(12-16-2018 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 03:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 03:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 01:19 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So as soon as the Alston case is decided and the appeals have been exhausted, how do things start to break?

Well, I think the SEC is probably the first league to implement a free market system. In other words, no spending caps.

I think the other leagues will follow albeit some of them will be following in an attempt to survive rather than as a matter of desiring to be competitive. After all, being in a league with no caps doesn't really hurt an individual school if they're not already a big spender and don't particularly care about being in the top echelon.

The question then becomes whether or not certain schools find a way to back out of their current conference and join another association that's more in line with their goals? Will the economic might of the SEC lead to some leagues giving up the ghost and just allowing themselves to be relegated?

I've thought before that we might see one national league with regional divisions as the conference structure would allow for a nicer, neater alignment than bothering with an organization like the NCAA or navigating the politics between multiple league offices.

BUT..there's pride involved and money for that matter so I do think all the Power leagues will attempt to survive in this new model.

One of the consultants in the original CBS article on the topic doesn't think the case will be the true catalyst...

Quote:But not everyone believes that the lawsuit will have the primary impact on realignment. Instead, one consultant told CBS Sports that new TV deals, which aren't expected to be negotiated until 2024 or 2025, will be the driving force behind new conferences.

"I think it goes to a 64-team super division," veteran media consultant Chris Bevilacqua said. "I think there's going to be realignment. The driver of realignment isn't going to be free market of player services [via the Alston trial], but it will be when the next TV deals come up.

There is a good point here that the funding through TV networks is what's going to really shake things up. If all the Power leagues try to survive the initial wave of a new model then it makes sense that TV money will do what it always does and separate the haves from the have-nots.

Is it a matter of one or the other? Either the Alston case will send shockwaves through college athletics or the next round of TV contracts will?

Well, if the NCAA loses then they can't be mutually exclusive because the funding needs of schools are going to change and perhaps dramatically. So the best way to get more significant funding is to bundle content. The more content under one roof the more the networks are likely to pay to maintain access to that content.

Might we see certain leagues simply merge rather than going through the painful process of separation? After all, there are GOR concerns. Perhaps you'll see some schools simply allow themselves to be relegated while most of a particular league merges with another?

I think when you look at the specifics then there's a lot of ways this could play out even if we generally arrive at the same place.

Part of what got me thinking this way is the move that Vanderbilt made with their new AD. Vandy does not generate a great deal of revenue as a whole even though their SEC membership guarantees a great media deal. It looks like they have no intention of giving up their place in the world. If Vandy is willing to go that route then how many others will really be willing to relegate themselves? That dynamic alone is fascinating to me.

I don't really have a conclusion here or an overall point, just that there's some interesting facets that have to be ironed out.

ATU you made a couple of very interesting observations that maybe we should unpack a little.

What if ESPN/FOX were positioning themselves to control 50/50 rights for the upper division of 64. And what if they break into to two leagues in an effort to set salary caps like the Pro's do by having a league wide revenue sharing? The concept gives the 64 (or likely less) leverage in contract deals and gives the networks what they want, P on P games.

Look, I wouldn't read too much into Vanderbilt's hiring like I originally did. Upon further reflection there are some things to be considered.

1. They new A.D. was in charge of a G league for hoops.
2. Vanderbilt refuses to upgrade their stadium and their deal with the soccer team for use of the their stadium wouldn't meet SEC specs in a lot of ways.

Maybe they do go all in, but maybe they don't.

Also keep in mind that the NCAA is for amateurs. I feel like one thing that will definitely change out of this is that Upper Tier football will no longer be under the NCAA's oversight.

I still firmly believe that few if any G5's will make the jump. All of them are 25% subsidized or more already. State legislatures won't go there with taxpayer money. So there will be no games between schools seeking to give only scholarships and those who give salaries which will be taxable.

I think the separation will fall like this: Upper tier football and upper tier basketball and upper tier baseball/hockey. Upper tier football and upper tier basketball only. Upper tier basketball and baseball/hockey. And upper tier basketball only.

Most Big 12, maybe most PAC, most Big 10, 13/14 SEC (maybe all), and maybe half or more of the ACC will be in the first category. Some of the ACC in the second grouping and third groupings, and many of the Catholic 7 and some of the former Big East will be in the latter along with some other solid basketball conferences.

Those will make up the various football, basketball, baseball, and hockey conferences.

All other sports will remain under the NCAA and Title IX.

My first thought on Malcolm Turner at Vandy was that they wanted to build an elite basketball program. They'll have better success marketing themselves that way than with an elite football program. They would also be more valuable to the SEC because we don't necessarily have to have another football power.

At the same time, his expertise on dealing with contracts for young players that are more semi-pro than pro could lend itself to any sport. At this stage, there's really no equivalent in the football world for Turner's sort of experience.

I tend to think Vandy will stick with it because the exposure is very valuable even if their on-field results aren't elite. Especially if the SEC starts absorbing some other schools then the media deals could be quite enticing.

I think there are certain things they should do to bring the football stadium up to par, but is it necessary that they be truly competitive? I'm not sure it is as long as they are providing usefulness in other areas.

But I do think it comes down to the exposure for them and perhaps others that are used to receiving a high level of attention.

I think Vandy will ultimately go basketball / baseball. They might try to keep football if these changes come, but being a private they may choose to be with other privates who opt out of the most expensive sport. We'll see should it come to that.

Duke, Wake Forest, and some of the old Big East schools may choose that route. Honestly, a school like Rice could be in their league if they gave up football. The new top level of football will be a sport for big publics and historical privates like Notre Dame, USC, and Stanford.