- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Can schools in the new mega-conferences somehow secede from the BCS/ NCAA?
Posted on 9/19/11 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 9/19/11 at 9:09 pm
I have been wondering if it is possible that all of these conference realignments could be a power move by the institutions/conferences to get out of the BCS. I don't know what the specifics would be for this move to take place. Maybe the NCAA is not the problem and it's only the BCS. I know what we are talking about here only pertains to football, but it seems all of the realignment moves really only take football (the money maker) into the equation. We all know these institutions/presidents don't think mid major schools should even have a shot at the National title. So could they do this major realignment, and then somehow be independent in determining the National Champion? Plus these institutions would be in a far better financial position versus the major Bowls getting the large portion of the revenue. They could maybe even somehow pay these kids something. If something is not done about the payments to players, the football programs (cash cow) could be killed once a program gets caught. That's not in the best interest of any one involved.
I think the best move would have been for the Bowls/BCS to somehow institute a playoff but we know that probably will never happen. What would have to take place for this to happen? Would it be a secession from the NCAA or just maybe schools deciding to play in post season games that they want to play in( ie: a post season playoff that they organize)? I know that sounds absurd, but tons of money go to these bowls. If they could find a way to keep all of the money for themselves and determine a true NC, I think they would be in favor of it.
The BCS is such a sham, but the folks involved in it don't know how to really change it for the better. But most of all they want to keep the power they currently have, and also keep the flow of money coming. I don't know if this could even be done or how this would affect other sports but it seems like we are heading to a whole new landscape of college football.
I think the best move would have been for the Bowls/BCS to somehow institute a playoff but we know that probably will never happen. What would have to take place for this to happen? Would it be a secession from the NCAA or just maybe schools deciding to play in post season games that they want to play in( ie: a post season playoff that they organize)? I know that sounds absurd, but tons of money go to these bowls. If they could find a way to keep all of the money for themselves and determine a true NC, I think they would be in favor of it.
The BCS is such a sham, but the folks involved in it don't know how to really change it for the better. But most of all they want to keep the power they currently have, and also keep the flow of money coming. I don't know if this could even be done or how this would affect other sports but it seems like we are heading to a whole new landscape of college football.
3
Posted on 9/19/11 at 9:15 pm to szeringue
thta's supposedly what the conspiracy theory is among the U prez's.
create 4 super conferences (64 teams) and ditch the ncaa, create their own governing body made up of their own rules and playoff system
create 4 super conferences (64 teams) and ditch the ncaa, create their own governing body made up of their own rules and playoff system
Posted on 9/19/11 at 9:18 pm to szeringue
That's the ESPN plan. BCS contract expires at the end of the 2014 season.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:11 pm to szeringue
quote:Football players get paid, then so do basketball, baseball, and all of the women sports. And then who's going to pay for it considering only 2 schools don't currently use tax payer money or student fees to subsidize their budget?
They could maybe even somehow pay these kids something. If something is not done about the payments to players, the football programs (cash cow) could be killed once a program gets caught. That's not in the best interest of any one involved.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:14 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
Football players get paid, then so do basketball, baseball, and all of the women sports.
i am fairly certain that if the bcs teams secede from the ncaa in football only, they dont have to abide by title ix
and before someone mentions it, YES you could secede in only one sport.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:27 pm to jcole4lsu
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
—United States Code Section 20, [1]
Title IX is a federal law and applies to any educational institution that receives federal assistance. Membership in the NCAA is not the determining factor.
—United States Code Section 20, [1]
Title IX is a federal law and applies to any educational institution that receives federal assistance. Membership in the NCAA is not the determining factor.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:32 pm to walusl
Please remember, the NCAA serves at the pleasure of the university presidents.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:35 pm to walusl
football players would be paid with revenues THEY ALONE generate.
if it wasnt feasible, it wouldnt be talked about so much. the ncaa is the main ones standing in the way.
if it wasnt feasible, it wouldnt be talked about so much. the ncaa is the main ones standing in the way.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:45 pm to jcole4lsu
They'd still be held to Title IX, but that's only about keeping the percentages of male/female sports in line with the student population. I doubt there's a requirement that if you pay Football players you also have to pay other sports athletes. It's no different than not giving scholarships to other sports.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:47 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:False. Title IX is a federal law, not a NCAA one.
the ncaa is the main ones standing in the way.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:48 pm to jcole4lsu
Double post...
This post was edited on 9/19/11 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:50 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
False. Title IX is a federal law, not a NCAA one.
as posted earlier, the ncaa is standing in the way of paying athletes, not title ix.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:53 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:Title IX does apply to paying players. It's not all about giving equal opportunity, but equal % of scolarship money. You pay any players, even through a stipend, you have to apply it equally as well. Again, not per the NCAA but federal statute.
as posted earlier, the ncaa is standing in the way of paying athletes, not title ix.
LINK
This post was edited on 9/19/11 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 9/19/11 at 10:55 pm to GeauxTigersLee
why would you have to pay everyone if you made it a rebate on revenue produced?
why does everyone - espn -all sports media - continue to talk about it if its not feasible?
why does everyone - espn -all sports media - continue to talk about it if its not feasible?
Posted on 9/19/11 at 11:12 pm to jcole4lsu
Most talk about the concept or the injustice of not paying the players. I haven't seen anyone come up with a legal way to pay only football players that doesn't involve endorsement or marketing rights for players. In that scenario, each individual player would control their own deal bypassing title ix.
In addition, most schools don't have the money to pay the players. Many don't realize that most schools pull in about $4 to 10 million in taxes and student fees to subsidize their budget, even in the SEC. Revenue from tv deals, tickets, contributions, extra still don't cover their budget.
LINK
FYI - LSU and Nebraska are the only 2 schools that have 100% self funded athletic departments.
In addition, most schools don't have the money to pay the players. Many don't realize that most schools pull in about $4 to 10 million in taxes and student fees to subsidize their budget, even in the SEC. Revenue from tv deals, tickets, contributions, extra still don't cover their budget.
LINK
FYI - LSU and Nebraska are the only 2 schools that have 100% self funded athletic departments.
This post was edited on 9/19/11 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 9/20/11 at 1:47 am to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
FYI - LSU and Nebraska are the only 2 schools that have 100% self funded athletic departments.
I'm guessing "self funded" includes TAF money.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 2:47 am to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
FYI - LSU and Nebraska are the only 2 schools that have 100% self funded athletic departments.
Arkansas does, most years; they do a little creative accounting for some facilities modifications, where the budgeting comes from the university (see 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009) but ends up coming back in the form of athletic department dispersal of funds to the general fund of the university in off years.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News