Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Tiered Membership
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1
Tiered Membership
Reading some of the comments on Alston got me thinking.

If the Alston case gives us a world where scholarship athletes also become paid athletes then there's a lot of possibilities with regard to how that might affect realignment. It's likely that many schools will not want to bid on players, join leagues that force them to spend certain minimums, or be required to compete head to head with programs that have bigger bank accounts.

Now, I've contemplated JR's notion on differing membership structures for schools that want to compete in different sports within the same league. Let's review:

If we go with the idea that college athletics basically reforms into three separate tiers then we get something like this:

1. Schools that compete in all sports and have no caps on athlete spending.
2. Schools that have no caps for basketball and/or baseball, but don't compete at the highest level in football.
3. Schools that compete in all sports, but offer nothing more than scholarships.

I think it's an interesting prospect and it allows for membership within the same league even if not all the schools compete in the same tier.

Let me offer a different version of this idea:

1. Schools that compete in all sports and have no caps on athlete spending partnered with schools that compete in all sports, but function with a different pay model.
2. Schools that have no caps for basketball and/or baseball, but don't compete at the highest level in football.
3. Schools that compete in all sports, but have caps on compensation.
4. Schools that compete in all sports, but offer nothing more than scholarships.

Let me explain my concept for the first tier in detail.

I think schools like Vanderbilt will be hard pressed to function with no caps, but I think they will also have a hard time foregoing their place in the world. Add to that, putting the prime product that is football in an independent status or in another conference could somewhat defeat the purpose of fielding an athletic department at the D1 level. I don't see very many schools that have played football for a long time and have stable financials altogether dropping the sport either.

So let me propose a compromise....

For schools like Vanderbilt that want to offer nothing more than FCOA scholarships, I think it's reasonable to offer them a path to stay at the highest level of competition.

So I propose a 2nd tier of membership within the same conference. A school like Vanderbilt still competes in all sports, but functions with a 35% share of revenue. All members receiving a full share of revenue must abide by the rules of no caps, but also must spend an agreed upon minimum over and above the scholarship offer.

1. Keeping schools like Vanderbilt playing all sports will help with symmetry and thus scheduling. Instead of filling gaps by adding a school in the sport where particular members aren't competing, this allows for less interruption in the traditional schedule.

2. It also makes room for academic additions that will likely have smaller budgets anyway. This way, their value to a conference can be calculated in terms of academics with less regard towards their monetary value athletically.

3. The agreed upon minimum will be important for policing. Each school will be forced to make a good faith effort in exchange for a full share of revenue, however, the 2nd tier of membership allows a school to be forthright with their intentions and yet still maintain a mutually beneficial association.

4. Having schools like Vanderbilt on the schedule will be beneficial for the major programs. They can have a break within the conference in the event cupcakes disappear as we move towards all Power scheduling.

5. I would also propose that the conference office never receive more than $40 million for operations. Instead of a full share, I think this is more reasonable. The number can be revisited in the future if need be, but I have a hard time seeing why the conference needs just as much revenue on an annual basis as the member schools.

So let's look at realignment in light of some of those rules:

Personally, I've always liked 20 as a number to work with, but it would hard to do that and maintain the same degree of profitability.

How about this?

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, and Tulane

Rice and Tulane could join Vanderbilt at the 35% threshold. So you've got 3 members operating in the 2nd tier and I think they'd be happy to do it if the payouts are high enough and they don't have to spend big money on athletes. Basically, you'd have 3 schools assuming the value of one normal share. Rice and Tulane would add very little content value, but would add academic credibility along with scheduling relief. That and travel for fans in the region would automatically be less stringent compared to adding schools from other parts of the country.

You've added 3 more AAUs in this process.

The specific movements for the SEC are somewhat secondary here. I think the idea of tiered membership is interesting in and of itself.
02-06-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-06-2019 04:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading some of the comments on Alston got me thinking.

If the Alston case gives us a world where scholarship athletes also become paid athletes then there's a lot of possibilities with regard to how that might affect realignment. It's likely that many schools will not want to bid on players, join leagues that force them to spend certain minimums, or be required to compete head to head with programs that have bigger bank accounts.

Now, I've contemplated JR's notion on differing membership structures for schools that want to compete in different sports within the same league. Let's review:

If we go with the idea that college athletics basically reforms into three separate tiers then we get something like this:

1. Schools that compete in all sports and have no caps on athlete spending.
2. Schools that have no caps for basketball and/or baseball, but don't compete at the highest level in football.
3. Schools that compete in all sports, but offer nothing more than scholarships.

I think it's an interesting prospect and it allows for membership within the same league even if not all the schools compete in the same tier.

Let me offer a different version of this idea:

1. Schools that compete in all sports and have no caps on athlete spending partnered with schools that compete in all sports, but function with a different pay model.
2. Schools that have no caps for basketball and/or baseball, but don't compete at the highest level in football.
3. Schools that compete in all sports, but have caps on compensation.
4. Schools that compete in all sports, but offer nothing more than scholarships.

Let me explain my concept for the first tier in detail.

I think schools like Vanderbilt will be hard pressed to function with no caps, but I think they will also have a hard time foregoing their place in the world. Add to that, putting the prime product that is football in an independent status or in another conference could somewhat defeat the purpose of fielding an athletic department at the D1 level. I don't see very many schools that have played football for a long time and have stable financials altogether dropping the sport either.

So let me propose a compromise....

For schools like Vanderbilt that want to offer nothing more than FCOA scholarships, I think it's reasonable to offer them a path to stay at the highest level of competition.

So I propose a 2nd tier of membership within the same conference. A school like Vanderbilt still competes in all sports, but functions with a 35% share of revenue. All members receiving a full share of revenue must abide by the rules of no caps, but also must spend an agreed upon minimum over and above the scholarship offer.

1. Keeping schools like Vanderbilt playing all sports will help with symmetry and thus scheduling. Instead of filling gaps by adding a school in the sport where particular members aren't competing, this allows for less interruption in the traditional schedule.

2. It also makes room for academic additions that will likely have smaller budgets anyway. This way, their value to a conference can be calculated in terms of academics with less regard towards their monetary value athletically.

3. The agreed upon minimum will be important for policing. Each school will be forced to make a good faith effort in exchange for a full share of revenue, however, the 2nd tier of membership allows a school to be forthright with their intentions and yet still maintain a mutually beneficial association.

4. Having schools like Vanderbilt on the schedule will be beneficial for the major programs. They can have a break within the conference in the event cupcakes disappear as we move towards all Power scheduling.

5. I would also propose that the conference office never receive more than $40 million for operations. Instead of a full share, I think this is more reasonable. The number can be revisited in the future if need be, but I have a hard time seeing why the conference needs just as much revenue on an annual basis as the member schools.

So let's look at realignment in light of some of those rules:

Personally, I've always liked 20 as a number to work with, but it would hard to do that and maintain the same degree of profitability.

How about this?

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, and Tulane

Rice and Tulane could join Vanderbilt at the 35% threshold. So you've got 3 members operating in the 2nd tier and I think they'd be happy to do it if the payouts are high enough and they don't have to spend big money on athletes. Basically, you'd have 3 schools assuming the value of one normal share. Rice and Tulane would add very little content value, but would add academic credibility along with scheduling relief. That and travel for fans in the region would automatically be less stringent compared to adding schools from other parts of the country.

You've added 3 more AAUs in this process.

The specific movements for the SEC are somewhat secondary here. I think the idea of tiered membership is interesting in and of itself.

I think Vandy offers full payouts for hoops and baseball and becomes the SEC's first all in but football school. Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas join as full members. Part of the reason Texas goes all in is that Rice becomes the second all but football member.
02-06-2019 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-06-2019 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2019 04:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading some of the comments on Alston got me thinking.

If the Alston case gives us a world where scholarship athletes also become paid athletes then there's a lot of possibilities with regard to how that might affect realignment. It's likely that many schools will not want to bid on players, join leagues that force them to spend certain minimums, or be required to compete head to head with programs that have bigger bank accounts.

Now, I've contemplated JR's notion on differing membership structures for schools that want to compete in different sports within the same league. Let's review:

If we go with the idea that college athletics basically reforms into three separate tiers then we get something like this:

1. Schools that compete in all sports and have no caps on athlete spending.
2. Schools that have no caps for basketball and/or baseball, but don't compete at the highest level in football.
3. Schools that compete in all sports, but offer nothing more than scholarships.

I think it's an interesting prospect and it allows for membership within the same league even if not all the schools compete in the same tier.

Let me offer a different version of this idea:

1. Schools that compete in all sports and have no caps on athlete spending partnered with schools that compete in all sports, but function with a different pay model.
2. Schools that have no caps for basketball and/or baseball, but don't compete at the highest level in football.
3. Schools that compete in all sports, but have caps on compensation.
4. Schools that compete in all sports, but offer nothing more than scholarships.

Let me explain my concept for the first tier in detail.

I think schools like Vanderbilt will be hard pressed to function with no caps, but I think they will also have a hard time foregoing their place in the world. Add to that, putting the prime product that is football in an independent status or in another conference could somewhat defeat the purpose of fielding an athletic department at the D1 level. I don't see very many schools that have played football for a long time and have stable financials altogether dropping the sport either.

So let me propose a compromise....

For schools like Vanderbilt that want to offer nothing more than FCOA scholarships, I think it's reasonable to offer them a path to stay at the highest level of competition.

So I propose a 2nd tier of membership within the same conference. A school like Vanderbilt still competes in all sports, but functions with a 35% share of revenue. All members receiving a full share of revenue must abide by the rules of no caps, but also must spend an agreed upon minimum over and above the scholarship offer.

1. Keeping schools like Vanderbilt playing all sports will help with symmetry and thus scheduling. Instead of filling gaps by adding a school in the sport where particular members aren't competing, this allows for less interruption in the traditional schedule.

2. It also makes room for academic additions that will likely have smaller budgets anyway. This way, their value to a conference can be calculated in terms of academics with less regard towards their monetary value athletically.

3. The agreed upon minimum will be important for policing. Each school will be forced to make a good faith effort in exchange for a full share of revenue, however, the 2nd tier of membership allows a school to be forthright with their intentions and yet still maintain a mutually beneficial association.

4. Having schools like Vanderbilt on the schedule will be beneficial for the major programs. They can have a break within the conference in the event cupcakes disappear as we move towards all Power scheduling.

5. I would also propose that the conference office never receive more than $40 million for operations. Instead of a full share, I think this is more reasonable. The number can be revisited in the future if need be, but I have a hard time seeing why the conference needs just as much revenue on an annual basis as the member schools.

So let's look at realignment in light of some of those rules:

Personally, I've always liked 20 as a number to work with, but it would hard to do that and maintain the same degree of profitability.

How about this?

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, and Tulane

Rice and Tulane could join Vanderbilt at the 35% threshold. So you've got 3 members operating in the 2nd tier and I think they'd be happy to do it if the payouts are high enough and they don't have to spend big money on athletes. Basically, you'd have 3 schools assuming the value of one normal share. Rice and Tulane would add very little content value, but would add academic credibility along with scheduling relief. That and travel for fans in the region would automatically be less stringent compared to adding schools from other parts of the country.

You've added 3 more AAUs in this process.

The specific movements for the SEC are somewhat secondary here. I think the idea of tiered membership is interesting in and of itself.

I think Vandy offers full payouts for hoops and baseball and becomes the SEC's first all in but football school. Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas join as full members. Part of the reason Texas goes all in is that Rice becomes the second all but football member.

Interesting. I think we would start seeing all sorts of weird configurations. The AAC already does this: 11 full members, Navy football only, Wichita State no football.

So if Vandy does something different with football, then all of a sudden we have instead of the usual 2/4/6 more spots for football, 3/5/7. And we could even add more spots for basketball only. Or maybe some schools go all in for football but not for basketball? So "SEC" schools could mean say 25-30 different schools depending on the sport, with no one sport having more than 16-20.
02-06-2019 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-06-2019 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think Vandy offers full payouts for hoops and baseball and becomes the SEC's first all in but football school. Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas join as full members. Part of the reason Texas goes all in is that Rice becomes the second all but football member.

I think Rice is a good addition for baseball. If we gave them a few football games a year then that would help them with scheduling

Although we'd still have to have a framework for what we paid them.

(02-06-2019 06:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Interesting. I think we would start seeing all sorts of weird configurations. The AAC already does this: 11 full members, Navy football only, Wichita State no football.

So if Vandy does something different with football, then all of a sudden we have instead of the usual 2/4/6 more spots for football, 3/5/7. And we could even add more spots for basketball only. Or maybe some schools go all in for football but not for basketball? So "SEC" schools could mean say 25-30 different schools depending on the sport, with no one sport having more than 16-20.

If we added Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas then that's 16 full members with 2 partials assuming we added Rice.

Ideally, I'd like to see a couple of basketball additions outside of our current footprint just to add to the culture and reach a little bit. I'm thinking in terms of George Washington, a relatively large private in DC. I would also consider VCU, a relatively large public that just doesn't play football.

At that point, we'd have 20 members for basketball and could do a round robin schedule with 19 games.

I think that would be interesting.
02-07-2019 04:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DawgNBama Online
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,318
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 444
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #5
RE: Tiered Membership
I can see the ACC looking at something similar to that also at least for Wake Forest & possibly Duke as well. PAC 12 could get in on the action too with Washington State and Oregon State offered partial membership.
02-08-2019 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #6
RE: Tiered Membership
I had direct experience with a division II University whose conference allowed one men's sport and one women's sport to move up or down a division for intercollegiate play. This school played division I men's wrestling, and division III women's field hockey. Everything else was division II. The division I wrestling team was often ranked in the top 20. The division III women's team had won a few national championships. At the time, division III field hockey provided better regional, and more competitive, opportunities.

My point, a P5 conference could do similar. There are already, using the SEC as an example, that allows a couple of schools to compete in CUSA men's soccer because the SEC does not sponsor the sport.

I don't see why, if carefully constructed, to allow a school such as Vanderbilt (not to pick on them), to compete in a G5 (newly created?) or an FCS conference in fb alone. With this approach, any SEC member could choose one sport to compete in a lower division, i.e. women's soccer, baseball, swimming, track and field, etc.
Certainly, conditions could be applied. The more outlier members, could find, for a minor sport, more convenient and cost-effective competition.

So rather than doing a conference tiered structure that could label, perhaps unintentionally, some member(s), as lesser members, allow each member to choose, if desired, to compete for one (maybe two) men's sport, and one (maybe 2) women's sport, in another grouping/conference/co-op..

I don't want to see members forced to exit a conference because of the skyrocketing costs of football alone, and vast differences in resources member possess to devote to the sport
02-08-2019 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-08-2019 02:11 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I had direct experience with a division II University whose conference allowed one men's sport and one women's sport to move up or down a division for intercollegiate play. This school played division I men's wrestling, and division III women's field hockey. Everything else was division II. The division I wrestling team was often ranked in the top 20. The division III women's team had won a few national championships. At the time, division III field hockey provided better regional, and more competitive, opportunities.

My point, a P5 conference could do similar. There are already, using the SEC as an example, that allows a couple of schools to compete in CUSA men's soccer because the SEC does not sponsor the sport.

I don't see why, if carefully constructed, to allow a school such as Vanderbilt (not to pick on them), to compete in a G5 (newly created?) or an FCS conference in fb alone. With this approach, any SEC member could choose one sport to compete in a lower division, i.e. women's soccer, baseball, swimming, track and field, etc.
Certainly, conditions could be applied. The more outlier members, could find, for a minor sport, more convenient and cost-effective competition.

So rather than doing a conference tiered structure that could label, perhaps unintentionally, some member(s), as lesser members, allow each member to choose, if desired, to compete for one (maybe two) men's sport, and one (maybe 2) women's sport, in another grouping/conference/co-op..

I don't want to see members forced to exit a conference because of the skyrocketing costs of football alone, and vast differences in resources member possess to devote to the sport

Any tiered structure needs to exist only for revenue sports because only those teams participating fully in those 3 sports should divide the profits from those sports. What happens with non revenue sports is irrelevant and probably wouldn't see changes.

Sports that generate profits however are the ones that Alston could affect. Those are the sports most likely to see pay for play if Alston wins. If we pay those athletes for participation then their relationship will change from a traditional scholarship representation to a paid relationship in which compensation will be measured in tuition, books, room & board, meals, and cash payouts.

At that point those relationships cease to exist for Title IX. And the Athletes would receive 1099 and W2's and the university would probably have to provide CPA's to handle their financial matters.

If Vanderbilt does pay basketball and baseball players, but opts not to pay football players then they would split equal shares of revenue for basketball & baseball respectively, but not for football. Any SEC games they scheduled in football should be paid as we would any visiting G5 when they are the visiting team, and our payouts with them when we visit Nashville would be handled the same way. Outside of traditional rivals such as Ole Miss or Tennessee I would think that most SEC schools would then shy away from playing Vanderbilt in football (if they decided to still play that sport at a reduced level).

I don't see any business reason to move Vandy entirely out of the SEC. But for scheduling purposes I think making a similar addition of say a Tulane or Rice, etc, could be beneficial. Since they wouldn't be affecting football profit splits I think it actually frees the SEC up for a healthier overall mix of academics and athletics.

But these kinds of business distinctions will have implemented to avoid needless confusion and for compliance with tax laws and Title IX implications.

I would also think that all for profit sports would have to operate outside of the NCAA and all non revenue scholarship only sports would still be under the NCAA.
02-08-2019 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #8
RE: Tiered Membership
Adding academic-oriented private schools, but accepted as not full qualifiers for football, but useful as projected cupcakes, makes a statement, and not a good one.
02-08-2019 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-08-2019 02:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Adding academic-oriented private schools, but accepted as not full qualifiers for football, but useful as projected cupcakes, makes a statement, and not a good one.

Then you obviously didn't read my post! I said that Vanderbilt would likely only keep two SEC teams on their schedule, Tennessee and Ole Miss. Nobody would make enough by playing them if they were treated like a G5. Hence, if Rice were added they wouldn't be playing anyone except maybe Texas and that's if they keep football at all after Alston. I also noted that Vanderbilt might not keep football.

They would be played in Hoops and Baseball and would only receive an equal revenue share for those two for profit televised sports.

Nobody would be adding a cupcake because those kinds of schools would not be playing an SEC schedule in football at all. They would be treated like a G5 non conference game if scheduled at all and most of our schools don't do home and home's with G5s.
02-08-2019 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #10
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-08-2019 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 02:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Adding academic-oriented private schools, but accepted as not full qualifiers for football, but useful as projected cupcakes, makes a statement, and not a good one.

Then you obviously didn't read my post! I said that Vanderbilt would likely only keep two SEC teams on their schedule, Tennessee and Ole Miss. Nobody would make enough by playing them if they were treated like a G5. Hence, if Rice were added they wouldn't be playing anyone except maybe Texas and that's if they keep football at all after Alston. I also noted that Vanderbilt might not keep football.

They would be played in Hoops and Baseball and would only receive an equal revenue share for those two for profit televised sports.

Nobody would be adding a cupcake because those kinds of schools would not be playing an SEC schedule in football at all. They would be treated like a G5 non conference game if scheduled at all and most of our schools don't do home and home's with G5s.

I am not an expert on Alston and have followed the story lightly, perusing a few articles, here and there. From what I understood, it is a court case still on the docket. Perhaps the decision will be monumental (followed by appeals), maybe it will get tossed. I have expected something more moderate.

I read all the thoughts here. I am not opposed to the concept of adding Rice and Tulane with accommodation per football that allows them to reasonably compete in the sport. Major modifications in payouts would be obvious. Such could allow the privates to be even more competitive in bb and bb and garner more FB wins functioning in a more appropriate model.
My suggested approach is in terms of methodology, not in terms of earnings which would be inherent. Rather than conditional admittance, rules would allow an opt-out, in conference play (not dropping the sport) for a particular sport, available to any member through a window. Playing a more limited quantity of conference members in the opted sport does not need to be negated. Otherwise, I am not a proponent of the Tranghese-Marinatto approach to conference membership. That didn't work out so well for the long-term, much to the dismay of Boise State and SDSU, among other costly upheaval in the old BE. While that is not a fair comparison to the highly stable and strong SEC, it is going hybrid. But the ACC chose such with Notre Dame, so the fondness for it still exists.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2019 08:17 PM by OdinFrigg.)
02-08-2019 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-08-2019 08:02 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 02:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Adding academic-oriented private schools, but accepted as not full qualifiers for football, but useful as projected cupcakes, makes a statement, and not a good one.

Then you obviously didn't read my post! I said that Vanderbilt would likely only keep two SEC teams on their schedule, Tennessee and Ole Miss. Nobody would make enough by playing them if they were treated like a G5. Hence, if Rice were added they wouldn't be playing anyone except maybe Texas and that's if they keep football at all after Alston. I also noted that Vanderbilt might not keep football.

They would be played in Hoops and Baseball and would only receive an equal revenue share for those two for profit televised sports.

Nobody would be adding a cupcake because those kinds of schools would not be playing an SEC schedule in football at all. They would be treated like a G5 non conference game if scheduled at all and most of our schools don't do home and home's with G5s.

I am not an expert on Alston and have followed the story lightly, perusing a few articles, here and there. From what I understood, it is a court case still on the docket. Perhaps the decision will be monumental (followed by appeals), maybe it will get tossed. I have expected something more moderate.

I read all the thoughts here. I am not opposed to the concept of adding Rice and Tulane with accommodation per football that allows them to reasonably compete in the sport. Major modifications in payouts would be obvious. Such could allow the privates to be even more competitive in bb and bb and garner more FB wins functioning in a more appropriate model.
My suggested approach is in terms of methodology, not in terms of earnings which would be inherent. Rather than conditional admittance, rules would allow an opt-out, in conference play (not dropping the sport) for a particular sport, available to any member through a window. Playing a more limited quantity of conference members in the opted sport does not need to be negated. Otherwise, I am not a proponent of the Tranghese-Marinatto approach to conference membership. That didn't work out so well for the long-term, much to the dismay of Boise State and SDSU, among other costly upheaval in the old BE. While that is not a fair comparison to the highly stable and strong SEC, it is going hybrid. But the ACC chose such with Notre Dame, so the fondness for it still exists.

I simply see it as the lesser of two evils. If Alston wins what it means is not only will pay for play be instituted but the Alston case specifically attacks the ruling on setting caps on compensation, especially compensation disguised as cost of living stipends. In short an end to amateurism.

It is highly doubtful that Northwestern, Wake Forest, or Vanderbilt could continue under such a model for football. Basketball has so few scholarships and baseball until now has mostly been half scholarships with a few full scholarships. Absorbing the costs there may be worth it to smaller privates in that it keeps their names viable and in the mind of the public.

Would it be good for their branding to leave their respective conferences? No. Would it be good for their conferences to have to play an even more diminished football product that they would place on the field? No.

I got what you suggested the first time you mentioned it. I don't think the conferences would have a problem with their schools keeping football and playing in a "scholarship only tier of the sport". But they shouldn't expect to play many conference games, which was my point.

Alston could sideline schools like Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest, and with cultural shifts under way in South Florida possibly even a school like Miami which already has a ticket sales problem. Then there is Duke? Like Miami they could go either way.

Privates like Southern Cal, Stanford, Brigham Young and Notre Dame would likely stay all in. T.C.U. could afford to, but what they and Baylor would ultimately do might be iffier than most would think. The monetary commitment has to be weighed carefully. Even public schools like Georgia Tech, Washington State and Oregon State might have some decisions to make.

Your new divide would be pay for play, pay for play with caps which could legally exist only because the option of no caps would be there, and scholarship only.

The first two would probably form their own association for football, hoops and baseball. The latter would remain under the NCAA.

It is out of that milieu that today's P privates would likely need the flexibility of remaining historically associated with their current conferences, but both they and the current conferences would need to play football on different tiers.

I believe all other sports would be easily reconciled within the conference structure.
02-08-2019 09:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-08-2019 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It is out of that milieu that today's P privates would likely need the flexibility of remaining historically associated with their current conferences, but both they and the current conferences would need to play football on different tiers.

I believe all other sports would be easily reconciled within the conference structure.

If some of these privates or even some of the less well-off publics decided not to play football with their current conference then I think there's a few ways to handle it.

Independence would be a bad option most likely although doable for some.

What would be relatively easy to do for all parties would be to form a separate league for football. Something like:

Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Tulane, and Rice. Perhaps Navy and Army might be interested as well. I think Miami would try to stick it out for a while in the pay-for-play division.

These schools could act as a G5 level league and play football against each other thus filling out their schedules. They can pool their rights and still get a little money from that side of the ledger. I wouldn't predict this league would attempt to compete for a national title of any sort, but the novelty of these schools competing in something akin to the Ivy League might be entertaining.

The real benefit here is that it's just for football. They can all compete in their respective conferences for all other sports and thus maintain their vital associations. I would add that guaranteeing a few football games each year for these schools would be beneficial. A Notre Dame like deal wouldn't be that awesome for the conference, but making sure each school had a couple of money games every year would be good for keeping some revenue in house and ensuring schools like Vandy don't suffer major budget shortfalls in the wake of not receiving full shares of revenue.

Hypothetically speaking, if Vanderbilt dropped down in football then we've got 3 openings for football schools. Whoever those additions become, I would suggest adding both Rice and Tulane as non-football schools. Finding a 4th non-football school shouldn't hard, but I'm not sure what the best candidate would be. I say go for both Tulane and Rice simply because their both AAU and available in this scenario. I think the benefit would be worth going to the trouble of finding the extra school.

In fact, if Georgia Tech decided to drop down then I would approach them for that 4th slot.
02-09-2019 05:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #13
RE: Tiered Membership
(02-09-2019 05:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It is out of that milieu that today's P privates would likely need the flexibility of remaining historically associated with their current conferences, but both they and the current conferences would need to play football on different tiers.

I believe all other sports would be easily reconciled within the conference structure.

If some of these privates or even some of the less well-off publics decided not to play football with their current conference then I think there's a few ways to handle it.

Independence would be a bad option most likely although doable for some.

What would be relatively easy to do for all parties would be to form a separate league for football. Something like:

Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Tulane, and Rice. Perhaps Navy and Army might be interested as well. I think Miami would try to stick it out for a while in the pay-for-play division.

These schools could act as a G5 level league and play football against each other thus filling out their schedules. They can pool their rights and still get a little money from that side of the ledger. I wouldn't predict this league would attempt to compete for a national title of any sort, but the novelty of these schools competing in something akin to the Ivy League might be entertaining.

The real benefit here is that it's just for football. They can all compete in their respective conferences for all other sports and thus maintain their vital associations. I would add that guaranteeing a few football games each year for these schools would be beneficial. A Notre Dame like deal wouldn't be that awesome for the conference, but making sure each school had a couple of money games every year would be good for keeping some revenue in house and ensuring schools like Vandy don't suffer major budget shortfalls in the wake of not receiving full shares of revenue.

Hypothetically speaking, if Vanderbilt dropped down in football then we've got 3 openings for football schools. Whoever those additions become, I would suggest adding both Rice and Tulane as non-football schools. Finding a 4th non-football school shouldn't hard, but I'm not sure what the best candidate would be. I say go for both Tulane and Rice simply because their both AAU and available in this scenario. I think the benefit would be worth going to the trouble of finding the extra school.

In fact, if Georgia Tech decided to drop down then I would approach them for that 4th slot.

4th? SMU?
02-09-2019 11:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.