ACC, B1G, Big 12, PAC, SEC Want Autonomy From NCAA

[ChicosBailBonds]

I bet you'd throw up in your mouth if someone made the same argument about healthcare.

Do you have a special Adam Smith decoder ring that tells you when capitalism is good and when it's bad?

In all seriousness, I actually agree with you. I think this would suck for competitive balance, but like the NCAA issues we debated in another thread, I think changes like this are inevitable.

Healthcare is open to anyone, don't confuse that with healthcare insurance.

I just use common sense, plus I rely on people like my sister-in-law from Canada that explains some of the pros and cons of such a system.  She moved to the USA, when she needed lasek done, she went back to Canada.  When she has had to do anything important, she does it here and for good reason.

Changes may be inevitable, but that doesn't mean change is good especially for schools like MU.  Change is often the result of the powerful trying to change to make them even more powerful.  People that think some of these changes are great are going to come back in 5 to 10 years and look at the smoldering crater and ask what happened.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If I read you correctly, you don't disagree that the big 5 conferences are the ones doing the actual embracing of capitalism, you just feel that they are doing so for a different reason than I stated; they are not so much attempting to increase revenue (since such increases are already assured), as they are maneuvering to get the ability to spend more of that revenue to further distance themselves competitively from other schools.  You are not in favor of this disparity, thus your statement that capitalism is "not so great" for sports.

I am curious about the escalators built into the TV deals.  Are they automatic or are they dependent on increases in carriage rates or %s, or increases in eyeballs?

Yes, that is what I am saying.  I much prefer a more balanced playing field without stacking the deck.  It is impossible to make it perfectly balanced, though more levers exist in pro sports (the draft) than in college.  Some schools will always have advantages due to size, climate, local \ in state talent, etc.  What can be controlled to some extent are the rules, the dollars attached, etc.  The proposed changes basically will allow some schools to yield their financial might to the point that other schools simply cannot stay in the chase.  This will result in fewer recruits that choose some of those smaller schools today.

On your tv deal question, the escalators are automatic.  However, they are tied to per subscriber counts.  So so though the per sub rate will increase every year (say 3% to 5%), the total nut doesn't necessarily have to.  If enough subscribers downgrade into a package where that channel is available or leave tv entirely to offset those rate increases, then the revenue wouldn't be there.  For now, that isn't happening and the models that are out that both the channels and tv providers do independently of one another show that isn't the case either.  Not in that time frame anyway.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Some of the ideas make sense. The example of the Minnesota wrestler losing his eligibility because he used his name on some music he was making is ridiculous. But if all 65 BCS schools are for this rule change, wouldn't it be pretty easy to change the rule within the NCAA? I honestly don't understand how the NCAA works. This seems like a pretty large voting block, I'd imagine they'd be able to summon up the votes to get this thing passed. Am I missing something?

The "permissable" legislation worries me. It seems like a nice way of saying that "we want the rich to be able to spend more than the poor schools." What little competitive balance remains in college athletics will be destroyed. The same core group of 20-30 schools will dominate every single year in their respective marquis sport.

Would MU benefit from this? We already spend more than most basketball programs, wouldn't this in theory allow us to spend even more?

Also, how does Title IX play into this? If the BCS schools are going to start increasing spending on their men's sports, wouldn't they have to equally spend on women's sports? It may keep them from spending as much as we think.

[brandx]

Some of the ideas make sense. The example of the Minnesota wrestler losing his eligibility because he used his name on some music he was making is ridiculous. ?

The "permissable" legislation worries me. It seems like a nice way of saying that "we want the rich to be able to spend more than the poor schools." What little competitive balance remains in college athletics will be destroyed. The same core group of 20-30 schools will dominate every single year in their respective marquis sport.
But if all 65 BCS schools are for this rule change, wouldn't it be pretty easy to change the rule within the NCAA? I honestly don't understand how the NCAA works. This seems like a pretty large voting block, I'd imagine they'd be able to summon up the votes to get this thing passed. Am I missing something
Would MU benefit from this? We already spend more than most basketball programs, wouldn't this in theory allow us to spend even more?

Also, how does Title IX play into this? If the BCS schools are going to start increasing spending on their men's sports, wouldn't they have to equally spend on women's sports? It may keep them from spending as much as we think.

Of course, they could affect that change within the confines of the NCAA, but that is not what these conferences want to do. They want to be separate from the "lower" schools. As always, just follow the $$$.

Paying players doesn't bother these schools at all. They have money trees in their backyards. The costs will be passed on and the schools will make even more $$$.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Of course, they could affect that change within the confines of the NCAA, but that is not what these conferences want to do. They want to be separate from the "lower" schools. As always, just follow the $$$.

Paying players doesn't bother these schools at all. They have money trees in their backyards. The costs will be passed on and the schools will make even more $$$.

I didn't read these demands as a separation. They want the autonomy to make certain decisions themselves. They want to stay in the NCAA but want some of the NCAA's powers. Kind of like the state governments wanting to take some of the federal government's powers

[brandx]

I didn't read these demands as a separation. They want the autonomy to make certain decisions themselves. They want to stay in the NCAA but want some of the NCAA's powers. Kind of like the state governments wanting to take some of the federal government's powers

Maybe separation was the wrong word - but I look at autonomy as a type of separation. Meaning they will do what they want to do and the other schools can follow suit or not. The big schools don't really care.

[The Equalizer]

Maybe separation was the wrong word - but I look at autonomy as a type of separation. Meaning they will do what they want to do and the other schools can follow suit or not. The big schools don't really care.

Oh, they absolutely care.   They don't want the smaller schools to follow suit.

Think about it.  Right now, the big schools have to share a $10.8 Billion contract for NCAA basketball among 345 D1 teams.

Their underlying thought is that they can separate from the low-majors of the NCAA, they can get that same money, but only have to split it 65 ways. 

The way they weed out the bottom feeders is to make it cost prohibitive for them to compete.

[Aughnanure]

Oh, they absolutely care.   They don't want the smaller schools to follow suit.

Think about it.  Right now, the big schools have to share a $10.8 Billion contract for NCAA basketball among 345 D1 teams.

Their underlying thought is that they can separate from the low-majors of the NCAA, they can get that same money, but only have to split it 65 ways. 

The way they weed out the bottom feeders is to make it cost prohibitive for them to compete.

If they restrict it to 65 teams, there  won't be a $10 billion contract to split. If they kill March Madness they will never get it back.

[brandx]

If they restrict it to 65 teams, there  won't be a $10 billion contract to split. If they kill March Madness they will never get it back.

Absolutely correct

[Benny B]

Oh, they absolutely care.   They don't want the smaller schools to follow suit.

Think about it.  Right now, the big schools have to share a $10.8 Billion contract for NCAA basketball among 345 D1 teams.

Their underlying thought is that they can separate from the low-majors of the NCAA, they can get that same money, but only have to split it 65 ways. 

The way they weed out the bottom feeders is to make it cost prohibitive for them to compete.

How about the internet?  The internet has lots of money.  Let's get some of that internet money.

[Spotcheck Billy]

How about the internet?  The internet has lots of money.  Let's get some of that internet money.

bitcoins anyone?

[ChicosBailBonds]

If they restrict it to 65 teams, there  won't be a $10 billion contract to split. If they kill March Madness they will never get it back.

They don't have to.  You guys are thinking about it incorrectly.

If they get special exceptions to spend more per student athlete, etc, etc it will likely yield better recruits, better teams.  Those that compete today with those schools, will have a harder time to do so.  As a result, what happens?  Well, instead of the Big 5 conferences getting 28 bids like they got this year, maybe that number becomes 35 or 37 (depending on expansion).  They can't get them all because of auto qualifiers, but they can eat up a ton more.  Those that aren't in the power leagues that still manage to get to the NCAA, weaker than ever have even less chance to advance far because they cannot out recruit those that have the special privilege to spend more dollars since they have the means to do so.

They won't kill the contract, they don't have to.  That contract does, however, have an end date.


Be careful what you wish for gents, some of you just might get it.

[mu03eng]

They don't have to.  You guys are thinking about it incorrectly.

If they get special exceptions to spend more per student athlete, etc, etc it will likely yield better recruits, better teams.  Those that compete today with those schools, will have a harder time to do so.  As a result, what happens?  Well, instead of the Big 5 conferences getting 28 bids like they got this year, maybe that number becomes 35 or 37 (depending on expansion).  They can't get them all because of auto qualifiers, but they can eat up a ton more.  Those that aren't in the power leagues that still manage to get to the NCAA, weaker than ever have even less chance to advance far because they cannot out recruit those that have the special privilege to spend more dollars since they have the means to do so.

They won't kill the contract, they don't have to.  That contract does, however, have an end date.


Be careful what you wish for gents, some of you just might get it.

You say this as if more "money" means a better product.  The "haves" already have a ton of competitive advantages over the "have nots", it's not like this is going to swing the pendulum that much further.  Also when it comes to the committee they are still going to take a small school with a better record and/or better RPI than a money school with a lesser resume.

For your scenario to make sense you would have to see a concentration of talent at the have schools that has been going the opposite direction in the last 10 years.  Basically you are saying that this plan would give the have schools to get all the talent, I just don't think that's realistic.  Again if more money produced a better product we'd all be driving DeLoreans

[ChicosBailBonds]

You say this as if more "money" means a better product.  The "haves" already have a ton of competitive advantages over the "have nots", it's not like this is going to swing the pendulum that much further.  Also when it comes to the committee they are still going to take a small school with a better record and/or better RPI than a money school with a lesser resume.

For your scenario to make sense you would have to see a concentration of talent at the have schools that has been going the opposite direction in the last 10 years.  Basically you are saying that this plan would give the have schools to get all the talent, I just don't think that's realistic.  Again if more money produced a better product we'd all be driving DeLoreans

More money definitely doesn't always mean a better product...see schools in the United States.

However, this is about recruitment of talent, not building a better widget.  If school A can now suddenly offer an extra $7K in value directly to a school vs school B, does School A have a better shot to get that recruit?  Not always, but I suspect the data will show a lean in that direction.

The haves do have a competitive advantage, but not in this specific area.  That's the main difference. If you marginalize the schools that have helped to spread that talent around to other schools it means it has to go somewhere, right?  Presumably back to those have programs.  There will be a built in separation.  It doesn't mean MU or Creighton elect not to participate, they probably do.  Your next level of schools (Indiana State, Western Michigan, Eastern Illinois, etc) can't play in that game.  They start to drop further as more talent accrues with the haves, the next rung has to go deeper to get their recruits, so on and so forth. 

Just my opinion, but in my experiences with recruiting and what makes kids pick one school over another, this kind of stuff will matter.

[Nukem2]

More money definitely doesn't always mean a better product...see schools in the United States.

However, this is about recruitment of talent, not building a better widget.  If school A can now suddenly offer an extra $7K in value directly to a school vs school B, does School A have a better shot to get that recruit?  Not always, but I suspect the data will show a lean in that direction.

The haves do have a competitive advantage, but not in this specific area.  That's the main difference. If you marginalize the schools that have helped to spread that talent around to other schools it means it has to go somewhere, right?  Presumably back to those have programs.  There will be a built in separation.  It doesn't mean MU or Creighton elect not to participate, they probably do.  Your next level of schools (Indiana State, Western Michigan, Eastern Illinois, etc) can't play in that game.  They start to drop further as more talent accrues with the haves, the next rung has to go deeper to get their recruits, so on and so forth. 

Just my opinion, but in my experiences with recruiting and what makes kids pick one school over another, this kind of stuff will matter.

Agree.  Leagues beyond the BE, AAC and maybe the A10 and Mtn West are just going to be further behind in recruiting. 

[brandx]

They already are. There are a limited number of slots available and the big schools are already filling their needs.

[Nukem2]

They already are. There are a limited number of slots available and the big schools are already filling their needs.

But the Texas Tech's, Northwesterns, ole Miss, Penn States, etc are gonna gobble up the better ones they are not getting now.

[brandx]

They don't have to.  You guys are thinking about it incorrectly.

If they get special exceptions to spend more per student athlete, etc, etc it will likely yield better recruits, better teams.  Those that compete today with those schools, will have a harder time to do so.  As a result, what happens?  Well, instead of the Big 5 conferences getting 28 bids like they got this year, maybe that number becomes 35 or 37 (depending on expansion).  They can't get them all because of auto qualifiers, but they can eat up a ton more.  Those that aren't in the power leagues that still manage to get to the NCAA, weaker than ever have even less chance to advance far because they cannot out recruit those that have the special privilege to spend more dollars since they have the means to do so.

They won't kill the contract, they don't have to.  That contract does, however, have an end date.


Be careful what you wish for gents, some of you just might get it.

Change is good, Chicos! Don't be afraid of it

[mu03eng]

But the Texas Tech's, Northwesterns, ole Miss, Penn States, etc are gonna gobble up the better ones they are not getting now.

Again, assuming a migration in talent.  I don't know that there will be enough that the talent will migrate.  

[mu03eng]

Change is good, Chicos! Don't be afraid of it

There is profit in chaos

[brandx]

But the Texas Tech's, Northwesterns, ole Miss, Penn States, etc are gonna gobble up the better ones they are not getting now.

Penn State never had a problem getting great recruiting classes until the scandal. Northwestern was limited by Academics.

Most good players from mid-majors or small schools that get drafted by the NFL are there not because the smaller school out-recruited the big guys - but because those players weren't sought after by the big schools. Some players physically develop later than others.

[mu03eng]

Penn State never had a problem getting great recruiting classes until the scandal. Northwestern was limited by Academics.

Most good players from mid-majors or small schools that get drafted by the NFL are there not because the smaller school out-recruited the big guys - but because those players weren't sought after by the big schools. Some players physically develop later than others.

Penn State basketball has been terrible for years, they've never had a "good" recruiting class.  And the scandal was football and had nothing to with the basketball program.  And Penn State football currently has a top 5 recruiting class in football....but other than that I think you're spot on 

[brandx]

Penn State basketball has been terrible for years, they've never had a "good" recruiting class.  And the scandal was football and had nothing to with the basketball program.  And Penn State football currently has a top 5 recruiting class in football....but other than that I think you're spot on 

Cuz you never could have guessed I was talking about football

[Spotcheck Billy]

At this time its for the big 5 conferences only
http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/2014/04/24/sec-acc-big-big-ten-pac-get/8135289/

[mu03eng]

Cuz you never could have guessed I was talking about football

Yeah, but then what was your point, you were wrong talking about Penn State football recruiting.  They have never fallen out of the top 30 in recruiting classes in the last 5 years and you have to go back to the dark days of Paterno (1999-2003) to find a recruiting class lower than 30.

I think we agree that this won't separate the haves and have nots more....I'm just not sure what your point was in making the statement to prove it.