Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft New Governance System Design January 2014 | Page 2 | The Boneyard
.

Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft New Governance System Design January 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
No expert here, but if this is the big step in breaking away from the NCAA then there will be many schools already in the PAC 5 that will not be able to compete. I don't see a way the Wake's, BCs, Cuse's, Baylor's, etc. compete in anything that starts to look like free agency for recruits. Somebody already mentioned scholarship limits, and it's an excellent point, because that will tilt the scales big time. This could head to a world of 30-40 athletic departments competing against each other.

I've said this all along. College athletics at its highest level is running the risk of losing its differentiation with pro sports. College football and basketball could very well turn into a feeder system for the NFL and NBA. At that point, why do I or many of the other fans of college athletics bother watching? There's little affinity and the better football is already played on Sundays. Big swaths of the market will be lost.

I totally understand the motivation - money. But, I don't think most are making smart business decisions.
 
Exactly. This is the top of the P5 saying we don't want to be told what to do by sissys and academic wimps. We will make the rules. Those same rules will apply to you also, it's just that we're making them.
 
Fishy said:
There's a reason the American shows up nowhere in the text - it's already been excluded.

When you call something 'autonomy' and you give it to five conferences, you can make no assumption that the American will be allowed to participate.

Unfortunately, with that sort of stick, all the P5 needs to do is ratchet up the requirements to where either some of the smaller AAC/MWC/CUSA-types start to say 'uncle' or whether they simply even outdistance the UConns and Cincinnatis.

It's not a hard scenario to imagine given that even wreckage like Rutgers and Maryland will soon draw revenue checks $30,000,000 higher than we will.

We can survive if we get out - this is nerve-wracking s---.
Expand ...

If it is the NCAA allowing the P5 to do this within the NCAA framework, then antitrust law would not permit them to deny the American or MWC access to these same rules, on the same basis. So the question is whether they can create a poison pill that causes the American and MWC to balk at this change. It will be hard, as not every P5 school would be able to accomodate really challenging requirements.

What I see as possible from this, if the requirements cause the American and MWC members to be split on whether to implement the same changes, is a new split in those leagues. The schools in the AAC that want in would join with the schools in the MWC that want in, and the remainders could band together. Alternatively, if ND can use these rules as an independent (these are football rules, so the ACC shouldn't help) then you could see several schools going independent for football, including UConn.

I said before, the P5 split leaves too many schools out in the cold. Politically, that won't be acceptable to Senators in the mountain states and elsewhere. If there is an major departure from the NCAA as it exists, expansion will be required, 16 per conference X 5, would get it done. They are going to need to make room for 80 schools in this.
 
New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Connecticut, Massachusettes (BC not a state school), New York (Syracuse not a state school) are just a few of the states that have no FBS state schools in the P5, and who would be boxed out by this; additionally, state schools in states such as Utah, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Lousiana, Florida, Georgia, NC, and several others would be on the outside looking in. This is enough political pressure to ensure that if a school is willing to participate under the new rules, they will be given that chance.

Now, the P5 alliance could say okay to that, and then not schedule any of these schools in any sport what so ever, not participate in bowl games against conferences these other schools are in etc... and gradually squeeze them out, but I don't think that will come to fruition. The only school that all others will purposely work together to screw over will be UConn, because that's the first rule of Conference Realignment Club.
 
Fishy said:
You are missing the fundamental change - "years ago" is exactly the paradigm they are seeking to blow up.

What should scare the hell out of you is the fact that the P5 conferences are listed by name and that the term for what they are seeking is 'autonomy'. They are seeking to make rules that apply only to them - we're not included. Make no assumption that we'll somehow be able to play by their rules while still being governed by the NCAA in the same fashion that they're governing the smaller schools.

We're hoping for inclusion in a document that stresses exclusion - a happy ending is not assured.
Expand ...


Did you forget about this?

http://the-boneyard.com/threads/aac-supports-cost-of-attendance.47106/

I agree that the big issue here is the single word "autonomy". The proposed areas of autonomy are pretty much nothing unusual. It's the decision making process of the NCAA that's the real concern. The decision making structure of the NCAA as it stands right now, with a certain Mark Emmert sitting in the president's chair, is what concerns me most right now. My gut tells me, that division 1 athletics, the majority of programs, if it were to be a true majority rule, would NOT favor the "autonomy" clause involved in this proposal, but would probably by likely to adopt a structure where the five conferences listed were allowed to operate in their own new "division" which was discussed at length in the fall, but did not make it into the proposal.

(not a lot of info out there either, when you dig to find out who the primary drivers behind this proposal are either......that would be a good thing to find out for a motivated investigative reporter....no secret that the leadership of the Big 6 minus the Big East are involved - but specifically.....names....who's pushing it.....)

Why did the division 4, whatever not make it to proposal? look at what was in that November boneyard post. THe people that are driving this thing - the governance restructure - the LAST thing they would want - the leardership of the 5 chosen tribes - is for the entire NCAA legislative body to adopt a new division. WHY? Because if they did form a new division, any conference that met the definied criteria would HAVE to be included. The chosen 5 tribes by ESPN are not willingly creating a division that they are going to have to open up to the others. So - you get this "autonomy" in decision making proposal.

It's clear that that AAC was well aware of the content of this proposal in November, and essentially, is prepared to conduct business in alignment with these proposals. It's clear that division 1 in general knew this was coming months ago, the only question now is the decision making process.

I actually don't have a problem with anything suggested in the proposal, other than the "autonomy" clause. I think that if Emmert allows this "autonomy" clause to be implemented, it will be the first step in the breakup of the entire NCAA. Why the hell should two groups of 60+ higher education institutions participate together in an organization, when one group has complete control in decision making processes in a subject matter that both participate in?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least, if when we look back on all this in years to come, that Emmert's term as the NCAA president, turns out to be the period of time when the NCAA , the great thing that was the NCAA - fell apart and was ruined.
 
Fishy said:
There's a reason the American shows up nowhere in the text - it's already been excluded.

When you call something 'autonomy' and you give it to five conferences, you can make no assumption that the American will be allowed to participate.

Unfortunately, with that sort of stick, all the P5 needs to do is ratchet up the requirements to where either some of the smaller AAC/MWC/CUSA-types start to say 'uncle' or whether they simply even outdistance the UConns and Cincinnatis.

It's not a hard scenario to imagine given that even wreckage like Rutgers and Maryland will soon draw revenue checks $30,000,000 higher than we will.

We can survive if we get out - this is nerve-wracking s---.
Expand ...
Get out and go where??? Getting out maneuvered by UL was a death sentence. That we weren't ready for it, given what UL tried to do to WVU is what is really devestating. I've accepted our AAC fate, which is the same as saying I've accepted we are . I hope to high heavens that there is a better plan up at Storrs, than sitting, hoping, praying and wishing for an invite to a P5. If there isn't its over.
 
Bill Sussman said:
This all reminds me of the creation of the Premier League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_of_the_Premier_League)

Not a one to one match but there is definitely a lot of connections. If I had more time, I'd write an award winning Grantland article or at least a Boneyard post that would get me a couple of likes.
Expand ...

Very good comparison! This is why I'm interested in who specifically - names - is really behind pushing this agenda. I would wager a hefty amount, that there are behind the scenes connections among very large business directors and board members and the people that are pushing for this kind of division in the NCAA.

I honestly read that "autonomy" clause, as a very well scripted proposal that's designed to be a basic point of no return for a breakup of the organization - much like what happened in the Premiere league formation. If the NCAA adopts such a thing, it really loses whatever credibility it has left, that hasn't already been destroyed by Emmert's term and activities, and the chosen 5 can keep their cake and eat it too, for as long as the other institutions will bend over - and eventually the other institutions leave. If the proposal is shot down, the chosen 5 tribes have more credibility in the ensuing giant federal lawsutis, that would arise in their desire to be "autonomous", and take drastic action to get it- by separating from the NCAA and creating a new organization.
 
Bill, if you can write an article that convinces anyone to adopt promotion/relegation for college sports I will give a "like" every single day.
 
I wish it went the route of the Premiere League. At least there teams can win their way into the BPL. It's based on performance on the field. Yes, there are huge financial discrepencies b/w the BPL and League Championship levels (and so on), just as there are huge discrepencies today in CFB payouts/tv contracts. However, if you finish top 2 of the table in the lower division, you move up. If you finish 3-6 in the table, you're in a playoff where one team moves up. If you finish bottom 3 of the table, you move down. Just win baby.

If each P5 league had a subleague affiliated with it (say the ACC and AAC were linked) after this past season NCSU, WF, and UVa would have been relegated to the AAC. UCF, UL would have been promoted to the ACC, and Cinci, Houston, SMU, and UConn would have played off against eachother with the winner being promoted. Even if it was one or two teams relegated/promoted, it would work itself out over time. Ahhh, to dream.
 
And with promotion / relegation comes some really exciting games at the bottom too, sometimes far more interesting that at the top (e.g. West Ham / Cardiff was really fun to watch this past week).
 
SAMCRO said:
I wish it went the route of the Premiere League. At least there teams can win their way into the BPL. It's based on performance on the field. Yes, there are huge financial discrepencies b/w the BPL and League Championship levels (and so on), just as there are huge discrepencies today in CFB payouts/tv contracts. However, if you finish top 2 of the table in the lower division, you move up. If you finish 3-6 in the table, you're in a playoff where one team moves up. If you finish bottom 3 of the table, you move down. Just win baby.

If each P5 league had a subleague affiliated with it (say the ACC and AAC were linked) after this past season NCSU, WF, and UVa would have been relegated to the AAC. UCF, UL would have been promoted to the ACC, and Cinci, Houston, SMU, and UConn would have played off against eachother with the winner being promoted. Even if it was one or two teams relegated/promoted, it would work itself out over time. Ahhh, to dream.
Expand ...


I've seen this concept floated around many times for multiple sports organizations. It's a thought process that, like any other, has positive and negative, but it has worked very well with European soccer leagues. If I'm not mistaken, the Champions league, on the European continent functions this way too correct? It's an idea, that I think would be worthy to explore for the NCAA football structure of 125 or so programs in the future.
 
Carl Spackler said:
I've seen this concept floated around many times for multiple sports organizations. It's a thought process that, like any other, has positive and negative, but it has worked very well with European soccer leagues. If I'm not mistaken, the Champions league, on the European continent functions this way too correct? It's an idea, that I think would be worthy to explore for the NCAA football structure of 125 or so programs in the future.
Expand ...

The Champions League is the playoff for the top team teams in each European countries football association. It's probably not worth over-explaining, but generally the number of teams each country's league puts into the Champions League depends on the performance of past clubs from that league. So right now, England, Germany and Spain each put the top 4 (of the top league), Italy, Portugal and France put in the top 3, etc. You can get some wild swings, for instance Leeds United once played in the Champions League and dropped to the third tier (back to 2nd) while a team like Swansea has moved up 4 leagues in 10 years.
 
WestHartHusk said:
The Champions League is the playoff for the top team teams in each European countries football association. It's probably not worth over-explaining, but generally the number of teams each country's league puts into the Champions League depends on the performance of past clubs from that league. So right now, England, Germany and Spain each put the top 4 (of the top league), Italy, Portugal and France put in the top 3, etc. You can get some wild swings, for instance Leeds United once played in the Champions League and dropped to the third tier (back to 2nd) while a team like Swansea has moved up 4 leagues in 10 years.
Expand ...

What I get out of this, is that there are more, different, creative ways of creating levels of competition among sports leagues, based on actual competition, rather than establishing a bunch of rules and regulations about non-competition based behavior - rules that without doubt are meant to influence competition. These kinds of idea, IMO, are all worth exploring for the NCAA in figuring out the best ways to promote/regulate - college football.
 
SAMCRO said:
As someone mentioned in this or some other thread, years ago when D1 and D1AA went down, each school selected which rules they wanted to play by. Can't see it being too different if an entire league as a whole decides they want to adopt the same rules the P5 conferences adopt.

If the AAC petitions to have the ability to play by the same rules as the P5 (pay players, scholarships, whatever it is they choose to do) I can't see how the NCAA can rule against it if they permitted other groups to do it.
Expand ...
I'll take credit...;)
Husky25 said:
I have a feeling that this is years, perhaps decades, from happening. I have no doubt that the 65 schools want the power, I question that all the 65 schools want to pay their athletes (whatever you call it and in whatever form this is getting paid for playing football). I question the Title IX ramifications. I also have questions on an antitrust level. When Div. 1 split into D1 and D1a, schools decided their own fate. If they make the investment, they're in D1. If not, they go to D1a. It wasn't luck of the draw based solely on conference affiliation. Finally what does this mean for other sports, namely the Basketball tournament? The P5 wants their cake and eat it too.
Expand ...

When this much money is at stake it typically take years and the agreement under goes multiple changes, which produces multiple iterations of different term sheets. By letting this pentaverate of conference commissioners rule the roost, Emmert sure appears to be playing with fire. The NCAA is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it more or less worked for 90 years.

Maybe the proposed system is severely flawed for revenue generating sports like football and basketball, but how does a change at this level affect track and field, volleyball, baseball, swimming, soccer, Wrestling, Ice and field hockey? A small % of college football & Basketball players make the pros, but an even small number of student athletes in those others sports make a living on their respective sport? Fball & bball players get their own full rides scholarships. Student-Athletes in these other sports get equivalency scholarships (i.e. 11 full rides are spread across a team of 25.).

So what does that mean?
1) Their will surely be less money to fund these sports in an age where more schools are cutting athletic departments and sponsored sports.
2) Young athletes will focus their time (or their time will focused for them) toward football, especially for the less well off. After all, that's where the money is. Most of these athletes have Type A personalities and believe they can go pro. Some believe that is the only way they can escape their past, so there will be that much more competition for the finite number of spots on a team and likewise playing time on the field (Aside from concussions, football is almost the perfect sport, and I don't see 11 on 11 ever growing...only shrinking). This will hurt the other sports. Track stars will learn to catch a football, Volleyball players will begin focusing on their post moves, Baseball players (not built like Bo Jackson) will go right into the minor leagues as a 53rd round pick and skip school. When they wash out of A ball, they will be even less prepared for the real world.

The Pentaverate has already made their way through life. They couldn't possibly care less about the future of these athletes outside the most elite. This proposed changes does not affect them. They are made their $millions and will make $millions more. If the NCAA allows this without penalty, they will be opening a Pandora's box that may never be closed and I don't see that as a new and exciting possibility, let alone positive.
 
Division I Governance Dialogue Sessions San Diego • January 16-17, 2014

We expect approximately 850 presidents, athletic directors, faculty, senior women administrators, compliance personnel, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee members, and officers of affiliated groups to participate.

http://content.ncaa.org/vo/?FileID=...c-cd9d-4db8-a8c2-3636fdb4f376&MailID=27930460

Hopefully, both Herbst and Manuel will be there.
 
jostar1 said:
Division I Governance Dialogue Sessions San Diego • January 16-17, 2014

We expect approximately 850 presidents, athletic directors, faculty, senior women administrators, compliance personnel, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee members, and officers of affiliated groups to participate.

http://content.ncaa.org/vo/?FileID=...c-cd9d-4db8-a8c2-3636fdb4f376&MailID=27930460

Hopefully, both Herbst and Manuel will be there.
Expand ...

Time to try to find a way to justify a last minute work trip to San Diego.....
 
NCAA Proposal Focused on Short-Term Repair, Not Long-Term Improvement
http://www.athleticscholarships.net...htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Includes link to Power Point on proposed governance.

Infante's conclusion:

>>If this proposal is adopted largely as is, it will represent a major victory for the power conferences, who at the very least will be able to take care of some low-hanging fruit that not even the Board of Directors could push through themselves over the last two years. At the same time, the poorest institutions in Division I will not seem themselves legislated out of the top level immediately. Like most recent history in college athletics, the ones who make out the worst are Division I’s middle class: the Group of Five FBS conferences and the top basketball leagues. They complete or aspire to compete with the power conferences, but may find themselves prohibited from doing so by differing NCAA rules.

But while the power conferences would be empowered to tinker with college athletics, they would not have enough authority to reimagine or transform the NCAA. They cannot match larger scholarships and relaxed agent rules with higher academic standards or general amateurism unless the rest of Division I agrees. Throw in just enough fuel that this was the intent of the governance reform and one can see how we will be right back here having the same debate in a few years.<<
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
297
Guests online
4,277
Total visitors
4,574
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,534
Messages
4,400,485
Members
10,214
Latest member
illini2013


.
..
Top Bottom