Someone who knows more than I do: should Marquette fans be pleased by the NCAA's decisions to allow the 5 power conference make up their own legislation or nervous? Part of me thinks this is the first step towards the dissolution of the NCAA, but the other part thinks that this will allow college football programs to maximize $$$ without screwing everything up for the other sports.
I'm not an expert, but some of the things the power 5 want to legislate are cost-of-attendance stipends, insurance, four year scholarship guarantees and allowances for players' families to attend postseason tournaments. If these items only apply to players under scholarship to a power 5 school, wouldn't that make their scholarships more valuable and create an even greater imbalance? Maybe/hopefully the BE can be the basketball exception and and can somehow be grouped with them.
http://johngasaway.com/2014/08/07/more-powerful-power-conferences-wont-change-hoops-much/ (http://johngasaway.com/2014/08/07/more-powerful-power-conferences-wont-change-hoops-much/)
More powerful power conferences won't change hoops (much)
"...Outside the "big five" conferences there is a very small number of programs that choose to play in the sandbox where head coaches compete annually for top-100 talent. That list would include the top half of the current Big East, along with the likes of Connecticut, Memphis, UNLV, BYU, Gonzaga, San Diego State, New Mexico, and VCU. And that's about it. Most of these schools will likely look to "opt in" to offering their athletes the same kind of grants-in-aid that players receive in the power conferences. In other words this entire discussion concerns what the top 19 percent of schools will do with regard to their athletes — and how the one percent of schools just on the other side of that boundary will respond."
Quote from: El Guerrero on August 07, 2014, 12:19:41 PM
Someone who knows more than I do: should Marquette fans be pleased by the NCAA's decisions to allow the 5 power conference make up their own legislation or nervous? Part of me thinks this is the first step towards the dissolution of the NCAA, but the other part thinks that this will allow college football programs to maximize $$$ without screwing everything up for the other sports.
In the short run, this likely delayed the dissolution of the NCAA. If the Power 5 weren't given these abilities, I have no doubt that they would have started the process of leaving the NCAA. This gives them additional powers without the need to recreate the organization.
Is it good? Bad? I don't know. I mean I am all for giving student athletes enhanced scholarships. And I fundamentally understand why Power 5 programs feel that they deserve more of a say.
I suppose it depends on how the BE voting is set up. My understanding i that the BE would have to "opt-in" as a conference instead of allowing individual schools to make the decision. I seem to recall that the BE was in favor of some of the changes, anyways. However, I cant imagine schools like Seton Hall and DePaul are happy to spend more money on athletics when they dont have much to begin with. To keep up with the increased costs of funding athletics and to keep up wit the P5, I'd suspect some BE programs will have to pull funds from elsewhere (coaches salaries, recruiting budgets) just to be able to offer what all the P5 schools offer scholarship kids.
Quote from: Atticus on August 07, 2014, 01:15:55 PM
I suppose it depends on how the BE voting is set up. My understanding i that the BE would have to "opt-in" as a conference instead of allowing individual schools to make the decision. I seem to recall that the BE was in favor of some of the changes, anyways. However, I cant imagine schools like Seton Hall and DePaul are happy to spend more money on athletics when they dont have much to begin with. To keep up with the increased costs of funding athletics and to keep up wit the P5, I'd suspect some BE programs will have to pull funds from elsewhere (coaches salaries, recruiting budgets) just to be able to offer what all the P5 schools offer scholarship kids.
Seton Hall AD Pat Lyons: Big East will do what it takes to keep up with Power Five
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/sports/high-school/basketball/nj-hoops-haven/2014/08/07/seton-hall-ad-pat-lyons-big-east-will-do-what-it-takes-to-keep-up/13725349/ (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/sports/high-school/basketball/nj-hoops-haven/2014/08/07/seton-hall-ad-pat-lyons-big-east-will-do-what-it-takes-to-keep-up/13725349/)
Q: So you think the Big East will opt-in to the stipends and other Power Five reforms?
"I'd be very surprised if we don't do what the best conferences, the Big Five, do. That's who we believe our competition is, who we want to be around."
"We want to be the best basketball conference in the country, and we're not going to do anything that's puts us at a disadvantage in that respect."
Q. So schools like Iona are going to be under a lot of financial pressure if the cost-of-attendance and other reforms that require more spending trickle down to the mid-major level.
"People have said this is going to hurt the so-called Olympic sports the most. Sports are going to get dropped. You have to decide where you're going to put your resources."
"At a Big East school, if the new rules say you have to infuse another $100,000 or so into your basketball programs, Big East schools are going to figure that out. A school at the mid-major level, that's not easy to figure out. You have to go back over things and say, 'Where are we going to get this?'
"Things are going to be cut, and you're not going to take away from basketball because that's what brings you the most notoriety."
Quote from: Atticus on August 07, 2014, 01:15:55 PM
I suppose it depends on how the BE voting is set up. My understanding i that the BE would have to "opt-in" as a conference instead of allowing individual schools to make the decision. I seem to recall that the BE was in favor of some of the changes, anyways. However, I cant imagine schools like Seton Hall and DePaul are happy to spend more money on athletics when they dont have much to begin with. To keep up with the increased costs of funding athletics and to keep up wit the P5, I'd suspect some BE programs will have to pull funds from elsewhere (coaches salaries, recruiting budgets) just to be able to offer what all the P5 schools offer scholarship kids.
Who cares what DePaul thinks/wants?? I have said it for a few years now...they need to drop out of Division 1...period. That's how they operate, so that's how they should proceed.
Yeah, as long as MU and the other Big East teams follow suit and match the Power 5 it shouldn't be that big a deal. In fact things will likely return to the 60s, 70s, and 80s where all the "talent" was going to the power schools.
With the advent of television contracts galore and MAC schools being on tv for all their games, etc. a player didn't need a "power" school to get media attention and in fact it was better to go to a smaller school for the middling talents because of the availability of playing time.
Now, the Power 5 will restore a value differentiation in scholarships between them and the lower level schools. It means you will likely see less dispersal of talent among the schools and much more concentration at the top schools. Back to the days of a player who could be an All-American at a smaller school being a back up at a big school.
Not saying if its good or bad, just what it functionally ends up causing.
Not an attorney but the web the NCAA is weaving may give many opportunities for not so privileged schools and players to challenge some of these new rules.
Quote from: El Guerrero on August 07, 2014, 12:19:41 PM
Someone who knows more than I do: should Marquette fans be pleased by the NCAA's decisions to allow the 5 power conference make up their own legislation or nervous? Part of me thinks this is the first step towards the dissolution of the NCAA, but the other part thinks that this will allow college football programs to maximize $$$ without screwing everything up for the other sports.
Let's put to rest the dissolution of the NCAA, it is not happening. The money for the NCAA basketball tournament is tied directly to the NCAA, not anyone else. It goes well into the 2020's. Think of this as another division without actually creating another division, though also note it isn't a done deal yet. It can be overturned if enough DI schools try to block it. If I recall, the number is 70 or 75ish.
The nervous part comes from the recruiting angle. If MU and other schools, primilarily Big East schools, want to go toe to toe in recruiting, they will have to match what the Power 5 schools are going to offer. That's more money that will need to be spent. MU already on record the last 5 years of not wanting 4 year scholarships. MU lost that vote. Will MU and other schools continue to play ball in this slightly new world order? Likely, but it will come at a cost.
Quote from: Class71 on August 07, 2014, 01:29:34 PM
Not an attorney but the web the NCAA is weaving may give many opportunities for not so privileged schools and players to challenge some of these new rules.
I wouldn't be surprised to see challenges...but there have always been costs to being a D-I school. Not so long ago, there were far fewer D-I schools because of this. When those schools saw the revenue potential in the move up to D-I, quite a few balanced the cost vs. the possible benefit, and spent the money to move up. This will basically cause them to do that again...with the likely consequence that the balance between D-I and D-II/III will shift back towards where it used to be.
In the end, it seems like the same-old same-old. Potential revenues get higher, so costs of sharing in the revenues gets higher as well.
From ESPN.om: If 75 schools from outside the Power Five vote to override the autonomy legislation in the next 60 days, the measures would be sent back to the board of directors for further consideration. But NCAA officials don't expect that to happen. Power Five commissioners have made veiled threats about breaking off to form their own division if autonomy fails.
I wonder if the BEast CAN follow suit so easily as that same article states only the Power 5 were granted that right: The NCAA Board of Governors' vote to grant autonomy Thursday to the five biggest revenue-producing FBS conferences and Notre Dame should be remembered as a historic day in intercollegiate athletics. On this day, the NCAA voted that the strong shall inherit the earth.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on August 07, 2014, 02:12:14 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see challenges..
Legal challenges? I doubt it. They are voluntary members of an organization and therefore agreed to be subject to its governing structure.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 07, 2014, 01:57:35 PM
Let's put to rest the dissolution of the NCAA, it is not happening. The money for the NCAA basketball tournament is tied directly to the NCAA, not anyone else.
Yeah I would like to see what outs CBS has if the NCAA is significantly changed if the Power 5 drop out.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 07, 2014, 02:25:48 PM
Yeah I would like to see what outs CBS has if the NCAA is significantly changed if the Power 5 drop out.
I doubt they change the NCAA tournament. I don't think they would come close to the amount of money if they took out the Cinderellas. The Dukes of the world need the Mercers, at least to sell the first two days.
Out of curiosity, does this have any implications for the NCAA tournament? It wouldn't be restricted to P5(6) teams, right?
Edit - and that's what i get for not reading the new posts after I started typing my response
If the Big East wants to play with the power 5, it'll have to pay. I think the BE has enough desire and resources to do just that (thank you Fox Sports). This may also bring expansion up as a topic again if some hoops only schools out there don't want to be considered second-tier.
Quote from: MUDPT on August 07, 2014, 02:37:56 PM
I doubt they change the NCAA tournament. I don't think they would come close to the amount of money if they took out the Cinderellas. The Dukes of the world need the Mercers, at least to sell the first two days.
Very likely yes. Which is one of the reasons that the Power 5 isn't going to leave the NCAA. But if they weren't given this flexibility, and made the decision to leave the NCAA, my guess is that they would still have gotten a very hefty check by the likes of ESPN to host a 32 team national championship tournament.
I am not worried about the Big East. They will change to keep up and it is a lot less costly to do so for schools that do not have football. On the plus side maybe division one will shrink from 330+ schools to something less than 300.
Here is a good summary of what the legislation entails.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/06/sports/ncaa-autonomy-translation.html?_r=0
Quote from: MUDPT on August 07, 2014, 02:37:56 PM
I doubt they change the NCAA tournament. I don't think they would come close to the amount of money if they took out the Cinderellas. The Dukes of the world need the Mercers, at least to sell the first two days.
Unless things change, there are no outs. We were bidders for the last tournament, before CBS and Turner combined on their deal. The money goes to the NCAA without anything in there talking about if the makeup of DI was radically changed. That being said, those were request for proposals and actual contract language may be something different, though if I were the NCAA I would made it absolutely conditional to the rights purchaser that the money goes to the NCAA in Indianapolis, and not anywhere else. The only protection would be a complete dissolution of the NCAA D1, which isn't going to happen. That type of protection would be in there, but not if some schools spun off. At least not in the bidding process.
In looking at the Seton Hall comments, absolutely Olympic Sports are going to get hurt as mentioned here many times. I know some of you don't give a rat's behind about Olympic sports, but to me that is sad. Great opportunities for young men and young women will be removed which I don't see as a good thing.
Quote from: madhouse on August 07, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
From ESPN.om: If 75 schools from outside the Power Five vote to override the autonomy legislation in the next 60 days, the measures would be sent back to the board of directors for further consideration. But NCAA officials don't expect that to happen. Power Five commissioners have made veiled threats about breaking off to form their own division if autonomy fails.
I wonder if the BEast CAN follow suit so easily as that same article states only the Power 5 were granted that right: The NCAA Board of Governors' vote to grant autonomy Thursday to the five biggest revenue-producing FBS conferences and Notre Dame should be remembered as a historic day in intercollegiate athletics. On this day, the NCAA voted that the strong shall inherit the earth.
Technically, but since they granted it to the Big 5, other conferences or school need to merely apply to be granted the same provisions. If not, the non-power conference schools would band together to kill the legislation. Quid Pro Quo
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 07, 2014, 03:13:37 PM
Unless things change, there are no outs. We were bidders for the last tournament, before CBS and Turner combined on their deal. The money goes to the NCAA without anything in there talking about if the makeup of DI was radically changed. That being said, those were request for proposals and actual contract language may be something different, though if I were the NCAA I would made it absolutely conditional to the rights purchaser that the money goes to the NCAA in Indianapolis, and not anywhere else. The only protection would be a complete dissolution of the NCAA D1, which isn't going to happen. That type of protection would be in there, but not if some schools spun off. At least not in the bidding process.
In looking at the Seton Hall comments, absolutely Olympic Sports are going to get hurt as mentioned here many times. I know some of you don't give a rat's behind about Olympic sports, but to me that is sad. Great opportunities for young men and young women will be removed which I don't see as a good thing.
Some olympic sports might, some might not, or none will be hurt. This definitely becomes a decision point for schools whether they want sports to be revenue generators or not. If yes, they are going to have to put more funds forward at the expense of olympic sports potentially. If no, than all will stay as it is.
I wouldn't go doom and gloom on the non-revenue sports because of this.
I don't understand the logic of this new legislation.
So the power 5 can now provide additional incentives to athletes, presumably to gain a recruiting advantage.
Their main competitors will all have the same equivalent recruiting advantage as the power 5 and other leading conferences will follow suit.
By providing additional incentives to football and basketball, they also have to provide the same benefits to all other scholarship athletes per Title IX. So they are going to incur substantially more costs or remove a lot of olympic sports.
All this for a recruiting advantage that will not actually materialize.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 07, 2014, 03:36:44 PM
Some olympic sports might, some might not, or none will be hurt. This definitely becomes a decision point for schools whether they want sports to be revenue generators or not. If yes, they are going to have to put more funds forward at the expense of olympic sports potentially. If no, than all will stay as it is.
I wouldn't go doom and gloom on the non-revenue sports because of this.
I'm dealing in the reality. If one school makes that choice, it is less opportunities and certainly more than one school will make that decision. Will it be epic armageddon? Depends how that is defined, but there will be lost opportunities, even from some of the major programs. UCLA, Cal, Wisconsin, etc have all had to drop sports, some even nationally ranked top 10 sports, for various reasons (Title IX, resource allocation, etc) over the years. This will only push others out the door. What I'm trying to understand is who benefits in all this? Seems the basketball and football players on the plantation that have it so bad will get it a little better. As a result, does this mean we can expect better football and basketball? Better performance in the classroom, out of the classroom?
Rest assured, some sports will be dropped and opportunities will be further limited. It's a pure financial decision and the math won't work.
Quote from: forgetful on August 07, 2014, 03:50:34 PM
I don't understand the logic of this new legislation.
So the power 5 can now provide additional incentives to athletes, presumably to gain a recruiting advantage.
Their main competitors will all have the same equivalent recruiting advantage as the power 5 and other leading conferences will follow suit.
By providing additional incentives to football and basketball, they also have to provide the same benefits to all other scholarship athletes per Title IX. So they are going to incur substantially more costs or remove a lot of olympic sports.
All this for a recruiting advantage that will not actually materialize.
It is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is to put further separation from those in the next rung, but it also puts pressure on those in the Power 5 to pull up the bottom feeders in those conferences. To what extent it goes, we shall see.
The Title IX stuff is unknown. I spoke to a few experts on this last week and got vastly different opinions on it. From total anarchy to there's nothing wrong with and NOW, etc will have to pound sand. Imagine that, attorneys disagreeing strongly on the same issue. ;)
I wonder if any smaller schools in the Power 5 like a Wake Forest would end up dropping football and jumping conferences because of the increased costs this will bring them?
Quote from: MtAiryGoldenEagle on August 07, 2014, 01:21:38 PM
"People have said this is going to hurt the so-called Olympic sports the most. Sports are going to get dropped. You have to decide where you're going to put your resources."
"At a Big East school, if the new rules say you have to infuse another $100,000 or so into your basketball programs, Big East schools are going to figure that out. A school at the mid-major level, that's not easy to figure out. You have to go back over things and say, 'Where are we going to get this?'
"Things are going to be cut, and you're not going to take away from basketball because that's what brings you the most notoriety."
Exactly my point. Seton Hall works with an extremely limited budget. The budget just got thinner. Sure, they can take even more away from the Olympic sports...but SHU doesnt have much to take away to begin with. Is SHU good in ANY Olympic sports? Everyone needs to increase their expenditures to keep up with the P5. The BE makes very little in tv revenue. Its pretty obvious and was stated by the SHU AD in the quote above - suck resources from O-sports so bball can survive. What is the definition of "survive" for SHU given their history?
Seton Hall just got a television contract that gives them $2M more per year than it did previously. They should be able to figure it out.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 07, 2014, 04:05:45 PM
Seton Hall just got a television contract that gives them $2M more per year than it did previously. They should be able to figure it out.
$2M? Wow. I wonder if that solves the university's poor fiscal situation... ::)
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 07, 2014, 04:05:45 PM
Seton Hall just got a television contract that gives them $2M more per year than it did previously. They should be able to figure it out.
And of course, all things that happen to SHU happen in a bubble. No other school in the country improved its financial condition with regard to its athletic department budget....
Quote from: Atticus on August 07, 2014, 04:07:22 PM
$2M? Wow. I wonder if that solves the university's poor fiscal situation... ::)
If Seton Hall is maximizing the number of scholarships they offer, they have about 150 FTE in scholarships every year.
And total cost of attendance scholarships will generally be about $3,000 more than current scholarships offered. (Depends on the school...so I am making an estimate.) So that's $450,000.
And of course there are other expenditures involved with this legislation, but my guess is that the increase in television revenues more than makes up for the increased costs of this legislation. If Seton Hall has decided to spend this elsewhere, that's their issue.
And yeah they may decide to cut other sports, if they can, but they should be able to afford this.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 07, 2014, 03:52:00 PM
I'm dealing in the reality. If one school makes that choice, it is less opportunities and certainly more than one school will make that decision. Will it be epic armageddon? Depends how that is defined, but there will be lost opportunities, even from some of the major programs. UCLA, Cal, Wisconsin, etc have all had to drop sports, some even nationally ranked top 10 sports, for various reasons (Title IX, resource allocation, etc) over the years. This will only push others out the door. What I'm trying to understand is who benefits in all this? Seems the basketball and football players on the plantation that have it so bad will get it a little better. As a result, does this mean we can expect better football and basketball? Better performance in the classroom, out of the classroom?
Rest assured, some sports will be dropped and opportunities will be further limited. It's a pure financial decision and the math won't work.
Actually, that is my point, in theory football and basketball will get better. In the 60s and 70s the power schools got all the talent because their was an inherent inequity in the value of a scholarship at Alabama versus Central Michigan. However, with the explosion in television contracts the delta between those two values decreased significantly. What this legislation does is force that inequity back closer to what it was previously. This means that talent should be moving to the higher value opportunity.
This is entirely about recruiting leverage and maximizing revenue potential for the Power 5. Don't think they care one tinkers damn about the players themselves, it is merely a guise.
As far as better academic performance, it absolutely could improve it depending on how its applied. Having a stipend alone could limit or eliminate some athletes need to have a part time job, in theory giving them more time to study. However theory and implementation are never the same thing so we'll see.
The NCAA D-I BOD today voted to allow the 65 schools in the Power Five conferences to "write many of their own rules." The autonomy measures "will permit those leagues to decide on things such as cost-of-attendance stipends and insurance benefits for players, staff sizes, recruiting rules and mandatory hours spent on individual sports." The top leagues "could begin submitting their own legislation by Oct. 1 and have it enacted" at the NCAA convention in DC in January (ESPN.com, 8/7).
Under the new structure, the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC "will hold nearly twice as much voting power [37.5%] as any other group on a newly created council." The other five FBS leagues would account for 18.5%, while the FCS and non-football schools would share another 37.5% of the vote (AP, 8/7).
The AP's Ralph Russo wrote on his Twitter feed, "Autonomy gives the Big 5 the opportunity to preserve the collegiate model they so dearly want to protect. ... Other hand, autonomy protects system creating HUGE revenue, mostly for Big 5, and making college sports appear anything but collegial." CBSSports.com's Dennis Dodd: "Seeing lots of NCAA back-slapping in autonomy. Let's remember we're here b/c $2K stipend was voted down in '11. Power 5 then took over." USA Today's Dan Wolken: "There were two votes against autonomy – Phil Hanlon representing the Ivy League and Patrick Harker representing the Colonial."
(http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/autonomy.png)
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 07, 2014, 02:24:34 PM
Legal challenges? I doubt it. They are voluntary members of an organization and therefore agreed to be subject to its governing structure.
Try another industry, would you use the same logic?
Does the NCAA restrict trade, does it have some monopolistic characteristics, will it show preferential treatment to some members, place specific limits on what players (employees) can do outside the NCAA, limit player benefits?
Is the NCAA a trade association? If so why can they make rules that other corporate trade associations can not? How do they differ? If not a trade association, what is it? Agree with the low likelihood of litigation but not so sure there are not issues here.
There are other parties involved besides the "volunteering" schools. Such as the players and the consumers (audience). Remember even the NIT is told their games must be completed prior to the NCAA finals. And for the schools, how does one school have access to some markets if there is only one game in town, the NCAA? Is belonging or not to the NCAA truly a choice or required if you want to be in the college basketball business and if so does it benefit the consumer in product choices and does it result in competitive pricing?
Just some thoughts.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 07, 2014, 03:13:37 PM
Unless things change, there are no outs. We were bidders for the last tournament, before CBS and Turner combined on their deal. The money goes to the NCAA without anything in there talking about if the makeup of DI was radically changed. That being said, those were request for proposals and actual contract language may be something different, though if I were the NCAA I would made it absolutely conditional to the rights purchaser that the money goes to the NCAA in Indianapolis, and not anywhere else. The only protection would be a complete dissolution of the NCAA D1, which isn't going to happen. That type of protection would be in there, but not if some schools spun off. At least not in the bidding process.
In looking at the Seton Hall comments, absolutely Olympic Sports are going to get hurt as mentioned here many times. I know some of you don't give a rat's behind about Olympic sports, but to me that is sad. Great opportunities for young men and young women will be removed which I don't see as a good thing.
Chicos, this is really confusing to me since many olympic athletes are supported by corporate sponsors. Are college athletes in the Olympic sports allowed sponsorship and still get a Scholarship?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 07, 2014, 07:14:00 PM
Chicos, this is really confusing to me since many olympic athletes are supported by corporate sponsors. Are college athletes in the Olympic sports allowed sponsorship and still get a Scholarship?
I read an article in the Michigan Alumni Mag about Michael Phelps. Phelps was graduated from Michigan but he was there strictly as a student. Although he made use of the training facilities at Michigan and worked out with the team he could not participate as a varsity athlete since he received endorsements for his Olympic swimming. It seems silly, and while I can't cite chapter and verse on the NCAA regulations governing this situation, he was banned from intercollegiate swimming. He was free, however, to have participated in any of the other varsity sports; his prohibition was specifically for swimming.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 07, 2014, 07:14:00 PM
Chicos, this is really confusing to me since many olympic athletes are supported by corporate sponsors. Are college athletes in the Olympic sports allowed sponsorship and still get a Scholarship?
Not if they want to continue to compete in college
Looks like the Big East is all in.
Val Ackerman Statement on New NCAA Division I Governance Structure
Statement issued by BIG EAST Commissioner Val Ackerman on the NCAA board adopting a new Division I governance structure
Aug. 7, 2014
NEW YORK – Statement issued by BIG EAST Commissioner Val Ackerman on the NCAA board adopting a new Division I governance structure:
"We believe the reasons behind the NCAA's governance redesign efforts are sound and that the new structure will better address student-athlete needs and keep college sports in step with the changing times.
"BIG EAST schools have a proud and proven tradition of excellence in intercollegiate athletics and are equipped to remain competitive in the pursuit of national championships, particularly in the sport of basketball. Although much of the governance discourse has focused on football, the importance of basketball to the NCAA cannot be overstated, and we look forward to remaining active participants in the new structure as the NCAA enters its next phase."
http://www.bigeast.com/genrel/080714aaa.html (http://www.bigeast.com/genrel/080714aaa.html)
Quote from: Heavy Gear on August 07, 2014, 08:21:20 PM
Looks like the Big East is all in.
Val Ackerman Statement on New NCAA Division I Governance Structure
Statement issued by BIG EAST Commissioner Val Ackerman on the NCAA board adopting a new Division I governance structure
Aug. 7, 2014
NEW YORK – Statement issued by BIG EAST Commissioner Val Ackerman on the NCAA board adopting a new Division I governance structure:
"We believe the reasons behind the NCAA's governance redesign efforts are sound and that the new structure will better address student-athlete needs and keep college sports in step with the changing times.
"BIG EAST schools have a proud and proven tradition of excellence in intercollegiate athletics and are equipped to remain competitive in the pursuit of national championships, particularly in the sport of basketball. Although much of the governance discourse has focused on football, the importance of basketball to the NCAA cannot be overstated, and we look forward to remaining active participants in the new structure as the NCAA enters its next phase."
http://www.bigeast.com/genrel/080714aaa.html (http://www.bigeast.com/genrel/080714aaa.html)
Did she announce this from the Food Court at Ikea?
Each year there are quite a few smaller schools that find diamonds in the rough. Many of them stay at their school for various reasons. One thing I dont like about this is: there will be even more transfers.
Kids are going to transfer because larger schools will offer more financially. It will make the David vs. Goliath all the more rare.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on August 07, 2014, 08:32:44 PM
Each year there are quite a few smaller schools that find diamonds in the rough. Many of them stay at their school for various reasons. One thing I dont like about this is: there will be even more transfers.
Kids are going to transfer because larger schools will offer more financially. It will make the David vs. Goliath all the more rare.
On the flip side it could lead to less transfers as players getting a scholarship at a larger school might be less likely to give up benefits to transfer to a smaller school. Less transfers out means there are less positions to fill at larger schools and that will make it less likely that a player will transfer in. Remember they are also talking about guaranteeing scholarships for four years instead of one year.
Quote from: bilsu on August 07, 2014, 10:50:05 PM
On the flip side it could lead to less transfers as players getting a scholarship at a larger school might be less likely to give up benefits to transfer to a smaller school. Less transfers out means there are less positions to fill at larger schools and that will make it less likely that a player will transfer in. Remember they are also talking about guaranteeing scholarships for four years instead of one year.
This was my initial thought as well
As for the additional cost of attendance that athletes will be receiving, does the university have a choice as to what particular sport receives the additional money? Do all athletes from every sport receive more, under the proposed regulations?
This will absolutely CRUSH schools that have football and are not in a power conference. They likely were already losing money and simply cannot afford this.
Since Marquette does not have football, the additional cost of this proposal really is not that impactful.
Quote from: moomoo on August 08, 2014, 07:45:31 AM
As for the additional cost of attendance that athletes will be receiving, does the university have a choice as to what particular sport receives the additional m
Within the guidelines of Title IX, yes.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 08, 2014, 07:47:52 AM
Within the guidelines of Title IX, yes.
Thanks MU. So they can offer to men's hoops, and twelve women athletes throughout all sports?
If yes, then I really don't see a big impact to Marquette. They will pay the extra 75k a year and stay competitive.
Quote from: moomoo on August 08, 2014, 07:45:31 AM
As for the additional cost of attendance that athletes will be receiving, does the university have a choice as to what particular sport receives the additional money? Do all athletes from every sport receive more, under the proposed regulations?
This will absolutely CRUSH schools that have football and are not in a power conference. They likely were already losing money and simply cannot afford this.
Since Marquette does not have football, the additional cost of this proposal really is not that impactful.
It will raise the value of all athletic scholarships on an FTE basis. For a school with a well rounded athletic program, which means about 300 FTE students on scholarship, it will cost about $1M more in scholarships alone.
That doesn't include insurance and the other provisions mentioned here.
And you are correct, the lower level FBS schools are the ones that will be harmed. And I would argue that was part of the intent.
Quote from: bilsu on August 07, 2014, 10:50:05 PM
On the flip side it could lead to less transfers as players getting a scholarship at a larger school might be less likely to give up benefits to transfer to a smaller school. Less transfers out means there are less positions to fill at larger schools and that will make it less likely that a player will transfer in. Remember they are also talking about guaranteeing scholarships for four years instead of one year.
Interesting point. This whole 4 year scholly thing tho... big schools will just tell the kid he can stay but will not be on the team taking up an athletic scholarship (use some other scholly).
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 08, 2014, 07:54:34 AM
It will raise the value of all athletic scholarships on an FTE basis. For a school with a well rounded athletic program, which means about 300 FTE students on scholarship, it will cost about $1M more in scholarships alone.
That doesn't include insurance and the other provisions mentioned here.
And you are correct, the lower level FBS schools are the ones that will be harmed. And I would argue that was part of the intent.
This is true. For others(since I'm sure you know this Sultan) most college sports don't have every athlete on a full ride, which is why Sultan uses FTE(full time equivalent). As an example, at MU, I believe the soccer team has 12 FTE scholarships and those scholarships can be "broken" up to cover more athletes. In fact, I think basketball and football are the only two sports that have every player on full scholarship. So the soccer coach can give 12 players full rides or he could give 6 players full rides and 12 players half scholarships, etc. So in theory, some cost control can be put on the increasing by managing the FTE scholarships that are available.
Will the athletes on a half scholarship only receive half of the additional benefits? How would that work for the lifetime bennies like returning to finish a degree or medical coverage let alone the $2-5K/year in 'Full cost of tuition".
Quote from: madhouse on August 08, 2014, 09:57:17 AM
Will the athletes on a half scholarship only receive half of the additional benefits? How would that work for the lifetime bennies like returning to finish a degree or medical coverage let alone the $2-5K/year in 'Full cost of tuition".
That is a good question. My *guess* is that each 1 FTE scholarship will simply be raised to "full cost of attendance" levels and that any breakdown from that will be off that new figure.
Old system: Scholarship worth $8,000. Two students get .5 scholarship...or $4,000 each.
New system: Scholarship worth $10,000. Two students get .5 scholarship...or $5,000 each.
BTW, women's basketball, gymnastics, volleyball and tennis are also "headcount sports." (ie, no partial scholarships)
Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 07, 2014, 07:14:00 PM
Chicos, this is really confusing to me since many olympic athletes are supported by corporate sponsors. Are college athletes in the Olympic sports allowed sponsorship and still get a Scholarship?
When I say Olympic sports, it is merely a catch all phrase for sports that are found in the Olympics, but doesn't mean they are Olympic athletes. It's just an older term used by those in college sports circles to define non revenue sports, typically. Those are the ones that will get cut and reduce opportunities.
As to your question, no, those athletes who are truly Olympian caliber cannot receive those benefits while on scholarship. You will see on occasion a great, young, Olympic athlete that will not attend college in order to take sponsorship dollars instead. Or, they will attend college but not be eligible to swim on their college team because they do. The reasons for this are pretty simple, the amount of abuse in the sponsorships would be a problem if they allowed it. Providing unfair recruiting advantages to those willing to grease the skids.
Incidentally, it is the 5 power conferences AND Notre Dame that have this new autonomy.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 08, 2014, 04:11:11 PM
Incidentally, it is the 5 power conferences AND Notre Dame that have this new autonomy.
And the fact they allowed Notre Dame makes it a guarantee that they have to allow any school or conference that applies to be granted the same autonomy.