Maybe or maybe not. I don't care what anyone wants to happen. If I were betting, which I don't do, I would bet the house that the SEC wouldn't ask an original charter member, Tenn, to leave the conference. Too much money and really no one to replace them with. You can't just look at football for what they add to the conference. It is all of the sports, and I'm not sure if any other school out there offers what Tenn does for the SEC as far as all sports teams go. It could get interesting if they can find that school though I guess.
UT out?
- Thread starter ArtLaibsGhost
- Start date
Couldn’t almost any school do that if they cheated like Tennessee? It’s not just the athletic department. Everyone is involved all the way up to the governor.
ND isn't coming to the SEC. They aren't giving up their big TV contract, and the SEC would never let them in without doing that.
Jeff Sykes is 100% correct. Tenn is not going anywhere unless they want to. If tthe SEC were to put a move on Tent, a lawsuit would drag on for 10+ years. No scholl is being kicked out of the SEC, now or ever.
I thought they had simple rules?? A certain number of schools voting against you??
I know voting is how you get in ..
I don’t really know??
I just wish it would happen. They can send A&M packing as well as far as I’m concerned. They are the reason we have all these stupid collectives and bidding wars.
UT got the ball rolling with these outlandish NIL deals with Nico Iamgonnaleave with the 8m deal. Now they are crying about other schools outbidding them. And the state legislature with nothing else to be concerned about decides to spend their time passing laws to give the vols an athletic advantage over other college teams. So when it comes time to vote in or out, UT has few friends because no one likes their fans or any of their whiney coaches.
The SEC and Big Ten are going to split off eventually. They will grab the other brand name teams in the SEC and Big 12. They will more than likely take the ACC approach in performance pay which means the brands will be protected and non brands will be screwed.
TV is all that matters without a legit governing structure for all of college football it will remain the have’s and have not’s. You could structure where all the Power 5 conferences have equal playoff representation. There is no reason to stack the deck other than greed. In most years the a SEC or Big 10 team will have a team in the final game. Give each conference 3 AQ’s. Then figure out a fair way to hand out the last 4 spots. Force ND into a conference.
Mirror the NFL structure stop trying to make this conference driven. It needs to be sport driven.
TV is all that matters without a legit governing structure for all of college football it will remain the have’s and have not’s. You could structure where all the Power 5 conferences have equal playoff representation. There is no reason to stack the deck other than greed. In most years the a SEC or Big 10 team will have a team in the final game. Give each conference 3 AQ’s. Then figure out a fair way to hand out the last 4 spots. Force ND into a conference.
Mirror the NFL structure stop trying to make this conference driven. It needs to be sport driven.
And all of that is fine and dandy. No original charter member of the SEC will be kicked out of the SEC unless it is something so terrible that the league has no other choice. You all can dream and wish all you want, but it isn't going to happen. I would love for it to happen, as I'm sure many others would too, but it isn't going to happen. If the SEC wants to stop Tenn from doing this stuff, they can. Being in the SEC is not mandatory for Tenn to compete at a high level or for championships. So the SEC can simply amend the rules to stop Tenn. Has that been done yet? Nope. So the SEC really doesn't want to do anything about it, then. Too much money coming in to upset the apple cart.
This big boy stuff gets a little old. UK put all their resources into BB in the early years. It was the top dog in the conference and dominated it more than any football team did. As time passed fans decided they wanted to be good at football, but was years behind by it own choice, not by someone else's decision.
But every team wants in the playoffs, does the SEC being assured at least 4 spots give UK a better shot than being assured 3? sCarolina has sucked for years, but found a QB and a pass rusher and think they are playoff bound.
And refusing to follow conference rules isnt bad enough? The new Tn law allows it, it doesnt say they have to. So reality is they wont be breaking any state laws if they sign, but refusing to follow conference rules if they dont sign.
Yeah UK is a big boy with all the money and resources. Programs compete with and beat us all the time.
We’re going on how many years without winning conference regular season and/or tournament?!
Bama, Auburn, Tenn are all on multi year stretches of dominating conference and being major players nationally.
Florida just won it all. Their 3rd title in 20ish years.
I don’t know that UK, UNC, Duke have 3 elite tier bowl wins between them.
I can’t recall a time UK, Vandy, Arkansas have run the conference and been players nationally all at the same time.
Small schools and mid majors do well in basketball every year. Connecticut has more titles than we do in the last 25.
There aren’t a lot of 5, 10, 15 year losing streaks to anyone in basketball. A lot more common in football.
Two totally different games via structure so it’s hard to compare.
The structure of football has needed changing and it finally is.
Did you not read what I wrote? UK chose to be the big boys in basketball years ago, they dominated completely. I don't think anyone will argue with that, that's where the resources went. The schools you want to call big boys went a different route and put their resources elsewhere. Catching up isn't easy when you chose to not take it serious for decades. It can happen but you can't expect 75 years of neglect to be overcome in a couple years, because those other programs aren't standing still.
Yes, I read what you wrote.
You made an argument about basketball having big boys. I made an argument that it's a little bit different than "well the football big boys run football, and the basketball big boys run basketball..."
Essentially all is fair and well because basketball has prominent programs. UK and the blue bloods get theirs in basketball so football elite gets theirs.
Which I believe is not a fair comparison or argument. As I stated many more basketball programs are able to have regular and post season success.
A lot of SEC basketball programs were on back burner for most of history until very recently, and once there was a concerted effort by the conference to make basketball more of a priority, things flipped pretty quickly.
UK has been pumping insane money and resources into football for over a decade now and the best we can manage is about 6-7 wins.
The football schools have more easily competed in basketball than basketball schools in football.
Football is a lot harder to get into the club and stay in for any amount of time. It is much easier for non traditionally strong basketball programs to have good to great years and be in the conversation.
That's all I'm arguing.
The bottom paragraph is what I been saying, UK uppers had little interest in football early on and is still trying to recover. And it isn't easy and won't be easy for the next coach if UK decides to go in a different direction.
All of it means nothing without a CBA or something of the sort that all of the players sign on to, which means they likely need a union and need to be classified as employees and/or contractors. If they want to to play in the association they will have to accept the limitations imposed by the agreement. That means they will be bound by the contracts they sign and no longer leave at will, just like pro players and coaches cannot.
The same needs to be done for the coaches. At some point contracts need to mean something, even at the college level.
The players should be managing their own NIL contracts and the schools shouldn't be involved in them. Those contracts should not be based on what school a player may attend to be truly considered NIL and not pay-for-play.
This is all simple stuff that the courts and legislatures could legally define if they were worth their salt. The rest needs to be sorted out the way other leagues/associations have done so. This really isn't anything new.
The same needs to be done for the coaches. At some point contracts need to mean something, even at the college level.
The players should be managing their own NIL contracts and the schools shouldn't be involved in them. Those contracts should not be based on what school a player may attend to be truly considered NIL and not pay-for-play.
This is all simple stuff that the courts and legislatures could legally define if they were worth their salt. The rest needs to be sorted out the way other leagues/associations have done so. This really isn't anything new.
...and they've NEVER allocated the resources BACK to football to ever catch up. They just won't.
Nailed it.
If they made UK Basketball foot the bill for the rest of the sports like they did to football for that same span, then they'd get it. They robbed the pigskin to pay the punkin's share of the bills for a very long time. The results speak for themselves.
Would agree.
The NCAA should’ve never been concerned with players making money. Especially separate from the university. Meaning local deals. The NCAA should have no power over anyone or anything off the field and off campus. In fact they don’t. I’m not sure how or why it’s taken this long for someone to argue it.
The idea a sports regulatory body can decide whether or not a kid get paid by a local pizza joint, car dealer, bank, etc is asinine.
Every other student on campus can get a job and make money on their own time. Some students even get paid by the Uni as research assistants, teaching assistants, etc…Imagine that doing something for an entity and getting paid. Guess what, the pay for these positions isn’t exactly fair or regulated across the board.
Some schools give scholarships some don’t! NCAA doesn’t have much to say about that!
Some schools have incredibly difficult acceptance criteria! Where’s the NCAA and all the fairness police?!
“Buh buh buh…some programs could pay more than others…it would be unfair…”
SO WHAT! That’s life.
There’s this odd socialist mentality that exists in red blooded American sports culture. Specifically collegiate sports culture.
I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but the rules, regulations, and structure of the old ways didn’t really prevent lopsided domination by a handful of programs in a couple of conferences.
Let kids get paid, let them move around…let’s see what happens.
Worse case scenario 20 programs dominate and separate…which means nothing changed and everyone can stop bitching about things changing.
You have alot of good ideas, intense don't know enough about law to agree or argue, but I like what you are saying. NIL or play for pay is here to stay, no going back from that. But like you said there needs to be some kind of contract that binds a kid to a program 3-5 years. He can still transfer, but it will no longer be free, they will have to buy out the remainder of the contract, just like coaches. Of course that won't stop some programs from going after AA types, but it won't be cheap.
At the rate congress moves not sure I will see anything they do. But if they don't do any better than the judicial system has it will be a disaster anyway.
It seems the UT ouster talk died down a bit during the Spring meetings, probably because a couple of other school ADs are privately opposing signing pledge as well.
Similar threads
