SEC Ponders Potential Big Five Move

[MoValley John]

The NCAA is a defacto monopoly. The only reason they're allowed to function is because they don't abuse it. Anyone that wants to join D1 can join. If they decide to arbitrarily treat some schools differently from others without giving the have nots the option to realign with the haves, then the antitrust lawsuits will bring the NCAA to it's knees.

IDK... Why can't we get an NFL team in Omaha or Wichita? The NFL is a defacto monopoly and surely an antitrust suit would get us teams if it were that simple. Baseball has an antitrust exemption, but not football. Organizations like the NCAA are given a wide berth to act without fear of antitrust suits. I know the NFL is an entirely different animal, but still, if these issues can be fought on antitrust grounds at the NCAA level, why not the NFL, NHL, NBA, Boy Scouts and more? Why can't I put together a group of boys and join my local little league and force them to play my guys? The fact of the matter is this, the NCAA can make their rules, they can make rules that limit participation in a subdivision to the current Big 5 and no more. All members, including the little guys do get a vote on the matter. If the little guys don't vote the way the big boys want, nothing can keep the big boys from picking up their ball and going home. This is the threat. The threat is real. Antitrust suits will never rule that the current big 5 have to let Western Illinois be a part of their "private organization."

This issue is deep, my friends, not as deep as DOFO's goldfish pond, but deep.

[MoValley John]

I just read up a bunch on Title IX, I still don't understand it all, but I'm not so sure that Title IX would force schools to pay female athletes. As I read, Title IX is all about equal access to education, educational activities and athletics in education. While there must be equal access to sports, nothing has anything to do with spending on sports or even compensation of coaches, or dare I say athletes. The only caveat is this, you must fund women's sports in a manner that they can compete ad is fair. You don't have to spend anything equitable, but you cannot annually buy new uniforms for your men's basketball team while your women wear the same stuff year in and year out. You cannot build weight training facilities for men, while ignoring the weight training needs of your women. The equipment doesn't need to be the same, cost as much, have as much, or even be of the same quality, but it must allow for women to compete.

As it stands now, Title IX would not be a barrier. Feminists could quickly change that, however.

[Dan]

but what happens when a handful of women's programs, say UConn bball, start paying their players? how does this trickle down to other female programs both inside the same university or competing instutions?

[Shocker1976]

Talk continues regarding expansion of B1G and PAC 12 which would cherry pick Big XII teams including UT, OU, KU, and a few others leaving KSU, ISU, TCU, Baylor and possibly OSU on the outside.
Shox gotta continue to invest in Basketball.
Go Shox!

IMO if members of the Big 12 are "cherry picked" by other BCS conferences, the picking will be done tied to the Big 12 member football team's contribution to the "picking conference" football TV contracts. Given the lack of a quality football program, KU is very unlikely to be "picked". Under such a scenario the KU basketball team will be in a tough spot.

If this happens, I will watch with interest to see what path KU basketball pursues should the Big12 becomes just another irrelevant football conference.

[MoValley John]

but what happens when a handful of women's programs, say UConn bball, start paying their players? how does this trickle down to other female programs both inside the same university or competing instutions?

Because I'm sure there will be legislation in place defining which sports are eligible for compensation and which sports are not. This will be approved by their little organization and just because your school is one of four or five that has made money on women's basketball doesn't mean you can unilaterally pay those athletes. If Wichita State were a part of this, they wouldn't be allowed to pay their baseball players, Nebraska wouldn't be allowed to pay their women's volleyball players and UNO couldn't pay their hockey team. At the end of the day, I really think the only athletes the big boys really even want to pay are football players. Men's basketball would be secondary, but I'm not sure if they are even interested in going that far. Even as much money as some of these schools generate, it would evaporate extremely fast if you paid much more than the football team. AT 85 athletes paid $15,000/ yr. you just spent $1,275,000. That doesn't count the additional costs associated with payroll, social security withholding, Obamacare tax, Medicare/ madicaid, etc. etc. The Duke lacrosse team gets NOTHING!

[im4wsu]

I agree, which is why I believe they are going to have to completely remove themselves from the NCAA. The mess this is turning into is going to make tension in the middle east look quaint, in my opinion.

Title IX is not the NCAA, it is federal law.
Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. sections 1681 through ..

[Kung Wu]

IMO if members of the Big 12 are "cherry picked" by other BCS conferences, the picking will be done tied to the Big 12 member football team's contribution to the "picking conference" football TV contracts. Given the lack of a quality football program, KU is very unlikely to be "picked". Under such a scenario the KU basketball team will be in a tough spot.

If this happens, I will watch with interest to see what path KU basketball pursues should the Big12 becomes just another irrelevant football conference.

I think how much a program _spends_ on football is going to trump how well they have been doing. Really, it's all about the willingness to contribute resources to the program. Because even if a program sucks now, if they are spending large sums on the program then it's well understood that they will keep replacing coaches until they find the right guy.

[SB Shock]

As it stands now, Title IX would not be a barrier. Feminists could quickly change that, however.

Here is a link to ESPN story that had an opposite opinion. I'm not versed on case law to know if the arguments made in the ESPN story are correct or not - but I think if the big 5 go nuclear, I would try and prod other organizations that have the means to challenge it to do so. Maybe some of lawyers could weight in.

"Title IX guarantees gender equality in athletic opportunities. The courts have now developed, through years of case law, what that entails. It is very well established case law where the courts have said the opportunities have to be equal in all respects. It includes the accommodations and conditions around those opportunities.

In other words, Gambardella thinks that there is likely no viable end-around Title IX to allow schools to pay only those athletes who are in profitable sports, which generally are football and men's basketball. In fact, the idea of excluding revenue-producing sports from Title IX compliance goes back all the way to soon after the legislation was signed in June 1972. Those attempts, such as 1974's Tower Amendment, have failed.
"What the court would say is, it's not an equally meaningful opportunity if the experience is richer, for lack of a better word, in some sports," said Gambardella, of the firm Wiggin and Dana. "Whether or not Title IX was meant to be that pervasive in the analysis, I can't say. What I can tell you with certainty is it's been applied in that manner."
"

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6769337/title-ix-seen-substantial-roadblock-pay-play-college-athletics

[shock]

The NCAA just needs to tell the SEC to STFU and take a hike if they don't like it.

[Ricardo del Rio]

Camel's nose under the tent.

After the P5 has football control, how many believe there will not be further efforts to control other sports.

"Not I, said the little red hen."

[1972Shocker]

Here is a link to ESPN story that had an opposite opinion. I'm not versed on case law to know if the arguments made in the ESPN story are correct or not - but I think if the big 5 go nuclear, I would try and prod other organizations that have the means to challenge it to do so. Maybe some of lawyers could weight in.



http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...lege-athletics

What if I distributed on a sport-by-sport basis 5% of the revenue that sport generates. The football players would divide up 5% of football revenues. the women's tennis players would divide 5% of revenues that sport generates. Is that equal treatment?

[Veritas]

There is NO scenario that includes KU and excludes OSU. That's your KU homer side wishing. OSU is in about a billion times better situation than KU.

Or it could be your EMOTIONAL reasoning getting in the way of RATIONAL thought. Endeavor to use your own thought rather than the regular Group Think process you usually follow.

KU's Advantages
--KU is the flagship school of the state. OU is the flagship school of Oklahoma. OSU is not.
--KU's endowment is $1.56 Billion. OSU is $817 Million
-- KU's enrollment is 27k. OSU is 23k
--Kansas population is 2.8m. Oklahoma is 3.8m (Taking BOTH OU and OSU would split the state's viewship = 1.9m per). Texas population is 28m
--Kansas is a national brand in basketball. OSU is a regional brand in all sports except perhaps wrestling and golf
--Kansas fits better into a geographic footprint with the B1G in contrast to OSU with B1G though OU is a strong enough national brand for the PAC 12 (OSU is not)
--KU owns the region's largest city = Kansas City and viewership would spill over into missourah. OSU might own Tulsa but certainly not OKC. OSU viewership might spill out of Payne county and be spotty throughout the state of Oklahoma

OSU advantages
T. Boone Pickens
Better regionally recognized football program than KU
KU football has pretty much sucked since Gayle Sayers but even KSU has a better recognized football program than OSU.

Political Clout
--Texas has long coat tails in contrast to OU and will probably take along with them to the PAC 12: Tech and possibly Baylor (3 total)
--KU seems to have shaken KSU from their coat tails

It is my opinion when you view the facts and include the subjective POTENTIAL of KU vs OSU, it seems pretty clear that your opinion is tainted by your hate of KU rather than based on anything with value.

Of course the real challenges for all Big XII schools might be the GoR (Big XII Grant of Rights) which might make all the speculating a moot point.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZz0PcUzJpdV9YaVZHaFE/edit?pli=1

You are much better in reporting a misleading basketball schedule and your supposed "inside knowledge" that really equates to rumors, inneuendo and half truths. Stick to what you're good at which is being a sheep pretending to be a wolf.

[SB Shock]

What if I distributed on a sport-by-sport basis 5% of the revenue that sport generates. The football players would divide up 5% of football revenues. the women's tennis players would divide 5% of revenues that sport generates. Is that equal treatment?

If the revenue were equal they then it would be, but they are not so it wouldn't be equal. Again from the ESPN story, they have tried to make distinction between revenue and non-revenue sport and evidently have failed in court.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Or it could be your EMOTIONAL reasoning getting in the way of RATIONAL thought. Endeavor to use your own thought rather than the regular Group Think process you usually follow.

...

You are much better in reporting a misleading basketball schedule and your supposed "inside knowledge" that really equates to rumors, inneuendo and half truths. Stick to what you're good at which is being a sheep pretending to be a wolf.

Veritas, are you trying to become the strawman that some have tried to create when describing me? Trust me, you don't want to be that guy.

Slow down and allow yourself to admit that this isn't an issue with the clear cut answer that you make it out to be.

That last post felt like a cross between my evil twin and Fever. Not a good combo!

[MoValley John]

Texas is big and powerful, but...... They lost their coattails. The PAC will take them but Texas has lost the ability to dictate anything, much less what any other schools they get to bring. The earlier Big 12 mess exposed them. The Longhorn Network mess further took away any power another conference would cede to Texas. Conferences are skittish about Texas and there is no trust. Sure, the PAC will take Texas, but they get no more consideration on issues, and probably a lot less than Washington State. No way does the PAC take Texas Tech for any reason, much less to appease Texas.