PonyFans.com

Ohio State versus Mount Union in a regular-season football game? Wisconsin against Wisconsin-Whitewater in a regular-season basketball game?

This isn't an outreach program between Big Ten schools and their Division III neighbors. It's one possible future Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany envisions if the plaintiffs prevail in Ed O'Bannon vs. the NCAA. In a declaration filed last week in federal court in support of the NCAA's motion against class certification, Delany threatened that any outcome that results in athletes getting a piece of the schools' television revenue could force the schools of the Big Ten to de-emphasize athletics as the Ivy League's schools did decades ago.

"...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."



In an interview Monday, Delany told SI.com that much of the wording in his declaration came from an op-ed he wrote for the NCAA News in 1996. He believes now as he believed then: A pay-for-play model involving contracts and individual negotiations with players would not interest the schools of the Big Ten.

"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany said. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option. ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/colleg ... z2O0ffgstb

To paraphrase Uncle Remus, "Don't throw me into the Briar Patch". Conceptually, Division III with needs based aid vs. athletic scholarships might preferred, especially if paying any or all student-athletes became mandated or the Power Conferences concede that it is appropriate.

The potential loss in revenue and media coverage would be off-set with fewer revenue sports coaches, who earn much less. The cost to support non-revenue sports would under pressure, but perhaps less than imagined, if we were to reduce Athletic budgets overall, especially when the universities in many situations have to substantially subsidize so called revenue sports, which may operate at a loss anyway.

Its laughable to think the Big 10 would have to go Division III route with non-scholarships if such measures were adopted-they are too far down the road. They are multi-million dollar business enterprises. For SMU those same measures could surely be the death-knell

That would be awesome. Can't wait to see Michigan vs. Saginaw Valley State!

Wait, so the B1G's response to why the O'Bannon lawsuit should not proceed is basically, "If he wins, we'll take our football and go home?" Puh-lease... If the B1G's academic inclinations are to go the D-III route, nothing is stopping them now...

Greenwich Pony wrote:Wait, so the B1G's response to why the O'Bannon lawsuit should not proceed is basically, "If he wins, we'll take our football and go home?" Puh-lease... If the B1G's academic inclinations are to go the D-III route, nothing is stopping them now...

They have probably wanted to, but keep tripping over all that money.

PK wrote:

Greenwich Pony wrote:Wait, so the B1G's response to why the O'Bannon lawsuit should not proceed is basically, "If he wins, we'll take our football and go home?" Puh-lease... If the B1G's academic inclinations are to go the D-III route, nothing is stopping them now...

They have probably wanted to, but keep tripping over all that money.

Well said...what a crock from the big. Reminds me of the great doc holiday saying "my hypocrisy knows no bounds".

Everyone is missing the 'point' that the Big 10 is taking. The issue being raised is mandated payments to 'some' student-athletes as a result of this court case.

I agree with Big 10 that if this occurs it is a deal changer for all of college athletics. Their threat, if you want to call it that, is getting the media's attention that the ramifications of this restructuring of college athletics are almost too big to contempate, ergo Division III as the universal model, e.g. needs based aid, will be preferred.

I don't think we are missing the point. Yes, if O'Bannon wins, some athletes will get paid for their participation while others do not. It will cause yet another restructuring of college athletics. And frankly, I'm not sure that a D-III model might not be the better and fairer overall model for college athletics (though now it will be come nearly imposible to actually enforce). But that is an argument for another day.

And I understand the argument against some athletes getting remunerated while others do not is not fair. All athletes put in their heart and soul into their sport and an unequal distribution seems unfair. And please make no mistake, I am perhaps more interested in our Olympic sports than our "revenue" sports. I get angry when I think of the natatorium, and am even more than a little irked that the tennis stadium isn't going up right now (and don't get me started on the band hall), but the fact is that the big money is coming from football and to a lesser degree basketball and those atheles should get a share of that revenue. Personally, I think that any athlete (in any sport) that has the gumption to go out and make money or get sponsored should be able to keep it. I am absolutely for opening the floodgates.

And too big to contemplate? No, changes to college athletics have been tremendous over the past 20 years or so. And they are on the cusp of changing dramatically in one way or another anyway. College sports will adapt again.

Greenwich,

We are in agreement on the circumstance we are facing and probably the cause of it. However, the implications of renumerating (beyond room, board tuition, fees and perhaps a stipend) some students for participating in college athtletics will be more than an adjustment or speed bump.

The level of commitment to pay by only 20% of the Power Conference Schools will dramatically alter the college sports landscape. The destructiveness will create a pool of only a few dozen mega-schools than positively finance their Athletic Budgets without the need for small and, more often, large subsidies at the expense of other educational needs. The unintented consequences will be catastrophic for all sports and the vast majority of FCB and FCS schools. When this ship leaves the dock, only the big survive.

Which is essentially the situation at the moment. A few large school in the black, everyone else in the red. And something will have to break. Either college athletics will have to return to something of a need-based system, or it needs to be an open market, meaning that students should be able to recieve pay for play. Of course in the pay-for-play model, I do think that will also change the landscape because that would almost necessitate a change in tax status for the athletic program, say nothing for employee status of the players. The system will always favor the larger schools. What can equalize the system is if other players which have been kept out are let into the game (i.e. alumni, boosters, sponsors, etc.) I might add that failure to do so ona legitimate basis (and the silly enforcement games that have gone on around this lack of reality) got us here in the first place...

Think of the potiential ramifications of an athlete who gets paid to play. If this athlete attends a public college he can then be declared a public employee and demand deductions for Social Security, state pension fund, tenure, health plan....etc. In addition, he can be forced to join the appropriate public union. After sports, they can demand continued employment with appropriate union protections for dismissal.

In the interim, the private colleges will not be forced or able to offer these benefits...etc. thereby creating totally unfair recruiting advantages to the public universities. The affects of a positive ruling will have significant impacts and only one's imagination and legal creativity will determined where matters will head.

the big one-if College athletics is primarily a business enterprise without an overiding educational purpose then College sports programs will lose their 501c(3) exemption and we will lose our charitable deduction. There's a reasonable argument even today that the BCS schools have already crossed the line. The argument that the BCS schools should simply become a professional minor league are missing this basic understanding of the required mission of educational institutions to keep their tax exempt status which limit the business activities of 501c3 charitable/educational entities

Yes, but most likely most universities would just spin the athletic programs into entirely-owned for-profit subsidiaries for tax and liabilities purposes. That won't be a big issue.