NCAA exploring Big 5 conference autonomy

[RuffRuff]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...sident-mark-emmert-governance-reform/3987363/

 

[B1GALUM]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...sident-mark-emmert-governance-reform/3987363/

I am interested to know if the 4 team playoff will have an impact on realignment as it relates to these Big 5 conferences. I suspect there will be a significant amount of pressure placed on the selection committee to select conference champions and avoid two teams from the same conference to be in the 4 team college playoff. Could this prompt a move toward the proverbial 4 conference 16 team model often talked about since teams of a certain conference may be left out of the playoff more than others? or Would the Big 5 conferences stand pat on membership and just move to an 8 team playoff to make sure all conference champions are represented with at large spots available? Has anyone heard any thoughts on this issue?

 

[Fishy]

I don't know what impact the playoff will have on realignment.

Realistically, there are 65 teams in the P5 conferences and perhaps 15 are threats to hit the top four on at least an occasional basis.

Given that the playoff really only concerns the pointy end of the spear, I have a feeling there will be little impetus to add more seats to the rear.

If anything, they're starting to bolt the doors.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

On one level, these changes will increase the gap between the haves and have nots, but the reality is they are paying their players anyway, and the have nots are the only ones that get punished for the most part.

 

[upstater]

If I'm one of these small minnow NCAA schools, I vote against the big guys and send them on their way. I am hurt how? Because the NCAA will not have money to fund a nationwide championship in field hockey? That would not be my huge concern. I vote against them and let the season end with regional championships, and hell how much does it cost to send a field hockey team to the middle of the country for a one weekend 4 team championship?

 

[DarthGrumpy]

If I'm one of these small minnow NCAA schools, I vote against the big guys and send them on their way. I am hurt how? Because the NCAA will not have money to fund a nationwide championship in field hockey? That would not be my huge concern. I vote against them and let the season end with regional championships, and hell how much does it cost to send a field hockey team to the middle of the country for a one weekend 4 team championship?

The big money issue for the 'smaller’ D1 schools is the NCAA basketball tournament and I do not mean the actual money, if any, the schools get from the tournament itself. Applications, alumni donations, merchandise all go up with a big run, just ask Florida Gulf Coast. Not to mention a lot of free advertising
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3222/how-fgcus-run-can-benefit-admissions
I believe there are only 10,000 or so students on campus in Storrs in the early 1990’s when UConn basketball was just starting to take-off. It’s conceivable that UConn would not have the Rent, UConn 2000 or be close to AAU status without success of UConn basketball over the last 20+ years.

 

[upstater]

The big money issue for the 'smaller’ D1 schools is the NCAA basketball tournament and I do not mean the actual money, if any, the schools get from the tournament itself. Applications, alumni donations, merchandise all go up with a big run, just ask Florida Gulf Coast. Not to mention a lot of free advertising
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3222/how-fgcus-run-can-benefit-admissions
I believe there are only 10,000 or so students on campus in Storrs in the early 1990’s when UConn basketball was just starting to take-off. It’s conceivable that UConn would not have the Rent, UConn 2000 or be close to AAU status without success of UConn basketball over the last 20+ years.

Andrew Zimbalist has shown however that this is true for only a tiny fraction of schools, and that for some, the odor of losing (because half must lose) carries a stigma.

 

[itgoeslike]

A silver lining? Mark Emmert has been pretty consistent in his use of Big Budget schools versus Small Budget schools. (Unlike some commissioners who always delineate using the five power conferences.) This characterization by Emmert could be attributed to the need to have the separation be based on some criteria beyond simply conference affiliation. In establishing 1-AA, the NCAA felt compelled to establish metrics to define inclusion/exclusion. If this is the case once again, there is a slim chance that it bodes well for UConn— because it is a Big Budget school. In fact, its budget outpaces many schools in P5 conferences. And maybe, just maybe, it helps prompt an invite (even if it is out of necessity).

Denying like schools access to like advantages and/or like rules simply because some schools belong to a specific 501c has the potential become complicated and messy. It will be interesting to see how the NCAA characterizes this different "class" of schools.

 

[UConn Dan]

I like your thinking but it doesn't stop the power 5 from just up and leaving the NCAA alltogether.

 

[Kevin Caliendo]

Another thing to think about...the P5 conferences will soon be free to pay all student athletes a stipend or some other fee. Guess who won't be able to afford those? Non P5 conferences.

There is no way uconn will be able to keep all it's athletic programs if each student athlete gets $$.

 

[CAHUSKY]

Another thing to think about...the P5 conferences will soon be free to pay all student athletes a stipend or some other fee. Guess who won't be able to afford those? Non P5 conferences.

There is no way uconn will be able to keep all it's athletic programs if each student athlete gets .

Aren't they only considering paying players in revenue producing sports? UCONN shouldn't have a difficult time doing that.

 

[TRest]

Aren't they only considering paying players in revenue producing sports? UCONN shouldn't have a difficult time doing that.

I don't see how you can get away only paying revenue sports and comply with title 9.

 

[CL82]

Anyone read Dodd's article? He argues that the NCAA had to allow autonomy including paying athletes to forestall congressional action. I'm not a big Dodd guy but I like the idea that there is a perception of a risk of governmental intervention as it gives the non P5 some notion of a possible recourse if the P5 is too greedy.

 

[specialisthusky]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...convention-mark-emmert-sec-big-ten/index.html

Doesn't appear the G5 and lower conferences are really going to go down all that quietly...this was day 1 of the ncaa governance meetings.

Also good to see WM is there.

 

[Exit 4]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...convention-mark-emmert-sec-big-ten/index.html

Doesn't appear the G5 and lower conferences are really going to go down all that quietly...this was day 1 of the ncaa governance meetings.

Also good to see WM is there.

A few thoughts.

First, thank you SI - long live the non-ESPN owned media. We're unlikely to see such clear eyed reporting from the mothership on the true feelings and issues at stake in the tug of war between the haves and have-nots within D1.

Second, its good to hear the frustration is broad. Every school, from Stony Brook to Long Beach State has something to loose if the P5 further distance themselves beyond their already mammoth financial lead. Yes, its football today, but the gap will probably further expand in all other sports too.

Third, the contemplated p5 pool is too small, if they want to break away and build a moat the island needs to be bigger, say 80 programs. Its so small, I would expect a lot of state governments without a p5 program would begin to chirp.

Fourth, the P5 breakaway would make future something from nothing stories like Boise St and even UConn (over a longer period) nearly impossible. The current caste system would harden solid (like its not solid now) and aspirations for the lower programs would be killed. As much as the public version of the story is that the p5 wish to end the non p5 regulatory control over their conduct, I think its also as much about ending the annoying (in their mind) something from nothing programs like Boise St.

 

[Exit 4]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...convention-mark-emmert-sec-big-ten/index.html

Doesn't appear the G5 and lower conferences are really going to go down all that quietly...this was day 1 of the ncaa governance meetings.

Also good to see WM is there.

Btw, Warde's comment about revenue suggests strongly to me that we have no pending ACC or B1G invite. He would be sitting there with his mouth shut tight if we did.

 

[specialisthusky]

Btw, Warde's comment about revenue suggests strongly to me that we have no pending ACC or B1G invite. He would be sitting there with his mouth shut tight if we did.

Yup

 

[UPitt]

First, thank you SI - long live the non-ESPN owned media. We're unlikely to see such clear eyed reporting from the mothership on the true feelings and issues at stake in the tug of war between the haves and have-nots within D1.

The mothership has weighed in as well.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mull-giving-power-5-conferences-more-autonomy

 

[Exit 4]

The mothership has weighed in as well.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mull-giving-power-5-conferences-more-autonomy

That was a bit different spin than SI's report. A little muted on the air of fear and frustration.

 

[Point6]

I'm sure I am naïve, but I have a hard time believing that the five power conferences can succeed in excluding other conferences or independents who are willing to live by the same rules be it under the NCAA umbrella or as a breakaway.

These five power conferences (and the individual schools within these conferences) are competitors. Yet, they are clearly working together in an effort to protect the market (i.e. the highest level of college football) from other competing conferences and schools. If they are successful, they will freeze out any future competition for the media money they are receiving from ESPN and others because of the agreements have made amongst themselves. No potential competitor will have access to this market - not because they can't compete per se, but because they have been contractually excluded.

I may not be a big fan of the American conference as the ultimate landing spot for UConn, but, to the extent the American chooses to compete with the power five conferences under the same rules, it should be allowed to do so. The American may not have the media deals that the P5 has at the moment, but that cannot justify the P5 schools imposing artificial restraints on its ability to achieve the same or a greater level of success in the future.

I'm not an antitrust lawyer, and I understand that there are nuances in specialized areas of the law that legal summaries cannot address, but, to extent these competing conferences (and individual schools within these conferences) agree to freeze out other conferences and schools and not play those schools, etc., such conduct would appear to violate antitrust law as a market allocation scheme:

Market Division

Market division or allocation schemes are agreements in which competitors divide markets among themselves. In such schemes, competing firms allocate specific customers or types of customers, products, or territories among themselves. For example, one competitor will be allowed to sell to, or bid on contracts let by, certain customers or types of customers. In return, he or she will not sell to, or bid on contracts let by, customers allocated to the other competitors. In other schemes, competitors agree to sell only to customers in certain geographic areas and refuse to sell to, or quote intentionally high prices to, customers in geographic areas allocated to conspirator companies.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/211578.htm

The issue is exacerbated in my view by the billions in federal funding and favorable tax treatment that the institutions who are part of the P5 receive. The exclusionary agreements they are trying to achieve will damage other institutions and citizens of states who are not included. As I said before I'm probably naïve, but I can't believe that the executive branch, Congress or the courts would let it happen, as the government would be essentially funding this artificial power-play to solidify the haves and have-nots.

 

[UPitt]

A few quick thoughts. Neither story really seems to give too many details other than that everyone was upset with eachother. Seems like this whole event was poorly planned and organized. This events consists of 800 leaders in a room all looking out for what is best for their team first, conference second, and NCAA last. Everyone can agree this is not a recipe for a successful, level headed discussion. I predict that nearly everyone will walk away from this "meeting of the minds" with additional frustration towards the NCAA and nothing will be accomplished.

As for the ideas proposed for change, I only agree with one. I like the idea of honoring scholarships for athletes if they return to college to finish a degree. I think it should be a requirement that the University provides 5 or 6 years (because they may take a lighter load while playing) of education if the athlete so chooses to use it to earn a degree. The idea of "cost of attendance" seems great on the surface, as it would better cover the real cost to attend and some may argue that an athlete would not take money from boosters or steal or do other crimes. But I think it provides more opportunity for athletes to hide additional funds they receive and I really do not think this would do anything to cut down on crimes or drugs in collee sports. The last major change, allowing the P5 to control the rules, is just plain stupid. Why should the 10 richest schools, among the 65 richest schools, control how the 65 richest schools and 300+ remaining schools operate? Not exactly a plan for success. I am not in favor of seperation from the NCAA or an additional division, but at least that would make a little sense compared to this plan.

 

[whaler11]

Btw, Warde's comment about revenue suggests strongly to me that we have no pending ACC or B1G invite. He would be sitting there with his mouth shut tight if we did.

Why would any conference allow UConn to die on the vine in the AAC if they planned on including them?

 

[whaler11]

If I'm one of these small minnow NCAA schools, I vote against the big guys and send them on their way. I am hurt how? Because the NCAA will not have money to fund a nationwide championship in field hockey? That would not be my huge concern. I vote against them and let the season end with regional championships, and hell how much does it cost to send a field hockey team to the middle of the country for a one weekend 4 team championship?

The P5 win all the other sports too.

The small leagues fund their conference offices with the basketball tournament money. That is how people stay employed by the NEC or America East or the Southland.

 

[Bill Sussman]

The mothership has weighed in as well.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mull-giving-power-5-conferences-more-autonomy

Much rosier picture painted by ESPN

 

[upstater]

The P5 win all the other sports too.

The small leagues fund their conference offices with the basketball tournament money. That is how people stay employed by the NEC or America East or the Southland.

Not really. It's a lot less money than you think. Most of these schools get low hundred thousand from the tourney. A credit is worth $1-2 million for 10 conference schools and the league takes some for operations. I bet the schools get $100-20k. That's good money, but not enough to convince you to vote one way or the other.

I think the real money concern would come with the half that the NCAA takes. That money is used for huge NCA admin. salaries but also to run national championship in all sports. This is the danger for the small schools.

But again, I wonder how much interest they have in a national champion versus, say, a conference or regional champion. I bet they could run regional championships themselves.