(12-03-2020 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  FBS football really shouldn’t be under NCAA jurisdiction

Or MBB. Or baseball.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-03-2020 08:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think this is what might happen in the future but with more D1 schools and conferences in the mix. There could be a lawsuit against the P5 for anti-trust from the other schools who wants to be with them. That is why I do not think any of this goes anywhere until A:Add more schools to the P5, B:Make the MWC and AAC as two new power conference to make it P7, C:Keep it as it is and add the 3 to 4 new FBS conferences (Big Sky, MVFC, CAA, WAC.)

You can also see the top D2 conferences moving up as a whole with only the smaller schools left out. Gulf South, Lone Star, MIAA, all the public Michigan schoold with Davenport, all the public California schools, the public GNAC schools, Colorado Mesa, Colorado-Colorado Springs, Regis and Metro State and a few here and there.

David this is hogwash. You can't file an antitrust suit against schools who were told to manage themselves. And the kind of revenue sharing the NCAA wants to do won't stand up in a court of law should the P5 break away in all sports. And since the proposal affects more than just P5 football first schools it is quite likely that the G5 and P5 schools that breakaway could share the overhead of governance whether they are in the same tier or not they are in the same proverbial boat.

And another thing. Nobody is going to sue a bunch of state schools for seeking to earn enough revenue so as not to burden the taxpayers further.

It worked for Utah getting into the PAC 12 when the lawmaker of that state wants to bring up the NCAA and the P5 on anti-trust after Utah went unbeaten in college football in the MWC. Same thing can happen here as a group of schools can start suing the P5 for discrimination like BYU, Liberty, Boise State and some others. Then it will become a nightmare for the P5 in the court of law and in the court of public image as being greedy bastards who destroyed college sports.

The difference David is that Utah wanted into the NCAA. Now the NCAA doesn't want to provide services for the P5. So the P5 must fend for themselves along with a certain number of G5 schools. Yet the NCAA wants to hold onto the profits from the basketball, baseball, women's tournament, and softball tournament to provide others who don't profit enough to survive.

That sir is socialism. If a school can't afford athletics they should abandon them. Athletics after all is not what they are funded to provide. Education is.

Furthermore, if the P5 winds up in a pay for play system the only criteria for entering will be the ability to operate at a profit. At that point there is no anti trust. There are only those who profit and those who do not.

If there is a breakaway David it will be by choice and those who agree to the terms of the new organization will be free to join. That doesn't mean they will be automatically included in a conference which is essentially a club.

And don't you think it would be rather hypocritical to go after State and Private Universities for anti trust while we allow Big Pharma to collude and Big Tech to squash their competitors and the innovators? But we shall save that for another board where legitimate anti-trust issues should be discussed.

To scream anti-trust where the NCAA is concerned and over their abnegation of responsibility while seeking to hang onto the remuneration for services not rendered is beyond damned preposterous. Public schools exist and are funded by the taxpayer to educate . They are not entitled whatsoever to exist without that support, let alone entitled to participate in things they were not chartered to do. When profit from sport covers the cost of all sports at a University the taxpayer is not burdened and such a luxury of an extracurricular activity may exist to enhance the experience of the education, but it is not essential. If a school cannot support athletics from their own proceeds they should not burden the public for them. And David, they have no damned right at all to burden the taxpayers of other states by seizing and utilizing their state's universities' sports proceeds. And under contract law if the NCAA refuses to provide services paid for but wants to keep proceeds from those denied services they have broken the contract. All involved should be done with them. Besides they are quite well endowed let them use their own endowment to keep the unprofitable schools afloat! Oh wait, they don't want to do that. There's your answer sport. Chew on that!

I'm probably in the minority but if I'm the NCAA I would allow the P5 and restructure the remaining FBS with the FCS schools. (Basically merging FBS with FCS) The P5 will have to create their own version of the NCAA for all sports. The NCAA can rewrite its rules to give this organization the same treatment as the NAIA, NCCAA and other organizations. While the new organization could schedule the D1 schools in basketball (still under the 4 game limit) the football games against the new D1 would count against the 12 game limit but be counted as a exhibition and the D1 schools can't use it as bowl or playoff eligibility.(basically only D2 counts for eligibility)

(12-03-2020 07:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 03:44 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Who is it that wants this?

Not surprising, as basically it says the P5 have to create a new organization to do the football governance work the NCAA currently does, but with no new resources to fund it.

The NCAA does well, as it keeps all its current revenue but no longer has to bother with FBS governance.

So it makes sense that the more invested a school is in football, the less it will find this appealing.

Thats kinda what I was seeing. It appears basketball distribution remains unchanged---as does football. However, it appears the new structure allows the NCAA to get out of expenses related to football (insurance, law suit defense, etc) and moves them to the CFP balance sheet. So, Im thinking this actually would make FBS slightly less profitable--in exchange for full control of FBS by the schools that make up FBS.

No. This proposal would take football out of the formulas for distribution. Scholarships is part of the formula, so football scholarships would be pulled out of the formula. It would significantly increase the money going to the FCS and non-football schools from the basketball tournament.

If the NCAA even takes this proposal seriously and I were an A5 AD, I would move to completely secede from the NCAA.

(12-03-2020 08:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 08:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think this is what might happen in the future but with more D1 schools and conferences in the mix. There could be a lawsuit against the P5 for anti-trust from the other schools who wants to be with them. That is why I do not think any of this goes anywhere until A:Add more schools to the P5, B:Make the MWC and AAC as two new power conference to make it P7, C:Keep it as it is and add the 3 to 4 new FBS conferences (Big Sky, MVFC, CAA, WAC.)

You can also see the top D2 conferences moving up as a whole with only the smaller schools left out. Gulf South, Lone Star, MIAA, all the public Michigan schoold with Davenport, all the public California schools, the public GNAC schools, Colorado Mesa, Colorado-Colorado Springs, Regis and Metro State and a few here and there.

David this is hogwash. You can't file an antitrust suit against schools who were told to manage themselves. And the kind of revenue sharing the NCAA wants to do won't stand up in a court of law should the P5 break away in all sports. And since the proposal affects more than just P5 football first schools it is quite likely that the G5 and P5 schools that breakaway could share the overhead of governance whether they are in the same tier or not they are in the same proverbial boat.

And another thing. Nobody is going to sue a bunch of state schools for seeking to earn enough revenue so as not to burden the taxpayers further.

It worked for Utah getting into the PAC 12 when the lawmaker of that state wants to bring up the NCAA and the P5 on anti-trust after Utah went unbeaten in college football in the MWC. Same thing can happen here as a group of schools can start suing the P5 for discrimination like BYU, Liberty, Boise State and some others. Then it will become a nightmare for the P5 in the court of law and in the court of public image as being greedy bastards who destroyed college sports.

The difference David is that Utah wanted into the NCAA. Now the NCAA doesn't want to provide services for the P5. So the P5 must fend for themselves along with a certain number of G5 schools. Yet the NCAA wants to hold onto the profits from the basketball, baseball, women's tournament, and softball tournament to provide others who don't profit enough to survive.

That sir is socialism. If a school can't afford athletics they should abandon them. Athletics after all is not what they are funded to provide. Education is.

Furthermore, if the P5 winds up in a pay for play system the only criteria for entering will be the ability to operate at a profit. At that point there is no anti trust. There are only those who profit and those who do not.

If there is a breakaway David it will be by choice and those who agree to the terms of the new organization will be free to join. That doesn't mean they will be automatically included in a conference which is essentially a club.

And don't you think it would be rather hypocritical to go after State and Private Universities for anti trust while we allow Big Pharma to collude and Big Tech to squash their competitors and the innovators? But we shall save that for another board where legitimate anti-trust issues should be discussed.

To scream anti-trust where the NCAA is concerned and over their abnegation of responsibility while seeking to hang onto the remuneration for services not rendered is beyond damned preposterous. Public schools exist and are funded by the taxpayer to educate . They are not entitled whatsoever to exist without that support, let alone entitled to participate in things they were not chartered to do. When profit from sport covers the cost of all sports at a University the taxpayer is not burdened and such a luxury of an extracurricular activity may exist to enhance the experience of the education, but it is not essential. If a school cannot support athletics from their own proceeds they should not burden the public for them. And David, they have no damned right at all to burden the taxpayers of other states by seizing and utilizing their state's universities' sports proceeds. And under contract law if the NCAA refuses to provide services paid for but wants to keep proceeds from those denied services they have broken the contract. All involved should be done with them. Besides they are quite well endowed let them use their own endowment to keep the unprofitable schools afloat! Oh wait, they don't want to do that. There's your answer sport. Chew on that!

JR you are breaking your dad's 2nd rule

(12-03-2020 09:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 03:44 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Who is it that wants this?

Not surprising, as basically it says the P5 have to create a new organization to do the football governance work the NCAA currently does, but with no new resources to fund it.

The NCAA does well, as it keeps all its current revenue but no longer has to bother with FBS governance.

So it makes sense that the more invested a school is in football, the less it will find this appealing.

Thats kinda what I was seeing. It appears basketball distribution remains unchanged---as does football. However, it appears the new structure allows the NCAA to get out of expenses related to football (insurance, law suit defense, etc) and moves them to the CFP balance sheet. So, Im thinking this actually would make FBS slightly less profitable--in exchange for full control of FBS by the schools that make up FBS.

No. This proposal would take football out of the formulas for distribution. Scholarships is part of the formula, so football scholarships would be pulled out of the formula. It would significantly increase the money going to the FCS and non-football schools from the basketball tournament.

Ahhh. I'll have to admit to not being very well informed on that formula so I will take your word for it. But if you're correct--then the deal is even worse for the break away CFP group's revenue picture as they lose substantial revenue from basketball AND pick up a lot of NCAA costs linked to FBS football (rule enforcement, insurance, law suit defenses, etc). I hate to say it, but I wont be surprised if they final version has the break away FBS division being pared down so those new expenses and lost basketball revenue are offset by splitting the net CFP money among fewer schools. Or--maybe FBS breaks away for everything and starts their own NCAA tournament.

If the knock is no single entity is running FBS football, what would it take for the NCAA to step in and sponsor a larger tournament? Why exactly shouldn’t the NCAA oversee FBS football?

Also, the NCAA could actually follow their protocol and place teams not making attendance on a watch list for reclassification rather than the Knight Commission recommending those with less resources step down.

(12-04-2020 03:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  If the knock is no single entity is running FBS football, what would it take for the NCAA to step in and sponsor a larger tournament? Why exactly shouldn’t the NCAA oversee FBS football?

Also, the NCAA could actually follow their protocol and place teams not making attendance on a watch list for reclassification rather than the Knight Commission recommending those with less resources step down.

Well—one problem originally blocking that avenue was FBS literally being defined by season ending “bowls”—-which are not owned by the NCAA. Then a new hurdle was added when the highly profitable CFP was created by the FBS schools, adding another post season element which is not owned by the NCAA. When it comes to the NCAA running the post season of the top level of college football—-I’m afraid that ship has sailed.

The P5 breakaway is the rapture of college sports...constant predictions by various people that it's just around the corner, forever.

You'd think the P5 would be eager to separate FBS football from the NCAA and cut off the supposed largesse it gives to the rest of the NCAA, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

(12-04-2020 01:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 03:44 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Who is it that wants this?

Not surprising, as basically it says the P5 have to create a new organization to do the football governance work the NCAA currently does, but with no new resources to fund it.

The NCAA does well, as it keeps all its current revenue but no longer has to bother with FBS governance.

So it makes sense that the more invested a school is in football, the less it will find this appealing.

Thats kinda what I was seeing. It appears basketball distribution remains unchanged---as does football. However, it appears the new structure allows the NCAA to get out of expenses related to football (insurance, law suit defense, etc) and moves them to the CFP balance sheet. So, Im thinking this actually would make FBS slightly less profitable--in exchange for full control of FBS by the schools that make up FBS.

No. This proposal would take football out of the formulas for distribution. Scholarships is part of the formula, so football scholarships would be pulled out of the formula. It would significantly increase the money going to the FCS and non-football schools from the basketball tournament.

Ahhh. I'll have to admit to not being very well informed on that formula so I will take your word for it. But if you're correct--then the deal is even worse for the break away CFP group's revenue picture as they lose substantial revenue from basketball AND pick up a lot of NCAA costs linked to FBS football (rule enforcement, insurance, law suit defenses, etc). I hate to say it, but I wont be surprised if they final version has the break away FBS division being pared down so those new expenses and lost basketball revenue are offset by splitting the net CFP money among fewer schools. Or--maybe FBS breaks away for everything and starts their own NCAA tournament.

Yes if I'm reading this right the proposal is basically for FBS football to be its own thing, which it pretty might is already, and in exchange the FBS schools take less March Madness revenue.

(12-04-2020 09:02 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  You'd think the P5 would be eager to separate FBS football from the NCAA and cut off the supposed largesse it gives to the rest of the NCAA, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The NCAA already isn't getting $$$ from football, because the FBS conferences keep the CFP revenue. The "largesse" given to the rest of the NCAA is March Madness.

The Knight Commission "offer" is to let the power conferences keep what they already have in football while making them give away even more March Madness revenue than they do now.

This proposal is like offering the P5 conferences a $5 bill in exchange for two $10s.

If this happens, will it mean the end of FCS vs FBS games? I hope so, I’m tired of all the beat downs

(12-04-2020 01:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If this happens, will it mean the end of FCS vs FBS games? I hope so, I’m tired of all the beat downs

This is a supposition on my part, but surely the NCAA and the Knight Commission isn't so obtuse as to believe any kind of proposal like this one would be met with anything but contempt by the P5. Keeping that in mind, and pending court cases on pay for play, is not logical to assume that the NCAA is merely seeking to reinforce the amateurism standards that make up their organizing principles and in the process boot the P5 from the nest so that the NCAA itself has no need to go through any kind of transition phase between amateurism and pay for play that would occur, be nasty, and incur expense should the P5 remain?

This nudge to get a breakaway started now would be efficacious in maintaining a status quo best suited to the DIII and FCS and poorer FBS schools. No change means no expense.

Meanwhile the P5 would now have a couple of years to get their governing structure in place if there is consensus that they need their own structure which could be prepared for the flexibility needed for pay for play.

I could even see the networks quietly approving of this move by the NCAA inasmuch as it pushes play among the top schools only which satisfies their content desires, and it forces cooperation in an orderly departure from the NCAA making network participation in the process easier to manage as you would be dealing with a known quantity of schools which would permit their interests in shaping structure to have a natural part in the development of the new upper tier.

The NCAA would get some televised events to generate revenue, the networks would be able to shape the move in ways beneficial to them, and the breakaway schools would be able to monetize their basketball, and other tournaments.

At such a point the NCAA could concentrate mostly on Olympic Sports and seek corporate grants.

(12-04-2020 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 01:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If this happens, will it mean the end of FCS vs FBS games? I hope so, I’m tired of all the beat downs

This is a supposition on my part, but surely the NCAA and the Knight Commission isn't so obtuse as to believe any kind of proposal like this one would be met with anything but contempt by the P5. Keeping that in mind, and pending court cases on pay for play, is not logical to assume that the NCAA is merely seeking to reinforce the amateurism standards that make up their organizing principles and in the process boot the P5 from the nest so that the NCAA itself has no need to go through any kind of transition phase between amateurism and pay for play that would occur, be nasty, and incur expense should the P5 remain?

This nudge to get a breakaway started now would be efficacious in maintaining a status quo best suited to the DIII and FCS and poorer FBS schools. No change means no expense.

Meanwhile the P5 would now have a couple of years to get their governing structure in place if there is consensus that they need their own structure which could be prepared for the flexibility needed for pay for play.

I could even see the networks quietly approving of this move by the NCAA inasmuch as it pushes play among the top schools only which satisfies their content desires, and it forces cooperation in an orderly departure from the NCAA making network participation in the process easier to manage as you would be dealing with a known quantity of schools which would permit their interests in shaping structure to have a natural part in the development of the new upper tier.

The NCAA would get some televised events to generate revenue, the networks would be able to shape the move in ways beneficial to them, and the breakaway schools would be able to monetize their basketball, and other tournaments.

At such a point the NCAA could concentrate mostly on Olympic Sports and seek corporate grants.

Yep, just a way for the NCAA's non revenue generating programs to keep a hand in the top 80 or so's pocket by continuing to steal basketball money.

Unfortunately I don’t think spin-off spinning off FBS football is enough. The NCAA is still going to have their hand in the cookie jar with the basketball money.

I think it has to be a full separation—the whole athletic department is going to have to move to the new organization and they’ll have to host their own championships in each sport.

(12-04-2020 01:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If this happens, will it mean the end of FCS vs FBS games? I hope so, I’m tired of all the beat downs

The beatdown of FCS over a P5 school.

(12-04-2020 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Unfortunately I don’t think spin-off spinning off FBS football is enough. The NCAA is still going to have their hand in the cookie jar with the basketball money.

I think it has to be a full separation—the whole athletic department is going to have to move to the new organization and they’ll have to host their own championships in each sport.

That will be the death of the other sports that are struggling with not enough P5 schools to sponsor them.

(12-04-2020 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 01:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If this happens, will it mean the end of FCS vs FBS games? I hope so, I’m tired of all the beat downs

The beatdown of FCS over a P5 school.

Yes, the FCS have averaged 1.65 wins a year against the P5 over the last 20 years.

And as to your post below, if they can't afford them, they shouldn't have them. They are after all at taxpayer expense. Let Mommy and Daddy foot the bill for Junior and Sissy to play whatever it is they play that nobody pays to watch. If you make these sports intramural they don't cost the taxpayers nearly as much, and as independent team sports they cost virtually nothing.