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

[Aughnanure]

Looks like the "power" conferences want some special treatment.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for-change-this-week

[Groin_pull]

Looks like the "power" conferences want some special treatment.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for-change-this-week

Seems like they already get plenty of special treatment.

[brandx]

Sounds like they (Big 5 conferences) are offering everything the players would want from a union. Too bad they couldn't have done it without being threatened first.

[GGGG]

I love these ideas frankly, and I hope the BE schools take the step to join this group.

[Sunbelt15]

I love these ideas frankly, and I hope the BE schools take the step to join this group.

Just think, if this would have happen three years earlier, the BE would have been included automatically. Damn!

[GoldenWarrior11]

This would really be devastating to UCONN - as they would A) be left out from the big boy table (SEC, BIG, Big XII, PAC-12, ACC), B) not be able to spend the same on athletic stipends as them and C) not be able to play any of the P5 (as it sounds they just want to play each other).

Would they be, effectively, forced to drop down football in order to protect their basketball program?  I would have to imagine the Big East would be thrilled to get them back in the fold.

[The Equalizer]

I love these ideas frankly, and I hope the BE schools take the step to join this group.

You hope they launch football programs? Because that's the only way the BE schools would ever join this group--and even then they might not be accepted.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

This would really be devastating to UCONN - as they would A) be left out from the big boy table (SEC, BIG, Big XII, PAC-12, ACC), B) not be able to spend the same on athletic stipends as them and C) not be able to play any of the P5 (as it sounds they just want to play each other).

Would they be, effectively, forced to drop down football in order to protect their basketball program?  I would have to imagine the Big East would be thrilled to get them back in the fold.

I read it differently.  I read it as setting a $ floor for NCAA membership, but permissable to spend more $ up to a set amount determined by those at the big boy table.  Meaning they planned to spend the Big Boy amount and everyone else well would have a choice whether to spend the same or stick to the min.  

[GGGG]

You hope they launch football programs? Because that's the only way the BE schools would ever join this group--and even then they might not be accepted.

You aren't reading it correctly.  This group isn't breaking away from D1.  They are asking permission to offer higher value scholarships, have agent involvement, etc.  If other schools want to join them, that is fine.  (But my guess is that it is a conference based decision.)

For instance, here is a quote from the article, including a comment.  It specifically says that anything adopted by this group "may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution's respective discretion, or as determined by its conference."

Permissive legislation -- Designed to allow permissive use of resources by any member to advance the legitimate educational or athletics-related needs of student-athletes. Under this proposed governance model, permissive legislation that is developed and adopted among these institutions and conferences may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution's respective discretion, or as determined by its conference.

Comment: "Permissive" is a key code word here. NCAA officials have chosen it instead of "optional." If Idaho can't afford the full cost of attendance, then that's fine. A lot of this legislation will be optional. The thinking being, that if Idaho (just an example) can't afford a $6,000 cost of attendance bump like Ohio State, that's OK. That doesn't affect how they compete on the field.

[GGGG]

I read it differently.  I read it as setting a $ floor for NCAA membership, but permissable to spend more $ up to a set amount determined by those at the big boy table.  Meaning they planned to spend the Big Boy amount and everyone else well would have a choice whether to spend the same or stick to the min. 

That is *exactly* what it says and you said it better than I did.

[TJ]

This looks very promising.  I'm hoping that meaningful positive reform comes from it and all of the nastiness can be left behind.  The only reason the "litigious environment" exists is because the NCAA has thus far been clinging to the status quo.  It's refreshing to see an institution try to proactively address the challenges facing them.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This looks very promising.  I'm hoping that meaningful positive reform comes from it and all of the nastiness can be left behind.  The only reason the "litigious environment" exists is because the universities that make up the membership NCAA has tried to keep the playing field even thus far been clinging to the status quo.  This will create a larger gap of the haves and the have nots as many schools that currently are capable of playing along with the big boys will be bypassed by recruits as the playing field is tilted further.  It's refreshing to see an institution try to proactively address the challenges facing them.  Be careful what you wish for

I fixed it for you

[MUSF]

Just think, if this would have happen three years earlier, the BE would have been included automatically. Damn!

Nope, there's no way the BE gets included on that list with the albatross of small bball only schools hanging around their neck.

[ThatDude]

Nope, there's no way the BE gets included on that list with the albatross of small bball only schools hanging around their neck.

+100

Its all about football

[TJ]

I fixed it for you

No, you fixed it for you.

And let me just say, we've all heard you repeatedly say that the NCAA = the institutions that comprise the NCAA.  You can stop telling us every time.  From now on, please assume that any time I use the term NCAA I am referring to "the universities that make up the membership".  Thank you

[Benny B]

+100

Its all about football

Actually, TV contracts are all about football.  Autonomy has nothing to do with TV contracts.

[77ncaachamps]

Capitalism!

Gotta love it!

[ChicosBailBonds]

No, you fixed it for you.

And let me just say, we've all heard you repeatedly say that the NCAA = the institutions that comprise the NCAA.  You can stop telling us every time.  From now on, please assume that any time I use the term NCAA I am referring to "the universities that make up the membership".  Thank you

In your case, I will....unfortunately you can tell by the context in which others use the NCAA here they have zero clue what the institution is or how it works. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Capitalism!

Gotta love it!

Capitalism is great for many things....not so great for sports.

[Tugg Speedman]

Capitalism is great for many things....not so great for sports.

Why not?  What do you think sports are trying to accomplish?

[Dawson Rental]

Capitalism is great for many things....not so great for sports.

Then the BCS conferences should not have embraced it so completely.  All through the conference realignments, I said that the BCS schools were setting themselves up for much increased costs as they made a grab for more and more increases in revenue.  These five conferences seem to think that if they get in front of it they can limit increases in the costs of maintaining student-athletes.  I believe that they are mistaken.  We shall see.  As the revenues increase, the expectations of the student-athletes (not my term) will increase, and very likely public sentiment for the student-athlete, as well. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why not?  What do you think sports are trying to accomplish?

The chance to compete and win.  In business, you compete and win or you go out of business.  In sports, you compete and if you can't win you still field a team year after year after year but with few prospects of winning because of the inherent advantages that teams in bigger markets, better television deals, etc will have.

Depends what you want out of sports.  Personally, I think the NFL is #1 sport in this country because it treats tiny little Green Bay the same as the New York Giants.  Everyone has the same amount of money, now draft wisely, use your money wisely, prove you are the best by given the same pool of resources and it will make the league better.

Not the case for business because that stifles innovation, etc, but with sports...yes.  IMO.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Then the BCS conferences should not have embraced it so completely.  All through the conference realignments, I said that the BCS schools were setting themselves up for much increased costs as they made a grab for more and more increases in revenue.  These five conferences seem to think that if they get in front of it they can limit increases in the costs of maintaining student-athletes.  I believe that they are mistaken.  We shall see.  As the revenues increase, the expectations of the student-athletes (not my term) will increase, and very likely public sentiment for the student-athlete, as well. 

I'm not sure I agree with your opinion on why these conferences are embracing it.  In my view they know they have the resources to spend and don't want the smaller, have nots telling them they can't in the name of an equal playing field.  So they want the ability to spend more and give that same right to smaller schools knowing full well they can't.  This way they don't come off as the "bad guy", but the further separation of the haves vs the have nots will grow.  They know revenues are going to increase because the tv deals have escalators built into them until 2024 in many cases.  That's revenue they know is coming home.

Ultimately, this will create such an imbalance you will likely see a super division or schools in current DI move down.  Unfortunate.

[MUSF]

Capitalism is great for many things....not so great for sports.

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.

[Dawson Rental]

I'm not sure I agree with your opinion on why these conferences are embracing it.  In my view they know they have the resources to spend and don't want the smaller, have nots telling them they can't in the name of an equal playing field.  So they want the ability to spend more and give that same right to smaller schools knowing full well they can't.  This way they don't come off as the "bad guy", but the further separation of the haves vs the have nots will grow.  They know revenues are going to increase because the tv deals have escalators built into them until 2024 in many cases.  That's revenue they know is coming home.

Ultimately, this will create such an imbalance you will likely see a super division or schools in current DI move down.  Unfortunate.

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?