|
Post by italianmattd on Aug 8, 2023 18:39:04 GMT -5
Oh good... so then more people will be exposed to the atrocious diarrhea seepage bleeding court of the Ducks.
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Aug 8, 2023 18:41:56 GMT -5
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a savvy attorney challenge all of this based on Title IX. Are universities or conferences considering the impact on women? Seems like that was the intent of Title IX - make sure women and their sports have equal representation and opportunity. Contrary to (increasingly) popular belief, good attorneys aren’t out here looking for battles to fight and then convincing random people to become plaintiffs.
|
|
|
Post by davethecoug on Aug 8, 2023 19:23:14 GMT -5
It is also possible that the PAC will resurface in xx years (next round of Conference Realignment). I doubt Utah and ASU (or even UA or Colorado) will have any loyalty to the Big-12 if something better surfaces in the future. Offering a lifeboat to Utah and ASU doesn't change that possibility. My guess is that in about 10 years or so, Fox and ESPN are going to propose separating football from the NCAA and running an NFL-style league co-branded with colleges. Members in the championship league will get a guaranteed share, probably something in the $100MM range (maybe with some variance based upon performance). But to keep costs down and maintain at least a minimum threshold of competitiveness for all games, they'll allow only, say, 32 teams in. It's an easy pitch from the network's perspective: "if you're in, you get $100M/year. If you're out, we'll give your spot to somebody else." Some schools may not like it, but we've just seen what money-FOMO does to university administrators. The haves will have tons of money; the have-nots (and their non-revenue sports that are subsidized with football money) will be screwed. If that happens, all of the financial incentive for national leagues goes away, and we'll go back to regional leagues for non-revenue sports: a Pac-8 or Pac-10; a compact Big Ten; a renewed Big East; a mid-Atlantic-only ACC; etc. This may happen. But if it does, I can't imagine the have-nots would allow the 32 superleague schools to play for the same championships in their non-revenue sports. The NCAA could create an additional division (maybe a new Division 1) for the have-nots and institute rules such that 32 would not be eligible to compete against the have-nots.
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Aug 8, 2023 23:53:44 GMT -5
This may happen. But if it does, I can't imagine the have-nots would allow the 32 superleague schools to play for the same championships in their non-revenue sports. The NCAA could create an additional division (maybe a new Division 1) for the have-nots and institute rules such that 32 would not be eligible to compete against the have-nots. Why not? There are already hybrid conferences for non-revenue sports where teams that get a lot of football money compete against teams that get none. Take Pac-12 men’s soccer and beach volleyball, for example. Or take hockey, where the conference with the most football money—the Big Ten—competes for championships against five other conferences that have, between them, exactly one school that *might* have a football team in the black (Boston College). The sad truth is that the have-nots can be reasonably confident that even obscenely football-rich schools will not put much more money into non-revenue sports than the bare minimum necessary to keep them competitive. The travel budgets might be a little bit higher, and they might replace the musty carpet in the locker room a little more often, but the volleyball and gymnastics and water polo teams are not going to get any more love from the athletic department than they do under the current model.
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 9, 2023 0:10:32 GMT -5
According to Realdawg.com - Notre Dame and Stanford will be part of the Big Ten Conference realdawghuskies.com/
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 9, 2023 1:03:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 9, 2023 1:09:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Aug 9, 2023 2:34:21 GMT -5
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a savvy attorney challenge all of this based on Title IX. Are universities or conferences considering the impact on women? Seems like that was the intent of Title IX - make sure women and their sports have equal representation and opportunity. If some savvy attorney hasn't yet challenged the inclusion of "trans-women" in NCAA women's sports, then I doubt a savvy attorney will challenge conference realignment to protect women's sports. Besides, the current administration seems intent on using Title IX to damage college sports for actual women.
|
|
|
Post by coachdavid on Aug 9, 2023 3:42:25 GMT -5
What happens to the NCAA's designation of "Autonomous 5 conference"? How and when will they begin the process of stripping the PAC of its P5 status?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 9, 2023 6:57:30 GMT -5
Texas is arguably the richest athletics program in the country and yet they haven't been to a BCS bowl in years To be fair, nobody has been to a BCS bowl in years.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 9, 2023 7:00:47 GMT -5
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a savvy attorney challenge all of this based on Title IX. Are universities or conferences considering the impact on women? Seems like that was the intent of Title IX - make sure women and their sports have equal representation and opportunity. If some savvy attorney hasn't yet challenged the inclusion of "trans-women" in NCAA women's sports, then I doubt a savvy attorney will challenge conference realignment to protect women's sports. Besides, the current administration seems intent on using Title IX to damage college sports for actual women. lol
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 9, 2023 7:21:28 GMT -5
this is an article that is a fluff piece, just a bunch of speculation. they lost me at UC Davis
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 9, 2023 7:45:05 GMT -5
I think you are undervaluing the addition of the other 3 corner schools? The Big 12 now has a lock on the Mountain Time zone (okay, probably not a big deal). They have added a couple real rivalries (and rivalries are important for TV viewing). Arizona/Arizona State is pretty big - and Utah/BYU should be outstanding (although I will defer to you on that one if I am thinking this wrong). Kansas vs. Arizona in basketball is potentially huge. Utah has become a recent significant football school which helps. And the conference makes more geographical/travel sense - other than UCF and West Virginia. More potential for travel partners in scheduling. I don't think you need two schools in Arizona, and you really don't need two schools in Utah (at least the Arizona schools are in different markets, and there are a lot more people in Arizona than Utah). And rivalries can be played out of conference. Georgia and Georgia Tech have figured out how to play every year despite not being in the same conference. Same for Florida and Florida State. Etc. Utah is pretty good at football, but they don't have an especially impressive football brand, which is what really matters. Boise State has the second-highest winning percentage of the last 27 years, behind only Ohio State. That has not gotten them into a power conference. I also think there's an opportunity cost, as I believe the networks only approved up to four spots for expansion. Using all four on Mountain Time schools seems shortsighted to me. I'd rather have stopped at 14 and waited to see what happens with the ACC. Edit: Oh, and Utah and Arizona State also aren't even happy to be in the conference (for example, the ASU president already vowed to not go to Morgantown), which makes them different than every other school in the conference. I just don't think it was a good move. B12 consistent presence in the top 10 over the next 2 years - and then over the next 7-10 years may end up being critical. I believe the 12 team - 6 automatic bids (top 6 ranked conference winners) is locked in for 2024 and probably 2025. There will be changes after that for sure - and possibly before 2025 with all the realignment. Not saying that Utah will be a T10 over the next 3 years, but they have increased the chances for the Big 12 - as has going to 16 schools. B12 seat at the table isn't completely assured - and their relevance and long-term survival in terms of football is dependent on the degree of relevance. The B12 could have stopped at 12, but the addition of Colorado assured that they were going to have a minimum of 14. Once at this spot - their choice was to force Arizona to split from Arizona State or go with UConn. Maybe the conference would be better with 14 including Arizona and Colorado - but I think the conference is better with the new 16 vs. just having 14 with the additions of Colorado and UConn. So, where I don't see the addition of the last 3 as being great - I do think it is marginally better than any of the other options. The ASU President is a total idiot - and I don't think he represents the opinions of the coaches, players and fans. But I do agree that ASU and Utah didn't get off to a good start with the Big 12.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 9, 2023 8:59:26 GMT -5
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a savvy attorney challenge all of this based on Title IX. Are universities or conferences considering the impact on women? Seems like that was the intent of Title IX - make sure women and their sports have equal representation and opportunity. what
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Aug 9, 2023 9:17:41 GMT -5
|
|