JHumich

February 2nd, 2024 at 2:03 PM ^

Didn't take a lot of vision to see this coming.

Makes it hard to swallow that we didn't just give them the middle finger and re-sign Harbaugh in the midst of the Stalions stuff. It'll be sweet when the NCAA goes down. Would have been sweet for us to propel that in that way.

The championship still feels great, and the future also looks great for Michigan (to me, at least), but even more so, now, college football as a whole. It would have been good to have Jim in the college ranks to advocate for the athletes, but it is what it is.

Joined: 02/18/2017

MGoPoints: 52926

Westside Wolverine

February 2nd, 2024 at 1:37 PM ^

You are describing the NCAA. Yes, the NCAA has lost it's way in many regards, and maybe there are ways to regulate the enforcing body to ensure fair treatment of all member, but no matter what we will have the NCAA or something like it. The member schools should think about how to make a better NCAA than celebrate it's destruction. 

Joined: 12/24/2011

MGoPoints: 3781

BlockM

February 2nd, 2024 at 1:47 PM ^

This exactly. The NCAA isn't some body that was foisted upon schools... the schools came up with it! Schools want and *need* what the NCAA provides: a scapegoat for decisions that are good for the bottom line of universities and bad for the unpaid labor. The Big Ten and the SEC aren't going to get together in a room and come up with some progressive revenue sharing model, they're going to come up with a new NCAA that appears slightly less anti-trusty but still maximizes the dollars flowing to the people in charge.

Joined: 07/03/2008

MGoPoints: 40727

DonAZ

February 2nd, 2024 at 1:48 PM ^

Sure ... there's nothing terribly unique about the NCAA.  Some kind of regulatory body is needed.  I doubt anyone wants a truly 'wild west' type environment.

A case could be made that the NCAA should be restored so a new organization was not needed.  I doubt the NCAA wants that, which is why we see the first stirrings of a B1G/SEC alignment.  I doubt it's a coincidence this comes shortly after the NCAA issued a notice of allegations against Tennessee.  I think the B1G and the SEC have grown weary of the NCAA.

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16761

RadOWon

February 3rd, 2024 at 8:31 PM ^

I wouldnt say a super conference but I wouldnt be surprised to see 50-80 teams split away from the NCAA governing body to create it's own collegiate organization. It's long overdue as there is an obvious class system and those universities have outgrown the NCCA governing body. Lumping the University of Michigan in with Central Michigan is no longer pragmatic with the dawn of NIL and the inevitable profit sharing model.

I'm not overly confident the two conferences can set egos aside but it would be for the good of major college sports and the universities if they are able too. This can't only be about football or sports. Academics, research, endowment etc must all be considered for this to be a successful partnership. I can see them eventually including the ACC, Big 12, Notre Dame, Oregon St. and WSU which I believe would put the number right at 70 teams.

One final point, I havent seen mentioned that I believe will be all but essential is revenue sharing and by that I am referring to revenue sharing amongst the member universities. From my perspective every professional sports league in the United States has proved this is the only way to maintain a competitive balance. The NFL is the best example of the success of the concept and it has obviously not hindered the popularity of the sport. If not, then we are still left with about 15-20 universities that have the financial means to outspend every other university many times over. Unless they want to create a league with only 15-20 schools which I believe is counterintuitive to the success of college sports, revenue sharing is essential.

 

Joined: 03/28/2013

MGoPoints: 1531

RadOWon

February 3rd, 2024 at 9:13 PM ^

This is interesting, I saw this after I posted above. I agree with a lot of what you propose. I was at roughly 70 member institutions so we are on the same path. I didnt go into the playoffs like you did but I like your ideas.

I agree that a "salary cap" is essential to the success of this model and I believe it fails without this in place. The one area I am not in line with you is the amount of money paid and the allocation of NIL monies. I dont want this to sound ridiculous but I live in SoCal and $55k a year is almost poverty level compared to $55k a year in Baton Rouge LA so that would need to be considered. Also, allocating all monies earned through NIL collective to non revenue sports  would result in those collective being eliminated in my opinion. People are donating so they can help the major sports teams not mens water polo.

From my perspective, the cap would need to include the TV revenue sharing model and all NIL revenues entirely. Otherwise USC, TX, ohio, Bama etc. could pay each athlete's exponentially more than Mississippi St, Iowa, South Carolina could. I think a base pay of $55k to $75k plus each university is allowed to disperse an additional agreed upon NIL dollar figure (cap) how they feel best works with their program is viable. Unfortunately a "capologist" would be required at each member school.

I just dont see how a model in which the 3rd string freshman QB who didnt take a snap is paid $3.5m for the season while a 5th year offensive lineman on the same team who has started three straight years earns almost nothing in comparison. Yes, that is the definition of a free market but every pro pro sports league in the US has already gone down that path and it obviously doesnt work, and yes, in the end, it becomes another pro sports league. What else can you call it?

Joined: 03/28/2013

MGoPoints: 1531

JonathanE

February 2nd, 2024 at 4:18 PM ^

You are naive if you think that is happening. Fox, CBS and NBC aren't shelling out the big bucks so that they can host Purdue versus Michigan State. The networks are salivating at the chance to show Ohio State versus Oregon. A Michigan - Washington rematch. Penn State versus USC.   

Joined: 09/03/2017

MGoPoints: 2366

mooseman

February 2nd, 2024 at 4:24 PM ^

For better or worse, I think the body of the NCAA is too all encompassing for its membership. Yes, no matter what the entity is it will need a ruling body. However, the more alike the schools are the more appropriate the rules can be. 

For instance, the ridiculous in season scouting rule. No big time Big Ten or SEC school has a budget that limits the ability to travel and scout future opponents. Rules will not have to "fit" both Alabama and FIU.

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 35498

MgoBlueprint

February 2nd, 2024 at 1:15 PM ^

I think that if we seriously explored going to the ACC before the FSU fiasco, then the B1G would have been in trouble. I'm assuming that osu would want to follow. Michigan and OSU is probably 70%+ of the b1g's tv value. Maryland back to the ACC would make a ton of sense. I'm not sure if Penn st would follow, but it would make all of the sense in the world for them to. 

So Michigan to the ACC could've realistically been:

  • Michigan
  • osu
  • Notre Dame
  • Duke
  • UNC
  • UVA
  • Cal
  • Stanford
  • Clemson
  • FSU
  • Miami
  • Pitt
  • Syracuse

vs a new B1G of

  • USC
  • UCLA
  • state
  • Oregon
  • Washington
  • Penn St
  • Indiana
  • Purdue
  • Illinois
  • Northwestern
  • Rutgers
  • Wisconsin
  • Nebraska
  • Iowa

I know that I omitted a few schools. Michigan to the ACC would've made the ACC possibly the strongest athletic conference. They'd definitely be better than the ACC in football, basketball, and baseball. 

Michigan single-handedly had the opportunity to change college sports and deal the b1g and petite and huge blow. 

Joined: 12/15/2008

MGoPoints: 11573

camblue

February 2nd, 2024 at 1:27 PM ^

Why would you assume OSU would have followed us to the ACC? They would have been the unrivaled kings of a much better and more important conference in the Big Ten and could have claimed their main rival (i.e. us) had to leave because we cheated (of course we'd disagree, but they could create the narrative). 

Joined: 03/01/2018

MGoPoints: 2921

Vasav

February 2nd, 2024 at 1:29 PM ^

I think the dynamics of Michigan to the ACC would have been as much about getting away from OSU as anything else. It would've been foolish financially for both the Big Ten and Michigan, because the M-OSU game is the centerpiece to the big ten TV deal. But if M left, it'd be because we had a problem with the governance being dominated by OSU and the programs that carried their water.

Anyhow, the smart thing to do is bury the hatchet. We won the 'ship, who cares what some idiots say on twitter? I'm not above twisting the knife, but all the in-season penalties did was make our team look even better and our title look more unassailable, and our rivals look even more impotent. We bide our time, play nice, and keep winning. That's how we get revenge.

I am no fan of the Big Ten . But it's also important to realize that as important as M is to the big ten, OSU is important to M (and vice versa), and the reason we were unhappy with the Big Ten is because OSU was trying to sabotage our season by using the Big Ten. The world where M leaves the Big Ten is the world where A&M leaves the Big 12, but more. Instead we just dominated. That feels nice.

Joined: 12/13/2009

MGoPoints: 19255

Vasav

February 2nd, 2024 at 2:13 PM ^

So what should we do? Sue them, even tho we won a title despite them? Keep the scandal in the news? Rally the rest of the league to leak anonymous quotes about how petty we're being?

Or - we wait for the NCAA results, issue a statement that "clearly this wasn't a big deal" and the next time an infraction comes up for debate about something like OSU's NIL we loudly proclaim "in-season penalties are unfair until all facts are established, the previous precedent was a wrong and two wrongs aren't right" and make a big fuss over how Pettiti cannot be trusted because nobody can believe he's fair or deliberative and the reason in-season penalties are up for discussion is because of him - and get his ass canned?

Or we bide our time and if we feel we're being treated unfairly again - we claim in court that we are not being treated as an equal member of the league, and leave the Big Ten without a buyout (and maybe sue to take a share of our conference revenue until 2036) and then form a new league? And convince the Pac4 they won't get treated fairly by an OSU-centric league without Michigan to balance them out?

But if we don't play it cool, if we go in with guns and bluster, we basically close ourselves off from multiple future possibilities where we LEVERAGE the fact we were treated unfairly and the fact that we're one of the two anchors to this conference to get an outcome we actually want. Revenge is served cold. When it's hot, nobody is willing to take a taste.

Joined: 12/13/2009

MGoPoints: 19255

JonathanE

February 2nd, 2024 at 4:28 PM ^

I don't think anyone would have followed Michigan. In fact, Ohio State would be laughing their asses off at us. Using last year's numbers, Big Ten teams had a payout of $58 million and change per team, while the ACC paid out $38 million and change per team. The ACC was distributing from a pot of $617 million while the Big Ten was splitting up $845 million. Where is that extra money coming from? 

Joined: 09/03/2017

MGoPoints: 2366