Southland Commish on autonomy, schedules, etc.

[BEAR]

Interesting read. Not sure how the institutions with a little more money in the conference will handle the COA issue, but its interesting to see how strapped ones like Nicholls State will handle it if it becomes a trend with other Southland schools.

Q&A WITH SOUTHLAND COMMISSIONER TOM BURNETT

http://southland.org/news/2015/2/18/GEN_0218151103.aspx


Q: Will any Southland programs apply the approved autonomous legislation?
TB: Those are decisions our members are now contemplating, and I believe that most will make a determination before the April signing period if they haven't already.

What do you guys think? SLC fans I really want to hear from you. :.)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Q: Why didn't the Southland presidents ban all or some of the autonomy measures conference-wide?

TB: Our league, like many other conferences, has been advised by legal counsel against colluding as an organization, prohibiting our members from following approved NCAA legislation. Further, some of the autonomous items are fairly innocuous. Thus, the decision whether or not to follow NCAA autonomous legislation is completely up to each Division I institution.

Boy, did that raise my eyebrows. In effect, conference's hands are completely tied on autonomy. He is essentially calling "permissive" legislation a crock of ****, because if they ban it, they'd be "colluding against the NCAA".


Q: What about providing cost-of-attendance for Southland football programs, and what are other Football Championship Subdivision leagues planning to do?

TB: Again, that will be up to each football-playing member. Currently, I don't detect a lot of administrative interest in providing COA within FCS. The FCS conference commissioners met a few weeks ago, and there seemed to be little enthusiasm in applying COA in the subdivision, especially in the full athletic scholarship conferences (63 equivalencies) like the Southland. That's not to say some won't, even in the Southland. But as most people know, FCS is different by design, most notably its financial and scholarship structure. Simply put, COA applied across the board in football does not seem to be financially practical for the larger subdivision. But again, that's going to be an institutional decision.

In other words, FCS commissioners don't seem to thrilled with it, but then again, if a school wants to offer it, there's little conference commissioners can do about it.

[McNeese75]

It's a moot point at McNeese

And the process for determining football schedules is a steaming pile.

[PAllen]

Boy, did that raise my eyebrows. In effect, conference's hands are completely tied on autonomy. He is essentially calling "permissive" legislation a crock of ****, because if they ban it, they'd be "colluding against the NCAA".



In other words, FCS commissioners don't seem to thrilled with it, but then again, if a school wants to offer it, there's little conference commissioners can do about it.

I don't get why there's little conference commissioners can do about it. If the Ivy, PL, PFL, and NEC can have restrictions on redshirting, scholarships, etc, then why can't the Southland have restrictions on allowing COA allowances?

[BEAR]

It's a moot point at McNeese

And the process for determining football schedules is a steaming pile.

Scheduling is a pile. Now we have 9 conference games with 11 football playing teams and ONE of those only has an 8 game schedule. So if they go 8-0 while another team goes 9-0 who wins it? Clusterfuxxx.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't get why there's little conference commissioners can do about it. If the Ivy, PL, PFL, and NEC can have restrictions on redshirting, scholarships, etc, then why can't the Southland have restrictions on allowing COA allowances?

My 2c non-legal impression from his comments that further scholarship restrictions or additional restrictions on redshirting are not an outright ban on a benefit for players. For example, in FCS the rule is you can offer up to 63 scholarships (whole or partial). You can choose to offer 0 if you want to. However, if you are offering a scholarship it seems like you can't prevent part of that scholarship benefit and allow others.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Scheduling is a pile. Now we have 9 conference games with 11 football playing teams and ONE of those only has an 8 game schedule. So if they go 8-0 while another team goes 9-0 who wins it? Clusterfuxxx.

Sounds like the OVC

[BEAR]

I just want the baseball teams to be full scholly...sad how that whole side of the money is handled.

[walliver]

I don't get why there's little conference commissioners can do about it. If the Ivy, PL, PFL, and NEC can have restrictions on redshirting, scholarships, etc, then why can't the Southland have restrictions on allowing COA allowances?

I agree. I don't see the Ivies getting sued for not offering scholarships. I doubt many FCS programs offer extra money. In some cases, there may not be a formal vote, but a tremendous amount of peer pressure brought to bear (off the record of course).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I agree. I don't see the Ivies getting sued for not offering scholarships. I doubt many FCS programs offer extra money. In some cases, there may not be a formal vote, but a tremendous amount of peer pressure brought to bear (off the record of course).

Read #6 above. It is not a requirement that FCS schools offer scholarships, but if they do, I think they can't just say "Implement this scholarship without FCOA".

[Daytripper]

Isn't the very existence of the NCAA and its requirements collusion? Why would a subset of the NCAA, which doesn't agree with certain policies, be guilty of collusion?

[FormerPokeCenter]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KyfHcPl90NQ/UCOUGDhyPQI/AAAAAAAAOhQ/0Tg5Ou7EGLo/s400/ncaa%2Bcommunist%2Bpenn%2Bstate.jpg

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Isn't the very existence of the NCAA and its requirements collusion? Why would a subset of the NCAA, which doesn't agree with certain policies, be guilty of collusion?

A very good question why the members of the P5 can, essentially, collude to make their own rules, but if non-P5 members tried to reject those rules, even as a conference, it could be considered collusion.

[BEAR]

A very good question why the members of the P5 can, essentially, collude to make their own rules, but if non-P5 members tried to reject those rules, even as a conference, it could be considered collusion.

Because money talks. Those P5 conferences have the money that is the lifeline of the paychecks of the NCAA. I can't see the NCAA existing with the funds that mom and pop FCS give them. Not fair, but money talks.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Holy christ, can we stop jumping to conclusions on all this stuff? The sky is not falling at this point.

Uh oh, looks like the sky is falling again.

[Daytripper]

Holy christ, can we stop jumping to conclusions on all this stuff? The sky is not falling at this point.

Uh oh, looks like the sky is falling again.


I don't see anybody jumping to conclusions. I just see a discussion of the Southland Conference commissioner's statements....

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I don't see anybody jumping to conclusions. I just see a discussion of the Southland Conference commissioner's statements....

Eh, I didn't really mean to have the first line in that one as it was in reference to LFN's highlighting of the NCAA regulations and collusion and after reading it a couple of times I still didn't see what he was getting at so meant to leave it out completely. But since it's there...the way that line reads to me is...

The Southland doesn't want to make a rule at this point because they don't need to and if they don't need to take a chance of possibly exposing themselves to something. It doesn't mean you can't/have to do anything as a conference.

AS I said, I may have been misreading it so should have just left it all out until the thread and the points were further along.

[Hammersmith]

I just want to point something out that I'm not sure people are understanding. The collusion in question is between schools/conferences/NCAA and against student-athletes. I believe there is currently a lawsuit working its way through the courts alleging that schools are colluding with each other(using conferences and the NCAA as a whole) to deny benefits to student-athletes. I don't know the status of the case, but I believe conferences are worried that forbidding member schools from allowing P5 benefits like COA would be giving that court case more ammunition.

[Daytripper]

I just want to point something out that I'm not sure people are understanding. The collusion in question is between schools/conferences/NCAA and against student-athletes. I believe there is currently a lawsuit working its way through the courts alleging that schools are colluding with each other(using conferences and the NCAA as a whole) to deny benefits to student-athletes. I don't know the status of the case, but I believe conferences are worried that forbidding member schools from allowing P5 benefits like COA would be giving that court case more ammunition.


Everybody lawyering up!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Eh, I didn't really mean to have the first line in that one as it was in reference to LFN's highlighting of the NCAA regulations and collusion and after reading it a couple of times I still didn't see what he was getting at so meant to leave it out completely. But since it's there...the way that line reads to me is...

The Southland doesn't want to make a rule at this point because they don't need to and if they don't need to take a chance of possibly exposing themselves to something. It doesn't mean you can't/have to do anything as a conference.

AS I said, I may have been misreading it so should have just left it all out until the thread and the points were further along.

This is a BFD because up until the instant he mentioned it in this Q&A, the words surrounding autonomy have always been "the rules we make are permissive, meaning, if you want to follow them, sure! No problem! Happy trails, dudes!" Bennett, however, like many other conferences, went to their legal counsel to try to figure out what can be done about legislation that the P5 passes. They advised that, if the members of a non-P5 conference decide to prohibit full cost of attendance, it would be considered a violation of NCAA policies. That's not permissive at all. It is a complete and utter emasculation of any conference not in the P5.

"Our league, like many other conferences, has been advised by legal counsel against colluding as an organization, prohibiting our members from following approved NCAA legislation." That's not about JUST FCOA. That's about all of it.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I just want to point something out that I'm not sure people are understanding. The collusion in question is between schools/conferences/NCAA and against student-athletes. I believe there is currently a lawsuit working its way through the courts alleging that schools are colluding with each other(using conferences and the NCAA as a whole) to deny benefits to student-athletes. I don't know the status of the case, but I believe conferences are worried that forbidding member schools from allowing P5 benefits like COA would be giving that court case more ammunition.

Aren't the suits against specific conferences not named the Southland?

[Hammersmith]

This is a BFD because up until the instant he mentioned it in this Q&A, the words surrounding autonomy have always been "the rules we make are permissive, meaning, if you want to follow them, sure! No problem! Happy trails, dudes!" Bennett, however, like many other conferences, went to their legal counsel to try to figure out what can be done about legislation that the P5 passes. They advised that, if the members of a non-P5 conference decide to prohibit full cost of attendance, it would be considered a violation of NCAA policies. That's not permissive at all. It is a complete and utter emasculation of any conference not in the P5.

"Our league, like many other conferences, has been advised by legal counsel against colluding as an organization, prohibiting our members from following approved NCAA legislation."

You probably missed my post when you were typing yours, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about a part of your reasoning. Your sentence that looks like this:

They advised that, if the members of a non-P5 conference decide to prohibit full cost of attendance, it would be considered a violation of NCAA policies.

Should actually read as this:

They advised that, if the members of a non-P5 conference decide to prohibit full cost of attendance, it would open themselves up to potential litigation from student-athletes.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

HS, you're taking "approved NCAA legislation" to read "full cost of attendance" or alternatively "P5-authorized legislation that benefits student-athletes". I'm taking it to read "approved NCAA legislation of which P5 autonomy decisions are one and the same".

[Hammersmith]

Aren't the suits against specific conferences not named the Southland?

I'm pretty sure the feeling that is the Southland(or any other non-P5 conference) votes to forbid COAs on a Friday, they'll either be added to one of those lawsuits or find themselves the target of a new lawsuit by Monday.


NDSU's AD talked about this a couple weeks back, and Patty V pretty much said the same a week after.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

You probably missed my post when you were typing yours, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about a part of your reasoning. Your sentence that looks like this:


Should actually read as this:

You are stating exactly as I would have liked to in the beginning so I'll leave your excellent work alone and just say I fully agree with your take.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm pretty sure the feeling that is the Southland(or any other non-P5 conference) votes to forbid COAs on a Friday, they'll either be added to one of those lawsuits or find themselves the target of a new lawsuit by Monday.


NDSU's AD talked about this a couple weeks back, and Patty V pretty much said the same a week after.

Zactly, that was why I put this line in my reply to daytripper.



The Southland doesn't want to make a rule at this point because they don't need to and if they don't need to take a chance of possibly exposing themselves to something. It doesn't mean you can't/have to do anything as a conference.
.

[PAllen]

So the Southland (or any other conference) puts a cap on aid at the $ equivalent to 63 current scholarships (or whatever they want), and it's up to the schools to distribute from there, with a maximum of 80 some kids benefiting. You want to give 35 kids paychecks as "full COA", that's you're prerogative, but you will run into a conference mate with 80 kids on at least a partial.

Honestly, I see the hammer ultimately swinging the other way. The P5 will break away with maybe a few trailers. Once they do, the political power will shift towards the ivory tower types who don't think there should be athletic scholarships at all. Suddenly, everyone is down to a grant-in-aid model. I see some variation of that as much more likely than having a couple of hundred colleges sponsor minor league professional teams all for the chance of a Friday night game on ESPN3.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If that's indeed what he meant, why say anything? He could have said this and meant the exact same thing you're describing.


Q: What about providing cost-of-attendance for Southland football programs, and what are other Football Championship Subdivision leagues planning to do?

TB: Again, that will be up to each football-playing member. As most people know, FCS is different by design, most notably its financial and scholarship structure. Simply put, COA applied across the board in football does not seem to be financially practical for the larger subdivision. But again, that's going to be an institutional decision.

Instead he talks about lawyering up and collusion and not following NCAA rules. I don't think that language I'm omitting was inserted in there by accident.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/02/02/Colleges/NCAA-Oliver-Luck.aspx


Luck warned administrators to tread cautiously on paying full cost of attendance, a measure that was passed at the convention. Cost of attendance permits schools to pay scholarship athletes anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 a year, based on each school’s federally mandated number, to cover expenses beyond tuition, books, room and board.

Most of the power five schools will implement the new stipend to their athletes as it becomes available in 2015, but schools in less favorable financial positions might opt to pay 50 percent or some other amount at first. Full-cost-of-attendance stipends are projected to cost athletic departments an additional $800,000 to $1 million a year.

“You may want to err on the side of caution because you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube,” Luck said of those expenses. “Maybe you don’t go out with 100 percent of the full cost. You might exercise some restraint there.”


I mention this because this is an important part of the implementation. My interpretation is that the percentage (50%/100%) is across the board, across all sports, meaning, you can't give football players 100% and women's field hockey players 25%. Nor can you legislate at a conference level that everyone will give football players 0% and women's field hockey 100%.

Equally as important is the implication is that it seems like it's one-way. You can't offer FCOA one year, then next year take it away in whole or in part.

[walliver]

http://sportinlaw.com/2012/08/01/rock-and-the-class-v-ncaa-does-the-ncaa-violate-antitrust-law-by-capping-scholarships/

On older article, but an ongoing lawsuit. If John Rock is successful, then FCS and D-II will no longer be of any relevance (The lawsuit seeks to ban all scholarship limits).

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If that's indeed what he meant, why say anything? He could have said this and meant the exact same thing you're describing.



Instead he talks about lawyering up and collusion and not following NCAA rules. I don't think that language I'm omitting was inserted in there by accident.

What are you calling an NCAA rule here?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

What are you calling an NCAA rule here?

Burnett called the enacted autonomy rules NCAA legislation.


Q: Why didn't the Southland presidents ban all or some of the autonomy measures conference-wide?

TB: Our league, like many other conferences, has been advised by legal counsel against colluding as an organization, prohibiting our members from following approved NCAA legislation. Further, some of the autonomous items are fairly innocuous. Thus, the decision whether or not to follow NCAA autonomous legislation is completely up to each Division I institution.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Burnett called the enacted autonomy rules NCAA legislation.

It is not a rule. You are putting way more salt on that phrase than it think it needs here. This legislation is opt in and it may be wisest for conferences to not "get together" formally and reject this on it's face as it opens them up to things they need not expose themselves to.

Let's not call these rules and so forth as that is not what they are if you can opt in. Now once you opt in there are parameters and so forth that have to be followed so that is more along the lines of rules etc.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It is not a rule. You are putting way more salt on that phrase than it think it needs here. This legislation is opt in and it may be wisest for conferences to not "get together" formally and reject this on it's face as it opens them up to things they need not expose themselves to.

Let's not call these rules and so forth as that is not what they are if you can opt in. Now once you opt in there are parameters and so forth that have to be followed so that is more along the lines of rules etc.

If a conference is prevented from preventing its schools from opting in, how is that not a rule?

I'm not saying that most FCS presidents are going to be falling over themselves to install FCOA at their schools. But the prior "rule" was that the value of a scholarship was capped. Now, thanks to decisions that the P5 have made for themselves, the "rule" has changed. If a conference decided that it wants to define "scholarship" the old way, it cannot. It they try to do that, they'll be sued. So how is this in any way opt-in?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If a conference is prevented from preventing its schools from opting in, how is that not a rule?

I'm not saying that most FCS presidents are going to be falling over themselves to install FCOA at their schools. But the prior "rule" was that the value of a scholarship was capped. Now, thanks to decisions that the P5 have made for themselves, the "rule" has changed. If a conference decided that it wants to define "scholarship" the old way, it cannot. It they try to do that, they'll be sued. So how is this in any way opt-in?

It's not a rule because there will be a vast majority that will not do this and will not be held to account by the NCAA for not doing so. Now if there is something that comes aobut outside of the NCAA then that's life man. You are making this look like something the NCAA is putting on members.

Outside of the P5 what percentage of schollls do you think would be opting in to this? What is the penalty that would be imposed for not doing so?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It's not a rule because there will be a vast majority that will not do this and will not be held to account by the NCAA for not doing so. Now if there is something that comes aobut outside of the NCAA then that's life man. You are making this look like something the NCAA is putting on members.

Ah, but they are. According to Burnett, passed autonomy measures are considered "approved NCAA legislation". And the NCAA is absolutely putting this new definition of "scholarship" on its members. 95% of the NCAA's membership was fine with how "scholarship" was defined before.

You can argue that the NCAA's membership put the matter of P5 autonomy to a vote, and schools didn't oppose it. However, I doubt that conference commissioners of the 95% had any idea exactly how badly their hands would be tied behind their back legally over this. And the NCAA made it "approved NCAA legislation" with pretty much zero consideration for the rest of the membership. More accurately, they let the P5 run over them and didn't try to push back, despite 95% of the membership's objections - after all, FCOA was voted down by a majority of the members years ago.


Outside of the P5 what percentage of schollls do you think would be opting in to this? What is the penalty that would be imposed for not doing so?

Every school will have to look themselves in the mirror and decide whether they feel whether they need to implement it, and at what level. I would guess about 10-15% of non-P5 D-I membership will implement it in some form, and that number will likely grow. For example, when St. Bonaventure loses recruits to George Mason over this, they'll be adding it. If NDSU feels like it needs it to compete with Nebraska for football recruits, they'll add it without hesitation.

But conferences have zero power in the matter. They can't stop a school from offering it just because it's unfair to the rest of its membership.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Ah, but they are. According to Burnett, passed autonomy measures are considered "approved NCAA legislation". And the NCAA is absolutely putting this new definition of "scholarship" on its members. 95% of the NCAA's membership was fine with how "scholarship" was defined before.

You can argue that the NCAA's membership put the matter of P5 autonomy to a vote, and schools didn't oppose it. However, I doubt that conference commissioners of the 95% had any idea exactly how badly their hands would be tied behind their back legally over this. And the NCAA made it "approved NCAA legislation" with pretty much zero consideration for the rest of the membership. More accurately, they let the P5 run over them and didn't try to push back, despite 95% of the membership's objections - after all, FCOA was voted down by a majority of the members years ago.



Every school will have to look themselves in the mirror and decide whether they feel whether they need to implement it, and at what level. I would guess about 10-15% of non-P5 D-I membership will implement it in some form, and that number will likely grow. For example, when St. Bonaventure loses recruits to George Mason over this, they'll be adding it. If NDSU feels like it needs it to compete with Nebraska for football recruits, they'll add it without hesitation.

But conferences have zero power in the matter. They can't stop a school from offering it just because it's unfair to the rest of its membership.

That should read "according to what LFN understands of what Burnett said". You are stuck on "Approved NCAA legislation" as if there is not other approved legislation that has been around for a long time that doesn't affect all schools.

Will ther be problems and growing pains unfolding...I am sure there will be but I just don't think you are understanding what is being said there and I also don't know that what is being said couldn't be considered speculative. There very well may be conferences that put other rules in place that would check the FCOA, it's all way to new to be able to say this or that is going to happen.

[BEAR]

Looks like I opened a 20602

[TheRevSFA]

All these non Southland folk trying to interpret our inept commissioner

[McNeese75]

All these non Southland folk trying to interpret our inept commissioner

Somebody needs to try and make sense of the moron xlolx

[TheRevSFA]

Somebody needs to try and make sense of the moron xlolx

The day he invited HBU in was the day I stopped ever paying attention to him

[Daytripper]

The day he invited HBU in was the day I stopped ever paying attention to him


+1

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The day he invited HBU in was the day I stopped ever paying attention to him

Wait a minute...is this another case of a conference commish making unilateral moves without the consent of the member schools?

You know your schools were part of anything he did.

[UAalum72]

But conferences have zero power in the matter. They can't stop a school from offering it just because it's unfair to the rest of its membership.
Don't they have the same power that would prevent an NEC school from going over its scholarship limit, a PL school from ignoring the AI, or an Ivy or PFL school from adding scholarships?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Don't they have the same power that would prevent an NEC school from going over its scholarship limit, a PL school from ignoring the AI, or an Ivy or PFL school from adding scholarships?

Conferences can limit the total number of scholarships that are offered. But conferences apparently can't limit the nature of a scholarship or make one type of scholarship have a benefit that isn't a part of another scholarship.

[TheRevSFA]

Wait a minute...is this another case of a conference commish making unilateral moves without the consent of the member schools?

You know your schools were part of anything he did.

I also stopped listening to my school's president and AD

[FormerPokeCenter]

Wait a minute...is this another case of a conference commish making unilateral moves without the consent of the member schools?

You know your schools were part of anything he did.

The conference doesn't listen to a damn thing McNeese has to say....we get teh short end of the stick in pretty much every conference decision....just look at conference scheduling...

The only school that's really got to make any sort of accomodation for the new schools is McNeese...we've had to travel to UCA several freakin times in a row, to accomodate the new schools...I think we've had to travel to Sam Houston in successive years too, and we don't even play HBU....while other teams do, and the games count as conference games for them...

yeah, the SLC Commish does some fairly unilateral things....

[McNeese75]

I also stopped listening to my school's president and AD

I'm getting there really fast xnodx

[PAllen]

Conferences can limit the total number of scholarships that are offered. But conferences apparently can't limit the nature of a scholarship or make one type of scholarship have a benefit that isn't a part of another scholarship.

LFN, Sorry, but I don't see what this is based on at all, other than your own conjecture.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

LFN, Sorry, but I don't see what this is based on at all, other than your own conjecture.

sigh.... Again...

Q: Why didn't the Southland presidents ban all or some of the autonomy measures conference-wide?

TB: Our league, like many other conferences, has been advised by legal counsel against colluding as an organization, prohibiting our members from following approved NCAA legislation. Further, some of the autonomous items are fairly innocuous. Thus, the decision whether or not to follow NCAA autonomous legislation is completely up to each Division I institution.

In this case, autonomy legislation has allowed schools to add additional funds to the cost of a scholarship up to the "full cost of attendance". According to Burnett, he has been advised by legal counsel that he cannot prevent his schools at a conference level from offering that aid if a school so wishes. Those additional funds change the nature of what a scholarship is - it's now tuition, etc., plus this stipend that wasn't there before.

Conferences apparently have been advised that prohibiting their schools from offering this benefit opens them up to collusion charges, i.e. they are colluding against following approved NCAA legislation. So FCS conferences have no way to formally limit their schools from offering it. They can all get together in a room and promise that they won't do it, but they can't make a rule saying they can't.

Similarly, this newly-defined benefit doesn't just apply to one sport - it applies to all sports where scholarships are offered. A conference also can't limit that to say they will only offer it for basketball. Each school will offer it for whatever sport they decide.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

LFN, Sorry, but I don't see what this is based on at all, other than your own conjecture.

Exactly.

[FormerPokeCenter]

I'm getting there really fast xnodx


Me too...and I was as really excited about the possibilities that the new AD brought to the table...

So far, I'm underwhelmed....

And I'm not thrill with the guy in the President's mansion, either...

[Daytripper]

Me too...and I was as really excited about the possibilities that the new AD brought to the table...

So far, I'm underwhelmed....

And I'm not thrill with the guy in the President's mansion, either...


Specifics?

[FormerPokeCenter]

LOL, Newp.....75 knows what I'm talking about ;) I don't line dry familial dirty laundry ;)

[TheRevSFA]

We should call this "LFN opines on Southland commish remarks and wants us to take his opinions as fact"

[Lehigh Football Nation]

We should call this "LFN opines on Southland commish remarks and wants us to take his opinions as fact"

The fact that the Southland commish looked to legal counsel as to whether to do anything about autonomy legislation is hardly an opinion.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The fact that the Southland commish looked to legal counsel as to whether to do anything about autonomy legislation is hardly an opinion.

Why are you making statements like this? Nobody even inferred that. I'd bet in today's landscape there is never a move that is not ran by legal counsel by the commissioners. His point was how over the top you get with any small thing that can be twisted into something with little to back it up.

You see the same exzact evidence we all saw and you draw a very sensationalistic conclusion from it I think was the point. Then you kept quoting the same thing over and over as if backed your play. I just think you are reading the tea leaves wrong here as do others it appears.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Why are you making statements like this? Nobody even inferred that. I'd bet in today's landscape there is never a move that is not ran by legal counsel by the commissioners. His point was how over the top you get with any small thing that can be twisted into something with little to back it up.

You see the same exzact evidence we all saw and you draw a very sensationalistic conclusion from it I think was the point. Then you kept quoting the same thing over and over as if backed your play. I just think you are reading the tea leaves wrong here as do others it appears.

Me: "Holy Crap, the definition of a scholarship just changed and there's nothing FCS commissioners can really do about it"

Others: "Let's just hope this all goes away"

Nobody has come back and said that I'm wrong, that commissioners really CAN do something about FCOA.

Those that think it's not a big deal are assuming because TODAY people are REASSURING them it's not a big deal.

You may believe them and trust your rival schools and commissioners that simply because they don't believe anyone ELSE has any appetite for FCOA that they themselves won't do it. They might even get together at the local VFW and pinkie swear that they won't ever, ever do it. But I do not believe that. The more important part of this that everyone appears to be missing is that at the conference level nobody can go in and say that they are going to be an "FCOA-free" football conference. Once the P5 has unleashed this on the world, each school, irrespective of conference, are on their own.

I maintain that Cal Poly could make the decision to offer $5,000 or more for every scholarship for every athlete in their athletic program, and there's nothing Montana or the Big Sky could do about it. That's a BFD to me. Please prove me wrong instead of a variation on the theme that it's not a BFD because somebody told them that everybody pinkie-swore not to institute FCOA.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Me: "Holy Crap, the definition of a scholarship just changed and there's nothing FCS commissioners can really do about it"

Others: "Let's just hope this all goes away"

Nobody has come back and said that I'm wrong, that commissioners really CAN do something about FCOA.

Those that think it's not a big deal are assuming because TODAY people are REASSURING them it's not a big deal.

You may believe them and trust your rival schools and commissioners that simply because they don't believe anyone ELSE has any appetite for FCOA that they themselves won't do it. They might even get together at the local VFW and pinkie swear that they won't ever, ever do it. But I do not believe that. The more important part of this that everyone appears to be missing is that at the conference level nobody can go in and say that they are going to be an "FCOA-free" football conference. Once the P5 has unleashed this on the world, each school, irrespective of conference, are on their own.

I maintain that Cal Poly could make the decision to offer $5,000 or more for every scholarship for every athlete in their athletic program, and there's nothing Montana or the Big Sky could do about it. That's a BFD to me. Please prove me wrong instead of a variation on the theme that it's not a BFD because somebody told them that everybody pinkie-swore not to institute FCOA.

You really make up these arguments in your own head or what's going on here? Yes it's changed, no we don't know exactlhy how it will affext us yet. End of f'n story. Nobody's putting up arguments against the things you stated because some of them COULD BE PLAUSIBLE in the near future but you are taking what one commissioner said and making some grand gestures about what it is and so forth. Please realize that this is what everyone else is talking about...not the augmentations you are making now.

You're not making a valid argument for me to take the time to prove you wrong but to counter, no FCS schools are going to be able to do what you suggest so let's try and base things in reality a little bit if it's all the same to you. You are doing a tip of the cap to MPLSBison right? I get it now. good one.

[Hammersmith]

Me: "Holy Crap, the definition of a scholarship just changed and there's nothing FCS commissioners can really do about it"

Others: "Let's just hope this all goes away"

Nobody has come back and said that I'm wrong, that commissioners really CAN do something about FCOA.

Those that think it's not a big deal are assuming because TODAY people are REASSURING them it's not a big deal.

You may believe them and trust your rival schools and commissioners that simply because they don't believe anyone ELSE has any appetite for FCOA that they themselves won't do it. They might even get together at the local VFW and pinkie swear that they won't ever, ever do it. But I do not believe that. The more important part of this that everyone appears to be missing is that at the conference level nobody can go in and say that they are going to be an "FCOA-free" football conference. Once the P5 has unleashed this on the world, each school, irrespective of conference, are on their own.

I maintain that Cal Poly could make the decision to offer $5,000 or more for every scholarship for every athlete in their athletic program, and there's nothing Montana or the Big Sky could do about it. That's a BFD to me. Please prove me wrong instead of a variation on the theme that it's not a BFD because somebody told them that everybody pinkie-swore not to institute FCOA.

What some of us are trying to say is that you're right for the wrong reasons. You're getting to the correct conclusion, but the logic you're using to get there is all messed up.

The decision on whether conferences can forbid FCOAs is going to have to wait until the court cases are resolved. If the cases result in rulings(or settlements) that conference decisions like these are not collusion, then conferences will feel free to forbid FCOAs if they wish. If the courts rule in the other direction, then FCOAs will be the least of everyone's worries.

To your example: You are correct and incorrect. If Cal Poly were to offer a $5k stipend(would really be $3k according to Cal Poly website) above a regular scholarship, Montana or the Big Sky could do nothing about it. But you're a touch incorrect on the "every scholarship for every athlete" part. What would actually be allowed (for FCS football) is $315k($5k times 63) more to spread over the 85 players, with no one getting more than a full scholarship + $5k.

Some of your other comments seem to be pretty far off from what I can tell from them. You made some comments about "all or nothing" and some stuff about women's sports. If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're wrong. Per NCAA rules, schools can choose to give FCOA scholarships to some sports and not others. They can even give them to some members on a particular team and not give them to others. (that doesn't mean a school can ignore Title IX, but that's federal law and not an NCAA rule) Also, a school is not required to set a stipend amount and then give 100% of that amount or nothing. They can give anything from $1 to the full amount.

[UAalum72]

I maintain that Cal Poly could make the decision to offer $5,000 or more for every scholarship for every athlete in their athletic program, and there's nothing Montana or the Big Sky could do about it. That's a BFD to me. Please prove me wrong instead of a variation on the theme that it's not a BFD because somebody told them that everybody pinkie-swore not to institute FCOA.
Fordham made a decision to offer scholarships, and the Patriot League declared them ineligible for the league championship.
If Cal Poly offers $5000 FCOA for every athlete, why cannot the Big Sky declare them ineligible for the league championships?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Fordham made a decision to offer scholarships, and the Patriot League declared them ineligible for the league championship.
If Cal Poly offers $5000 FCOA for every athlete, why cannot the Big Sky declare them ineligible for the league championships?

Cal Poly is football only as well so if the rest of BSC wanted to they could put Cal Poly in a very tenuous position as far as football goes. What they do with their other athletes means nothing to BSC members on top of the fact they wouldn't do it anyway. Great point you brought up there though.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Fordham made a decision to offer scholarships, and the Patriot League declared them ineligible for the league championship.
If Cal Poly offers $5000 FCOA for every athlete, why cannot the Big Sky declare them ineligible for the league championships?

There is a big difference. The Patriot League had its own rule that no football team in the league could offer conventional scholarships. Fordham made the institutional decision to no longer abide by that Patriot League rule. The Patriot League decided to have them remain in the league, but to be ineligible for the Patriot League title and autobid.

No NCAA rules were being challenged. FCS schools could always offer 0 or 63 scholarships. Fordham decided to follow the NCAA rule, but not the Patriot League rule.

It's kind of like what happened in the PFL the last couple of years. San Diego decided to offer aid beyond the need-based aid, apparently, which violated PFL rules, but didn't violate NCAA rules.

The difference here is the denial of offering FCOA is going against NCAA legislation, according to Tom Burnett. If you go against conference rules, the conference has final say as to what to do. But FCOA is NCAA legislation. Denial of that benefit, according to Burnett, would be "colluding" against the NCAA.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Some of your other comments seem to be pretty far off from what I can tell from them. You made some comments about "all or nothing" and some stuff about women's sports. If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're wrong. Per NCAA rules, schools can choose to give FCOA scholarships to some sports and not others. They can even give them to some members on a particular team and not give them to others. (that doesn't mean a school can ignore Title IX, but that's federal law and not an NCAA rule) Also, a school is not required to set a stipend amount and then give 100% of that amount or nothing. They can give anything from $1 to the full amount.

I agree with you that a school can decide what % of FCOA to give. However, to the rest of your statements there are some pretty strong indicators that 1) conference commissioners and athletic directors are considering this a benefit that is given to all athletes at the same %, and 2) Title IX pretty strongly is informing this decision.

When I said "all or nothing" I didn't mean it as schools will always have to do 100% FCOA. What I meant was schools would have to almost certainly have to offer it for every athlete, a concept that is corroborated by other conference commissioners and ADs.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/william-and-mary/dp-spt-ncaa-legislation-effect-local-20150214-story.html#page=1


"I don't think there's a real big appetite at our level for cost of attendance," W&M athletic director Terry Driscoll said. "It's primarily because it's a financial issue. In addition to the regular cost of scholarships, it would place a burden. There may be some institutions that are in a position to do that. I would say at William and Mary, we're not in a position to create a cost of attendance across our entire athletic department."

Driscoll, and his bosses at William and Mary, are also sensitive to the idea that providing cost of attendance on a limited basis runs counter to the athletic department's mission.

"You begin to create different classes of student-athletes on your own campus," he said. "Probably more than the financial aspect is the philosophical piece to how we run our program. It's exacerbated by the cost associated with it. If we're going to have student-athletes, you'd like them all to be basically receiving the same benefits."

Unsaid here is: how can you offer a benefit to a men's team but not a women's team? It might be a more viable notion financially if you could only do it for men's basketball and football, but it sure doesn't seem like anyone is going to even bother to challenge that. That's my inference that Title IX is a part of that decision. My opinion? Sure, but google "Title IX" and I'm sure that's not a very outlandish assumption.

[Hammersmith]

I agree with you that a school can decide what % of FCOA to give. However, to the rest of your statements there are some pretty strong indicators that 1) conference commissioners and athletic directors are considering this a benefit that is given to all athletes at the same %, and 2) Title IX pretty strongly is informing this decision.

When I said "all or nothing" I didn't mean it as schools will always have to do 100% FCOA. What I meant was schools would have to almost certainly have to offer it for every athlete, a concept that is corroborated by other conference commissioners and ADs.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/william-and-mary/dp-spt-ncaa-legislation-effect-local-20150214-story.html#page=1



Unsaid here is: how can you offer a benefit to a men's team but not a women's team? It might be a more viable notion financially if you could only do it for men's basketball and football, but it sure doesn't seem like anyone is going to even bother to challenge that. That's my inference that Title IX is a part of that decision. My opinion? Sure, but google "Title IX" and I'm sure that's not a very outlandish assumption.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

About the quote you used, that's one AD speaking about his school. He even makes a point about it in the next paragraph. I think you'll see schools use this reasoning to justify not giving out any FCOAs to anyone, but the real reason will be money.

I think you'll see most schools give out FCOA in MBB and WBB. The P5 will give it to everyone. The G5 will give it to some/all FB and enough women's sports to counterbalance that. There will be a handful of FCS schools that do the same(I expect NDSU will be in this group).

[Hammersmith]

There is a big difference. The Patriot League had its own rule that no football team in the league could offer conventional scholarships. Fordham made the institutional decision to no longer abide by that Patriot League rule. The Patriot League decided to have them remain in the league, but to be ineligible for the Patriot League title and autobid.

No NCAA rules were being challenged. FCS schools could always offer 0 or 63 scholarships. Fordham decided to follow the NCAA rule, but not the Patriot League rule.

It's kind of like what happened in the PFL the last couple of years. San Diego decided to offer aid beyond the need-based aid, apparently, which violated PFL rules, but didn't violate NCAA rules.

The difference here is the denial of offering FCOA is going against NCAA legislation, according to Tom Burnett. If you go against conference rules, the conference has final say as to what to do. But FCOA is NCAA legislation. Denial of that benefit, according to Burnett, would be "colluding" against the NCAA.

Three paragraphs of correct, one of incorrect. You are dead set against reading Burnett's quote correctly.

[Catatonic]

It's a moot point at McNeese

And the process for determining football schedules is a steaming pile.


Concur.

Everyone plays 9 games, except for the exception. That school only plays 8. All schools rotate who plays who, except for the exceptions. Some schools can name an unlimited number of rivals that they will play each year, and rotate among the others. Northwestern State, for example, must play the 3 other in-state schools and SFA each year. That's 4 of its 9 conference games that remain fixed each year. The number varies from program to program with little uniformity.

I much prefer the way the SEC builds its cross-divisional schedule--each school is allowed one traditional rival and rotates among the rest. Georgia, for example, plays Auburn each year and rotates all the other schools in the SEC West. There is at least some semblance of uniformity to this type arrangement versus teams in the SLC naming as many "must play" games as they desire, leaving limited options for rotation equity.

Also, by playing 9 conference games each year, there are very limited options to play OOC games, particularly in 11 game years. One FBS opponent, One FCS schools will probably become the norm.

[TheRevSFA]

What did Burnett say about Thundersleet?