(01-16-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No specific invitations means no tortuous interference can be claimed.

(01-16-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We are in the midst of a coordinated effort by the Big Ten, PAC 12, and ACC to wrest control of the College Football Playoffs from ESPN, blunt the impact of Texas and Oklahoma's move to the SEC, and carve out concessions for themselves in the form of guaranteed, not earned, access to the playoffs, and in the beginning death throes of the NCAA to shape a post NCAA world in which they can create a new governing body which is more in their favor, than one led by a more powerful, and arguably more visionary, SEC and influenced by ESPN.

The moment to seize the direction of the future of college sports is now. Warren, Phillips, and Kiavkoff are at least aware enough to know this. After years in competitive sales and even in nonprofit work there is one immutable truth about a seminal opportunity, it's a fleeting moment, which if not seized may not appear again in a lifetime, and maybe not even then.

ESPN and the SEC have such a moment to seize now. All they need do is to get out in front of the SCOTUS on pay for play. Start such a conference and do it this Summer. And, without issuing a formal invitation to any particular school offer a simple blanket invitation to any schools which desire to help get the new tier established. Join with the 16 members of the SEC in creating the new league complete with pay for play basketball and baseball.

No specific invitations means no tortuous interference can be claimed. All applying can be worked in accordingly. Parameters for the amount needed to invest to join would have to be established. Rights values could be promised by ESPN who would also control playoff rights for the new league.

As a different concept set up and operated for profit and paying taxes it is reasonable to assume it would be viewed as a legal alternative to amateur sports. Therefore, interested schools in the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and PAC 12 would have a chance to choose to be a part.

The risk is theirs. The moves are in concert with recent court decisions, and it is their chance not to have their futures decided by a few commissioners who are sold on a regressive stagnation which seeks to redeem a failed model and continue down the same path leading to dissolution. And do it before they gain any associative ties upon your schools that should have the choice to take a new path, and one not beholden to an old, entrenched bureaucracy earning a fat living on the sacrifices and backs of unpaid young people.

There are at least another 24 to 32 schools which would likely embrace this future. Before they, the SEC, and ESPN are tied down by mental Lilliputians it's time for Gulliver to travel on.

So, Greg get together with ESPN/ABC/Disney and chart the future and neither look back nor mourn the laggards of history. A future with 2 conferences in one league with regional divisions beckons to all with unity, cohesion, and a self-made path free of polls and committees to championships. And all of it maximizing more than just football. Basketball and Baseball are ready as well!

So, let's get busy doing it before the socialist zombies of the NCAA try to eat the living!

(01-17-2022 10:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No specific invitations means no tortuous interference can be claimed.

I think it's highly likely that tortious interference will be claimed. That is any American's right. This may reduce the probability that such a claim would be upheld by the courts, but not eliminate it entirely. It is likely that the most promising claims would be negotiated before going to trial.

(01-17-2022 10:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No specific invitations means no tortuous interference can be claimed.

I think it's highly likely that tortious interference will be claimed. That is any American's right. This may reduce the probability that such a claim would be upheld by the courts, but not eliminate it entirely. It is likely that the most promising claims would be negotiated before going to trial.

Blanket invitations with a selection process will not escape the courtroom.

(01-17-2022 11:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No specific invitations means no tortuous interference can be claimed.

I think it's highly likely that tortious interference will be claimed. That is any American's right. This may reduce the probability that such a claim would be upheld by the courts, but not eliminate it entirely. It is likely that the most promising claims would be negotiated before going to trial.

Blanket invitations with a selection process will not escape the courtroom.

I believe the idea was that anyone could join - no selection process other than self-selection. Nevertheless, to the extent that this is done during the term of existing contracts, including GoRs, some contracts would probably have to be breached. If a settlement can't be reached with an aggrieved party (that is, one who elects not to join) legal action will follow.

Let's say as an example, that Wake Forest doesn't want to be a party to this new conference, but every other ACC member does. I suppose that the remaining 14 members could vote to dissolve the ACC in order to avoid paying exit fees to Wake and to void the GoR. If the bylaws peg the exit fee at $100 million per departing member ($1.4 billion in total) Wake would have a pretty good case of collusion in the decision to dissolve, and could sue for damages. A jury would probably be sympathetic to Wake, so the 14 would have to negotiate a more reasonable settlement.

(01-17-2022 11:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would be surprised if any current P5 school, including those about to join in the next few years, would elect not to join this new conference. My only question is how many G5 schools would also opt in.

A lot would have to depend on how the media money is divided up among all members of the new conference. If a school now earning $8 million could get a share equal to the least paid P5 school if they join, why would they choose not to? And if they would get such a share, does that mean that existing SEC teams would have to take less than they will soon be earning if nothing were to change?

(01-17-2022 12:27 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I think you are on the right track JR, my two differing opinions are that IMO Sankey doesn't want to do it alone and I think this process will take a couple years to complete.

Once the SCOTUS has made their ruling I believe that there will be a committee created with a representative from each of the P5 and one from the G5. They're charge will be to discuss how a pay for play model will work in college athletics. Out of this committee will come the governing body which you have alluded to and the creation of a breakaway league. IMO this committee will then merge with the playoff committee to create the new playoff model that will be packaged with a new league.

This entire process will take a couple years and they will make sure all universities have the information they need, so they can make an informed decision on if they want to join this new level of college athletics.

The establishment of a new expanded CFP playoffs will coincide with a breakaway.

(01-17-2022 08:50 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I’m missing the rationale for converting to for-profit status. Wouldn’t that be an incredibly complex process that differs in every state? Universities have built the facilities and brands as non-profit entities.

(01-17-2022 10:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 08:50 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I’m missing the rationale for converting to for-profit status. Wouldn’t that be an incredibly complex process that differs in every state? Universities have built the facilities and brands as non-profit entities.

You miss too much. The SCOTUS already recognizes the profit being made by the schools' Athletic Departments and it was cited in the NIL case. Should they rule athletes are employees I don't see how you can say they are anything but for profit. Most Athletic Departments at large P5 schools are now budgeted and funded independently of the schools. In part these arrangements protect the nonprofit status of the academic side, and the separation was spurred by the loss of tax deductions on athletic fund contributions made specifically for ticket priority.

So Whahoowa, I don't see anything that has been lost other than the illusion that denies that these endeavors are, and have been, for profit for a long, long time and they were only called nonprofit because of their state affiliations. The rationale is court ruling, plain and simple, and that ruling will merely affirm reality. Title IX helped hide profits for years and was a political trade off.

We have many organizations which call themselves non-profit but which merely spend all profit on overhead thereby enriching themselves and not benefitting anyone directly but themselves. Some charities keep the status on as little as 3% of generated funds reaching the needy. The United Way manages a 5% trickle down. It is charity bureaucratized and many main line religious denominations only manage to trickle down 3%. Most call housing, retirement, insurance and salary, along with building maintenance, a ministry. Academic institutions pull all the same shenanigans. It's common practice to overspend by 5% in order to seek increases in appropriations. Salaries for academics are high compared to industry in most disciplines and are competitive in STEM areas. At least schools don't claim to be a ministry.

In our society corporations, bureaucracies, religious institutions, and state universities have one thing in common. Their employees pay taxes. The institutions seldom do. Some are granted tax exempt status and operate as non-profit; corporations just expand and match profit to property acquisition called an expense. Athletic Departments at large schools make obscene money and spend a good bit of it on grotesquely wasteful bling and still can't spend it all. To say they are non-profit buggers the imagination! The courts are finally getting this right and a formal acknowledgement by schools will go a long way in cleaning this mess up.

(01-17-2022 10:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 08:50 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I’m missing the rationale for converting to for-profit status. Wouldn’t that be an incredibly complex process that differs in every state? Universities have built the facilities and brands as non-profit entities.

You miss too much. The SCOTUS already recognizes the profit being made by the schools' Athletic Departments and it was cited in the NIL case. Should they rule athletes are employees I don't see how you can say they are anything but for profit. Most Athletic Departments at large P5 schools are now budgeted and funded independently of the schools. In part these arrangements protect the nonprofit status of the academic side, and the separation was spurred by the loss of tax deductions on athletic fund contributions made specifically for ticket priority.

So Whahoowa, I don't see anything that has been lost other than the illusion that denies that these endeavors are, and have been, for profit for a long, long time and they were only called nonprofit because of their state affiliations. The rationale is court ruling, plain and simple, and that ruling will merely affirm reality. Title IX helped hide profits for years and was a political trade off.

We have many organizations which call themselves non-profit but which merely spend all profit on overhead thereby enriching themselves and not benefitting anyone directly but themselves. Some charities keep the status on as little as 3% of generated funds reaching the needy. The United Way manages a 5% trickle down. It is charity bureaucratized and many main line religious denominations only manage to trickle down 3%. Most call housing, retirement, insurance and salary, along with building maintenance, a ministry. Academic institutions pull all the same shenanigans. It's common practice to overspend by 5% in order to seek increases in appropriations. Salaries for academics are high compared to industry in most disciplines and are competitive in STEM areas. At least schools don't claim to be a ministry.

In our society corporations, bureaucracies, religious institutions, and state universities have one thing in common. Their employees pay taxes. The institutions seldom do. Some are granted tax exempt status and operate as non-profit; corporations just expand and match profit to property acquisition called an expense. Athletic Departments at large schools make obscene money and spend a good bit of it on grotesquely wasteful bling and still can't spend it all. To say they are non-profit buggers the imagination! The courts are finally getting this right and a formal acknowledgement by schools will go a long way in cleaning this mess up.

(01-18-2022 07:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Honest question for the OP: you complain that the “Alliance” conferences want unearned concessions and speak as though the SEC way is not only the ideal way but the only way.

The Alliance leagues simply have a differing philosophy. They see the post-season and path to the national championship more as a tournament of champions and that a post-season that engages fans from all parts of the country is a good thing for the health of the sport.

The SEC on the other hand wants a slate based on and favoring ranking (by an un-objective panel selected by ESPN) because it favors their conference model and rewards having absorbed what amounts to an extra 60% of a conference, and some top notch programs (Arkansas, TAMU, Texas, Oklahoma) at that. (Bump that up to 75% of a conference if you consider the Big 8, ACC, and Big East all spent many years with only 8 members.)

It’s not fair to label the ACC, Big 10, and PAC 12 as impediments to progress and out of touch with the times when what they are really fighting against is a format for the sport designed by the SEC and ESPN that puts them squarely in 2nd class status and subordinate to those aforementioned parties.

Personally, I think 5-1-2 is what the Alliance really wants—however the 2 in that equation poses an inconvenience for the overstocked SEC and so they fight it and do everything they can to discredit as unreasonable and going so far as to tout 6-6 to the G5 with the dream that 2 of their 5 champs might manage to get in some years. The SEC doesn’t give two craps about access for the MAC—they are out for 3-4 bids/yr for themselves under the guise of accessibility.

A champions oriented post season is not unreasonable. For how many years was the World Series contested between 2 single-table leagues? Even today, baseball’s post-season is tilted in favor towards divisional champs as they receive byes and home field advantage. The NFL does this too and sure both leagues admit Wild Cards to their post-seasons and give the non-champs a path to a title, the system is designed to give them the toughest path to glory. What the SEC essentially wants is a post-season that gives more playoff opportunities to the market heavy NFC East while restricting access to the smal market AFC South.

The Big 12, ACC, and PAC 12 are already disadvantaged financially thanks to the superior tv contract that the SEC has. Isn’t that enough for the SEC? Now the rest of the P5 have to be subjected to a post season by the SEC’s own design and built to accentuate the SEC’s strengths? I don’t buy the 6-6 model being some righteous cause. It’s just a motivated by greed as any other model but is built in way that will only cause the major conferences who have fallen (or rather been left) behind to fall further.