Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

[LynahFan]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

How insane is that? Wow. How do the poor lads ever get any coursework done?

Oh, that's no problem. Remember, it's baseball, so they have hours and hours of free time - during the games!

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Oh, that's no problem. Remember, it's baseball, so they have hours and hours of free time - during the games!

Either that, or during the aforementioned "long bus rides" (either here or on another thread, can't remember which).

 

[NMU8405]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

I agree with everything you said, except this point. The majority of sponsorship deals in college athletics is made on an individual basis between the school and the specific company (Nike, Adidas, UnderAmour, etc...). The vast majority of these contracts are also athletic department wide. Therefore, one maker supplies an entire athletic department. Having one sponsorship deal would create numerous legal issues in regards to the current sponsorship contracts in place with individual schools. I doubt the NCAA wants to open up this can of worms, which would remain in court for years to come.

NFL v. American Needle Inc.
Issue: Whether NFLP, the NFL, and the teams functioned as a “single entity” when granting the company an exclusive headwear license and therefore could not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, which requires proof of collective action involving “separate entities.”

Basiclly, the NFL told teams that Reebok would be supplying all merch. to outlets, the NFL store etc. American Needle had a contract with a team, and was pushed out of its contract. The larger issue is, being a team in the NFL, does the league itself control your team as a single entity? If so, this contract is legal. But, if each team itself is single- it violates anti-trust laws.

I dont think the NCAA would want to violate anti-trust laws. Though the NCAA is the governing body, I dont not think any court would come close to saying the NCAA runs the Athletic Depts of every college/University.

 

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Yeah, no.

But thank you for trying to tell me what my point was.

So what part of this....

"It was the concern of intelligent people everywhere the moment Iona and Fairfield dropped their programs, followed of course by Findlay and Wayne State (but partially made up for by the accession of RMU).

The Michigans and Minnesotas of the world seemed to shrug their shoulders at those developments without considering the possibility of losing the 16-team tournament."

...didn't I understand correctly?

-the part where you slam anchor schools for their ignorance of D1 hockey being dropped by smaller revenue schools? (and I suggest that the governance of flailing programs is the NCAA's responsibility, not that of the "Michigan's or Minnesota's")

- the part where it may affect the contraction of the D1 hockey tourney?
(Once again, that is not up to the anchor school to decide, it's the NCAA's decision, even with the strong arm of the anchor school)

Tell me then genius, what I am I missing here, and what really WAS your point? You want large schools to subsidize the smaller schools? Schedule them more? Bring them into their leagues? Twist the arms of the NCAA's cabinet?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Is "anchor school" what a jock school calls itself?

 

[kdilks]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Michigan and the CCHA have less bye weeks because their conference tournament is longer...

I'm aware, the "many" teams I was implicitly referring to were any CCHA team that got 2 bonus games for traveling to Alaska.

Denver had 1 bye in November and 1 in January, they also did not play for 2 weekends in December. They played 4 weekends in October including a single exhbition game the first weekend. Dump the exhibition game and give them one weekend off at Christmas with a 10-day break. That is 4 less days than they got this year for Christmas break before returning to practice. They would be back on the ice with 2 to 3 days practice before New Year's weekend games. By doing this the season could be started the first weekend of November and still play the same amount of games.

Denver isn't every team. Try doing the same thing with Michigan's schedule. Starting in November this season would have resulted in 4 less games, even if you cut the exhibitions/cut the bye week/force students to play in the middle of exams.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

So what part of this....

"It was the concern of intelligent people everywhere the moment Iona and Fairfield dropped their programs, followed of course by Findlay and Wayne State (but partially made up for by the accession of RMU).

The Michigans and Minnesotas of the world seemed to shrug their shoulders at those developments without considering the possibility of losing the 16-team tournament."

...didn't I understand correctly?

-the part where you slam anchor schools for their ignorance of D1 hockey being dropped by smaller revenue schools? (and I suggest that the governance of flailing programs is the NCAA's responsibility, not that of the "Michigan's or Minnesota's")

- the part where it may affect the contraction of the D1 hockey tourney?
(Once again, that is not up to the anchor school to decide, it's the NCAA's decision, even with the strong arm of the anchor school)

Tell me then genius, what I am I missing here, and what really WAS your point? You want large schools to subsidize the smaller schools? Schedule them more? Bring them into their leagues? Twist the arms of the NCAA's cabinet?

You are so far off the reservation that the continuation of this line of discussion is pointless. You don't get it, just move on.

I'm ignoring you. If you want to get into foolish name-calling and trying to decide for me what my point was over something silly, I'm not going to escalate it. Good day.

 

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

You are so far off the reservation that the continuation of this line of discussion is pointless. You don't get it, just move on.

I'm ignoring you. If you want to get into foolish name-calling and trying to decide for me what my point was over something silly, I'm not going to escalate it. Good day.

No, it's simply because there is no line of reasoning. I called you out and you can't give any reasonable explanation. Good day, yourself. Sorry I can't think on your level. Must be that Big Ten edgumacation.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

You are so far off the reservation that the continuation of this line of discussion is pointless. You don't get it, just move on.

I'm ignoring you. If you want to get into foolish name-calling and trying to decide for me what my point was over something silly, I'm not going to escalate it. Good day.

You specifically called out Michigan and Minnesota and blamed them for this possibility. So, I'm not sure anyone gets your point. Anyone here (besides Red Cloud cause he'll just call me a dumbass) want to explain to me what Red Cloud's point was? Cause I don't get it either.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

You specifically called out Michigan and Minnesota and blamed them for this possibility.

No, I didn't. You and streaker read "Michigan and Minnesota" and WANTED to believe that. Poor, poor persecuted you.

Grow up.

 

[The Paragon of Virtue]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

You specifically called out Michigan and Minnesota

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

Who says St. Cloud State doesn't provide a meaningful education!

tPOV, as usual, figured it out. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

Ok, fair enough. I knew someone else could explain it. I don't agree with him, but I think it's a fair argument to make.

Either way Minnesota and Michigan and partly at fault in his argument. So, I fail to see why he protests so much.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

You specifically called out Michigan and Minnesota and blamed them for this possibility. So, I'm not sure anyone gets your point. Anyone here (besides Red Cloud cause he'll just call me a dumbass) want to explain to me what Red Cloud's point was? Cause I don't get it either.

Ooooh, Oooh! Me! Me!!!

So...um...let's see....well...nope. I got nothing. No clue at all.

 

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

No, he used Michigan and Minnesota as representative examples of, I'm guessing, the big, important schools.

Wow, that makes us feel special. He could have used his own conference teams, but I guess that would have been an oxymoron.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Either way Minnesota and Michigan and partly at fault in his argument. So, I fail to see why he protests so much.

Because I wasn't putting them "at fault" for anything, numbnuts. That's just your expectation of persecution at work.

 

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Because I wasn't putting them "at fault" for anything, numbnuts. That's just your expectation of persecution at work.

"The Michigans and Minnesotas of the world seemed to shrug their shoulders at those developments without considering the possibility of losing the 16-team tournament."

That suggests blame, albeit directed at those schools or schools of "their size and power".

Now, who is calling people names?

Either way, you fail. You still haven't explained exactly what they were suppose to do about it compared to the organization that has the big stick in the fight.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

"The Michigans and Minnesotas of the world seemed to shrug their shoulders at those developments without considering the possibility of losing the 16-team tournament."

That suggests blame, albeit directed at those schools or schools of "their size and power".

Now, who is calling people names?

Either way, you fail. You still haven't explained exactly what they were suppose to do about it compared to the organization that has the big stick in the fight.

He has an out cause he makes wimpy statements. Using the word "seemed" and pluralizing Michigan and Minnesota is his cover. Then when someone calls him on it like you have he calls you an idiot because he left himself an out. It's a game he plays all the time so he can call everyone a dumbass and make himself feel smart.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Anyway, dragging this thread away from the streaker/Scooby romper room and back on topic...

The idea of a 58-team contract for apparel was brought up. I don't suppose this is done anywhere else in the NCAA, but at the same time, there aren't really any other sports with this small membership that produces revenue with its championship. I suppose it could be done, but, as was said, it would have to be graduated in order to compensate for schools with long-term contracts for apparel, and there'd have to be some pretty solid support for it all around. I could see a tangible marketing benefit to Reebok or Nike getting such a contract but how would the revenues be split? Would probably have to be by each individual school's sales.

 

[streaker]

Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.

Classic political move. Change the topic and ignore it. Better pull up your pants, your slip is showing.