A Plurality of P5 Coaches Want to Lock-Out Non-P5 Schools

[couch 'em]

I'm no lawyer - is this an anti-trust situation since all the excluded schools are free to play college football, get their own TV contracts, etc? Isn't this more like Wal-Mart not selling certain brands of toothpaste because they don't sell well?

[Stallion]

No because Wal-Mart is a single business entity. The NCAA is a collection of business entities that has now lost 4-5 Sherman Anti-Trust cases. When they act collectively-to limit competition there are serious anti-trust issues

[Water Pony]

Being 945 miles from the Hilltop, I mirror Pocono Pony's feelings. The implications for P5 autonomy may appear small or benign at this moment, but this separation will inevitably professionalize college revenue sports and more.

My disappointments include $5+m salaries for Head Coaches and athletic budgets of the public universities, which by necessity must expand and consume more sources of revenue.

1 Texas: $165,691,486
2 Wisconsin: $149,141,405
3 Alabama: $143,776,550
4 Michigan: $143,514,125
5 Ohio State: $139,639,307
6 Florida: $130,011,244
7 Oklahoma: $123,805,661
8 LSU: $117,457,398
9 Oregon: $115,241,070
10 Tennessee: $111,579,779

If the Group 5 (especially the ACC and MWC) are below the line, then college FB no longer is appealing to me and, to the ultimate regret of many others, not worthy of our time, eyeballs and cash. This will cascade to BB and non-revenue sports.

The response? Division 3 status or Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) for football, based on Ivy League rules, with no athletic scholarships (vs. need based)

Upside? An increase in the perceived value of our degrees and the opportunity to raise the importance of sports, such as soccer, and adding Lacrosse .. both of switch could be showcased in Ford Stadium. We could bring back baseball and Men's Track and Field and add softball. Our athletic budget would be smaller, but we would no longer have to close the funding gap to pursue and maintain a College Bowl Playoff (CBP) program, coaching salaries and associated expenses.

Actually, it is starting to sound better ... the more I think about it. Oh well. Time will tell!

[EastStang]

What the ISU, Baylor and others don't realize is that if they all play tough P5 schedules, some will be haves and others will be have nots. Don't be surprised if 64 then dwindles down to 32 after some of the P5 teams start having to play only P5 teams. WSU, Duke, ISU, WF, UNC, U, WVU, KU, RU, UMD, Pitt, Louisville, U Minn, Purdue, IU all slated for second class citizenship in due time. If you have losing records for 8 to 10 years, suddenly your fan base gets tired of going to games, as attendance dwindles, a desire starts to drop the dead weight. Then, the conference TV negotiations go like this, look we're tired of pulling the dead weight, we've been propping you up for years, now we want the top tier teams in our conference to get 95% of the TV football revenues. The "dead weight" then joins us in the desert. We'd get the bottom half of the PAC 10, Big XII, B1G, ACC and SEC. Now suddenly that looks like a decent conference.

[NavyCrimson]

If you consider human nature the way it is, you're exactly right.

[smusportspage]

If you consider human nature the way it is, you're exactly right.

Yep. Exactly right.

[Treadway21]

I am really surprised there hasn't been some political fall out from all push for professionalism. All these are state schools funded in part by taxpayers. At some point you would think some would balk about the amount of money being spent on athletics and having taxpayer funds go to paying athletes.

I know it is popular, but if the spending gets too out of hand, one would think it would start to rub the public the wrong way. If college football and basketball continue to move towards becoming a minor league, I think some conflict is inevitable.

[orguy]

I am really surprised there hasn't been some political fall out from all push for professionalism. All these are state schools funded in part by taxpayers. At some point you would think some would balk about the amount of money being spent on athletics and having taxpayer funds go to paying athletes.

I know it is popular, but if the spending gets too out of hand, one would think it would start to rub the public the wrong way. If college football and basketball continue to move towards becoming a minor league, I think some conflict is inevitable.

The Athletic Departments at most major state universities are self sustaining. They do not use taxpayer dollars for much of anything if they operate in the black. Most big time college football programs have plenty of cash to pay players.

[leopold]

They are self-sustaining in the sense that they can raise money to cover deficits and continue to fund projects. Keep in mind, Michigan has fired not one but TWO athletic directors because they couldn't break even, and this is flippin' Michigan.

As far as political fallout is concerned, keep in mind:

1) It's the fans that care about their university's athletic departments that are the successful, noticed ones in the first place. There's not going to be a political fallout as long as it's the major universities have fans covering their rears.
2) All sports fans care about is winning. Whether it's actual alumni or the rubes who wear 'State U' T-shirts because they care SO much about their teams success, they will be happy utterly screwing up a university just to see the football team win a game.

[Hoop Fan]

[quote="orguy"The Athletic Departments at most major state universities are self sustaining. They do not use taxpayer dollars for much of anything if they operate in the black. Most big time college football programs have plenty of cash to pay players.[/quote]

Uh, the tuition is subsidized by taxpayers at every state U. And that's the only reason they have so many students to fill stadiums to begin with. Not to mention the very land that the football stadiums sit on came from taxpayer subsidy or land grant.