I don't see how the NCAA (or whatever is left of it), or any of the conferences can really do anything about the NIL. Or at least, they cannot just dictate anything. They can always work something out with the players, but that would require the players to organize and agree to speak as one, which seems unlikely at this time.
Probably will have to add Temple and rotate Wagner/Monmouth as I doubt we can play 2 FCS schools in one season. Only 1 counts towards bowl eligibility, if I recall.
Would require a constitutional amendment. What are the odds that we'd see a new amendment that limits a college student's freedom to earn income legally? How could such an amendment not be discriminatory?
It wouldn't take a constitutional amendment. All Congress would have to do is exempt college athletics from antitrust laws.
You may have already read this, but since it's so relevant, here's what SCOTUS said about that in their opinion about NIL:
I can't speak to the conference schedule but the Alliance part of it wouldn't work like that. They're trying to create marquee games and tv product. It would be previous year's 1st place vs 1st place, 2nd place vs 2nd place and so on and so forth. Similar to what the B10 did between its divisions during championship week during the pandemic.
That would make a lot more sense than fixed matchups each year. Although it might hinder any particular team's chances of making the playoffs.
The PAC12 commish mentioned this, it would be a sort of flex scheduling for the Alliance games. It would be based on the previous years finishes. So the Alliance games would be scheduled not too much in front of the upcoming season as opposed to years in advance.
That's even worse, that would mean there would no longer be standings, which is the only part of college football where things are decided directly by what you did on the field and not what people sitting in a conference room think about you.
That is how I felt too.
If that “diversity” means a 7th home game all the time, I’m cool.
You play 8 B1G games- and 1 or 2 other P5 games, most likely a G% game....there is nothing in that type of schedule that would be a negative on decision making. Not when Bama is playing a Marist College type of game each year. If not two of them...
Get me 7 home games every year and I’m happy. Would be thrilled playing more B1G than less but 7 home all the time is a good consolation.
This… easier path to our 1st B1G home win in 4 years.
If there are 3 "permament" (nothing is permament) rivals for each school you'd have to figure it all out at once. Probably starting with the traditional trophy rivalries.. not sure what all of those are.
Upon joining the big ten it was my dream to play the biggies yearly
It's not. What it is doing is saying that the Supreme Court is not going to grant an exemption to the law for a particular business entity ... as it should refuse to do because it's not a legislature. It's not saying Congress can't add an exemption to one of it's own laws.
I see what you're saying. But I think this is a case where SCOTUS would declare any such legislation enacting an exemption to be unconstitutional. As in Brown v Board of Education (overturning racial segregation).
That is indeed what they said the point of the Alliance was when it was penned. But these marquee matchups - somebody's gonna lose. And once the conference heavyweights go year after year of not making the playoffs because of these matchups, all the while watching the SEC fill 6 of 8 spots or 10 of 12 spots by playing Florida A&M amd Wofford, that'll change.
