The Big Five Conferences are going to break away | Page 8 | The Boneyard

The Big Five Conferences are going to break away

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,374
Reaction Score
16,572
Orrin Hatch is old.

But, I'm willing to say ... If BYU doesn't get a fair shake, he'll dust off his 2011 letter to the DOJ and make some noise. We haven't heard much. But, I think we are seeing a wave of Slice/Bowlsby/Swofford ... (And soon Delany & Scott) that will start a cacophony of noise. You just trashed 60 Universities. I love how these P5 alums (like a Pitt grad) are here crowing. Be a different story of they were on the Out.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
405
Reaction Score
458
Whaler,

Question is really simple: are you personally willing to pay more in taxes so that Texas can make $40mm a year from its athletic program, tax free?

You're asking the wrong question. The people hopeful for government intervention keep couching it in terms of equality among respective in-state schools when that hasn't ever been a concern of politicians at all (including the way most states explicitly fund their flagships at a much higher level than commuter and directional public universities).

There's also something much more basic that's the real question: what Senator in his or her right mind is every going to actually vote for a law that would take money AWAY from their home state universities (who they are otherwise constantly trying to win government pork for) and send that money to Washington? Taking money away from state entities (which public universities are) and sending it to Washington is already an automatic loser for every Republican, regardless of whether he or she represents a BCS state. Heck - that concept isn't even popular with most Democrats right now.

Once again - does anyone think that these politicians that keep fighting for federal research funds to send back to their public universities on the one hand are actually going to suddenly vote to take away money from them on the basis of extremely popular sports teams on the other hand? That's essentially what the pro-government interventionists are saying and it makes no sense when you take a step back from it and look at it from the perspective of anyone that isn't specifically aggrieved by this. Yes, I'd expect UConn and Boise supporters to be pissed (for good reason), but I'm not seeing how that translates into broad support for a measure that, at the end of the day, is a transfer of state money to Washington (which is simply a deal killer for most politicians regardless of personal school allegiances).
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,374
Reaction Score
68,261
Whaler,

Question is really simple: are you personally willing to pay more in taxes so that Texas can make $40mm a year from its athletic program, tax free?

I'm not debating right or wrong. I don't agree it will happen and if it does they will just push the cost to the student body.

It's fine with me if they tax them, I think that in a vacuum they probably should.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,128
Reaction Score
32,924
You're asking the wrong question. The people hopeful for government intervention keep couching it in terms of equality among respective in-state schools when that hasn't ever been a concern of politicians at all (including the way most states explicitly fund their flagships at a much higher level than commuter and directional public universities).

There's also something much more basic that's the real question: what Senator in his or her right mind is every going to actually vote for a law that would take money AWAY from their home state universities (who they are otherwise constantly trying to win government pork for) and send that money to Washington? Taking money away from state entities (which public universities are) and sending it to Washington is already an automatic loser for every Republican, regardless of whether he or she represents a BCS state. Heck - that concept isn't even popular with most Democrats right now.

Once again - does anyone think that these politicians that keep fighting for federal research funds to send back to their public universities on the one hand are actually going to suddenly vote to take away money from them on the basis of extremely popular sports teams on the other hand? That's essentially what the pro-government interventionists are saying and it makes no sense when you take a step back from it and look at it from the perspective of anyone that isn't specifically aggrieved by this. Yes, I'd expect UConn and Boise supporters to be pissed (for good reason), but I'm not seeing how that translates into broad support for a measure that, at the end of the day, is a transfer of state money to Washington (which is simply a deal killer for most politicians regardless of personal school allegiances).

Frank,

You are completely missing the point. Completely. There are laws on the books about what constitutes a tax exempt entity and what doesn't. The university athletic programs were at the edge, now they are over. This should not be an area that leaves room for much judgment. As I said, the Dallas Cowboys are much more popular than any college team, and they seem to survive while still paying taxes.

O'Bannon could destroy college athletics. If the Senators are all powerful and at the beck and call of the universities, then why don't they just have O'Bannon executed? That is how it works, right?

The government is closing loopholes. The Private Equity/Hedge Fund carried interest loophole is not long for this world, and the people that want that loophole to continue have a combined net worth well into 12 digits. They have a little more muscle than universities, yet in that world, they expect the carried interest loophole to be gone within 5 years.

An automatic loser is raising taxes on average Americans or cutting Social Security, but that is where we are going. You think they are going to protect tax exempt status for university athletic programs while asking every American to pay more in taxes? Get out of the sports message board bubble. I bet the only reason the IRS is not all over it already is because of the 503c sideshow in Washington.

And in case you didn't notice, despite the increases in TV money for a handful of schools, overall, interest in college athletics is already declining.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,128
Reaction Score
32,924
Frank seems to think this debate about tax exempt status has something to do with UConn, because he keeps trying to twist it back to show how UConn is screwed. UConn is screwed Frank. We get it.

To be honest, UConn's best hope is that 10-12 schools just bail out of big time athletics when the SEC starts officially paying players. I think that several schools will refuse to participate on those terms. I don't think Northwestern, Stanford, Duke or Vanderbilt will have anything to do with a stipend, and that will put pressure on another 10 or so schools to also bail out. The Alabamas and FSUs may cave, or there may be a compromise, but I think there is a reasonably high probability that Alabama says "adios" to Vandy and the rest in that situation. Then it becomes interesting.

It is not breaking news that students and alums from those kind of schools look down on state schools. A Northwestern grad identifies a lot more with a grad from UChicago or an Ivy than he does with someone from University of Illinois. And 90%+ of students at Northwestern would want to drop big time athletics in a heartbeat if they thought it would harm the school's academic reputation at all.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,374
Reaction Score
68,261
We got it Waylon. You think Northwestern and Duke will drop out. They won't and everyone knows it - but these posts give you something to deny in the future.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,374
Reaction Score
68,261
Athletics can't harm a school's academic reputation. If they could the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill might act differently.

Schools with reputations can do anything with no harm. Schools without reputations are buried over the slightest academic misstep. Conventional wisdom dominates. No one thinks the basketball players at Kentucky go to class and no one thinks Tar Heel athletes reflect on the student body at large.

In 2013 no schools in the P5 are leaving. No matter how many times Waylon says they are.
 

junglehusky

Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,183
Reaction Score
15,535
Alums at Northwestern or Duke vanderbilt or wherever can look down their noses at state schools till the cows come home, the presidents are still driving the bus and they're not going to turn down truckloads of free money.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,374
Reaction Score
68,261
Whaler,

What is uconn's realistic best case?

Their realistic best case is that they are invited to join a power conference at some point in time.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,374
Reaction Score
68,261
Whaler,

What is uconn's realistic best case?

Their realistic best case is that they are invited to join a power conference at some point in time.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,128
Reaction Score
32,924
Alums at Northwestern or Duke vanderbilt or wherever can look down their noses at state schools till the cows come home, the presidents are still driving the bus and they're not going to turn down truckloads of free money.

It is not truckloads of free money by their standards, and these schools have alternatives. I am not sure what they will do, but I know that neither the schools nor the alumni like where schools like Alabama and LSU are taking college athletics.

The Ivy's do not regret their decision to back away from the table at all. Harvard, Princeton, Yale and UChicago, ranked 1-4 in USNWR, all were considered football powers at some point in the last 80 years. They seemed to have done OK in going a different direction.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,128
Reaction Score
32,924
Their realistic best case is that they are invited to join a power conference at some point in time.

How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
5,508
Reaction Score
13,294
After rereading the original article the P5 conferences really can't break away from the NCAA. They know this.
What they want essentially is autonomy within the current structure to run football by their rules and make it impossible for any school to infringe on their divine right to rule college football. At the samemaintaining all other benifits of membership.
Pretty good gig if you could get it. They are using the media and their financial advantages to bully the NCAA into submission.
Notice the anti NCAA articles spewing from Mt ESPN
They also know if they go on their own they are screwed
They risk becoming a minor league NFL once the facade of actually being educational institutions are lifted.


They still need opponents to fill a schedule from the undercaste.
They cannot have a viable BB tournament without another 60 schools.
Some sports important to select member schools will not be viable at all.

B1G and BC hockey cant exist outside of the NCAA
I suppose they can play the Johnstown Jets.
I think the NCAA non P5 schools have a lot more power than everyone gives them credit for.
The P5 know this but are the NCAA and the hundreds of nonP5 schools smart enough to realize this.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 

WestHartHusk

$3M a Year With March Off
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,566
Reaction Score
13,712
How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?

If you don't think it is more realistic than not that UConn, in 10 years, is in a major conference then you should just stop posting.

Things that we know will happen in the next 10 years:
  • + 8,000 undergrads
  • A significantly larger endowment
  • Significant new educational infrastructure and research capability
  • New hockey arena/program
  • New basketball practice facility
Things that are likely to happen in the next 10 years:
  • A new/upgraded bball facility (either in conjunction with the required hockey arena, or as a result of HCC upgrades/rebuild
  • Addition to Rentschler (we have a recognition of its short-comings up through the AD)
  • AAU
  • Potentially more undergraduates (I saw a plan a number of years that called for 40-50k undergrads ultimately)
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,128
Reaction Score
32,924
If you don't think it is more realistic than not that UConn, in 10 years, is in a major conference then you should just stop posting.

Things that we know will happen in the next 10 years:

  • [ ]+ 8,000 undergrads
    [ ]A significantly larger endowment
    [ ]Significant new educational infrastructure and research capability
    [ ]New hockey arena/program
    [ ]New basketball practice facility
Things that are likely to happen in the next 10 years:

  • [ ]A new/upgraded bball facility (either in conjunction with the required hockey arena, or as a result of HCC upgrades/rebuild
    [ ]Addition to Rentschler (we have a recognition of its short-comings up through the AD)
    [ ]AAU
    [ ]Potentially more undergraduates (I saw a plan a number of years that called for 40-50k undergrads ultimately)

We all know the resume. How is it going to happen? Why are things going to be different in 5 or 10 years? I gave a handful of credible avenues for this to happen. I think the top tier academic schools will either prevent a break or leave the P5 if a break happens. I think the P5 could not be more dead from an anti-trust perspective if they try to break free. The tax exempt thing cuts both ways. It could hold the P5 in place, but could also reduce the benefit of a school like UConn to continue to invest in their program.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,128
Reaction Score
32,924
You're asking the wrong question. The people hopeful for government intervention keep couching it in terms of equality among respective in-state schools when that hasn't ever been a concern of politicians at all (including the way most states explicitly fund their flagships at a much higher level than commuter and directional public universities).

There's also something much more basic that's the real question: what Senator in his or her right mind is every going to actually vote for a law that would take money AWAY from their home state universities (who they are otherwise constantly trying to win government pork for) and send that money to Washington? Taking money away from state entities (which public universities are) and sending it to Washington is already an automatic loser for every Republican, regardless of whether he or she represents a BCS state. Heck - that concept isn't even popular with most Democrats right now.

Once again - does anyone think that these politicians that keep fighting for federal research funds to send back to their public universities on the one hand are actually going to suddenly vote to take away money from them on the basis of extremely popular sports teams on the other hand? That's essentially what the pro-government interventionists are saying and it makes no sense when you take a step back from it and look at it from the perspective of anyone that isn't specifically aggrieved by this. Yes, I'd expect UConn and Boise supporters to be pissed (for good reason), but I'm not seeing how that translates into broad support for a measure that, at the end of the day, is a transfer of state money to Washington (which is simply a deal killer for most politicians regardless of personal school allegiances).

The other point you miss is that average fans don't root for the P5 to destroy the rest of the athletic programs. A Michigan fan might want to see tOSU's athletic program burned to the ground, but that same Michigan fan knows people that went to EMU, CMU and WMU, and may have gone to one of those schools himself. He doesn't want to see them hurt, or he is at the least indifferent. He is certainly not rooting for their demise, as you seem to think.

So Senators are not going to line up to destroy their second tier programs just because Alabama wants it to happen. Frankly, most of them would prefer more schools in the mix than less.
 

WestHartHusk

$3M a Year With March Off
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,566
Reaction Score
13,712
We all know the resume. How is it going to happen? Why are things going to be different in 5 or 10 years? I gave a handful of credible avenues for this to happen. I think the top tier academic schools will either prevent a break or leave the P5 if a break happens. I think the P5 could not be more dead from an anti-trust perspective if they try to break free. The tax exempt thing cuts both ways. It could hold the P5 in place, but could also reduce the benefit of a school like UConn to continue to invest in their program.

Things will be different in 5-10 years because nothing has been static in college sports for 5-10 years. Whether those changes are driven by law, politics, technology, greed, competition, or collusion I think we are positioning ourselves to get into the club. Can I gurantee, no. But any way you slice it we are a university that deserves to be in the top tier of universities and I choose to hold out hope that we will make it. And let's not forget that for right now we have a $25M advantage on all but two of the "have-nots" of college sports, and we have state support unlike most others.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,374
Reaction Score
68,261
How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?

The easiest route I see is that the Big 10 network doesn't win the cable battle in NYC with just Rutgers.

I'm not claiming it's going to happened. You asked for the best case scenario. How is there any other answer to that question.

I take stands all the time BTW, for example I told you Florida State was not joining the Big 12 even though you railed on it for weeks.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
405
Reaction Score
458
The other point you miss is that average fans don't root for the P5 to destroy the rest of the athletic programs. A Michigan fan might want to see tOSU's athletic program burned to the ground, but that same Michigan fan knows people that went to EMU, CMU and WMU, and may have gone to one of those schools himself. He doesn't want to see them hurt, or he is at the least indifferent. He is certainly not rooting for their demise, as you seem to think.

So Senators are not going to line up to destroy their second tier programs just because Alabama wants it to happen. Frankly, most of them would prefer more schools in the mix than less.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this. You're phrasing it as "rooting for the demise" of non-power schools, but what I see is indifference. Believe me: the average sports fan in the State of Michigan will absolutely let EMU/CMU/WMU wallow in obscurity if it means more national championships for Michigan in football and Michigan State in basketball. They already know that the MAC schools won't ever compete with the Big Ten schools (and people in the South know that C-USA will never compete with the SEC and ACC schools), so it's doubtful that they'd see any purpose of taxing their own home public universities where that money is going to be spent in Washington as opposed to Ann Arbor or East Lansing.

This leads to the other point: it's not as if though taxing the Alabamas of the world suddenly means that money gets shifted from Bama to UAB. If that were the case, then there *might* be some populist support for government taxation of university athletic departments, but that is clearly NOT what would happen. Instead, that money is getting shifted from Bama to those "evil tax and spend liberals that keep infringing upon states' rights" in Washington, DC. Outside of the Northeast (which generally doesn't care about college sports except for certain pockets), I'm not seeing any viable political support for that position. I think you greatly overestimating politicians' aptitude to allow for a single penny of taxes assessed upon state institutions so that it can get transferred out of their own home states to Washington, regardless of whether we're talking about public university sports or, even better, university-run medical centers that actually generate way more revenue than even the largest athletic departments. (Take a step back and think about that one - how many universities are going to be willing to open *that* Pandora's box regarding medical center revenue? The UABs of the world that don't have big athletic departments but take in hundreds of millions of dollars in medical center revenue that generate immense paper profits aren't exactly going to be in a rush to start distinguishing what are "for profit" ventures at non-profit universities for tax purposes.) At the same time, I think that you're greatly underestimating just how much more popular the power schools are within their home states in every region outside of the Northeast - there's just no comparison. Taking money away from SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 schools to send it to Washington would certainly be political suicide for any politician from those states.

We're not even getting into the logistical fact that this Congress can't get even widely popular bills passed these days due to partisanship and special interests. Good luck trying to find a filibuster-proof majority (as getting 50% plus 1 vote means nothing in Washington since those types of bills don't get to floor no matter which party is in charge) to support a measure that's going to be inherently unpopular with a group with a LOT more power, influence and passion (the power conferences and their respective home states) versus a group that have a lot fewer supporters with a lot less passion by comparison (the non-power schools in general). The NRA leverages a lot smaller group based on passion alone to shoot down what are otherwise widely popular bills (as the problem is that the popularity is with people that are a lot less passionate about the issue and they don't have any centralized lobbying power... unlike, say, hmmm... the Association of American Universities that the Big Ten kind of thinks is important and a majority of its members are power conference members).

Trying to argue that power conference schools should be taxed is an even worse false hope for non-power schools than the misguided wish for an antitrust lawsuit. Anyone in the non-power realm right now should only concentrate on rising up to meet the new standards that are going to get put into place. If the last two decades of the Bowl Alliance and BCS should have taught anyone anything, it's that outside help isn't coming (and anyone that waits around for outside help is going to get steamrolled into irrelevance).
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,279
Reaction Score
5,130
How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?

Oh stop it. What changed between 4 years ago and now that caused all the movement?

1. The way people consume entertainment changes month to month. The fact that conferences didn't offer UConn eight months ago, presumably because they decided it wasn't in their interests to do so, doesn't mean it won't be in their interests four months from now, let alone four years.

2. Basketball hasn't counted to date because the big money is in the NCAA tournament, and that isn't totally dominated by the power conferences. One day, they will want to grab more money from basketball, and that will change UConn's status.

3. The SEC and Big Ten are not going to sit back forever and watch the Big XII's champion on equal footing with their champion when the Big XII has less teams competing for championships.

Lots of things can happen over the next few years that aren't obvious today. Just like it wasn't obvious three years ago that the ACC would listen to BC's whining and take Pitt over UConn, and just like it wasn't obvious that the Big Ten would determine that the best they could do would be Maryland and Rutgers, and just like no one in their right mind would have thought twelve months ago that the ACC would have decided that it was better off with Louisville than UConn.

So quit whining that the streets of New York will be totally covered with horse manure by 1930, root for the team to win games and see what changes next.
 

junglehusky

Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,183
Reaction Score
15,535
Frank, leaving aside the US Senate for a second, I'm sure you'll write a post about this but... where do you see the dividing line if these bigwigs get their new subdivision? Will it be all-or-nothing for conferences - i.e. the entire AAC or the entire MWC gets in or it doesn't... or would there need to be a reshuffling (perhaps like the coast-to-coast version of the Big East that didn't happen) in order for non-power five schools to make a case they belong? If the C-USA, sunbelt, WAC are seen as unable to compete on the perceived level, what about the teams at the bottom of the AAC & MWC in terms of budget?
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
268
Reaction Score
134
Jim Delany has now weighed in on the topic as well. It is starting to sound like the P5 commisioners had a private meeting to discuss this topic. They have all made the topic of NCAA reform an important point at the conference meetings. Also, it is interesting to note that they have all said very, very similar things and have even used the same key words when describing the topic of NCAA reform and gave a similar time frame for implementing the new NCAA reform. A second interesting point is that they have not given any indication as to which conferences or schools will be included, or what guidelines will be used to create a new division. I think it will be very interesting to see the the AAC has to say about this topic during conference meetings next week and hopefully we will have a better understanding of the changes to come.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mmisioner-jim-delany-pitches-ncaa-reform-plan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
627
Guests online
3,928
Total visitors
4,555

Forum statistics

Threads
156,891
Messages
4,069,277
Members
9,951
Latest member
Woody69


Top Bottom