More conference realignment talk

[1318WWells]

I subscribe to Matt Brown's Extra Points column, and he does a lot of stuff on conference realignment.  He believe that this kind of stuff actually harms the conference and the schools that remain.

https://www.extrapointsmb.com/uic-stony-brook-caa-ae-horizon-league-ban/

"In covering conference realignment over the last two years, multiple people at multiple schools, conferences and businesses have told me that how leagues handle the transition process is absolutely a factor when other schools decide which league to join.

As one industry source told me, "If you're thinking about dating somebody, and you know their last three relationships ended in huge fights and they're always talking about how crazy their exes are...that has to raise a red flag, right? It's a similar factor in conference realignment. It may not be enough of a red flag to keep a school from joining a league, but it's certainly a factor."

Officials at both UIC and Stony Brook told me that while they're not completely ruling anything out, both schools are likely to consider how their transitions from the Horizon and AE went when setting up out of conference schedules in the future. If you're a school that wants to play games in Chicago or Long Island for recruiting purposes, do you really want to burn a relationship that could make that happen?"

A possible solution in all of this was for UIC to honor the one year notice. Didnt they worry about burning bridges? They were the ones putting their own student athletes at risk of not playing in league tournaments.

[DoctorV]

I should have been more clear.  Oklahoma and Texas are slated to leave the Big 12 in 2025.  The four new schools are slated to join in 2023, so there would be two years of a 14 team league, which apparently the conference seems to be planning for.

Of course there is no reason NOW to negotiate, but what happens a year from now?

Where are Texas and Oklahoma going?

[brewcity77]

Where are Texas and Oklahoma going?

They are joining the SEC.

[WhiteTrash]

A possible solution in all of this was for UIC to honor the one year notice. Didnt they worry about burning bridges? They were the ones putting their own student athletes at risk of not playing in league tournaments.

Taking responsibility for your own actions??? What America are you living in? 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

A possible solution in all of this was for UIC to honor the one year notice. Didnt they worry about burning bridges? They were the ones putting their own student athletes at risk of not playing in league tournaments.

If you read the article I linked to, you can see why this is both hypocritical (the Horizon took schools without a waiting period and multiple Horizon schools wanted to go to the MVC without giving one year's notice) and not realistic (it doesn't prevent schools from leaving.) 

COULD the Horizon League enforce its bylaws in this regard?  Sure.  But SHOULD they given the state of intercollegiate athletics at the mid-major level and given the fact that it is the students who do most of the suffering?  No.

Taking responsibility for your own actions??? What America are you living in? 

Again, since the athletes are the ones who are being penalized, and none of their actions caused this, this is really not a very good point.

[WhiteTrash]

Again, since the athletes are the ones who are being penalized, and none of their actions caused this, this is really not a very good point.

Yes it is a good point. Unless your beef is with UIC, and not the conference, for making a choice to penalize their athletes under terms they knew about and freely agreed to. The conference is acting ethically and legally in this matter.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes it is a good point. Unless your beef is with UIC, and not the conference, for making a choice to penalize their athletes under terms they knew about and freely agreed to. The conference is acting ethically and legally in this matter.

Legally? Yes, but that's not in question. Ethically? Matter of opinion. Just because UIC may or may not be acting unethically doesn't mean that the conference is acting ethically. It also doesn't answer if the conference is acting wisely.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Legally? Yes, but that's not in question. Ethically? Matter of opinion. Just because UIC may or may not be acting unethically doesn't mean that the conference is acting ethically. It also doesn't answer if the conference is acting wisely.

Yep.  There is a reason they reversed course.

[source?]

Didn't the Horizon do the same thing when Butler and Valparaiso left? I'm pretty sure I remember there being some controversy around that. Some people never learn

[WhiteTrash]

Legally? Yes, but that's not in question. Ethically? Matter of opinion. Just because UIC may or may not be acting unethically doesn't mean that the conference is acting ethically. It also doesn't answer if the conference is acting wisely.

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I don't see where the conference acted unethically. They acted in accordance with the mutually agreed to terms. There wasn't some material change in conditions that would justify or compel them to change the terms of the agreement. In fact, they have a legal and ethical duty to the members of the conference to enforce the agree to policies.

Whether the terms of the agreement are good or wise is a totally different discussion. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I don't see where the conference acted unethically. They acted in accordance with the mutually agreed to terms. There wasn't some material change in conditions that would justify or compel them to change the terms of the agreement. In fact, they have a legal and ethical duty to the members of the conference to enforce the agree to policies.

Whether the terms of the agreement are good or wise is a totally different discussion. 

They don't have a legal and ethical duty to enforce the bylaws in place.  They can choose to waive them. 

And of course the discussion of the terms being wise or good is part of this discussion.  That's the whole point.

[WhiteTrash]

They don't have a legal and ethical duty to enforce the bylaws in place.  They can choose to waive them. 

And of course the discussion of the terms being wise or good is part of this discussion.  That's the whole point.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. My experiences in corporate and contract law lead me to totally different conclusions.

Hopefully we can agree that MU is in a great conference and fortunate to not have to deal with these issues. 

[Mr. Nielsen]

Didn't the Horizon do the same thing when Butler and Valparaiso left? I'm pretty sure I remember there being some controversy around that. Some people never learn

Meaning ban from HL post season, no. Rules were different then, i'm guessing.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I don't see where the conference acted unethically. They acted in accordance with the mutually agreed to terms. There wasn't some material change in conditions that would justify or compel them to change the terms of the agreement. In fact, they have a legal and ethical duty to the members of the conference to enforce the agree to policies.

Whether the terms of the agreement are good or wise is a totally different discussion.

Just because there is an agreement in place, doesn't mean that the agreement is ethical. I can see arguments for the Horizon being unethical. I can see arguments for UIC being unethical. The only group that for sure is not being unethical? The student athletes. Yet they were the ones who being punished the most. Fortunately, the Horizon reversed course.

[WhiteTrash]

Just because there is an agreement in place, doesn't mean that the agreement is ethical. I can see arguments for the Horizon being unethical. I can see arguments for UIC being unethical. The only group that for sure is not being unethical? The student athletes. Yet they were the ones who being punished the most. Fortunately, the Horizon reversed course.

I agree the current students are being penalized for decisions out of their control and you could say that future students are reaping benefits of moving to a better conference sooner.

I still fail to see where the conference was acting unethically. In my opinion, just an opinion, UIC 100% acted unethically with both the conference and it's student athletes. To willfully and knowingly violate the terms of the conference to the detriment of both its fellow schools and its athletes is unethical in my eyes.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I agree the current students are being penalized for decisions out of their control and you could say that future students are reaping benefits of moving to a better conference sooner.

I still fail to see where the conference was acting unethically. In my opinion, just an opinion, UIC 100% acted unethically with both the conference and it's student athletes. To willfully and knowingly violate the terms of the conference to the detriment of both its fellow schools and its athletes is unethical in my eyes.

Or both UIC and the Horizon are acting unethically.  Just because something is in the bylaws and they have the RIGHT to exercise it, that doesn't mean they SHOULD.  Because in the end, enforcing this bylaw doesn't really do anything to punish the UIC administrators who are acting unethically.  It is punishing the players who aren't.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I still fail to see where the conference was acting unethically. In my opinion, just an opinion, UIC 100% acted unethically with both the conference and it's student athletes. To willfully and knowingly violate the terms of the conference to the detriment of both its fellow schools and its athletes is unethical in my eyes.

I think it is unethical for a conference to create (and then enforce) a bylaw whose only meaningful impact is to punish student athletes for something that they had no control over.

[WhiteTrash]

I think it is unethical for a conference to create (and then enforce) a bylaw whose only meaningful impact is to punish student athletes for something that they had no control over.

What is more unethical, to create the by-law or to willingly agree to and bound your university to them? The Horizon League and it's members (UIC included) probably felt that this was a fair way to prevent rapid exits of schools with no window to replace members and potentially putting things like automatic bids at risk; which would be very unfair to the athletes at other schools.

I think it unethical for any organization, company, school or individual to enter into an agreement of their own free will and break that agreement without some mitigating factor, such as; to not violate the agreement will cause undo harm to them. (Not the case at UIC). UIC could have abided the rules they agreed to and waited the 1 or 2 years or whatever it was and never put the student athletes' playing careers at risk. I don't see how UIC is not, by far, the most at fault for the whole situation.

Look, the ACC took it's pound of flesh ($31MM) from Maryland, which it had every right to, and nobody cared that the ACC reduced Maryland's resources for its student athletes. Why? Because Maryland agreed freely to the terms of ACC membership.

I'm certain we'll never agree on this. That's OK, this is not very important in the grand scheme of life.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Again, both UIC and Horizon can both be unethical. UIC being unethical doesn't mean that Horizon is being ethical

[WhiteTrash]

Again, both UIC and Horizon can both be unethical. UIC being unethical doesn't mean that Horizon is being ethical

I never said they are mutually exclusive of each other. I don't understand how you are getting to that conclusion.  We all understand that both can be acting unethically. You are missing my point.

I explained my opinion above. Time to move on.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I never said they are mutually exclusive of each other. I don't understand how you are getting to that conclusion.  We all understand that both can be acting unethically. You are missing my point.

I explained my opinion above. Time to move on.

Your opinion isn't on the topic at hand. The discussion was about whether or not the Horizon enforcing that bylaw that punished the student athletes was the right thing to do. You keep trying to make it about UIC. UIC didn't decide to enforce the bylaw, the Horizon League did. UIC had no part in that decision. Regardless of whatever UIC has done, the Horizon League still had the choice of whether or not to enforce the bylaw. They initially chose to do so, which they had every right to do. My opinion was that this was the wrong (and unethical) choice. The Horizon League eventually agreed with me because they reversed their decision within a week.

Your argument boils down to "well, UIC was worse" which isn't a logical argument. It's just whataboutism. UIC's actions may have enabled the Horizon to enforce that bylaw (and the ethics of that is a whole other conversation), but it was still the Horizon's decision on whether or not to actually follow through on enforcing the bylaw. Which they did, but they eventually realized and corrected their error in judgement.

Trying to compare this to Maryland paying an exit fee is a poor comparison. An exit fee punishes the school (the ones at fault), not the student athletes (innocent bystanders). It also provides additional value to the old conference which can benefit its remaining members. Banning student athletes from postseason play doesn't meaningfully punish the leaving school but does punish the student athletes. It also provides no value to the Horizon League's remaining members. It's only purpose is pettiness and as Clarissa's article argued may even damage the remaining members.

The reason no one cared about the ACC getting its pound of flesh from Maryland is because they didn't ban their players from postseason play. If all the Horizon League did was charge UIC an exit fee, no one would give a crap either.

[1318WWells]

Your opinion isn't on the topic at hand. The discussion was about whether or not the Horizon enforcing that bylaw that punished the student athletes was the right thing to do. You keep trying to make it about UIC. UIC didn't decide to enforce the bylaw, the Horizon League did. UIC had no part in that decision. Regardless of whatever UIC has done, the Horizon League still had the choice of whether or not to enforce the bylaw. They initially chose to do so, which they had every right to do. My opinion was that this was the wrong (and unethical) choice. The Horizon League eventually agreed with me because they reversed their decision within a week.

Your argument boils down to "well, UIC was worse" which isn't a logical argument. It's just whataboutism. UIC's actions may have enabled the Horizon to enforce that bylaw (and the ethics of that is a whole other conversation), but it was still the Horizon's decision on whether or not to actually follow through on enforcing the bylaw. Which they did, but they eventually realized and corrected their error in judgement.

Trying to compare this to Maryland paying an exit fee is a poor comparison. An exit fee punishes the school (the ones at fault), not the student athletes (innocent bystanders). It also provides additional value to the old conference which can benefit its remaining members. Banning student athletes from postseason play doesn't meaningfully punish the leaving school but does punish the student athletes. It also provides no value to the Horizon League's remaining members. It's only purpose is pettiness and as Clarissa's article argued may even damage the remaining members.

The reason no one cared about the ACC getting its pound of flesh from Maryland is because they didn't ban their players from postseason play. If all the Horizon League did was charge UIC an exit fee, no one would give a crap either.

Yes, enforcing the bylaw would have been the right thing to do.

The teams in the league agreed to the restrictions for a reason. Schedules are planned almost a year out, lots of moving parts with shared venues, multiple sports. Will it now be fine if a team leaves 6 months before a season starts? 3 months?

UIC made a choice knowing it would adversely affect their student athletes. Why couldn’t they resolve the situation by waiting the full year?

If UIC suited up Lebron James and let him play in a game, would the Horizon or NCAA be unethical in punishing the program because the other players would be adversely affected?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yes, enforcing the bylaw would have been the right thing to do.

The teams in the league agreed to the restrictions for a reason. Schedules are planned almost a year out, lots of moving parts with shared venues, multiple sports. Will it now be fine if a team leaves 6 months before a season starts? 3 months?

When Northern Kentucky left the Atlantic Sun for the Horizon League, they gave less than two months notice.   

https://www.swishappeal.com/2015/5/9/8578223/northern-kentucky-to-leave-atlantic-sun-will-join-horizon-league

So I guess these issues related to scheduling really only matter when a team leaves the conference?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes, enforcing the bylaw would have been the right thing to do.

The teams in the league agreed to the restrictions for a reason. Schedules are planned almost a year out, lots of moving parts with shared venues, multiple sports. Will it now be fine if a team leaves 6 months before a season starts? 3 months?

UIC made a choice knowing it would adversely affect their student athletes. Why couldn’t they resolve the situation by waiting the full year?

You are making the same whataboutism argument that WhiteTrash is. What about UIC? What about UIC? They did not have any role in this decision. Only the conference did. Whether UIC leaving early is okay or not is a separate conversation. Punishing UIC's student athletes does nothing to benefit the Horizon League. It does nothing to punish UIC. All it does is punish the student athletes for something they had no control of. It's petty. And look, the Horizon League even realized it which is why they reversed the decision. Not even the conference that you are trying to defend agrees with you.

If UIC suited up Lebron James and let him play in a game, would the Horizon or NCAA be unethical in punishing the program because the other players would be adversely affected?

What? Your argument against this is "what if a current NBA player decided to play for a crappy college team?" You can't think of a more realistic scenario? But to play along with this fantasy, you would obviously ban UIC's basketball team from play until James was removed from the roster. Why? Because James' presence is an unfair advantage that harms other athletes in the conference. This farce is not comparable to what the Horizon tried to do to UIC's athletes. UIC's athletes don't have any unfair advantage that harms the other teams in the conference. Them being eligible for postseason play is what every other team expected to happen entering the season.

[1318WWells]

You are making the same whataboutism argument that WhiteTrash is. What about UIC? What about UIC? They did not have any role in this decision. Only the conference did. Whether UIC leaving early is okay or not is a separate conversation. Punishing UIC's student athletes does nothing to benefit the Horizon League. It does nothing to punish UIC. All it does is punish the student athletes for something they had no control of. It's petty. And look, the Horizon League even realized it which is why they reversed the decision. Not even the conference that you are trying to defend agrees with you.

What? Your argument against this is "what if a current NBA player decided to play for a crappy college team?" You can't think of a more realistic scenario? But to play along with this fantasy, you would obviously ban UIC's basketball team from play until James was removed from the roster. Why? Because James' presence is an unfair advantage that harms other athletes in the conference. This farce is not comparable to what the Horizon tried to do to UIC's athletes. UIC's athletes don't have any unfair advantage that harms the other teams in the conference. Them being eligible for postseason play is what every other team expected to happen entering the season.

The scenario was farcical on purpose.

Every decision a university makes affects the students. Every decision the athletic department makes affects the student athletes. You know this more than anyone on this board.

If you don’t agree with a rule or a bylaw, negotiate to change it. Don’t just break it and hope there’s no repercussions.

Agreed that this particular rule might not be merited. But like you said that’s a different discussion.

The rule is in place to protect the league, its other members, and their automatic bid. It’s in place to make a team wait the full year and not screw over their players; To avoid this scenario. It goes above and beyond a monetary punishment.  UIC decided it was worth the risk and put the student athletes in the middle.