If college football breaks off from the rest of the NCAA... | Page 2 | The Boneyard

If college football breaks off from the rest of the NCAA...

Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,199
Reaction Score
4,352
How so? Title IX just requires that the institution treat male and female athletes equally. It’s a question of the application of University resources. The vagaries of membership in different conferences are irrelevant so long is the University allocate resources equally.
So say UConn is in one conference for football and hoops and one for everything else. The first conference will have far more male athletes, the so the second conference will have far more female ones. So what does UConn do if the first conference allows massive payments to be made to student athletes and the latter doesn't, or limits expenditures on student lounges or class of travel? Does UConn disarm against its competitors in the first conference, and not spend what they are allowed to, because if they do they can't spend as much per student in the conference that is disproportionately serving female athletes?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,029
Reaction Score
20,710
If the power football schools break of then that coalition will also take Mens basketball because of the money the successor to the NCAA tournament will generate.

If the schools received all basketball money directly, it would place us in a better position.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,516
Reaction Score
206,313
So say UConn is in one conference for football and hoops and one for everything else. The first conference will have far more male athletes, the so the second conference will have far more female ones. So what does UConn do if the first conference allows massive payments to be made to student athletes and the latter doesn't, or limits expenditures on student lounges or class of travel? Does UConn disarm against its competitors in the first conference, and not spend what they are allowed to, because if they do they can't spend as much per student in the conference that is disproportionately serving female athletes?
What UConn would do would be to make sure that expenditures are equivalent on both set of athletes. Title IX doesn’t make universities the guarantor of identical outcomes in the real world. It merely requires that the university expand its resources in an equitable manner.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,199
Reaction Score
4,352
What UConn would do would be to make sure that expenditures are equivalent on both set of athletes. Title IX doesn’t make universities the guarantor of identical outcomes in the real world. It merely requires that the university expand its resources in an equitable manner.

I understand. You are assuming that conferences won't regulate expenditures and the UMass, in a non-revenue sports conference with UConn, will allow unlimited expenditures for field hockey. I am not assuming that.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,516
Reaction Score
206,313
I understand. You are assuming that conferences won't regulate expenditures and the UMass, in a non-revenue sports conference with UConn, will allow unlimited expenditures for field hockey. I am not assuming that.

Well, I do feel pretty confident that UMass isn’t gonna regulate the benefits we give our athletes. Like, 100% confident.

You might wanna take a look at Title IX again. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,199
Reaction Score
4,352
Well, I do feel pretty confident that UMass isn’t gonna regulate the benefits we give our athletes. Like, 100% confident.

You might wanna take a look at Title IX again. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
I give up. That is not our difference. Our difference is I'm assuming that if we join a conference of nearby schools for field hockey, they are not going to compete against us while we throw per athlete expenditures on field hockey players that we do to football players for Title IX purposes. You don't think that will be an issue, great. We'll have to see if the world goes down that road.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,516
Reaction Score
206,313
I give up. That is not our difference. Our difference is I'm assuming that if we join a conference of nearby schools for field hockey, they are not going to compete against us while we throw per athlete expenditures on field hockey players that we do to football players for Title IX purposes. You don't think that will be an issue, great. We'll have to see if the world goes down that road.
Yeah, again, I just think you don’t understand the statute in that’s why you’re locked into ‘every field hockey player has to get exactly the same benefit as every football player’. That isn’t how it works.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,300
Reaction Score
19,589

If they do this, in effect it will mostly being a test case for breaking off anyway. My guess is they bring the P5, just because it makes a solid number. It then gives you maybe a 32 team tournament. Every league will get +-5 bids and if given half a chance, CBS would dump the deal with the NCAA for this one in a heartbeat.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,122
Reaction Score
31,437
It’s going to be wild when this happens and hoop programs with multiple national championships are told they have no value and get left out, and some of these terrible schools in the P2 actually do.

It’s not a matter of IF, it’s more like when. When Barry Alvarez became AD at Wisconsin he basically verbalized what would go down. The major schools in the BIG and SEC made more investments than everyone else. So they should get all the money and everyone else can get lost.

This is what they have been working towards all of these years. It’s just going to end up being more and more exclusive.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,024
Reaction Score
161,549
It’s going to be wild when this happens and hoop programs with multiple national championships are told they have no value and get left out, and some of these terrible schools in the P2 actually do.

It’s not a matter of IF, it’s more like when. When Barry Alvarez became AD at Wisconsin he basically verbalized what would go down. The major schools in the BIG and SEC made more investments than everyone else. So they should get all the money and everyone else can get lost.

This is what they have been working towards all of these years. It’s just going to end up being more and more exclusive.
They're dumb and greedy enough to try their own tournament of a few great basketball programs and a bunch of mediocre/crappy ones but it won't work.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
If you excepted the two basketball programs of Nova and UConn, you'd have to go back 32 years to UNLV to have a Champion that is not a current P5.

The whole bottom of the seedings...#9-16 have zero chance of winning the tournament.

It's all a pregame show before the top half of the tourney gets down to it. Oh, we love the occasional upsets and cheer for the Cinderellas, but they won't win.

Since 1985:

...89% of the Champions have been Seeds #1-3

...0% of the Champions have been #9-16

One seed #8 has won it all.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,122
Reaction Score
31,437
They're dumb and greedy enough to try their own tournament of a few great basketball programs and a bunch of mediocre/crappy ones but it won't work.

As long as they are getting all the money they don’t care.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,122
Reaction Score
31,437
If you excepted the two basketball programs of Nova and UConn, you'd have to go back 32 years to UNLV to have a Champion that is not a current P5.

The whole bottom of the seedings...#9-16 have zero chance of winning the tournament.

It's all a pregame show before the top half of the tourney gets down to it. Oh, we love the occasional upsets and cheer for the Cinderellas, but they won't win.

Since 1985:

...89% of the Champions have been Seeds #1-3

...0% of the Champions have been #9-16

One seed #8 has won it all.

Who cares. It’s still more fun that way. Nobody wants to see a P5 only tournament. You and your ilk will destroy college sports.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
There will not be a P5 only tourney....the goose is too valuable.

And the $6 million a year that some conferences are getting in payouts annually do not lead to dissatisfaction.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,300
Reaction Score
19,589
If you excepted the two basketball programs of Nova and UConn, you'd have to go back 32 years to UNLV to have a Champion that is not a current P5.

The whole bottom of the seedings...#9-16 have zero chance of winning the tournament.

It's all a pregame show before the top half of the tourney gets down to it. Oh, we love the occasional upsets and cheer for the Cinderellas, but they won't win.

Since 1985:

...89% of the Champions have been Seeds #1-3

...0% of the Champions have been #9-16

One seed #8 has won it all.
In fact only 2 champions (3 titles) with the since 1985 have not played FBS/1A football and one of those started playing the next season. People do like the early round upsets, no doubt, but not once the teams get deep. There is a reason that those Major-midmajor Elite 8/Final Four games are the early game and the Power teams play in prime time.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
782
Reaction Score
1,501
In fact only 2 champions (3 titles) with the since 1985 have not played FBS/1A football and one of those started playing the next season. People do like the early round upsets, no doubt, but not once the teams get deep. There is a reason that those Major-midmajor Elite 8/Final Four games are the early game and the Power teams play in prime time.
We won the NC in the 1998-99 basketball season and began our 2-year transition period to I-A football 2 years later in the 2000-01 football season and didn’t become a full fledged member of I-A until 4 years later in the 2002-03 season.

So, only 2 champions (3 titles) since the rather arbitrary starting point of the 1986 tournament? Why not use round numbers - say, 40 years - which would make it 3 champions (5 titles).

And since you’re intent on highlighting number of teams which won championships, let’s also acknowledge that over the past 40 years only 21 schools have won championships once we’ve accounted for those who’ve won multiple championships.

“. . . once the teams get deep.” And we measure that only by champions, many of whom won that championship game in very close games, in a number of cases helped by a ref’s bad call? So, let’s look at the number of non-IA/FBS teams in the finals over the past 40 years, not just the champions. That number would be 11. In 2020, the tournament was cancelled with Gonzaga being ranked #2 in both polls. With no tournament, that makes an even dozen in the final two. I believe that all of those championship games were played in prime time. And since the Final Four games are always played on a Saturday, the notion of “prime time” is irrelevant since prime time refers to weekday nights - unless you want to claim that Sunday afternoon NFL games are a lesser attraction since they’re not played at night.

I’m not sure what the connection is that you’re trying to draw between I-A/FBS football and top basketball programs, but it would be derelict not to note that all of the schools winning 3 or more championships in the past 40 years have a history of mediocre to poor football programs in those same 40 years:

Duke (5 titles)
UConn (4 titles)
North Carolina (4 titles)
Villanova (3 titles)
Louisville (3 titles)
Kansas (3 titles)
Kentucky (3 titles)

That’s a total of 25 basketball championships by schools with minimal to no success in big time football. I see no correlation between success in big time football and big time basketball.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
603
Reaction Score
2,260
The USSF should run college soccer.

USA Hockey should run college hockey.

USA Baseball should run college baseball.
All of these organizations except for maybe USA Baseball are total garbage and would not be able to handle it
 

Online statistics

Members online
561
Guests online
3,918
Total visitors
4,479

Forum statistics

Threads
155,812
Messages
4,032,281
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom