Many on here know that I am big on Kansas to the SEC. While I recognize the financial benefit and strength and strategy of OK/Texas to the SEC my personal biases lean toward OK/Kansas.

That being said, I think the most recent decision by the NCAA regarding de Sousa is telling for more than just Kansas. It is the first test case, and teams caught in the FBI/shoe-gate (do we have a -gate name for this yet?) Scandal will get hit hard.

Regardless of the Alston case, these penalties could reshape alot of schools, at least in the basketball side. I don't think the fall out is done yet. Will Self last at Kansas? If not, can they maintain their "blue blood" status? Even a bowl regular Les Miles run Kansas isn't as big a get if they are not a top BB school too.

But the same could be true for other schools, and so:

Possibilities:
1) it doesn't really matter. The SEC/Big 10 are going after the big dogs of Texas/OK no matter what.
2) it might slow down expansion, forcing conferences to take a wait and see approach even as the GORs end. The Big 12 could get yet another reprieve.
3) if it hits enough schools, expansion may be on the back burner for even longer as conferences extinguish flames internally.
4) Or it could speed things up ala an SWC type crisis.

Don't know that I'm contributing much new, just trying to think through the implications. And I could see this definitely having an impact of some sort.

(02-01-2019 10:46 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  That being said, I think the most recent decision by the NCAA regarding de Sousa is telling for more than just Kansas. It is the first test case, and teams caught in the FBI/shoe-gate (do we have a -gate name for this yet?) Scandal will get hit hard.

My Thought: Is the NCAA trying to "make up" for it's UNC decision by going "overboard" on both Kansas & Missouri with it's latest decisions? Even as a Jayhawk, I think Mizzou got "hosed", not to mention Kansas.

Will Self last at Kansas?
Yes, as long as he wants to stay. (Remember there was no allegation KU in knew about the payments or even that de Sousa did!

If not, can they maintain their "blue blood" status?
Why not? It's not like it is an undesirable job, if open! That kinda like saying if Sabin leaves Alabama or Calipari leaves Kentucky that those school would automatically no longer be "blue bloods" in their respective sports.

And I could see this definitely having an impact of some sort.
I think that Alston vs. NCAA (whatever the final decision) will have by far the biggest impact on a LOT of things, including conference "realignment."

Just as a sidenote, an interesting article in SB Nation regarding Mizzou and the NCAA:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ments-ncaa

I'm pretty ticked about the whole NCAA situation with regards to sanctions. They are wholly inconsistent at best, and flat out complicit in protecting key programs. It's disgusting.

That said, I see no impact from these cases upon realignment. Now if Alston moves us toward a pay for play it will affect not only realignment, but the very nature of a school's relationship with the NCAA which has amateurism as its organizing principle.

(02-02-2019 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm pretty ticked about the whole NCAA situation with regards to sanctions. They are wholly inconsistent at best, and flat out complicit in protecting key programs. It's disgusting.

That said, I see no impact from these cases upon realignment. Now if Alston moves us toward a pay for play it will affect not only realignment, but the very nature of a school's relationship with the NCAA which has amateurism as its organizing principle.

Totally agree with the first paragraph. Missouri's infraction was severe compared to what a number of favored schools were allowed to escape from, having done much worse behavior. I don't buy that there was no rule discovered that UNC violated. That decision was a farce. They sure found them fast when Penn State was covering up a big mess (criminal matters) that was highly public and demands for action were intense.

On the second, I have no prediction on the court case. What may happen, and I am only speculating, is that the value of tuition and room and board, perhaps partially, will be factored into compensation packages. So the final decision could fall somewhere inbetween----but limited and controlled by an authoritative body reaching beyond the individual institutions and managed somewhat like scholarship limits.

(02-03-2019 11:50 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm pretty ticked about the whole NCAA situation with regards to sanctions. They are wholly inconsistent at best, and flat out complicit in protecting key programs. It's disgusting.

That said, I see no impact from these cases upon realignment. Now if Alston moves us toward a pay for play it will affect not only realignment, but the very nature of a school's relationship with the NCAA which has amateurism as its organizing principle.

Totally agree with the first paragraph. Missouri's infraction was severe compared to what a number of favored schools were allowed to escape from, having done much worse behavior. I don't buy that there was no rule discovered that UNC violated. That decision was a farce. They sure found them fast when Penn State was covering up a big mess (criminal matters) that was highly public and demands for action were intense.

On the second, I have no prediction on the court case. What may happen, and I am only speculating, is that the value of tuition and room and board, perhaps partially, will be factored into compensation packages. So the final decision could fall somewhere inbetween----but limited and controlled by an authoritative body reaching beyond the individual institutions and managed somewhat like scholarship limits.

IT's time we quit claiming to be amateur. It hasn't been amateur for 7 decades. The perk and illicit revenue amounts have gone up. What kind of example does it give the athletes when what they participate in is illicit by degree? We need to be above board, realistic, and abandon the NCAA which has perpetuated the farce for their own profit.

If they have been supported in this endeavor by large schools it is because the presidents didn't want to deal with mess of cleaning it up, the confession of having participated in it knowingly, and didn't want the responsibility of policing their own programs so they formed the bureaucracy called the NCAA to cover it all.

Speaking of how Alston might affect everything, I do see this case on some level being a judgement on the legitimacy of the NCAA itself.

I can foresee the judge looking at the capricious actions of the current governing body and deciding on that basis alone that the athlete's interests aren't properly guarded. Going on that line of thinking, if amateurism isn't consistently applied then what is the justification for maintaining a system that empowers the NCAA?

After all, Alston seeks to revert power back to the conferences and allow them to decide on compensation. The conferences, at the very least, have a greater motivation to police their own internal matters. The NCAA, however, is borrowing authority from a collection of public and private entities that have no apparent authority in the day to day operations.

To me, a reasonable question to ask is this; is anyone's interest served by the amateur model as currently enforced? The enforcement is more important than the theoretical notion.

Technically, a favorable ruling for Alston wouldn't outlaw amateurism. It would cripple the current enforcement mechanisms.

(02-03-2019 12:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Speaking of how Alston might affect everything, I do see this case on some level being a judgement on the legitimacy of the NCAA itself.

I can foresee the judge looking at the capricious actions of the current governing body and deciding on that basis alone that the athlete's interests aren't properly guarded. Going on that line of thinking, if amateurism isn't consistently applied then what is the justification for maintaining a system that empowers the NCAA?

After all, Alston seeks to revert power back to the conferences and allow them to decide on compensation. The conferences, at the very least, have a greater motivation to police their own internal matters. The NCAA, however, is borrowing authority from a collection of public and private entities that have no apparent authority in the day to day operations.

To me, a reasonable question to ask is this; is anyone's interest served by the amateur model as currently enforced? The enforcement is more important than the theoretical notion.

Technically, a favorable ruling for Alston wouldn't outlaw amateurism. It would cripple the current enforcement mechanisms.

I think that recruits everywhere have been getting too many perks for too long to put the Amateur Genie back in the bottle. If Alston wins it can't help but radically alter the way all conferences do business and it essentially voids the NCAA which is solely predicated upon amateurism. It has only been maintained by the power 5 to prevent having to pay outright their players.

What the NCAA has been is a legal buffer for the schools. Alston puts the responsibility back upon the conferences and therefore bypasses the NCAA and renders its function unnecessary.

Does that mean the NCAA dies a quick death? I doubt it. It's too well endowed to die immediately. They'll try to morph into something else. But IMO we need to kill it and divide the endowed revenue to help with the transition to pay for play and hiring our own enforcement bodies.

(02-03-2019 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Speaking of how Alston might affect everything, I do see this case on some level being a judgement on the legitimacy of the NCAA itself.

I can foresee the judge looking at the capricious actions of the current governing body and deciding on that basis alone that the athlete's interests aren't properly guarded. Going on that line of thinking, if amateurism isn't consistently applied then what is the justification for maintaining a system that empowers the NCAA?

After all, Alston seeks to revert power back to the conferences and allow them to decide on compensation. The conferences, at the very least, have a greater motivation to police their own internal matters. The NCAA, however, is borrowing authority from a collection of public and private entities that have no apparent authority in the day to day operations.

To me, a reasonable question to ask is this; is anyone's interest served by the amateur model as currently enforced? The enforcement is more important than the theoretical notion.

Technically, a favorable ruling for Alston wouldn't outlaw amateurism. It would cripple the current enforcement mechanisms.

I think that recruits everywhere have been getting too many perks for too long to put the Amateur Genie back in the bottle. If Alston wins it can't help but radically alter the way all conferences do business and it essentially voids the NCAA which is solely predicated upon amateurism. It has only been maintained by the power 5 to prevent having to pay outright their players.

What the NCAA has been is a legal buffer for the schools. Alston puts the responsibility back upon the conferences and therefore bypasses the NCAA and renders its function unnecessary.

Does that mean the NCAA dies a quick death? I doubt it. It's too well endowed to die immediately. They'll try to morph into something else. But IMO we need to kill it and divide the endowed revenue to help with the transition to pay for play and hiring our own enforcement bodies.

Yeah, amateurism as we understand it is dead.

I think the benefit of losing the Alston case will be that conferences will have the freedom to pursue the type of competition they prefer. Some on the lower level will pursue amateurism while the high dollar schools will compete for the best recruits with money and other perks.

In time, I think the distinctions we've come to be familiar with....FBS, FCS, DII, DIII will all fade.

What I think will be a problem though is killing off the NCAA and picking its carcass. So many schools could lay claim to that money that we'd have a lot of lawsuits if it wasn't divided equally. At that point, it's not a heck of a lot of money and it's probably easier to just separate from the organization altogether.

That and some schools wouldn't want to kill it off anyway because they prefer a more hard-line amateurism. I think only the Power 5 and maybe a few others would be interested in that.

The Power 5 could form a more effective organization and run every sport more profitably than the NCAA. We would forfeit some cash in the short term by just leaving, but make more in the long term by cutting everyone else out of the picture.

(02-03-2019 03:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Speaking of how Alston might affect everything, I do see this case on some level being a judgement on the legitimacy of the NCAA itself.

I can foresee the judge looking at the capricious actions of the current governing body and deciding on that basis alone that the athlete's interests aren't properly guarded. Going on that line of thinking, if amateurism isn't consistently applied then what is the justification for maintaining a system that empowers the NCAA?

After all, Alston seeks to revert power back to the conferences and allow them to decide on compensation. The conferences, at the very least, have a greater motivation to police their own internal matters. The NCAA, however, is borrowing authority from a collection of public and private entities that have no apparent authority in the day to day operations.

To me, a reasonable question to ask is this; is anyone's interest served by the amateur model as currently enforced? The enforcement is more important than the theoretical notion.

Technically, a favorable ruling for Alston wouldn't outlaw amateurism. It would cripple the current enforcement mechanisms.

I think that recruits everywhere have been getting too many perks for too long to put the Amateur Genie back in the bottle. If Alston wins it can't help but radically alter the way all conferences do business and it essentially voids the NCAA which is solely predicated upon amateurism. It has only been maintained by the power 5 to prevent having to pay outright their players.

What the NCAA has been is a legal buffer for the schools. Alston puts the responsibility back upon the conferences and therefore bypasses the NCAA and renders its function unnecessary.

Does that mean the NCAA dies a quick death? I doubt it. It's too well endowed to die immediately. They'll try to morph into something else. But IMO we need to kill it and divide the endowed revenue to help with the transition to pay for play and hiring our own enforcement bodies.

Yeah, amateurism as we understand it is dead.

I think the benefit of losing the Alston case will be that conferences will have the freedom to pursue the type of competition they prefer. Some on the lower level will pursue amateurism while the high dollar schools will compete for the best recruits with money and other perks.

In time, I think the distinctions we've come to be familiar with....FBS, FCS, DII, DIII will all fade.

What I think will be a problem though is killing off the NCAA and picking its carcass. So many schools could lay claim to that money that we'd have a lot of lawsuits if it wasn't divided equally. At that point, it's not a heck of a lot of money and it's probably easier to just separate from the organization altogether.

That and some schools wouldn't want to kill it off anyway because they prefer a more hard-line amateurism. I think only the Power 5 and maybe a few others would be interested in that.

The Power 5 could form a more effective organization and run every sport more profitably than the NCAA. We would forfeit some cash in the short term by just leaving, but make more in the long term by cutting everyone else out of the picture.

1 billion divided 347 ways would be 2.8 million each roughly. Each P5 could take their 2.8 million and leave and then form their own governing body and invest the 2.8 million each to get it up and running.

Interesting comments from Jeff Long:

ESPN reports: Kansas AD says faith in NCAA is shaken

Quote:During a brief news conference before the Kansas-Texas Tech game, Long said the school had provided the NCAA with all documents or information requested, and had held De Sousa out of competition in good faith all season.

"I have always respected the NCAA and trusted the process, but I must tell you that my faith has been shaken," Long said. "We stand behind our student-athletes when we believe they've been wronged."

Quote:Still, Long said the NCAA would consider De Sousa's reinstatement only under two conditions: The school had to declare him ineligible, which it did Jan. 13, and Kansas had to identify Gassnola as an agent or booster of its program "only as a hypothetical for the purposes of reinstatement."

"We disagreed on Gassnola's role in all of it," Long said.

But with no other alternatives, Long said Kansas agreed to the conditions and began the reinstatement process. That dragged on for three weeks before the NCAA handed down its punishment.

Quote:Texas Tech coach Chris Beard was much more succinct.

"The NCAA does what they do," Beard said after his No. 16 Red Raiders were routed by the 11th-ranked Jayhawks 79-63, "stuff that makes no sense."

So basically Kansas did everything they were asked to do and the NCAA just felt like screwing them. Very similar to what happened with Missouri's punishment.

I think also relevant to this discussion because I wonder if certain coaches and administrators aren't secretly hoping Alston wins against the NCAA. In light of these statements and others made by Mizzou officials the other day, sounds like a lot of people are fed up.