College football, a target rich environment

I’m not sure who has it better, Jimmy Sexton, or the trial attorneys who get to clean up the messes the people running the sport make.  It’s a good living, either way.

41 Comments

Filed under See You In Court

41 responses to “College football, a target rich environment

  1. No snark intended here, but it’s got to be Jimmy Sexton right? I mean, if you think of it in terms of dollars earned per hours of work spent? Right?

    Like

  2. uga97

    .. and crickets from the USCwest camp. No surprise.

    Like

    • Different situation. Southern Cal’s a private school. UC Berkeley and UCLA are both part of the public university system and one just kneed the other in the nuts, financially speaking.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Yep. USC’s name makes it sounds like it’s a public school, but nothing could be further than the truth.

        Like

      • 81Dog

        I’m not sure that the “the Pac 12 will be broke with or without UCLA, so let’s make sure UCLA stays broke, too” approach is the move here, but I’m not an incompetent California political functionary. I’m sure it will all work out super well if we let the academics sort it all out.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Can the UC Regents scuttle this whole thing? People in Berkeley and LA going at it? Where did I put the popcorn?

    Like

    • rigger92

      This was my initial reaction a couple weeks ago. These two schools put themselves on one hell of an island surrounded by some pissed off water. It can’t be going well out there right now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I can’t imagine the 2 schools are going to be getting any return calls from schools out west for out of conference games in any sports right now. The regional nature of college sports especially outside of football could be getting ready to slap USC and UCLA upside the head.

        Like

    • miltondawg

      A spokesman for the university system for California (“UC”) Office of President said that the UC Board of Regents had no authority to prevent the move by UCLA to the B1G.

      Like

  4. stoopnagle

    I’m pretty sure the Board of Regents at USG could block a conference move for UGA or Tech if it felt like it needed to for the good of the system and, if I recall correctly, the UC system BOR is one of the stronger governing boards in higher ed.

    That said, USG BOR isn’t going to get the big boys way on anything – but they might happily screw State or Southern.

    Like

    • Interesting point. If the ACC were to implode because ND joined the Big 10 for football, would the regents put pressure on Morehead and Brooks to push for Fech’s admission to the SEC? Same for South Carolina with Clemson and Florida with FSU.

      Like

      • I think the SEC would pluck Clemson as soon as the GOR agreement was broken. FSU would be questionable unless they start turning things around.

        Fech has to be scared to death of what happens if the ACC collapsed.

        Like

      • Doesn’t ND absolutely positively have to join the ACC, if it joins anybody?

        Like

        • I thought so as well, but no one in the media has talked about that. I can’t find anything online that requires it.

          Like

          • miltondawg

            The GOR deal for the ACC says that if Notre Dame joins a conference before 2036 they are contractually obligated to join to the ACC. But let’s be honest, in today’s world “contractually obligated” simply means that Notre Dame can do whatever it wants if they are willing to pay to get out of that situation.

            Like

        • From what I read online and heard on sports talk radio – always good sources of truth – ND would have to join the ACC unless it implodes.

          Like

      • Gaskilldawg

        When Tech applied for readmission to the SEC in 1978 UGA vigorously supported it but there were not enough votes from the other 9 members to let Tech back in. The anti-Tech feelings lingering from its days as a member were too strong. Someone said at the time that a bunch of folks in Mississippi would have to die of old age before Tech would stand a chance.

        My point is that the Georgia Board of Regents could only direct that one vote and could not force anything.

        Like

  5. 79dawg

    There was a headline (didn’t read the article) yesterday that indicated there were concerns that half the states in the Big Ten footprint are states with such “reactionary” and regressive laws that are subject to California’s “boycott”….

    Like

    • Since USC is a private school, that California law doesn’t apply to it.

      Like

      • But it does apply to UCLA…right?

        Like

        • silvercreekdawg

          Yes it does. The supposed workaround is they would use athletic funds not provided by the state (eg, ticket revenues) to circumvent the restrictions.

          Like

        • miltondawg

          There are three states in the B1G footprint currently that are on the banned list. Ohio, Indiana and Iowa. But UCLA would have run into this situation anyway if they stayed in the Pac-12 because Utah is on the banned list and on September 28, 2022 Arizona will be added to the banned list.

          Like

    • PTC DAWG

      Like Idaho, where the CA Governor vacationed recently? Nah, that means nothing to UCLA.

      Liked by 2 people

      • miltondawg

        I think that it was Montana (which is also on the banned list), but his response was that taxpayers didn’t fund his trip to Montana. When asked about his security detail, he declined to answer.

        Like

  6. What is wrong with college presidents and ADs using public institutions to chase all the money they can for football?

    Like

  7. godawgs1701

    I was wondering if something like this was going to come along, either from the regents or from the state government. The fact that this all appears to have been done in secret at the university level is pretty surprising. Whereas I don’t think there were a whole lot of negative feelings in Oklahoma or Texas when OU and UT moved to the SEC, I can imagine that a lot of people in California wouldn’t want to see UCLA (or USC which they don’t have any power over) skip out on every traditional rivalry they had and start playing all the way across the country. I remember when the ACC was cannibalizing the Big East and the Virginia legislature got involved to make sure VA Tech was taken. I wonder if California is going to get involved to protect some of their other schools like Cal.

    Like

    • The Oklahoma State people are still bitter about OU especially if that ends Bedlam. The other Big 12 Texas schools aren’t happy with either of them.

      Like

      • godawgs1701

        That’s true, and I’m sure that the fan bases of the other Texas schools that are now on less stable ground thanks to UT’s defection from the Big 12 are also angry and that’s probably reflected in the state legislature there in some numbers. My assumption is that OU and UT have a substantial enough majority of fans in both states that it might not matter enough to lead to litigation.

        Like

  8. Remember the Quincy

    It ain’t honest work, but it’s much.

    Like

  9. 81Dog

    i guess this may be a dumb question, but is there some reason the Pac12 cant stay intact (including USC and UCLA) for sports other than football? Does the Big Ten reallllllly see any value in all the travel costs and complications in sports other than football? Even basketball. Is there any reason the big football schools cant just break out of the NCAA, or stay in an create their own conferences,, etc, and just leave the rest?Football tv money drives everything, so let football operate somewhat independantly. Or is that just too simple?

    Like

    • rigger92

      I get what you’re saying but I would think that if football breaks from the athletics dept then football gets to keep that ~$70mil check every year from the B1G and doesn’t have to share it with the golf/swim/baseball/basketball programs. If I am a university president I am not letting all that money go to one program, even if I have to burn it on plane charters.

      Like

      • 81Dog

        I think the general idea that even if the football program isnt part of the NCAA, it is still part of the school, means that money coming in from football goes into the athletic dept pot, regardless; The school is still subject to Title IX, right? I’m not suggesting football break away from the athletic dept overall, just that each school puts its football program into some new superconference collection (whatever they would call it). Basketball and the olympic sports carry on as before in the NCAA. It doesnt seem much different to me if the AD allocates some SEC conference football or bowl money to womens tennis, or if it’s Superconference football or bowl money to women’s tennis. Am I missing something?

        Like

  10. munsoning

    ‘The rest of us see a sport that is not only in decline but also increasingly unrecognizable. The established identities of the Big Ten and other conferences — once organic groupings based on geography — are disappearing like regional accents, and well-meaning but ultimately misguided rule changes are turning college football into a de facto minor league for the National Football League, complete with N.F.L.-style free agency.’

    Like