- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 2,498
- Reaction Score
- 9,583
We're not going to be forced to join anything. We are in the ACC already.
Interesting....in the middle of CFB season you can show me the ACC standings and point out what place ND is in.
We're not going to be forced to join anything. We are in the ACC already.
It's fine for the P5 to have different rules. The G5 should also have the right to have different rules--but they don't. And that's indefensible.
The P5 is not "saying" we are going to have our own rules. They are asking for and will get permission from its peer members for their own rules. Legally the G5 can petition the membership for their own rules as well. The problem for the G5 is that they will not get a majority vote to allow them to do it. We look at it from a UConn view & say we are getting screwed but the reality is that we (UConn) are not getting screwed, the ty conference we are a member of is getting screwed. The AAC & the MWC are the 2 conferences that stand to lose the most in all of this.
While you can say it's indefensible, it's the cost of being a member of an organization whose by-laws state that the majority vote will decide all rules.
This is why we MUST get out of the AAC immediately. While the glass half full Boneyarders say we can survive short term in the AAC, the truth is that once this new legislation goes into effect in Aug/Sept it changes everything and makes it almost impossible to be successful at football which as everyone says, drives the bus. Yes we can compete in the AAC, and maybe occasionally make it to a "BCS" bowl, but that is not the kind of performance that will get us out. If it would we'd be out already.
The P5 don't have to put their rules before the council at all. They don't need permission.
What Bobbyinaz is saying makes sense to me. They (the p5) are not saying were going to do this whether you like it or not. They threatened to separate if they didn't get their own set of rules, and the other schools gave them the autonomy they sought. This is a scary, scary time The G5 schools better start screaming and real soon, because its the non FBS football playing schools who stand to be happy in this arrangement. The g5, in particularly the AAC, and MWC conferences are getting royally effed in this. Long Live the P5 Cartel.
Today they do have to get permission. They cannot announce that effective today they are going to pay a $200 stipend to their athletes without approval from the membership
The permission to make their own rules is what they are "asking" for.
The P5 is not "saying" we are going to have our own rules. They are asking for and will get permission from its peer members for their own rules. Legally the G5 can petition the membership for their own rules as well. The problem for the G5 is that they will not get a majority vote to allow them to do it.
I thought this is what the whole thread is about. The new proposal.
Curious as to why not - why would the other members of the G5 care what another individual university does if it's in-line with what has already been approved for the P5 school?
MSNDfan said:We're not going to be forced to join anything. We are in the ACC already.
Curious as to why not - why would the other members of the G5 care what another individual university does if it's in-line with what has already been approved for the P5 school?
Because the G5 schools are competing against each other in a race to get to one of the P5 conferences. Allowing one of their own the opportunity to increase their ability to compete at the highest level will be perceived as giving that school a leg up
the NCAA in today's release has stated that the "actionable" requirement will not be included in the August proposal. Each conference or Indy will be permissible to adopt p5 legislation.huskymedic said:All the more reason I think that the actionable and permissive language and parameters will change before the August vote. I think there will be an outcry by some specific members of G5 or other conferences to allow self determination to comply by singular institutions. This whole process still has some moving pieces.
the NCAA in today's release has stated that the "actionable" requirement will not be included in the August proposal. Each conference or Indy will be permissible to adopt p5 legislation.
the NCAA in today's release has stated that the "actionable" requirement will not be included in the August proposal. Each conference or Indy will be permissible to adopt p5 legislation.
I take it you missed this major blurb:Fishy said:That is not correct. What has happened is that the P5 attempted to force the AAC and others into a category including all 27 non-P5 conferences. It didn't succeed, but it didn't fail. Basically, they tried to force UConn to huddle under the same tent as Central Connecticut. The 'next 5' conferences have stuck their foot in the door while it was being slammed shut and now have until August to either force the door to be left open or to have their foot squished. The board will seek feedback on some questions raised by members of governance bodies in recent days, including: the process by which items decided by the full division could become part of the list of autonomous areas; the voting, interpretation and enforcement processes within the five highest-profile conferences; and the core structure that separates not only the five highest-profile conferences into their own group but also continues a separation of the next five conferences (the American Athletic Conference, Conference-USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference) from the remaining 22.
Cocoa Cola and Pepsi have been dividing their market for years. Their promotions alternate weekly.I had a business school professor that was one of the top expert witnesses in the entire world in anti-trust litigation. He always said, "if you discuss price with your competitors, or try to divide the market, you will probably go to jail". I don't understand how the P5 can issue written proposals that would, with minor editing, be the lawsuit against them for anti-competitive behavior. And I am not just talking about civil litigation. This stuff is all criminal.
The track record of major sports in antitrust litigation is terrible to begin with. The sports usually lose. The BCS was formed out of a successful lawsuit against the NCAA. I predict there will be successful litigation against the P5 too.
The confused club is a big one. Count me in.I Am So Digging Confused. Are We Effed, Or Not????
Don't be confused. Either the G5 will go with a full fledged breakaway and sell out big time college athletics to the devil OR they will be so concerned about antitrust and cost of paying the athletes that they will draft a weak and largely ineffective proposal that will be of little significance.
I think committees tend to sacrifice "bite" for consensus and the current landscape has enough landmines that boldness will be quickly laid aside.
On the flipside, some institutions may be forceful enough to push the bold plan through and the rest of the G5 schools will be swept up in the surge. However, those 65 would soon be divided again. There will be schools (mostly the SEC and their ilk) that will push for more power and more money while other schools (those who still value academics) will pull away and desire to divorce itself from the inevitable near semi-pro model that will emerge.
I can even see a scenario where resentment of the SEC (and its goal of total FB domination) compels one of the G5 conferences to pull out of the G5 proposal. This would be a power play in its own right and the only two conferences that have the power to pull that off would be the B1G or the PAC.
See, I don't think the G5 will be united enough to build a sustainable model that is mutually beneficial. It's member's missions are too disparate and there are too many big egos and not enough trust to make it happen. What they would need to build would be NFL-like and I just can't see that level of cooperation, let alone profit sharing, happening.