|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 8, 2014 16:11:29 GMT -5
the only comment I have on this legislation is that all you Penn State, Florida, Ohio State, Nebraska, Texas, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin, ......etc. fans & alumni can go royally screw yourselves because this is directly related to the greed of your institutions - enjoy your new super league you hypocrits - unless you fans of the BCS are out there advocating pay for performance (i.e. Destinee Hooker gets a $50,000 stipend and the back-up libero gets $1,000) or unless you are out there advocating to detach football from academia altogether then whatever you have to say is just so much BS. :) :)
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 8, 2014 16:21:34 GMT -5
the only comment I have on this legislation is that all you Penn State, Florida, Ohio State, Nebraska, Texas, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin, ......etc. fans & alumni can go royally screw yourselves because this is directly related to the greed of your institutions - enjoy your new super league you hypocrits - unless you fans of the BCS are out there advocating pay for performance (i.e. Destinee Hooker gets a $50,000 stipend and the back-up libero gets $1,000) or unless you are out there advocating to detach football from academia altogether then whatever you have to say is just so much BS. I'm sure every single school you listed would more than happily advocate to detach football from academia all together especially if that meant no Title IX restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 8, 2014 17:08:00 GMT -5
the only comment I have on this legislation is that all you Penn State, Florida, Ohio State, Nebraska, Texas, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin, ......etc. fans & alumni can go royally screw yourselves because this is directly related to the greed of your institutions - enjoy your new super league you hypocrits - unless you fans of the BCS are out there advocating pay for performance (i.e. Destinee Hooker gets a $50,000 stipend and the back-up libero gets $1,000) or unless you are out there advocating to detach football from academia altogether then whatever you have to say is just so much BS. I'm sure every single school you listed would more than happily advocate to detach football from academia all together especially if that meant no Title IX restrictions. huh, that's interesting, I've never seen anyone from those institutions advocating that!!!! I stand by my statement
|
|
|
Post by jake on Aug 8, 2014 19:02:37 GMT -5
My prediction,…within the next 5-7 years football, as we know it, will be "ban" from being played at all high schools and community colleges. Due to the increase number of head and back injuries.
This will seriously impact the college game to a point when ONLY the pro's will be playing FOOTBALL.
OUT!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 8, 2014 20:02:16 GMT -5
No, kids are immortal, injuries happen to somebody else, and money will still be money.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 8, 2014 20:34:15 GMT -5
What people seem to be missing is that this development is setting up an opportunity for member institutions not included in the "Power 5" conferences (or athletes at these institutions) to challenge the anti-trust exemption the NCAA enjoys on the basis similar of disparate treatment.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 8, 2014 20:42:55 GMT -5
What people seem to be missing is that this development is setting up an opportunity for member institutions not included in the "Power 5" conferences (or athletes at these institutions) to challenge the anti-trust exemption the NCAA enjoys on the basis similar of disparate treatment. What you seem to be missing is that they would be cutting their own throats if they did. These "big 5" basically proposed all these changes to apply to all of D1, and were voted down by the small schools. So they said "To hell with you, we'll leave D1." At which point the NCAA negotiated this compromise. If they do leave D1 (or the NCAA) the money leaves too. The small schools know that, and they want their piece of the pie. So they will accept this.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 8, 2014 20:57:23 GMT -5
You don't understand the NCAA structure, mike. It was voted down by the full membership because it wasn't in the interest of the majority. The rule was subsequently passed by the NCAA Management Council, not the traditional full membership vote. All it takes is one member institution, an individual athlete or a class action by a group of athletes or member institutions to challenge the rule.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Aug 8, 2014 21:03:06 GMT -5
The NCAA does not have an anti-trust exemption, and never has.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 8, 2014 21:04:53 GMT -5
Yes, you are correct and beat me to correcting myself.
The "disparate treatment" argument, though not technically the correct term I think, still is a legitimate option.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 9, 2014 0:23:54 GMT -5
You don't understand the NCAA structure, mike. It was voted down by the full membership because it wasn't in the interest of the majority. The rule was subsequently passed by the NCAA Management Council, not the traditional full membership vote. All it takes is one member institution, an individual athlete or a class action by a group of athletes or member institutions to challenge the rule. I do understand that. But you keep ignoring that having the big money leave the NCAA (or just D1) isn't "in the interests of the majority" either. These schools will walk from D1 if the smaller schools try to block this.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Aug 9, 2014 0:55:44 GMT -5
Those schools are under grandfather clauses. You can't just decide to have this program be D-I, that program be D-III, and whatnot. I'm pretty sure schools are allowed to designate one sport that can play in a different division up from the rest of the school. One of the cooler stories in NCAA sports this year was Union College winning the D1 Hockey championship. They are a small (~2000 students) liberal arts school in upstate NY and D3 in every other sport.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 9, 2014 8:37:34 GMT -5
You don't understand the NCAA structure, mike. It was voted down by the full membership because it wasn't in the interest of the majority. The rule was subsequently passed by the NCAA Management Council, not the traditional full membership vote. All it takes is one member institution, an individual athlete or a class action by a group of athletes or member institutions to challenge the rule. I do understand that. But you keep ignoring that having the big money leave the NCAA (or just D1) isn't "in the interests of the majority" either. These schools will walk from D1 if the smaller schools try to block this. Mike this is step one in leaving the NCAA all-together, and for the life of me I don't know why they are even bothering with this step. Just say "we need you, like we need a whole in the head"
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 9, 2014 9:33:36 GMT -5
You don't understand the NCAA structure, mike. It was voted down by the full membership because it wasn't in the interest of the majority. The rule was subsequently passed by the NCAA Management Council, not the traditional full membership vote. All it takes is one member institution, an individual athlete or a class action by a group of athletes or member institutions to challenge the rule. I do understand that. But you keep ignoring that having the big money leave the NCAA (or just D1) isn't "in the interests of the majority" either. These schools will walk from D1 if the smaller schools try to block this. better yet, I wish the other schools would walk away immediately and form a new collegiate structure, might as well control your own destiny for non BCS schools - being in the NCAA will forever be waiting for the table scraps from the BCS - I'd love to see an edict from the non-BCS schools that beginning in 2015-2016 there will be no scheduling of any games with BCS schools. Let the Pac-12 go east of the rockies for all their non-conference games - screw 'em. Sure, there would be a heck of a lot of risk and short-term fall-out, but it would be the best way to promote the bulk of non-BCS schools IMO long-term and just further illustrate that the BCS is isolated as a semi-pro adjunct of those universities.
|
|
|
Post by iht200 on Aug 9, 2014 12:56:51 GMT -5
I do understand that. But you keep ignoring that having the big money leave the NCAA (or just D1) isn't "in the interests of the majority" either. These schools will walk from D1 if the smaller schools try to block this. better yet, I wish the other schools would walk away immediately and form a new collegiate structure, might as well control your own destiny for non BCS schools - being in the NCAA will forever be waiting for the table scraps from the BCS - I'd love to see an edict from the non-BCS schools that beginning in 2015-2016 there will be no scheduling of any games with BCS schools. Let the Pac-12 go east of the rockies for all their non-conference games - screw 'em. Sure, there would be a heck of a lot of risk and short-term fall-out, but it would be the best way to promote the bulk of non-BCS schools IMO long-term and just further illustrate that the BCS is isolated as a semi-pro adjunct of those universities. The fact is football (revenue) drives the NCAA, not the other way around, and the Big 5 are the top football schools so they are in charge. If the Big 5 form their own football league (and they will if they don't get their way), the NCAA will be irrelevant for football, and also much poorer. Think NAIA.
|
|