New NCAA D1 Subdivision By August

[superman7515]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10817368/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-lays-goals-five-conference-subdivision


Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive spoke for the big schools when he said, "What we're trying to give them is what [student-athletes] are asking for."
Slive visited the University of Massachusetts last week as the executive-in-residence for the Mark H. McCormack Department of Sport Management. In a keynote address, Slive laid out seven goals for the new subdivision of Division I that will house the following conferences: SEC, Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12.

• providing the full cost of attendance to grant-in-aid recipients
• fulfilling the health, safety and nutrition needs of student-athletes
• allowing student-athletes who have exhausted their eligibility to complete their undergraduate degree without cost
• ending the cold war against agents and advisers so that players testing the professional waters can receive better information
• harnessing the demands of sports so that student-athletes get more balance in their lives -- i.e., another crack at the "20-hour rule"
• more and better assistance for academically at-risk student-athletes
• giving student-athletes a role and a vote in NCAA governance that affects them

That list could come just as easily from a union guy as from the commissioner of one of the most powerful leagues in intercollegiate athletics.

After the speech, Slive said, "I was careful to say that what I was interested in is what the student-athletes were interested in getting, not how they got it."

Slive, as do his colleagues, want to modify the collegiate model, not do away with it.

"I'm not in favor of them being employees," Slive said. "What does 'payment' mean? If payment means they are going to be employees, then I am not in favor of it. ... Whatever we do, at least from my perspective and the perspective of my colleagues, is to be done within the collegiate model. ... This is about higher education, so we need to do more within the context of higher education, not in the context of employment."
.
.
.

The NCAA expects to create the five-conference subdivision in August. Slive estimated that it will take until at least the first of the year to draw up the rules by which the schools will govern themselves. In the current model, presidents make decisions as members of the NCAA Board of Directors. The five conferences want more responsibility in the hands of their athletic administrators.

[walliver]

App State joins FBS, and the Big Boys leave :)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

ending the cold war against agents and advisers so that players testing the professional waters can receive better information


:pumpuke:

"Cold War against agents and advisers?" No, certainly that didn't come from a political outfit trying to craft a political message. xrolleyesx

Because you can't say "student welfare" without unlimited access to agents and advisors. Yes, that's exactly what I think of when it comes to student-athletes going hungry.

Congress' first act when this abomination attempts to come to pass should be to strip the "Big 5" of their non-exempt status.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

There it goes. The conferences will all work to get to 16 and you'll have the top 80 teams having nothing to do with the rest. Good, they **** it up for everyone else anyway.

One question, what does this do to the bowls? Are they stronger or weaker now? Does the upper division go to unlimited scholarships? How does the lower tier FBS function going forward?

Speculation but when the SEC wants something, they'll probably get it.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

If this happens there's certain schools that seriously need to consider dropping football imo. I really thought the MWC and AAC had a fighting chance to remain among the "big boys"......

[clenz]

This scenario is exactly what UNI athletic director Troy Dannen has been saying will happen for about 3 or 4 years and is exactly why a couple of school have been looking at an FBS move.

The big boys split and depending how it shakes out the FCS becomes, somehow, weaker. The goal for a number of the top level FCS schools has been to be at the second level of football. Depending how this shakes out there could be a wider gap between the FCS and the rest of the FBS as we know it.

[clenz]

If this happens there's certain schools that seriously need to consider dropping football imo. I really thought the MWC and AAC had a fighting chance to remain among the "big boys"......
The AAC had no chance. The MWC had very very little chance.

Going forward neither has a football program to call it's flagship that "really" matters.

This will certainly force UCONN and Cinci to try REALLY REALLY hard for the ACC/B12. Boise State may try to force it self to the PAC12 or B12. It may also force BYU and Notre Dame into a conference

You'll see the Big 5 go to 16 team conferences with 2 divisions and a title game.

After that you'll have the left overs realigning with a couple of the FCS schools to create a "new FBS" and then you'll see the rest of the FCS stay the "FCS"

[Saint3333]

App State joins FBS, and the Big Boys leave :)

1974 App joined Division I from the College Division (prior to 1974 you were either University or College Division)
1978 I-AA was created
1982 App and the SoCon joined I-AA

I have predicted a repeating of the past on here quite a few times. The key to moving to the SBC was to make sure we remain in the top two subdivisions of major college athletics.

I would actually prefer a subdivision of SBC, MAC, CUSA, and MWC (that aren't absorbed into P5 conferences) members along with the top ~40 programs from the FCS. To me division one football has needed three tiers for the past 10 years. FBS is watered down, but so is FCS.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The AAC had no chance. The MWC had very very little chance.

Going forward neither has a football program to call it's flagship that "really" matters.

This will certainly force UCONN and Cinci to try REALLY REALLY hard for the ACC/B12. Boise State may try to force it self to the PAC12 or B12. It may also force BYU and Notre Dame into a conference

You'll see the Big 5 go to 16 team conferences with 2 divisions and a title game.

After that you'll have the left overs realigning with a couple of the FCS schools to create a "new FBS" and then you'll see the rest of the FCS stay the "FCS"

Agree with this completely except that it doesn't make FCS weaker, quite the opposite. I think it makes things stronger. The FBS teams outside of those big 5's will need much of the top of FCS to make things work and that new alignment won't be done by bowls it will be done via a playoff if they want teams moving laterally for the most part.

This has gone down exactly like me and Dback were talking about a few years back on CS when AZG said Montana needed to go WAC. xlolx

This looks to hurt the FBS outside of the Big 5 the most right now. We'll see how things start to shake out.

The MVFC, BSC, CAA, and not as sure about SoCon and Southland as a whoel are going to be very quickly right back at the second tier on paper as much they are already their in reality. I'd imagine a few teams out of those conferences won't want to or be able to make changes and a few teams from other conferences not mentioned may well want to do it as well.

But if it's still bowl games then suck it.

[DFW HOYA]

If this happens there's certain schools that seriously need to consider dropping football imo. I really thought the MWC and AAC had a fighting chance to remain among the "big boys"......

Who?

[phoenix3]

Just as importantly, what does this do to basketball and March madness? 66 teams is 3/4 of these conferences. Will these conferences now provide full cost of attendance to grant in aid recipients? What about conferences like the Big East & the A10 who have quality basketball like the big 5? Can of Worms!!

[clenz]

Agree with this completely except that it doesn't make FCS weaker, quite the opposite. I think it makes things stronger. The FBS teams outside of those big 5's will need much of the top of FCS to make things work and that new alignment won't be done by bowls it will be done via a playoff if they want teams moving laterally for the most part.

This has gone down exactly like me and Dback were talking about a few years back on CS when AZG said Montana needed to go WAC. xlolx

This looks to hurt the FBS outside of the Big 5 the most right now. We'll see how things start to shake out.

The MVFC, BSC, CAA, and not as sure about SoCon and Southland as a whoel are going to be very quickly right back at the second tier on paper as much they are already their in reality. I'd imagine a few teams out of those conferences won't want to or be able to make changes and a few teams from other conferences not mentioned may well want to do it as well.

But if it's still bowl games then suck it.It's looking more likely that a conference or two might get the entire conference get a call up rather than just select teams.

For a while I really thought it was going to poaching teams for the MAC/CUSA/SBC but with the way this sounds there may be some poaching but it gives the BSC, MVFC, and CAA a lot of ammo to get an entire conference move.

The kicker is going to be what the scholarships is going to be. I'm wondering if it will meet between the 83 and 65 at 74

- - - Updated - - -


Just as importantly, what does this do to basketball and March madness? 66 teams is 3/4 of these conferences. Will these conferences now provide full cost of attendance to grant in aid recipients? What about conferences like the Big East & the A10 who have quality basketball like the big 5? Can of Worms!!
This will be football only...

The basketball won't be touched.

At least not for quite some time.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Assuming this actually happens (not a foregone conclusion by any means):

What is more likely - some combination of wannabe Big 5 and FCS together to make one subdivision? Or will wannabe Big 5 and FCS still remain apart?

The Big 5 could choose to absolutely crush the wannabe Big 5 if they so desire. If they just say they won't choose them exclusively as OOC games, and shut them out of the moneymaking bowls, the subdivision would cease to exist. The wannabe Big 5 would either have to go to FCS, or disband.

[centennial]

It's looking more likely that a conference or two might get the entire conference get a call up rather than just select teams.

For a while I really thought it was going to poaching teams for the MAC/CUSA/SBC but with the way this sounds there may be some poaching but it gives the BSC, MVFC, and CAA a lot of ammo to get an entire conference move.

The kicker is going to be what the scholarships is going to be. I'm wondering if it will meet between the 83 and 65 at 74

- - - Updated - - -


This will be football only...

The basketball won't be touched.

At least not for quite some time.
I expect the top FCS 30-50 teams to merge with the FBS have-nots. This actually works for the strong FCS conferences.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It's looking more likely that a conference or two might get the entire conference get a call up rather than just select teams.

For a while I really thought it was going to poaching teams for the MAC/CUSA/SBC but with the way this sounds there may be some poaching but it gives the BSC, MVFC, and CAA a lot of ammo to get an entire conference move.

The kicker is going to be what the scholarships is going to be. I'm wondering if it will meet between the 83 and 65 at 74



I've always figured it would be between 72-75 but on the issue of conferences I'd think it a good idea for the commissioner's of those FCS conferences be well versed with each other and somewhat on the same page as a group if it does come down to something like this.

[darell1976]

It's looking more likely that a conference or two might get the entire conference get a call up rather than just select teams.

For a while I really thought it was going to poaching teams for the MAC/CUSA/SBC but with the way this sounds there may be some poaching but it gives the BSC, MVFC, and CAA a lot of ammo to get an entire conference move.

The kicker is going to be what the scholarships is going to be. I'm wondering if it will meet between the 83 and 65 at 74

- - - Updated - - -


This will be football only...

The basketball won't be touched.

At least not for quite some time.

This is what Doug Fullerton was hoping for.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This is what Doug Fullerton was hoping for.

I believe you mean it's what he was predicting I'm not sure if it was hoped for or not but it does/would provide options.

I said last year that the way this is gonna end up the lower FBS teams are gonna end up the top FCS teams more than we need them although both could benefit if it is done right.

[clenz]

I believe you mean it's what he was predicting I'm not sure if it was hoped for or not but it does/would provide options.

I said last year that the way this is gonna end up the lower FBS teams are gonna end up the top FCS teams more than we need them although both could benefit if it is done right.
I think most of us figured this was going to happen.

I was a proponent of moving up to ensure UNI stayed second level but only to the MAC and only if it meant that staying MVFC meant not staying that second level.

UNI's AD has said the same thing I've been a proponent of for quite some time. In a 2012 interview Troy Dannen said that we could expect news on UNI's fooball future in the next 4-5 years hinting that something was likely to happen very soon - and this is probably it.

I don't know if Dannen saw the entire conference thing but if that is how it plays out I'm sure the vast majority of the MVFC is okay with it.

[darell1976]

I believe you mean it's what he was predicting I'm not sure if it was hoped for or not but it does/would provide options.

I said last year that the way this is gonna end up the lower FBS teams are gonna end up the top FCS teams more than we need them although both could benefit if it is done right.

He would hope he could move the conference up is what I meant. I just hope this will begin a start to a playoff and dump all the worthless bowls. Let the Super 5 have their Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl while everyone else play each other for a National Title with a real playoff.

[buffalobill]

With all the changes taking place the North and South Dakota true universities may end up exactly where they were 45 years ago, in the second level!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

He would hope he could move the conference up is what I meant. I just hope this will begin a start to a playoff and dump all the worthless bowls. Let the Super 5 have their Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl while everyone else play each other for a National Title with a real playoff.

If they weren't dumping the bowls then personally I still have zero interest and what good would moving laterally be to anyone now that BCS have decided they ain't part of it? There isno allure (less in fact) than there ever has been unless THEY decide our way is the better option. If not FCS could stay together as it is and before you know it they would be even more marginalized.

It's not like those conferences left out are the big money dicks swinging around the party so what else is there?

[Panther88]

The fostering of segregation between the haves and have-nots is evident. The snoots of the sec, big xii, big x, pac-xii, .. are running the entire football show. Amazing. And even more amazing that kids of a specific gift (physically) don't see the game that's being played w/ them. *smh*

If one is NFL caliber, one will be located and found easily @ an sec school or d-III school. Too bad kids don't understand this.

[darell1976]

With all the changes taking place the North and South Dakota true universities may end up exactly where they were 45 years ago, in the second level!

Bring back the Camellia Bowl!!

[buffalobill]

Bring back the Camellia Bowl!!

The Bison cleaned up on Montana Ewe back to back in 1969 30-3 and 1970 31-16.

[buffalobill]

It's looking more likely that a conference or two might get the entire conference get a call up rather than just select teams.

For a while I really thought it was going to poaching teams for the MAC/CUSA/SBC but with the way this sounds there may be some poaching but it gives the BSC, MVFC, and CAA a lot of ammo to get an entire conference move.

The kicker is going to be what the scholarships is going to be. I'm wondering if it will meet between the 83 and 65 at 74

- - - Updated - - -


This will be football only...

The basketball won't be touched.

At least not for quite some time.
Just a point of order it's 85 and 63 scholarships.

[darell1976]

The Bison cleaned up on Montana Ewe back to back in 1969 30-3 and 1970 31-16.

UND is 3-0 in Bowl games:

1965: 37-20 over Northern Illinois Mineral Water Bowl
1966: 42-24 over Parsons (IA) Pecan Bowl
1972: 38-21 over Cal Poly-SLO Camellia Bowl

[NoDak 4 Ever]

NDSU is barely over .500 in 12 bowl appearances.




1

W

11-28-1964

14

Western St. (CO)

13

Mineral Water Bowl



2

W

12-11-1965

20

Grambling St. (LA)

7

Pecan Bowl (2)



3

L

12-09-1967

0

Texas-Arlington

13

Pecan Bowl (2)



4

W

12-14-1968

23

Arkansas St.

14

Pecan Bowl (2)



5

W

12-13-1969

30

Montana

3

Camellia Bowl (2)



6

W

12-12-1970

31

Montana

16

Camellia Bowl (2)



7

L

12-04-1976

3

Montana St.

10

Grantland Rice Bowl - Division II Semifinal Playoff Game



8

L

12-03-1977

7

Jacksonville St. (AL)

31

Grantland Rice Bowl - Division II Semifinal Playoff Game



9

L

12-12-1981

13

Texas St.

42

Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game



10

W

12-10-1983

41

Central St. (OH)

21

Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game



11

L

12-08-1984

17

Troy (AL)

18

Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game



12

W

12-14-1985

35

North Alabama

7

Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game

[IBleedYellow]

NDSU is barely over .500 in 12 bowl appearances.




1


W


11-28-1964


14


Western St. (CO)


13


Mineral Water Bowl




2


W


12-11-1965


20


Grambling St. (LA)


7


Pecan Bowl (2)




3


L


12-09-1967


0


Texas-Arlington


13


Pecan Bowl (2)




4


W


12-14-1968


23


Arkansas St.


14


Pecan Bowl (2)




5


W


12-13-1969


30


Montana


3


Camellia Bowl (2)




6


W


12-12-1970


31


Montana


16


Camellia Bowl (2)




7


L


12-04-1976


3


Montana St.


10


Grantland Rice Bowl - Division II Semifinal Playoff Game




8


L


12-03-1977


7


Jacksonville St. (AL)


31


Grantland Rice Bowl - Division II Semifinal Playoff Game




9


L


12-12-1981


13


Texas St.


42


Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game




10


W


12-10-1983


41


Central St. (OH)


21


Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game




11


L


12-08-1984


17


Troy (AL)


18


Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game




12


W


12-14-1985


35


North Alabama


7


Palm Bowl - Division II Championship Game






I REALLLLLY hope we don't have to go back to a bowl system...I also don't want playoffs like DII, so yay.

As an FCS fan, I'm really pumped to see this shake out. Could mean great things in the near future for the league.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

The AAC had no chance. The MWC had very very little chance.

Going forward neither has a football program to call it's flagship that "really" matters.

This will certainly force UCONN and Cinci to try REALLY REALLY hard for the ACC/B12. Boise State may try to force it self to the PAC12 or B12. It may also force BYU and Notre Dame into a conference

You'll see the Big 5 go to 16 team conferences with 2 divisions and a title game.

After that you'll have the left overs realigning with a couple of the FCS schools to create a "new FBS" and then you'll see the rest of the FCS stay the "FCS"

The schools that share pro stadiums could really be in trouble. Temple, Georgia State and USF first come to mind. The Eagles and Jeffrey Lurie have made it be known that they're not too fond of Temple using the Linc unless there's a major increase in rent. I just don't see how it makes sense to pay a few million dollars to use a 65k seat facility when you can only draw 20-25k a game. On top of that, I don't see the Temple BOT's approving an on-campus stadium for a middling program.

I still think there will be more to this. Perhaps it's time to explore the idea of the AAC and MWC joining forces....

[BisonFan02]

I REALLLLLY hope we don't have to go back to a bowl system...I also don't want playoffs like DII, so yay.

Newsflash....FCS playoffs are reaching towards DII levels of goofy (still has a ways to go to get that bad). Regionalization anyone?

[IBleedYellow]

Newsflash....FCS playoffs are reaching towards DII levels of goofy (still has a ways to go to get that bad). Regionalization anyone?

Newsflash: We don't have rationalization...YET.

Edit: Regionalization. Sigh.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Newsflash: We don't have rationalization...YET.

But there "kind" of is.....

[IBleedYellow]

But there "kind" of is.....

It's not nearly as bad. If you were DII, you'd know what I mean.

[buffalobill]

UND is 3-0 in Bowl games:

1965: 37-20 over Northern Illinois Mineral Water Bowl
1966: 42-24 over Parsons (IA) Pecan Bowl
1972: 38-21 over Cal Poly-SLO Camellia Bowl
That only happened after NDSU showed UND how it should be done with victories in:

1964: 14-13 over Western State(CO) Mineral Water Bowl
1965: 20-7 over Grambling Pecan Bowl
1969: 30-3 over Montana Ewe Camellia Bowl
1970: 31-16 over Montana Ewe Camellia Bowl
It took two years to find the path to the Camellia Bowl 1n 1972.

NDSU was 6-1 during that same era in bowl games.

[mvemjsunpx]

Is it just me, or is this article extremely poorly written? I haven't seen any evidence that this is any more than a proposal at this point, yet the article (sort of) acts like it's already been adopted.

I also can't find any other articles mentioning this story on the net, and I don't see a link to it anywhere on ESPN's CFB homepage. xconfusedx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Newsflash....FCS playoffs are reaching towards DII levels of goofy (still has a ways to go to get that bad). Regionalization anyone?

It's no different than it ever has been. Even when it was seeded the number of teams close grabbing the appropriate seeds to make easy journeys was remarkable.

[Grizo406]

If they weren't dumping the bowls then personally I still have zero interest and what good would moving laterally be to anyone now that BCS have decided they ain't part of it? There isno allure (less in fact) than there ever has been unless THEY decide our way is the better option. If not FCS could stay together as it is and before you know it they would be even more marginalized.

It's not like those conferences left out are the big money dicks swinging around the party so what else is there?

My thoughts, EXACTLY!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Nice job, Ursus!

[hebmskebm]

From what I read the lower 5 FBS conferences would also be allowed to adhere to the new rules if they wanted to, but a majority of the schools in each would have to vote to adopt the changes. Could certainly see the MW and AAC voting to keep up with the power 5.

[superman7515]

Is it just me, or is this article extremely poorly written? I haven't seen any evidence that this is any more than a proposal at this point, yet the article (sort of) acts like it's already been adopted.

I also can't find any other articles mentioning this story on the net, and I don't see a link to it anywhere on ESPN's CFB homepage. xconfusedx


I don't know, Ivan Maisel's been covering college football for around 30 years. It's not some random kids blog that gets quoted for all these re-alignment scenarios around here, haha.

[mvemjsunpx]

I don't know, Ivan Maisel's been covering college football for around 30 years. It's not some random kids blog that gets quoted for all these re-alignment scenarios around here, haha.

Hmmm…

I figure: if this is law (or imminently so), this would be all over the news everywhere.

[walliver]

The G5 conferences need the payoffs they get from the bowl series. They aren't giving up $1 million for each school in order to participate in a playoff

[Bisonator]

If they weren't dumping the bowls then personally I still have zero interest and what good would moving laterally be to anyone now that BCS have decided they ain't part of it? There isno allure (less in fact) than there ever has been unless THEY decide our way is the better option. If not FCS could stay together as it is and before you know it they would be even more marginalized.

It's not like those conferences left out are the big money dicks swinging around the party so what else is there?

I agree. No bowls please!

I've never understood why the BCS couldn't have both though, I mean combine the bowls with a playoff format and double their money.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I agree. No bowls please!

I've never understood why the BCS couldn't have both though, I mean combine the bowls with a playoff format and double their money.

Yeah, seems logical but I guess then certain bowls or committee's for those bowls wouldn't like it.

[MplsBison]

The ink is barely dry on a twelve year deal that specifically provides for one G5 team to have automatic, guaranteed, yearly access to the six major bowls and also provides a yearly cut of the media money to those G5 conferences.

Come hell or high water, a G5 team is going to be playing in one of those bowl games for the next twelve years and the G5 are going to be collecting around 86 million dollars a year from the CFP in that period. (I believe it was about 86 out of 500 million per year that the new CFP deal was signed for)

These are facts.


And you're telling me the G5 are going to suddenly say "no thanks, we want to merge with the FCS teams and participate in their playoff - because we aren't being included in a special governing structure with the power five conferences that allows them to raise the value of their scholarships, among other things, without the rest of the DI membership agreeing."???

xrotatehxxrotatehxxrotatehx

[BisonFan02]

The ink is barely dry on a twelve year deal that specifically provides for one G5 team to have automatic, guaranteed, yearly access to the six major bowls and also provides a yearly cut of the media money to those G5 conferences.

Come hell or high water, a G5 team is going to be playing in one of those bowl games for the next twelve years and the G5 are going to be collecting around 86 million dollars a year from the CFP in that period. (I believe it was about 86 out of 500 million per year that the new CFP deal was signed for)

These are facts.


And you're telling me the G5 are going to suddenly say "no thanks, we want to merge with the FCS teams and participate in their playoff - because we aren't being included in a special governing structure with the power five conferences that allows them to raise the value of their scholarships, among other things, without the rest of the DI membership agreeing."???

xrotatehxxrotatehxxrotatehx

And there goes the neighborhood........

xpopcornx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The ink is barely dry on a twelve year deal that specifically provides for one G5 team to have automatic, guaranteed, yearly access to the six major bowls and also provides a yearly cut of the media money to those G5 conferences.

Come hell or high water, a G5 team is going to be playing in one of those bowl games for the next twelve years and the G5 are going to be collecting around 86 million dollars a year from the CFP in that period. (I believe it was about 86 out of 500 million per year that the new CFP deal was signed for)

These are facts.


And you're telling me the G5 are going to suddenly say "no thanks, we want to merge with the FCS teams and participate in their playoff - because we aren't being included in a special governing structure with the power five conferences that allows them to raise the value of their scholarships, among other things, without the rest of the DI membership agreeing."???

xrotatehxxrotatehxxrotatehx

Nope, no one is saying that. They'd be ill advised to walk away from that. Just never know what is going to happen. It could remain as is, or things could jumble up a bit and a buyout starts being talked about. At this stage anything could happen.

Doesn't matter though. We are in the same positions as before until something does shake loose and at this point there is zero reason to want to move on for those schools that have not already expressed a desire to do so.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I ask again - what would stop the new Big 5 subdivision from saying "We sever all bowl associations with the Big 5 Wannabe subdivision" the day after it comes into existence? And in fact, wouldn't it be in their economic interest to do so? The Big 5 Subdivision doesn't want competition, and if they do, they don't have to go to Big 5 Wannabe schools, they can just as easily select current FCS teams, probably for less money.

[MplsBison]

No one is saying that...except for about the first 40 posts in this thread. (It's the same on Bisonville as well, for what it's worth)

People are stumbling over their dining room chairs in a mad rush to the keyboard so they can be the first to say "I knew it!! Told ya so!! The BCS is going to split away from the NCAA and the rest of FBS has to merge down with FCS, where they belong!! LOL!!!111"

- - - Updated - - -


I ask again - what would stop the new Big 5 subdivision from saying "We sever all bowl associations with the Big 5 Wannabe subdivision" the day after it comes into existence? And in fact, wouldn't it be in their economic interest to do so? The Big 5 Subdivision doesn't want competition, and if they do, they don't have to go to Big 5 Wannabe schools, they can just as easily select current FCS teams, probably for less money.

CFP.

12 years.

Contract.


Educate yourself. Report back afterward.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

CFP.

12 years.

Contract.

Of course. Because contracts are never, ever, ever broken. Especially over money.

[FargoBison]

The lower five conferences will never merge the FCS, never. You would have to drag them kicking and screaming.

They would be better off having their own playoff. One where they could cut their own TV deal and not have to share 80% of their gate with the NCAA for home playoff games. Schools like NDSU and Montana would much prefer that kind of situation.

But with that said there is a 12 year signed contract, so for now nothing needs to change.

[MplsBison]

Of course. Because contracts are never, ever, ever broken. Especially over money.

Of course that's your response. I was already thinking of my reply, so here it is.

All it took was one senator in Utah causing a fuss for the BCS to say "OK, OK, fine - we'll let a team from the non-power conferences play in our BCS bowls *IF* they're ranked high enough in our special rankings. Now please leave us alone."

That was it. And since that happened, every year a non-power conference team has played in a BCS bowl.


So let's say that the five power conferences tell the CFP to "shove it", as you advocate - because they want a new, exclusive deal amongst themselves. Nevermind the fact that they spent the last couple years hammering out the details in exhaustive negotiations with the bowls, conferences and media corporations. Blow the whole thing up, barely dry ink and all, and start all over again from scratch - but this time, just for the power five conferences!

The CFP organization might be willing to go along with it. But can you guess who will not go along with it? That's right, senators.

And which states have public flagship universities with football teams playing in the G5 conferences and no other FBS interests within the state (public or private)?

Hawaii
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexico
Wyoming
Connecticut

If you truly want to see the end of college football as we know it today, forget about unions - just advocate for the schools in the above states to get the raw end of the deal.

The CFP and the NCAA's heads will be spinning so fast you could use them as centrifuges.

[MplsBison]

The lower five conferences will never merge the FCS, never. You would have to drag them kicking and screaming.

They would be better off having their own playoff. One where they could cut their own TV deal and not have to share 80% of their gate with the NCAA for home playoff games. Schools like NDSU and Montana would much prefer that kind of situation.

But with that said there is a 12 year signed contract, so for now nothing needs to change.

They could try to go that route but they'd never get anywhere near the money from media nor the prestige that the single team with guaranteed access would command in the big league post-season.

[FargoBison]

They could try to go that route but they'd never get anywhere near the money from media nor the prestige that the single team with guaranteed access would command in the big league post-season.

I am just saying if for some reason a clean break happened and the power conferences had their own playoff, the bottom five would still have no reason to go FCS. They would be better off on their own.

[MplsBison]

I am just saying if for some reason a clean break happened and the power conferences had their own playoff, the bottom five would still have no reason to go FCS. They would be better off on their own.

Most likely true.

Though in that case, I do think you'd see the "watering down" of FCS commence in overdrive, as what's left of the elite FCS programs would be sucked up into the new 2nd tier, if you will.

Montana, Montana State, the Dakotas, UNI, Southern Illinois, the best from the Southland, SoCon and CAA, etc.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So let's say that the five power conferences tell the CFP to "shove it", as you advocate - because they want a new, exclusive deal amongst themselves. Nevermind the fact that they spent the last couple years hammering out the details in exhaustive negotiations with the bowls, conferences and media corporations. Blow the whole thing up, barely dry ink and all, and start all over again from scratch - but this time, just for the power five conferences!

Gee, that's not compelling at all for the Power 5 to rip up their negotiated contract to receive more money to split with fewer members.

[FargoBison]

Gee, that's not compelling at all for the Power 5 to rip up their negotiated contract to receive more money to split with fewer members.

Why they would want out of an arrangement that gives them a cut of 71.5% of the revenue? Seems like a lot to risk for a small gain.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

No one is saying that...except for about the first 40 posts in this thread. (It's the same on Bisonville as well, for what it's worth)

People are stumbling over their dining room chairs in a mad rush to the keyboard so they can be the first to say "I knew it!! Told ya so!! The BCS is going to split away from the NCAA and the rest of FBS has to merge down with FCS, where they belong!! LOL!!!111"

- - - Updated - - -



CFP.

12 years.

Contract.


Educate yourself. Report back afterward.

Nope. It's more likely now than ever that the lesser conferences in FBS would like to drag some teams laterally but it is not as big get (never was) so it's less likely to happen unless they were to change to something with a playoff format which they won't do with things being as they are now. If things change, the BCS says screw it we're not doing the bowl system the way it is now or possibly put the pinch on the lesser FBS conferences in other ways and force them to reconsider.

Contract or not, this is not good news for your long held position and you know it.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Why they would want out of an arrangement that gives them a cut of 71.5% of the revenue? Seems like a lot to risk for a small gain.

If it's a lot to risk for a small gain, why dynamite FBS in the first place?

[Trumpster]

Why they would want out of an arrangement that gives them a cut of 71.5% of the revenue? Seems like a lot to risk for a small gain.

They don't just want most of the money, they want ALL the money.

[aceinthehole]

All it took was one senator in Utah causing a fuss for the BCS to say "OK, OK, fine - we'll let a team from the non-power conferences play in our BCS bowls *IF* they're ranked high enough in our special rankings. Now please leave us alone."

That was it. And since that happened, every year a non-power conference team has played in a BCS bowl.
...

And which states have public flagship universities with football teams playing in the G5 conferences and no other FBS interests within the state (public or private)?

Hawaii
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexico
Wyoming
Connecticut

If you truly want to see the end of college football as we know it today, forget about unions - just advocate for the schools in the above states to get the raw end of the deal.

I do agree there is a very high probability that Congress will get much more involved, especially if these State interests are not met in an acceptable way. For example, current Conn. Senator Blumenthal sued BC and the ACC when he was the CT Attorney General in an effort to stop the bleeding of the Big East. I don't think he and the Conn. delegation will sit by idle and watch their investment in the State university goes down the tubes. You are talking about a University with multiple national championships in other sports and a huge investment in football. I just don't see how they will be left on the outside of any new "subdivision."

Then you have the "Notre Dame" exception - if they aren't in a conference for football, how will they be in this new subdivision? I think this is just the opening offer and there will be a lot more negotiation before anything like this is ready to be implemented.

[FargoBison]

If it's a lot to risk for a small gain, why dynamite FBS in the first place?

I have no idea but I don't see a lot changing until their ESPN playoff contract is up. Nothing is really being dynamited, they are just taking more power so they can get certain rules and policies implemented. Nothing is stopping the lower five conferences from also implementing the same rules and policies.

I think what may end up happening is schools get priced out of the lower end of the FBS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I have no idea but I don't see a lot changing until their ESPN playoff contract is up. Nothing is really being dynamited, they are just taking more power so they can get certain rules and policies implemented. Nothing is stopping the lower five conferences from also implementing the same rules and policies.

I think what may end up happening is schools get priced out of the lower end of the FBS.

Nothing is stopping them, except the fact that the teams in this new subdivision now have control of over 90% of the money and the wannabe Big 5 will now have to see what the market will bear for their product without access to the playoffs and the most lucrative bowls - and maybe not even access to out-of-conference games.

http://i.imgur.com/sYClDzK.jpg

People were so happy to dynamite the BCS formula for determining the national champion and the bowl assignments. Funny how they'll be looking back on those days and saying, "Remember when we actually got a chance to play USC? In a bowl game?"

[bluehenbillk]

Nothing is stopping them, except the fact that the teams in this new subdivision now have control of over 90% of the money and the wannabe Big 5 will now have to see what the market will bear for their product without access to the playoffs and the most lucrative bowls - and maybe not even access to out-of-conference games.

http://i.imgur.com/sYClDzK.jpg

People were so happy to dynamite the BCS formula for determining the national champion and the bowl assignments. Funny how they'll be looking back on those days and saying, "Remember when we actually got a chance to play USC? In a bowl game?"


Nobody will ever miss the days of the BCS. To quote Charles Barkley they were "turrible".

[walliver]

I doubt there is any significant consolidation between the G5 schools and the upper-level FCS schools.

The G5 schools will get their guaranteed payoffs for the next 12 years. The money they get from the Championship series will cover the extra 44 scholarships required to maintain play at FBS sub-sub-division 2 level. There would be very little money for a D1-FBS-2 playoff system - I suspect a second-tier playoff would actually lose money.

I also don't really get the "Avis mentality" where playing at the second highest level is a big deal. If the Big Sky and CAA moved to a new second tier, what would be gained other than higher costs. ESPN/FSN/NBCSN et al can currently broadcast G5 games and claim it to be "big time". If a new sub-subdivision develops, then that would no longer be true, and broadcasting G5 games would be on a level of broadcasting AAA baseball games. The "move ups" would have a chance at playing a lesser bowl with a theoretical, though unlikely, chance at a CFP berth. I've never understood the benefit of playing the same teams you do now, but at greater expense.

[MplsBison]

Gee, that's not compelling at all for the Power 5 to rip up their negotiated contract to receive more money to split with fewer members.

You're just restating post #47 and #49.

I gave you the correct answer. Two correct answers, actually.

1) There's no way they'll blow up a fresh agreement that they spent the last two years toiling over. Not when the agreement sets things for twelve years at the richest rate ever received in a media deal for college football post-season content.

2) If they did dare to attempt it, the federal government would prevent them.


Either of those two things alone kill what you want to happen. It won't happen.

If you want to actually make an argument, using logic, of why it would happen - other than your emotional chant of "they'll do it because they're evil", which is just a smoke screen for your hope that all DI college football teams outside of the power five conferences will have to be forced down to FCS/I-AA - please do.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There's no way they'll blow up a fresh agreement that they spent the last two years toiling over. Not when the agreement sets things for twelve years at the richest rate ever received in a media deal for college football post-season content.

Of course they would, if it meant more money for them.


If they did dare to attempt it, the federal government would prevent them.

Why would the federal government care about what the Big 5 does, when they haven't really done squat in regards to college athletics governance in 100 years?

You must be laboring under the impression that Connecticut's, Wyoming's, New Mexico's, and Hawaii' senators are going to toil to start antitrust proceedings against the Big 5 to prevent them from breaking the football contract. News flash: None of these states care enough, or are insane enough, to do that.

[MplsBison]

Nope. It's more likely now than ever that the lesser conferences in FBS would like to drag some teams laterally but it is not as big get (never was) so it's less likely to happen unless they were to change to something with a playoff format which they won't do with things being as they are now. If things change, the BCS says screw it we're not doing the bowl system the way it is now or possibly put the pinch on the lesser FBS conferences in other ways and force them to reconsider.

Contract or not, this is not good news for your long held position and you know it.

I'm not sure I understand your position or what you believe my position to be. My position is to tell everyone here pounding their chests about the imminent break-up and restructuring of NCAA Division I football that they have no clue what they're talking about and are wrong.

The power five conferences aren't splitting away from the NCAA, aren't getting their own special sub-division of Division I football and aren't going to have their own exclusive post-season that excludes all teams from the G5 conferences.

I know that such a possibility makes many on this board giddy, because they hate the idea of schools like Idaho, Louisiana-Monroe, Buffalo, etc. being considered "better" than FCS teams and want to pull them down to FCS, officially.

Not happening. Never happening.


That said, I'm not advocating in the slightest for Montana, NDSU or any additional FCS teams to leave for FBS. I personally don't see that happening anytime in the next twelve years. The only G5 conference looking at expansion is the Sun Belt. All others are stable and full. And it's possible that the sole reason for the Sun Belt's expansion efforts (getting to 12 members for a championship game) is going to be rendered a moot point.

That welds the gate shut for the next twelve years. JMU screwed the pooch in that sense, but that's for another thread.

[MplsBison]

If it's a lot to risk for a small gain, why dynamite FBS in the first place?

If that were really taking place, wouldn't more media outlets be reporting the birth of this new subdivision? Why is ESPN/Iven Maisel the only one? It was posted Apr 21st, yet no one else is talking about a new NCAA subdivision.

Seems a little fishy to me.


I suspect what we're dealing with here is a simple misunderstanding. Slive most likely didn't mean literally that a new subdivision of DI was going to be created. He's just talking about a special governing structure for the power five to be able to vote themselves upgrades to scholarships, etc. without the rest of DI voting it down.

He (unfortunately) used the word "subdivision" to describe that and the internet hyper-reacted to it, as they do.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Slive most likely didn't mean literally that a new subdivision of DI was going to be created.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10817368/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-lays-goals-five-conference-subdivision


In a keynote address, Slive laid out seven goals for the new subdivision of Division I that will house the following conferences: SEC, Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12.

The NCAA expects to create the five-conference subdivision in August. Slive estimated that it will take until at least the first of the year to draw up the rules by which the schools will govern themselves. In the current model, presidents make decisions as members of the NCAA Board of Directors. The five conferences want more responsibility in the hands of their athletic administrators.

RIF

[MplsBison]

Of course they would, if it meant more money for them.



Why would the federal government care about what the Big 5 does, when they haven't really done squat in regards to college athletics governance in 100 years?

You must be laboring under the impression that Connecticut's, Wyoming's, New Mexico's, and Hawaii' senators are going to toil to start antitrust proceedings against the Big 5 to prevent them from breaking the football contract. News flash: None of these states care enough, or are insane enough, to do that.

It won't mean more money for them when the feds charge a hefty tax on all revenues from media deals that conferences receive.

That's what will happen if they try to screw the G5.


One senator from Utah just had to call some meetings. Imagine what senators from six states can do.

[MplsBison]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10817368/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-lays-goals-five-conference-subdivision



RIF

Maisel's words. Notice the lack of quotation marks?

He's interpreting Slive's comments in the way that will gain the most attention for himself and his employer.

As I said, if it were really the case - others would've picked up on it by now.

[MplsBison]

Nothing is stopping them, except the fact that the teams in this new subdivision now have control of over 90% of the money and the wannabe Big 5 will now have to see what the market will bear for their product without access to the playoffs and the most lucrative bowls - and maybe not even access to out-of-conference games.

People were so happy to dynamite the BCS formula for determining the national champion and the bowl assignments. Funny how they'll be looking back on those days and saying, "Remember when we actually got a chance to play USC? In a bowl game?"

Senators from six states are stopping them.

And the G5 have gained unprecedented access to the biggest bowls in college football in the latest iteration of the major league college football post season. They've gone from zero access, to access only if ranked high enough in the BCS standings, to yearly guaranteed access - in just three iterations over less than a decade.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So let's hear how Mpls will explain how the Big 5, making up their own rules for their own subdivision, are going to keep a post-season unified with the rest of FBS when one side is offering free steaks and $2,000 expense accounts for their students, and the other is mortgaging the house to keep up a fraction of this athletics spending.

Does that also sound like a question I have about the NCAA men's basketball tournament? Yes. Yes, it does. I don't see how you can have one set of rules for some conferences, and another for the rest.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Senators from six states are stopping them.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/nimrodel70/random/mark.jpg

"Now, Senator Blumenthal, you know and I know that we really need a kickass college football program in our state - after all, UConn's my alma mater, and when you think UConn, you think top-flight football, right? I'll back your re-election campaign in order to prevent this Big 5 bullhickey from ever happening, mmmkay?"

- Said nobody ever

[MplsBison]

"Now, Senator Blumenthal, you know and I know that we really need a kickass college football program in our state - after all, UConn's my alma mater, and when you think UConn, you think top-flight football, right? I'll back your re-election campaign in order to prevent this Big 5 bullhickey from ever happening, mmmkay?"

- Said nobody ever

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4582814


WASHINGTON -- A senator whose undefeated home state school was bypassed for the college football national championship last season urged President Barack Obama on Wednesday to ask the Justice Department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series, citing Obama's own concerns about the way the top team is crowned in building a case for action.

"Mr. President, as you have publicly stated on multiple occasions, the BCS system is in dire need of reform," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a 10-page letter to Obama calling for an antitrust probe of the BCS. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.


Alan G. Fishel, an attorney for the Mountain West Conference and Boise State University, backed the effort.

"If the government can look at the concentration of money in railroads, telecommunications and software developers, then why not the big business of college sports in America?" he said.


Hatch's letter comes a few days after the BCS released its first standings of the year. And on Monday, a group of college football fans launched the Playoff PAC, with the hope of electing more lawmakers who will pressure the BCS to switch to a playoff system.

[MplsBison]

So let's hear how Mpls will explain how the Big 5, making up their own rules for their own subdivision, are going to keep a post-season unified with the rest of FBS when one side is offering free steaks and $2,000 expense accounts for their students, and the other is mortgaging the house to keep up a fraction of this athletics spending.

Does that also sound like a question I have about the NCAA men's basketball tournament? Yes. Yes, it does. I don't see how you can have one set of rules for some conferences, and another for the rest.

It does indeed also apply to men's basketball (the scholarship upgrades, among other things Slive mentioned). Which is more evidence to the fact that Slive was not talking about a new subdivision of Division I football.

He's talking about a special governing structure for five conferences that will allow the members of those conferences to have an exclusive vote amongst themselves that excludes the rest of Division I.


I have the same question as you do, how is that going to work? I don't think anyone knows for sure yet, but I do have an idea.

Any rule modifications or new rules approved by this subset of the Division I membership will become special rules of the entire Division I body. They're special in the sense that they will be "optional". In other words, every team in Division I will have the option to upgrade their scholarship to include cost of attendance stipends. Etc.


As to how this will apply to the CFP, it won't change anything. The G5 will still get their yearly team into the big bowls and will still get their $86 million yearly cut of the media deal. It's just that the difference in benefits between what a player who plays for a power five conference team receives and what a player who plays for a G5 conference team receives may grow wider.

But G5 teams already know that the benefits they provide to their players are a significant disadvantage from what power five teams can provide to their players, yet at the end of the season the G5 teams are still finding ways to be competitive on the field. That's about the best they'll ever be able to do. They know that, everyone knows that. That's all they want, is that chance to compete.

[Daytripper]

Let's just be honest: Nobody knows anything. Nobody can predict the future of College Football with any certainty. Now a question: Don't wexcoffeex have a job, or something constructive, that we could be doing.

[Daytripper]

Let's just be honest: Nobody knows anything. Nobody can predict the future of College Football with any certainty. Now a question: Don't wexcoffeex have a job, or something constructive, that we could be doing?

Punctuation correction

[centennial]

Let's just be honest: Nobody knows anything. Nobody can predict the future of College Football with any certainty. Now a question: Don't wexcoffeex have a job, or something constructive, that we could be doing.
You are free to do your job and stay off the board. No one is forcing you. There is no need for this condescending remark. We are just speculating the future of our schools in college football. I don't see how its any different than any other hobby people have.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm not sure I understand your position or what you believe my position to be. My position is to tell everyone here pounding their chests about the imminent break-up and restructuring of NCAA Division I football that they have no clue what they're talking about and are wrong.

The power five conferences aren't splitting away from the NCAA, aren't getting their own special sub-division of Division I football and aren't going to have their own exclusive post-season that excludes all teams from the G5 conferences.

I know that such a possibility makes many on this board giddy, because they hate the idea of schools like Idaho, Louisiana-Monroe, Buffalo, etc. being considered "better" than FCS teams and want to pull them down to FCS, officially.

Not happening. Never happening.


That said, I'm not advocating in the slightest for Montana, NDSU or any additional FCS teams to leave for FBS. I personally don't see that happening anytime in the next twelve years. The only G5 conference looking at expansion is the Sun Belt. All others are stable and full. And it's possible that the sole reason for the Sun Belt's expansion efforts (getting to 12 members for a championship game) is going to be rendered a moot point.

That welds the gate shut for the next twelve years. JMU screwed the pooch in that sense, but that's for another thread.

I don't disagree with the spirit of any of that except that I'm pretty sure didn't want to screw the pooch so they decided to stay as far away the SBC as possible.

I think what you are taking as FCS wanting the FBS schools to move down to FCS is a bit in error though. From my perspective at least I'm telling what would make a move worthwhile. It's the same thing I've always said. If FBS outside the BCS schools had a playoff like FCS then I'd be a little more interested in the whole thing. I'm not talking about teams moving to FCS en masse.

In short, it isn't gonna probably mess with anything for the foreseeable future but I am very happy that "Let's go FBS now before the window closes" thing didn't catch on in Montana. I'd be more unhappy now if I were a fan of an FBS team not in the Bigs than I ever was before. The Big 5 is leaving you and it may take a while but it's clear it's happening.

[MplsBison]

I only say that in the sense that if JMU cares at all about being reclassified as FBS, then they absolutely squandered that opportunity for the next twelve years. Maybe they don't care about FBS that much. And if so, I think that's just fine. It would be somewhat of a perversion for JMU to join the Sun Belt just for the sake of reclassifying. But then again, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch with App St in the conference. Anyway....


So to repeat, I have no opinion about FCS teams moving up (en masse or otherwise) in general. If they want to do that, good for them. If they don't want to do that, fine. My strong opinion is in regards to forcing FBS teams down to FCS, which will never happen.

As to "the Big 5 leaving", again: no. They're not leaving and they don't want to leave. They have it as good now as they've ever had it, which includes the little fish still swimming in their pond.

Look it's as simple as this: if you're a shark living in someone's aquarium, yes you could choose to eat every other fish in the tank. That would leave the whole tank to yourself .......... until the owner of the tank flushes it down the toilet because you ate all his fish. -OR- you could eat a healthy portion of the fish, have a nice life and keep the owner happy enough to not pull the plug.

Option two is much more reasonable than the doomsday scenario.

[Daytripper]

You are free to do your job and stay off the board. No one is forcing you. There is no need for this condescending remark. We are just speculating the future of our schools in college football. I don't see how its any different than any other hobby people have.

Not trying to be condescending. It seems this "discussion" has turned into a argument among people who hold rigidly to positions with no actual facts to back it up. A lot of speculation and assumptions. I understand that is the nature of a sports/fan forum, but it also seems constructive to point out the obvious. :D By all means, carry on!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

You are free to do your job and stay off the board. No one is forcing you. There is no need for this condescending remark. We are just speculating the future of our schools in college football. I don't see how its any different than any other hobby people have.

Dead on. On top of that discussions at work are typically about the same sorts of innocuous subjects depending on who you are talking to anyway.

Daytripper, next time someone brings up a discussion at that doesn't concern work you better get on em' and let them know about it!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Not trying to be condescending. It seems this "discussion" has turned into a argument among people who hold rigidly to positions with no actual facts to back it up. A lot of speculation and assumptions. I understand that is the nature of a sports/fan forum, but it also seems constructive to point out the obvious. :D By all means, carry on!
That is exactly what the discussions on AGS are all about. xlolx

We are a bunch of know nothings that know everything about everything depending on our points of view.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Look it's as simple as this: if you're a shark living in someone's aquarium, yes you could choose to eat every other fish in the tank. That would leave the whole tank to yourself .......... until the owner of the tank flushes it down the toilet because you ate all his fish. -OR- you could eat a healthy portion of the fish, have a nice life and keep the owner happy enough to not pull the plug.

This metaphor says an awful lot about the author. Not so much about college athletics.

What is known is: Slive:


laid out seven goals for the new subdivision of Division I that will house the following conferences: SEC, Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12.

After the speech, Slive said, "I was careful to say that what I was interested in is what the student-athletes were interested in getting, not how they got it."

Slive, as do his colleagues, want to modify the collegiate model, not do away with it.

"I'm not in favor of them being employees," Slive said. "What does 'payment' mean? If payment means they are going to be employees, then I am not in favor of it. ... Whatever we do, at least from my perspective and the perspective of my colleagues, is to be done within the collegiate model. ... This is about higher education, so we need to do more within the context of higher education, not in the context of employment."

The thought that "we don't know what Slive really said" is nonsense. We know he proposed a brand-new subdivision. We don't know everything it would entail specifically, but we know enough to know that it:

1) will be different than FBS and FCS as the rules define them today (because otherwise there's no reason to make a new subdivision)

2) will involve stipends (the core issue the Big 5 have been mentioned ad nauseum for at least three years if not more, and was stated specifically as a cause for investigating a new subdivision)

3) it will involve its own championship (because championships don't cross subdivisions)

You can start with these incontrovertible facts, and from there, it's not a very big jump to, "Gee, if you can't determine championships cross subdivision, then how can you have a contract guaranteeing a playoff spot between a Big 5 and a non Big 5?"

[Daytripper]

That is exactly what the discussions on AGS are all about. xlolx

We are a bunch of know nothings that know everything about everything depending on our points of view.

And some truth has been spoken! xhurrayx Didn't mean to get everybody worked up. I think the Big 5 will eventually separate into their own [sub]division. It is inevitable because the lower level FBS teams have more in common with FCS than with Big 5. It is all about finances, and contracts be damned, the SEC is going to get what they want. Expect a huge one-time payoff to the conferences being left out. Then it will be Semi-pro football under the guise of major universities and a separate category of real college athletics.

[centennial]

Dennis Dodd from CBS has a much better article about this. I am going to quote most of it so that it can add to the discussion.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for-change-this-week

The 65 member institutions of five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC), along with all other Division I members, envision an effective intercollegiate athletics system that fully meets the needs and expectations of student-athletes in the 21st century.
The 65 member institutions are committed to meeting the needs of student-athletes based on increased resources, and they desire to provide student-athletes with enhanced benefits such as full cost of attendance, lifelong learning and additional health and nutritional benefits. In addition, they desire to support student-athletes who are considering careers as professional athletes by providing more opportunities for that decision-making process to occur in a fair and fully informed manner.
These institutions are further challenged in addressing these needs by an increasingly litigious environment and confused public sentiment. They face the most public comment and criticism of all Division I institutions and conferences, often from advocates for pay-for-play or a professional athletics system for colleges and universities.
Comment: It's significant that the NCAA in this document admits to an "increasingly litigious environment" and says there is "confused public sentiment."
Guiding principles for autonomy

1. Engage and empower institutions and practitioners in a fully transparent decision-making process.
2. Engage and empower student-athletes by giving them both a voice and vote within a transparent decision-making process.
3. Ensure that regulatory change in these areas enjoys broad support among the 65-member institutions of these conferences.
The Steering Committee (made up of parts of the board) believes that the proposed autonomy system effectively addresses these principles, and is well-aligned with the student-athlete centered spirit reflected in the NCAA core ideology and revised Division I governance model.
Areas of autonomy for the Big Five conferences

The Steering Committee recommends that autonomous decision-making be granted to the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and the SEC, and their 65 member institutions.
• Permissive legislation -- Designed to allow permissive use of resources by any member to advance the legitimate educational or athletics-related needs of student-athletes. Under this proposed governance model, permissive legislation that is developed and adopted among these institutions and conferences may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution's respective discretion, or as determined by its conference.
Comment: "Permissive" is a key code word here. NCAA officials have chosen it instead of "optional." If Idaho can't afford the full cost of attendance, then that's fine. A lot of this legislation will be optional. The thinking being, that if Idaho (just an example) can't afford a $6,000 cost of attendance bump like Ohio State, that's OK. That doesn't affect how they compete on the field.
• Actionable legislation -- Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions....

[MplsBison]

And voilà - there you have it.


Not one mention of the word "subdivision" in Dodd's article.

[Sader87]

It will be very interesting to see how BC (and other private, academically-oriented schools) responds to this if in fact it becomes sort of a de-facto (not that it isn't pretty much already) minor league NFL i.e paying subsidies to players, setting up the student-athlete's schedule for basically football first and foremost etc.

I think schools like BC, Vandy, Rice etc can sort of live with the set-up as it exists now, not so sure they can sell the newest proposal to their Prexies, BoT etc.

[MplsBison]

This metaphor says an awful lot about the author. Not so much about college athletics.

What is known is: Slive:



The thought that "we don't know what Slive really said" is nonsense. We know he proposed a brand-new subdivision. We don't know everything it would entail specifically, but we know enough to know that it:

1) will be different than FBS and FCS as the rules define them today (because otherwise there's no reason to make a new subdivision)

2) will involve stipends (the core issue the Big 5 have been mentioned ad nauseum for at least three years if not more, and was stated specifically as a cause for investigating a new subdivision)

3) it will involve its own championship (because championships don't cross subdivisions)

You can start with these incontrovertible facts, and from there, it's not a very big jump to, "Gee, if you can't determine championships cross subdivision, then how can you have a contract guaranteeing a playoff spot between a Big 5 and a non Big 5?"

There's no point in arguing with someone who sees whatever he wants to see such that it fits his own personal agenda.

You're reading vastly far beyond what was really said (using a human based "common sense" approach, rather than a robotic literal interpretation of incorrectly used words) to make up your own reality.


I'll take comfort in knowing that what you claim here will never come to pass. It wasn't said, it wasn't intended and you're being fatuous beyond any shred of competency. Some things never change.

[MplsBison]

It will be very interesting to see how BC (and other private, academically-oriented schools) responds to this if in fact it becomes sort of a de-facto (not that it isn't pretty much already) minor league NFL i.e paying subsidies to players, setting up the student-athlete's schedule for basically football first and foremost etc.

I think schools like BC, Vandy, Rice etc can sort of live with the set-up as it exists now, not so sure they can sell the newest proposal to their Prexies, BoT etc.

Not sure about BC, but I can't see Stanford, Northwestern, Duke or Vandy being scared away from major college football by adding cost of living stipends to their scholarships.

Paying players is a different animal entirely.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

However, attention associated with transfers falls disproportionately to the five conferences and their 65 member institutions, which under the new system would be granted autonomy to modify transfer policies that would provide appropriate flexibility for unique circumstances to address the best interests of student-athletes.

So basically, this is a fig leaf for "we're going to do things the way we want, because everything, in our minds, falls disproportionately to the five conferences". It's also carte blanche for the Big 5 to do whatever they damn please.

Let's say the rest of the NCAA had any exception to any policy that the Big 5 want to implement - for example, if they said, "Since the number of national championships falls disproportionately with Big 5 members, we're going to have our own championship and share none of the money with the rest of the NCAA." What would the recourse be of the majority of the NCAA institutions?

What would stop them from saying "The Big 5 can offer scholarships to 100 football players?"

What would stop them from saying "A field goal is now worth 2 points instead of 3?"

Most importantly, there used to be some things that were universally agreed upon for all of Division I - namely, what counts as scholarship spending. Now, the Big 5 wants to redefine that in a fundamentally different way and make it "optional". But if one kid is getting $2,000 and ten years to graduate at a Big 5 school, while Mississippi Valley State has the "option" to offer that to its students but never will be able to in a million years, how is that a common definition of a "scholarship"?

Big 5 scholarships and other are headed towards being different than that of the rest of Division I. It's another subdivision. Making it "optional" doesn't mean it's a level playing field.

[centennial]

So basically, this is a fig leaf for "we're going to do things the way we want, because everything, in our minds, falls disproportionately to the five conferences". It's also carte blanche for the Big 5 to do whatever they damn please.

Let's say the rest of the NCAA had any exception to any policy that the Big 5 want to implement - for example, if they said, "Since the number of national championships falls disproportionately with Big 5 members, we're going to have our own championship and share none of the money with the rest of the NCAA." What would the recourse be of the majority of the NCAA institutions?

What would stop them from saying "The Big 5 can offer scholarships to 100 football players?"

What would stop them from saying "A field goal is now worth 2 points instead of 3?"

Most importantly, there used to be some things that were universally agreed upon for all of Division I - namely, what counts as scholarship spending. Now, the Big 5 wants to redefine that in a fundamentally different way and make it "optional". But if one kid is getting $2,000 and ten years to graduate at a Big 5 school, while Mississippi Valley State has the "option" to offer that to its students but never will be able to in a million years, how is that a common definition of a "scholarship"?

Big 5 scholarships and other are different than that of the rest of Division I. It's another subdivision. Making it "optional" doesn't mean it's a level playing field.
Exactly, this is just a way of fixing the system. By making it optional for everyone else they are trying to get away from the antitrust lawsuits that they will see. Overall we are looking at an oligopoly where we are going to force kids that don't have reading, writing or speaking skills to get a college degree, have unlimited scholarships, poach good players from lower levels (FCS and group of 5). Power 5 is just becoming semi pro.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

And some truth has been spoken! xhurrayx Didn't mean to get everybody worked up. I think the Big 5 will eventually separate into their own [sub]division. It is inevitable because the lower level FBS teams have more in common with FCS than with Big 5. It is all about finances, and contracts be damned, the SEC is going to get what they want. Expect a huge one-time payoff to the conferences being left out. Then it will be Semi-pro football under the guise of major universities and a separate category of real college athletics.

That is exactly where I think this is heading. It looks to easy for the big 5 to buyout of this game they are in and do their own thing. When it will happen, who knows but once the wheels start turning it probably won't take long. The lesser conferences will get their payout and then they are on their own to do what they think is best for them.

At that point I think it's gonna open up a whole new set of discussions about the top FCS programs maybe joining up to have a second division with more of a true playoff like FCS has.

Those low level bowl games ain't gonna move AD's anymore now than they have in the past though and I'm not sure the current low level FBS teams wouldn't want to move a playoff anyway if they already got their payout from the current contract in place.

[aceinthehole]

Exactly, this is just a way of fixing the system. By making it optional for everyone else they are trying to get away from the antitrust lawsuits that they will see. Overall we are looking at an oligopoly where we are going to force kids that don't have reading, writing or speaking skills to get a college degree, have unlimited scholarships, poach good players from lower levels (FCS and group of 5). Power 5 is just becoming semi pro.

Nice summary - the effect of these changes will be to continue to separate those schools that want/can from those that can't, period.

Just more of the "haves" vs. the "have nots." The NCAA has been segregated by the "Red Line" that Kyle coined on his website midmajority for years - this is just adding some more formality and legalese.

[DFW HOYA]

Nice summary - the effect of these changes will be to seperate those schools that want/can from those that can't, period.


Prior to 1975, Division I allowed unlimited football scholarships, where Oklahoma could have 120 on a full ride and Kansas State had 49.

That was a form of separation, too.

[MplsBison]

The power five are going to give the G5: $86 million x 12 years = $1.032 billion dollars, in order to opt out of CFP before it even starts?? After they just spent the last two years slogging through negotiations to pacify the different controlling interests to even make the CFP a reality - which itself was prompted after years of negative fan and media response to the continued controversies brought on by the BCS system, not to mention the threat of an anti-trust lawsuit from a senator in Utah??

And they're going to do all of this while thumbing their noses towards senators from at least six states and hope that no anti-trust lawsuits are brought upon them by the disenfranchised conferences with the full support of the federal government? And if the lawsuit doesn't get them, the senators could push to heavily tax media revenue that conferences now receive tax-free. Plus who knows how many other barriers that the senators could throw up to make their lives hell.



He who believes such dreck deserves LFN as his delusional, demented spirit guide.

I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Good luck.

[aceinthehole]

Prior to 1975, Division I allowed unlimited football scholarships, where Oklahoma could have 120 on a full ride and Kansas State had 49.

That was a form of separation, too.

I agree - this is just a continuation to those ends.

[MplsBison]

Here's another idea for how the "autonomy" that Dodd's article talks about (and what Slive was obviously referring to, but Ivan Maisel incorrectly used the word "subdivision") could work within the existing Division I framework.

I'm not sure how many Division I members there are, but let's pretend for a second that it's 325. There are 65 teams in the power five conferences (12 Pac, 14 B1G, 10 XII, 15 ACC+ND, 14 SEC), that's one fifth of the total membership. Therefore, you give each school in the power five conferences enough votes to just beat out the remaining member body if both sub-groups are perfectly allied.

For example, if you give each of the 65 schools five votes and the rest of the 260 members one vote, then the 65 would have more votes than the 260 if each side was perfectly allied.


Of course, that rarely happens. That's the beauty of it. It gives the power five exactly what they want *IF* they can all agree on something. If not, then they risk the proposal still being voted down.

I think that would work well enough, combined with some of type of optional component to the new rules.

[MplsBison]

I agree - this is just a continuation to those ends.

Not according to Mike Slive.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24528128/secs-slive-future-of-college-sports-must-be-all-about-the-student-athlete


Scholarship limits: The big five could hasten the elimination of those FBS bottom feeders by increasing scholarship limits.

Those 85 scholarships in football all have to be paid for by the athletic department. What would happen, say, if the commissioners voted the max up to 95?


A simple raise in the Division I sports sponsorship minimum from 16 to 18 could have a chilling effect. None of the commissioners have even hinted at such a move.


"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

[aceinthehole]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/nimrodel70/random/mark.jpg

"Now, Senator Blumenthal, you know and I know that we really need a kickass college football program in our state - after all, UConn's my alma mater, and when you think UConn, you think top-flight football, right? I'll back your re-election campaign in order to prevent this Big 5 bullhickey from ever happening, mmmkay?"

- Said nobody ever

''The reason these lawsuits are critically important to Connecticut are UConn spent tens of millions of dollars on a new stadium and to upgrade its football program,'' Mr. Blumenthal said.

This quote is from Conn. Attorney General in 2003 regarding the lawsuit against the ACC and Miami. He now has a bigger stage in the US Senate, and the stakes for being left outside the P5 are even greater today. Instead of lawsuits, he can muster the power of Congressional oversight and legislation. This issue is ripe for those disenfranchised schools to lobby for redress in Congress.

I'm not suggesting what may come of that, but if I were the NCAA I would tread lightly. Look at how the MLB had to respond to doping and how the NFL had to address concussions. The NCAA is not immune from real pressure from Washington.

[RichH2]

Haves taking more,have nots less. Big 5 just following the same path USA on for the last 25 yrs, Almost a certainty thre willbe a move by Congress in th midst of tax reform to end their taxexempt status,which should captheir move completely out of NCAA.

[Hammerhead]

My uninformed opinion has 3 levels of D-I football.

1-A = current FBS big boys
I-AA = rest of FBS and FCS teams that offer a minimum of 65 schollies with current playoff system in tact.
I-AAA with no minumum schollies, but no playoffs

[Sader87]

I dunno....I just don't see a "2nd/next tier" of lower FBS and FCS forming. If they (the non P5 FBS) are left out completely i.e. not playing P5 teams ever, left out of the bowl structure etc etc, I can see a lot of those schools dropping football altogether or scaling back at the very least.

Could that mean joining the FCS schools? Maybe, but I think it would be on a smaller scale....i.e. scholarship levels at the current FCS level etc.

[danefan]

What they are saying they will do and what this "autonomy" structure gives them the ability to do are very very different things.

If you take their word for it, you're being naive.
Once the power is in hand, you better believe scholarship limits will be discussed as well as larger and larger stipends, etc.

They may may not break off from the other schools but there will be such a gap that it won't look or feel like they're in the same world anymore. and those schools will hold on to the fact that they still have access to the playoffs for the next 12 years but they will have no shot in hell at winning anything. More lower to them if they want to continue down that path. I'd much rather stay in FCS then chase that unattainable dream.

[danefan]

And a $1B is chump change. $15m spread over 65 schools. They stand to make much more money than that if they get their autonomy and can create the minor league NFL.

[fc97]

I dunno....I just don't see a "2nd/next tier" of lower FBS and FCS forming. If they (the non P5 FBS) are left out completely i.e. not playing P5 teams ever, left out of the bowl structure etc etc, I can see a lot of those schools dropping football altogether or scaling back at the very least.

Could that mean joining the FCS schools? Maybe, but I think it would be on a smaller scale....i.e. scholarship levels at the current FCS level etc.

this is exactly what has been on my mind that would happen to begin with.

top conferences get their own governance and division

fbs becomes the leftover aac, mwc, mac, sbc and others AND the top fcs groups that have been jockeying for position for the past few years: mvfc, big sky, caa and perhaps southland. i think the socon is going more towards cost containment and i also think we haven't seen the last socon school leave, furman, mercer and maybe samford maybe be primed to go caa and or southland. we probably haven't seen the last ovc schools leave either with eku and eiu being candidates.

i dont have anything to back it up, just a gut feeling.

[DFW HOYA]

I dunno....I just don't see a "2nd/next tier" of lower FBS and FCS forming. If they (the non P5 FBS) are left out completely i.e. not playing P5 teams ever, left out of the bowl structure etc etc, I can see a lot of those schools dropping football altogether or scaling back at the very least.

I don't see it.

Outside of these five conferences (roughly 65 schools) there are another 63 in the next tier, of which 58 are public schools to which football plays an important role in enrollment and regional visibility. Just because Central Florida or Fresno State isn't in the upper tier doesn't mean football is worthless to them. And how many state-supported schools have dropped I-A football in the last 30 years (excepting the CAL-NOW consent agreements)? Wichita State in 1988.

By a quick count, there are only five private schools in the second tier: BYU, SMU, Tulane, Rice, and Tulsa. Obviously, football has a home at BYU, and SMU has recommitted to football as well. Tulane is spending $60M to open a brand new on-campus stadium this fall, and while Rice and Tulsa aren't as strong, the prospects of them giving up football to play sports in the Southland seem unlikely at best.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Once again, I will believe a new subdivision will be created when I see it.

One thing to keep in mind here is that the behemoths in college sports with endless revenue streams (think Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, etc.) make up a minority of the P5 leagues. Are the less wealthy members of the P5 going to be willing to pay full cost of attendance for all of their student athletes? What's in it for them to go to a system where student athletes have these opulent benefits? If anyone thinks the #1 concern here is the student athlete and not the bottom lines, I have a fortune in Nigeria that you can help me inherit.

And that doesn't even get into the legal minefield that would at the bare minimum delay any split for a long time. On a certain level I think the idea of a subdivision with the bottom of the FBS and top of the FCS is appealing, but I don't see it happening. I remember in the 90s when we were watching a wave of IAA teams leave for IA people were saying the same thing.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Something that isn't mentioned a lot, but is equally important - how exactly does one become a member of this group of 65? Do the other conferences need to invite them? Is it on a per-school basis? Can they invite an entire conference?

This is really important.

Before, as flawed as the process was, there was a method to become an FBS school and to theoretically become a peer of the Texas', Ohio State's, and USC's. But now these conferences are putting a brick wall around their club and offering no way even to aspire to become members.

Look, for example, at JMU. If they wanted to become FBS now, they certainly could spend the extra money, go through the five-year transition, join a conference that sponsors FBS football. But now, FBS football isn't what it was. If they became FBS members, there would literally no way, short of an invite from the Big 10, to become a key part of the power structure. They might actually be even giving up power by going to FBS.

[walliver]

... Are the less wealthy members of the P5 going to be willing to pay full cost of attendance for all of their student athletes? What's in it for them to go to a system where student athletes have these opulent benefits? If anyone thinks the #1 concern here is the student athlete and not the bottom lines, I have a fortune in Nigeria that you can help me inherit.
...

Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, et al benefit greatly from their conferences's billion dollar TV contracts. They can afford to pay a few thousand more per student and still make a profit once TV revenue is factored in. The majority of Big 5 universities also have their own medical schools and teaching hospitals, making long-term health benefits more affordable (There are exceptions like Clemson, Georgia Tech, UGA, and Auburn, among others).

The Big 5 may not have their own league labelled as a "subdivision", but a de facto separation will occur.

There will not be any significant realignment, however, until the federal government begins reforming the student loan program. One of the first things to go will be allowing students to borrow money to pay activity or athletic fees.

I also doubt the current TV market is sustainable. I understand the networks' current drive towards football (people can't fast forward through commercials on live TV). But, at some point the market becomes saturated, the networks' revenue falls --> the conferences' revenue falls --> something has to give.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

''The reason these lawsuits are critically important to Connecticut are UConn spent tens of millions of dollars on a new stadium and to upgrade its football program,'' Mr. Blumenthal said.

This quote is from Conn. Attorney General in 2003 regarding the lawsuit against the ACC and Miami. He now has a bigger stage in the US Senate, and the stakes for being left outside the P5 are even greater today. Instead of lawsuits, he can muster the power of Congressional oversight and legislation. This issue is ripe for those disenfranchised schools to lobby for redress in Congress.

I'm not suggesting what may come of that, but if I were the NCAA I would tread lightly. Look at how the MLB had to respond to doping and how the NFL had to address concussions. The NCAA is not immune from real pressure from Washington.

You make a fair point, but UConn's situation in 2003 (member of FBS football-sponsoring Big East, philosophy was to build football to protect men's basketball) and UConn's situation in 2014 (member of second-tier FBS football-sponsoring AAC, UConn is the remaining flagship for the conference in men's basketball, football's chance at BCS bowls and extra TV money almost nonexistent) couldn't be more different.

[MplsBison]

Haves taking more,have nots less. Big 5 just following the same path USA on for the last 25 yrs, Almost a certainty thre willbe a move by Congress in th midst of tax reform to end their taxexempt status,which should captheir move completely out of NCAA.

I couldn't quite make out what you were getting at, but to be clear: it doesn't matter what association the big five conferences align themselves with (NCAA, NAIA, some new association or just plan ol' independents), they can't hide from the tax ramifications if they're stupid enough to cut the G5 out of the deal.

They'll feel the fiery wrath of those states' senators, as they should.

[MplsBison]

My uninformed opinion has 3 levels of D-I football.

1-A = current FBS big boys
I-AA = rest of FBS and FCS teams that offer a minimum of 65 schollies with current playoff system in tact.
I-AAA with no minumum schollies, but no playoffs

As LFN pointed out, such an explicit structure would nullify the newly formed CFP agreement.

Therefore, it can't and won't happen. Not for the next twelve years, anyway.

[MplsBison]

I don't see it.

Outside of these five conferences (roughly 65 schools) there are another 63 in the next tier, of which 58 are public schools to which football plays an important role in enrollment and regional visibility. Just because Central Florida or Fresno State isn't in the upper tier doesn't mean football is worthless to them. And how many state-supported schools have dropped I-A football in the last 30 years (excepting the CAL-NOW consent agreements)? Wichita State in 1988.

By a quick count, there are only five private schools in the second tier: BYU, SMU, Tulane, Rice, and Tulsa. Obviously, football has a home at BYU, and SMU has recommitted to football as well. Tulane is spending $60M to open a brand new on-campus stadium this fall, and while Rice and Tulsa aren't as strong, the prospects of them giving up football to play sports in the Southland seem unlikely at best.

Spot on. Not a single public school playing FBS football now would drop the sport, even if they were somehow cut out of the CFP with no compensation. Yes that includes UMass, Idaho, Eastern Michigan, etc.

They'd form their own post season, probably by expanding the number of bowls amongst themselves. If ESPN televises the FCS, DII and DIII playoffs for goodness sake, they'll televise any bowl game formed.


Of the private schools you mention, I don't see any of them dropping football either. Though the easiest of that bunch would be Rice. They have an old, out-dated stadium and as far as I know, no plans to build a new stadium a la SMU. But Rice was once a proud member of the SWC and I doubt their boosters could fathom dropping football while institutions such as SMU, Houston and especially TCU and Baylor soar ahead in the sport. Not to mention that Rice is the highest of those Texas private schools academically, by far with the largest endowment. And that's without a medical school/medical research. The true "Texas Ivy", if you will.

So a school like that, with a national academic reputation, will want to maintain a football presence.

[CrazyCat]

It's an ESPN contract. Changes can and will happen if there are any significant changes to college football. You don't think ESPN included some language in that contract that lets them renegotiate if drastic adjustments to the divisional layout takes place ? It's a contract not the ten commandments.

[MplsBison]

What they are saying they will do and what this "autonomy" structure gives them the ability to do are very very different things.

If you take their word for it, you're being naive.
Once the power is in hand, you better believe scholarship limits will be discussed as well as larger and larger stipends, etc.

They may may not break off from the other schools but there will be such a gap that it won't look or feel like they're in the same world anymore. and those schools will hold on to the fact that they still have access to the playoffs for the next 12 years but they will have no shot in hell at winning anything. More lower to them if they want to continue down that path. I'd much rather stay in FCS then chase that unattainable dream.

If they were going to do that, they would've done it already.

As Slive said in his interview with Dodd, it's not on their agenda. It's only everyone else who fears it, but they're not going to kill the golden goose.



And a $1B is chump change. $15m spread over 65 schools. They stand to make much more money than that if they get their autonomy and can create the minor league NFL.

Washington State U's board of directors is just going to agree to fork over $15million to the Pac-12 so that the conference can opt out of the CFP before it has even begun? The same CFP that is going to provide the Pac-12 the most money that has ever been received in the history of media rights deals for the college football post season?

Not a chance.

And the same goes for most of the schools in the big five conferences.

[MplsBison]

Something that isn't mentioned a lot, but is equally important - how exactly does one become a member of this group of 65? Do the other conferences need to invite them? Is it on a per-school basis? Can they invite an entire conference?

This is really important.

Before, as flawed as the process was, there was a method to become an FBS school and to theoretically become a peer of the Texas', Ohio State's, and USC's. But now these conferences are putting a brick wall around their club and offering no way even to aspire to become members.

Look, for example, at JMU. If they wanted to become FBS now, they certainly could spend the extra money, go through the five-year transition, join a conference that sponsors FBS football. But now, FBS football isn't what it was. If they became FBS members, there would literally no way, short of an invite from the Big 10, to become a key part of the power structure. They might actually be even giving up power by going to FBS.

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

There's nothing mythical here. Dodd did the deep dive on the actual document that the NCAA is going to be discussing in May at the board meeting. There are ZERO mentions of the word "subdivision" in that article. And very simply put, it's the five conferences that are to receive special rights within the existing framework of Division I.

Thus, to "become a member" a school has to join one of those five conferences. That doesn't happen often, but there certainly are recent cases (Louisville, TCU, West Virginia, Rutgers, Utah, etc.)

[MplsBison]

Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, et al benefit greatly from their conferences's billion dollar TV contracts. They can afford to pay a few thousand more per student and still make a profit once TV revenue is factored in. The majority of Big 5 universities also have their own medical schools and teaching hospitals, making long-term health benefits more affordable (There are exceptions like Clemson, Georgia Tech, UGA, and Auburn, among others).

The Big 5 may not have their own league labelled as a "subdivision", but a de facto separation will occur.

There will not be any significant realignment, however, until the federal government begins reforming the student loan program. One of the first things to go will be allowing students to borrow money to pay activity or athletic fees.

I also doubt the current TV market is sustainable. I understand the networks' current drive towards football (people can't fast forward through commercials on live TV). But, at some point the market becomes saturated, the networks' revenue falls --> the conferences' revenue falls --> something has to give.

A de facto separation has always been the case.

How can you look at Michigan's 100k stadium, look at Northern Illinois' 20k stadium and conclude that there is no separate just because they're classified in the same subdivision?? That would be obtuse.

Nothing new here. The G5 just want a chance to compete on the field. That's all they've ever wanted and now they have it guaranteed for the next twelve years via the CFP. That won't be taken away from them.

- - - Updated - - -


It's an ESPN contract. Changes can and will happen if there are any significant changes to college football. You don't think ESPN included some language in that contract that lets them renegotiate if drastic adjustments to the divisional layout takes place ? It's a contract not the ten commandments.

The CFP contract is between ESPN and ten conferences. It's not with the NCAA. It's not with the FBS subdivision.

[clenz]

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

There's nothing mythical here. Dodd did the deep dive on the actual document that the NCAA is going to be discussing in May at the board meeting. There are ZERO mentions of the word "subdivision" in that article. And very simply put, it's the five conferences that are to receive special rights within the existing framework of Division I.

Thus, to "become a member" a school has to join one of those five conferences. That doesn't happen often, but there certainly are recent cases (Louisville, TCU, West Virginia, Rutgers, Utah, etc.)
WVU was in the Big East from 91 until moving to the B12 2 years ago
Rutgers was in the Big East for football since 1991 and joined for all sports in 1995 until moving to the AAC (by force) this year and the B10 next year
Louisville joined the Big East in 2005 and was forced into the AAC this year before the ACC next year








****....why am I getting involved in this

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

There's nothing mythical here. Dodd did the deep dive on the actual document that the NCAA is going to be discussing in May at the board meeting. There are ZERO mentions of the word "subdivision" in that article. And very simply put, it's the five conferences that are to receive special rights within the existing framework of Division I.

Thus, to "become a member" a school has to join one of those five conferences. That doesn't happen often, but there certainly are recent cases (Louisville, TCU, West Virginia, Rutgers, Utah, etc.)

So then, to my original point, why would JMU go to FBS in this world?

Why would they go to the Sun Belt? Because someday, the Sun Belt might become part of the 65? According to your own words, no, there's basically no way they can. It's either be a member of the Pac 12, Big XII, Big 10, ACC, or SEC, or there's no way.

More importantly, JMU would still be at the mercy of the Big 5's decision whether a part of FCS or FBS, as a part of the CAA or the Sun Belt. FBS offers no special access anymore as a member of the Sun Belt, AAC, or any of the Wannabe 5.

[MplsBison]

To be clear, JMU's decision was between staying in the CAA or joining the Sun Belt. That's the only decision that they were ever going to be offered in the next twelve years. They've made their choice and I'm fine with it.

Do I think the Sun Belt will ever be included/be able to obtain the same special governing rights/privileges that are going to be granted this summer to the big five conferences? No, I don't. In fact, I don't think any of the G5 conferences will be able to. Claim that as a victory, if it makes you feel better. All it really means is exactly no different than the reality of today. That is, on average the G5 conference programs earn significantly lower revenues than the B5 conference programs.

However, it's patently clear that whatever new rules the B5 ratify for their own betterment will also be available for the G5 conferences to follow suit, if they can. So any supposed "new gaps in competitiveness" can still be closed if the G5 schools choose to do that.


Therefore, you'll never be able to connect the dots between the Sun Belt being in the G5 and there being no benefit to joining the Sun Belt, so long as the Sun Belt is a contractual member of the CFP agreement. As it happens, they are. And as such, the CFP is obligated to provide the Sun Belt part of a $86million year payout and obligated to provide the Sun Belt champion a yearly, guaranteed spot in the big bowls if that champion is higher ranked than the other four G5 conference champions.

Not to mention the fact that the only way to obtain FBS classification is to be invited to a FBS conference. Among other things. So yes, in my view JMU squandered an opportunity. But I'm fine with that, since it was their choice.

[MplsBison]

So in summary, the title of this thread is a farce.

It's not a dig at superman, because I know he is an excellent, credible poster. But he picked the wrong article.

The Ivan Maisel article used an unfortunate word. The true, actual articles on the facts are the Dennis Dodd articles published by CBSsports.com. SEC commissioner Mike Slive explains the ultimate goals of the new governing structure and how they are at worst benign to the G5 conferences. He never said the word subdivision and there is no new subdivision of NCAA Division I being discussed. It's not on the table.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Your epic failure is the complete lack of ability to connect the above fact to there being no benefits joining the Sun Belt.

And you'll never be able to accomplish this so long as the Sun Belt is a contractual member of the CFP agreement. As it happens, they are. And as such, the CFP is obligated to provide the Sun Belt part of a $86million year payout and obligated to provide teh Sun Belt champion a yearly, guaranteed spot in the big bowls if that champion is higher ranked than the other four G5 conference champions.

Until the Big 5 decide they want to renegotiate their contract. And the Wannabe 5 won't have any say in the matter, assuming this proposed governance structure of subdivisions comes to pass.

[MplsBison]

I just reread the Ivan Maisel article. I'm convinced now more than ever that he just used an unfortunate word, although most people in his audience wouldn't make the connection between the general use of "subdivision" and an actual, explicit NCAA Sub-Division of Division I football.

Which is correct.

Slive didn't say it. Maisel used the word in the general context. It's not on the table.


/thread

[danefan]

If they were going to do that, they would've done it already.

As Slive said in his interview with Dodd, it's not on their agenda. It's only everyone else who fears it, but they're not going to kill the golden goose.




Washington State U's board of directors is just going to agree to fork over $15million to the Pac-12 so that the conference can opt out of the CFP before it has even begun? The same CFP that is going to provide the Pac-12 the most money that has ever been received in the history of media rights deals for the college football post season?

Not a chance.

And the same goes for most of the schools in the big five conferences.

Of course they will if they stand to make more than $15m they will lay out. You act like no one has ever had to weigh an unexpected gain against a certain cost. Its called business.

[MplsBison]

Until the Big 5 decide they want to renegotiate their contract. And the Wannabe 5 won't have any say in the matter, assuming this proposed governance structure of subdivisions comes to pass.

Which you're only considering as a possibility because of something that was never said, never discussed and isn't on the table and was only mistakenly taken out-of-context from an article meant to report the goals that will be discussed at the upcoming NCAA board meeting.

The jig is up.

The CFP is installed, stable and will be the reality for the next twelve years. End

[MplsBison]

Of course they will if they stand to make more than $15m they will lay out. You act like no one has ever had to weigh an unexpected gain against a certain cost. Its called business.

Exactly. It is a business.

And you don't get very far in the business world by blowing up a twelve year, $7billion contract that took two years to create before it has even started. That does not happen and will not happen.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

This whole thing has illustrated 1 thing.

If the Power 5 want to, they will do whatever they want and they give not one **** about what happens to the rest.

[danefan]

Exactly. It is a business.

And you don't get very far in the business world by blowing up a twelve year, $7billion contract that took two years to create before it has even started. That does not happen and will not happen.

You do if the landscape changes and your in line to possibly make $10b instead.

[MplsBison]

This whole thing has illustrated 1 thing.

If the Power 5 want to, they will do whatever they want and they give not one **** about what happens to the rest.

Thus, since they haven't split away from the rest of the FBS conferences by now - it must mean that they have no desire to do that going forward.

[clenz]

Thus, since they haven't split away from the rest of the FBS conferences by now - it must mean that they have no desire to do that going forward.
False.



****.....again, why am I doing this?

[MplsBison]

You do if the landscape changes and your in line to possibly make $10b instead.

The landscape hasn't changed.

Keep in mind that it was the power conferences that created the Bowl Alliance, BCS and CFP in the first place. The G5 have managed to pry away a piece of the pie for themselves, but the P5 are going to be richer now than they've ever been with the new deal.

That was the landscape when they negotiated the CFP deal and that is still the landscape. If they thought they'd be able to get away with cutting the G5 out of the CFP, they would've done that from the start.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You do if the landscape changes and your in line to possibly make $10b instead.

And not have to share it with anybody.

[MplsBison]

False.



****.....again, why am I doing this?

I'd be happy to entertain your logic and supporting examples for why you think so.

But if you don't really want to participate, that's ok too.

- - - Updated - - -


And not have to share it with anybody.

If it were possible, they would've done it from the start.

Nothing has changed.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If it were possible, they would've done it from the start.

Or try to change the legislative structure so that they now can.

[MplsBison]

Or try to change the legislative structure so that they now can.

It had nothing to do with that and still has nothing to do with that.

As I said, the CFP was a contract negotiated between the head of the bowls, ESPN and ten conferences. It's done, signed and sealed. If the five big conferences thought it would be possible to cut the other five out of the deal, they would've done that.


The new governing structure is for upgrading scholarships with cost of living, limiting player hours, etc. Things that will help them win impending litigation and combat unionization. It has nothing to do with the CFP.

[MplsBison]

Couple things, to put the bow on this thread.

1) the vote (not discussion) by the NCAA on these topics is today, not in May. Not sure where I thought I read May, but it was incorrect.

2) here is a good primer on what's being voted on today: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/24/5594090/ncaa-changes-power-conferences-unions-lawsuits I suggest to anyone who might want to participate in this thread to read that link first. One highlight (or lack of highlight): zero mention of a new, explicit sub-division of NCAA Division I football (or Division I in general).

[CrazyCat]

Couple things, to put the bow on this thread.

I suggest to anyone who might want to participate in this thread to read that link first.

Call me a rebel, but I'm not going to read the link and I'm still going to participate in this thread.

[MplsBison]

It was only a suggestion. :)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

What's being voted on today is a naked power grab by the Big 5 veiled in the feel-good story of athlete's rights, not "reforms" like this snookered sportswriter would have you believe.

If you want to read about what this is really about - stipends - here's where you need to click.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/09/28/athletes-administrators-debate-ncaa-scholarship-stipends/2890117/




More than a few skeptics view their push for stipends as a way to give the big-money schools an added advantage over mid-majors such as Butler and Boise State that occasionally crash the party in high-profile sports. And perhaps even a way to split off from those schools entirely — a view reinforced when those commissioners threatened to do just that after the stipend legislation crashed.

"Their ability to disguise self-interest in the name of any number of principles has been raised to an art form," said Princeton athletics director Gary Walters, a former member of the NCAA basketball tournament's selection committee. "When you see the NCAA president making $1.7 million, and that all of the (major conference) commissioners, many of whom are friends of mine, are making $2 million, where your treasure lies, so shall your heart beat."


In other words, the less competition there is from pesky mid-majors, the more money for the big conferences and their bosses.


"I believe the desire to pay student athletes is a bait-and-switch tactic which is taking place now under the name of student-athlete welfare," Walters said. "But student-athlete welfare wasn't considered at all — not at all — when the conferences expanded beyond regions."


Corroborating evidence is that stipends have been attempted to be rammed down the memberships' throats for more than two years, well before the current vogue of the Big 5 caring about student-athlete rights.

[clenz]

I'm just going to set this here


http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-board-directors-endorses-restructuring-process-seeks-feedback
DI Board Of Directors Endorses Restructuring Process, Seeks Feedback

The Division I Board of Directors is one step closer to approving a new governance system in August.
The board endorsed the restructuring process, which is aimed at allowing the division to be more nimble, streamlined and responsive to needs – particularly the needs of student-athletes – during its meeting Thursday in Indianapolis. The Steering Committee on Governance, made up of university presidents, drafted the restructuring plan.
“The model we sent to the membership today is not a final product,” said Wake Forest President Nathan Hatch, chair of the board and the steering committee. “Some aspects of the model remain under discussion, and we hope the membership will provide us further input.”
Under the proposal, the division would still be led by a Board of Directors composed primarily of university presidents. However, new voices would be added: the chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee; the chair of a new group tentatively called the Council; and the most senior Division I member of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association’s executive committee. The council chair would always be an athletics director, giving that constituency an automatic spot on the board.
The Board would focus chiefly on oversight and strategic issues, while leaving much of the day-to-day policy and legislative responsibility to the council.
The council, composed of at least 60 percent athletics directors, would have 38 members: one from each conference plus two voting student-athletes and four commissioners (one from the Football Bowl Subdivision, one from the Football Championship Subdivision and two from the remaining conferences). The council would be the final voice on shared-governance rule-making decisions.
The steering committee suggests creating three bodies that would assist the council in its work and comprise the “working level” of Division I: an academics-focused group, a championships-focused group and a legislative group. Council members would determine implementation details, including what other groups are needed, how the groups will be populated and reporting lines. The steering committee also emphasized the need for a nomination process that is competency-based and diverse.
In order to allow the five highest-resource conferences (the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Pac-12 Conference and Southeastern Conference) to address their unique challenges, the model would grant them autonomy to make rules on specific matters affecting the interests of student-athletes.
The university presidents who serve on the steering committee continue to seek more clarity and specificity about these proposed areas of autonomy. While retaining the concepts that were included in the “actionable” category, the board decided that the process it had identified as “actionable” - requiring the conferences other than the highest-profile five to take a separate vote – would not be included in the proposal.
The steering committee is seeking more feedback on the how the remaining 27 conferences would want to apply decisions made by the 65 schools in the five highest-profile conferences.
Areas in which the membership generally agrees on autonomy for the five conferences include:


financial aid, including full cost of attendance and scholarship guarantees;
insurance, including policies that protect future earnings;
academic support, particularly for at-risk student-athletes; and
other support, such as travel for families, free tickets to athletics events, and expenses associated with practice and competition (such as parking).

The steering committee continues to discuss other areas that could be included in the areas of autonomy, including the creation of mandatory time away from athletics for student-athletes; eliminating rules that prohibit student-athletes from pursuing careers outside of athletics while still competing (for example, making music and art or writing a book); recruiting; transfer issues; and athletics department personnel.
The board will seek feedback on some questions raised by members of governance bodies in recent days, including: the process by which items decided by the full division could become part of the list of autonomous areas; the voting, interpretation and enforcement processes within the five highest-profile conferences; and the core structure that separates not only the five highest-profile conferences into their own group but also continues a separation of the next five conferences (the American Athletic Conference, Conference-USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference) from the remaining 22.


TL;DR highlights
WHAT HAPPENED: At its meeting Thursday, the Division I Board of Directors, composed of university presidents, endorsed a restructuring process that will be more agile to adapt to changes in the division, give student-athletes a greater voice in decision-making and provide more autonomy to the five major conferences.
WHAT’S NEXT: The board members are soliciting feedback from member schools this spring and plan to adopt a new Division I structure in August.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Call me a rebel, but I'm not going to read the link and I'm still going to participate in this thread.

rebel

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The university presidents who serve on the steering committee continue to seek more clarity and specificity about these proposed areas of autonomy.

Areas in which the membership generally agrees on autonomy for the five conferences include:


financial aid, including full cost of attendance and scholarship guarantees;
insurance, including policies that protect future earnings;
academic support, particularly for at-risk student-athletes; and
other support, such as travel for families, free tickets to athletics events, and expenses associated with practice and competition (such as parking).

The steering committee continues to discuss other areas that could be included in the areas of autonomy...


Interesting that all these autonomy ideas are just that - ideas - until the Big 5 get what they want, which is this autonomy. When they do... who knows what they might decide to do? There's nothing saying that they couldn't just expand their mandate to whatever they damn well please, or abandon all this student-welfare stuff.

[dgtw]

If the lower FBS joined with the upper FCS, what becomes of the lower FCS schools?

[clenz]

If the lower FBS joined with the upper FCS, what becomes of the lower FCS schools?
Stay where they are.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

http://www.myuploadedimages.com/images/94606898195248838185.gif

[DFW HOYA]

If the lower FBS joined with the upper FCS, what becomes of the lower FCS schools?

Who exactly are the "lower" schools? At this point, there are only two conferences and a handful of others that are playing below 57 counters.

[andy7171]

Jesu F'ing Cristo! MPLS is still at it!

[FargoBison]

If the lower FBS joined with the upper FCS, what becomes of the lower FCS schools?

I'm guessing you would see them in a subdivision that was much more about cost containment, kind of like a DII or DIII model for DI schools that want to play football but not spend a lot of money on it.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

If the lower FBS joined with the upper FCS, what becomes of the lower FCS schools?

There is still a wide gap between the better "Other 5" programs and the top FCS programs from a facility and budget standpoint...

[MplsBison]

Who exactly are the "lower" schools? At this point, there are only two conferences and a handful of others that are playing below 57 counters.

I'd probably throw the SWAC in with the "lower" schools. Some of them operate on DIII budgets.

[MplsBison]

Interesting that all these autonomy ideas are just that - ideas - until the Big 5 get what they want, which is this autonomy. When they do... who knows what they might decide to do? There's nothing saying that they couldn't just expand their mandate to whatever they damn well please, or abandon all this student-welfare stuff.

Hear hear! I'd bet good money that the true aim of all this "autonomy" nonsense is that the big five conferences want to secede from the United States and form their own country!! That's what they really want! Why can't anyone see that??

xrolleyesx

[MplsBison]

I'm just going to set this here



TL;DR highlights
WHAT HAPPENED: At its meeting Thursday, the Division I Board of Directors, composed of university presidents, endorsed a restructuring process that will be more agile to adapt to changes in the division, give student-athletes a greater voice in decision-making and provide more autonomy to the five major conferences.
WHAT’S NEXT: The board members are soliciting feedback from member schools this spring and plan to adopt a new Division I structure in August.

Was there any doubt that it would pass? This was the board saying "look, need to make it appear as if we're imminently 'fixing' the problems that the NCAA currently has in the public's perception of it. Let's make it snappy and get this thing done in August!"

Also of note that the vote was held on the eve of the Northwestern unionization vote. As if to say "hey guys, look - we're already fixing it! Now you don't have to vote yes on that union card, ok?"

Here's a decent blog post from the Seattle Times in response to the NCAA's release today: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskyfootball/2014/04/24/ncaa-board-endorses-more-power-for-big-schools/


Note that once again, literally no one is talking about a new, explicit sub-division. That was never on the table and is never going to be on the table.

[Daytripper]

Was there any doubt that it would pass? This was the board saying "look, need to make it appear as if we're imminently 'fixing' the problems that the NCAA currently has in the public's perception of it. Let's make it snappy and get this thing done in August!"

Also of note that the vote was held on the eve of the Northwestern unionization vote. As if to say "hey guys, look - we're already fixing it! Now you don't have to vote yes on that union card, ok?"

Here's a decent blog post from the Seattle Times in response to the NCAA's release today: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskyfootball/2014/04/24/ncaa-board-endorses-more-power-for-big-schools/


Note that once again, literally no one is talking about a new, explicit sub-division. That was never on the table and is never going to be on the table.


Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed. - Friedrich Nietzsche

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There is still a wide gap between the better "Other 5" programs and the top FCS programs from a facility and budget standpoint...

For expenses, yes. For example:

PL Football Expenses: $4.066 million/team
CAA Football Expenses: $5.285 million/team
Missouri Valley Football Expenses: $3.155 million/team
Big Sky Football Expenses: $3.564 million/team
SWAC Football Expenses: $2.095 million/team

Compare with:

Mountain West Football Expenses: $8.706 million/team
MAC Football Expenses: $6.744 million/team
Sun Belt Football Expenses: $6.132 million/team

(2012 reporting year)

Certainly in terms of facilities for the Mountain West, those are head an shoulders over the rest of FCS. The Sun Belt's though, are pretty much on par or just slightly above FCS facilities, which makes a lot of sense because more than 50% of the membership was FCS in the span of the last ten years. I think the MAC is similar.

[MplsBison]

Expenses that include scholarship dollars aren't comparable between conferences that differ in public/private composition.

A better gauge would be head coach's salary. I'm guessing in the Mountain West you're looking at more than $1million while in the FCS definitely less than half a million.

[ThompsonThe]

This hurts FCS more than anything.
Not only will they be the 3d sub-division it weakens their football extremely with their football players not getting the extra money, extra food, and other freebies.
FBS whether the P-5 or G-5 are really not going to be affected except to strengthen them and make it even harder to keep players from going to them.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This hurts FCS more than anything.
Not only will they be the 3d sub-division it weakens their football extremely with their football players not getting the extra money, extra food, and other freebies.
FBS whether the P-5 or G-5 are really not going to be affected except to strengthen them and make it even harder to keep players from going to them.

xlolx

[CrazyCat]

This hurts FCS more than anything.
Not only will they be the 3d sub-division it weakens their football extremely with their football players not getting the extra money, extra food, and other freebies.
FBS whether the P-5 or G-5 are really not going to be affected except to strengthen them and make it even harder to keep players from going to them.

So you are saying ASU can afford all this and will be able to keep up with the "big dogs?"

[superman7515]

So you are saying ASU can afford all this and will be able to keep up with the "big dogs?"

Absolutely. Arizona State can write a blank check with the girls they have walking around there, the guys will always be willing to sign up no matter what the tuition costs.

[CrazyCat]

Absolutely. Arizona State can write a blank check with the girls they have walking around there, the guys will always be willing to sign up no matter what the tuition costs.

Ha. I have fond memories of a weekend down there.

[MplsBison]

But more directly to your question Cat, what he's saying is essentially "yes, App can afford any additional costs so long as their students agree to pay increased fees."

[CrazyCat]

But more directly to your question Cat, what he's saying is essentially "yes, App can afford any additional costs so long as their students agree to pay increased fees."

Nah. That huge check from the ESPN playoff to their conference should cover it.

[MplsBison]

So if I understand you correctly, you feel that if Montana St. had the opportunity to accept additional revenue streams that would allow it to increase the football budget from say $3.5 million to $7 million and provide significant additional benefits to the players in doing so - it should decline that opportunity simply because that's still not "big time"?

[CrazyCat]

So if I understand you correctly, you feel that if Montana St. had the opportunity to accept additional revenue streams that would allow it to increase the football budget from say $3.5 million to $7 million and provide significant additional benefits to the players in doing so - it should decline that opportunity simply because that's still not "big time"?

No, you don't understand me.

[MplsBison]

I'm glad you would support such an opportunity. I think most fans of programs in such a position would.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

A former PL football player called into the The Herd today. He said the perks were good....

[Lehigh Football Nation]

A former PL football player called into the The Herd today. He said the perks were good....

Do tell...

[eaglewraith]

Lol

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Do tell...

Sorry for the late response, busy day yesterday....

He basically spoke of the "cool" gear and swag he received. He also received a small stiphen the he and his teammates would use as beer money One thing that he stressed was the importance of tutors and the ability to seek whatever type of help he needed to maintain his grades. That statement is obviously relative to each school.

Just taking a wild guess, I think he played for Fordham.

[Sader87]

Isn't having outside academic tutors for athletes (above and beyond what any other student could take advantage of) basically antithetical to what the PL is all about???

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Isn't having outside academic tutors for athletes (above and beyond what any other student could take advantage of) basically antithetical to what the PL is all about???

Fordham and Georgetown both have tutors/academic resources for athletes that are beyond that of your typical Patriot League school. I know for a fact that Fordham's basketball players have the same basic resources as their A10 peers. I think most would agree that Dunphy doesn't recruit dumb kids. Even so, our players have just about every advantage possible to earn a degree.

You obviously need to be relatively smart to play at GWU, Fordham and Richmond. However, that doesn't mean you have to be at the level of the general student population.

[Sader87]

This pertains to football though.....can football players at GU and FU utilize academic tutors designed for other sports?

I'm not saying I'm against, just wondering if it's allowed.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

This pertains to football though.....can football players at GU and FU utilize academic tutors designed for other sports?

I'm not saying I'm against, just wondering if it's allowed.

I can't imagine it being too "segregated" for lack of a better term. Perhaps, certain individuals/tutors are different but overall, things have to be pretty equal across the board.

[BluBengal07]

yea, Jackson State has the Athletics Academic Enhancement Center, which is fully staffed with tutors and counselors for all athletics located at the center of campus. This has been running for a couple of years now. not too many schools can provide such services.

[Dane96]

yea, Jackson State has the Athletics Academic Enhancement Center, which is fully staffed with tutors and counselors for all athletics located at the center of campus. This has been running for a couple of years now. not too many schools can provide such services.

Frankly, I don't know one school that DOESN'T offer this service.

[clenz]

Frankly, I don't know one school that DOESN'T offer this service.
I played at a D3 that offered this...

[BluBengal07]

Frankly, I don't know one school that DOESN'T offer this service.

from reading the latest comments, prior to my post, my post fits the conversation of academic support systems that are dedicated to athletics only.

congrats on your knowledge though.

[MplsBison]

Frankly, I don't know one school that DOESN'T offer this service.

Most schools (including Albany) don't have a dedicated facility for academic enhancement of student-athletes.

None of the Dakota schools do, although I think NDSU's update of the BSA arena will include an academic area.

For example, http://www.mgoblue.com/facilities/ross-academic-center.html

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Plop.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-05-07/ncaa-restructuring-hits-point-where-split-is-preferable


In Delany's vision of college athletics, the "big tent" of Division I exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to operate the Division I Men's Basketball Championship. Not only would Division I not have the same rules, but Delany does not even want the NCAA or other conferences involved in the basic administration of those rules:


"The last thing is, in implementing these rules, if we get the autonomy, if we get them passed, we want to have the authority to interpret them and to waive them and to enforce. We don't want to turn it over to NCAA staff. We all have professional people in our offices who are more than prepared, more sufficiently experienced to interpret these rules, and to waive them if necessary. We don't want to turn that over to someone else. Through interpretation, you can gut the intent of a rule. Sometimes, common sense requires that the rule not be applied. We want to be able to control that."


It would be the height of naiveté to not see the end game here. The NCAA performs three major functions for its members: it operates tournaments, regulates members, and absorbs public criticism. By moving to an autonomy system where five conferences not only draft but administer their own rules, Delany is suggesting the NCAA cease performing the latter two of those tasks, at least for a subset of rules. Conferences also already know how to run tournaments (or could simply poach the NCAA's best people), so the only reason to keep the NCAA around and Division I intact is the value of March Madness.


That is not enough to keep Division I together for even the medium term. The Division I men's basketball tournament might be an $800 million/year property. But the five power conferences only see about $200 million of that, some of it with significant strings attached. A lighter, leaner organization might be able to produce the same distributions for power conference members on a tournament generating as little as a third of the revenue of March Madness.


You only have to read between a couple of lines to see that Delany is even indicating when a split will happen. Multiple times, Delany mentions a time frame of five to seven years to get Division I restructured, reform it to the liking of the power conferences, and let outside reform efforts like the wave of lawsuits play out. That is also, perhaps not coincidentally, the average time between governance reforms in Division I over the last 20 years or so. With plenty of practice at performing the NCAA's core functions, public criticism dying down after a tumultuous period, ability to reshape Division I exhausted and potentially needing major changes to pay for the result of lawsuits and unionization efforts, leaving the NCAA barely seems like a choice.

[MplsBison]

It's important to keep in mind here that Delany's motivation is actually not greed ... in a sense.

He, the other P5 conference commissioners, the P5 athletic directors and the NCAA have basically been tasked by the presidents to see if they can (more or less) save the revenue system as it exists today.


Save it from what? The lawsuits. If nothing is reformed in the current system, the lawsuits will ultimately win. Student-athletes will get some cut of the total revenue paid to them directly for their performances in games and may or may not form unions.

That would be the end of major college athletics. The presidents will never allow it. They'll pull the plug and scorch the earth, rather than have to lose to some disgruntled former college athletes.

The NFL and NBA will have to significantly invest in a minor league to develop elite talent (like what the MLB has). It won't be within the sphere of college athletics anymore, for the most part.


So Delany et. al. are trying to push as hard as they can to get something in place as fast as they can before the litigation starts, to give them a chance to win the lawsuits. That's their real aim, right now. Can they win? Who knows...

[superman7515]

Autonomy granted by a 16-2 vote for the Big 5.

[ngineer]

App State joins FBS, and the Big Boys leave :)

Maybe we'll end up with the Big Five and everything else becomes FCS..

[superman7515]

Looks like it may already be in trouble. The BOD slipped in a little change at the last minute that says "Any amendment is subject to approval by a five-conference presidential group before consideration by the full voting group."

Apparently there are some pretty unhappy AD's at the Big 5 and there are discussions about trying to get the votes needed to trigger the override process. Ironically, the Big 5 autonomy vote could end up being overridden by the Big 5.

[RichH2]

Looks like it may already be in trouble. The BOD slipped in a little change at the last minute that says "Any amendment is subject to approval by a five-conference presidential group before consideration by the full voting group."

Apparently there are some pretty unhappy AD's at the Big 5 and there are discussions about trying to get the votes needed to trigger the override process. Ironically, the Big 5 autonomy vote could end up being overridden by the Big 5.
Infighting already. No honor among thieves :)

[WestCoastAggie]

They need to hurry up and make it official. There is no need in dragging this out.

Make that new sub-division and call it a day.

[MplsBison]

Looks like it may already be in trouble. The BOD slipped in a little change at the last minute that says "Any amendment is subject to approval by a five-conference presidential group before consideration by the full voting group."

Apparently there are some pretty unhappy AD's at the Big 5 and there are discussions about trying to get the votes needed to trigger the override process. Ironically, the Big 5 autonomy vote could end up being overridden by the Big 5.

Are there any links with quotes from AD saying as such?

I see the amendment, but I don't see how it's much of anything. It seems like a good idea, actually - if I understand correctly.


To my reading, all it's saying is that before any new rule or amendment can be considered by the new Power Five 80 member voting party (the new "autonomy" system just approved - 65 schools and 15 additional voting representatives) it would have to be approved first by a panel of P5 presidents.

That panel then is basically just there to weed out any wildcat, politically/ideologically motivated or otherwise poorly formed new rules/amendments that might otherwise be submitted into the new voting system.

Don't see why there's any need to trigger the override because of that.

[superman7515]

Are there any links with quotes from AD saying as such?

I see the amendment, but I don't see how it's much of anything. It seems like a good idea, actually - if I understand correctly.


To my reading, all it's saying is that before any new rule or amendment can be considered by the new Power Five 80 member voting party (the new "autonomy" system just approved - 65 schools and 15 additional voting representatives) it would have to be approved first by a panel of P5 presidents.

That panel then is basically just there to weed out any wildcat or foolish ideas that might otherwise be floated by whomever is allowed to submit new rules or amendments into the systems.

Don't see why there's any need to trigger the override system because of that.

From what they were saying yesterday, the AD's have been arguing for this to get the power out of the President's hands because they feel that the AD's have a better feel for the pulse of athletics and should be able to make the decisions independent of any panel of Presidents. I don't have anything from a specific AD on the record, but there were multiple sites reporting that several of the AD's were not happy that there was still oversight from the President's they were trying to push out.

[MplsBison]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11320172/bob-bowlsby-big-12-oliver-luck-wvu-mountaneers-say-compensation-players-ok


Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby and West Virginia athletics director Oliver Luck said Wednesday they are generally supportive of allowing student-athletes to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness.

"I think that the collegiate community has learned a lesson about taking a broad latitude with name, image and likeness," Bowlsby said.


Added Luck: "I think they should be compensated for use of that name, image and likeness."

Looks like some in the P5 are putting out feelers on accepting a "loss" in the realm of the NIL lawsuit (the O'Bannon lawsuit).

Perhaps they feel that if the NCAA and P5 will settle and "lose" something to the players, then the rest of the lawsuits will go away?

[MplsBison]

From what they were saying yesterday, the AD's have been arguing for this to get the power out of the President's hands because they feel that the AD's have a better feel for the pulse of athletics and should be able to make the decisions independent of any panel of Presidents. I don't have anything from a specific AD on the record, but there were multiple sites reporting that several of the AD's were not happy that there was still oversight from the President's they were trying to push out.

I believe you.

But my response to those ADs is still "meh".

At the end of the day, the presidents still are very much interested in controlling athletics. It's too important to the university as a whole. They have the power and I don't think they're going to delegate it to ADs, even if that's what ought to be done.

They got the new voting structure they wanted with the bells and whistles that they wanted. They should focus on the new rules and amendments that need to get in place by Oct.

[caribbeanhen]

Autonomy granted by a 16-2 vote for the Big 5.

Why did Harker get 2 votes?

[superman7515]

Why did Harker get 2 votes?

I asked the same question, but he told me that he would only answer if I put in a FOIA request and could prove that state funds had been utilized in any portion of his voting process, at which time I would only be privy to the information that the taxpayers funded, but not the full picture.