Will the power conference break off from the NCAA?

[Dawminator]

That is the scuttlebutt. BIG 12, ACC, SEC, B1G, and PAC 12 would all leave. That would screw BYU. Utah would probably get Troy Hinds if it happened sooner rather than later.

[WhiskyPriest]

That is the scuttlebutt. BIG 12, ACC, SEC, B1G, and PAC 12 would all leave. That would screw BYU. Utah would probably get Troy Hinds if it happened sooner rather than later.

I am confused... is this a legit rumor?

[Dawminator]

If you believe Utezone...who was early on the PAC12 thing. And to be clear it is just listed as a distinct possibility at this point

[WhiskyPriest]

If you believe Utezone...who was early on the PAC12 thing. And to be clear it is just listed as a distinct possibility at this point

I couldn't find it on Utezone.com (But I have a hard time navigating there forums on my ipad. Do you have a link? Sorry for the hassle, but this interests me. I'm curious about the motives behind such a move.

[FountainOfUte]

I don't see it happening. Nor do I necessarily think it would be a good thing if it did.

[Dawminator]

I couldn't find it on Utezone.com (But I have a hard time navigating there forums on my ipad. Do you have a link? Sorry for the hassle, but this interests me. I'm curious about the motives behind such a move.

http://utah.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=2113&tid=188843535&mid=188843535&sid=1141&style=2

[WhiskyPriest]

http://utah.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=2113&tid=188843535&mid=188843535&sid=1141&style=2

Thank you for the link, however, I just realized that the reason I cannot find what you are talking about is that I am not a member of that forum.

[Dawminator]

I love Utezone, and would highly recommend it. Dan, and Tom for that matter, are very well plugged in. They are right significantly more than they are right. To be clear they are not saying this is going to happen, but just that it could which would be very interesting. I would have very mixed feelings about it. Utah would for sure be top dog in the state, but it would come at the expense of some of my family members teams (USU and BYU) which does cause me some bad feelings.

On the plus side, I do think it would cause a decent amount of parity among the power conference schools that left. Teams like BYU, BSU, etc. would not be taking as many decent recruits like Troy Hinds, Tanner Mangum, or Kyle Van Noy for that matter, who would likely opt to play for a school at the highest level of college football.

[Utah]

It won't happen for at least 12 years.

BUT, I think all the Big 5 only playing Big 5 teams is because they will use the next 12 years to see if breaking off will be profitable or not. They could essentially play only each other look at the money.

I think in 12 years the Big 5 will break off, pay their players and leave the NCAA. They probably dissolve the ACC or Big 12, and spread those teams out into 4 conferences with two divisions each. The conference championship is round one, then you are left with the top 4 teams in the country. Each conference plays 9 conference games and three OOC games against the other three conferences.

[FountainOfUte]

It won't happen for at least 12 years.

BUT, I think all the Big 5 only playing Big 5 teams is because they will use the next 12 years to see if breaking off will be profitable or not. They could essentially play only each other look at the money.

I think in 12 years the Big 5 will break off, pay their players and leave the NCAA. They probably dissolve the ACC or Big 12, and spread those teams out into 4 conferences with two divisions each. The conference championship is round one, then you are left with the top 4 teams in the country. Each conference plays 9 conference games and three OOC games against the other three conferences.

A few thoughts:

- I just don't see it happening. It seems like a boondogle of lawsuits waiting to happen.

- Who is the "they" that would break up and redistribute the B12 and ACC schools? Don't you think those conferences and the school presidents would have something to say about that? I don't see the other four conferences having the ability to break the others up. If the B12 and ACC are still intact at this time, they'll remain so and this brave new world will have to be forged with a minimum of five conferences.

- If it happened, I could still see the MWC and AAC making the cut. Not because they deserve it, but:
1) the PAC would still need a regional conference to schedule. Otherwise all of our teams are going to the Central time zone for the nearest road trip. I can see L. Scott making a case that the MWC needs to be brought along in this plan. That seems like a reasonable concession for the eastern conferences to make to get this to happen.
2) Wouldn't it be easier for seven conferences to stand against three instead of five standing up against five? Politically speaking, that is? It's like having a super-majority in the US Senate. It's far easier to move things along eith 2/3 of the vote than barely half. So imagine that the Big 5 decide to break away, they decide to bring the MWC and possibly the AAC with them but tell the SBC, MAC, and CUSA "Thanks for playing. Keep the change," and move on. What choice would those three conferences have? Who would fight for them? No one who matters. But if one half of the FBC is trying to secede from the other half, it just seems messier and gives more votes to the NCAA to stop it from happening.

Eh, I'm just guessing here. It's a fun topic anyway.

[Dawminator]

A few thoughts:

- I just don't see it happening. It seems like a boondogle of lawsuits waiting to happen.

- Who is the "they" that would break up and redistribute the B12 and ACC schools? Don't you think those conferences and the school presidents would have something to say about that? I don't see the other four conferences having the ability to break the others up. If the B12 and ACC are still intact at this time, they'll remain so and this brave new world will have to be forged with a minimum of five conferences.

- If it happened, I could still see the MWC and AAC making the cut. Not because they deserve it, but:
1) the PAC would still need a regional conference to schedule. Otherwise all of our teams are going to the Central time zone for the nearest road trip. I can see L. Scott making a case that the MWC needs to be brought along in this plan. That seems like a reasonable concession for the eastern conferences to make to get this to happen.
2) Wouldn't it be easier for seven conferences to stand against three instead of five standing up against five? Politically speaking, that is? It's like having a super-majority in the US Senate. It's far easier to move things along eith 2/3 of the vote than barely half. So imagine that the Big 5 decide to break away, they decide to bring the MWC and possibly the AAC with them but tell the SBC, MAC, and CUSA "Thanks for playing. Keep the change," and move on. What choice would those three conferences have? Who would fight for them? No one who matters. But if one half of the FBC is trying to secede from the other half, it just seems messier and gives more votes to the NCAA to stop it from happening.

Eh, I'm just guessing here. It's a fun topic anyway.

Under current case law, at least as I understand it, it is unlikely the courts would rule any break off as a violation of anti-trust law. I can't think of any other reason why breaking off would be a legal issue apart from Sherman Act concerns. More experienced legal minds could tell me I'm wrong. So my semi-educated opinion is if they breakaway, and I think they will, there will be nothing short of some political movement to stop them, aka legislative action (would legislatures in CA, OR, WA, AZ, CO, OK, TX, LA, AL, AK, FL, SC, NC, GA, KY, VA, WV, TN, MI, MS, NY, NJ, OH, PA, WI, MN, IA, IN, MA, MD, really take action that would hurt the states flagship school(s) in those states? Doubtful. Notice I didn't include Utah...).

[Chad Sexington]

Yes, they will.

[Scratch]

A few thoughts:

- I just don't see it happening. It seems like a boondogle of lawsuits waiting to happen.

- Who is the "they" that would break up and redistribute the B12 and ACC schools? Don't you think those conferences and the school presidents would have something to say about that? I don't see the other four conferences having the ability to break the others up. If the B12 and ACC are still intact at this time, they'll remain so and this brave new world will have to be forged with a minimum of five conferences.

- If it happened, I could still see the MWC and AAC making the cut. Not because they deserve it, but:
1) the PAC would still need a regional conference to schedule. Otherwise all of our teams are going to the Central time zone for the nearest road trip. I can see L. Scott making a case that the MWC needs to be brought along in this plan. That seems like a reasonable concession for the eastern conferences to make to get this to happen.
2) Wouldn't it be easier for seven conferences to stand against three instead of five standing up against five? Politically speaking, that is? It's like having a super-majority in the US Senate. It's far easier to move things along eith 2/3 of the vote than barely half. So imagine that the Big 5 decide to break away, they decide to bring the MWC and possibly the AAC with them but tell the SBC, MAC, and CUSA "Thanks for playing. Keep the change," and move on. What choice would those three conferences have? Who would fight for them? No one who matters. But if one half of the FBC is trying to secede from the other half, it just seems messier and gives more votes to the NCAA to stop it from happening.

Eh, I'm just guessing here. It's a fun topic anyway.

Great post, but, to be blunt, you're nuts if you think Larry Scott and the P12 would want the MWC along for the ride. We'd be looking at a scenario where the P12 would control the entire Western US for college football. Tons of fans of MWC teams would start following P12 teams, and no P12 team would ever lose a recruit to a MWC team.

As for the Big 3 pushing the issue with the ACC and B12, I could see a scenario where the Big 3 told the teams in those conferences that there was only room for one more, 16-team conference, so they should come up with something palatable. Basically the same as the Joker breaking a pool cue and leaving the two gang bangers to fight it out (am I remembering that scene correctly?). You would basically have the elite-ish teams in the 2 conferences (Texas, OU, Kansas, FSU, UNC, UVa, GaTech, maybe WVU) either jump ship for one of the Big 3 conferences, or essentially come together and fight over which of the leftovers from the two conferences would get to come along. If, for example, Texas and Oklahoma told UNC and Virginia that they were starting a conference and had Kansas, FSU and GaTech on board, you can rest assured that UNC and UVa would climb on board.

[Chad Sexington]

I don't see it happening. Nor do I necessarily think it would be a good thing if it did.
Why not? Who is left on the outside looking in that would add enough to justify their inclusion?
There are still teams that have no business playing at this level. (I understand that UTAH is not yet up to the task because we have a lot of catching up to do to get to this level, across the board, but what is Duke or Wake Forest or Purdue excuses?)

[FountainOfUte]

Great post, but, to be blunt, you're nuts if you think Larry Scott and the P12 would want the MWC along for the ride. We'd be looking at a scenario where the P12 would control the entire Western US for college football. Tons of fans of MWC teams would start following P12 teams, and no P12 team would ever lost a recruit to a MWC team.

As for the Big 3 pushing the issue with the ACC and B12, I could see a scenario where the Big 3 told the teams in those conferences that there was only room for one more, 16-team conference, so they should come up with something palatable. Basically the same as the Joker breaking a pool cue and leaving the two gang bangers to fight it out (am I remembering that scene correctly?). You would basically have the elite-ish teams in the 2 conferences (Texas, OU, Kansas, FSU, UNC, UVa, GaTech, maybe WVU) either jump ship for one of the Big 3 conferences, or essentially come together and fight over which of the leftovers from the two conferences would get to come along. If, for example, Texas and Oklahoma told UNC and Virginia that they were starting a conference and had Kansas, FSU and GaTech on board, you can rest assured that UNC and UVa would climb on board.

You're probably right about the MWC thing. I was thinking more of the negative side and odd logistics of being this lone conference way out on the west coast and the PAC wanting *some* regional (yet arguably credible) punching bag. But there's a whole other side I didn't consider that you outlined.

As for the Big 3 vs the B12 and ACC, I still don't see it. The B12 and ACC know they could call that bluff, right? The other three wouldn't go anywhere without them. For the foreseeable future it's going to be the Big Five. The way we get to four power conferences IMO, is the UT-and-buddies-to-the-PAC plan, which wouldn't make sense for a few more years, if ever. For better or worse, I don't see the ACC breaking up now. And if the 'Horns and friends don't go to the PAC, I don't see the PAC expanding beyond 12. Why would we? The PAC also knows we're not going to be left behind in any new plan and that no one can force them to add anyone they don't want.

[FountainOfUte]

Why not? Who is left on the outside looking in that would add enough to justify their inclusion?
There are still teams that have no business playing at this level. (I understand that UTAH is not yet up to the task because we have a lot of catching up to do to get to this level, across the board, but what is Duke or Wake Forest or Purdue excuses?)

It's partially about who's in and who's out but also about college ball making one more giant leap toward being a pro league. Paying players? Ugh.

And for me personally, I still like the tradition and regionalism of college sports. Personally, I'd like to see a *little* more equity and profit sharing across the board in the FBS level. At what point can or should the FBS/NCAA look at the whole as a league? I hate that they don't do this much at all. For sure, there needs to be more culling of the herd. The SBC, MAC have no business in the FBS. The others, I think they have paid enough into the system so to speak that they shouldn't just get tossed to the heap like yesterdays trash. *Some* of what keeps them down is the system -- not that they inherently suck. I think there are programs in the MWC and AAC that should be able to make a go of it in a restructured FBS.

[Chad Sexington]

We agree on that. I like the MWC too and would like to see them included. My reasons for this are more about nostalgia. I miss my old neighbors, and the new ones seem a bit stand off-ish. As for the demise of the pure college game, we can have a moment of silence to memoialize it, but that path seems inevitable.

[Dawminator]

I think we are assuming it is going to be a four conference split. I see no reason why it couldn't be a five conference split. PAC 12, B1G, Big 12, ACC, and the SEC. For football you could do an 8 team playoff where every conference champ was guaranteed and then three wild cards. I think we have been told four superconferences so much that we assume that is the only possibility. If they were to break away, there are so many things they could do.

[FountainOfUte]

I think we are assuming it is going to be a four conference split. I see no reason why it couldn't be a five conference split. PAC 12, B1G, Big 12, ACC, and the SEC. For football you could do an 8 team playoff where every conference champ was guaranteed and then three wild cards. I think we have been told four superconferences so much that we assume that is the only possibility. If they were to break away, there are so many things they could do.

I totally agree with this. I just don't see the superconference thing happening. Now, the five Powers breaking away? Yeah, very possible; probable even.

[Scratch]

I think we are assuming it is going to be a four conference split. I see no reason why it couldn't be a five conference split. PAC 12, B1G, Big 12, ACC, and the SEC. For football you could do an 8 team playoff where every conference champ was guaranteed and then three wild cards. I think we have been told four superconferences so much that we assume that is the only possibility. If they were to break away, there are so many things they could do.

Four conferences and 8 divisions is perfect. You have your conference championships in early December and then a 4-team playoff to start the new year. And no one who can't win an 8-team division deserves a shot at the title.

[Scratch]

That's the problem, really. Four conferences makes the playoff and the scheduling very clean and very easy. But the formation is extremely messy. On the other hand, five conferences makes a mess of scheduling and playoffs, but it would be easy to form. With five, it wouldn't matter how many teams are in each. So the Pac-12 could stay at 12, and the Big12 could stay at 10.

Hows does four conferences happen now? ACC teams can't afford to leave. The Pac-12 does not have 4 good options to get to 16.

Let's pretend the ACC money barrier can be broken, and this is going to happen. First thing, Notre Dame chooses a conference. Then the SEC gets first pick of ACC teams. Then the Big10. Finally, the Big12 fills in its 5 or 6 with the remaining ACC. Who gets left out? Wake Forest for sure plus 4 more unlucky losers. Meanwhile, the crap, no market teams from the other conferences - Iowa State, Oregon State, Washington State, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Kansas, etc - get to move into the big league while 5 long time ACC teams are getting left out, all while the Pac-12 is grabbing up Boise State, Hawaii, UNLV and New Mexico? That is a huge mess of ridiculous.

Who would be the 5 ACC teams that don't get to move up? UNC, Clemson, FSU, and Miami are locks. That leaves Wake Forest, UVa, Boston College, NCState, Duke, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, VaTech, and GT. I would guess that Wake, BC, and Duke are out. So which two of NCState, UVa, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, GT, and VaTech no longer get to play real football? Man, what a mess. I love the idea of a clean, 4 conference playoff. So nice. But not if it means something that unfair and dramatic happens to some great fans and teams, while much less deserving teams get in. It's not worth it, and it's a bad idea.

If it's going to 4, I could see the B1G and the new conference that is cobbled together focusing on the eastern teams. If they are going to put pressure on the P12 to become the P16, I could see a compromise where the P12 insists on getting its hands on some more attractive midwestern teams.

If things blow up, I could see either the Texas or Oklahoma teams going to the P12 rather than a B12-ACC hybrid, or I could see a few teams like Nebraska, Kansas, maybe Iowa or at least ISU, or something like that. That would also allow the B1G and the 4th conference to focus on some of the bigger eastern markets.

[jrj84105]

I think it could go to five conferences like this:
PAC(16) +Nebraska, +Kansas, +Oklahoma, +Texas
B1G(16) -Nebraska, +UVA, +UNC, +ND
SEC(16) +VT, +NC State
ACC(10) -VT, -NC State, -UNC, -UVA
BigXii(10) -Kansas, -Oklahoma, -Texas, +Cincinnati, +UCONN, +BYU/Houston

ACC and BigXii will be separate conference but their champs will play for the fourth playoff spot.

[UBlender]

I really don't like the idea of the power conferences breaking away from the NCAA simply because I don't trust the would-be power brokers (think SEC, Texas, Ohio State, USC, etc) making rules and regulations that make sense or create an even playing field. The NCAA sucks but this is a case of preferring to deal with the devil I know than the one that could be much worse. It seems likely to me that in the break-away scenario the SEC would make sure everything favors the SEC. Also, in this scenario Utah is back to being the little guy and I'm not sure anyone is sticking up for the little guy in that world.

[wuapinmon]

Do not underestimate the power of the scholarly regional accrediting bodies to prevent this from happening as long as the students are enrolled in classes. All are beholden to the Sith Lords of Academia.

[FountainOfUte]

It seems likely to me that in the break-away scenario the SEC would make sure everything favors the SEC.

How is this different than now? Still, I totally agree with what you say about the Devil we know.

[GarthUte]

How is this different than now? Still, I totally agree with what you say about the Devil we know.

Exactly. The BCS was created by then SEC commissioner Roy Kramer and the SEC has benefited disproportionately from his creation - think 2011 when Alabama played in the fake championship game despite not only not winning the SEC title, but they didn't even win their division.

[UBlender]

Of course the theoretical championship model could be a lot cleaner, but even that is based on a lot of assumptions about the number of conferences and programs in this theoretical splits and the willingness of said conferences and programs to allow for an even playing field. Even if this revolution resulted in a super clean 4 conference league there are still things like recruiting and media regulation that would likely largely be defined by those with the biggest bank accounts.

If the super elite programs want to break away from the NCAA it is so they can be free of restriction. As they write the new rules they aren't going to be concerned about giving Utah, Vanderbilt and Northwestern a fair shake. Hey, Ohio State and Texas want 120 scholarships. Yeehaw! The SEC wants to keep a disproportionate amount of revenue. Giddyup! USC wants it to be legal to provide "escorts" and servants to players. Huzzah! The regulation (or lack thereof) will almost certainly be geared to favor the biggest of the big dogs in this league. We already kind of have that with the NCAA but this will be no holds barred. And it won't be conducive to a program like Utah competing with those with the deepest pockets.

And heaven help us if the powers decide to move to a pay for play model without limits on spending, bringing a system where programs basically bid on players like unrestricted free agents.

[Jeromy in SLC]

And heaven help us if the powers decide to move to a pay for play model without limits on spending, bringing a system where programs basically bid on players like unrestricted free agents.

The one thing that I can see that would prevent this is that this sort of move could endanger the tax exempt status of schools (and this is supposition on my part, I don't claim to have the law on my side here). This falls more in line with how businesses operate. And make no doubt, college sports are a business, but they enjoy this tax exempt status. The huge donations made by boosters also have a tax exemption. Take that away, and you would see less money coming to the schools from boosters.

[SoCalPat]

The one thing that I can see that would prevent this is that this sort of move could endanger the tax exempt status of schools (and this is supposition on my part, I don't claim to have the law on my side here). This falls more in line with how businesses operate. And make no doubt, college sports are a business, but they enjoy this tax exempt status. The huge donations made by boosters also have a tax exemption. Take that away, and you would see less money coming to the schools from boosters.

Game, set, match. Without the guarantee of tax-exempt status, any talk of breakaway from the NCAA is premature. The NCAA has lobbyists, too, and I'm guessing there are senators and congressmen who claim as their alma mater a school outside all projected 16-team superconference models.

[SeaTacUte]

TV contracts alone will stop anything like this from happening for a long, long time. For example, CBS signed a 14 year deal in 2010 with the NCAA for basketball rights. So right off the bat you're looking at 2024 as the earliest for a change in the college sports landscape.

[Mormon Red Death]

Interesting article (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/if-we-paid-ncaa-basketball-players-what-theyre-really-worth-this-is-what-theyd-earn/284559/) from SUU David Berri


There is, though, a simple solution. Again, one team going “rogue” won’t have anyone to play. But let’s imagine a scenario where more than one school decided to create a “professional NCAA.” A collection of “rogue” teams could both pay their employees (i.e. student-athletes) more money, and have someone to play (hence be able to produce revenue). And if they did this, the following would likely happen:


The best college athletes would probably play in the “professional NCAA.” After all, why would a top talent play for a college that both restricted his earnings and refused to pay him in cash?
The “professional NCAA” could be immune from anti-trust laws. Right now, several court cases are challenging the NCAA’s employment practices (a new case was filed this week (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10620388/anti-trust-claim-filed-jeffrey-kessler-challenges-ncaa-amateur-model)). If courts rule that student-athletes are employees, it follows that the NCAA restrictions are a violation of the law. But if a professional league negotiated compensation with employee representation via collective bargaining, then restricted pay would be legal. At least, that is how the courts have ruled with respect to professional team sports in the United States in the past.
The “professional NCAA” could thwart a challenge from the NBA’s D-league. Again, college athletes are producing far more revenue than they are being paid. So an opportunity exists for another league. Mark Cuban recently suggested that alternative league could be the NBA’s D-League. (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/10538276/mark-cuban-says-nba-d-league-better-option-ncaa)If a collection of colleges formed a “professional NCAA,” they could maintain their respective fan bases and prevent the NBA from stealing the best college players.

[sancho]

Interesting article (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/if-we-paid-ncaa-basketball-players-what-theyre-really-worth-this-is-what-theyd-earn/284559/) from SUU David Berri

This stuff is all over the sports pages today. I really don't understand the implications, but I know I like things as they currently are. I hope this doesn't eventually harm the sports I like, and I hope that it doesn't end up killing the golden goose for the athletes.

[Diehard Ute]

If these things ever come to pass the only sports left will be football and basketball.

Athletic departments at most schools already lose money....if all the "revenue sport" money isn't shared the reaper will take the other sports (which then begs the Title IX question)

[sancho]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10683398/tax-implications-create-hurdle-players-union


Northwestern football players won the right to unionize (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize) on Wednesday, but the potential tax implications alone could immediately kill the idea.

If it happens, the silver lining is that Stanford athletes would have to pay way more taxes on their tuition scholarships than Utes.

[Mormon Red Death]

Good article on this (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/nlrb-ruling-reignites-college-athlete-pay-debate/).

[SeattleUte]

Good article on this (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/nlrb-ruling-reignites-college-athlete-pay-debate/).

When the universities say to hell with this whole DI enterprise it's not worth this aggravation and cost who's it going to hurt?

[sancho]

When the universities say to hell with this whole DI enterprise it's not worth this aggravation and cost who's it going to hurt?

Me. It will hurt me, the fan.

[SeattleUte]

Me. It will hurt me, the fan.

Only a little. It will hurt the kids who play, the members of the "union", who don't go pro. Now they will have to go play in some crappy football minor league absent the stellar university brands that follow you your entire life and get their heads knocked in for 30k a year and learn the value of a college education (or the lack of one) the hard way.

[LA Ute]

Only a little. It will hurt the kids who play, the members of the "union", who don't go pro. Now they will have to go play in some crappy football minor league absent the stellar university brands that follow you your entire life and get their heads knocked in for 30k a year and learn the value of a college education (or the lack of one) the hard way.

Yes.

[SeattleUte]

Yes.

It's sickening that it's gotten so that everyone thinks they deserve a paycheck for anything difficult they do. What I've learned is that the most rewarding things you undertake without any expectation of remuneration. The kids need the universities, not the other way around.

[sancho]

It's sickening that it's gotten so that everyone thinks they deserve a paycheck for anything difficult they do.

I think I should be paid for even the easy stuff.

Where are my royalties for this crappy post?

[Mormon Red Death]

When the universities say to hell with this whole DI enterprise it's not worth this aggravation and cost who's it going to hurt?

You are mistaken If you think the universities will get rid of sports.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[SeattleUte]

You are mistaken If you think the universities will get rid of sports.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

You are mistaken if you think they will let themselves be in the business of running minor league pro teams at a loss, contending with unions, etc. Probably nothing will come of this because the universities have all the leverage.

[jrj84105]

You are mistaken if you think they will let themselves be in the business of running minor league pro teams at a loss, contending with unions, etc. Probably nothing will come of this because the universities have all the leverage.
Agreed. Although, if the courts buck the leverage, the universities might actually make more money renting their stadiums and licensing their names and logos to the minor league teams rather than operating the programs themselves. All the more reason to get on board with the moose. It would suck to lose our mascot/logo licensing rights if the league banned the Native American stuff :)

[SeattleUte]

Agreed. Although, if the courts buck the leverage, the universities might actually make more money renting their stadiums and licensing their names and logos to the minor league teams rather than operating the programs themselves. All the more reason to get on board with the moose. It would suck to lose our mascot/logo licensing rights if the league banned the Native American stuff :)

I have thought the same thing. Let some ambitious entrepreneur start the minor league francise raising necessary cash, and the universities license the name and logo to him. But the license agreement will invariably have a provision, "If you emabarrass us, drag our good name through the mud, we can terminate this agreement for cause and gut you like a trout with liquidated damages," etc.

Of course then the kids would suffer because 99% of them wouldn't have much of any pro career, and they'd not earn any college degree.

I hate famous, rich white guys like Frank Deford who pontificate about how the universities take advantage of the players, assuming that most players are not good for anything other than playing football or basketball. I've seen kids who played for my schools, of whatever race, go on to become business successes, even judges and doctors. If it were my kid I'd rather he get the college degree than 30k or 50k or whatever. That's priceless. And no, a college degree is not a vocational training.

[UTEopia]

Agreed. Although, if the courts buck the leverage, the universities might actually make more money renting their stadiums and licensing their names and logos to the minor league teams rather than operating the programs themselves. All the more reason to get on board with the moose. It would suck to lose our mascot/logo licensing rights if the league banned the Native American stuff :)

The question becomes whether the fans will support the sports in this manner. I am a fan of University of Utah athletics. I don't follow the Salt Lake Bees or the Utah Jazz, although I was once a Jazz season ticket holder and will go watch the Bees a few times a year. I am becoming a fan of Real Salt Lake. Unfortunately, I am a fan of the San Diego Padres which is like cheering for a minor league team, but MLB has done a great job of disenfranchising all fans unless you cheer for the Red Sox, Yankees and the Red Sox and the Yankees. I am currently without an NFL team. For years I was a fan of the 49ers, the Raiders and the Browns, but now I follow former Utes more then I do any single team. I cannot cheer for anything from Denver and am happy that Zane Beadles in now somewhere else. If something like you are suggesting were to happen, I guess the money I now spend on Ute stuff would go to some other stuff. I can't see me spending it to watch a semi-pro football team or a D-league basketball team even if they have the Ute name and the drum and feather.

[jrj84105]

I think the appeal of a minor league system, even with some vestige of the historical university association, would be massively diminished. I sort of think that there's a fork in the road where college football will either back off from its current profit-motivated trajectory or go for one last money grab before succumbing to any one of chronic traumatic encephalitis, unionization, or unsustainable escalation of operating costs.

My money grab scenario puts us in the Southwest division of the PAC conference of a 36 team BigPAC league facing off against the 32 team Southern Coastal league :)

[Solon]

Only a little. It will hurt the kids who play, the members of the "union", who don't go pro. Now they will have to go play in some crappy football minor league absent the stellar university brands that follow you your entire life and get their heads knocked in for 30k a year and learn the value of a college education (or the lack of one) the hard way.

In my experience, most college athletes know they're not going to be pros because they play soccer or softball or run track. Many of them are only on partial scholarships to begin with. Most of these kids take their college experiences very seriously because they know they're lucky. They're the ones that the intercollegiate-athletics system was intended to benefit.

I wouldn't mind seeing football split off from the universities.

What's really at the heart of this is the 150-year-old ideology of amateurism, an ideology born in the classist system of Victorian England and deliberately constructed to disadvantage athletes from the working classes. The fact that this ideology persists today on college campuses, among people who smugly puff out their chests as they sip their chai and lecture the masses about progressive liberalism is a head-scratcher and yet another of higher education's hypocrisies. Get rid of amateurism and the rest of this stuff falls into place. Only a fraction of football players, and even fewer men's basketball players will be professionals of note. Let those who want to go pro test the waters, just like in any other industry. If they wash out as pros, let them come back to college. This will only impact a few players overall out of the thousands who currently play football & basketball (I would include the WNBA in the women's game here). The vast majority of college athletes will stay in school, play their sports, graduate/drop out, and move on to jobs & careers. Just like the rest of the student-body.

If a kid starts a Computer Science degree, drops out to work for a startup for awhile, and then returns to college in 18 months, nobody thinks twice. Why can't this be the same for college sports? Obviously there would be rule-tweaks for transferring, amount of time allocated to complete athletic eligibility, etc., but these are hiccups overall.

Where the Unions are really going to hurt college football is in health care & workers' comp. This is where the term "student-athlete" came from in the first place.

[Diehard Ute]

In my experience, most college athletes know they're not going to be pros because they play soccer or softball or run track. Many of them are only on partial scholarships to begin with. Most of these kids take their college experiences very seriously because they know they're lucky. They're the ones that the intercollegiate-athletics system was intended to benefit.

I wouldn't mind seeing football split off from the universities.

What's really at the heart of this is the 150-year-old ideology of amateurism, an ideology born in the classist system of Victorian England and deliberately constructed to disadvantage athletes from the working classes. The fact that this ideology persists today on college campuses, among people who smugly puff out their chests as they sip their chai and lecture the masses about progressive liberalism is a head-scratcher and yet another of higher education's hypocrisies. Get rid of amateurism and the rest of this stuff falls into place. Only a fraction of football players, and even fewer men's basketball players will be professionals of note. Let those who want to go pro test the waters, just like in any other industry. If they wash out as pros, let them come back to college. This will only impact a few players overall out of the thousands who currently play football & basketball (I would include the WNBA in the women's game here). The vast majority of college athletes will stay in school, play their sports, graduate/drop out, and move on to jobs & careers. Just like the rest of the student-body.

If a kid starts a Computer Science degree, drops out to work for a startup for awhile, and then returns to college in 18 months, nobody thinks twice. Why can't this be the same for college sports? Obviously there would be rule-tweaks for transferring, amount of time allocated to complete athletic eligibility, etc., but these are hiccups overall.

Where the Unions are really going to hurt college football is in health care & workers' comp. This is where the term "student-athlete" came from in the first place.

If universities lose the cash they get from football there won't be softball players on campus.

(And most of the major conferences offer full rides in almost every sport, especially women's sports)

There are two sports that produce revenue. Football and men's basketball. Some schools have 3 (gymnastics at Utah). Without those sports the athletic department will die at any university.

[Solon]

If universities lose the cash they get from football there won't be softball players on campus.

(And most of the major conferences offer full rides in almost every sport, especially women's sports)

There are two sports that produce revenue. Football and men's basketball. Some schools have 3 (gymnastics at Utah). Without those sports the athletic department will die at any university.

This is true at some schools, but not true at others. The idea that football & men's basketball pay for everybody else is a simplification. They might bring in a little bit of money, sure, but overall most schools are losing money, even on football & men's basketball.

So, while football brings in the most money, it's often not enough (even for that single sport's expenses). Most colleges have to augment athletic budgets through student activity fees. Schools justify the expense of fielding varsity teams in intercollegiate competition because it's a marketing tool and a strong community-builder (alumni are much more willing to donate during homecoming week, for example).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/15/athletics-cost-colleges-students-millions/2814455/
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-08-30/fbs-programs-profit-revenue-economics-fsc-texas-florida-ohio-state-georgia-state

Schools usually don't make any money on their debate teams or orchestras or Literature Departments either.

[Mormon Red Death]

Fantastic Article (http://grantland.com/features/northwestern-ncaa-college-athletics-union/)on the Northwestern Football Unionization:


Fine, but do we have to pay squash players? And what happens to athletes’ student status if they’re also employees? Can they be fired? What if some teams vote to unionize and some teams don’t? And what about tax implications? What about Title IX?
I have no idea! One of the neat strategies you’ll see the NCAA’s defenders deploy in the wake of the Northwestern ruling is to start throwing out a million practical questions that have yet to be resolved, as though, if you can’t immediately answer all of them, they must be totally impossible to solve. “I don’t know what happens to their meal cards!” you’re supposed to cry in this situation, throwing your hands up to the heavens. “Therefore change is futile and I have no choice but to agree that the student-athlete system is the key to success in the classroom, on the field, and in life!”
But this is ludicrous. Reform of a big organization like the NCAA is inevitably going to involve a lot of tough questions. Maybe Ultimate Frisbee at Middlebury isn’t a job in the same way basketball at Kentucky is. Maybe some provision will be necessary to make sure women’s sports are treated fairly. But you know what? People build multinational corporations and reasonably functional democracies. People deal with trickier problems than college-sports revenue distribution all the time. Raising objections as though the mere existence of practical difficulties shuts down the conversation is the stalling tactic of an exhausted debater. It’s the move of someone with nothing left to defend.

[Utah]

I think this is what will happen:


The NFL will put it's input into the Big 5 breaking off from college football, and they will become a minor league system. I don't know if recruiting will still happen, or if NFL teams will go out and sign high school kids and then assign them to their team, but those kids will get paid, and will be monitored by their "parent" NFL team. (For example, if Utah is aligned with the Broncos. Maybe Denver goes out and signs kids to minor league deals then assigns them to the Utes, or if Whitt goes out and recruits, pays the players, and then the draft still happens).

I think the rest of college football will go back to the old days. Bowl games will decrease dramatically, they will play in their meaningless games that only alum care about, and there will be 10-15 bowl games left. Recruiting will still happen, Title IX will apply to those schools, and kids will get scholarships but nothing else.

I guess I am saying it will end up looking a lot like baseball.

[Scratch]

I think this is what will happen:


The NFL will put it's input into the Big 5 breaking off from college football, and they will become a minor league system. I don't know if recruiting will still happen, or if NFL teams will go out and sign high school kids and then assign them to their team, but those kids will get paid, and will be monitored by their "parent" NFL team. (For example, if Utah is aligned with the Broncos. Maybe Denver goes out and signs kids to minor league deals then assigns them to the Utes, or if Whitt goes out and recruits, pays the players, and then the draft still happens).

I think the rest of college football will go back to the old days. Bowl games will decrease dramatically, they will play in their meaningless games that only alum care about, and there will be 10-15 bowl games left. Recruiting will still happen, Title IX will apply to those schools, and kids will get scholarships but nothing else.

I guess I am saying it will end up looking a lot like baseball.

So you're saying the only structure people care about will survive, but only for the teams people don't care about?

Your last statement is exactly why it will never happen. If it turned into minor league baseball, as opposed to a college game, no one will care and it won't generate any real money and no one will benefit.

[SeattleUte]

Raising objections as though the mere existence of practical difficulties shuts down the conversation is the stalling tactic of an exhausted debater. It’s the move of someone with nothing left to defend.

It's the posture of someone who feels he's got all the leverage, is what it is. And that's the position the universities are in.

[sancho]

One of the neat strategies you’ll see the NCAA’s defenders deploy in the wake of the Northwestern ruling is to start throwing out a million practical questions that have yet to be resolved, as though, if you can’t immediately answer all of them, they must be totally impossible to solve.

Sometimes it's useful to think things through before diving in. Some of these issues may be deal-breakers. We don't want to just start making changes blindly and hope all the difficult issues get resolved eventually.

College athletics is pretty popular right now. Maybe if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[LA Ute]

Dennis Dodd today:

NCAA class warfare closer; BCS types push low-revenue schools away (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24517017/ncaa-class-warfare-closer-bcs-types-push-low-revenue-schools-away)

Power conferences gear up to battle antitrust suit, other legal threats (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24517068/power-conferences-gear-up-to-battle-kessler-antitrust-lawsuit-other-legal-threats)

[Crimsonute]

Thank goodness Utah is a "Have". It would stink to be a "Have Not".

[Scorcho]

looks like the P5 break from FBS is scheduled for August.

http://m.espn.go.com/extra/ncaa/story?storyId=10817368&src=desktop&wjb


The NCAA expects to create the five-conference subdivision in August. Slive estimated that it will take until at least the first of the year to draw up the rules by which the schools will govern themselves. In the current model, presidents make decisions as members of the NCAA Board of Directors. The five conferences want more responsibility in the hands of their athletic administrators.

[wuapinmon]

This is true at some schools, but not true at others. The idea that football & men's basketball pay for everybody else is a simplification. They might bring in a little bit of money, sure, but overall most schools are losing money, even on football & men's basketball.

So, while football brings in the most money, it's often not enough (even for that single sport's expenses). Most colleges have to augment athletic budgets through student activity fees. Schools justify the expense of fielding varsity teams in intercollegiate competition because it's a marketing tool and a strong community-builder (alumni are much more willing to donate during homecoming week, for example).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/15/athletics-cost-colleges-students-millions/2814455/
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-08-30/fbs-programs-profit-revenue-economics-fsc-texas-florida-ohio-state-georgia-state

Schools usually don't make any money on their debate teams or orchestras or Literature Departments either.

Athletic teams are the saviors of small liberal arts colleges. Students are willing to pay to play, even in D2. I doubt we'll go two more years before Coker gets a football team.

[sancho]

Athletic teams are the saviors of small liberal arts colleges. Students are willing to pay to play, even in D2. I doubt we'll go two more years before Coker gets a football team.

True. I was really surprised when I found out the percentage of students who are athletes at a local liberal arts college. They really want to keep playing their sport but can't do it at the top level.

[LA Ute]

Chris Hill on this and related subjects:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1cdvB6JDkg#t=48

[SoCalPat]

Chris Hill on this and related subjects:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1cdvB6JDkg#t=48

Hill has some very good takes, although I'd like to know what NCAA counsel would think about his remarks on athletes profiting off of their likeness.

[LA Ute]

This kinda sorts fits in here. Jeremy Fowler on the college football playoff meetings:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24545407/musings-from-college-football-playoff-meetings

Interesting how the SEC comes off in all this.

[SoCalPat]

This kinda sorts fits in here. Jeremy Fowler on the college football playoff meetings:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24545407/musings-from-college-football-playoff-meetings

Interesting how the SEC comes off in all this.

If the SEC is going to go with 8 league games in a 14-team league, it's imperative the Pac-12 does likewise. Unless you're more interested in that 9th game against Washington than you are seeing the league's profile be elevated.

[concerned]

If the SEC is going to go with 8 league games in a 14-team league, it's imperative the Pac-12 does likewise. Unless you're more interested in that 9th game against Washington than you are seeing the league's profile be elevated.

I guess that would depend on the willingness of the Oregon and Washington schools to reduce their trips to LA, and the California schools to give up annual games against each other.

[Scorcho]

If the SEC is going to go with 8 league games in a 14-team league, it's imperative the Pac-12 does likewise. Unless you're more interested in that 9th game against Washington than you are seeing the league's profile be elevated.

disagree.

Pac-12 wants/needs to own the strength of schedule argument. A 9 game conference schedule helps acheive that.

Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe · Apr 29
Larry Scott said he believes the Pac-12 has the strongest overall strength of schedule in CFB

[U-Ute]

disagree.

Pac-12 wants/needs to own the strength of schedule argument. A 9 game conference schedule helps acheive that.

Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe · Apr 29
Larry Scott said he believes the Pac-12 has the strongest overall strength of schedule in CFB

And given how many home games against OOC cream puffs the SEC has, I think Scott is right.

[Scorcho]

And given how many home games against OOC cream puffs the SEC has, I think Scott is right.

No doubt the SEC is an abuser of FCS OOC Games, but so are a few teams in the PAC-12.

Last year in OOC play Arizona scheduled N. Arizona, UNLV and UTSA and in 2012 Oregon had Arkansas St, Fresno St. and Tenn Tech.

[U-Ute]

No doubt the SEC is an abuser of FCS OOC Games, but so are a few teams in the PAC-12.

Last year in OOC play Arizona scheduled N. Arizona, UNLV and UTSA and in 2012 Oregon had Arkansas St, Fresno St. and Tenn Tech.

True. We scheduled BYU. ;)

[Scorcho]

true. We scheduled byu. ;) lol

[gugstanley]

I want to stick with the 9 game schedule. Part of the Big 5 breaking off they need to establish some rules and hopefully a nine game schedule is one of them, eliminating fcs games should be the other.

[SoCalPat]

I want to stick with the 9 game schedule. Part of the Big 5 breaking off they need to establish some rules and hopefully a nine game schedule is one of them, eliminating fcs games should be the other.

That will never happen without some serious change in the postseason structure. The FCS games that are scheduled make it so that more than half of FBS can finish .500 or better and get to a bowl. Now, we can argue that fewer bowls might be a better thing -- or at least fewer bowls would make earning a bowl bid more of an accomplishment. But with a 12-game schedule and the bowl slate as it is, getting rid of the FCS games isn't going to happen anytime soon.

I'll let the SEC keep its 8-game schedule so long as they schedule mandatory home-and-homes with Pac-12 teams. I'll gladly take a schedule of 9-league games, SEC, BYU and FCS every year. Who wouldn't?

[sancho]

Now, we can argue that fewer bowls might be a better thing

I've been thinking the opposite. What if all teams were bowl eligible? All teams play one last game against someone from another conference.

Then we don't have any more fcs games, and we don't have half as many early coach firings.

[FountainOfUte]

I've been thinking the opposite. What if all teams were bowl eligible? All teams play one last game against someone from another conference.


I like this notion, actually.

When the 65 break off, for their post season I'd like to see a playoff element (four to eight teams), and the bowls more or less as they exist today. But what if, for teams who failed to qualify, there was a new provision made that allowed them to arrange an exhibition game on their own. I would think something like this would be played at the home stadium of one of the teams, but if something else could be arranged that made sense, that's fine, too.

So, imagine Utah doesn't get a bowl (not hard to imagine these days). Maybe they're able to set up a game with, say, TCU. Maybe Chris Hill sets up an agreement with the Frogs AD like "We'll play this game in SLC, and we both agree that the next time both schools are in this same situation, we'll promise to come play at your place."

This allows the teams that didn't qualify for an official post season situation to still have the "extra" practices that playoff/bowl teams get. It could be as big or small a game as the two schools want to make it. In fact, I'd see no reason why teams in this situation couldn't set up a game with a team outside the Power 65 if they want. Maybe it's in Utah's interest to set up their exhibition with a team from the MWC to save cost and/or ensure the game is in SLC. If you're a mid-level MWC team, maybe an exhibition game in SLC against a PAC-12 team actually costs your school less and still offers a more compelling matchup than a bottom-barrel bowl.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought, Sancho.

[jrj84105]

There are few things that can increase the payouts for the Power5. You just hit the nail on the head with the elimination of bowl games. The next part is to get even greater sway over ESPN/media distributors. I see a P5 breakaway looking like two leagues of 32 each following the dissolution of the BigXii and the mergers of the BigPAC and SEC/ACC. The BigPAC would get to 32 with the B1G adding KU and Mizzou and the PAC the Texahoma 4. The B1G and PAC would send their champs to meat the ACC and SEC champs in the playoff. Non-Playoff teams would all be eligible for an exhibition game to arrange as they saw fit. This requires no NCAA rule changes except for the post-season exhibition.

BigPAC League (32)
B1G Conference (16)
NEast Pod: UMD, RU, PSU, OSU
ECent Pod: MSU, Michigan, IU, PU
WCent Pod: ILL, NW, Wisconsin, MN
West Pod: Iowa, Neb, KU, Mizzou
Division A (two from each pod) UMD, PSU, MSU, IU, Wisconsin, ILL, Mizzou, KU
Division B (two from each pod) RU, OSU, Michigan, PU, MN, NW, Iowa, Nebraska


PAC Conference (16)
NW Pod: WSU, UW, OSU, UO
Cali Pod: Furd, Cal, USC, UCLA
SW Pod: ASU, AZ, UU, CU
Texahoma pod: UT, TTU, OU, OSU
Division A (two from each pod) WSU, UO, Furd, USC, ASU, UU, TTU, OU
Division B (two from each pod) UW, OSU, Cal, UCLA, AZ, CU, UT, OSU


Schedule (12 games)
7 Division games
2 games against out of division pod mates (I.e. Utah plays AZ and CU out of division)
3 games, 1 against each other division (i.e. vs USC, Iowa, and Wisconsin)

[LA Ute]

Some thought-provoking analysis, in PACHoops, of that May 22 letter from the PAC-12 presidents:

Don’t Ignore This Letter (The one from the Pac-12 Presidents) (http://pachoops.com/2014/06/dont-ignore-this-letter-the-one-from-the-pac-12-presidents/)

[UTEopia]

There is one part of this set of proposals that I do not agree with and that is the transfer w/o penalty proposal. In theory, I think it is the fair thing to do for the players, but consider this. During spring ball at Alabama, Sr star safety Jonny is injured and will miss the year. Meanwhile, up and coming freshman all american safety Billy at Utah continues to turn heads and receive accolades. Coach "the Devil" from Alabama gets on the phone to Billy's former high school coach and says, call Billy and let him know that we have a scholarship available and he has a great chance of starting at for the Crimson Tide this fall. I know that they could put all sorts of rules against tampering in place, but the ability to play now without penalty will in no way deter what I just described from happening.

[LA Ute]

There is one part of this set of proposals that I do not agree with and that is the transfer w/o penalty proposal. In theory, I think it is the fair thing to do for the players, but consider this. During spring ball at Alabama, Sr star safety Jonny is injured and will miss the year. Meanwhile, up and coming freshman all american safety Billy at Utah continues to turn heads and receive accolades. Coach "the Devil" from Alabama gets on the phone to Billy's former high school coach and says, call Billy and let him know that we have a scholarship available and he has a great chance of starting at for the Crimson Tide this fall. I know that they could put all sorts of rules against tampering in place, but the ability to play now without penalty will in no way deter what I just described from happening.

This seems like an excellent point. I hope it is obvious enough to gain lots of traction in the discussions among the powers that be.

[Mormon Red Death]

There is one part of this set of proposals that I do not agree with and that is the transfer w/o penalty proposal. In theory, I think it is the fair thing to do for the players, but consider this. During spring ball at Alabama, Sr star safety Jonny is injured and will miss the year. Meanwhile, up and coming freshman all american safety Billy at Utah continues to turn heads and receive accolades. Coach "the Devil" from Alabama gets on the phone to Billy's former high school coach and says, call Billy and let him know that we have a scholarship available and he has a great chance of starting at for the Crimson Tide this fall. I know that they could put all sorts of rules against tampering in place, but the ability to play now without penalty will in no way deter what I just described from happening.

That is an easy fix. They can only transfer without penalty in February or m a March.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[pachoopsab]

Similar to the free transfer to Alabama scenario described, loosening up the transfer rules - if not completely freeing up transferring - exposes the NCAA to "feeder schools." Bigger schools could use some smaller schools to allow kids to get 1-2 years of competition and training at a program of the bigger school's choosing. There could be kick backs to there smaller, developmental schools (let's get serious, they'd be monetary) and when the bigger school felt there was a talented enough player to "call up" they would.

Definitely an ugly scenario.

[Mormon Red Death]

Similar to the free transfer to Alabama scenario described, loosening up the transfer rules - if not completely freeing up transferring - exposes the NCAA to "feeder schools." Bigger schools could use some smaller schools to allow kids to get 1-2 years of competition and training at a program of the bigger school's choosing. There could be kick backs to there smaller, developmental schools (let's get serious, they'd be monetary) and when the bigger school felt there was a talented enough player to "call up" they would.

Definitely an ugly scenario.

They already do that with jc. They could come up with reasonable rules that would make it fair. If a coach can leave for a better job and situation without penalty a player should be able to do the same.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Diehard Ute]

They already do that with jc. They could come up with reasonable rules that would make it fair. If a coach can leave for a better job and situation without penalty a player should be able to do the same.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Coaches don't leave without penalty these days....the penalty is just monetary usually.

And reality is the players do their fair share of "unfair" things (Taking trips with no intention of playing there, multiple verbal commitments, failure to qualify etc etc)

[concerned]

There is one part of this set of proposals that I do not agree with and that is the transfer w/o penalty proposal. In theory, I think it is the fair thing to do for the players, but consider this. During spring ball at Alabama, Sr star safety Jonny is injured and will miss the year. Meanwhile, up and coming freshman all american safety Billy at Utah continues to turn heads and receive accolades. Coach "the Devil" from Alabama gets on the phone to Billy's former high school coach and says, call Billy and let him know that we have a scholarship available and he has a great chance of starting at for the Crimson Tide this fall. I know that they could put all sorts of rules against tampering in place, but the ability to play now without penalty will in no way deter what I just described from happening.


Yes but the reverse will happen much more often--highly recruited players at the top schools like Alabama with nowhere to go on the depth chart will look for a place to play. Alabama much more likely to lose players than gain them.

[Scratch]

I'd like to see something where there is no penalty if a player is released, and have a release be mandatory if the player didn't meet certain established levels of playing time. This would allow players to leave to get playing time but hopefully limit or eliminate the recruitment of breakout players from "less prestigious" schools.

[SoCalPat]

Coaches don't leave without penalty these days....the penalty is just monetary usually.

And reality is the players do their fair share of "unfair" things (Taking trips with no intention of playing there, multiple verbal commitments, failure to qualify etc etc)

And that penalty is almost always paid for by his new school.

As for players, anyone willing to offer a verbal commitment should be allowed to sign his LOI on the spot.

[Diehard Ute]

And that penalty is almost always paid for by his new school.

As for players, anyone willing to offer a verbal commitment should be allowed to sign his LOI on the spot.

Yeah, the penalty often is...."contracts" in coaching are rather silly these days.

I wouldn't mind the LOI being anytime, however talking to some players the pressure and promises made just to get a verbal are pretty outlandish. I can't imagine what some schools would do for a binding LOI (and if you could transfer at will, what would it matter?)

[SoCalPat]

There is one part of this set of proposals that I do not agree with and that is the transfer w/o penalty proposal. In theory, I think it is the fair thing to do for the players, but consider this. During spring ball at Alabama, Sr star safety Jonny is injured and will miss the year. Meanwhile, up and coming freshman all american safety Billy at Utah continues to turn heads and receive accolades. Coach "the Devil" from Alabama gets on the phone to Billy's former high school coach and says, call Billy and let him know that we have a scholarship available and he has a great chance of starting at for the Crimson Tide this fall. I know that they could put all sorts of rules against tampering in place, but the ability to play now without penalty will in no way deter what I just described from happening.

I think that's a monsters-under-the-bed scenario that most coaches would avoid because it's ripe for dissension in the locker room. I also think star players get to where they're at because they're just as loyal to their teammates as they are hard-working and talented.

[SoCalPat]

Yeah, the penalty often is...."contracts" in coaching are rather silly these days.

I wouldn't mind the LOI being anytime, however talking to some players the pressure and promises made just to get a verbal are pretty outlandish. I can't imagine what some schools would do for a binding LOI (and if you could transfer at will, what would it matter?)

The LOI locks you in to that particular school for 18 months. I still think it carries some weight.

[SoCalPat]

Yes but the reverse will happen much more often--highly recruited players at the top schools like Alabama with nowhere to go on the depth chart will look for a place to play. Alabama much more likely to lose players than gain them.

Yep. Utah has benefited from incoming transfers far more than it has been hurt by departing players.

[SoCalPat]

Yeah, the penalty often is...."contracts" in coaching are rather silly these days.

I wouldn't mind the LOI being anytime, however talking to some players the pressure and promises made just to get a verbal are pretty outlandish. I can't imagine what some schools would do for a binding LOI (and if you could transfer at will, what would it matter?)

I don't feel sorry for coaches that get burned by using such tactics. They're playing to recruiting web sites and team rankings. The better of a recruiter you are, the less of a pitch you have to make. The verbal commitment means nothing as it stands, but attaching it to an LOI would add some sense to the recruiting process on both sides.

[sancho]

I'm getting a little tired of the "treat the players better" movement. The players are already royalty. Starting to sound a little whiny - like Bob Seeger complaining about being a rock star.

Anyway, if we are going to pretend that we care about their education, we keep the 1 year transfer penalty. Multiple transfers is not good for education, and it should take a year to get your academic bearings before spending a billion hours on the practice field.


Yes but the reverse will happen much more often--highly recruited players at the top schools like Alabama with nowhere to go on the depth chart will look for a place to play. Alabama much more likely to lose players than gain them.

So, we lose our good players to the contenders, but we get their leftovers back in return? That kind of trading would get a GM fired. Unlimited transfers without penalty would be bad for students and bad for football.

I do like most of the other Pac-12 suggestions.

[UBlender]

There is one part of this set of proposals that I do not agree with and that is the transfer w/o penalty proposal. In theory, I think it is the fair thing to do for the players, but consider this. During spring ball at Alabama, Sr star safety Jonny is injured and will miss the year. Meanwhile, up and coming freshman all american safety Billy at Utah continues to turn heads and receive accolades. Coach "the Devil" from Alabama gets on the phone to Billy's former high school coach and says, call Billy and let him know that we have a scholarship available and he has a great chance of starting at for the Crimson Tide this fall. I know that they could put all sorts of rules against tampering in place, but the ability to play now without penalty will in no way deter what I just described from happening.

I think this type of scenario would be a lot bigger deal in basketball with the current one-and-done situation.

[SoCalPat]

I'm getting a little tired of the "treat the players better" movement. The players are already royalty. Starting to sound a little whiny - like Bob Seeger complaining about being a rock star.

Anyway, if we are going to pretend that we care about their education, we keep the 1 year transfer penalty. Multiple transfers is not good for education, and it should take a year to get your academic bearings before spending a billion hours on the practice field.



So, we lose our good players to the contenders, but we get their leftovers back in return? That kind of trading would get a GM fired. Unlimited transfers without penalty would be bad for students and bad for football.

I do like most of the other Pac-12 suggestions.

According to whom and based on what?

[sancho]

According to whom and based on what?

According to me; based on my intuition. I would think that would satisfy.

[Jarid in Cedar]

A compromise position, make a player sit a year to transfer, but don't make that year count against their eligibility.

[Diehard Ute]

A compromise position, make a player sit a year to transfer, but don't make that year count against their eligibility.

So do you modify the rules to allow transfers 6 years to complete their eligibility? Or will everyone get 6?

[SoCalPat]

According to me; based on my intuition. I would think that would satisfy.

I went to two JUCOs and a four-year before attending Utah, where I earned my bachelor's in three years. I find reality over intuition more satisfying. More reality: Most basketball players spend their HS careers at multiple schools anyway, and those that are less than stellar in the classroom will only major in Eligibility anyway. Collegiate sports will not burn to the ground if players are granted immediate transfers. However, I would grant schools the option of blocking transfers to any conference school. I'm sure there are other potential abuses or loopholes in the system, but there are amendable solutions for those also.

[sancho]

I went to two JUCOs and a four-year before attending Utah

Oooh, so it's intuition vs anecdote. I'll call it a stalemate. That's generous though, cuz my intuition is super good.

My quick google tells me that students with associates degrees from CCs tend to do well when they transfer to 4 years colleges. I can't find any data on students who transfer multiple times between 4 years. I still think their 4 year graduation rate must suffer.


Collegiate sports will not burn to the ground if players are granted immediate transfers.

I feel like I'm the only one in the "if it aint broke" category with college sports. There are plenty of changes that might not burn college sports to the ground, but I'm really pretty satisfied with my football and basketball right now.

[UTEopia]

After having thought about it for a bit, I would modify the current rule to require a kid to sit out the semester (summer does not count) he first enrolls at the new school. This would allow a kid to transfer in January and be able to play the next fall, because he can still get into school for the winter semester through the early part of February. It would also prevent the late spring/early summer tampering that I fear would happen with unlimited transfers. I would also eliminate the ability of the school to prevent a kid from receiving a scholarship by restricting the schools where he can transfer.

I would eliminate the hardship rule (too subjective) and allow the graduate student rule to continue.

Any school caught tampering would lose 2 scholarships for the number of years of eligibility the kid transferring has when he transfers.

It is interesting that conferences like the PAC are talking about eliminating transfer penalties but still have an additional 1 year penalty for in-conference transfers.

[SoCalPat]

Oooh, so it's intuition vs anecdote. I'll call it a stalemate. That's generous though, cuz my intuition is super good.

My quick google tells me that students with associates degrees from CCs tend to do well when they transfer to 4 years colleges. I can't find any data on students who transfer multiple times between 4 years. I still think their 4 year graduation rate must suffer.

I feel like I'm the only one in the "if it aint broke" category with college sports. There are plenty of changes that might not burn college sports to the ground, but I'm really pretty satisfied with my football and basketball right now.

Outside of the destruction of traditional rivalries through conference realignment, the fan has never had it better. We have a (college football) playoff, we have access like never before and if you're doing the right thing, even your G5 schools can have their moment of glory. We were one of those schools once. But everything that has made things better for the fan has widened the gulf between those who do this for a living and the athletes themselves. In short, it borders on exploitation. The former group is profiting like never before; the latter group is still stuck in the 1960s in many ways, even though they're closer to being professionals than ever before.

As long as the players themselves are one of "me" -- a student who progresses into alumni status, I want to do right by them, regardless of sport. For all the enjoyment they give us, there is more that can be done for the athletes, especially along the line of compensation and injuries that are carried with them past their collegiate days. If that means passing on an elaborate facility that contributes to the excess and piggishness that exists in the college sports arms race, I'm all for it.

[Viking]

No one reads this site anyway but apparently BYU is in the big12 for 2015. Foosball only.

[Mormon Red Death]

No one reads this site anyway but apparently BYU is in the big12 for 2015. Foosball only.

Come on viking .... That ain't happening

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Viking]

Come on viking .... That ain't happening

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

I know. A little bit of mockery, that's all. A friend started emailing me excitedly last night about this. It's nonsense. Nothing has happened since 2011. I met Dan Beebe in Provo in early September 2011. But that's all beside the point at this juncture.

BYU is f---ed, in all probability, but not with certainty. It looks really bad for them. Holmoe is a good guy and well-respected, and gives them what fighting chance they have. It depends on what moron currently running the university allows them to do (i have no idea who is running the university but based on success in negotiations, it is certainly not the "lord"...be he lord vader or lord grantham or otherwise).

Edit: I just googled the new prez of BYU. Maybe he's not a moron. I have no idea whether graduating #1 from a second tier law school means anything.

[U-Ute]

No one reads this site anyway but apparently BYU is in the big12 for 2015. Foosball only.

I'll wait until I hear it from Chip Brown.

[Mormon Red Death]

I Love being part of best conference. PAC 12 with great scholarship changes. (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11775571/pac-12-passes-athlete-reforms-including-guaranteed-4-year-scholarships)

[Homer Crimson]

I Love being part of best conference. PAC 12 with great scholarship changes. (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11775571/pac-12-passes-athlete-reforms-including-guaranteed-4-year-scholarships)

I'm not up to speed on these changes, but my initial reaction is that we're preemptively doing the right thing by student athletes as opposed to the Texas approach of just throwing $ at players.