NCAA Board Vote

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

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?

[Atticus]

“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?

[GGGG]

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.

[Atticus]

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...   

[Atticus]

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....

[GGGG]

$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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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."

[Class71]

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.

[muwarrior69]

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?

[keefe]

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.

 

[MuMark]

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

[Tums Festival]

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

[keefe]

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

Did she announce this from the Food Court at Ikea?

[MarquetteDano]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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

[moomoo]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[moomoo]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[MarquetteDano]

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).  

[mu03eng]

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.

[Spotcheck Billy]

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".