Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[itgoeslike]

Pet peeve: really wish people would stop using the terminology D-4 (most especially the media and administrative folks). It's not really a fourth division. It's a third sub-division that will [potentially] have some autonomy that expands beyond football.

Unfortunately, though, even Mike Slive uttered the phrase, so now it's an epidemic haha.

Implementation of "P5-defined" autonomy would be the third sub-division. However, if they don't get it as defined, Slive is suggesting (threatening) a division that operates separately from D-1 (but may still be under the umbrella of the NCAA). It could just be posturing for the sake of negotiation, but he is suggesting another division altogether.

I just don't see how they separate cleanly from the AAC if all members of the conference agree to play by the same rules as the P5. We'll know more in a few months.

 

[itgoeslike]

So if they get "autonomy," they stay in Division I with their special rules. If not, they split off, but it's not really D4 because it's not part of the NCAA. Is that correct?

I'm sure Kyle will speak for himself, but I think he is suggesting that FCS and FBS already exist within D-1 of the NCAA, and the P5 (Resource 5) would represent a third sub-division with greater autonomy, a FP5 if you will, but would still be under the NCAA.

Edit: I misread your post. The D4 could be under the NCAA or outside of it. Although, most people feel that operating outside of the NCAA is a nonstarter and may create more problems than they solve.

 

[kyleslamb]

Implementation of "P5-defined" autonomy would be the third sub-division. However, if they don't get it as defined, Slive is suggesting (threatening) a division that operates separately from D-1 (but may still be under the umbrella of the NCAA). It could just be posturing for the sake of negotiation, but he is suggesting another division altogether.

I just don't see how they separate cleanly from the AAC if all members of the conference agree to play by the same rules as the P5. We'll know more in a few months.

No, the request for more autonomy is merely under the guise of remaining in a system as-is, except for expanded voting powers. The "Division IV" that Slive mentions is actually a new subdivision.

The autonomy requested is just a pretense to wind up going to the new subdivision. They're going to act like they're working to keep FBS together in the meantime, if schools are willing to grant autonomy. If (when) it doesn't happen, they'll create a third Division I subdivision (which is being phrased as Division 4)

Edit: they've been discussing a need for another subdivision at their annual meetings and in newsletters for the past three seasons. But these threats are the first time they've mentioned the division in public. First, they need to make it look like they tried to make this current arrangement work, but when schools are unable or unwilling to grant the autonomy necessary to cater to athletes' interests, they'll then create the new subdivision.

 

[woomba]

Right. But that was early on. If you remember, Texas continued to be courted long after that, and considered moving.

Courted yes, but I don't think any other proposals got strong consideration. All realistic chances evaporated once the Pac-16 deal got killed.

IIRC Texas essentially re-iterated the need to keep some form of LHN and that they need a fiefdom to lord over, so any realignment option that they would seek actively would need to incorporate a sizable chunk of the current Big 12

 

[Ha Who]

Mr. SEC wrote this morning...but he never got around to his second point, which teams have the best chance of breaking into the P5 if there is a D4...
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/division-iv-created-get-ready-conference-realignment/

I didn't know Scott Gray is Mr. SEC

 

[itgoeslike]

No, the request for more autonomy is merely under the guise of remaining in a system as-is, except for expanded voting powers. The "Division IV" that Slive mentions is actually a new subdivision.

The autonomy requested is just a pretense to wind up going to the new subdivision. They're going to act like they're working to keep FBS together in the meantime, if schools are willing to grant autonomy. If (when) it doesn't happen, they'll create a third Division I subdivision (which is being phrased as Division 4)

Edit: they've been discussing a need for another subdivision at their annual meetings and in newsletters for the past three seasons. But these threats are the first time they've mentioned the division in public. First, they need to make it look like they tried to make this current arrangement work, but when schools are unable or unwilling to grant the autonomy necessary to cater to athletes' interests, they'll then create the new subdivision.

It depends on how you're defining sub-division. Currently the P5 are asking for autonomy within Division 1. Whether it's crafted as a group of conferences operating under a different set of rules or whether a new name is coined for the P5, it's still a subdivision. Slive is going beyond that (as punishment for watered-down autonomy) "suggesting" a separation akin to D-1 and D-2. Most people feel that it's unlikely they create a new division because it comes with both baggage and risk. With regard to your edits, the subdivision they've been discussing over the past three seasons have been within D-1 under the umbrella of the NCAA. However, they've also kicked around both publicly and privately the notion of a new division altogether.

 

[kyleslamb]

It depends on how you're defining sub-division. Currently the P5 are asking for autonomy within Division 1. Whether it's crafted as a group of conferences operating under a different set of rules or whether a new name is coined for the P5, it's still a subdivision. Slive is going beyond that (as punishment for watered-down autonomy) "suggesting" a separation akin to D-1 and D-2. Most people feel that it's unlikely they create a new division because it comes with both baggage and risk. With regard to your edits, the subdivision they've been discussing over the past three seasons have been within D-1 under the umbrella of the NCAA. However, they've also kicked around both publicly and privately the notion of a new division altogether.

Slive is not going beyond that. He even said they have no interest in breaking off from the other sports. He made that very clear:

“Even in Division 4, though, we would want to be part of the basketball tournament and all of the championships,” Slive said. “We don't want to disrupt the championships, even if we went to Division 4. But it would be an alternate to creating autonomy in certain areas. We think the NCAA and college athletics are better served if we all stay together in Division I.”

All he wants is voting autonomy within FBS for the power conferences to be able to legislate sport and institutional-specific rules governing costs of attendance, benefits, etc.. What he's saying is that if they don't get it, they'll form a new subdivision (what he's calling Division IV). That means they'll break off from FBS, creating a third football subdivision, but they'll still have their own autonomy for institutional-wide legislation despite being a Division I participant.

To beat the point to death, the Division IV that the SEC is threatening is NOT a new division. It's a football subdivision that will have legislative autonomy within the framework of Division I.

 

[Sea Goat]

Mr. SEC wrote this morning...but he never got around to his second point, which teams have the best chance of breaking into the P5 if there is a D4...
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/division-iv-created-get-ready-conference-realignment/

A candid report on where we are now. Further proof that the AAC is a dead end. (And the "end of the road is not years out", but maybe only a couple.)Interestingly, Mr. SEC believes ESPN can assist if they believe the addition of a team will move the needle. Malloy had better be inquiring of his beneficiaries in Bristol as to what they can do to help UConn along.

 

[upstater]

Slive is not going beyond that. He even said they have no interest in breaking off from the other sports. He made that very clear:

All he wants is voting autonomy within FBS for the power conferences to be able to legislate sport and institutional-specific rules governing costs of attendance, benefits, etc.. What he's saying is that if they don't get it, they'll form a new subdivision (what he's calling Division IV). That means they'll break off from FBS, creating a third football subdivision, but they'll still have their own autonomy for institutional-wide legislation despite being a Division I participant.

To beat the point to death, the Division IV that the SEC is threatening is NOT a new division. It's a football subdivision that will have legislative autonomy within the framework of Division I.

At some point, other people can say NO to that too.

 

[itgoeslike]

Slive is not going beyond that. He even said they have no interest in breaking off from the other sports. He made that very clear:



All he wants is voting autonomy within FBS for the power conferences to be able to legislate sport and institutional-specific rules governing costs of attendance, benefits, etc.. What he's saying is that if they don't get it, they'll form a new subdivision (what he's calling Division IV). That means they'll break off from FBS, creating a third football subdivision, but they'll still have their own autonomy for institutional-wide legislation despite being a Division I participant.

To beat the point to death, the Division IV that the SEC is threatening is NOT a new division. It's a football subdivision that will have legislative autonomy within the framework of Division I.

None of the commissioners want to break off from D-1. Where we disagree is that you think they want to move towards a new subdivision and I think it is already a foregone conclusion, especially when you examine the tiered voting structure, etc. that is being adopted.

 

[kyleslamb]

None of the commissioners want to break off from D-1. Where we disagree is that you think they want to move towards a new subdivision and I think it is already a foregone conclusion, especially when you examine the tiered voting structure, etc. that is being adopted.

We don't disagree on that. Look at a post I made earlier. They're setting this all up as a pretense for why they're going to do what they're doing. They made up their minds what they intended to do a while back. Right now they're just playing out the process in public by setting up a false premise.

 

[kyleslamb]

At some point, other people can say NO to that too.

True, but they won't do that.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Larry Scott brokered a deal where those 4 schools would have joined the Pac-12. It got killed by the Pac-12 presidents when he brought it up to them - apparently he never asked the presidents how they would feel about the move before trying to move ahead with it.

Not exactly. A few months before offering the four schools mentioned the P-12 presidents (in a conference meeting) agreed to give authority to Scott to make expansion decisions. At the time of the offer to the four B-12 schools, no further approval was necessary beyond an acceptance. While this was happening, the bulk of the remaining B-12 schools were talking with the football members of the Big East, Oklahoma was looking into the SEC (but was handcuffed with OK St attached at the hip) Beebe (then B-12 commissioner) was trying to find a way to salvage the B-12 and Texas was looking to see what other offers were on the table.

The Pac to 16 expansion fell through when Beebe convinced the northern B-12 shools that they were better off becoming more subservient to UT and the conference (with ESPN's assistance) allowed Texas to remain and still launch the Longhorn network. Once this happened Marinatto sent flowers to Beebe and a few months later the B-12 kicked Beebe to the curb.

 

[Drew]

gonna throw this in here since it discusses the tweets from todays meetings. I know I link this board a lot but its normally in relation to uconn and I only do it in relevant threads, mods if i'm doing something wrong just let me know: http://csnbbs.com/thread-692103.html

 

[SixRings]

Mr. SEC wrote this morning...but he never got around to his second point, which teams have the best chance of breaking into the P5 if there is a D4...
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/division-iv-created-get-ready-conference-realignment/

Help me understand; Realistically, how great is the importance of having a majority vote within the P5? How much value will conferences put on this if/when autonomy occurs? If it is as significant as Mr. SEC indicates this could stir things up quickly. Or is this just a non-factor because it's small potatoes?

 

[upstater]

I think it's somewhat cut and dry with certain conferences. I believe The SEC will vote as a block. I also believe that The Big10 and Pac12 will as well. Most of the Big12 will vote the way of The SEC, but will Texas and Kansas? We have heard about how Texas and Kansas don't like the way The SEC does things. Will they vote in that direction? Will Oklahoma follow Texas like it usually does? What does The ACC do? I highly doubt that UVA will follow suit with what FSU wants. It's going to be interesting to watch it all unfold.

Key numbers are that the SEC wants 39 votes to be enough for passage, while others may want 43.

Pac12: 12
B1G: 14
ACC: 15
----------
41


SEC: 14
B12: 10
---------
24

If they grab the ACC, then that gives them 39.

Enough to circumvent the Pac12/B1G alliance.

 

[woomba]

If they align based on the TV contracts are lined up, I think it's more likely that split will be:

ACC+SEC
Big Ten + Big 12
Pac 12

In reality I think it's most likely that ACC and Big 12 will generally have fractured voting while Big Ten+Pac 12 will vote as a bloc.

 

[junglehusky]

I didn't know Scott Gray is Mr. SEC

I bet you also didn't know Mr. SEC is the Materials Research Science & Engineering Center:

 

[dayooper]

Key numbers are that the SEC wants 39 votes to be enough for passage, while others may want 43.

Pac12: 12
B1G: 14
ACC: 15
----------
41


SEC: 14
B12: 10
---------
24

If they grab the ACC, then that gives them 39.

Enough to circumvent the Pac12/B1G alliance.

I just don't see The ACC voting as one block. the differences are too great. Do you really think UVA will go with FSU? I think they will vote individually.

 

[Kolumbo]

I just don't see The ACC voting as one block. the differences are too great. Do you really think UVA will go with FSU? I think they will vote individually.

I agree. the ACC seems to be the biggest jumble of schools with no seeming common thread. Large public flagship, large private, small private, Catholic, LCC, it's all over the place.

 

[Kolumbo]

 

[UConnDan97]

They need to continue advertising this type of thing. We aren't going to generate a lot of allies with it, but we won't generate any without it. And it's good to see the truth in print every now and again...

 

[Dooley]

Agreed. But the College World Series team is LCC so not much a feather in the AAC's cap. That said, UCONN baseball is on a definite rise and the wave of Huskies hitting the Major Leagues right now will only help.

 

[UConnDan97]

Agreed. But the College World Series team is LCC so not much a feather in the AAC's cap. That said, UCONN baseball is on a definite rise and the wave of Huskies hitting the Major Leagues right now will only help.

I thought about that, and I still disagree. Those seniors and juniors on Louisville baseball all came to their team under a Big East umbrella. The sophomores came in under a Big East / AAC umbrella. That team for all intents and purposes is an AAC team. The ACC will be able to claim them next year, but they are still ours today...

 

[Kolumbo]

I thought about that, and I still disagree. Those seniors and juniors on Louisville baseball all came to their team under a Big East umbrella. The sophomores came in under a Big East / AAC umbrella. That team for all intents and purposes is an AAC team. The ACC will be able to claim them next year, but they are still ours today...

Plus we have some very good teams in the AAC (Houston). I like the symbolism because it's a good visual...just because the networks are in love with the P5 does not mean the gap in other sports is that wide. espn is getting a freaking bargain right now. b*st*rds.

 

[chitown76]

Teams like Texas, Kansas,Virginia, Georgia tech will not vote with the sec. These schools are aau also the sec may have some schools in there coference that wont vote with them Vanderbilt and Missouri also Florida thease schools are aau as well academics before athletics

 

[Kolumbo]

Teams like Texas, Kansas,Virginia, Georgia tech will not vote with the sec. These schools are aau also the sec may have some schools in there coference that wont vote with them Vanderbilt and Missouri also Florida thease schools are aau as well academics before athletics

So basically you're gonna have Alabama and maybe 9 other SEC schools along with a handful of Big 12 schools. Looks like the power has shifted already.

 

[chitown76]

So basically you're gonna have Alabama and maybe 9 other SEC schools along with a handful of Big 12 schools. Looks like the power has shifted already.

I think so why would a academic school play to a non academic school. This would narrow the gap a little bit for schools like Vanderbilt and Missouri when they have to play Alabama get rid of the oversign and make sure these kids have the grades to compete. Any schools within that have a problem with what the sec is trying to push through athletics over academics might decide to leave the SEC lets say maybe Missouri or Vanderbilt with no gor Mr. sec might want to watch what he wishes for. The big's stance is academics is top priority over athletics.

 

[chitown76]

I think Uconn is in the big so that leaves room for 5 more schools if the big 12 goes along with the sec will the big and pac come together and pick off the big 12 take enough schools and dissolve the gor. If mr. sec thinks it could spark off another round of expansion he could be right but the sec wont like this next round not one bit.

 

[ASweet3781]

I like the concept. Based on results, we are a power conference. And they should throw it in every face they can.

But Final Four Team???? Women's Final Four Team?? Hey AAC digital, it's called NATIONAL CHAMPIONS. Get it right please.