Possible (probable?) new subdivision

[kyleslamb]

I apologize for this thread if it could adequately be placed in another, although none of the others fully addressed this topic directly.

I posted this on another site, so if you stumble there to read it, I apologize for lack of uniqueness. I'd rather save myself the trouble of formulating it in a new way (ha ha). Nonetheless, I believe there is a new subdivision coming this fall.

I've spoken with some contacts in athletics, and it does sound like we're nearing a new subdivision for football. Although I will try to keep this just about divisional realignment, a new subdivision could simultaneously address some of the issues regarding stipends and how athletes are handled vis-a-vis employee/athlete-student matters.

My first hunch that something was up came a few weeks back when the NCAA tweaked its voting structure to the leadership council. Currently, ADs or conference commissioners of seven major conferences (including the AAC and C-USA) receive the weight of three votes on the council with the other four FBS conferences receiving 1.5 votes and all other Division I leagues getting 1.14 votes apiece (equivalent of about 51 votes).

Under the new proposal, the five power conferences would receive four votes each (20); the remaining five FBS leagues would receive two votes each (10) and all 22 of the remaining Division I conferences would get one vote. However, in news that came out the past two days, the Division I board of directors has proposed a new governance structure that would allow the power five "autonomy" for matters that do not impact the entire division.

This leads me to the conclusion that a new subdivision is coming, aside from the fact I have folks in athletics telling me that is what they're hearing. It sets up some flexibility if my hunch is correct.

It looks like this:

* The five power conferences will create a new subdivision with this autonomy, meaning Division I football will be split into three classes (or potentially merge the remaining five leagues with FCS).

* The new upper level subdivision will mandate as a condition of membership such things as:

a) A stipend for a minimum amount paid to all athletes to cover cost of attendance, and

b) possible loss-in-status protection for any athlete that wants to stay in school (currently an exceptional talent policy exists for only players projected to be drafted but the amount is capped and there are limitations to the coverage), and

c) medical plan of some sort for athletes, and

d) less restriction on amenities (such as the unlimited food plan that was OK'd) and travel/expense reimbursement for families and other incidentals

This subdivision would almost assuredly have other thresholds needed to be met by prospective members. Currently, FBS schools must sponsor at least 16 varsity sports with a minimum of six (6) men's sports and eight (8) women's sports, as well as at least two team sports for each gender. Furthermore, schools most have at least an average of 15,000 in attendance in a two year rolling period to be eligible for membership and must offer no fewer than 77 grant-in-aids every season for football and the lesser of $4 million or 200 equivalent scholarships department-wide.

This new subdivision could take new members either with an invite to a current league, or new leagues could be formed. However, I imagine you'd see a requirement that leagues must have at least eight members, which would also require a new league to find eight non-FBS schools that meet the new thresholds.

My gut instinct is that they'll raise these thresholds to something like:

a) minimum of 18 varsity sports

b) at least $6 million in aid or 250 counters

Once a new subdivision is in place, you might well see further realignment. This is where the endgame of four power conferences could ultimately manifest itself. With this autonomy, the FBS leagues could wind up in a four-league super-structure with eight divisions and, consequently, a four team playoff among these four conference champions. It also removes any concern about other playoff formats where anti-trust issues could come into play.

The other good news out of this is that the NCAA's new council will include a vote from the chair of the student-athlete advisory committee. This, along with stipends, additional expenses, etc., does show a good faith effort to create a better situation, although it might still be too little too late.

Final approval of the new governance structure is expected when the board convenes in August. Though I'm somewhat spitballing on some of these details, everything they're doing leads me to believe that a new subdivision is exactly where this is heading. They've been talking about it for several years and doing so would be a good way of addressing the additional expenses to cover full cost of attendance.

Realignment isn't directly dependent on all of this, but once these things are out of the way, the endgame becomes fairly clear.

 

[The Funster]

Then it appears that UConn will have a path. The size of the 4 power conferences (16? 20?) will determine how tenuous the path is.

 

[The Funster]

My other thought is: will the new subdivision be smart and negotiate TV/media deals as a unit or will each power conference continue to negotiate their own?

 

[uconNYC]

I don't agree with the notion that P5 schools want to spend more money and give more benefits. There are plenty of P5 schools who are in heaps of financial trouble such as Maryland, Rutgers, Wake, etc. who would have lots of difficulty if forced to add sports, scholarships and extra benefits.

This is a ploy for the P5 simply to segregate themself from the rest.

 

[Stinger92860]

Financial struggles for Rutgers is in the rear view mirror. I suspect the the Marylands issues have improved also.

 

[kyleslamb]

I don't agree with the notion that P5 schools want to spend more money and give more benefits. There are plenty of P5 schools who are in heaps of financial trouble such as Maryland, Rutgers, Wake, etc. who would have lots of difficulty if forced to add sports, scholarships and extra benefits.

This is a ploy for the P5 simply to segregate themself from the rest.

They don't *want* to do it, but it's not just a ploy... they're scared to death of this unionization and they know they've got no choice. I don't disagree they might be simultaneously using this as a bargaining chip to get more autonomy and create the new subdivision, but they are very much planning to institute these new policies because if they don't, unionization will happen.

 

[The Funster]

Yeah, it's a preemptive move to deflect the fall of a very heavy hammer.

That's not to say that there aren't other blatantly self serving motives as well. After all, this is the NCAA we are talking about

 

[Seaa Blue]

I posted this on another site, so if you stumble there to read it, I apologize for lack of uniqueness.

Thanks for posting over here. I try to avoid that other place

Once a new subdivision is in place, you might well see further realignment. This is where the endgame of four power conferences could ultimately manifest itself. With this autonomy, the FBS leagues could wind up in a four-league super-structure with eight divisions and, consequently, a four team playoff among these four conference champions. It also removes any concern about other playoff formats where anti-trust issues could come into play.

Seems like someone could still complain about not being able to get into "the club" to be part of the playoff, but it seems like a better deal than what we have now.

So if getting to four power conferences is the end game, where does Texas want to be, and just what would have to happen to break up a conference (presumably the Big 12 at this point)? Are there schools in the Big 12 that would not want to participate in the new structure? How about the ACC?

 

[dayooper]

I apologize for this thread if it could adequately be placed in another, although none of the others fully addressed this topic directly.

I posted this on another site, so if you stumble there to read it, I apologize for lack of uniqueness. I'd rather save myself the trouble of formulating it in a new way (ha ha). Nonetheless, I believe there is a new subdivision coming this fall.

I've spoken with some contacts in athletics, and it does sound like we're nearing a new subdivision for football. Although I will try to keep this just about divisional realignment, a new subdivision could simultaneously address some of the issues regarding stipends and how athletes are handled vis-a-vis employee/athlete-student matters.

My first hunch that something was up came a few weeks back when the NCAA tweaked its voting structure to the leadership council. Currently, ADs or conference commissioners of seven major conferences (including the AAC and C-USA) receive the weight of three votes on the council with the other four FBS conferences receiving 1.5 votes and all other Division I leagues getting 1.14 votes apiece (equivalent of about 51 votes).

Under the new proposal, the five power conferences would receive four votes each (20); the remaining five FBS leagues would receive two votes each (10) and all 22 of the remaining Division I conferences would get one vote. However, in news that came out the past two days, the Division I board of directors has proposed a new governance structure that would allow the power five "autonomy" for matters that do not impact the entire division.

This leads me to the conclusion that a new subdivision is coming, aside from the fact I have folks in athletics telling me that is what they're hearing. It sets up some flexibility if my hunch is correct.

It looks like this:

The five power conferences will create a new subdivision with this autonomy, meaning Division I football will be split into three classes (or potentially merge the remaining five leagues with FCS).

The new upper level subdivision will mandate as a condition of membership such things as:

a) A stipend for a minimum amount paid to all athletes to cover cost of attendance, and

b) possible loss-in-status protection for any athlete that wants to stay in school (currently an exceptional talent policy exists for only players projected to be drafted but the amount is capped and there are limitations to the coverage), and

c) medical plan of some sort for athletes, and

d) less restriction on amenities (such as the unlimited food plan that was OK'd) and travel/expense reimbursement for families and other incidentals

This subdivision would almost assuredly have other thresholds needed to be met by prospective members. Currently, FBS schools must sponsor at least 16 varsity sports with a minimum of six (6) men's sports and eight (8) women's sports, as well as at least two team sports for each gender. Furthermore, schools most have at least an average of 15,000 in attendance in a two year rolling period to be eligible for membership and must offer no fewer than 77 grant-in-aids every season for football and the lesser of $4 million or 200 equivalent scholarships department-wide.

This new subdivision could take new members either with an invite to a current league, or new leagues could be formed. However, I imagine you'd see a requirement that leagues must have at least eight members, which would also require a new league to find eight non-FBS schools that meet the new thresholds.

My gut instinct is that they'll raise these thresholds to something like:

a) minimum of 18 varsity sports

b) at least $6 million in aid or 250 counters

Once a new subdivision is in place, you might well see further realignment. This is where the endgame of four power conferences could ultimately manifest itself. With this autonomy, the FBS leagues could wind up in a four-league super-structure with eight divisions and, consequently, a four team playoff among these four conference champions. It also removes any concern about other playoff formats where anti-trust issues could come into play.

The other good news out of this is that the NCAA's new council will include a vote from the chair of the student-athlete advisory committee. This, along with stipends, additional expenses, etc., does show a good faith effort to create a better situation, although it might still be too little too late.

Final approval of the new governance structure is expected when the board convenes in August. Though I'm somewhat spitballing on some of these details, everything they're doing leads me to believe that a new subdivision is exactly where this is heading. They've been talking about it for several years and doing so would be a good way of addressing the additional expenses to cover full cost of attendance.

Realignment isn't directly dependent on all of this, but once these things are out of the way, the endgame becomes fairly clear.

Thanks for posting. Couple of thoughts:

1. The minimum sports sponsored: Looks like the bottom threshold of 6 men's and 8 women's sports were drawn up because of Vanderbilt. They have the lowest number of sports in the P5. I think that means that Vanderbilt expects to stay. I wonder if any other teams will decline? My guess is probably no.

2. Affiliate members: Will teams that are playing either up as affiliates (Johns Hopkins in LaCrosse) or P5's playing down in a non P5 conference (Missouri in The MAC for wrestling) be able to supply those scholarships if they desire?

3. School choice: Will a school be able to NOT provide those if they choose to? D2 schools can split their scholarships up into pieces (at least they could when I played). Will the P5 be able to offer kids partials? My guess is no, but The NCAA works in very strange ways

4. New P5 schools: My thought process is that there will be a wait and see approach to conference realignment. The P5 schools will see what happens to the other P5 schools. If there is movement, my guess is some of those schools will jump into open spots. If not? The top schools from AAC, MWC, and maybe a schools like Buffalo and UMass (State "Flagship" schools, if you want to call them that) will look to form a new conference. I think there will always be 5.

5. NCAA Basketball Tourney: How will this effect the NCAA Tourney? Will the non P5 schools be invited? Will this make it less exciting as the non P5 schools have a hard time bringing in talent?

6. Correctness: I believe that the players should have most, if not all of the above. I personally don't believe they should be paid millions of dollars, but those kid work their arse off. I know I did when I played.

 

[Fishy]

There are two goals.

First, they have to stay ahead of the reaper. Obviously, more benefits are coming whether the NCAA provides them or they're forced to provide them. The current outcry is over the P5 conferences and is fairly simple minded - "Look at all the money they make!" That wave is dangerous for us - we're going to endure all of the changes and all of the expenses without a dime of the revenue.

Second, they have a huge advantage in revenue and exposure and they mean to use it. Nobody wants to lose to Boise or UCF in a major bowl game. So....first you make sure Boise or UCF doesn't appear in a major bowl game and then you rejigger the rules to make it harder for Boise or UCF to assemble the talent to compete with you. (e.g. The P5 "needs" autonomy while they attempted to force the AAC to require the Northeast Conference's permission to do anything.)

This is about establishing a new, smaller, richer Division One and doing it under the guise of "helping" student athletes.

 

[uconndogs]

There are two goals.

First, they have to stay ahead of the reaper. Obviously, more benefits are coming whether the NCAA provides them or they're forced to provide them. The current outcry is over the P5 conferences and is fairly simple minded - "Look at all the money they make!" That wave is dangerous for us - we're going to endure all of the changes and all of the expenses without a dime of the revenue.

Second, they have a huge advantage in revenue and exposure and they mean to use it. Nobody wants to lose to Boise or UCF in a major bowl game. So....first you make sure Boise or UCF doesn't appear in a major bowl game and then you rejigger the rules to make it harder for Boise or UCF to assemble the talent to compete with you. (e.g. The P5 "needs" autonomy while they attempted to force the AAC to require the Northeast Conference's permission to do anything.)

This is about establishing a new, smaller, richer Division One and doing it under the guise of "helping" student athletes.

Hammer on nail!

Again, I'll take it one step farther, because this process has nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with the fairness usually associated with athletic competition. Does anyone really think that once this is done the Texas's of the world are going to sit around and watch the Baylor's of the world take equal media shares? I don't.

 

[Nostical]

This is about establishing a new, smaller, richer Division One and doing it under the guise of "helping" student athletes.

Here's the reality. Although there was a lot of public hand wringing over the threat of unionization, for the P5 it was far from a negative. In private they quietly saw it as a godsend--finally they had just the catalyst they needed to get exactly what they'd been hoping to achieve for years--exclusivity, autonomy and obscene riches.

 

[blitz8ru]

Financial struggles for Rutgers is in the rear view mirror. I suspect the the Marylands issues have improved also.

yup. With a predicted $44mill/yr coming in from big ten tv revenue our financial woes will be a thing of the past, once we get full share after 6yrs. Till then, we'll gradually ramp up from $12mill this year (iirc a little more than the annual payout from the Big East) to that $44mill sum in 2021.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

yup. With a predicted $44mill/yr coming in from big ten tv revenue our financial woes will be a thing of the past, once we get full share after 6yrs. Till then, we'll gradually ramp up from $12mill this year (iirc a little more than the annual payout from the Big East) to that $44mill sum in 2021.

Disgusting.

 

[upstater]

The athletic directors outside the P5 are completely frozen out and have not been told anything about what it going on.

 

[kyleslamb]

Thanks for posting. Couple of thoughts:

1. The minimum sports sponsored: Looks like the bottom threshold of 6 men's and 8 women's sports were drawn up because of Vanderbilt. They have the lowest number of sports in the P5. I think that means that Vanderbilt expects to stay. I wonder if any other teams will decline? My guess is probably no.

2. Affiliate members: Will teams that are playing either up as affiliates (Johns Hopkins in LaCrosse) or P5's playing down in a non P5 conference (Missouri in The MAC for wrestling) be able to supply those scholarships if they desire?

3. School choice: Will a school be able to NOT provide those if they choose to? D2 schools can split their scholarships up into pieces (at least they could when I played). Will the P5 be able to offer kids partials? My guess is no, but The NCAA works in very strange ways

4. New P5 schools: My thought process is that there will be a wait and see approach to conference realignment. The P5 schools will see what happens to the other P5 schools. If there is movement, my guess is some of those schools will jump into open spots. If not? The top schools from AAC, MWC, and maybe a schools like Buffalo and UMass (State "Flagship" schools, if you want to call them that) will look to form a new conference. I think there will always be 5.

5. NCAA Basketball Tourney: How will this effect the NCAA Tourney? Will the non P5 schools be invited? Will this make it less exciting as the non P5 schools have a hard time bringing in talent?

6. Correctness: I believe that the players should have most, if not all of the above. I personally don't believe they should be paid millions of dollars, but those kid work their arse off. I know I did when I played.

Good questions.

1. I assume teams like Vanderbilt will comply. Ultimately there will be additional revenue coming in a few years with the implementation of the playoff, so schools will probably be able to afford adding the additional sports if push comes to shove.

2. Affiliate members will still just have to comply with their divisional voting regulations. So someone like Johns Hopkins won't have to meet department-wide regulations for Division I since it's technically a Division III member, but will only need to comply with the sport(s) they participate in at the Division I level.

3. I have heard rumors that the NCAA may ultimately wind up swallowing the NAIA at some point. I believe if/when that happens, they might do away with Division II as we know it and make a new Division II that is completely an equivalent scholarship sport. That will give programs the option of going Division I (head count), Division II (equivalent/partial) or Division III (none). Division II is equivalent in some sports, but it's still headcount in basketball, football and some other sports. As of now, several non-revenue sports are partial scholarhip limits even in Division I, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's something that were changed for all of D-1 wide in the future.

5. The tournament won't change. This is just a new subdivision that mostly applies to football and organizational policies. Technically speaking, unless the rest of Division I adopts some of these policies, it might put non-power conference schools at a slight disadvantage in recruiting for basketball, but the format and structure of NCAA Division I basketball and its tournament would remain the same as it is now.

6. Agreed. I liken it to the student artist that gets to enter his or her work in an art show and selling it; the student manager at a student radio station that is paid; the performing arts major that is paid for his role in a downtown theater production; the sports management intern that lands a paid position in the athletic department; many students are already paid for their craft while being students, I see no reason why athletes, who do not have the time to work a job, can't be compensated a stipend for their time in order to cover the cost of additional expenses while at school.

 

[upstater]

6. Agreed. I liken it to the student artist that gets to enter his or her work in an art show and selling it; the student manager at a student radio station that is paid; the performing arts major that is paid for his role in a downtown the lawer production; the sports management intern that lands a paid position in the athletic department; many students are already paid for their craft while being students, I see no reason why athletes, who do not have the time to work a job, can't be compensated a stipend for their time in order to cover the cost of additional expenses while at school.

Do those students have a scholarship and room & board paid for?

 

[kyleslamb]

Do those students have a scholarship and room & board paid for?

Some of them do, yes. Remember there are other scholarships beyond athletic grants.

Nonetheless, I don't see how that invalidates them being able to get compensated for their obligations just as all other students have the opportunity to do.

 

[upstater]

Some of them do, yes. Remember there are other scholarships beyond athletic grants.

Nonetheless, I don't see how that invalidates them being able to get compensated for their obligations just as all other students have the opportunity to do.

All other students don't have that opportunity. Many of them are restricted if they provide a service for their scholarship. But the main point is that there are plenty of people who receive tuition and room & board at a university, and that's compensation enough. The real problem is that the scholarships are worthless to many of these students. That's the problem that should be addressed, not the money.

 

[CL82]

yup. With a predicted $44mill/yr coming in from big ten tv revenue our financial woes will be a thing of the past, once we get full share after 6yrs. Till then, we'll gradually ramp up from $12mill this year (iirc a little more than the annual payout from the Big East) to that $44mill sum in 2021.

Well I don't know if this board is the place to do a victory dance about it, but congratulations. Bergan county's population being more dense than Calcutta's has given you a seat at the big boy table. Years from now no one will notice or care that you got in through the back door.

 

[noeynox]

The athletic directors outside the P5 are completely frozen out and have not been told anything about what it going on.

How do you know this?

 

[kyleslamb]

All other students don't have that opportunity. Many of them are restricted if they provide a service for their scholarship. But the main point is that there are plenty of people who receive tuition and room & board at a university, and that's compensation enough. The real problem is that the scholarships are worthless to many of these students. That's the problem that should be addressed, not the money.

No that is absolutely mistaken. Kids on scholarships can still work jobs.

The FACT of the matter is that currently, merely being on scholarship and receiving room & board is not enough to cover all expenses that occur. Since athletes do not have time to work jobs during the school year, why shouldn't they be compensated for their time like any other worker would be? It's hypocritical that people want athletes be treated like students, yet they don't want to compensate them for actual time obligations they're required to fulfill.

Legally, scholarships are not compensation. They're fringe benefits, for the record. I absolutely know for a fact there are scholarship students (non-athletic) that work jobs too, some in their chosen field. Why shouldn't athletic scholarship athletes have the same access? It's hypocrisy. Simply give them federal minimum wage for the required practice time spent just like any other student has access to the work study program or paid internships. It's the same concept. Many of those same students are also on academic scholarship. It's no different.

 

[upstater]

No that is absolutely mistaken. Kids on scholarships can still work jobs.

The FACT of the matter is that currently, merely being on scholarship and receiving room & board is not enough to cover all expenses that occur. Since athletes do not have time to work jobs during the school year, why shouldn't they be compensated for their time like any other worker would be? It's hypocritical that people want athletes be treated like students, yet they don't want to compensate them for actual time obligations they're required to fulfill.

Legally, scholarships are not compensation. They're fringe benefits, for the record. I absolutely know for a fact there are scholarship students (non-athletic) that work jobs too, some in their chosen field. Why shouldn't athletic scholarship athletes have the same access? It's hypocrisy. Simply give them federal minimum wage for the required practice time spent just like any other student has access to the work study program or paid internships. It's the same concept. Many of those same students are also on academic scholarship. It's no different.

It's untrue. Some kids on academic scholarships can work jobs. But kids who do a service, like work-study, where the money gets rolled up into tuition, they cannot. BY contract. nor can kids who, like athletes, provide a service. Grad assistants for instance in many (not all) cases are contractually prevented.

But that's not even the real argument here. This is about treating the symptom instead of the disease. The problem is the way sports prevent kids from getting an education when it should be the opposite.

 

[upstater]

How do you know this?

Talked to one this morning. Said his colleagues are in the same boat. Don't know what's up. All coming down from the top.

 

[kyleslamb]

It's untrue. Some kids on academic scholarships can work jobs. But kids who do a service, like work-study, where the money gets rolled up into tuition, they cannot. BY contract. nor can kids who, like athletes, provide a service. Grad assistants for instance in many (not all) cases are contractually prevented.

But that's not even the real argument here. This is about treating the symptom instead of the disease. The problem is the way sports prevent kids from getting an education when it should be the opposite.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The FWS isn't the same as being on an academic scholarship and working a job. The work study program is just that... kids work a job through the program to pay for their tuition. They're paid federal minimum wage in compensation for their job. That's not the same as Joe-musician who is on a scholarship for his musical talent and gets paid to be in a local symphony while progressing toward his music degree.

Edit: I think I misunderstood your second point. If you're acknowledging that athletes aren't treated like typical students, I agree with that. That is my point is that they need to be treated like regular students or else accept that they aren't and adjust accordingly.

The NLRB hearings exposed a lot of what some of us already knew about how athletes are handled. Their social behaviors are monitored/controlled closely; they put in 20 hours a week during the season of mandatory time and another 10-20 hours in team commitments. In the offseason during the academic year, they're putting in 8 hours of required time, but even "voluntary" workouts are monitored with attendance taking. Further, most athletes are told what classes to take in order to either keep them eligible or simply have their time free for practices. If the NCAA did away with all the transfer restrictions, changed how the time commitment is handled, etc., then someone could make a case for not being compensated for their time. Nonetheless, even so, why shouldn't they have a stipend anyhow? They still don't have time to work jobs and they should be able to make enough to cover miscellaneous expenses.