Should be half. If less, how much? The Title IX regulations require schools to provide equal opportunity based on sex. This requirement applies to schools' athletic programs, including club, intramural, and intercollegiate teams.
Nope not, final nail in the coffin. On the positive I guess I’d have more open time on Saturday or driving to games and such.
The salary cap would then be applied to the schools? But then do we get back into the dirty booster scenario?
Minor league baseball requires no such collegiate involvement. An NFL farm league should be equally free and clear of such nonsense.
Well the point might be an excellent one except for your last paragraph. Alabama may not be quite on par with us in women’s sports, but they are close. Their women have been excellent for awhile in Gymnastics, Swimming, Softball, Cross Country, Track, hell they even have a fine Rowing team. They are hardly a one trick pony school. Football is undoubtedly the King, but they do very well in other sports as well, and have a great support system for all the so-called minor sports… and no I am not a Bama fan.
What we are basically talking about is a salary cap. If a Dallas Cowboys or NY Yankees decide to go all-everything to win, they owe the other members some money. It sounds like "parity" and "fairness" but all I hear is nothing but "corruption-inducing and enabling."
I guess the rub would be that NIL money can come from anywhere. But, yeah, if it's going through the official financing department (collective) I guess you could.
Exactly. I think the NCAA already knows that the Big-10 and SEC are probably headed toward leaving the NCAA and doing their own thing. This sounds like the NCAA is trying it's best to keep them within the NCAA structure. I personally don't think it will work because the NCAA is largely responsible for where college football is now. The blueblood mostly public land grant universities who created the college football brand through generations don't want "new" schools like UCF and Boise State to have the same seat at the table or an equal share.
There are only two sports that bring in significant money. Football and men's basketball. While the B1G and SEC could break off and have their own football league, could they survive men's basketball without the ACC and BIG12? Currently, the top 3 men's basketball teams, Arizona, Kansas, and Houston, are either in the BIG12 already, or will be there next year. Maybe the B1G and SEC try and break out football only, but I doubt the BIG12 and ACC will allow a football only association for the big 2 conferences, and allow them to participate in the NCAA for all other sports. And the question for the big 2 will be, will the additional monies from a football only conference make up from the losses from being locked out of say march Madness? The proposal from the OP would trim the fat, and allow the top schools from the ACC and BIG12 to remain relevant and in the same league as the big 2 conferences. And allow the NCAA to remain a "viable" organization in that it wouldn't disappear completely. But as others have already pointed out, if college sports becomes it's own pro league, then it becomes a race for more money, and does open things up for outside groups like the Saudis. And all amateurism is gone.
I understand your angle here but for the SEC and Big-10 schools, football makes SO much more money than basketball, especially if they differentiate themselves into their own level. I don't think what effect it will have on the other non profitable sports is going to be a major consideration. I think it's the media who's going to largely determine what happens moving forward. I think the media is probably who pushed for Bama over FSU. Not because they love Bama, but having all the playoff teams in the CFP from SEC and Big-10 helps further differentiate the SEC and Big-10 from the rest of college football. Point being that I don't really think the ACC, Big-12 or anybody else is going to have much leverage to keep anything from happening that the media wants. And I also don't think it helps anybody not to have the SEC and Big-10 schools in March Madness. They may threaten, but I don't think much comes from it. Personally, I think the Big-10 and SEC only leave the NCAA for football. And while the NCAA, Big-12 and ACC may not like it, I don't think there's much they can do about it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to those parties to not have some of the biggest and most prestigious schools in the country with probably well over half of the nations sports fans not be part of March Madness. If you have 2 college basketball tournaments competing, who do you think wins?
And if you don't do something like that you will have the same 10 teams or so (max) competing for the natty.
Football is king, but March Madness generates over $1 billion for the NCAA. And usually over $1 million per school in power conferences with multiple bids. The PAC received $14 million for MM last year, and that's split up evenly. If the SEC and B1G split, and hold their own March Madness without ACC and BIG12 teams, that would leave out some huge basketball names like Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, Arizona, Virginia, Baylor, and more. It would also leave out the Princeton's of the world, and you could say goodbye to the #15 upset over a #2 big name. A tournament with only SEC and B1G teams wouldn't have the gravity, upsets, and true madness of the full NCAA tournament with mid-majors and single bid league teams who have a shot at a once-in-a-lifetime upset. MM may be the only thing that keeps the BIG12 and ACC from being relegated to 2nd tier status. And may keep the NCAA alive. I don't see the BIG12 and ACC allowing the SEC and B1G to remain in the NCAA if they go it alone for football. And while the B1G and SEC could easily be their own football league and thrive, the rest of the sports, including men's basketball, would suffer.
You can't tell an 18 year old kid where he has to go to school. Just the first round alone takes all of the first day in the NFL. How long do you think a draft would take with substantially more college teams than are in the NFL with substantially more high school kids than college kids that are in a college draft? With just the 4 superconference with 16 teams possibility the logistics alone would be a nightmare. On top of that, what if a kid gets drafted by a school he doesn't want to attend? Even pros have refused to play for the team that drafted them. Do you draft according to your record? If you live in Florida and have grown up a Gator, what happens if you get drafted by Illinois, or Indiana, or Rutgers? You're talking about a nightmare scenario worse than the noles think the CFB is.
So what happens if the new FBS division earns more than the NFL? Will the NFL cry about it? But it won't happen, if college football turns into NFL-lite, the fans will leave in droves.
Since 1990 there have been sixteen different teams that have won it all. So, not that much different than we've had anyway for 3 and a half decades.
