Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

Nebraska Breaks Ranks - Decides to Play the Season?

Recommended Posts

On 8/12/2020 at 11:47 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

I’m not the biggest fan of how Title IX has been interpreted.  People can bury their head in the sand all they want.  But prior decisions have said economic factors are not to be weighed when considering women’s rights to compete in sports.  The benefit that will be argued is the actual ability to play the sport.  It won’t take a great lawyer to show that special accommodations were made to the men’s football team to allow them to play in the fall but none of which were made for women.  
 

Once again - we would all love to ignore title ix and focus on economic realities.  But prior precedent isn’t going to allow universities that receive federal funding to do that.  

 

Actually that's not what previous ruling have said. It is not a requirement that the women's sports get the exact same thing as men's. Otherwise you would see a lot more impressive volleyball only arenas and a lot higher paid softball coaches.

The key is in reasonable fairness, are you attempting to give female sports the same sort of support and opportunity that you provide to male sports.

 

Secondly Covid would be extenuating circumstances that the judge would take into account, including feasibility with expense being part part of that. Doesn't mean it's a free pass, only that it will be considered.

 

Thirdly, it does not require that the equality be all at the same time and balance through out the three seasons of NCAA competition. If the sport was moved to spring but will still be played you will have a difficult time proving that in a pandemic it should have to be played in fall. Especially considering some of these sports are indoor and therefore will fit in any season. For low revenue sports even getting thirty fans in is money that makes the sport feasible, a temporary delay to capture that income is not onerous, especially when it may actually add to the safety of the players and is in cohesion with other measures taken by the university in this unusual current circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JoeBlo said:

 

WV has zero chance of ever making the big 10, who like the ivy care more about academics than any sport.

Boise has zero shot at ever getting back/to the AAC. You burned that bridge behind you and they have no reason to add a program who gets paid extra money and still struggles to win an inferior league and regularly finishes behind the AAC's champ and sometimes second place teams in the rankings.

The AAC has eyes for the Academies and BYU anyone else is a non-starter, especially since it seems divisional requirements are done.

Something tells me that the AAC, which dearly desires to be considered a part of the P6 conferences, would have some interest in a football program that has finished in the final top-25 nationally 13 out of the last 18 seasons.

I suspect a more realistic appraisal of the situation would be that both sides would have some interest, but both would have concerns that would need to be worked out. 

Certainly how the last divorce happened would be something that would need to be discussed, but the folks running these things are adults and would be willing to work through any lingering emotional issues if there was benefit to be had on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Something tells me that the AAC, which dearly desires to be considered a part of the P6 conferences, would have some interest in a football program that has finished in the final top-25 nationally 13 out of the last 18 seasons.

I suspect a more realistic appraisal of the situation would be that both sides would have some interest, but both would have concerns that would need to be worked out. 

Certainly how the last divorce happened would be something that would need to be discussed, but the folks running these things are adults and would be willing to work through any lingering emotional issues if there was benefit to be had on both sides.

 

Tell that to the Navy AD who told Boise to kick rocks to start with. Bringing Boise does nothing, they are getting paid extra by the MWC and can't get them to a NY6 while the AAC has sent 3 different teams. A MAC team has made the NY6 as much as Boise and is closer to their footprint.

BYU, Army, and Air Force are the only teams they have an interest in. 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Ibanez said:

Fine then. Three way trade. Mizzou to the B1G, Nebraska to the Big 12, West Virginia to the SEC.

You really think Boise State burned the bridge? Go ahead and keep this thread book marked. We will discuss this again early next year.

I've said it for months. The MWC is gonna look a little different soon. Ill put my rep and my account on it.

 

Ahem, did Boise burn that bridge? Yes, you came in thinking those programs were like the WAC you were leaving and the MW you would join. You asked for extra money like a tough guy and got laughed at and told to leave. Since then you haven't even consistently won a weaker league or proven a threat to them. In other words they are still just laughing at you. Suing the MW doesn't make you more attractive either. That bridge is burned, what ever the MW looks like and your sources are shit as has been proven on this board by past predictions, that's where you are going to be. 

It would probably be a good idea to play nice, but Boise has played the bully for so long you all won't do it. We'll see how that works out as you continue to get caught by programs like SDSU and Fresno who already are on your heels. So bookmark this and I'll see you in two years if we still have college football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Good point.   

I wish the BIG12 hadn't added West Virginia.  They are an outlier, and makes BIG12 expansion west difficult. 

Why would the Big 12 want to expand westward?  Football is dying in the mountain and pacific time zones.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, RamDFW said:

LOL Mizzou isn't AAU and they aren't leaving the SEC.

Yes, they are.  Since 1908.

 

But no, they arent leaving the SEC.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Something tells me that the AAC, which dearly desires to be considered a part of the P6 conferences, would have some interest in a football program that has finished in the final top-25 nationally 13 out of the last 18 seasons.

I suspect a more realistic appraisal of the situation would be that both sides would have some interest, but both would have concerns that would need to be worked out. 

Certainly how the last divorce happened would be something that would need to be discussed, but the folks running these things are adults and would be willing to work through any lingering emotional issues if there was benefit to be had on both sides.

 

One issue would be what happens to basketball, though I suspect if Boise is doing the fb-only thing again then the American could pitch in a series or two every year in hoops to help out.

One issue I would NOT have is with the negotiators as Boise has a different president now.  Dr Tromp will be more diplomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ibanez said:

Fine then. Three way trade. Mizzou to the B1G, Nebraska to the Big 12, West Virginia to the SEC.

You really think Boise State burned the bridge? Go ahead and keep this thread book marked. We will discuss this again early next year.

I've said it for months. The MWC is gonna look a little different soon. Ill put my rep and my account on it.

 

I'll get ready the welcome back carpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ibanez said:

For the B1G if the $ was similar? Not sure about that. An argument I hear almost constantly is that Missouri really has nothing in common with the rest of the SEC. Its the same argument we hear about Nebraska and the B1G.

Would they leave? Don't know. Would Colorado leave the Big 12? Would Maryland leave the ACC? Would A&M leave Texas? Would Rutgers be a P4 school? (Seriously, how in the +++++ did that one happen?)

We have seen many strange things...

 

I'll tell you how that one happened.  Eyeballs.  Proximity to NY.  Rutgers is a hot mess in athletics but cashed in because of their location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ibanez said:

For the B1G if the $ was similar? Not sure about that. An argument I hear almost constantly is that Missouri really has nothing in common with the rest of the SEC. Its the same argument we hear about Nebraska and the B1G.

Would they leave? Don't know. Would Colorado leave the Big 12? Would Maryland leave the ACC? Would A&M leave Texas? Would Rutgers be a P4 school? (Seriously, how in the +++++ did that one happen?)

We have seen many strange things...

There's one reason why Missouri is in the SEC.  The Big 10 didnt want them.  The reasons why havent changed.  And if Nebraska isnt a fit for the B10, then neither are Iowa and Illinois.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, robe said:

Interesting you say that women’s volleyball is very popular in Lincoln. A fan told me today Volleyball brings in a lot of revenue for the school and the community. 

A photo of CSU women's volleyball was rather popular on this board several years ago until the mother of one of the players complained about Ft. Fun posting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ibanez said:

Boise State won't do the football only again. They found that out the hard way when dealing with the Big West before the MWC folded this year and agreed to pay the Broncos part of what Boise wanted. (FOX paid the rest.) Boise would do football and men and women's basketball in the AAC and the other sports would be parked elsewhere. Boise State is down to six men's sports. If say, Boise State joined the Big Sky for the other sports Boise State could play a Big Sky school in football every other year and do a home & home against the Big Sky in means and women's hoops yearly. That one pay game every other year in football would make the Big Sky enough cash to make the move worth it to them.

Regardless of what anyone thinks. Boise State is the top pick for the AAC right after Army and BYU. Army wants to stay Indy and BYU makes too much on their own. And I promise you teams like UCF, Houston, and Cincy (As well as Tulsa and ECU) don't give two shits what Navy's AD says. All of those school have games with Boise State in the next few years. Their is no grudge there.

You guys get pissed because Boise State has options. That's what this is all about.

 

I'm not pissed Boise State has options.  Yes, I prefer Boise remains here and work things out.  But IF they leave the MWC I'd welcome the Broncos into our home for sure.

Boise is a stronger athletics department than some give 'em credit for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ibanez said:

Yeah but I've been up that way many times. New York, Jersey, Philly. Those are not really college football towns. Its like the Bay area out west with Oakland, AF and San Jose. No one cares that much about the college sports compared to the pro sports.

And by the way, Philly, New York...they don't care about B1G hoops either. That's Big East country.

 

What? Nobody out in Philly or New York cares about Nebraska or Purdue hoops?  Preposterous.  

Cornhusker hoops belongs in the Summit but that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ibanez said:

Boise State won't do the football only again. They found that out the hard way when dealing with the Big West before the MWC folded this year and agreed to pay the Broncos part of what Boise wanted. (FOX paid the rest.) Boise would do football and men and women's basketball in the AAC and the other sports would be parked elsewhere. Boise State is down to six men's sports. If say, Boise State joined the Big Sky for the other sports Boise State could play a Big Sky school in football every other year and do a home & home against the Big Sky in means and women's hoops yearly. That one pay game every other year in football would make the Big Sky enough cash to make the move worth it to them.

Regardless of what anyone thinks. Boise State is the top pick for the AAC right after Army and BYU. Army wants to stay Indy and BYU makes too much on their own. And I promise you teams like UCF, Houston, and Cincy (As well as Tulsa and ECU) don't give two shits what Navy's AD says. All of those school have games with Boise State in the next few years. Their is no grudge there.

You guys get pissed because Boise State has options. That's what this is all about.

 

You know who I can't take serious? A guy who claims sources and makes predictions with out knowing the rules.

You may have your football independent only or seperate in another conference but where you put your basketball with rare exceptions (baseball only or hockey only division 1 schools) is your home conference. If that conference has that sport your team must participate in that home conference. The AAC has already stated they will take a football only anywhere but Olympics need to take into account geography.

The AAC does not want Boise 🤣 and they do indeed care what Navy thinks which is why there are carve outs for Navy needs, like them receiving the full money for the Army Navy game, scheduling concessions to make the ND series easier especially when Navy is home therefore choosing a neutral location, and a seperate Navy tier to the AAC media deal so Navy home games occur at 3:30 on Saturdays. I can also personally assure you the Naval Academy is very tight with SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa the three private universities located in very pro military states. Which is one many reasons Navy is in the AAC west.

BYU's deal is better or worse depending on years and broadcast channels, but they would make slightly more on average with the AAC deal, not enough to matter. I think 2022 they would make more since the schedule super p5 heavy. 

Army may reconsider and has past relationships with several of the schools and plays more AAC teams than BYU or Boise over the last few and next several years.

Boise is valuable but it has no options, the PAC won't take you and neither will the Big XII, you are not welcomed in the AAC. As I said settle in Boise will be in the MW no matter what form it takes, they have no where else to go. I did see UCF scheduled you I assume for the easy victory and ensure there is no IF Boise can win the MW will they get a shot at NY6 talk that probably won't even be happening by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JoeBlo said:

 

Actually that's not what previous ruling have said. It is not a requirement that the women's sports get the exact same thing as men's. Otherwise you would see a lot more impressive volleyball only arenas and a lot higher paid softball coaches.

The key is in reasonable fairness, are you attempting to give female sports the same sort of support and opportunity that you provide to male sports.

 

Secondly Covid would be extenuating circumstances that the judge would take into account, including feasibility with expense being part part of that. Doesn't mean it's a free pass, only that it will be considered.

 

Thirdly, it does not require that the equality be all at the same time and balance through out the three seasons of NCAA competition. If the sport was moved to spring but will still be played you will have a difficult time proving that in a pandemic it should have to be played in fall. Especially considering some of these sports are indoor and therefore will fit in any season. For low revenue sports even getting thirty fans in is money that makes the sport feasible, a temporary delay to capture that income is not onerous, especially when it may actually add to the safety of the players and is in cohesion with other measures taken by the university in this unusual current circumstance.

See that is the problem that I can't see being overcome.  Prior decisions have basically said that revenues could not be a consideration under TItle IX when it comes to providing women the same opportunities to compete as men in college athletics. 

 

What is the rational argument that men's football has less feasibility in a COVID world than any women's sport?  Volleyball would require about 20 athletes/coaches to be routinely tested and monitored.  Football is looking at almost 100.  I can't see any rational argument to be made along these lines.

 

The best argument that I can come up with if I was arguing that to allow men's football to compete but no women's sports would be a contractual breach theory.  That is to say that perhaps men's football had entered into media contracts that would result in significant breach and penalties if the sport were not to be played based on the decision of the university whereby the women's sports had not entered into  similar contracts (although we are kinda back to an economic outlook again but at least we are a bit removed from pure income analysis).

 

While I don't like it, there are a lot of attorneys out there looking to pounce at these sorts of claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OrediggerPoke said:

See that is the problem that I can't see being overcome.  Prior decisions have basically said that revenues could not be a consideration under TItle IX when it comes to providing women the same opportunities to compete as men in college athletics. 

 

What is the rational argument that men's football has less feasibility in a COVID world than any women's sport?  Volleyball would require about 20 athletes/coaches to be routinely tested and monitored.  Football is looking at almost 100.  I can't see any rational argument to be made along these lines.

 

The best argument that I can come up with if I was arguing that to allow men's football to compete but no women's sports would be a contractual breach theory.  That is to say that perhaps men's football had entered into media contracts that would result in significant breach and penalties if the sport were not to be played based on the decision of the university whereby the women's sports had not entered into  similar contracts (although we are kinda back to an economic outlook again but at least we are a bit removed from pure income analysis).

 

While I don't like it, there are a lot of attorneys out there looking to pounce at these sorts of claims.

 

That isn't what the decisions said. It doesn't concern revenue one way or another. Again exact equality is not required, not even getting close. Women's soccer does not = men's tennis. There is no women's football to compare. If football is the only sport being played then women's soccer is not being treated different then men's soccer, both receive the same opportunity.

In this case the fact that football generates the revenue necessary to make the testing possible for the 20 volleyball players and coaches is the circumstance that will matter as well as that they are treating women and men sports the same. Combine with the fact that they are postponing the sport not abandoning it and title IX isn't involved in any way. 

Again they do not have to balance things out by season, or revenue, they only have to provide equal opportunity. Men play soccer in spring, women play soccer in spring. Men don't have ooc women don't have ooc and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2020 at 3:35 PM, jdgaucho said:

 

If Boise goes rogue it might lead to a permanent break with the MWC :ph34r:

 

Promises, promises....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...