Kansas not taking a wait and see approach

#101
#101
hog88 said:
When the players become employees of the schools all bets are off, I could see a whole bunch of universities dropping athletics altogether.
Click to expand...
It’s going to be a mess. Athletics departments are going to have to slash expenses elsewhere. Non-revenue generating sports will be on the chopping block right off the bat. But will have to keep enough women’s sports around to comply w Title IX. And what about student section/activity fees. Will they cut seats, raise fees? Are there going to implications for making other students contribute to the salaries of the football team? What about state-funded athletics departments? A lot to be sorted out and many more lawsuits to go, I’m sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and onevol74
#103
#103
golfballs said:
It’s going to be a mess. Athletics departments are going to have to slash expenses elsewhere. Non-revenue generating sports will be on the chopping block right off the bat. But will have to keep enough women’s sports around to comply w Title IX. And what about student section/activity fees. Will they cut seats, raise fees? Are there going to implications for making other students contribute to the salaries of the football team? What about state-funded athletics departments? A lot to be sorted out and many more lawsuits to go, I’m sure.
Click to expand...

When/if the universities start paying the athletes directly it will be a shitshow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peaygolf and tbwhhs
#104
#104
golfballs said:
It’s going to be a mess. Athletics departments are going to have to slash expenses elsewhere. Non-revenue generating sports will be on the chopping block right off the bat. But will have to keep enough women’s sports around to comply w Title IX. And what about student section/activity fees. Will they cut seats, raise fees? Are there going to implications for making other students contribute to the salaries of the football team? What about state-funded athletics departments? A lot to be sorted out and many more lawsuits to go, I’m sure.
Click to expand...
.
 
#105
#105
hog88 said:
When/if the universities start paying the athletes directly it will be a shitshow.
Click to expand...
The only way it won’t happen is if congress passes an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA. 0% chance that happens. You should read his opinion. It’s a eulogy to college sports as we know it
 
#112
#112
wmcovol said:
Why? They already have the flagship school in Iowa, the University of Iowa.
Click to expand...
It’s getting to the point that hey may not have a choice. I’m sure there are 4-5 schools in the ACC that they would love to add, but that’s not realistic given the contract situation for ACC schools. And if the B10 is still hellbent on the whole AAU membership, then ISU makes a lot of sense.
 
#114
#114
Kansas and Iowa state both to the Big. They are AAU schools book it. The team that really is hung out to dry will be WVU. KSU, Baylor will fall to group of five. OSU, Texas Tech, TCU will be pac 12 . They will be grouped with Colorado
 
#117
#117
So SEC adds Texas and OU, and the Big Ten responds by adding the mega powers of Kansas and Iowa St? Two teams that will always jump at the chance of going to the Big Ten. Plus, why would their TV partners increase payouts (which is what all of this is about) for markets the Big is already in? It makes zero sense, even if they are AAU schools.

Let's do the math. Per 247 sports, BIG teams earn 54M per team in TV revenue. There's no reason to add a team unless that increases. Let's do a small increase to 60. 2 new teams plus 6 million more per team for 14 teams. That's 204 million dollars per year their TV partners would have to dish out. For ISU and Kansas? Zero chance that happens. Now, one or both of those teams in conjunction with an actual football brand? That might happen.

I don't think there's a reason to rush here for them. They can bide their time and pick off much better teams when other conferences (ie Pac or ACC) near the end of their TV deals. And they'll get by pulling in close to $54 million a year per team until then.
 
#118
#118
hog88 said:
Where would they go? No room in the SEC.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say no room. I dont think 16 teams is a limit. If they go with the pods scenario. They could ho to 20. 4 pods of 5 teams. For instance if ND wanted in all conferences would listen whether they had space or not.
 
#120
#120
BigOrangeAl 1979 said:
Kansas makes more sense to the big 10 than Pac 12
Click to expand...

Actually, should Tx and Okla go to the SEC, Kansas and Iowa St have been mentioned as possible PAC-12 additions. One reason for those two universities is their membership in the "Association of American Universities"
 
#122
#122
Boston Vol said:
It’s getting to the point that hey may not have a choice. I’m sure there are 4-5 schools in the ACC that they would love to add, but that’s not realistic given the contract situation for ACC schools. And if the B10 is still hellbent on the whole AAU membership, then ISU makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
AAU is irrelevant. Nebraska got kicked out and yet they’re still a member. The disconnect between athletics and academics is only going to get wider.
 
#125
#125
golfballs said:
The ACC needs to get over the academic angle. They’re the best athletic program they could hope to get at this point
Click to expand...
I agree with this. During last conference realignment talk of West Virginia was schools thought it was unfair with their academic standards that WVU could get athletes in others couldn't. If that is an issue why hasn't WVU dominated. They are a good program but they are absolutely not world beatera and if they played in a better conference they wouldn't all of a sudden win many championships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top