NCAA exploring Big 5 conference autonomy

[Carl Spackler]

Okay - ignore it. I made it up.

He was in the room! Keep up. Go look for other sources. Geez!

LOL. Just be careful on info. Seriously. I did just go look through mandel and the other twitter account page. I don't see what mandel need to be correcting unless it was deleted.

 

[huskymedic]

LOL. Just be careful on info. Seriously. I did just go look through mandel and the other twitter account page. I don't see what mandel need to be correcting unless it was deleted.

He fat fingered the original tweet.

 

[Carl Spackler]

See - joeschad has already picked up on the same photo tweet from the sandiego state football writer and made comment about stipends being able to be passed through. Garbage info

 

[huskymedic]

See - joeschad has already picked up on the same photo tweet from the sandiego state football writer. yet all the same questions I asked are still unknown.

garbage internet info

You can be such an mule @ times. http://storify.com/InsidetheNCAA/division-i-governance-dialogue-second-session

 

[Carl Spackler]

You can be such an mule @ times. http://storify.com/InsidetheNCAA/division-i-governance-dialogue-second-session

just call me an ass, I can take it. Seriously though. I've seen other slides already, from different polling questions, and the topic is on the slide.

So we know when and who was asked. Today, and the room full of AD's.

I want to know what question 8 is. I haven't seen it yet (and I have looked) If you find it before I do - it's a race.

Call it me weird mind, but my bet is that whatever question 8 is - is interesting.

 

[huskymedic]

just call me an ass, I can take it. Seriously though. I've seen other slides already, from different polling questions, and the topic is on the slide.

So we know when and who was asked. Today, and the room full of AD's.

I want to know what question 8 is. I haven't seen it yet (and I have looked) If you find it before I do - it's a race.

Call it me weird mind, but my bet is that whatever question 8 is - is interesting.

I really don't need to know the actual wording of the question to know what the intent of the question was since it revolved around this statement in the published power point (Defined as the ability, within the current NCAA structure, for the SEC, B1G, PAC-12, ACC and Big 12 conferences and their institutions to adopt reforms in a regulatory structure that respects the demands on student-athletes in the 21st century and acknowledges the need for these conferences/institutions to define rules that address their unique challenges)

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mull-giving-power-5-conferences-more-autonomy (Aresco/AAC mention)

I'm sure it will be clear in a written article as opposed to Twitter.

 

[ZooCougar]

The majority of schools are already losing money. That is not going to change

This article says the ACC paid out $16.9MM for 2011-2012. http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/05/acc-schools-averaged-169m-payout.html

The new ESPN contract will pay out $20MM plus the playoff money will be another $3-4MM = $23-24MM

So again, the question is are you willing to pay an extra $2MM to make an extra $7MM?

What is a school like Wake Forest going to do? Say no, we would rather leave the ACC & join the ACC so we can make $2MM per year.

No, they just vote against it and lose and end up operating even more in the red.

This whole thing will only really benefit about 10-15 programs.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I really don't need to know the actual wording of the question to know what the intent of the question was

Hmmm. Interesting. Well, I disagree. I'd like to see the question. It might be a very simple question, and that's that, or it might be something else. any lawyer can talk to you all day about how answers and questions are related, and directed........

Given the amount of time and effort that went into this, my guess is that question 8, is something that was very carefully formatted. I've been wrong before though. The question might be as simple as "Do you support Power 5 conference autonomy."

I do think it's odd that the slide pictured says question 8.

Look at this page of twitter photos. Scan down to the one similar slide that's pictured regarding representation on the board..... Notice a difference?

https://twitter.com/search?q=#NCAAConv&src=hash&mode=photos

 

[huskymedic]

Hmmm. Interesting. Well, I disagree. I'd like to see the question. It might be a very simple question, and that's that, or it might be something else. any lawyer can talk to you all day about how answers and questions are related, and directed...

Given the amount of time and effort that went into this, my guess is that question 8, is something that was very carefully formatted. I've been wrong before though. The question might be as simple as "Do you support Power 5 conference autonomy."

I do think it's odd that the slide pictured says question 8.

Look at this page of twitter photos. Scan down to the one similar slide that's pictured regarding representation on the board..... Notice a difference?

https://twitter.com/search?q=#NCAAConv&src=hash&mode=photos

It's the NCAA! Do you expect everything to be consistent?

I haven't seen anyone call out Schad or Loh as being FOS for the pic/tweet either.

 

[ZooCougar]

Nobody should confuse "autonomy" with "breaking away". Autonomy just means the P5 are going to have the power to make rules free from interference from other leagues.

The AAC will pay the stipend to their athletes and continue to compete at the highest level. I think the big question is will the MAC conference drop down to FCS. If they do it just means less recruiting competition for the AAC.

That's an assumption. AAC could still be subject to interference from the outside.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It's the NCAA! Do you expect everything to be consistent?

I haven't seen anyone call out Schad or Loh as being FOS for the pic/tweet either.

Look, I'm being a mule, I know. Just pointing out what I see. That's all. It wouldn't be surprise me at all to find out that question 8 was some kind of question that posed to the entire audience verbally....whatever....just understand that when you are dealing with a room full of that many people, that are all alpha dogs, there are lots of different ways to communicate and sway majority opinions, and make no mistake - the kind of thing that is being proposed yet again right now, has been going on for well over 20 years, by the same cast of characters.

That's it - I"ll stop.

 

[huskymedic]

It's the NCAA! Do you expect everything to be consistent?

I haven't seen anyone call out Schad or Loh as being FOS for the pic/tweet either.

Edit - Here is the tweet that Schad fat fingered:

#NCAAConv live poll: To what extent does the room support legislative autonomy for the Big 5 conferences? 56% support, 30% oppose.
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) January 17, 2014

 

[Carl Spackler]

Well, I said I would stop, but now I can't. You win. You have to figure it was as simple math problem for mandel, but that's the question.

There are still a lot of questions to ask, and this is by no means that those conferences are going to get legislative autonomy. The danger here, is that this kind of polling question and the spread of information turns into a source that the talking heads start using for making broad based conclusions - like Schad saying it should be that stipends could be passed now.

 

[UConn Dan]

The net number doesn't appear to publicly exist on its own and I'm not looking any deeper. That is why I'm trying to back into it. As I said, I have neither the time nor inclination to do your research. I will buy your TV contract point only because it is reasonable on its face according to the math ($10.8 Billion / 14 = $771,000/yr). That said, and Football being the only other revenue generating sport, Football contributes in the neighborhood of $40 Million/year. But the NCAA's revenue streams do not exist in a vacuum either.

Now that you bring up the TV Contract, there is a specific clause that says the NCAA will not amend its rules in any of a series of ways "to the extent such amendment causes a material adverse effect on Broadcaster." "...and, in a phrasing that is not completed because of omitted pages, "the creation of another postseason Division I men's basketball tournament that materially diminishes the status" ... I think the P5 breaking off from the NCAA in a manner that member schools may no longer be in the Tournament adversely affects the Broadcaster.

Hypothetically, say the p5 segregates itself in football only. How does the NCAA allows them back under the umbrella for other sports including basketball? The NCAA becomes a paper tiger slaving to the whim of the P5. It is a slippery slope from there to other institutions outright ignoring their "governing body" because there are 2 different explicitly stated sets of rules for these 65 arbitrarily thrown together teams vs. the other 1100 universities (Oh yeah, we're still talking about not-for-profit institutions of higher learning, no?).

So there goes that $40 Million plus a severely negative renegotiation to the Basketball Tournament contract.

If anything truly significant is to happen, I foresee a bevy of anti-trust suits coming to pass. It's a bad time for College sports, regardless if UConn is invited to the Big Ten or ACC).

Look...I'm not trying to be a , but the number doesn't exist because the NCAA does not make/or makes negligible amount of money from football -- that's all I'm saying. I'm not doing "my research" because it's just not there -- you brought up bogus numbers and I asked you to clarify. Now that that's settled let's move on to the real issue here...

The p5 def has the leverage they need with the NCAA to make football exempt (or autonomous) because they can breakaway altogether if they wanted and that would destroy the NCAA basketball tournament/revenue for the non-P5 schools.

We c ked Husky25 and it's a damn shame.

 

[HawkHusky]

We just need the P5 to agree on having the same number (16) of conference members before they take off from the rest of the G5.

 

[UConn Dan]

We just need the P5 to agree on having the same number (16) of conference members before they take off from the rest of the G5.

Or if they agree that only conf. champs can qualify for the playoff... either will put things in motion.

 

[Husky25]

We've had plenty of decent discussions, Dan. No worries. But I do not believe that the NCAA's football revenue is negligible. I didn't bring up bogus numbers, they are all well supported by the NCAA itself. It stands to reason that the NCAA gets a cut in some way shape or form from football. If football is the money maker, they are taking a slice, however big the piece is, which also affects other revenue streams.

 

[Husky25]

Or if they agree that only conf. champs can qualify for the playoff... either will put things in motion.

This is what I had thought would be the ultimate end game. Each FBS conference champ would get a seat at the table (i.e. in the bracket), plus a few at larges from the P5. Now? Not as much.

 

[UConn Dan]

This is what I had thought would be the ultimate end game. Each FBS conference champ would get a seat at the table (i.e. in the bracket), plus a few at larges from the P5. Now? Not as much.

Right... none of us should hold our breath - especially on anything that helps UConn.

Wake me up before we go-go.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

If we are left behind, I would hope attorney general for CT fill the lawsuit against the ACC and ESPiN ASAP. It will simply make our damages even greater.

 

[UConn Dan]

I'm not sure how we get out of this. A lawsuit from the state of CT would be like a mosquito bite on a baboon's ass.

I still don't understand how they can keep out conferences (or schools) that want to abide by the power 5 guidelines. I would love some clarification by someone that actually will know how it will all go down. If BYU wants to compete will they be allowed? I know Notre Dame already has a pass into the club since all the references from conf commishes (e.g., Bob) are to the 65 teams. So, if the AAC is allowed to live by the P5 guidelines and it's required that every team in a conference abides by the guidelines, but a majority of the AAC does not want to - I assume we go indy at that point? Or form yet another national conference - the coalition of the left behinds (UConn, Cincy, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise St, San Diego State, maybe Navy and Air Force).

We're c ked... I just want some clarification on whether the big boy conferences will allow schools (or conferences) that want to play with them in the new deal.

 

[Fishy]

I have no idea what we might be suing for.

The new autonomy deal is bad news all around for us.

The worst case scenario is that we're not permitted to offer the same benefits of a P5 school. That's game over - we'd get a crack at a kid only after every single P5 passed on him.

The second-worst case scenario is being permitted to offer those same benefits while having to exist on an American Conference revenue stream. It's like running the Indy 500 with 1/15th of the gasoline that the other cars have. Eventually, we'd crack.

It's really a remarkable kick in the nuts when you thought that you could not possibly get kicked again.

 

[gars44]

I'm not sure how we get out of this. A lawsuit from the state of CT would be like a mosquito bite on a baboon's ass.

I still don't understand how they can keep out conferences (or schools) that want to abide by the power 5 guidelines. I would love some clarification by someone that actually will know how it will all go down. If BYU wants to compete will they be allowed? I know Notre Dame already has a pass into the club since all the references from conf commishes (e.g., Bob) are to the 65 teams. So, if the AAC is allowed to live by the P5 guidelines and it's required that every team in a conference abides by the guidelines, but a majority of the AAC does not want to - I assume we go indy at that point? Or form yet another national conference - the coalition of the left behinds (UConn, Cincy, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise St, San Diego State, maybe Navy and Air Force).

We're c ked... I just want some clarification on whether the big boy conferences will allow schools (or conferences) that want to play with them in the new deal.

The way I read this is that they set the rules, you can play by them or not as you wish. Like, you want to be in this club? Come on. These are the rules. So, I think we can play for awhile.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I have no idea what we might be suing for.

We will be suing for all the dirty deeds done by ESPiN and the ACC during the destruction of the BE. I have a good feeling Cincy and USF will join that lawsuit as well.

 

[UConn Dan]

The way I read this is that they set the rules, you can play by them or not as you wish. Like, you want to be in this club? Come on. These are the rules. So, I think we can play for awhile.

Yes, I read the below, but we'll see how this really shakes out...

Few details emerged as to how this so-called voting federation would work, but presumably schools from outside those conferences would be free to adopt the same policies. The Mountain West and American Athletic Conference have already said they would likely provide athlete stipends if allowed. However, many Division I schools admittedly could not afford such provisions, thus contradicting the NCAA's age-old "level playing field" mission.

Some delegates from non-power conferences indicated they'd be fine with that divide as long as the Power 5 schools can't alter fundamental competition standards like scholarship limits per sport.

Other administrators from the non-power conferences took to the microphone Friday to express their reservations about autonomy. However, there's a collective sense they may have no choice. Alienating the Power 5 and causing some larger split could jeopardize the all-important NCAA basketball tournament.

"Taking about 120 schools and breaking off would be a much easier alternative," one power-conference official said Friday. "Even creating another [subdivision] would be an easier alternative."

However, those more radical options now appear unlikely, as the commissioners' strong preference remains to "keep everyone under the big tent," said Slive.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...n-i-power-conferences-autonomy/#ixzz2qiQcxR3Y