I apologize for this thread if it could adequately be placed in another, although none of the others fully addressed this topic directly.
I posted this on another site, so if you stumble there to read it, I apologize for lack of uniqueness. I'd rather save myself the trouble of formulating it in a new way (ha ha). Nonetheless, I believe there is a new subdivision coming this fall.
I've spoken with some contacts in athletics, and it does sound like we're nearing a new subdivision for football. Although I will try to keep this just about divisional realignment, a new subdivision could simultaneously address some of the issues regarding stipends and how athletes are handled vis-a-vis employee/athlete-student matters.
My first hunch that something was up came a few weeks back when the NCAA tweaked its voting structure to the leadership council. Currently, ADs or conference commissioners of seven major conferences (including the AAC and C-USA) receive the weight of three votes on the council with the other four FBS conferences receiving 1.5 votes and all other Division I leagues getting 1.14 votes apiece (equivalent of about 51 votes).
Under the new proposal, the five power conferences would receive four votes each (20); the remaining five FBS leagues would receive two votes each (10) and all 22 of the remaining Division I conferences would get one vote. However, in news that came out the past two days, the Division I board of directors has proposed a new governance structure that would allow the power five "autonomy" for matters that do not impact the entire division.
This leads me to the conclusion that a new subdivision is coming, aside from the fact I have folks in athletics telling me that is what they're hearing. It sets up some flexibility if my hunch is correct.
It looks like this:
* The five power conferences will create a new subdivision with this autonomy, meaning Division I football will be split into three classes (or potentially merge the remaining five leagues with FCS).
* The new upper level subdivision will mandate as a condition of membership such things as:
a) A stipend for a minimum amount paid to all athletes to cover cost of attendance, and
b) possible loss-in-status protection for any athlete that wants to stay in school (currently an exceptional talent policy exists for only players projected to be drafted but the amount is capped and there are limitations to the coverage), and
c) medical plan of some sort for athletes, and
d) less restriction on amenities (such as the unlimited food plan that was OK'd) and travel/expense reimbursement for families and other incidentals
This subdivision would almost assuredly have other thresholds needed to be met by prospective members. Currently, FBS schools must sponsor at least 16 varsity sports with a minimum of six (6) men's sports and eight (8) women's sports, as well as at least two team sports for each gender. Furthermore, schools most have at least an average of 15,000 in attendance in a two year rolling period to be eligible for membership and must offer no fewer than 77 grant-in-aids every season for football and the lesser of $4 million or 200 equivalent scholarships department-wide.
This new subdivision could take new members either with an invite to a current league, or new leagues could be formed. However, I imagine you'd see a requirement that leagues must have at least eight members, which would also require a new league to find eight non-FBS schools that meet the new thresholds.
My gut instinct is that they'll raise these thresholds to something like:
a) minimum of 18 varsity sports
b) at least $6 million in aid or 250 counters
Once a new subdivision is in place, you might well see further realignment. This is where the endgame of four power conferences could ultimately manifest itself. With this autonomy, the FBS leagues could wind up in a four-league super-structure with eight divisions and, consequently, a four team playoff among these four conference champions. It also removes any concern about other playoff formats where anti-trust issues could come into play.
The other good news out of this is that the NCAA's new council will include a vote from the chair of the student-athlete advisory committee. This, along with stipends, additional expenses, etc., does show a good faith effort to create a better situation, although it might still be too little too late.
Final approval of the new governance structure is expected when the board convenes in August. Though I'm somewhat spitballing on some of these details, everything they're doing leads me to believe that a new subdivision is exactly where this is heading. They've been talking about it for several years and doing so would be a good way of addressing the additional expenses to cover full cost of attendance.
Realignment isn't directly dependent on all of this, but once these things are out of the way, the endgame becomes fairly clear.
I posted this on another site, so if you stumble there to read it, I apologize for lack of uniqueness. I'd rather save myself the trouble of formulating it in a new way (ha ha). Nonetheless, I believe there is a new subdivision coming this fall.
I've spoken with some contacts in athletics, and it does sound like we're nearing a new subdivision for football. Although I will try to keep this just about divisional realignment, a new subdivision could simultaneously address some of the issues regarding stipends and how athletes are handled vis-a-vis employee/athlete-student matters.
My first hunch that something was up came a few weeks back when the NCAA tweaked its voting structure to the leadership council. Currently, ADs or conference commissioners of seven major conferences (including the AAC and C-USA) receive the weight of three votes on the council with the other four FBS conferences receiving 1.5 votes and all other Division I leagues getting 1.14 votes apiece (equivalent of about 51 votes).
Under the new proposal, the five power conferences would receive four votes each (20); the remaining five FBS leagues would receive two votes each (10) and all 22 of the remaining Division I conferences would get one vote. However, in news that came out the past two days, the Division I board of directors has proposed a new governance structure that would allow the power five "autonomy" for matters that do not impact the entire division.
This leads me to the conclusion that a new subdivision is coming, aside from the fact I have folks in athletics telling me that is what they're hearing. It sets up some flexibility if my hunch is correct.
It looks like this:
* The five power conferences will create a new subdivision with this autonomy, meaning Division I football will be split into three classes (or potentially merge the remaining five leagues with FCS).
* The new upper level subdivision will mandate as a condition of membership such things as:
a) A stipend for a minimum amount paid to all athletes to cover cost of attendance, and
b) possible loss-in-status protection for any athlete that wants to stay in school (currently an exceptional talent policy exists for only players projected to be drafted but the amount is capped and there are limitations to the coverage), and
c) medical plan of some sort for athletes, and
d) less restriction on amenities (such as the unlimited food plan that was OK'd) and travel/expense reimbursement for families and other incidentals
This subdivision would almost assuredly have other thresholds needed to be met by prospective members. Currently, FBS schools must sponsor at least 16 varsity sports with a minimum of six (6) men's sports and eight (8) women's sports, as well as at least two team sports for each gender. Furthermore, schools most have at least an average of 15,000 in attendance in a two year rolling period to be eligible for membership and must offer no fewer than 77 grant-in-aids every season for football and the lesser of $4 million or 200 equivalent scholarships department-wide.
This new subdivision could take new members either with an invite to a current league, or new leagues could be formed. However, I imagine you'd see a requirement that leagues must have at least eight members, which would also require a new league to find eight non-FBS schools that meet the new thresholds.
My gut instinct is that they'll raise these thresholds to something like:
a) minimum of 18 varsity sports
b) at least $6 million in aid or 250 counters
Once a new subdivision is in place, you might well see further realignment. This is where the endgame of four power conferences could ultimately manifest itself. With this autonomy, the FBS leagues could wind up in a four-league super-structure with eight divisions and, consequently, a four team playoff among these four conference champions. It also removes any concern about other playoff formats where anti-trust issues could come into play.
The other good news out of this is that the NCAA's new council will include a vote from the chair of the student-athlete advisory committee. This, along with stipends, additional expenses, etc., does show a good faith effort to create a better situation, although it might still be too little too late.
Final approval of the new governance structure is expected when the board convenes in August. Though I'm somewhat spitballing on some of these details, everything they're doing leads me to believe that a new subdivision is exactly where this is heading. They've been talking about it for several years and doing so would be a good way of addressing the additional expenses to cover full cost of attendance.
Realignment isn't directly dependent on all of this, but once these things are out of the way, the endgame becomes fairly clear.