Non-Key Tweets

[upstater]

I think you're looking too deep into the voting thresholds. They're just trying to clear the path for autonomy. In the process, they're publicly going to make it about the student athlete but behind the scenes, they're looking for the avenue to get them their own subdivision. I'm sure there are some other targeted issues that perhaps have them split and there might be some jockeying/politicking over them, but ultimately I think they're just first trying to gain their distance in the voting body.

But while I don't dismiss the possibility of targeted votes you mention, it's absolutely silly to think they're trying to get rid of smaller private schools. The Big Ten knows the reason it has an advantage is because of its dependence on land-grant, flagship institutions. It's not going to go picking off the smaller private schools just so they will be replaced with larger, state institutions in new markets. That's not how the Big Ten is operating.

Plus, let's be honest, consider the source. The next time the Dude gets something right could be the first.

The voting threshold issue has nothing to groups outside the P5. It's 0nly about voting "within the P5" and not "the voting body," as you wrote.

 

[woomba]

It's weird that the numbers are that far off, but I'm guessing that the difference might be the nearly 20 million dollar subsidy that we are listed as getting. BC, not being a state school, would not receive such a subsidy...

When the term subsidy is used AD budgets they usually refer to forced student fees that everyone must pay or it coming out of the general funds, not some special funding that the state gives specifically for athletics (does such a thing even exist?)

 

[kyleslamb]

The voting threshold issue has nothing to groups outside the P5. It's 0nly about voting "within the P5" and not "the voting body," as you wrote.

You're right in a sense, but you're also mistaken. This is from CBS explaining why they want the voting structure changed:

"The NCAA Governance Steering Committee's current proposal says that for the Power 5 conferences to create new legislation they would need approval from two-thirds of the 65 Power 5 schools and the 15-athlete voting bloc plus four of the five major conferences. The Power 5 conferences, including the SEC, want a 60-percent threshold among themselves and athletes and three of the five conferences. They also want the ability to interpret new rules passed."

They're not worried about how the votes are differentiated among them, it's that within the legislative body as it currently stands, they don't have enough votes by themselves to get the autonomy they're looking for. They're basically trying to get enough autonomy to have their own voting authority that can trump that of general Division I legislation, and they don't have it.

Say a Division I rule proposal is on the table, and it's going to pass Division I as a whole. The power five conferences want to be able to override the legislation if they have a 60 percent voting bloc. But to do that, they have to get enough votes to change the structure. That's what they're lobbying for in the interim.

Ultimately this is all about autonomy. They are just fighting for a voting threshold where they can self-govern with 60 percent threshold being met.

This is confirmed with the following Slive mention.

'Slive raised concerns that the current proposed voting threshold won't be high enough to pass legislation, such as cost of attendance, medical care and issues related to agents. Slive said he is optimistic the governance structure will pass.'

 

[upstater]

You're right in a sense, but you're also mistaken. This is from CBS explaining why they want the voting structure changed:

"The NCAA Governance Steering Committee's current proposal says that for the Power 5 conferences to create new legislation they would need approval from two-thirds of the 65 Power 5 schools and the 15-athlete voting bloc plus four of the five major conferences. The Power 5 conferences, including the SEC, want a 60-percent threshold among themselves and athletes and three of the five conferences. They also want the ability to interpret new rules passed."

"3 of 5 major conferences." Which major conferences does this refer to?

 

[kyleslamb]

"3 of 5 major conferences." Which major conferences does this refer to?

None specifically. It's just stating that is what is necessary as the governing structure currently stands in order to vote autonomously. As of now, for them to override Division I legislation, they need approval of two thirds of the 65 power conference schools and four of the five conferences as a whole have to approve it. Those same five conferences are trying to change the legislation to make it 60/3 instead of 66/4.

Edit: nevermind, I see what you're saying now. They don't have enough approval from at least two current power conferences to pass some proposals being discussed at the moment, which implies that the ACC and/or Big 12 (or someone else) are fighting it.

 

[upstater]

None specifically. It's just stating that is what is necessary as the governing structure currently stands in order to vote autonomously. As of now, for them to override Division I legislation, they need approval of two thirds of the 65 power conference schools and four of the five conferences as a whole have to approve it. Those same five conferences are trying to change the legislation to make it 60/3 instead of 66/4.

Edit: nevermind, I see what you're saying now. They don't have enough approval from at least two current power conferences to pass some proposals being discussed at the moment, which implies that the ACC and/or Big 12 (or someone else) are fighting it.

Not only that last part, but they don't have approval of over 60% of the schools. They've done the count and they are short.

This is why the West Virginia crazies are finally like the squirrels who finally found a nut (albeit accidentally).

 

[kyleslamb]

Not only that last part, but they don't have approval of over 60% of the schools. They've done the count and they are short.

This is why the West Virginia crazies are finally like the squirrels who finally found a nut (albeit accidentally).

Interesting. I still do not buy the private school part, though. If BC and Wake, for instance, were booted, the ACC could just replace them with UConn and UCF or Cincinnati and actually wind up in better financial shape. The Big Ten knows that and wouldn't want to do something that advances the ACC bargaining position going forward.

As far as not having at least 60 percent of the votes, is there a link you have handy suggesting that? I had been under the impression that they had a consensus on most of the proposals within the P5..

 

[UConnDan97]

When the term subsidy is used AD budgets they usually refer to forced student fees that everyone must pay or it coming out of the general funds, not some special funding that the state gives specifically for athletics (does such a thing even exist?)

If you're telling me that student fees are covering 17 million dollars, well then I don't know what to tell you back. As for whether the subsidy is from the state or not: The fact that there is a 17 million dollar subsidy from another budget means by default that the subsidy is from the state. Although I'm sure you're correct in stating that the subsidy doesn't come from a pot labeled "athletics subsidy budget", I'm also sure that the source of it is our state government, one way or another (unless it's coming from the endowment, which I thought normally carried stipulations on the type of use)...

 

[upstater]

Interesting. I still do not buy the private school part, though. If BC and Wake, for instance, were booted, the ACC could just replace them with UConn and UCF or Cincinnati and actually wind up in better financial shape. The Big Ten knows that and wouldn't want to do something that advances the ACC bargaining position going forward.

As far as not having at least 60 percent of the votes, is there a link you have handy suggesting that? I had been under the impression that they had a consensus on most of the proposals within the P5..

The council apparently proposed 60% being the threshold, which was not satisfactory to the big schools. The difference is 39 schools = 60% and 43% = 65%. This tells me there are a lot of 65 schools who are not on board. If they had 43 schools, then they could pass the new rules, and after the rules were passed, it would take 60-65% of the schools to invalidate them in the future.

 

[woomba]

If you're telling me that student fees are covering 17 million dollars, well then I don't know what to tell you back. As for whether the subsidy is from the state or not: The fact that there is a 17 million dollar subsidy from another budget means by default that the subsidy is from the state. Although I'm sure you're correct in stating that the subsidy doesn't come from a pot labeled "athletics subsidy budget", I'm also sure that the source of it is our state government, one way or another (unless it's coming from the endowment, which I thought normally carried stipulations on the type of use)...

The way you phrased your original answer you made it sound like only public schools can subsidize their ADs and that it denotes government funding. Subdidizing happens across most schools, public and private and it just means any revenue source that isn't generated by the AD itself.

It's just that private school numbers are not visible to the public because they generally don't have to disclose that figure.

 

[kyleslamb]

The council apparently proposed 60% being the threshold, which was not satisfactory to the big schools. The difference is 39 schools = 60% and 43% = 65%. This tells me there are a lot of 65 schools who are not on board. If they had 43 schools, then they could pass the new rules, and after the rules were passed, it would take 60-65% of the schools to invalidate them in the future.

So basically your opinion is that they're probably about 4-6 votes shy of where they need to be and that's why they're pushing for 60 percent rather than 65 percent? That does make sense, certainly. I just disagree on the private school aspect as I think that's being pulled from thin air (ha ha).

 

[whaler11]

The council apparently proposed 60% being the threshold, which was not satisfactory to the big schools. The difference is 39 schools = 60% and 43% = 65%. This tells me there are a lot of 65 schools who are not on board. If they had 43 schools, then they could pass the new rules, and after the rules were passed, it would take 60-65% of the schools to invalidate them in the future.

And what happens in the end if those schools don't get on board with the schools that actually generate TV revenue?

 

[whaler11]

So basically your opinion is that they're probably about 4-6 votes shy of where they need to be and that's why they're pushing for 60 percent rather than 65 percent? That does make sense, certainly. I just disagree on the private school aspect as I think that's being pulled from thin air (ha ha).

Hard to see it as a public/private split. Schools like Baylor and TCU strike me as the kind of schools that would be first on board. Vanderbilt isn't competing in the SEC recently by accident. Boston College's only angle is to limit supply.

Wake is in over their heads, Northwestern probably pretends they care about academics....

Stanford can buy all these schools with their spare change but not sure what they want.

 

[upstater]

So basically your opinion is that they're probably about 4-6 votes shy of where they need to be and that's why they're pushing for 60 percent rather than 65 percent? That does make sense, certainly. I just disagree on the private school aspect as I think that's being pulled from thin air (ha ha).

With the West Virginia crew, there's always going to be an element of craziness. I do think however that it's very likely it's the private schools resisting simply because it's much harder to justify such stipends at a private school.

 

[upstater]

And what happens in the end if those schools don't get on board with the schools that actually generate TV revenue?

Division 4? Don't know. But the words of the presidents saying the new rules aren't going to pass sound ominous to a certain point-of-view.

 

[whaler11]

Division 4? Don't know. But the words of the presidents saying the new rules aren't going to pass sound ominous to a certain point-of-view.

Seems to me that just means fewer programs circle the wagons.

 

[kyleslamb]

With the West Virginia crew, there's always going to be an element of craziness. I do think however that it's very likely it's the private schools resisting simply because it's much harder to justify such stipends at a private school.

I could most definitely see the private schools being reluctant to pass some of those proposals. That absolutely seems credible. However, from what the Big Ten seeks to accomplish, the suggestion that kicking out the private schools would win them the battle would also eventually lose them the war. Furthermore, they can't arbitrarily kick people out or else they'll get clobbered by antitrust issues. Even if they could come up with some sort of baseline required to indirectly impact some of those private schools, it could have far-reaching implications and wind up hurting just as much as it would help.

I think there is an element of truth to what he's saying from a standpoint the Big Ten would love to make the ACC unstable enough to where members leave in mass exodus, which would make the GoR debates moot and would provide an avenue to pursue UNC and/or UVA. In the meantime, the private schools in the ACC might be standing in the way of autonomy, which further complicates the bigger picture. I just think he's connecting the dots incorrectly on the specific motives.

 

[upstater]

I could most definitely see the private schools being reluctant to pass some of those proposals. That absolutely seems credible. However, from what the Big Ten seeks to accomplish, the suggestion that kicking out the private schools would win them the battle would also eventually lose them the war. Furthermore, they can't arbitrarily kick people out or else they'll get clobbered by antitrust issues. Even if they could come up with some sort of baseline required to indirectly impact some of those private schools, it could have far-reaching implications and wind up hurting just as much as it would help.

I think there is an element of truth to what he's saying from a standpoint the Big Ten would love to make the ACC unstable enough to where members leave in mass exodus, which would make the GoR debates moot and would provide an avenue to pursue UNC and/or UVA. In the meantime, the private schools in the ACC might be standing in the way of autonomy, which further complicates the bigger picture. I just think he's connecting the dots incorrectly on the specific motives.

I agree. I don't buy anything besides the kernel at the center of all this.

 

[billybud]

The composition of the Steering Committee on Governance: there are actually eight members including the chair, who is the president of Wake Forest (Nathan Hatch). The other seven members are the chancellors and presidents of:

UCLA
SIU Carbondale
UC Irvine
Wright State University
Rice University
University of South Carolina
Kansas State University

Only five play FBS football, only four are from the P5, and the B1G is not represented.

 

[B1GALUM]

The composition of the Steering Committee on Governance: there are actually eight members including the chair, who is the president of Wake Forest (Nathan Hatch). The other seven members are the chancellors and presidents of:

UCLA
SIU Carbondale
UC Irvine
Wright State University
Rice University
University of South Carolina
Kansas State University

Only five play FBS football, only four are from the P5, and the B1G is not represented.

Dr. Michael Drake, the current Chancellor of UC Irvine and member of this committee, will be the new President of Ohio State effective June 30, 2014.

 

[itgoeslike]

"The NCAA Governance Steering Committee's current proposal says that for the Power 5 conferences to create new legislation they would need approval from two-thirds of the 65 Power 5 schools and the 15-athlete voting bloc plus four of the five major conferences. The Power 5 conferences, including the SEC, want a 60-percent threshold among themselves and athletes and three of the five conferences. They also want the ability to interpret new rules passed."'

This is really about the desire to consolidate power among the Big Ten, SEC and PAC12 vs. self preservation of the Big 12 and ACC. 60% of 65 schools equals 39 votes. The B1G, SEC, and PAC members total 40 members and of course represent 3 of 5 Conferences. That would enable the P3 conferences to steer legislation unencumbered, which could include moving towards 4 super conferences. Conversely, a super majority and 4 of 5 conference requirement would enable the two "marked" conferences to block legislation detrimental to their existence. I can't imagine the ACC or Big 12 wanting to move off this point.

 

[upstater]

The composition of the Steering Committee on Governance: there are actually eight members including the chair, who is the president of Wake Forest (Nathan Hatch). The other seven members are the chancellors and presidents of:

UCLA
SIU Carbondale
UC Irvine
Wright State University
Rice University
University of South Carolina
Kansas State University

Only five play FBS football, only four are from the P5, and the B1G is not represented.

But again, why would this steering committee care whether the P5 have a 60& or 65% threshold? They are clearly representing the interests of members of the P5. S. Carolina is a yes to lower the threshold. UCLA and K State, we don't know about. But the other schools? Why would they care?

 

[itgoeslike]

But again, why would this steering committee care whether the P5 have a 60& or 65% threshold? They are clearly representing the interests of members of the P5. S. Carolina is a yes to lower the threshold. UCLA and K State, we don't know about. But the other schools? Why would they care?

Wake Forest and perhaps K-State likely pushed for these higher percentages. Like I stated above, the ACC and Big 12 are wary of B1G, SEC and PAC unfettered "autonomy" and dominance. Non-P5 schools figure they benefit too if the P5 has to accommodate legislation that doesn't disadvantage smaller privates like Wake Forest. As for South Carolina, their President initially saw the merits of a supermajority before getting an earful from his conference mates at their conference meetings. Lastly, we all know how vocal the SEC, B1G and PAC commissioners have been coming out against the supermajority. However, here is Swofford's position:

From ESPN: Swofford does not have a position yet on whether requiring a supermajority is a good idea.

From USA TODAY: Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, in two recent conversations with USA TODAY Sports, echoed similar concerns. ACC commissioner John Swofford declined comment Monday, saying he wanted to wait until Wednesday, after he'd had the chance to discuss the issue with presidents and athletic directors at the the conference's annual meetings.

Swofford wants autonomy, just not in a form that might further disadvantage its members or put the collective conference at risk.

EDIT: Wondering where ND stands on this issue?

USA TODAY: Though most of those associated with Big Five conferences and schools said they were opposed to the supermajority threshold, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told USA TODAY Sports he is "very much in favor" of the supermajority threshold. Notre Dame, which is joining the ACC in all sports except football (and also has a football scheduling arrangement with ACC members), would vote as part of that conference under the new structure.

 

[epark88]

View attachment 6116
Or this guy!!!

Um, nice bobs, Oxford Bob...

 

[upstater]

USA TODAY: Though most of those associated with Big Five conferences and schools said they were opposed to the supermajority threshold, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told USA TODAY Sports he is "very much in favor" of the supermajority threshold. Notre Dame, which is joining the ACC in all sports except football (and also has a football scheduling arrangement with ACC members), would vote as part of that conference under the new structure.

ND complicating things again for conference mates. Wonder if the ACC's position is largely influenced by ND.