Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    371

    B1G would drop back to Division III if forced to pay players.

    ...at least according to Jim Delany:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...to-pay-players

    The antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and other college football and basketball players seeking a share of television revenues could have vast, far-reaching implications for the NCAA if it loses the suit -- and is forced to negotiate a split of those revenues with the players it oversees.

    How vast? Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wrote in a declaration filed in court last week and revealed by SI.com's Andy Staples that he envisions his league dropping back to a Division III non-scholarship model if the court sides with the plaintiffs.

    [I]t has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

    "It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany added to SI.com. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."
    Last edited by 133304Hokie; Tue Mar 19 2013 at 03:53 PM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    November 23, 1999
    Posts
    2,390
    That might affect their TV contact.

    Quote Originally Posted by 133304Hokie View Post
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...to-pay-players

    The antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and other college football and basketball players seeking a share of television revenues could have vast, far-reaching implications for the NCAA if it loses the suit -- and is forced to negotiate a split of those revenues with the players it oversees.

    How vast? Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wrote in a declaration filed in court last week and revealed by SI.com's Andy Staples that he envisions his league dropping back to a Division III non-scholarship model if the court sides with the plaintiffs.

    [I]t has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

    "It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany added to SI.com. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by 133304Hokie View Post
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...to-pay-players

    The antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and other college football and basketball players seeking a share of television revenues could have vast, far-reaching implications for the NCAA if it loses the suit -- and is forced to negotiate a split of those revenues with the players it oversees.

    How vast? Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wrote in a declaration filed in court last week and revealed by SI.com's Andy Staples that he envisions his league dropping back to a Division III non-scholarship model if the court sides with the plaintiffs.

    [I]t has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

    "It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany added to SI.com. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."
    1. No they won't. This is pretty transparent posturing by Delaney to try to beat down the idea of paying players. Secretly, he likes the idea because he knows it would squeeze less wealthy teams and conferences out of the big time... would accomplish the split without having to split.

    2. If they did, that would really suck for Maryland, wouldn't it?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    22,160
    He violated THE prime rule of lying ... it has to be believable.

    Quote Originally Posted by NC ACC Hokie View Post
    1. No they won't. This is pretty transparent posturing by Delaney to try to beat down the idea of paying players. Secretly, he likes the idea because he knows it would squeeze less wealthy teams and conferences out of the big time... would accomplish the split without having to split.

    2. If they did, that would really suck for Maryland, wouldn't it?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSmokieHokie View Post
    He violated THE prime rule of lying ... it has to be believable.
    Not only was in an unbelievable lie, the lie was in a court filed document (aka perjury). Shame on you, Jim Delany!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 13, 2012
    Posts
    1,186

    Guys this just posturing however

    Pay for play would distroy college athletics as we know it. There would be only about 40 schools my gut who could afford it. The remaining would go to div 3. This would include the mountain west big east cuss all Div 1aa div 2.

    Just to be cynical those 40 best schools is really who the networks want to see anyway .they would leave the NCAA and the NCAA just limited to as needed collegiate events. Much scaled down.

    Quote Originally Posted by 133304Hokie View Post
    Not only was in an unbelievable lie, the lie was in a court filed document (aka perjury). Shame on you, Jim Delany!

  7. #7

    Join Date
    June 25, 2001
    Location
    Marriottsville, MD
    Posts
    5,703
    Now we know why they wanted MD and Rutgers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •