Not a fan. But that's me.
Remember, I'm the guy who wanted more B1G games, not less.
Football REPORT: Big Ten could eliminate divisions
- Thread starter rutgersguy1
- Start date
Remember, I'm the guy who wanted more B1G games, not less.
For the SEC fans, more SEC games is better. Same for BIG ten fans. But you can’t grow the pie or market share beyond your base with more conference games.
It will probably be Rutgers Maryland and MSU. The big keeps forcing the stupid MSU “rivalry” but no one really cares.
The decision exempting baseball is pretty much acknowledged to be wrong. The Supreme Court has refused to overrule it on the grounds that it's up to Congress to fix the problem. That decision is also regarded by almost everyone as wrong.
Finding competitive balance and keeping rivals is a tall order. Yes, I'd like to see MD and PSU every year. If you asked PSU, I think they might decline an annual game with us out of spite. They probably consider OSU a more natural rival. OSU and Michigan is going to happen every year, and I am not sure that OSU will want both Michigan and PSU annually. This gets messy real quick.
Is PSU recruiting Maryland and DC and Ohio more than they are recruiting NJ now?
Teams most likely want games in the States they recruit hardest
Since I think RU should recruit Chicago and it’s suburbs hard I would not mind Northwestern. Also Maryland. I would have to think who the third would be.
Teams most likely want games in the States they recruit hardest
Since I think RU should recruit Chicago and it’s suburbs hard I would not mind Northwestern. Also Maryland. I would have to think who the third would be.
Playing in games in states you recruit is so overrated. If it that important to play in NJ to a recruit they would just go to Rutgers. Do you think 2 games out of 48 in a 4 year career is going to be a difference maker to a recruit?
I dont think the 2 games themselves are important for a single recruit but I think the exposure is for schools that are not national brands is important
Even with an anti-trust exemption, it is not apparent that the NCAA or any other body could restrict NIL, because it is compensation that sits outside of the control of the sport. The real risk of an anti-trust exemption is that is puts all revenue the sport generates up for negotiation with the players, which is why you will Never see college football go down this path.
Furthermore, congress is currently trying to crack down on anti-trust behavior, not give organizations more flexibility, and state legislatures have all come down with rules protecting players rights, and are not looking to allow college football to restrain the players’ ability to earn money.
Last edited:
They couldn't restrict NIL. What they could do is restrict the ability to participate in NCAA athletic competitions if you take NIL money (just as they have done for decades).
States like California have already effectively blocked the NCAA’s ability to do this.
Not that it is a dramatic difference, but all-time Rutgers has beaten Michigan once, Penn State twice, and Michigan State four times.
Those state laws would disappear overnight if the NCAA was granted an antitrust exemption and then NCAA banned them from interscholastic competition (for being in violation of their "no compensation" provision").
Last edited:
Not at all likely to happen. IMO. What possible motivation would congress have for doing so?
NIL will destroy revenue college sports. And if you destroy revenue college sports, you will destroy the incentive to provide athletic scholarships. And if you destroy athletic scholarships, you remove a ton of free college educations for, specifically, black kids. You want to remove the antitrust exemption based on a winning political argument? That's it.
California is too big for the NCAA to ban. That is why they completely folded when California moved ahead with its NIL rules. They can’t afford to lose a market with 39 million people, it would be suicide.
And by the way, the NCAA and college football want no part of an anti-trust exemption that potentially opens them up collective bargaining over all the revenue they earn, including TV contracts and the gate from games. It may happen anyway, but they will do everything they can to avoid this.
I thought white females were the main beneficiary of athletic scholarships. I believe I saw an article that they received the majority of the benefits from Title IX
Well than the swimmer at Penn Swimmer would be pissed if they messed with his scholarship.
I don’t believe she has a scholarship. Nor do any of her teammates
Title IX requires that women have an equal number of opportunities (scholarships, varsity spots, etc). There is no other college sport with as many athletes as football and it causes an imbalance. Rather than adding women's sports, most schools cut men's sports to bring things back into alignment. NIL makes things interesting because as long as schools don't get involved, NIL deals aren't subject to Title IX. If boosters provide 80 NIL deals that are the equivalent of scholarships for the football team, then it changes the Title IX numbers significantly in other sports.
Well, women definitely benefit the most from Title IX ... tons and tons of scholarships for womens sports nobody watches and nobody cares about exist because of Title IX. Whether (proportionately) white women or black women benefit more? I really don't know. My guess is that the benefit is probably race neutral.
Athletic scholarships as a whole? Football and basketball scholarships? They definitely benefit black kids disproportionately. Black people are 12 percent of the population; far more than 12 percent of the scholarships for football and basketball are given to black kids. If a school decides overnight that it's scrapping its athletic scholarship program, it will disproportionately harm black kids. That's the endgame of NIL.
They'd do it in a heartbeat. And California would comply in a heartbeat. Because the rest of the nation would be playing business-as-usual interscholastic sports and California would be (literally) playing with themselves - shut out of the bowls, shut out of the Final Four tournament.
The exact opposite happened. California went ahead over NCAA objections, and the NCAA immediately folded.
The NCAA didn't fold. They threw-up their arms and said let the Supreme Court figure it out.
This was one potential grouping of rivals by one writer in the Athletic. Mentions even possible rotating of some "permanent" opponents.
Illinois: Northwester, Purdue, Indiana
Indiana: Purdue, Maryland, Illinois
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Rutgers, OSU, Indiana
MSU: Michigan, PSU, Northwestern
Michigan: OSU, MSU, Rutgers
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Michigan
OSU: Michigan, PSU, Maryland
PSU: OSU, MSU, Rutgers
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Rutgers: Maryland, PSU, Michigan
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraksa
Illinois: Northwester, Purdue, Indiana
Indiana: Purdue, Maryland, Illinois
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Rutgers, OSU, Indiana
MSU: Michigan, PSU, Northwestern
Michigan: OSU, MSU, Rutgers
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Michigan
OSU: Michigan, PSU, Maryland
PSU: OSU, MSU, Rutgers
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Rutgers: Maryland, PSU, Michigan
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraksa
All I actually know is that the western schools fans were quite upset when Michigan and Ohio State were over in the East and would visit randomly and far less often. Those were the BIG games for them.. EVENTS.. made their tickets more valuable with high demand.. and the noobs, Rutgers and Maryland got rewarded with regular games against them.. and Penn State too.
So, no matter what they do, some fans will initially see Michigan and Ohio State MORE than they expected and some will be unhappy because they don't get to see them for a long time still (and in the meantime, they may reconfigure yet again).
So, no matter what they do, some fans will initially see Michigan and Ohio State MORE than they expected and some will be unhappy because they don't get to see them for a long time still (and in the meantime, they may reconfigure yet again).
It really isn't. If the Supreme Court is handling it, there's literally nothing you can do. It's not like they had an option; the Supreme Court decided and that was that. Following your argument, every time the Supreme Court heard a case, the losing side "folded." It's not what the word means.
If the Supreme Court decided in favor of the NCAA and then they said, "We give up, we'll allow NIL" anyway? That would be folding.
The Supreme Court did not rule on NIL. It ruled that , under the antitrust laws, the NCAA could not ban schools from giving educational benefits to athletes. (Such benefits include scholarships for graduate school, payment for academic tutoring, and payment for post-eligibility internships.) A concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the NCAA's ban on NIL was also illegal. ( A concurring opinion is just one justice's view -- it's not a court ruling.) The NCAA then decided that its ban on NIL would almost certainly be struck down, and repealed the ban. That doesn't strike me as "folding," but your mileage may vary.
95% of our fans would be happy if we don’t see Ohio State for a few years.
Well by Gene Smith's comments, sounds like they've figured out a 9th conference game probably brings more value than the ACC/PAC12 matchups. Also finally someone says the obvious, the B10 brings more value to them than they do to the B10. The Alliance games sound like something they're open to if it's "convenient" but they won't move heaven and earth to make the matchups happen.
No mention of divisions, so I suppose the elimination of them is still possible.
From an Athletic article:
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said Wednesday that the working arrangement between the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 — dubbed The Alliance — may not necessarily lead to scheduling agreements between the three conferences when it comes to future football games, with the Big Ten favoring staying at nine conference games rather than moving back to eight to create room for another nonconference matchup.
"We thought that conference contests, from a TV partner point of view, were just as valuable. We decided to kind of walk away from that a little bit. That doesn’t mean it might not come back up … The value of The Alliance was just bringing together schools that think alike.”
"We talk more about what do we need to do with the Big Ten, to keep the Big Ten as valuable as it is in our footprint, for our fans, for our athletes, and our television partners," Smith said. "It’s rare that we compare ourselves to even the ACC or the Pac-12. The Alliance, if we were just looking at TV value, we’re more valuable to the ACC or the Pac-12 than they are to us."
Translation:
“This alliance thing is kinda cute especially how they think they are on the same level as us but we’ll see about the future.”
17 and 18 years coming into a lot of cash quickly. Somewhere Art Schlister may be thinking "this is just beginning" ......
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Alternate translation:
the sec is better and we threw shit against the wall to see what would stick! ☺️
Similar threads
