Bo and SECPN

[StPaulHusker]

Olympic sports are on the docket to get immolated by that because the schools that will want to keep up with joneses in football and basketball will just cut the programs. That's a little more extreme than getting what perceived to be lesser recruits.

And this whole premise of the tv exposure is a little overblown. If Nebraska wins out, wins the conference and gets into a big bowl, Espn coverage will fire right back up. It's not like the team was never in Espn back in the salad days. Hell, I could see a "This is Sportscenter" happening with Bo and a cat (and wouldn't that be a jump the shark moment).

What I know wouldn't happen is us being ignored. Espn literally could not wait for an la team to make a runs this year. UCLA didn't hold up their end.

I'm pretty sure Title IX will have something to say about sports getting the axe.

 

[NUpolo8]

Olympic sports are on the docket to get immolated by that because the schools that will want to keep up with joneses in football and basketball will just cut the programs. That's a little more extreme than getting what perceived to be lesser recruits.

And this whole premise of the tv exposure is a little overblown. If Nebraska wins out, wins the conference and gets into a big bowl, Espn coverage will fire right back up. It's not like the team was never in Espn back in the salad days. Hell, I could see a "This is Sportscenter" happening with Bo and a cat (and wouldn't that be a jump the shark moment).

What I know wouldn't happen is us being ignored. Espn literally could not wait for an la team to make a runs this year. UCLA didn't hold up their end.

I'm pretty sure Title IX will have something to say about sports getting the axe.

They haven't given a squirt of piss as some storied men's swimming, track, gymnastics, wrestling and volleyball teams fell victim over the years, I doubt they'll start now.

I agree that the women's teams will have a little more leverage.

 

[SandhillshuskerW]

No, ESPN would have been brilliant in going to the NCAA and inking a huge deal with them to promote college football nationally. Then, go to each individual conference and set up subnetworks for each conference. They would have the market locked up. There would be no talk of bias (no matter if it is right or wrong) and they would be rolling in even more money than they are now.

Except that Oklahoma ruined this for everyone years ago by suing the NCAA for their own TV rights. F*****g hillbillies.

If ESPN was brilliant, they would have created the BTN when Delaney approached them about it (instead of laughing him out of the room) and rolling in the money, Indecent Proposal-style.

That would have been a good business move for ESPN, but bad for college football in the same way their alliance with the SEC is bad. The best thing for the health of this sport is LESS money, not more. ESPN/FOX taking a 10,000-foot overview, not getting into bed with any one conference.

I know that's naive thinking and the money isn't ever going to leave the sport. But it's eventually going to ruin the sport.

Right...but that ship has sailed, so best to address the reality (read: ESPN is slandering/devaluing the B1G to gain leverage in TV negotiations) than to look at what could have been, and affect the sport in other positive manners...like working with the Pac-12 (and hopefully a majority of the ACC) to enforce graduation rates and GPA monitoring of athletes.

But it's foolish to ignore what ESPN is doing currently--again, ESPN's narrative is driven by their ongoing negotiations with the B1G re: television rights, and not because the B1G is the worst power conference (because it isn't--the ACC is...but you'll never hear that, since ESPN also has a deal with the ACC for their network...)

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the worst conference is the one with the reigning national champion in it.

If we're talking about a conference top to bottom, I would agree that the ACC is the bottom of the list. If you take out Florida State, they don't have a whole lot left. They have some other teams that are decent, but nothing to brag about this year.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Olympic sports are on the docket to get immolated by that because the schools that will want to keep up with joneses in football and basketball will just cut the programs. That's a little more extreme than getting what perceived to be lesser recruits.

And this whole premise of the tv exposure is a little overblown. If Nebraska wins out, wins the conference and gets into a big bowl, Espn coverage will fire right back up. It's not like the team was never in Espn back in the salad days. Hell, I could see a "This is Sportscenter" happening with Bo and a cat (and wouldn't that be a jump the shark moment).

What I know wouldn't happen is us being ignored. Espn literally could not wait for an la team to make a runs this year. UCLA didn't hold up their end.

I'm pretty sure Title IX will have something to say about sports getting the axe.

They haven't given a squirt of piss as some storied men's swimming, track, gymnastics, wrestling and volleyball teams fell victim over the years, I doubt they'll start now.

I agree that the women's teams will have a little more leverage.

What will be interesting is if the Power 5 somehow convince the NCAA to let them manipulate Title IX. I mean, it's going to be difficult to cut many women's programs in order to football players when you have to have equal scholarships.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Or....when is it going to say that Title 9 means female athletes need to be paid the same as a male football player?

 

[VectorVictor]

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the worst conference is the one with the reigning national champion in it.

Why? That's been the case numerous times in the past--off the top of my head, 1993 Florida State, 1996 Arizona State, 1999 Florida State all were National Champions that played in probably the worst conferences (or damn close to it) in the nation at the time.

 

[knapplc]

Title IX is a federal law so if there are going to be any changes or manipulation it'll have to go through the amendment process (highly dubious with congress as dysfunctional as it is today) and most likely withstand legal challenges which could filter all the way up to the Supreme Court. It's withstood umpteen dozen challenges already, meaning there isn't much likelihood of a fundamental change today.

Especially not with the argument of "We want to change it because we want to make oodles more money."

 

[StPaulHusker]

Or....when is it going to say that Title 9 means female athletes need to be paid the same as a male football player?

Texas said that they are going to pay ALL athletes equally.

 

[Saunders]

No, ESPN would have been brilliant in going to the NCAA and inking a huge deal with them to promote college football nationally. Then, go to each individual conference and set up subnetworks for each conference. They would have the market locked up. There would be no talk of bias (no matter if it is right or wrong) and they would be rolling in even more money than they are now.

Except that Oklahoma ruined this for everyone years ago by suing the NCAA for their own TV rights. F*****g hillbillies.

If ESPN was brilliant, they would have created the BTN when Delaney approached them about it (instead of laughing him out of the room) and rolling in the money, Indecent Proposal-style.

That would have been a good business move for ESPN, but bad for college football in the same way their alliance with the SEC is bad. The best thing for the health of this sport is LESS money, not more. ESPN/FOX taking a 10,000-foot overview, not getting into bed with any one conference.

I know that's naive thinking and the money isn't ever going to leave the sport. But it's eventually going to ruin the sport.

Right...but that ship has sailed, so best to address the reality (read: ESPN is slandering/devaluing the B1G to gain leverage in TV negotiations) than to look at what could have been, and affect the sport in other positive manners...like working with the Pac-12 (and hopefully a majority of the ACC) to enforce graduation rates and GPA monitoring of athletes.

But it's foolish to ignore what ESPN is doing currently--again, ESPN's narrative is driven by their ongoing negotiations with the B1G re: television rights, and not because the B1G is the worst power conference (because it isn't--the ACC is...but you'll never hear that, since ESPN also has a deal with the ACC for their network...)

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the worst conference is the one with the reigning national champion in it.

One team does not a conference make.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Or....when is it going to say that Title 9 means female athletes need to be paid the same as a male football player?

Texas said that they are going to pay ALL athletes equally.

Really? Do you have a link to that?

LINK

At a forum convened to discuss the business of college sports, Texas Longhornsathletic director Steve Patterson said on Tuesday that the university is planning on setting aside $6 million per year to pay football players and men's basketball players.

The news comes on the heels of the landmark ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case in favor of the claimants, as the judge found "that the challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools."



As a result, players in those two sports could eventually receive deferred compensation of no less than $5,000 per year for the use of their names, images, or likenesses, though there seems to be some disagreement in the wording between the injunction that was filed and the wording of the ruling.

From this article, it seems to only be football and men's basketball.

 

[NUpolo8]

Or....when is it going to say that Title 9 means female athletes need to be paid the same as a male football player?

Texas said that they are going to pay ALL athletes equally.

Really? Do you have a link to that?
LINK

At a forum convened to discuss the business of college sports, Texas Longhornsathletic director Steve Patterson said on Tuesday that the university is planning on setting aside $6 million per year to pay football players and men's basketball players.

The news comes on the heels of the landmark ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case in favor of the claimants, as the judge found "that the challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools."

As a result, players in those two sports could eventually receive deferred compensation of no less than $5,000 per year for the use of their names, images, or likenesses, though there seems to be some disagreement in the wording between the injunction that was filed and the wording of the ruling.

From this article, it seems to only be football and men's basketball.

If that's true they're planning on paying them a lot more than a $10000 stipend.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Here it says all scholarship athletes. Male and female. Equal amounts.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/22/texas-to-pay-student-athletes-10k-annually/

Quote:

At a Big 12 sports forum yesterday, Texas athletic director Steve Patterson revealed that his university will soon begin paying its student-athletes in every sport, male and female. UT expects to spend $6 million annually on the endeavor, which works out to roughly $10,000 per athlete per year.

 

[Mavric]

Title IX is a federal law so if there are going to be any changes or manipulation it'll have to go through the amendment process (highly dubious with congress as dysfunctional as it is today) and most likely withstand legal challenges which could filter all the way up to the Supreme Court. It's withstood umpteen dozen challenges already, meaning there isn't much likelihood of a fundamental change today.

Especially not with the argument of "We want to change it because we want to make oodles more money."

If you're talking about cutting non-revenue programs, I'm not sure that would be necessary. As long as they cut programs equally, they would be fine.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Title IX is a federal law so if there are going to be any changes or manipulation it'll have to go through the amendment process (highly dubious with congress as dysfunctional as it is today) and most likely withstand legal challenges which could filter all the way up to the Supreme Court. It's withstood umpteen dozen challenges already, meaning there isn't much likelihood of a fundamental change today.

Especially not with the argument of "We want to change it because we want to make oodles more money."

If you're talking about cutting non-revenue programs, I'm not sure that would be necessary. As long as they cut programs equally, they would be fine.

I don't think it is even cutting programs equally, is it? I think it has to go towards cutting male-female scholarships equally. That's why you see schools with more female sports than male.

 

[Redux]

Maybe Polos right. Maybe Im "mad at nothing". I guess I should rejoice in the SEC becoming more powerful and ESPN basically saying "yeah were together, nothin you can do about it". Horay.....