[BostonCard]

I’m with both of you. It’s like telling someone at an all-you-can-eat buffet to maybe not go for another serving.  Self-Restraint would be great but not likely.

BC

[BostonCard]

I’m with both of you. It’s like telling someone at an all-you-can-eat buffet to maybe not go for another serving.  Self-Restraint would be great but not likely.

BC

[TreesAndBirds]

Fwiw....

“With Texas and Oklahoma off to the SEC, there is speculation that the rest of the Big 12 could separate and join other conferences as well. However, don’t expect the Pac-12 to do a lot of poaching. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is not interested in recruiting any of the leftover teams in the Big 12, according to ESPN senior writer Heather Dinich. The Pac-12 takes a lot of pride in the academic reputation of its institutions, so the league will not just accept any Big 12 team that wants to jump ship at this point.”


https://247sports.com/Article/College-fo...168218439/

[TreesAndBirds]

Fwiw....

“With Texas and Oklahoma off to the SEC, there is speculation that the rest of the Big 12 could separate and join other conferences as well. However, don’t expect the Pac-12 to do a lot of poaching. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is not interested in recruiting any of the leftover teams in the Big 12, according to ESPN senior writer Heather Dinich. The Pac-12 takes a lot of pride in the academic reputation of its institutions, so the league will not just accept any Big 12 team that wants to jump ship at this point.”


https://247sports.com/Article/College-fo...168218439/

[Giants]

Fort Ord was loaded during the Korean War. My college coach played two years at St. Mary's, two at Ord and then four at SFSU. The NCAA didn't do much tracking on the Small College level. Back in that day Alameda NAS, Moffitt Field, Hamilton AFB and other California bases had teams.

Phogge…

Don’t forget about the Alameda Coast Guard.  They beat Cal twice in a row (1943 and 1944).

[Giants]

Fort Ord was loaded during the Korean War. My college coach played two years at St. Mary's, two at Ord and then four at SFSU. The NCAA didn't do much tracking on the Small College level. Back in that day Alameda NAS, Moffitt Field, Hamilton AFB and other California bases had teams.

Phogge…

Don’t forget about the Alameda Coast Guard.  They beat Cal twice in a row (1943 and 1944).

[Softball Fan]

Fwiw....

“With Texas and Oklahoma off to the SEC, there is speculation that the rest of the Big 12 could separate and join other conferences as well. However, don’t expect the Pac-12 to do a lot of poaching. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is not interested in recruiting any of the leftover teams in the Big 12, according to ESPN senior writer Heather Dinich. The Pac-12 takes a lot of pride in the academic reputation of its institutions, so the league will not just accept any Big 12 team that wants to jump ship at this point.”


https://247sports.com/Article/College-fo...168218439/

I agree with this policy.  However the admit rate for Arizona, ASU, and Oregon State is above 80%.   Without looking it up I would bet the admit rate of Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU is less than that. Of course there is a lot more that goes into it. I'd have to look up those three Big-12 schools to see if they are considered research institutions with post-grad programs and other criteria.

[Softball Fan]

Fwiw....

“With Texas and Oklahoma off to the SEC, there is speculation that the rest of the Big 12 could separate and join other conferences as well. However, don’t expect the Pac-12 to do a lot of poaching. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is not interested in recruiting any of the leftover teams in the Big 12, according to ESPN senior writer Heather Dinich. The Pac-12 takes a lot of pride in the academic reputation of its institutions, so the league will not just accept any Big 12 team that wants to jump ship at this point.”


https://247sports.com/Article/College-fo...168218439/

I agree with this policy.  However the admit rate for Arizona, ASU, and Oregon State is above 80%.   Without looking it up I would bet the admit rate of Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU is less than that. Of course there is a lot more that goes into it. I'd have to look up those three Big-12 schools to see if they are considered research institutions with post-grad programs and other criteria.

[GK3]

SD State, Sac State, Cal, Stanford, Reno, UNLV, Davis, NAU, Cal Poly, BYU. Play nine conference games, one travel beat down for mucho cash and two D2 schools. Perfect for schools that can’t or won’t get involved with the Bryce Young Era. Do a couple minor bowl tie-ins. Reduce ticket prices. Perhaps a package deal with a streaming service. No more 8pm kickoffs.

For Stanford a lot is going to depend on how the University Administration decides to deal with this whole issue.  Hard to be half in or half out.

[GK3]

SD State, Sac State, Cal, Stanford, Reno, UNLV, Davis, NAU, Cal Poly, BYU. Play nine conference games, one travel beat down for mucho cash and two D2 schools. Perfect for schools that can’t or won’t get involved with the Bryce Young Era. Do a couple minor bowl tie-ins. Reduce ticket prices. Perhaps a package deal with a streaming service. No more 8pm kickoffs.

For Stanford a lot is going to depend on how the University Administration decides to deal with this whole issue.  Hard to be half in or half out.

[norcard]

Fwiw....

“With Texas and Oklahoma off to the SEC, there is speculation that the rest of the Big 12 could separate and join other conferences as well. However, don’t expect the Pac-12 to do a lot of poaching. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is not interested in recruiting any of the leftover teams in the Big 12, according to ESPN senior writer Heather Dinich. The Pac-12 takes a lot of pride in the academic reputation of its institutions, so the league will not just accept any Big 12 team that wants to jump ship at this point.”


https://247sports.com/Article/College-fo...168218439/

I agree with this policy.  However the admit rate for Arizona, ASU, and Oregon State is above 80%.   Without looking it up I would bet the admit rate of Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU is less than that.  Of course there is a lot more that goes into it.  I'd have to look up those three Big-12 schools to see if they are considered research institutions with post-grad programs and other criteria.

Don't forget WSU and Oregon too.

[norcard]

Fwiw....

“With Texas and Oklahoma off to the SEC, there is speculation that the rest of the Big 12 could separate and join other conferences as well. However, don’t expect the Pac-12 to do a lot of poaching. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is not interested in recruiting any of the leftover teams in the Big 12, according to ESPN senior writer Heather Dinich. The Pac-12 takes a lot of pride in the academic reputation of its institutions, so the league will not just accept any Big 12 team that wants to jump ship at this point.”


https://247sports.com/Article/College-fo...168218439/

I agree with this policy.  However the admit rate for Arizona, ASU, and Oregon State is above 80%.   Without looking it up I would bet the admit rate of Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU is less than that.  Of course there is a lot more that goes into it.  I'd have to look up those three Big-12 schools to see if they are considered research institutions with post-grad programs and other criteria.

Don't forget WSU and Oregon too.

[oman]

Stanford is a consistent power in baseball and an inconsistent one in football and basketball. 

I don't care what their opponents' admit rates are. 

I do really enjoy when they play good teams.

[oman]

Stanford is a consistent power in baseball and an inconsistent one in football and basketball. 

I don't care what their opponents' admit rates are. 

I do really enjoy when they play good teams.

[BostonCard]

Stanford is a consistent power in baseball and an inconsistent one in football and basketball. 

I don't care what their opponents' admit rates are. 

I do really enjoy when they play good teams.

Only men’s basketball.  The defending National champions are a pretty consistent power in women’s basketball.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford is a consistent power in baseball and an inconsistent one in football and basketball. 

I don't care what their opponents' admit rates are. 

I do really enjoy when they play good teams.

Only men’s basketball.  The defending National champions are a pretty consistent power in women’s basketball.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

This sounds like heresy, but it's possible the Pac-12 could stay at 12, and play a round-robin schedule with just one OOC game annually. 

I don't think there is any reason for 3 OOC games, and having 11 conference games will increase interest in the league among its fans, IMO. The question is how much interest will this league have for media rights holders?

The Pac-12 is in a HORRIBLE strategic position.  The Big Ten Network is on every basic TV package which gets it staggering revenue. And the SEC is going to get dominating Mouse Network coverage even more than it does now. The Pac-12 will get scraps.

There are so many ways for the "Fall of the NCAA" to unfold, it's like trying to build sand castles with totally dry sand. There is nothing to bind anything together right now, so it's impossible for anything to hold form, let alone have a solid foundation to build anything on.

[OutsiderFan]

This sounds like heresy, but it's possible the Pac-12 could stay at 12, and play a round-robin schedule with just one OOC game annually. 

I don't think there is any reason for 3 OOC games, and having 11 conference games will increase interest in the league among its fans, IMO. The question is how much interest will this league have for media rights holders?

The Pac-12 is in a HORRIBLE strategic position.  The Big Ten Network is on every basic TV package which gets it staggering revenue. And the SEC is going to get dominating Mouse Network coverage even more than it does now. The Pac-12 will get scraps.

There are so many ways for the "Fall of the NCAA" to unfold, it's like trying to build sand castles with totally dry sand. There is nothing to bind anything together right now, so it's impossible for anything to hold form, let alone have a solid foundation to build anything on.

[Goose]

There are so many ways for the "Fall of the NCAA" to unfold, it's like trying to build sand castles with totally dry sand. There is nothing to bind anything together right now, so it's impossible for anything to hold form, let alone have a solid foundation to build anything on.

Very true, IMHO. One should also keep in mind that conferences are also "at risk" as to how they do business. The conferences currently rely on NCAA regulation and enforcement to control the effects of inherent differences in the strength (financial and otherwise) of their members. WSU for example is not nearly as "strong" as e.g. U$C in many ways, but NCAA regulations limit the effects of those disparities. Those limits are now probably gone.

The conferences may currently be fixated on rearranging their membership, but if they (and their members) were smart, they would be trying to design a legal framework where college athletics could exist with an adequate enforcement mechanisms, preserve at least a somewhat level playing field, preserve amateurism and the student-athlete, and effectively respect the fact that athletics is not and should not be the primary focus of the conference members. This agenda will require Congressional legislation. It will also be contentious among different views of what is appropriate to college athletics.

I do believe it can be done, because the ad-hoc system that has evolved over the years has basically done this. The current system has recently (last 15 years or so) devolved under financial incentives from sports marketing, media marketing, and (to a degree) large donor influence. There is lots of financial pressure to maximize revenue from the appropriately named "revenue sports". The legislation for the design of the new framework needs to allow the regulatory body(s) to cap the destabilizing effects of this rush for profit. Without that, the professionalization of college sports (and all the abuses that accompany that) is inevitable. If the PAC-12 simply attempts to position itself in the unpredictable wake of the current legal mess confronting the NCAA, it too will fail to address the real structural issues and will not help shape the future. The conference will be one of the anvils, not the hammer.

[Goose]

There are so many ways for the "Fall of the NCAA" to unfold, it's like trying to build sand castles with totally dry sand. There is nothing to bind anything together right now, so it's impossible for anything to hold form, let alone have a solid foundation to build anything on.

Very true, IMHO. One should also keep in mind that conferences are also "at risk" as to how they do business. The conferences currently rely on NCAA regulation and enforcement to control the effects of inherent differences in the strength (financial and otherwise) of their members. WSU for example is not nearly as "strong" as e.g. U$C in many ways, but NCAA regulations limit the effects of those disparities. Those limits are now probably gone.

The conferences may currently be fixated on rearranging their membership, but if they (and their members) were smart, they would be trying to design a legal framework where college athletics could exist with an adequate enforcement mechanisms, preserve at least a somewhat level playing field, preserve amateurism and the student-athlete, and effectively respect the fact that athletics is not and should not be the primary focus of the conference members. This agenda will require Congressional legislation. It will also be contentious among different views of what is appropriate to college athletics.

I do believe it can be done, because the ad-hoc system that has evolved over the years has basically done this. The current system has recently (last 15 years or so) devolved under financial incentives from sports marketing, media marketing, and (to a degree) large donor influence. There is lots of financial pressure to maximize revenue from the appropriately named "revenue sports". The legislation for the design of the new framework needs to allow the regulatory body(s) to cap the destabilizing effects of this rush for profit. Without that, the professionalization of college sports (and all the abuses that accompany that) is inevitable. If the PAC-12 simply attempts to position itself in the unpredictable wake of the current legal mess confronting the NCAA, it too will fail to address the real structural issues and will not help shape the future. The conference will be one of the anvils, not the hammer.

[81alum]

I agree with the water-less sand castle analogy, and since the future is so uncertain it allows boards like this to run rampant with speculation.  But that is what we do!

I have been a fan of Division III sports, in which my daughter was an All American, since they are mostly directed for the benefit of student athletes themselves and have much less to do with fans, television, and the ubiquitous corrupting effects of big money.  I also think they are lower-key and less stressful for the participants and interfere less with their educational experience. 

But realistically would my enthusiasm for attending Stanford sports wane if it became a Div III school, like (for example) the University of Chicago--once a football powerhouse?  Probably it would.  Much of my fascination with Stanford athletics is not just its impressive athletic achievements, but the fact that it has been able to compete successfully with more corrupt programs and programs with lower academic standards.  Sort of like the underdog factor. 

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer.  College sports has been managed badly and may be in the process of destroying itself in any recognizable form, and that is not on Stanford.

[81alum]

I agree with the water-less sand castle analogy, and since the future is so uncertain it allows boards like this to run rampant with speculation.  But that is what we do!

I have been a fan of Division III sports, in which my daughter was an All American, since they are mostly directed for the benefit of student athletes themselves and have much less to do with fans, television, and the ubiquitous corrupting effects of big money.  I also think they are lower-key and less stressful for the participants and interfere less with their educational experience. 

But realistically would my enthusiasm for attending Stanford sports wane if it became a Div III school, like (for example) the University of Chicago--once a football powerhouse?  Probably it would.  Much of my fascination with Stanford athletics is not just its impressive athletic achievements, but the fact that it has been able to compete successfully with more corrupt programs and programs with lower academic standards.  Sort of like the underdog factor. 

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer.  College sports has been managed badly and may be in the process of destroying itself in any recognizable form, and that is not on Stanford.

[Goose]

I agree with the water-less sand castle analogy, and since the future is so uncertain it allows boards like this to run rampant with speculation.  But that is what we do!

I have been a fan of Division III sports, in which my daughter was an All American, since they are mostly directed for the benefit of student athletes themselves and have much less to do with fans, television, and the ubiquitous corrupting effects of big money.  I also think they are lower-key and less stressful for the participants and interfere less with their educational experience. 

But realistically would my enthusiasm for attending Stanford sports wane if it became a Div III school, like (for example) the University of Chicago--once a football powerhouse?  Probably it would.  Much of my fascination with Stanford athletics is not just its impressive athletic achievements, but the fact that it has been able to compete successfully with more corrupt programs and programs with lower academic standards.  Sort of like the underdog factor. 

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer.  College sports has been managed badly and may be in the process of destroying itself in any recognizable form, and that is not on Stanford.

+1. I do hope that Div 1 college sports can continue to exist and be somewhat shielded by regulation from the money pressures. However, if that doesn't happen, Stanford needs to do the "right thing", even if that means losing lots of what we hope for about Stanford athletics.

[Goose]

I agree with the water-less sand castle analogy, and since the future is so uncertain it allows boards like this to run rampant with speculation.  But that is what we do!

I have been a fan of Division III sports, in which my daughter was an All American, since they are mostly directed for the benefit of student athletes themselves and have much less to do with fans, television, and the ubiquitous corrupting effects of big money.  I also think they are lower-key and less stressful for the participants and interfere less with their educational experience. 

But realistically would my enthusiasm for attending Stanford sports wane if it became a Div III school, like (for example) the University of Chicago--once a football powerhouse?  Probably it would.  Much of my fascination with Stanford athletics is not just its impressive athletic achievements, but the fact that it has been able to compete successfully with more corrupt programs and programs with lower academic standards.  Sort of like the underdog factor. 

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer.  College sports has been managed badly and may be in the process of destroying itself in any recognizable form, and that is not on Stanford.

+1. I do hope that Div 1 college sports can continue to exist and be somewhat shielded by regulation from the money pressures. However, if that doesn't happen, Stanford needs to do the "right thing", even if that means losing lots of what we hope for about Stanford athletics.

[oman]

Stanford is a consistent power in baseball and an inconsistent one in football and basketball. 

I don't care what their opponents' admit rates are. 

I do really enjoy when they play good teams.

Only men’s basketball.  The defending National champions are a pretty consistent power in women’s basketball.

BC

Okay, cool.

---

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer. 

What does this even mean?  It seems to me you either drop the big revenue sports and get out of the game or you decide to be marginally intelligent to stay in the game. Treading water seems the worst of the alternatives.

[oman]

Stanford is a consistent power in baseball and an inconsistent one in football and basketball. 

I don't care what their opponents' admit rates are. 

I do really enjoy when they play good teams.

Only men’s basketball.  The defending National champions are a pretty consistent power in women’s basketball.

BC

Okay, cool.

---

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer. 

What does this even mean?  It seems to me you either drop the big revenue sports and get out of the game or you decide to be marginally intelligent to stay in the game. Treading water seems the worst of the alternatives.

[81alum]

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer. 

What does this even mean?  It seems to me you either drop the big revenue sports and get out of the game or you decide to be marginally intelligent to stay in the game. Treading water seems the worst of the alternatives.

What it means is that I hope that Div I college sports do not become so corrupted by recent trends and changes that a school with Stanford's ethics and academic standards will be forced to withdraw to something like Division III, but that we should be prepared to do so if we must.

[81alum]

I do hope that Stanford figures out a way to be competitive at the highest level without selling its soul even more than has been required.  But if the Devil does come calling, we should be prepared to turn down his offer. 

What does this even mean?  It seems to me you either drop the big revenue sports and get out of the game or you decide to be marginally intelligent to stay in the game. Treading water seems the worst of the alternatives.

What it means is that I hope that Div I college sports do not become so corrupted by recent trends and changes that a school with Stanford's ethics and academic standards will be forced to withdraw to something like Division III, but that we should be prepared to do so if we must.

[Goose]

What it means is that I hope that Div I college sports do not become so corrupted by recent trends and changes that a school with Stanford's ethics and academic standards will be forced to withdraw to something like Division III, but that we should be prepared to do so if we must.

Me too. However, I also believe that if the stakeholders don't go all in on getting a legislative solution to enforcement of amateurism and some control of the financial "arms race", the total corruption is inevitable.

While many believe, particularly the players, that the NFL salary cap is just in place to keep player salaries down, the two most important purposes are 1) to mitigate the advantages really rich owners have over owners that are just rich (and Green Bay), and 2) to keep the owners from destroying the league by reckless spending on players that they can't afford. If the NFL, which is a "for profit" league run by financial experts, needs an external enforcement to prevent financial suicide, college sports, who are ostensibly not for profit and run by ADs who are not financial experts, need it even more.

[Goose]

What it means is that I hope that Div I college sports do not become so corrupted by recent trends and changes that a school with Stanford's ethics and academic standards will be forced to withdraw to something like Division III, but that we should be prepared to do so if we must.

Me too. However, I also believe that if the stakeholders don't go all in on getting a legislative solution to enforcement of amateurism and some control of the financial "arms race", the total corruption is inevitable.

While many believe, particularly the players, that the NFL salary cap is just in place to keep player salaries down, the two most important purposes are 1) to mitigate the advantages really rich owners have over owners that are just rich (and Green Bay), and 2) to keep the owners from destroying the league by reckless spending on players that they can't afford. If the NFL, which is a "for profit" league run by financial experts, needs an external enforcement to prevent financial suicide, college sports, who are ostensibly not for profit and run by ADs who are not financial experts, need it even more.

[BostonCard]

European football leagues don’t have salary caps and they haven’t yet destroyed the leagues (though some teams are in deep financial trouble).  The only rule is that teams are not supposed to subsidize their salaries, for example on the backs of Arab oil money.

BC

[BostonCard]

European football leagues don’t have salary caps and they haven’t yet destroyed the leagues (though some teams are in deep financial trouble).  The only rule is that teams are not supposed to subsidize their salaries, for example on the backs of Arab oil money.

BC

[teejers1]

The conferences may currently be fixated on rearranging their membership, but if they (and their members) were smart, they would be trying to design a legal framework where college athletics could exist with an adequate enforcement mechanisms, preserve at least a somewhat level playing field, preserve amateurism and the student-athlete, and effectively respect the fact that athletics is not and should not be the primary focus of the conference members. This agenda will require Congressional legislation. It will also be contentious among different views of what is appropriate to college athletics.

I do believe it can be done . . .

1.  I agree it will take congressional action to regulate this mess;

2.  I completely disagree that "it can be done" before the downfall of college sports as we know it is a fait accompli.  I mean, think about it.  The interests in favor of the upcoming new model - the SEC, primarily - will have their delegates opposed to regulation for obviou$ reasons.  Then add the larger group who believe the current system exploits the competitors - and in the major sports, a large % of those "exploited" are AAs - and there is no way the requisite legislation gets enacted.

Indeed, I think the only way congress is galvanized to act is because they will look at what's left of college scholarship athletics down the road and realize that there are fewer hundreds - if not thousands - of kids getting the opportunity to attend college (including a large % of AA kids).  But bu then, there will have been a lot of damage done.  A lot.

Hope I'm wrong.

[teejers1]

The conferences may currently be fixated on rearranging their membership, but if they (and their members) were smart, they would be trying to design a legal framework where college athletics could exist with an adequate enforcement mechanisms, preserve at least a somewhat level playing field, preserve amateurism and the student-athlete, and effectively respect the fact that athletics is not and should not be the primary focus of the conference members. This agenda will require Congressional legislation. It will also be contentious among different views of what is appropriate to college athletics.

I do believe it can be done . . .

1.  I agree it will take congressional action to regulate this mess;

2.  I completely disagree that "it can be done" before the downfall of college sports as we know it is a fait accompli.  I mean, think about it.  The interests in favor of the upcoming new model - the SEC, primarily - will have their delegates opposed to regulation for obviou$ reasons.  Then add the larger group who believe the current system exploits the competitors - and in the major sports, a large % of those "exploited" are AAs - and there is no way the requisite legislation gets enacted.

Indeed, I think the only way congress is galvanized to act is because they will look at what's left of college scholarship athletics down the road and realize that there are fewer hundreds - if not thousands - of kids getting the opportunity to attend college (including a large % of AA kids).  But bu then, there will have been a lot of damage done.  A lot.

Hope I'm wrong.

[Goose]

The conferences may currently be fixated on rearranging their membership, but if they (and their members) were smart, they would be trying to design a legal framework where college athletics could exist with an adequate enforcement mechanisms, preserve at least a somewhat level playing field, preserve amateurism and the student-athlete, and effectively respect the fact that athletics is not and should not be the primary focus of the conference members. This agenda will require Congressional legislation. It will also be contentious among different views of what is appropriate to college athletics.

I do believe it can be done . . .

1.  I agree it will take congressional action to regulate this mess;

2.  I completely disagree that "it can be done" before the downfall of college sports as we know it is a fait accompli.  I mean, think about it.  The interests in favor of the upcoming new model - the SEC, primarily - will have their delegates opposed to regulation for obviou$ reasons.  Then add the larger group who believe the current system exploits the competitors - and in the major sports, a large % of those "exploited" are AAs - and there is no way the requisite legislation gets enacted.

Indeed, I think the only way congress is galvanized to act is because they will look at what's left of college scholarship athletics down the road and realize that there are fewer hundreds - if not thousands - of kids getting the opportunity to attend college (including a large % of AA kids).  But bu then, there will have been a lot of damage done.  A lot.

Hope I'm wrong.

Actually, I think we 100% agree. I think it can be done and that if the B1G, PAC-12, and ACC schools got together and designed something it is possible they could get Congress to do it. Even in the SEC, they at least pretend to support the amateur model. They could quibble about details, but publicly at least they would have to support it "in principle". However, I do agree with you that probably it won't be done both for the reasons you cite and additionally because there is no leadership in the conferences to do it. Everybody is just hoping it can be "managed" and that the effects won't be too bad. They won't even make a plan until they see actual serious damage. The problem with this approach is that by that point the public may be so turned off by college athletics that there is basically no road back.
It isn't a given force of nature that college sports exist and are popular. Once they are reduced to a shadow of themselves and nobody cares, rebuilding them may be neither possible or desired by the college administrators.

[Goose]

The conferences may currently be fixated on rearranging their membership, but if they (and their members) were smart, they would be trying to design a legal framework where college athletics could exist with an adequate enforcement mechanisms, preserve at least a somewhat level playing field, preserve amateurism and the student-athlete, and effectively respect the fact that athletics is not and should not be the primary focus of the conference members. This agenda will require Congressional legislation. It will also be contentious among different views of what is appropriate to college athletics.

I do believe it can be done . . .

1.  I agree it will take congressional action to regulate this mess;

2.  I completely disagree that "it can be done" before the downfall of college sports as we know it is a fait accompli.  I mean, think about it.  The interests in favor of the upcoming new model - the SEC, primarily - will have their delegates opposed to regulation for obviou$ reasons.  Then add the larger group who believe the current system exploits the competitors - and in the major sports, a large % of those "exploited" are AAs - and there is no way the requisite legislation gets enacted.

Indeed, I think the only way congress is galvanized to act is because they will look at what's left of college scholarship athletics down the road and realize that there are fewer hundreds - if not thousands - of kids getting the opportunity to attend college (including a large % of AA kids).  But bu then, there will have been a lot of damage done.  A lot.

Hope I'm wrong.

Actually, I think we 100% agree. I think it can be done and that if the B1G, PAC-12, and ACC schools got together and designed something it is possible they could get Congress to do it. Even in the SEC, they at least pretend to support the amateur model. They could quibble about details, but publicly at least they would have to support it "in principle". However, I do agree with you that probably it won't be done both for the reasons you cite and additionally because there is no leadership in the conferences to do it. Everybody is just hoping it can be "managed" and that the effects won't be too bad. They won't even make a plan until they see actual serious damage. The problem with this approach is that by that point the public may be so turned off by college athletics that there is basically no road back.
It isn't a given force of nature that college sports exist and are popular. Once they are reduced to a shadow of themselves and nobody cares, rebuilding them may be neither possible or desired by the college administrators.

[Goose]

European football leagues don’t have salary caps and they haven’t yet destroyed the leagues (though some teams are in deep financial trouble).  The only rule is that teams are not supposed to subsidize their salaries, for example on the backs of Arab oil money.

BC

You are literally correct. The only rule is that teams are not supposed to subsidize their salaries with outside money. Since that is the only rule, all kinds of side agreements and collusion among subsets of the owners is commonplace. When some of these deals become public, there is outrage among the fans but nobody goes to jail because it isn't illegal. Also, competition from a startup league in the same country just isn't happening. Nobody is worried about it being a monopoly.

[Goose]

European football leagues don’t have salary caps and they haven’t yet destroyed the leagues (though some teams are in deep financial trouble).  The only rule is that teams are not supposed to subsidize their salaries, for example on the backs of Arab oil money.

BC

You are literally correct. The only rule is that teams are not supposed to subsidize their salaries with outside money. Since that is the only rule, all kinds of side agreements and collusion among subsets of the owners is commonplace. When some of these deals become public, there is outrage among the fans but nobody goes to jail because it isn't illegal. Also, competition from a startup league in the same country just isn't happening. Nobody is worried about it being a monopoly.

[BostonCard]

The promotion and relegation rules mean that leagues are not static, and, in theory, it is possible for a plucky upstart to get to and succeed at the highest levels (in practice, of course, it is much harder).  But it is much harder to allege that the leagues use their monopoly power to exclude teams from outside the league.

BC

[BostonCard]

The promotion and relegation rules mean that leagues are not static, and, in theory, it is possible for a plucky upstart to get to and succeed at the highest levels (in practice, of course, it is much harder).  But it is much harder to allege that the leagues use their monopoly power to exclude teams from outside the league.

BC