatever basketball centric conference comes out of all this, will be invited to whatever new organization is being formed. Posted via Mobile Device

To say this is about only football, because you live in a football town is delusional. Try living in Lexington or Louisville or Lawrence KS or Spokane WS or Raleigh/Durham. Not everything revolves around attendance. Sure football has big attendance (and huge expenses) for about 25 programs, but that is like saying people do not care about chicken, but only steak.

Schools care about football, basketball and baseball and will attract big bucks for them, and to a lesser degree volleyball and soccer.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

According to a 2019 report, di football generated an average of $31.9 million. Basketball is 2nd at $8.1 million.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer According to a 2019 report, di football generated an average of $31.9 million. Basketball is 2nd at $8.1 million. Posted via Mobile Device

Per team?

I would think that the main reason is that it's easier to generate profit through televising football as the main teams have a more expanded fan base. For instance, most college football fans that are also UD basketball fans root for Ohio State or some other P5 school. So the main networks will make a ton on advertising with less resources expended than with college basketball. Probably takes 10 basketball games on 10 different broadcasts to come close to one Ohio State football game.

With that said, with the new rules, basketball will close the gap some as it will be heading in the same direction by screwing the little guy.

[UD62]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer According to a 2019 report, di football generated an average of $31.9 million. Basketball is 2nd at $8.1 million. Posted via Mobile Device

I would like to see the median on these stats. It will be a whole lot lower than the average. I think the flyers come in in the mid teens as far as income though.

[OSU Flyer]

Originally Posted by The Gem That is what I like about it too. I think that is what the big shots at the big state schools hate that about it. I feel like UD would pony up the money to play with the big boys, but between consolidation and the top players who will start going to places like Overtime Elite instead of college it will turn into college baseball.

Overtime Elite just got a class of 2024 kid to join them with the understanding his pay is "NIL" preserving his college eligibility.

Depending on the money they (or someone else) could start getting high school kids into their system

[Hyde Park Flyer]

I don’t see college basketball closing the revenue gap significantly. Football is King in American sports. 2nd place is a long way downhill from it.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer I don’t see college basketball closing the revenue gap significantly. Football is King in American sports. 2nd place is a long way downhill from it. Posted via Mobile Device

No, it will never overtake football as more popular. That's not the point. The point is that a college basketball team can host 20 home games while a college football team can host about 6. Once the little guy is put into 3rd and 4th class status, and there are only about 50 relevant teams, that gap of average per school will close.

CBS can televise an Ohio State Basketball game now and and it won't attract so much of the same viewership it does for OSU football because as I said before, Dayton, Miami, Oh, Akron, Toledo, Bowling Green, Kent, Youngstown, Cleveland St. Wright St etc... care more about their basketball teams. Once all this change in college basketball shakes out, more of those fans will switch to OSU as they will be the only "local" team with a chance in hell of winning anything.

So yeah, one football game makes tons more than a basketball game. But once you add in the condensed fan bases along with 3 times as many games and college basketball will be able to make more money(than it does now, not more than football) with less expenses(not having to have 10 games on ten different channels within the same network to cover maximum viewership which means more advertising dollars coming in without the same amount of telecasts).

BTW, again, you are correct that football is more popular which to this day makes no sense to me. In a typical football game, there's about 10 minutes of actual action, about 17 percent of the 60 minute clock it uses. Basketball is constant action. Of the 40 minutes of clock used in college, I'm going to guess the ball is in play at least 80 percent of it(maybe more). That's why I love the game more.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

The NFL has significantly more revenue than the NBA. I just don’t see college basketball closing the gap with football much. I’m also not sure that everyone becomes an OSU basketball fan (or whatever the nearest power is). OSU fans aren’t as passionate about basketball as they are football. And, if all the small school fans suddenly narrow their focus, it would still be fewer eyes than football. I have to admit that I doubt that 60-80 schools break away to form a super league. It would destroy several broadcasting networks. I think the media money will influence the maintenance of the status quo.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer The NFL has significantly more revenue than the NBA. I just don’t see college basketball closing the gap with football much. I’m also not sure that everyone becomes an OSU basketball fan (or whatever the nearest power is). OSU fans aren’t as passionate about basketball as they are football. And, if all the small school fans suddenly narrow their focus, it would still be fewer eyes than football. I have to admit that I doubt that 60-80 schools break away to form a super league. It would destroy several broadcasting networks. I think the media money will influence the maintenance of the status quo. Posted via Mobile Device

Again, I'm not saying they are taking football's audience or revenue. I'm saying there's more room for college basketball revenue to grow.

The post was 31.9 to 8.1. I could see that changing to something like 36 to 12 for instance(meaning they close the percentage gap but not the absolute dollar amount). And no, not all fans will switch to OSU or whatever. But over time, if OSU(and I'm only using OSU and Ohio college basketball for this example) becomes the only team with high rankings and NCAA success within region, then new fans will be drawn to them more and more until it does become like college football.

[OSU Flyer]

pure speculation on my part but I get the impression they'd leave basketball alone and the gap between the have and have nots would grow

If there's say 60 football schools that broke away from the NCAA altogether I don't think they'd get anywhere close to what the current March Madness rights are for a tourney with all power conference teams where everyone gets in

My guess is that the top football schools form their own deal and keep everything else in the current setup

[Hyde Park Flyer]

Fair points. I still think the networks will offer substantial pushback to a drastic consolidation of power and exclusion of teams in basketball. If the G League operated like AAA baseball or the AHL, it could attract top players from basketball. Players could get more money AND focus on their craft. I don’t think that’s an insignificant point. We knew a guy who was a 1st round NHL draft pick. He played some college hockey then signed a pro contract. Sure, the money was great. What really grabbed me was that he wanted to solely focus on hockey. He wanted to do it full time. I don’t think that is a unique interest.
Posted via Mobile Device

[OSU Flyer]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer Fair points. I still think the networks will offer substantial pushback to a drastic consolidation of power and exclusion of teams in basketball. If the G League operated like AAA baseball or the AHL, it could attract top players from basketball. Players could get more money AND focus on their craft. I don’t think that’s an insignificant point. We knew a guy who was a 1st round NHL draft pick. He played some college hockey then signed a pro contract. Sure, the money was great. What really grabbed me was that he wanted to solely focus on hockey. He wanted to do it full time. I don’t think that is a unique interest. Posted via Mobile Device

The G League is already starting to pull some guys from high school full time but you might able to make more money in college now

[Hyde Park Flyer]

I think a better organized, clearer path G League would be an extremely attractive option. Imagine a draft that when several rounds where teams drafted young talent and assigned them to the G League. It could be a lot of fun.
Posted via Mobile Device

[OSU Flyer]

Oscar Tshiebwe at Kentucky is expected to earn $2 million in NIL this next season

https://www.si.com/college/2022/04/2...million-in-nil

by comparison the G League salary is $37k, some guys are making more on two way contracts with the NBA which gets them an NBA salary if they're called up

Not many guys are earning a $1 million plus in Europe and they're usually ex-NBA guys

https://www.eurohoops.net/en/tradema...of-2021-22/12/

Normally you've got to prove yourself in Europe before you starting earning a couple hundred thousand per year.

For some of these guys the most money they'll earn playing basketball will come via NIL in college

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer Oscar Tshiebwe at Kentucky is expected to earn $2 million in NIL this next season https://www.si.com/college/2022/04/2...million-in-nil by comparison the G League salary is $37k, some guys are making more on two way contracts with the NBA which gets them an NBA salary if they're called up Not many guys are earning a $1 million plus in Europe and they're usually ex-NBA guys https://www.eurohoops.net/en/tradema...of-2021-22/12/ Normally you've got to prove yourself in Europe before you starting earning a couple hundred thousand per year. For some of these guys the most money they'll earn playing basketball will come via NIL in college

Exactly. Farm leagues work in baseball because there's slow methodical development and movement and attending minor league baseball is more about the overall experience than the game and team. It's really difficult to become invested in a lower level league where your best players will be plucked away from you and the championship is won by the teams that doesn't have their best players promoted during the season.

In the NBA you're either NBA or you're not and if you're not, or not yet, you're better off going through the free education route + NIL. Baseball teams use what, close to 40 players or more a year on a 26 man roster? The NBA might use 2 or 3 or something like that above their roster limits.

G-League will never be in serious competition for players with college basketball. It's a tool to have replacements ready in case of injury or some other reason of unavailability.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

I understand where things sit currently. I think the G League could turn things sideways with money and opportunity. The NIL money could simply become endorsement money.
Posted via Mobile Device

[OSU Flyer]

@slmandel
It’s flown off the radar, but the NCAA is moving toward eliminating scholarship limits and allowing unlimited coaches.

Great for avoiding antitrust issues, nightmare for whatever’s left of parity.

From ⁦
@NicoleAuerbach


This could actually benefit UD. In basketball I'm not sure having more coaches would make a difference.

No scholarship limits and you could basically gamble penalty free on a guy like Rich Rolf. If he works out great, if not odds are he ends up in the portal

[Flyers98]

In my opinion all of this stems from the realization that it isn't right that private companies, schools, the NCAA, and dirt-bags all over the country are making billions of dollars every year from the labor of college kids who until now were forbidden from making money off their own talents, and name, image, and likeness.

To the "but they get scholarships" crowd I would suggest that most of these kids don't care one iota about getting a degree (at least not the ones we want to come play for UD). The minority of kids who care really about the degree will get it. Maybe that will be because the kids who don't care about school will all go to the G-League or some other avenue not connected to colleges, so the kids who actually care about their education will be the ones who still go to college.

This is a mess, as is everything when the floodgates are opened. It will find its level, which is not to say that the P5 won't break off from the NCAA, but if they do I don't understand why anyone thinks they would get to take the NCAA tournament with them thus relegating us to the NIT. The NCAA owns the tourney, and you have to be a member of the NCAA to play in it.

Whatever happens, I will learn to live with because the alternative is to say "I know it is manifestly unjust and frankly un-American to keep these kids from earning whatever the market will pay them for their own gifts and talents, but I just really like college basketball the way it is." That seems a little too close to worrying about the price of cotton getting too high for my comfort, if you get the analogy.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

OSU Flyer, I’m not sure that no scholarship limits will make the difference that folks think at first blush. The NCAA cannot obviate Title IX’s requirements. There are 2 ways to satisfy Title IX. The first and most well known path to compliance is through equal scholarship opportunities for men and women. Nearly all schools go this route. In this situation, scholarships added for men’s basketball will have to result in more scholarships for women’s athletes or a loss of men’s scholarships. The other path is to meet all scholarship demands at a school. An example of this would be a men’s club lacrosse team meeting the requirements of di entry. They could become a di scholarship team even with a preexisting scholarship imbalance between men and women so long as there were no other women’s teams looking to participate at the di scholarship level. This assumes that roster sizes would still be controlled by the NCAA. In the end, ending scholarship limits could create a wave of Title IX litigation if schools just add male participants.
Posted via Mobile Device

[N2663R]

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer Oscar Tshiebwe at Kentucky is expected to earn $2 million in NIL this next season https://www.si.com/college/2022/04/2...million-in-nil

Quote from the article:
"In February, the Democratic Republic of the Congo native announced that he was finally allowed to take advantage of NIL deals after clearing some hurdles regarding his F1 student visa."
The theory was that NIL did not apply to international players - that didn't take long to reverse course. Wonder how that type of deal is structured in terms of injuries, suspensions, expulsions, academic issues, off campus crimes, etc.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Flyers98 To the "but they get scholarships" crowd I would suggest that most of these kids don't care one iota about getting a degree (at least not the ones we want to come play for UD). The minority of kids who care really about the degree will get it. Maybe that will be because the kids who don't care about school will all go to the G-League or some other avenue not connected to colleges, so the kids who actually care about their education will be the ones who still go to college.

You're saying the kids who come to UD are thinking, "well, they sent 1 player to the NBA since 1990, so this is a sure thing. I'm NBA bound! No sense getting an education!!"

You really think that? I disagree. I think nearly every kid in every sport is thinking they better value that education, at UD and nearly every other school for basketball. There's no more than 2% of kids who realistically think they're NBA bound at Utah State, UMass, Washington, FAU, and even a huge school like Texas. I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by Flyers98 Whatever happens, I will learn to live with because the alternative is to say "I know it is manifestly unjust and frankly un-American to keep these kids from earning whatever the market will pay them for their own gifts and talents, but I just really like college basketball the way it is." That seems a little too close to worrying about the price of cotton getting too high for my comfort, if you get the analogy.

That's weird to say, since they CANNOT make "whatever the market will pay them" once they reach the NBA. The salary cap means NBA executives make tradeoffs and choices, undoubtedly holding back player salaries to some non-zero degree. But it's a fully unrestricted market in college in your mind?

	Massachusetts MASSACHUSETTS UMass Amherst, the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts system, sits on nearly 1,450-acres in the scenic Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts, 90 miles from Boston and 175 miles from New York City. The campus provides a rich cultural environment in a rural setting close to major urban centers. UMass enrolls over 20,000 undergraduates and 5,000 post-grad students. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Minutemen. Women's teams known as the Minutewomen. Sports achievements include NCAA Final Four appearances in men's basketball and women's soccer.

[Runnin' Rebel]

What's odd to me is that seniors in high school are getting paid for Name, Likeness, Image as part of their recruitment... before they ever play a minute of college basketball.

Maybe whoever's paying them doesn't want a return on their investment

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by Gazoo You're saying the kids who come to UD are thinking, "well, they sent 1 player to the NBA since 1990, so this is a sure thing. I'm NBA bound! No sense getting an education!!" You really think that? I disagree. I think nearly every kid in every sport is thinking they better value that education, at UD and nearly every other school for basketball. There's no more than 2% of kids who realistically think they're NBA bound at Utah State, UMass, Washington, FAU, and even a huge school like Texas. I don't buy it. That's weird to say, since they CANNOT make "whatever the market will pay them" once they reach the NBA. The salary cap means NBA executives make tradeoffs and choices, undoubtedly holding back player salaries to some non-zero degree. But it's a fully unrestricted market in college in your mind?

I was talking only about the NIL, on which there is no limit, anywhere. The NBA has a structured salary schedule for the most part, there is a rookie schedule, there are veteran minimums, there are max contracts, there are super max contracts, all of these are defined by the collective bargaining agreement. If you are suggesting that Lebron's salary is less because of what Nike pays him, I will assert that you are flat out wrong. Now Lebron may TAKE less than he might otherwise be able to earn but that is so he can have a super team around him and still not make the playoffs. In any event he can't earn less than the veteran minimum.

I never said the kids that come to UD don't care about education. I am saying that in a perfect world, UD would prefer to take kids that are one and two and done because those are the best players in the country. My point is that the kids who want to go to college will go to college. I think that a ton of kids think they can play pro ball, very few are right. Is it your job or my job, or the government's job to save the rest of them from themselves? We let people get gender studies degrees, we let people major in vocal performance. Should we be saving these poor unrealistic souls as well.

Life is full of choices, I don't make yours, you don't make mine. That seems like a pretty simple concept to me.

	Massachusetts MASSACHUSETTS UMass Amherst, the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts system, sits on nearly 1,450-acres in the scenic Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts, 90 miles from Boston and 175 miles from New York City. The campus provides a rich cultural environment in a rural setting close to major urban centers. UMass enrolls over 20,000 undergraduates and 5,000 post-grad students. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Minutemen. Women's teams known as the Minutewomen. Sports achievements include NCAA Final Four appearances in men's basketball and women's soccer.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Flyers98 I was talking only about the NIL, on which there is no limit, anywhere. The NBA has a structured salary schedule for the most part, there is a rookie schedule, there are veteran minimums, there are max contracts, there are super max contracts, all of these are defined by the collective bargaining agreement. If you are suggesting that Lebron's salary is less because of what Nike pays him, I will assert that you are flat out wrong. Now Lebron may TAKE less than he might otherwise be able to earn but that is so he can have a super team around him and still not make the playoffs. In any event he can't earn less than the veteran minimum.

You took an entire swath of people who have a point of view that differs from yours and accused them of being overtly racist in the ugliest possible way. Maybe you could pause to consider that their position is a reasonable context to apply when discussing sports instead of jumping to the non-thinking "meme form" argument like our politicians do, where someone just repeats a catchy phrase or popular accusation du jour.

If you get my analogy.

Originally Posted by Flyers98 Life is full of choices, I don't make yours, you don't make mine. That seems like a pretty simple concept to me.

A tautology that I don't believe anyone here has attempted to disagree with. The point of the discussion is what rules exist within the system where we make our choices.

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by Gazoo You took an entire swath of people who have a point of view that differs from yours and accused them of being overtly racist in the ugliest possible way. Maybe you could pause to consider that their position is a reasonable context to apply when discussing sports instead of jumping to the non-thinking "meme form" argument like our politicians do, where someone just repeats a catchy phrase or popular accusation du jour. If you get my analogy. A tautology that I don't believe anyone here has attempted to disagree with. The point of the discussion is what rules exist within the system where we make our choices.

I actually took great pains to make that comment clearly only apply to my feelings on the subject and did it in analogy form which is the definitional opposite of an OVERT anything. Race is not even mentioned in my post at all. Anyone of any race should be paid for their labor, and not kept at bay under the frankly ridiculous pretext of amateurism just because you like the product and the schools like the money, that is the point I was making.

I painted no one else with that brush or any brush let alone a swath of people. Playing victim of the nonexistent racism accusation is just as bad as the reflexive playing of the race card in my opinion. Both are the frustrated actions of clowns who have nothing of substance to argue, so they just light a fire. In any event these issues do exist and ignoring them and/or history doesn't help further the discussion or to solve the issue.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Flyers98 I actually took great pains to make that comment clearly only apply to my feelings on the subject and did it in analogy form which is the definitional opposite of an OVERT anything. Race is not even mentioned in my post at all. Anyone of any race should be paid for their labor, and not kept at bay under the frankly ridiculous pretext of amateurism just because you like the product and the schools like the money, that is the point I was making. I painted no one else with that brush or any brush let alone a swath of people. Playing victim of the nonexistent racism accusation is just as bad as the reflexive playing of the race card in my opinion. Both are the frustrated actions of clowns who have nothing of substance to argue, so they just light a fire. In any event these issues do exist and ignoring them and/or history doesn't help further the discussion or to solve the issue.

So you're saying this analogy:

Originally Posted by Flyers98 Whatever happens, I will learn to live with because the alternative is to say "I know it is manifestly unjust and frankly un-American to keep these kids from earning whatever the market will pay them for their own gifts and talents, but I just really like college basketball the way it is." That seems a little too close to worrying about the price of cotton getting too high for my comfort, if you get the analogy.

Had absolutely nothing to do with race. Nothing to do with the potential for rising labor costs if slaves (D1 athletes) were allowed to be free (earn NIL money), and people putting "the good old days" ("I just like college basketball the way it is") ahead of what's right (ending slavery). And just coincidentally most D1 basketball players are Black.

Surely you can see how someone might read it that way given the specific analogy you chose to use.

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by Gazoo So you're saying this analogy: Had absolutely nothing to do with race. Nothing to do with the potential for rising labor costs if slaves (D1 athletes) were allowed to be free (earn NIL money), and people putting "the good old days" ("I just like college basketball the way it is") ahead of what's right (ending slavery). And just coincidentally most D1 basketball players are Black. Surely you can see how someone might read it that way given the specific analogy you chose to use.

"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much", (to be clear I am not overtly calling you a lady or making an insensitive comment, just a quote).

Maybe someone looking to make a ridiculous argument or avoid the actual issue in favor of just letting the discussion devolve into a the race discussion would read it that way. You would of course have to ignore my actual words and the definition of the word overt and the fact that only 56% of college basketball players are black (a majority but a slim one given the inference you were trying to draw), to make your theories fly but whatever. I guess you are correct that given the history of our country the race discussion is unavoidable but I wasn't trying to have it. The funny thing is you never have to have it as long as you are advocating for treating everyone the same.

Did you have something you wanted to add about the actual argument surrounding profiting off people who aren't getting paid, or do you just want to stick with "your points don't matter because you called me and my friends racist", even though I did no such thing?

[UDGutter2]

Are unpaid internships also slavery? Or is it a way for the intern to gain valuable experience to prepare them for their future career? I can see both sides, but can't see any instance to call it slavery.

[Brad S.]

Originally Posted by UDGutter2 Are unpaid internships also slavery? Or is it a way for the intern to gain valuable experience to prepare them for their future career? I can see both sides, but can't see any instance to call it slavery.

I can't think of one company that would cease to exist if the unpaid interns all left. I can't think of one NCAA team that would continue to exist if all the athletes left.

BTW, I think unpaid internships are a business scam.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

Look ath the transfer portal. There are teams that have lost nearly every scholarship player. What makes you think that every player would leave if not paid? UD’s team played from the 1903-1904 season until the 2020-2021 season without players being paid. Do you think an entire team would now leave without payment?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Hyde Park Flyer]

For what it’s worth, if a company went out of business because it’s unpaid internships left, the unpaid interns would have a great FLSA case. If their leaving caused that type of business harm, then the company was the real beneficiary of the interns work. In that case, it would not qualify as an unpaid internship. The interns would be considered employees. The facts determine if someone can be considered an unpaid interns.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by UDGutter2 Are unpaid internships also slavery? Or is it a way for the intern to gain valuable experience to prepare them for their future career? I can see both sides, but can't see any instance to call it slavery.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, nobody used the word slavery. We are just talking about paying people nothing or next to nothing for their labor like Nike does in China for instance. If you call it slavery or analogize it to slavery then people get all defensive and say you are accusing them of being racists.

I could be wrong but I always thought you either got paid or got college credit for an internship. I would agree that business internships are sort of scammy.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Flyers98 "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much", (to be clear I am not overtly calling you a lady or making an insensitive comment, just a quote).

Says the guy who took the time to write 200 words definitely ***not*** protesting too much.

Originally Posted by Flyers98 You would of course have to ignore my actual words and the definition of the word overt

You mean, "done in the open; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden"? Yeah, that one. Just admit you got called on it and move on.

Originally Posted by Flyers98 and the fact that only 56% of college basketball players are black (a majority but a slim one given the inference you were trying to draw)

Even when you admit I'm right, it pains you so much that you're just sure I'm still somehow wrong. Good to know your intent is to engage in a reasoned discussion.

BTW, considering that "only" 13% of the US population is Black while 56% of college basketball players are Black, yeah, it's kind of a big deal that a MAJORITY are Black. But you're in too big of a hurry to cover your tracks to think rationally, which is entertaining to watch.

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer Look ath the transfer portal. There are teams that have lost nearly every scholarship player. What makes you think that every player would leave if not paid? UD’s team played from the 1903-1904 season until the 2020-2021 season without players being paid. Do you think an entire team would now leave without payment? Posted via Mobile Device

I totally agree with you that all the kids are not going to leave, I think he was trying to point out the difference in the value of a summer intern and scholarship basketball player. There are going to be a couple of crazy years when some kids get paid stupid amounts of money, then everyone is going to remember that like 20 American kids get drafted by the NBA each year. I think there will be an adjustment but basketball will go on and I don't think it will be noticeably different. The practical effect (I hope) of all this is that the truly elite players will go somewhere other than college where they can maximize their money, which I don't fault them for. Professional athletes are in their prime from age 18-26 I would say. That may very well result in more college parity and even better NCAA tourneys.

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Says the guy who took the time to write 200 words definitely ***not*** protesting too much. You mean, "done in the open; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden"? Yeah, that one. Just admit you got called on it and move on. Even when you admit I'm right, it pains you so much that you're just sure I'm still somehow wrong. Good to know your intent is to engage in a reasoned discussion. BTW, considering that "only" 13% of the US population is Black while 56% of college basketball players are Black, yeah, it's kind of a big deal that a MAJORITY are Black. But you're in too big of a hurry to cover your tracks to think rationally, which is entertaining to watch.

OK you win, back to the reasoned discussion. Why is it that that college basketball players, the majority of whom are black as you correctly point out should not be paid for labor that others are making billions off of or be able to profit from their own name, image and likeness?

[Hyde Park Flyer]

Flyers98, I agree that the market will figure it out. How long will endorsement deals send 7 digit incomes to unknown 18 year olds? If they are that marketable, a viable professional league will surface. Folks have to remember that they will be barred from wearing team apparel in their promotions (unless the deal contracts with the team as well, which could create a problem since it ties the player to the school). How many people will recognize players? It should lower the amounts being paid. But, if not, that money will be lured into a for profit venture. The G League and it’s progeny have suffered from lack of exposure and interest. If companies are literally willing to buy into the marketability of all these basketball players, then the lower league may become viable.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer Flyers98, I agree that the market will figure it out. How long will endorsement deals send 7 digit incomes to unknown 18 year olds? If they are that marketable, a viable professional league will surface. Folks have to remember that they will be barred from wearing team apparel in their promotions (unless the deal contracts with the team as well, which could create a problem since it ties the player to the school). How many people will recognize players? It should lower the amounts being paid. But, if not, that money will be lured into a for profit venture. The G League and it’s progeny have suffered from lack of exposure and interest. If companies are literally willing to buy into the marketability of all these basketball players, then the lower league may become viable. Posted via Mobile Device

I agree with everything you said. I would recognize Mali or Deron without a UD uniform but that it because I watch every game I wouldn't know who any of the top players in the country are without their jerseys and I doubt they want to start every commercial with "hi I'm..." I sort of felt bad for Sue Bird in those Capital One commercials during the tourney where she was the only one who had to have her name said out loud (for the fans).

I agree that if there is enough money to be thrown around, why even try and navigate whatever rules the NCAA will halfheartedly try to impose, just fund the G League and pay those guys a reasonable salary and let them get what they can get on the market as far as NIL.

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by Flyers98 I agree that if there is enough money to be thrown around, why even try and navigate whatever rules the NCAA will halfheartedly try to impose, just fund the G League and pay those guys a reasonable salary and let them get what they can get on the market as far as NIL.

Does anyone care about the G League? Why would anyone pay a G League player NIL money? The NIL money is going to be in college because there is a built in fan base and passion for the teams and players.

If you don't care about college, then you watch the NBA and still don't care about the G League.

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by superfan99 Does anyone care about the G League? Why would anyone pay a G League player NIL money? The NIL money is going to be in college because there is a built in fan base and passion for the teams and players. If you don't care about college, then you watch the NBA and still don't care about the G League.

The G League as it presently exists? Nobody cares. But if people with a bunch of money who want to spend it on basketball wanted to invest because it became a more attractive option than college to the best of the best, I think it could happen. There would be much more bang for the buck for the investor with advertising and TV, the NBA might want to grow it if it made sense as well. Certainly more bang for the buck than paying a kid $400K for a regional commercial and some personal appearances.

I'm not saying I hope that happens, I just think that if, or before this NIL stuff hits the crazy level some one is going to say, this money can be better spent. You can substitute G League for Athletes Elite(?) or something that may not yet exist.

I don't love the NIL stuff, I realize it will change college sports but I just don't think you can say that someone is forbidden from, or limited in, profiting from their own person and once you say that, Pandora's box is open because what used to be a serious violation of NCCA rules is now completely fine.

Can you imagine being the point guard on a team where your roommate and power forward is making a quarter of a million dollars a year and you are getting nothing? I mean can he even buy you dinner under NCAA rules? What about that? Can a guy share his NIL windfall with his teammates or is that an impermissible benefit? The whole thing is a mess that will have to get figured out but there is just no justification for the alternative in my opinion.

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by Flyers98 The G League as it presently exists? Nobody cares. But if people with a bunch of money who want to spend it on basketball wanted to invest because it became a more attractive option than college to the best of the best, I think it could happen. There would be much more bang for the buck for the investor with advertising and TV, the NBA might want to grow it if it made sense as well. Certainly more bang for the buck than paying a kid $400K for a regional commercial and some personal appearances.

I just don't see anyone caring about the G league no matter how much money people throw at it. If you want to watch the best of the best you watch the NBA. If you want to watch and root for the school you went to or the school in the town you grew up in you watch college.

Even if every 4 and 5 star kid went to the G league and there was a ton of money involved. I still think everyone watches NBA or College or both, but not G League. What would be the draw for fans?

[Flyers98]

I could be 100% wrong and probably am. Luckily I am not going to invest any money in it so being wrong doesn't cost me anything. I just think something is going to spring up.

For guys who know or are pretty sure that they are going to next level, school is actually a hindrance. You can only practice 20 hours a week, you have to pass your classes, you have to go to your classes, (maybe). I sort of think the draw of a beefed up G League would be the same or similar to the draw of a P5 super league (which admittedly might be more about football than basketball), and that is certainly something that appears to have legs. Have you seen some the of sports programming on the ESPN platforms? I can't bring myself to watch a soccer game on TV (live I can do), but apparently enough people watch that NBC programs it every week. If there is one thing I know about Americans it is that you can't really predict what people will end up liking or watching. Also, if you can bet on it, somebody will air it and somebody will watch it.

[Medford]

The draw of a G league only exists if the NBA continues to limit top end talent from entering the draft straight out of HS. If there is a LeBron type generational talent playing in the G league for 1 season then maybe you watch a few games because that young man is the next superstar. LeBron type talent is few and far between, mostly likely it ends up similar to the minor leagues in baseball. Might be a few names the nerdiest of basketball fans know and recognize as potential future all stars but largely few people actually car to watch.


Anybody hear care about the Norfolk Tides? They have some young catcher who is rated as the 2nd best prospect. How many people outside of KC pay attention to the development of Bobby Witt Jr? He's in the show, but I doubt many people in LA, New York, Ohio, Texas, Florida, etc... care or know.


Basketball is different in that stars are born and recognized younger, and impact the game more quickly than MLB prosects, but thats not enough to believe that anyone is going to care much about any G-league team outside of the market those teams reside in and the rare exception of a generational talent like LeBron forced down there by NBA rules.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Marysville Flyer So did I miss the ‘college basketball is forever cancelled’ announcement? Shucks as it seemed to me we were setup to have a great team and season next year. All this sounds just like all the ‘end of a civilized society’ crap that many were spewing in the midst of the marijuana legalization era. I’d argue that at least that issue had some merit as if they were right it would affect all society not just some segment of entertainment where each of us decides whether it is worthy of our money. Just because it may not be how some or even most of us want it to be like ‘back in the good old days’ doesn’t mean it’s dead. It’s likely all this money has been being funneled to a few kids (and to shady others) for many years. Now the shades have been removed for all to see and all some are shocked and reacting to is what’s already been there - tons of money and gifts being funneled to kids, their families and handlers (houses, high paying coaching jobs etc.). It’s not going away if the NCAA outs it’s foot down and stops NIL or no sit transfer even if it could. At least now more than just a few will get a share of all the cash that’s out there and shared by just a greedy few. So 1-5 years down the line when when the dust has settled and the pendulum slowed if there are 2 roads - one which is a free for all with ‘no rules’ for the best of the best and another where it is truly amateur like intended, is that death of college sports or is that better for college sports? If you truly love amateur sports at the college level, I’d argue that would make it better. That’s how it is now in most sports in college that aren’t Football or Basketball. I will continue to wait and watch and then decide how to spend my entertainment dollars. Feel free to continue to play the role of Chicken Little. Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by Gazoo Keep the fire away from that straw man. Forever cancelled announcement? Good God. Yes, that's precisely what I said, word for word, there will never be another basketball game played, ever again. Not even a Nerf hoop in a dorm room! FFS dude. As the article says, the door is opening wide to having the "haves" (P5 plus BE in basketball--maybe) to simply defect and make their own rules. The haves will pay their players and the have nots will simply not have the resources to keep up. The haves will have 20 scholarships and the have nots will not be able to fill half of theirs. Just take your pride off the table for one second and answer: how is this good for Dayton sitting in the A10? How is having every conference make their own rules good for Dayton? C'mon man. I know you've already gone all in on a single answer ("there's nothing to see here") but take a breath and reassess the situation. This is at best not terrible, only bad for Dayton and college sports in general. You're going to argue millions of dollars being more transparent is good, ask yourself if North Carolina is in favor or against this. They're in favor. Now they can keep doing what they were doing before but on a bigger scale and without having to hide it. That's not good for the A10.

Marysville, you might have caught the news.

The PAC10 just got decimated. (OK it got "one-sixth-imated".) 2 of the 3 schools that matter just left. Oregon: you're on the clock. The conference looks set to die with remaining members of substance going to the B12, which is now clearly a second-rate conference.

We're approaching football super-conference critical mass. SEC, B10, and maybe nobody else. Maybe ACC but ACC football is looking "yeesch". Maybe B12 but maybe not.

And at that point, do we enter the basketball phase of the evolution?

All is well! Go back to your homes. There is nothing important to see here. If you predict that there is, Marysville will tell you you're crazy.

[shwag33]

Everything is a catch22 about college sports and nil. The only reason people care so much and a lot of these kids are getting money is because alumni want to have a good team. Pro athletes get deals because there is ROI for big companies using their name.

These college deals are just alumni/locals trying to build a winner because they have emotional attachment to their school with no expectation of ROI aside from having good players at their school. Or big companies have huge ties to the university.

The point is it's unique as these kids would basically make no money or hardly any money without the schools, unless they were good enough to go directly to the NBA. Its more similar to the LIV golf situation than it is to pro sports.... with no expectation of ROI.

In the long run I see interest waning, because then it just because a second level 'pro' sport for the big guns.

[hawkoooo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo the B12, which is now clearly a second-rate conference.

Meh. Is OU/Tex >>> BYU, Cinci, UCF, and Houston? I'm not sure I agree.

Even if I'm wrong about the above equation, assuming they don't lose any more members, how exactly are they made worse by the P12 crumbling?

[NJFlyr71]

Follow the MONEY!

As the old saying goes, as it was true then as it is true today.


At one time most allowed the money to flow (to a certain degree) to the NCAA where it was divided up (not necessarily fairly BTW) to the members.

Then as the sports world became a multi-billion dollar business rather than an off-shoot of the academic sections of higher education whose students participated in sports filled with varsity sweaters and bobby socks were replaced with grown men of 18 (at 6 foot and taller and weighing 250 to 375 lbs) while coaching staffs demanded and got 10's of millions of dollars in salary, while sports administrators ( there is a degree for that now ) were needed (and paid quite well thank you very much!) to oversee all that change and to manage the future.

As TV became the be all, end all to the sports manic minded audience where on any given day of the week you could get your fill of what ever sport you desired to follow ( with a shout out to one of the pioneers of said daily diet of sports ESPN ).

The monster grew only hungry not to be tamed. As the New Years Day extravagance of bowl after bowl filled the airways from mid morning to late night Orange Bowl, it became clear that viewership was being limited (and limited viewership meant limited money) both the schools and the TV execs saw that could not fly any longer.

As the schools paid to build new stadiums or retrofit old historic ones, develop sports centered facilities to enhance performance (and prestige), enlarge the support staff to cater to the hundreds if not thousands of athletes' (I believe tOSU has about 1,100 of them) the money had to come from some where. The alumni could only provide so much after all!

The advent of year round sports teams in the middle and high schools was led by the need to see a child develop sufficiently to gain that almighty scholarship (so why do we still call it a scholar - ship anyway?). My son/daughter wants to play professionally in the "you name it" big league.

But just as the need for money grew out of the higher demands to beat the next guy in facilities and coaching staff prestige, the players (and their families let's be honest) saw that a scholly was only so good so far as it went. Seeing $ billions being raked up by either or both the NCAA and the schools there was a call that the athletes needed some of that too ...

So unwilling to part with their money (I'm looking at you NCAA!), a) the NIL became the means by which the player could get in on the action, b) and the big FB schools took the ball and went and did their own Championship Playoff (take that NCAA!)

And the TV's said "we need you to play on Thursday night at 9 pm or Wednesday before Thanksgiving or on Tuesday cause you know we got some other teams we're showcasing on the Prime Time days and of course if you can't do it, we'll give our money to the other two teams we're talking to about that Tuesday date.

So the sports world will twist and turn however it needs to in order to get that money. Without money none of those facilities and salaries being paid for get satisfied and the alumni will pitch a fit and stop sending those Benjamin's ... after all that question, "why hasn't my school been having winning records the last 3 years?", will be difficult to answer by that highly paid administrator.

So as the sports world now stands if you aren't transitioning to the new paradigm you must not understand the changes already made and clueless on the changes that have yet to have taken place.

But in the end those changes are being made because those Benjamin's need to keep coming in and the need for ever more of them are needed to feed that monster.

Don't you all see that?

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by hawkoooo Meh. Is OU/Tex >>> BYU, Cinci, UCF, and Houston? I'm not sure I agree. Even if I'm wrong about the above equation, assuming they don't lose any more members, how exactly are they made worse by the P12 crumbling?

In answer to your first question, yes. Cincinnati has a good season or 2 and now they're Oklahoma?? Since the playoff started in 2014-2015, OU has been selected 4 out of the 8 years and just barely missed 2 other years. Let me check my notes on UCF + BYU + Cincinnati + Houston: Once. Last year, UC. As recently as 2016 they were 1-7. . . in the American conference. But hey, they went 2-6 in 2017.

It's basically the Alabama, tOSU, Clemson, and Oklahoma show. A couple other schools sneak in here and there. UCF?? Houston?? You think so?? Texas has been underwhelming but there's a LOT of $$ there.

The B12 isn't made worse by adding Pac10 schools, they're made worse by having Oklahoma and Texas leave and then replacing them with Cal and Arizona State. Not a fair trade. The Pac10 has made the college playoff once (Washington) in 32 tries. 8 years x 4 teams per year and they have filled 1 slot.

The Pac10 appears destined to compete with the MAC while the B12 appears destined to die a slow death watching 3 SEC teams play tOSU in the playoffs every year.

[Marysville Flyer]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Marysville, you might have caught the news. The PAC10 just got decimated. (OK it got "one-sixth-imated".) 2 of the 3 schools that matter just left. Oregon: you're on the clock. The conference looks set to die with remaining members of substance going to the B12, which is now clearly a second-rate conference. We're approaching football super-conference critical mass. SEC, B10, and maybe nobody else. Maybe ACC but ACC football is looking "yeesch". Maybe B12 but maybe not. And at that point, do we enter the basketball phase of the evolution? All is well! Go back to your homes. There is nothing important to see here. If you predict that there is, Marysville will tell you you're crazy.

It really bothers you if someone disagrees with you doesn’t it?

Meanwhile UD is primed for a potential 2019 repeat hopefully with a chance to play this time. I predict the sun will come up tomorrow and the sky won’t fall but feel free to tell me how wrong I am about that too.

I re-read the attached post. Maybe you should have read it as I Never said changes weren’t coming just that it’s not the end of the world AND the water will recede and the pendulum will swing back at some point and then I’ll judge the results without knees jerking and hyperbole.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Brad S.]

Originally Posted by Marysville Flyer and then I’ll judge the results without knees jerking and hyperbole.

WHAT?!? Knee jerking and hyperbole power this joint!

[hawkoooo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo In answer to your first question, yes. Cincinnati has a good season or 2 and now they're Oklahoma?? Since the playoff started in 2014-2015, OU has been selected 4 out of the 8 years and just barely missed 2 other years. Let me check my notes on UCF + BYU + Cincinnati + Houston: Once. Last year, UC. As recently as 2016 they were 1-7. . . in the American conference. But hey, they went 2-6 in 2017.

Ok I concede, but going forward I would take the four over the two. You won't see OU or Texas in any playoffs anytime soon. Manning or no Manning.

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by shwag33 Everything is a catch22 about college sports and nil. The only reason people care so much and a lot of these kids are getting money is because alumni want to have a good team. Pro athletes get deals because there is ROI for big companies using their name. These college deals are just alumni/locals trying to build a winner because they have emotional attachment to their school with no expectation of ROI aside from having good players at their school. Or big companies have huge ties to the university. The point is it's unique as these kids would basically make no money or hardly any money without the schools, unless they were good enough to go directly to the NBA. Its more similar to the LIV golf situation than it is to pro sports.... with no expectation of ROI. In the long run I see interest waning, because then it just because a second level 'pro' sport for the big guns.

I don't know, in a market like Dayton, I think the elite UD basketball players are probably some of the most recognizable "celebrities" around. I think that Lee's Chicken absolutely sees marketing value in throwing Mali and/or Deron on a billboard. I do think at the schools where kids are getting millions of dollars there is what you describe going on but I for one don't have a problem with that. You want me to come play basketball at your school and I am a better basketball player than anyone else available, pay me....alot!

LIV is actually a pretty good comparison in that neither the PGA nor the NCAA owns its product but rather is selling the right to watch talented athletes ply their trade. Everybody may think Phil is a jerk and that he is ruining golf but the PGA sure found its wallet pretty quickly when they realized if they didn't give the players a bigger piece of the pie they were going to lose all the talent. People can hate Phil if they want but every player on tour who is now playing for a $3M purse instead of a $1.2M purse owes 100% of that to the guy who is trying to destroy golf.

The elite NCAA programs are now basically a one year holding pen for NBA players who are not allowed to play in the league right out of high school because the NCAA and the NBA colluded to protect the NCAA's revenue stream and made a rule that makes no sense to anyone. So if you want to swim in that pool, this is the cost of admission. That rule basically has no effect on UD, but if Duke wants to put a super team on the court, then "pony up."

I am not sure how you get to the kids would make no money without the schools. You throw in: unless they are good enough to go right to the NBA, which is sort of like saying, unless you are good enough to make money playing basketball, you won't make money playing basketball. Kids who are good enough would play in Europe or go straight to the NBA and I think in large part those are the kids who are going to get paid under the NIL framework. So the ones who are good enough to make a living playing basketball would absolutely make money without the schools. What is 100% certain is that the schools would not make ANY money without the players (and they would not have made any of the billions they have made over the decades before the US Supreme Court told them they have to share with the people who actually drive the revenue).

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by hawkoooo Ok I concede, but going forward I would take the four over the two. You won't see OU or Texas in any playoffs anytime soon. Manning or no Manning.

You may well be right. We shall see.

[jack72]

SOURCE: North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia are all negotiating to join the SEC. ESPN is trying to void their TV deal with the ACC.
Posted via Mobile Device

[UDEE79]

Originally Posted by jack72 SOURCE: North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia are all negotiating to join the SEC. ESPN is trying to void their TV deal with the ACC. Posted via Mobile Device

what a disaster. My other school, GT, needs to be actively seeking a new conference. I hope they can get in the Big 10

[springborofan]

Originally Posted by jack72 SOURCE: North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia are all negotiating to join the SEC. ESPN is trying to void their TV deal with the ACC. Posted via Mobile Device

I haven’t seen this yet. Can you provide your source?

[NCkevi]

Originally Posted by springborofan I haven’t seen this yet. Can you provide your source?

My guess is . . .

Braden Keith
@Braden_Keith
SOURCE: North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia are all negotiating to join the SEC. ESPN is trying to void their TV deal with the ACC.
10:39 AM · Jul 7, 2022·Twitter Web App

. . . and a responds

Barrett Sallee
@BarrettSallee
The SEC isn't negotiating with Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia. That's silly.
1:19 PM · Jul 7, 2022·Twitter Web App

Barrett Sallee
@BarrettSallee
13h
The SEC doesn't "negotiate." It invites.

[ud2]

I think I would take Miami, VT, and Louisville over NC and Virginia. Clemson and FSU are obviously very strong in football.

This is all about football right? NC and VA are not great in football.

[springborofan]

FSU has a strong history in football but they have SUCKED over the past 5-10 years!

[hawkoooo]

FSU and Clemson have been discussed for years and make perfect sense. The other two would surprise me very much (especially Virginia).

[Gazoo]

No one except Marysville is shocked by this. The path was clear and obvious to all who cared to use their brains. It did not require us to sit back and watch how it plays out before getting excited.

Let's say FSU and Clemson join the SEC since that's a more natural fit. Now that the gloves are fully off (in my hypothetical), who does that put on the table for the B10?

The following schools are research universities and could possibly be available to be poached? What looked to be utter nonsense a few years ago is suddenly not so non-sensical:

From the weakened ACC if Clemson / FSU leave:
-ND*
-Pitt
-North Carolina
-Duke
-Virginia
-Georgia Tech
-Vandy
A lot of fantastic institutions there, and geographically basically all could work. If I'm the ACC commissioner I'm not comfortable right now.

How about a western division to join USC / UCLA?
-Arizona
-Washington
-Utah
-Kansas
-Missouri
It makes no geographic sense you say?? Well that's what they said before USC / UCLA joined. How awesome would it be to add Kansas and Arizona basketball to the B10?

Total random speculation but those schools are all research universities and could be added to the B10.

[UD62]

Originally Posted by Gazoo No one except Marysville is shocked by this. The path was clear and obvious to all who cared to use their brains. It did not require us to sit back and watch how it plays out before getting excited. Let's say FSU and Clemson join the SEC since that's a more natural fit. Now that the gloves are fully off (in my hypothetical), who does that put on the table for the B10? The following schools are research universities and could possibly be available to be poached? What looked to be utter nonsense a few years ago is suddenly not so non-sensical: From the weakened ACC if Clemson / FSU leave: -ND* -Pitt -North Carolina -Duke -Virginia -Georgia Tech -Vandy A lot of fantastic institutions there, and geographically basically all could work. If I'm the ACC commissioner I'm not comfortable right now. How about a western division to join USC / UCLA? -Arizona -Washington -Utah -Kansas -Missouri It makes no geographic sense you say?? Well that's what they said before USC / UCLA joined. How awesome would it be to add Kansas and Arizona basketball to the B10? Total random speculation but those schools are all research universities and could be added to the B10.

Better recheck Vandy

[hawkoooo]

Why would an SEC leave for the Big 10? You have Vandy and Missouri listed there.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by hawkoooo Why would an SEC leave for the Big 10? You have Vandy and Missouri listed there.

You're framing the question wrong. Alabama would not. Georgia would not. But if you're Vandy and Missouri, you know one thing pretty darn well and that's the fact that you will never, ever compete in football. Ever.

In either conference.

So if you just take being a football loser as a given, now you might ask which conference is the better overall fit? You know you're going to suck at football every year so does your image (think academic prestige) and values fit in better with Alabama, Mississippi State, and Kentucky? Or Northwestern, Michigan, UCLA, etc?

Vandy is a really good school who absolutely dominates the academics of most other SEC schools.

SEC:
Vandy #14 nationally according to USNWR.
Florida 28
Georgia 48
Texas A&M 68(t)


B10:
Northwestern #9
UCLA #20
Michigan 23
USC 27
Wisconsin 42
Illinois 47
tOSU 49
Purdue 49
Maryland 59
PSU 63(t)
Rutgers 63(t)
IU 68(t)
Minnesota 68(t)

If the B10 can offer about the same $$ to get your brains beat in most fall weekends, I think a school like Vandy might be willing to decide that they share more common values elsewhere. Not 100%, but maybe?

[Hyde Park Flyer]

It would be tough to move Vandy baseball.
Posted via Mobile Device

[hawkoooo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo But if you're Vandy and Missouri, you know one thing pretty darn well and that's the fact that you will never, ever compete in football. Ever.

Vandy, yes. Missouri, no. Need I remind you of 2013 and 2014? And Missouri could definitely compete in the Big 10 in football. What is impressive about Big 10 football outside of 1-2 teams each year?

HPF makes a great point as well, Vandy baseball to the B10 would be a program-crushing move. Your hypothetical also assumes the Big 10 could essentially "match" the money from the SEC. Is this really possible?

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by hawkoooo Vandy, yes. Missouri, no. Need I remind you of 2013 and 2014? And Missouri could definitely compete in the Big 10 in football. What is impressive about Big 10 football outside of 1-2 teams each year? HPF makes a great point as well, Vandy baseball to the B10 would be a program-crushing move. Your hypothetical also assumes the Big 10 could essentially "match" the money from the SEC. Is this really possible?

Yeah yeah, Missouri is not Vandy and I've conflated them. Sorry, that's my bad.

Vandy: Vandy baseball is certainly very good. Would the future of the entire Vanderbilt university athletics and, in a large way, their direction as a university be allowed to be the dog that gets wagged by baseball---a non-revenue sport?! That's a bridge too far I think. We tend to think universities exist to satisfy our sports addictions. Universities do not think that way IMO.

Missouri: Remember that one time Missouri won 12 games in the SEC? Yeah, 2013 was awesome, Snowden leaked all those documents and gay marriage was legalized; seems like only yesterday? In that high water mark year (which was 9 seasons ago), Missouri finished 5th in the NCAA polls behind 2 other SEC teams (SC and Auburn). And because of a scheduling quirk, did not play Alabama that year. Hmmm.

The following year they finished 14th in the polls. Know what they've done in the 7 seasons since then? They have had a grand total of 0 winning seasons in the SEC and never finished in the top 25. 22-36 in the SEC. Yeeech. But I agree, Missouri could compete well enough in the B10 but they have almost zero chance of a 1-loss season in the SEC.

So maybe in a really good year second in their division but for the most part they'll keep getting their brains beat in, don't you think?

[hawkoooo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Yeah yeah, Missouri is not Vandy and I've conflated them. Sorry, that's my bad. Vandy: Vandy baseball is certainly very good. Would the future of the entire Vanderbilt university athletics and, in a large way, their direction as a university be allowed to be the dog that gets wagged by baseball---a non-revenue sport?! That's a bridge too far I think. We tend to think universities exist to satisfy our sports addictions. Universities do not think that way IMO. Missouri: Remember that one time Missouri won 12 games in the SEC? Yeah, 2013 was awesome, Snowden leaked all those documents and gay marriage was legalized; seems like only yesterday? In that high water mark year (which was 9 seasons ago), Missouri finished 5th in the NCAA polls behind 2 other SEC teams (SC and Auburn). And because of a scheduling quirk, did not play Alabama that year. Hmmm. The following year they finished 14th in the polls. Know what they've done in the 7 seasons since then? They have had a grand total of 0 winning seasons in the SEC and never finished in the top 25. 22-36 in the SEC. Yeeech. But I agree, Missouri could compete well enough in the B10 but they have almost zero chance of a 1-loss season in the SEC. So maybe in a really good year second in their division but for the most part they'll keep getting their brains beat in, don't you think?

So your argument as to why two schools should leave the greatest and richest conference in all of college sports is because one of them always stinks and one of them usually stinks? Do you have other examples of schools intentionally downgrading conference affiliation because they don't compete in a particular sport all that well?

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by hawkoooo So your argument as to why two schools should leave the greatest and richest conference in all of college sports is because one of them always stinks and one of them usually stinks? Do you have other examples of schools intentionally downgrading conference affiliation because they don't compete in a particular sport all that well?

Wow. Um, no, my argument is not that they should leave the SEC for less money because one always stinks and one usually stinks. That's not on the same side of the 50 yard line as my argument.

My argument is: conference affiliation <> football.

To repeat: IF you can get roughly the same $$ from the B10 as the SEC (because I agree money does very much matter), and given that you're probably going to suck in football in both conferences anyway, then there are many, many, many other factors that could be better for Vandy and Missouri in the B10 than the SEC. The B10 is much more serious about academics, and believe it or not, a great many students / faculty / alumni don't give a hot pile of horse pucky about football or sports in general. (Shocking, I know.)

These were simply 2 example schools, so no, I also did not make the argument that exactly and only these 2 schools are 100% guaranteed to join the B10 and nobody else will ever join the B10 for all of history.

[hawkoooo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Wow. Um, no, my argument is not that they should leave the SEC for less money because one always stinks and one usually stinks. That's not on the same side of the 50 yard line as my argument. My argument is: conference affiliation <> football. To repeat: IF you can get roughly the same $$ from the B10 as the SEC (because I agree money does very much matter), and given that you're probably going to suck in football in both conferences anyway, then there are many, many, many other factors that could be better for Vandy and Missouri in the B10 than the SEC. The B10 is much more serious about academics, and believe it or not, a great many students / faculty / alumni don't give a hot pile of horse pucky about football or sports in general. (Shocking, I know.) These were simply 2 example schools, so no, I also did not make the argument that exactly and only these 2 schools are 100% guaranteed to join the B10 and nobody else will ever join the B10 for all of history.

I understand your argument and it stinks to high heaven. No one is leaving the SEC for the Big 10. No matter how bad they might be in football.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by hawkoooo I understand your argument and it stinks to high heaven. No one is leaving the SEC for the Big 10. No matter how bad they might be in football.

Well you can't argue with that logic.


No one would ever leave the PAC10 for the B10 either, that's just crazy talk, it makes no sense.


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...the-conference

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Well you can't argue with that logic. No one would ever leave the PAC10 for the B10 either, that's just crazy talk, it makes no sense. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...the-conference

You rip Hawkoooo for bringing up Missouri being good 8 and 9 seasons ago, but then you post a 9 year old article to support your argument? Like nothing has changed in the last 9 years?

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 You rip Hawkoooo for bringing up Missouri being good 8 and 9 seasons ago, but then you post a 9 year old article to support your argument? Like nothing has changed in the last 9 years?

I didn't "rip" him. I pointed out the fact that Missouri is, and will very likely continue to, suck in football. That's not ripping someone. It's making a fact-based argument.

Whoops, my bad, I forgot. It's the internet. That's not welcome here.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Gazoo I didn't "rip" him. I pointed out the fact that Missouri is, and will very likely continue to, suck in football. That's not ripping someone. It's making a fact-based argument. Whoops, my bad, I forgot. It's the internet. That's not welcome here.

Rip was bad wording on my part. But way to leave out the main point of my post, the 9 year old article that is from even before Missouri's 2 good years.

[hawkoooo]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 Rip was bad wording on my part. But way to leave out the main point of my post, the 9 year old article that is from even before Missouri's 2 good years.

He also compared a school jumping from Pac --> Big 10 to a school going from SEC --> Big 10. One of these things is not remotely like the other...

[NJFlyr71]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Well you can't argue with that logic. No one would ever leave the PAC10 for the B10 either, that's just crazy talk, it makes no sense. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...the-conference

Originally Posted by hawkoooo He also compared a school jumping from Pac --> Big 10 to a school going from SEC --> Big 10. One of these things is not remotely like the other...

Any and either of these possibilities can come about whether we see it as likely, improbable, or ridiculous ...

I say this due my personal belief that everyone moves due to their own self interest. Money is just one motivational aspect going into the calculation, abet it can be a very strong enticement.

Self-interest works both ways ... in this case a single school can try to move from Conference A to B while Conference B has no reason to entice said school.

Crazy new alignments in a conference (in our view) can take place based upon both sides having a strong self interest to do so. Again money matters surely play into this.

I thought The Scarlet Knights (Rutgers ) joining the B10 to me was absolute craziness on display ..... but the New York Market had boat loads of $$$$ available for the B10 TV Network and exposure of mostly Mid East/West schools to that market size made it happen. AND it gave an infusion of $$ into the Rutgers money coffers.

Since then I haven't seen any reason to believe that the entry of Rutgers into the B10 has benefited them as a measure of sucksess (!!) on the playing field.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by NJFlyr71 Any and either of these possibilities can come about whether we see it as likely, improbable, or ridiculous ... I say this due my personal belief that everyone moves due to their own self interest. Money is just one motivational aspect going into the calculation, abet it can be a very strong enticement. Self-interest works both ways ... in this case a single school can try to move from Conference A to B while Conference B has no reason to entice said school. Crazy new alignments in a conference (in our view) can take place based upon both sides having a strong self interest to do so. Again money matters surely play into this. I thought The Scarlet Knights (Rutgers ) joining the B10 to me was absolute craziness on display ..... but the New York Market had boat loads of $$$$ available for the B10 TV Network and exposure of mostly Mid East/West schools to that market size made it happen. AND it gave an infusion of $$ into the Rutgers money coffers. Since then I haven't seen any reason to believe that the entry of Rutgers into the B10 has benefited them as a measure of sucksess (!!) on the playing field.

He gets it.



The rest of you responding appear to be wearing your 1990 colored glasses.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by hawkoooo He also compared a school jumping from Pac --> Big 10 to a school going from SEC --> Big 10. One of these things is not remotely like the other...

Because you continue to display that you think schools exist to operate football teams.

If the difference in $$ between being in the SEC and the B10 is in the millions of $ per year (not multiples of ten million $), then consider that tOSU's total operating budget is right around $2B. Yes, I know that's not the athletic budget. The point is that $5M of lost SEC revenue on $2B is right around 0.0025 of the budget. That's just for context, not to be specific about any school.

Hey, $5M is $5M. But what you can't seem to see past is that research grants / knowledge sharing / academic resources from tie-ups with more like-minded schools could actually be more important than what a few fair weather sports fans are doing on 5 Saturday afternoons in the fall.

[Medford]

What if I told you that Notre Dame was already in the Big 10 or that Alabama, Missouri and Tennessee are in the Big 12? Many would think I've lost it, while some would acknowledge that ND plays hockey in the Big 10; perhaps a few realize Missouri Wresling remained in the Big 12 when they moved football to the SEC; I'm guessing precious few realize that Bama and Tennessee compete in the B12 for women's rowing.


Seems like the best thing for many/most schools would be to align their individual athletic programs with other similarly situated programs. Football is a vastly different animal in terms of revenue at the highest levels compared to everything else. Men's basketball generates revenue at a lot of places that football can't, the other programs that actually generate revenue would be spotty I'm assuming.


A world where Ohio State, Michigan, USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson and Florida State all compete in the same conference for football makes sense and would work. A world where all those same schools compete against each other in basketball, soccer, hockey, wrestling, gymnastics, track and baseball seems untenable.


A world where schools were more aligned by geography and academics and size (which is how many conferences originally started) but compete in an NCAA North, South, East, West, etc.... seems like it would work best for all parties involved.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

Arizona State has played in the Big10 for hockey. Seems crazy, but they have. It is an odd situation where they don’t compete for the conference championship. Really odd. I think Utah would jump at the chance to play lacrosse in the Big10. Can’t see it happening on the football side, but there are some funky bedmates in non revenue generating sports with higher than expected costs.

I would love to see Notre Dame join Big10 lacrosse. They’re a great addition in hockey and would be great for lacrosse. Very competitive. If they were booted if they didn’t join for football, ND hockey would join Miami in the best hockey conference in the country. That would be really cool.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Bill McPeek]

Originally Posted by NJFlyr71 Any and either of these possibilities can come about whether we see it as likely, improbable, or ridiculous ... I thought The Scarlet Knights (Rutgers ) joining the B10 to me was absolute craziness on display ..... but the New York Market had boat loads of $$$$ available for the B10 TV Network and exposure of mostly Mid East/West schools to that market size made it happen. AND it gave an infusion of $$ into the Rutgers money coffers. Since then I haven't seen any reason to believe that the entry of Rutgers into the B10 has benefited them as a measure of sucksess (!!) on the playing field.

Rutgers athletics had been a money pit long before joining the BIG 10 and it has only gotten worse. Joining the BIG 10 has COST Rutgers, or more properly stated, NJ taxpayers, a LOT of money!

https://www.northjersey.com/story/ne...e/65367819007/

https://rutgers-ptlfc.org/2021/09/29...dal-key-facts/

I fail to see how Rutgers has benefited from joining the BIG 10. On the contrary, joining the BIG 10 has COST Rutgers a lot of money. I do not know the ratings, but I feel safe to say that the NY TV market is not a great market for college sports. It is a pro town.

As a NJ resident and taxpayer, I am very disturbed with what's been going on "On the Banks of the Old Raritan." But it is NJ where nothing makes much sense!

[Medford]

I don't live there; have never even visiting NYC (or the surrounding areas, Conn and upstate New York along the Canada border is as close as I've ever been), but I've heard that NYC is a very solid football town, however its divided up b/w alums of various schools and subway alums of Notre Dame. I've been told there are a ton of B10 alums in the area that regularly consume B10 football on the weekend. How is attendance at Rutgers games? If that were indeed true, I'd expect to see near capacity crowds when OSU, Penn State and Michigan play there. How was the B10 tournament attendance compared to Indy when it was there?

[Bill McPeek]

Originally Posted by Medford I don't live there; have never even visiting NYC (or the surrounding areas, Conn and upstate New York along the Canada border is as close as I've ever been), but I've heard that NYC is a very solid football town, however its divided up b/w alums of various schools and subway alums of Notre Dame. I've been told there are a ton of B10 alums in the area that regularly consume B10 football on the weekend. How is attendance at Rutgers games? If that were indeed true, I'd expect to see near capacity crowds when OSU, Penn State and Michigan play there. How was the B10 tournament attendance compared to Indy when it was there?

Tough to find accurate figures for attendance (football). From what I can gather around 40,000 seems to be an accurate number. I would assume that OSU, Michigan, Penn State etc. would produce a higher attendance. I do know that Rutgers spent a lot of money to expand their stadium capacity.

Yes, Notre Dame has a lot of subway alumni in the area. Unlike most of the Mid-West, NJ folks do not identify with RU football.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Bill McPeek Rutgers athletics had been a money pit long before joining the BIG 10 and it has only gotten worse. Joining the BIG 10 has COST Rutgers, or more properly stated, NJ taxpayers, a LOT of money! https://www.northjersey.com/story/ne...e/65367819007/ https://rutgers-ptlfc.org/2021/09/29...dal-key-facts/ I fail to see how Rutgers has benefited from joining the BIG 10. On the contrary, joining the BIG 10 has COST Rutgers a lot of money. I do not know the ratings, but I feel safe to say that the NY TV market is not a great market for college sports. It is a pro town. As a NJ resident and taxpayer, I am very disturbed with what's been going on "On the Banks of the Old Raritan." But it is NJ where nothing makes much sense!

Originally Posted by Medford I don't live there; have never even visiting NYC (or the surrounding areas, Conn and upstate New York along the Canada border is as close as I've ever been), but I've heard that NYC is a very solid football town, however its divided up b/w alums of various schools and subway alums of Notre Dame. I've been told there are a ton of B10 alums in the area that regularly consume B10 football on the weekend. How is attendance at Rutgers games? If that were indeed true, I'd expect to see near capacity crowds when OSU, Penn State and Michigan play there. How was the B10 tournament attendance compared to Indy when it was there?

Originally Posted by Bill McPeek Tough to find accurate figures for attendance (football). From what I can gather around 40,000 seems to be an accurate number. I would assume that OSU, Michigan, Penn State etc. would produce a higher attendance. I do know that Rutgers spent a lot of money to expand their stadium capacity. Yes, Notre Dame has a lot of subway alumni in the area. Unlike most of the Mid-West, NJ folks do not identify with RU football.

The Big10 couldn't care less if anyone watches Rutgers on TV (Obviously they want them to watch, I am being hyperbolic). They were not after the NYC market for ratings. They were after the NYC market because all the cable providers would add Big10 network to their basic cable, and people, whether they watch sports or not, would be paying for the Big10 network. That is where the real money is when you have a network like the BIG10 does.