Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Novahokie'99's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    McLean, VA
    Posts
    227
    I disagree completely. My father is actually a co-plantiff in that case. He played basketball for Kentucky in the 60s. The point isn't that Ed O'Bannon, or any of these guys want to make a ton of money. The point is that currently the NCAA and EA Sports is making a ton of money and keeping it all for themselves. It's ridiculous. If they want to use the likenesses of players then they should have to pay for it like they do with all of the pro-sports. Then the individual players can also determine if they want to let someone else make money off of them. Back in the day players like LaVarr Arrigton wouldn't give EA Sports license to use their name. They would be OLB #56. Hoping that the NCAA wins the lawsuit so that we can keep the same corrupt system we have now is the tail wagging the dog. College Football and Basketball are big businesses now and should be forced to operate in that manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    I hope Ed O'Bannon loses. He's just looking for free money. That's like a politician or military person asking that he/she get paid for any video footage/images of them being shown on the History Channel. I can't see O'Bannon winning. Similar cases have tried before in court and lost. If he does win, the NCAA will fold and college sports will become professional. How many colleges will be able to afford to field a football team? Not many. The NFL will have to form a farm system like MLB.

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    The original motive behind the start of a new NCAA FB division was the power schools' frustration that they were not permitted by the NCAA to pay a stipend (and to throw around money, in general). The NCAA forbade stipends because it would be unfair and financially damaging to the vast majority of Div 1 schools. As a solution, the big boys decided that they should simple assign themselves to a separate, Division. The "poor" schools could carry-on under the old system.
    Now, in talking about the new Division some are calculating how many teams we can cram in to it. That's takes us right back where we started. Lots of teams that can't navigate the high-rent neighborhood. This won't work unless the membership is severely restricted.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    February 16, 2001
    Posts
    14,845
    With 54 schools you are talking about knocking out schools already in the BCS. Not very probable. Answer how VT got into the ACC 10 years ago when they thought they were left out?

    Quote Originally Posted by 33laszlo99 View Post
    The original motive behind the start of a new NCAA FB division was the power schools' frustration that they were not permitted by the NCAA to pay a stipend (and to throw around money, in general). The NCAA forbade stipends because it would be unfair and financially damaging to the vast majority of Div 1 schools. As a solution, the big boys decided that they should simple assign themselves to a separate, Division. The "poor" schools could carry-on under the old system.
    Now, in talking about the new Division some are calculating how many teams we can cram in to it. That's takes us right back where we started. Lots of teams that can't navigate the high-rent neighborhood. This won't work unless the membership is severely restricted.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    April 10, 2003
    Posts
    6,618
    i don't think congress belongs in sports. but they are there. baseball enjoys an anti-trust exemption and therefore congress gets to stick its nose into such critical national issues as players using steroids. just waiting for them to take an interest in fake boobs in hollywood (feel free to anti-shun)...but i digress. anyway, tax exempt status and government grant money is important leverage. i'm not saying congress would definitely get involved. but its pretty much what they do and if they were so inclined, they have a couple of really big cards they can play.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    With 54 schools you are talking about knocking out schools already in the BCS. Not very probable. Answer how VT got into the ACC 10 years ago when they thought they were left out?
    Should we assume that the new division will be made-up of the exact same members of the BCS? That would be the easiest transition. But I don't know if all BCS schools want to undertake the burden of stipends. Some may disqualify themselves. You say it's not probable, and I'm somewhat reluctant to disagree with you. But I think it is just as improbable, or more, that the BCS membership transfers over intact.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    February 16, 2001
    Posts
    14,845
    There will likely be more schools than we have now. Schools know now what is going to happen with the stipend, but they also know the money they will make when they break off and form a new division that will cover the cost. Ask yourself are the schools trying to get into the Big 4 plus 1 BCS conferences or not? The answer is more and more are trying to get in knowing full well they will pay a stipend down the road. That tells you there will be more not less and the politicians like Mark Warner and George Allen did 2003 will be very much involved if a school gets left out. However, VT would not be in the ACC if UVa was not a deciding vote in getting them in...so it will work some places, but not all places. It is going to be interesting ride!

    Quote Originally Posted by 33laszlo99 View Post
    Should we assume that the new division will be made-up of the exact same members of the BCS? That would be the easiest transition. But I don't know if all BCS schools want to undertake the burden of stipends. Some may disqualify themselves. You say it's not probable, and I'm somewhat reluctant to disagree with you. But I think it is just as improbable, or more, that the BCS membership transfers over intact.

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    There will likely be more schools than we have now. Schools know now what is going to happen with the stipend, but they also know the money they will make when they break off and form a new division that will cover the cost. Ask yourself are the schools trying to get into the Big 4 plus 1 BCS conferences or not? The answer is more and more are trying to get in knowing full well they will pay a stipend down the road. That tells you there will be more not less and the politicians like Mark Warner and George Allen did 2003 will be very much involved if a school gets left out. However, VT would not be in the ACC if UVa was not a deciding vote in getting them in...so it will work some places, but not all places. It is going to be interesting ride!
    Schools try to join the big conferences because it will earn them more money from media rights and bowl opportunities, plus a bump in pestige and recruiting. But this new division is not a money maker for the members. It is still the NCAA(or a new organiztion in place of the NCAA). It is just another expense beyond stipends.
    Marginal programs should tread carefully. The $2000 per athlete is just a starting point. If you aren't making lots of money now, you'll probably make less in the new division. Playoffs will generate huge paydays for only the lucky few. If politicians are trying to shoehorn their favorite school into the new division, they should be careful what they wish for.

  8. #68
    PadrosWindup's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 16, 2003
    Posts
    5,013
    East WA an MT are both in D1, which includes over 340 schools. About 125 play D1A football,a similar number play D1AA, and the remaining 100 or so do not field football teams - in VA, VCU, Longwood and GMU fall in this category.

    IMO, many posters assume all of college sports is the BCS conferences. The NCAA is managing three major divisions, with subdivisions within D1, and trying to make rules that fit all, even though 70 or so schools drive most of the revenue (the big 5 plus some basketball powers).

    The five remaining Power Conferences want to make their own rules without having to have the rules fit with the D1AA's, smaller non-Football playing schools, or D2 or D3. That's the big fight that will happen, and will likely result in 70-80 schools going into a new division that can make it's own rules regarding recruiting and player pay. The division will,likely be within the NCAA, as there is little push for changes to academic eligibility. The real push is on how to use money that is made on a much different level in D1A than in D2 or D3.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokieinoregon View Post
    Eastern WA and MT will not move to D1. The University of Idaho used to be a regional power until they moved up to D1. They beat Boise State 10 straight years from the mid 80s and 90s. They used to fill their stadium every game and had a very loyal fan base. That move probably pays for other sports but their football program is in shambles. I live in North Idaho amongst a lot of Idaho graduates. To the letter they nearly all wish they had never gone D1. Today you have two schools with awesome football programs that are in contention for a national championship on a regular basis and they could be right there with those teams.

    EWU and MT have great things going. I would hate to see them try and step up because they are not Boise State nor could they be based on the limited talent in the area. But they have the ability to be top flight FCS schools.
    BCS level college football is a resource war, not a morality play.

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by daveinop View Post
    i don't think congress belongs in sports. but they are there. baseball enjoys an anti-trust exemption and therefore congress gets to stick its nose into such critical national issues as players using steroids. just waiting for them to take an interest in fake boobs in hollywood (feel free to anti-shun)...but i digress. anyway, tax exempt status and government grant money is important leverage. i'm not saying congress would definitely get involved. but its pretty much what they do and if they were so inclined, they have a couple of really big cards they can play.
    MLB was all but powerless in the fight against player drug abuse. The Players' Union was not cooperating and they had no subpoena power or other mechanism to investigate players. They pleaded with Congress to intervene on the basis that baseball is an American institution so essential that it must not be sullied and perhaps detstroyed by drug abuse. The Congress entered that mess by invitation, not by their usual intrusive reflexes.
    I predict that the first Washington pol who tries to influence this college FB process will be shouted down by his peers and the public.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    April 10, 2003
    Posts
    6,618
    well, that has already occurred (Hatch from Utah).

    Quote Originally Posted by 33laszlo99 View Post
    MLB was all but powerless in the fight against player drug abuse. The Players' Union was not cooperating and they had no subpoena power or other mechanism to investigate players. They pleaded with Congress to intervene on the basis that baseball is an American institution so essential that it must not be sullied and perhaps detstroyed by drug abuse. The Congress entered that mess by invitation, not by their usual intrusive reflexes.
    I predict that the first Washington pol who tries to influence this college FB process will be shouted down by his peers and the public.

Posting Permissions

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