Dodd: Player compensation lawsuit vs. NCAA could usher in new round of conference realignment

Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
45,818
Likes
65,279
#1
BOHICA: Player compensation lawsuit vs. NCAA could usher in new round of conference realignment

>>In a Northern California district court, conference realignment may take an urgent, unexpected turn. The ongoing Alston v. NCAA trial seeks an injunction against current NCAA scholarship limitations (room, board, books, tuition, cost of attendance). This is the mother of all pay-for-play lawsuits to date in that it basically seeks to end the longstanding "collegiate model."

In their closing arguments last week, the plaintiffs suggested that conferences "permit the individual conferences to make their own determinations" in compensating players.<<

>>Using Swarbrick's suggestion, if the Alston plaintiffs win, conferences could reorganize around like-minded schools with the same spending philosophy toward athletes if scholarship restrictions go away.

The SEC would conceivably be all in, willing to spend whatever it would take to compensate players and win them away from rivals. The likes of Stanford and Duke? Not so much.<<
 

CL82

Trust the process
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
28,283
Likes
43,876
#3
Yeah, not at all sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing for us. Generally, I say any change is a good thing but a world where there are all out bidding wars would be devastating for Connecticut.
 

Dooley

Captain Smith-ing With UConn Athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,772
Likes
15,766
#5
Yeah, not at all sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing for us. Generally, I say any change is a good thing but a world where there are all out bidding wars would be devastating for Connecticut.
Our AD is on record of saying we are in favor of player compensation. We won't (read: can't) compete with the Ohio States, Michigans, Texas, Alabama, etc in paying players, but we have the dollars and backing to compete with everyone else in the P5. The small private schools will be at a huge disadvantage. The good news is that we're a large public flagship. Our own fans forget that so many times, for whatever reason. Always follow the money and align with similar peer institutions. Always.
 

Dooley

Captain Smith-ing With UConn Athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,772
Likes
15,766
#6
I’ll tell you this: Houston, University of South Central Florida , and Memphis will promise the moon to get into a P5.

Now is not the time for us to take the higher road. If this actually comes to fruition we need to go balls to the wall.
Can't like this enough. Ensuring that we have a perfect APR score should be the least of our worries. Now is the time to grease some palms, practice creative accounting (if needed), offer quite a few Benny Jacobsens to Boston College officials, and get this done. UConn is a Power school in every sense of the word except for reality. If we're leapfrogged by anyone left in the G5 then it's pitchfork time.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
3,714
Likes
1,221
#9
If you are paying players...why bother with the fiction that they are students?

Draft out of high school like baseball and then college just becomes the minor league for development.

Heck, let an NFL club "sponsor" a program as their development arm...we already have the model in baseball and european soccer.

Alabama of the New England Patriot family.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
3,714
Likes
1,221
#10
Players could be assigned up or down, like from AA to AAA.

And watch the interest in college football wither....and basketball would be next up.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
3,714
Likes
1,221
#13
Yes...but for those that skimmed his summary....the point of the 64 team super conference was missed.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
488
Likes
237
#14
Our AD is on record of saying we are in favor of player compensation. We won't (read: can't) compete with the Ohio States, Michigans, Texas, Alabama, etc in paying players, but we have the dollars and backing to compete with everyone else in the P5. The small private schools will be at a huge disadvantage. The good news is that we're a large public flagship. Our own fans forget that so many times, for whatever reason. Always follow the money and align with similar peer institutions. Always.
Why is a public flagship in a small state at an advantage? In the end, who is going to pay for the extra cost when the football operation is already operating at a huge loss, the parent state is financially stressed and debted, and the citizen stakeholders are over taxed?
 

Dooley

Captain Smith-ing With UConn Athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,772
Likes
15,766
#15
Why is a public flagship in a small state at an advantage? In the end, who is going to pay for the extra cost when the football operation is already operating at a huge loss, the parent state is financially stressed and debted, and the citizen stakeholders are over taxed?
Connecticut state size is irrelevant - the brand strength extends well beyond state borders. In CT, UConn is the only game in town and there is serious money here. I know you probably don't follow UConn and CT politics closely, but the state has funded the university BILLIONS (with a capital B and plural S) over the past few decades for campus expansions, renovations, and new facility and campus constructs. Political support, just like sports, is cyclical.

UConn leadership is already on record saying they support paying players, to some extent. Interestingly enough, there was 1 lone ACC school who voted against it a few years ago...our New England neighbor to the north. I don't think anyone would bat an eye if there was ever a swap of BC for UConn. Would likely go largely unnoticed in Boston, once you get past the 3 blocks or so that the BC campus sits. Ha!
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
488
Likes
237
#16
Connecticut state size is irrelevant - the brand strength extends well beyond state borders. In CT, UConn is the only game in town and there is serious money here. I know you probably don't follow UConn and CT politics closely, but the state has funded the university BILLIONS (with a capital B and plural S) over the past few decades for campus expansions, renovations, and new facility and campus constructs. Political support, just like sports, is cyclical.

UConn leadership is already on record saying they support paying players, to some extent. Interestingly enough, there was 1 lone ACC school who voted against it a few years ago...our New England neighbor to the north. I don't think anyone would bat an eye if there was ever a swap of BC for UConn. Would likely go largely unnoticed in Boston, once you get past the 3 blocks or so that the BC campus sits. Ha!
University of Texas has a $26B endowment. Size matters.

CT faces a $2B budget deficit. Is UConn insulated from that? $20M on football spending already, and you're ready to jump at paying players?
 

Dooley

Captain Smith-ing With UConn Athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,772
Likes
15,766
#17
University of Texas has a $26B endowment. Size matters.

CT faces a $2B budget deficit. Is UConn insulated from that? $20M on football spending already, and you're ready to jump at paying players?
Absolutely. We wouldn't be able to spend with the likes of Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, etc. Only those mega schools can compete with other mega schools. You put UConn in a P5 conference with access to P5 money and there is no doubt UConn can compete on the recruiting trail with most of the ACC. Like I said, Boston College is already on record as saying they can't or won't support paying players. UConn is on record saying they can or would. Easy swap. In a common sense world, that swap would have been made already to be honest.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
3,714
Likes
1,221
#19
Here is the deal....

The 31 programs that have $100 million plus in annual AD revenue will have $50 million more a year to spend on athletes then will programs like Memphis, USF, and Boise State.

And can UConn, currently with one of the highest supplementations of athletic budgets, dip even more into the the public and student coffers?

There may well be a split off....where schools choosing not to spend $100 million to $180 million on athletics will play in a different division.
 

vowelguy

Boneyard contrarian since 1998
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
13,730
Likes
11,323
#22
The likes of Stanford and Duke? Not so much.<<
Stanford?

Stanford is pretty all-in on sports. I don't see them shrinking away bc of costs. And I'm sure they could get some Silicon Valleyite to fund it if needed.

At Duke I could see more of a battle between folks concerned about $$ being spent on athletes and not on core educational concerns and financial aid, but it's still a wealthy school.

Wake Forest is the school that would be in trouble.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
3,714
Likes
1,221
#23
and yet Wake's President helped design as well as pushed the 65 team breakaway...in his role as Chair of the NCAA board..

"The five power conferences, containing 65 of the most high- profile football and basketball programs in college athletics, gained unprecedented authority to invoke rules changes under legislation passed Thursday by the NCAA's board of directors.

"It does provide degrees of autonomy for the five high-resource conferences," said Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch, who is the board chairman and a key architect of the plan. "This is not complete autonomy. We're still part of Division I, but I think it allows us to provide more benefits to student-athletes."
 
Last edited:

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
28,521
Likes
20,709
#24
Here is the deal....

The 31 programs that have $100 million plus in annual AD revenue will have $50 million more a year to spend on athletes then will programs like Memphis, USF, and Boise State.

And can UConn, currently with one of the highest supplementations of athletic budgets, dip even more into the the public and student coffers?

There may well be a split off....where schools choosing not to spend $100 million to $180 million on athletics will play in a different division.
We didn't realize that UConn was screwed. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
...

Top