1A FAR

[superman7515]

You're gonna want to read this.

http://www.oneafar.org/Governance_Proposal.pdf (http://www.oneafar.org/Governance_Proposal.pdf)

[Bogus Megapardus]

I just read that. Twice. Written by a lawyer - which means that it was written specifically for other lawyers to quibble over and for the press/general public to misunderstand. It basically says that FBS schools should become a new NCAA Division in all sports, get all the money and TV coverage, and decide for themselves when and under what circumstances they'll "allow" FCS schools to participate in NCAA championship tournament in other sports (including basketball).

After lip service to things like "integrity" and "public perception" and "student-athlete" it enhances the "full cost of attendance" initiative and calls for increased scholarship availability in non-revenue sports. It also simplifies and streamlines FBS "management" in a way that will consolidate power and eliminate dissent, and make FBS decisions independent of NCAA decisions.

A few other things too, but those seem to be the highlights.

Any time an informational letter employs no fewer than seven footnotes and uses terms like "infra" and "set forth herein" you should run for cover. Someone is trying to bulls**t you.

[AmsterBison]

II. OBJECTIVES There are a myriad of worthwhile objectives that might be served by a new Division I
governance structure. The problem is that they cannot all be achieved or at least not with equal
attention. The 1A FAR Board believes that the most critical objectives in a new governance
structure are:
(1) the perception of intercollegiate athletics in general and NCAA Division I in
particular must instill confidence that policy is adopted and problems are solved in an
efficient and timely fashion in a way that embodies the values of higher education and
the student-athlete experience;
(2) the goals and ethos of our colleges and universities must be front and center in the
consideration and adoption of policies and bylaws;
(3) those charged with implementing policies and bylaws must have substantial input in
their development and, in turn, buy-in;
(4) the FBS must be the master of its own fate, particularly with regard to matters of
enhancement of the student-athlete experience that depend on increased revenue
allocation;2
(5) presidents and chancellors must have ultimate authority for the direction of
intercollegiate athletics and the policy and bylaw goals to be achieved. (The academic
reforms over the past decade and the implementation of CAP are direct results of
president/chancellor involvement); and
(6) the simpler the governance structure the better.
As an observation, we note that any governance structure will produce negative
consequences. What we propose here, therefore, is what we believe, on balance, is the most
workable way to achieve the six objectives listed above.


Should be read as:


II. OBJECTIVES There are a myriad of worthwhile objectives that might be served by a new Division I but money is what we are about. The 1A FAR Board believes that the most critical objectives in a new governance structure are:
(1) Money;
(2) Television;
(3) A governance structure whose sole aim is to get us a more (1) and (2).

[robsnotes4u]

I just read that. Twice. Written by a lawyer - which means that it was written specifically for other lawyers to quibble over and for the press/general public to misunderstand. It basically says that FBS schools should become a new NCAA Division in all sports, get all the money and TV coverage, and decide for themselves when and under what circumstances they'll "allow" FCS schools to participate in NCAA championship tournament in other sports (including basketball).

After lip service to things like "integrity" and "public perception" and "student-athlete" it enhances the "full cost of attendance" initiative and calls for increased scholarship availability in non-revenue sports. It also simplifies and streamlines FBS "management" in a way that will consolidate power and eliminate dissent, and make FBS decisions independent of NCAA decisions.

A few other things too, but those seem to be the highlights.

Any time an informational letter employs no fewer than seven footnotes and uses terms like "infra" and "set forth herein" you should run for cover. Someone is trying to bulls**t you.

There isn't FCS in any sport besides basketball. You are a division one school or not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Bogus Megapardus]

Get a load of this pile of stink:


The 1A FAR Board believes that by-law and policy adoption by an FBS Division is likely to have some spillover effects in the rest of Division I. Although many effects might be positive, or neutral, it also is possible that some of these effects might be negative regarding student-athlete well-being in a newly configured Division I that would no longer have FBS conference members, and also in the overall health of intercollegiate athletics. Even if some consequences are negative, however, the 1A FAR Board believes that the advantages in policy, process, and perception that will be produced by a separate FBS Division will outweigh any negative consequences that might ensue.


That's preceded by (but unconnected to) this "footnote":


We cannot speak for Division I institutions and conferences that are not FBS, but we believe that removal of FBS conferences will also provide them efficiencies in discussion and policy implementation.

[RichH2]

Oft predicted here. Read it. Essentially high sounding gloss surrounding core of its our money and we want it all. We'll stay in Bball ,not to really avoid hurting NCAA ,but because we make lots of money in it.As Bogie points out devil is in the details which are seriously lacking here.

[Bogus Megapardus]

There isn't FCS in any sport besides basketball. You are a division one school or not.


The proposal separates FBS-member schools from everyone else, for all purposes and for all sports.

[RichH2]

Yes Bogie except for NCAA Bball tourney. What happens to lax,I wonder?

[Bogus Megapardus]

They presume that the administrators, faculty representatives, students and alumni of every non-FBS schools are a bunch of blithering idiots.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Yes Bogie except for NCAA Bball tourney. What happens to lax,I wonder?


The devil is in the details, Rich. It calls for a split of FBS and FCS for all purposes and for all sports; the proposal then permits the "existing championship structure" to continue in basketball (because it makes money) but the discretion will lie with the "Management Council" and not with the NCAA.

Look at footnote 5:


We know, of course, that some championships are association-wide and that, therefore, FBS championships could be restricted to the FBS in some sports and be association-wide in others. As we stated at the outset, however, we believe the best structure is the simplest one that achieves articulated objectives.

The "articulated objectives," of course, are (a) complete dominance over collegiate athletics revenue and (a) absolute decision making authority.


As for lacrosse? Under this proposal, could FCS-member schools chose to prohibit FBS-member schools from what is now called the NCAA Division I Mens Lacrosse Championship? Ponder that question for a moment, and you probably will end up with the answer to all corollaries.

[RichH2]

Probably not, just shows that they dont care what they think.You cant stop us,so we really dont care what you think.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Hi, Sun Belt! Hi, MAC! Long time no see!

[RichH2]

The devil is in the details, Rich. It calls for a split of FBS and FCS for all purposes and for all sports; the proposal then permits the "existing championship structure" to continue in basketball (because it makes money) but the discretion will lie with the "Management Council" and not with the NCAA.

Look at footnote 5:
We know, of course, that some championships are association-wide and that, therefore, FBS championships could be restricted to the FBS in some sports and be association-wide in others. As we stated at the outset, however, we believe the best structure is the simplest one that achieves articulated objectives.

The "articulated objectives," of course, are (a) complete dominance over collegiate athletics revenue and (a) absolute decision making authority.


As for lacrosse? Under this proposal, could FCS-member schools chose to prohibit FBS-member schools from what is now called the NCAA Division I Mens Lacrosse Championship? Ponder that question for a moment, and you probably will end up with the answer to all corollaries.

re-read the document.Agree with your analysis. Essentially removes all NCAA control while keeping NCAA affilation in name only( to keep NCAA anti trust exemption?).

Guess Hedge Fund Managers have finally taken over Our big boys. Expect it will have similar results for college athletics as it dd for our economy.

[Bogus Megapardus]

to keep NCAA anti trust exemption?

That has to be a major factor. Another result probably will be to cut even further the number of different sports required an "big" schools. Ivy/Patriot/CAA schools dominate or a major factors in many non-revenue sports. Without Ivy/Patriot/CAA the "big" schools wouldn't have anyone to compete against in many sports. So they'll simply eliminate the "inconvenient" sports, leaving only football, basketball, soccer and baseball/softball. Maybe track & field as well. There would be no meaningful competition in lacrosse, ice hockey, field hockey, volleyball, wrestling, rowing, sailing, tennis, squash, water polo, fencing, skiing or golf without the presence of FCS-member schools. So who needs them, right?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

That has to be a major factor. Another result probably will be to cut even further the number of different sports required an "big" schools. Ivy/Patriot/CAA schools dominate or a major factors in many non-revenue sports. Without Ivy/Patriot/CAA the "big" schools wouldn't have anyone to compete against in many sports. So they'll simply eliminate the "inconvenient" sports, leaving only football, basketball, soccer and baseball/softball. Maybe track & field as well. There would be no meaningful competition in lacrosse, ice hockey, field hockey, volleyball, wrestling, rowing, sailing, tennis, squash, water polo, fencing, skiing or golf without the presence of FCS-member schools. So who needs them, right?

You are off the deep end here. The ACC and Big 10 want lacrosse in a huge way.

[Tubakat2014]

They presume that the administrators, faculty representatives, students and alumni of every non-FBS schools are a bunch of blithering idiots.

Agreed. After reading the document, I can't help but feel like the FBS conferences have their noses in the air, holding their breath as they figure out the best way to rid themselves of peasants like us. It wouldn't surprise me if in this new model, wins over FCS schools will cease to count for bowl eligibility. Why give money to schools that don't share their obviously superior "vision"?

[Bogus Megapardus]

You are off the deep end here. The ACC and Big 10 want lacrosse in a huge way.

Some may "want" lacrosse, but why? Consider (a) who plays lacrosse in high school, (b) where they play, (c) who attends lacrosse games and (d) why they attend. Rutgers always had lax and they always will. But Rutgers would be fourth or fifth, at best, in the Ivy or Patriot. Penn State spends megabux on it but they're average. Michigan blows. And do you really think that Nebraska and Indiana and going gung-ho lacrosse?

People watch lacrosse at FCS-member schools. Not at Ohio State or Purdue.

[kdinva]

The ACC .....wants lacrosse in a huge way.

ACC has lacrosse, the addition of Syracuse + Notre Dame now gives the ACC six playing schools for Men's Lax......which will be down to five when Maryland leaves.....

[Lehigh Football Nation]

ACC has lacrosse, the addition of Syracuse + Notre Dame now gives the ACC six playing schools for Men's Lax......which will be down to five when Maryland leaves.....

Right, the ACC has lacrosse and will fight to keep that arrangement with UNC, Syracuse, ND etc. The Big 10 just signed up Johns Hopkins. Not saying that was the only motivation, but this is not the actions of a group of schools that are looking to diminish lacrosse anytime soon. The ACC is the superpower of lacrosse and will remain so.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Agreed. After reading the document, I can't help but feel like the FBS conferences have their noses in the air, holding their breath as they figure out the best way to rid themselves of peasants like us. It wouldn't surprise me if in this new model, wins over FCS schools will cease to count for bowl eligibility. Why give money to schools that don't share their obviously superior "vision"?

Another "downstream effect" likely will be the gradual elimination of the annoying and inconvenient "student" portion of "student-athlete." At present the NCAA requires a prospective SEC basketball player to be a high school graduate and take the SAT or ACT. The also have to participate in a nominally "academic" course of study as a "full time" student in a "four year" program. These requirements certainly are inimical to the "articulated objectives." It costs the biggies a whole load of money to keep cover for the charade as it now exists.

[Bogus Megapardus]

The Big 10 just signed up Johns Hopkins.

And just how long will that last under the "proposal?"

[RichH2]

FBS is up to now solely a football classification. Unconnected to any other sport. Under this proposal, it will extend to all sports. The resulitng conflicts noted by letter provides no clue as to how FBS will proceed.Looking at FBS Bball,with its own set of rules and DivI Bball with a different set of rules but both sharing NCAA tournament. Sure that will work so well.If FBs wants to rule lax also will have to bring Ivies and Patriots also. There many deleterious consequences in most non revenue sports merely glossed over here. Their aim is to control college football revenue, the rest is collateral damage.

[Saint3333]

Hi, Sun Belt! Hi, MAC! Long time no see!

Maybe, maybe not.

Could the FBS conferences plus the Big East, A-10 and any other solid mid-major basketball league be considered the new division one within five years? That is worst case scenario for you I know, but in this crazy world a possibility.

Best case is SB, MAC, and CUSA come back to FCS and push programs like Lehigh back down the food chain in the playoffs.

There will be winners and losers in this, but in no scenario is a program like Lehigh going to come out better than they are today. Enjoy LFN, apologies to all the other Patriot League fans, especially Lafayette fans who I have respected since our playoff game together.


I would actually prefer a subdivision of bottom tier FBS and top tier FCS programs with minimum requirements.

[RichH2]

Are we supposing that this will become a Gordion Knot of schools belonging to FBS for some sports and not for others?

[Bogus Megapardus]

the rest is collateral damage.

The amazing thing is, Rich - the letter quite frankly admits that they're clueless about the "downstream effects," i.e., the collateral damage. And it admits that they don't really care, either. It's the "articulated objectives" that are most critical.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

FBS is up to now solely a football classification. Unconnected to any other sport. Under this proposal, it will extend to all sports. The resulitng conflicts noted by letter provides no clue as to how FBS will proceed.Looking at FBS Bball,with its own set of rules and DivI Bball with a different set of rules but both sharing NCAA tournament. Sure that will work so well.If FBs wants to rule lax also will have to bring Ivies and Patriots also. There many deleterious consequences in most non revenue sports merely glossed over here. Their aim is to control college football revenue, the rest is collateral damage.

I have to admit the part I'm having the hardest time accepting is the "sure, the NCAA Tournament will be the exact same! Really!" part of this argument.

Let's say FBS adopts a $2,000 stipend for all of their athletes and FCS does not or cannot. So, all basketball student-athletes are the same, even if one set gets $10,000 more than the other, but in football it's a bridge too far?

So let's say that flies. Then how can you deny the NCAA tournament to, say Division III? The whole idea of divisions was that different aid levels require different levels of competition with brick walls between the championships. If you say that doesn't apply to basketball and $10,000 more per athlete, how can you deny a Johns Hopkins, with a non-scholarship hoops squad, from participating?

While a massive 900-1,000 school NCAA tournament might be a boatload of fun, it would be a nightmare to implement and not, I think, what these guys have in mind. As a matter of fact the NCAA Tournament is where I think the whole idea of a new NCAA division breaks down.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There will be winners and losers in this, but in no scenario is a program like Lehigh going to come out better than they are today.

Framing.

[walliver]

My favorite quote

We have not engaged in close evaluation of the questions, for example, of which
conferences and institutions should be identified as belonging to the new FBS division or
whether there should be weighted voting in favor of the five conferences that remain from those
that were automatic qualifiers in the BCS (or a sixth, should the AAC be so included)


The document requests extra privileges for the Big 5,and maybe the AAC. Most pointedly, they have not decided who gets to join their clique. Obviously they have to make some allowance for BYU and Notre Dame. But, could this be used to kick out lesser conferences or allow current FCS conferences to jump.

To pass anti-trust muster, they must have some way of teams moving up.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Hey Patriot League fans - does this mean we get Navy and Army back in PL football?

[Saint3333]

Framing.

Please enlighten us how this helps Lehigh, other than you personally celebrating what happens to other programs?

It is a sad life to only find pleasure in others shortcomings vs. celebrating your personal successes. <-- that is what you should be framing.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Here's how USA Today reads it:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/09/11/far-recommendation-ncaa-governance/2802173/

[Bogus Megapardus]

. . . and in other "news" . . .

NCAA to Gradually Restore Penn State Scholarships (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/09/24/ncaa-executive-committee-to-gradually-restore-penn-state-scholarships/2860989/)

Gee, that was fast.

To Gradually Restore Where No Man Has Gone Before. Note to USA Today/NCAA/B1G - try not to split your infinitives, at least in headlines, when touting a "world class education." It's unseemly.

[fencer24]

So, it's a revolt of the monied conferences against those who just want to play football. I say let them go and take their serfs/student athletes with them and make them a semi pro league and do away with the whole student athlete thing. It's obviously cramping their style.

[RichH2]

FBS leaves some wiggle room to invite others into their elite group..Unless there is revenue sharing which seems antiethical to this move why would Butler, various lax schools want to be included. Is the new "division" gong to restrict scheduling to its own members? I,also have questions about how NCAA Bball tourney would be handled. Back to football,FBS decides to allow 100 schollies and expand schedules to 16 games. admit a lot of NCAA regulation now is window dressing. In FBS not likely to exist at all. More I think about this split ,I would not be surprised if NCAA winds up like the NAIA. NCAA created to govern collegiate sports. Now ,for the Big 5 the sole issue is the chase for more money,academic pretensions no longer necessary.

[Southern Bison]

Hi, Sun Belt! Hi, MAC! Long time no see!

Sounds about right to me...question is how long until it's implemented?

[pike51]

Sounds about right to me...question is how long until it's implemented?

The SBC and MAC will not be dropping down. Keep dreaming. All this does is widen the gap between the current division separation. Any schools who want to make the move and don't fairly quickly will be on the outside looking in.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

. . . and in other "news" . . .

NCAA to Gradually Restore Penn State Scholarships (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/09/24/ncaa-executive-committee-to-gradually-restore-penn-state-scholarships/2860989/)

Gee, that was fast.

To Gradually Restore Where No Man Has Gone Before. Note to USA Today/NCAA/B1G - try not to split your infinitives, at least in headlines, when touting a "world class education." It's unseemly.

This particular news item infuriates me. Apparently, the NCAA has decided, after 14 months that the entire Penn State culture that allowed child sex rape to happen on its campus is "all fixed now!" as they go back on the one correct decision they have made over this time frame.

Every article that discusses Penn State and sanctions ought to include "child rape" in there somewhere, because that is what it is about, not Emmert, Tom Corbett or the reach of the NCAA. It's about child rape, and making sure it never happens again on Penn State's campus.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The SBC and MAC will not be dropping down. Keep dreaming. All this does is widen the gap between the current division separation. Any schools who want to make the move and don't fairly quickly will be on the outside looking in.

Without going into detail, what seems very clear to me is that it's not in their control.

[Saint3333]

Without going into detail, what seems very clear to me is that it's not in their control.

I'd say the same about the FCS conferences as well, but let's not dwell on your team's or conference's issues with this and only mock others that is way more fun. Yippee!

[Southern Bison]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

From these stats, there are a large number of FCS schools with much larger budgets than many "small 5" programs. The ability for the Small 5 to survive in this new plan will be to bring up or merge with the top FCS conferences.

[DSUrocks07]

This particular news item infuriates me. Apparently, the NCAA has decided, after 14 months that the entire Penn State culture that allowed child sex rape to happen on its campus is "all fixed now!" as they go back on the one correct decision they have made over this time frame.

Every article that discusses Penn State and sanctions ought to include "child rape" in there somewhere, because that is what it is about, not Emmert, Tom Corbett or the reach of the NCAA. It's about child rape, and making sure it never happens again on Penn State's campus.

How about ANY campus?

And also, how does restoring scholarships impact that negatively?

[DSUrocks07]

Gee, that was fast.


Appeasement, NCAA has their backs against the wall on this. Their days as the grand overseer of collegiate sports in the US are numbered.

[DSUrocks07]

Hi, Sun Belt! Hi, MAC! Long time no see!

The Sun Belt and Mid American are both members of this consortium.

Board of Directors

Fred Green

Vice President
Troy University
Sun Belt Conference


Jim Atwood
Secretary/Treasurer
University at Buffalo

Mid-American Conference

[Bogus Megapardus]

If all of the public schools went one way and all of the private schools went the other way, which way would the money go?

[The Moody1]

The Sun Belt and Mid American are both members of this consortium.

The 1A FAR Board of Directors is made up of representatives from all Football Bowl Subdivision schools.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

How about ANY campus?

+1


And also, how does restoring scholarships impact that negatively?

Restoring scholarships send a message that child rape on a school campus means nothing when someone at the NCAA wants State to be a full-blown football power on a faster timetable. The NCAA came down with a harsh, but not the harshEST, punishment for an "unprecedented" situation. Going back on that punishment makes it appear that either 1) they have been SO GREAT that the punishment SHOULD BE ROLLED BACK more quickly (never mind "good behavior" has never been used in this way in the past) or 2) the Big 10 pushed Emmert around to roll back a punishment against one of their own (gee, that's never happened before...) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that I'm in the 2) camp.

[Squealofthepig]

I like how "academics" is only mentioned once (in their friggin' mission statement on their masthead), and education only appears once.

[Vooter]

So I assume that members of the brand-new Big 10 hockey conference will no longer schedule non-FBS hockey programs like Maine, UNH, BU, Yale, Cornell, Harvard, North Dakota and Denver? LOL...good luck with that. Maybe Notre Dame and BC should leave Hockey East, too...

[ursus arctos horribilis]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

From these stats, there are a large number of FCS schools with much larger budgets than many "small 5" programs. The ability for the Small 5 to survive in this new plan will be to bring up or merge with the top FCS conferences.

Been saying that for quite a while now. The lesser FBS conferences will be more in need of the top of FCS that the other way around but we still have some things to watch shake out and everything may remain fairly as it is for a while but I'd expect that now that this is out there it moves along fairly quickly. Gonna be all sorts of drama to watch unfold so it will remain interesting for sure.

[MplsBison]

DOA

Don't waste your fingers, like these presidents just wasted their time.


Men's basketball tournament will not be split up into separate "big schools" and "small schools" tournaments. That entirely kills the essence and spirit of what makes March Madness. All anyone really cares about is making a bracket and predicting/watching upsets. Why is that so hard to understand for these presidents?? ____'ing morons.

[MplsBison]

Now if you want to talk about a new sub-division for Division I football - yes. That is a possible reality.

All other sports will and should remain unchanged as far as division structure goes. There are no problems. It's all about football, as it always has been and always will be.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

DOA

Don't waste your fingers, like these presidents just wasted their time.


Men's basketball tournament will not be split up into separate "big schools" and "small schools" tournaments. That entirely kills the essence and spirit of what makes March Madness. All anyone really cares about is making a bracket and predicting/watching upsets. Why is that so hard to understand for these presidents?? ____'ing morons.

Totally agree with that. But I pointed out that they would be trying to use that as leverage going into this and I believe that is was being presented here. They aren't expecting nor probably care about that issue too much.

[RichH2]

May be some posturing here by FBS. All sports may just be a bargaining chip as none of the other sports have any monetary clout. If its not money FBS does not care about it.

[RichH2]

xnodx Yup, clearly we agreexthumbsupx Got to type faster:)

[SpiritCymbal]

Without going into detail, what seems very clear to me is that it's not in their control.

Admittedly I am biased, but I have a hard time that the representatives from SBC, MAC, CUSA, AAC and MWC are going to continue to participate in this endeavor just to exclude themselves in the final result.

It seems to me that the "G5" conference very much have control over what comes out of this.

[SpiritCymbal]

My favorite quote


We have not engaged in close evaluation of the questions, for example, of which
conferences and institutions should be identified as belonging to the new FBS division or
whether there should be weighted voting in favor of the five conferences that remain from those
that were automatic qualifiers in the BCS (or a sixth, should the AAC be so included)

The document requests extra privileges for the Big 5,and maybe the AAC. Most pointedly, they have not decided who gets to join their clique. Obviously they have to make some allowance for BYU and Notre Dame. But, could this be used to kick out lesser conferences or allow current FCS conferences to jump.

To pass anti-trust muster, they must have some way of teams moving up.

Again, I took this in a very different way. I saw that as a way for them to include some of the big basketball conferences like the A10, Big East and West Coast that don't field football. Leaving themselves an out to include those conference would make it much more likely to succeed rather than using it as a way to exclude even more programs.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Admittedly I am biased, but I have a hard time that the representatives from SBC, MAC, CUSA, AAC and MWC are going to continue to participate in this endeavor just to exclude themselves in the final result.

It seems to me that the "G5" conference very much have control over what comes out of this.

You'd think that until the stipends come into play and then it gets a little stickier and more complicated for the have nots.

[RichH2]

You'd think that until the stipends come into play and then it gets a little stickier and more complicated for the have nots.

A lot stickier but more frustrating than complicated for the nots. Not a very different dynamic than the 10% vs 90% dichotomy that society is polarizing us. Phrasing aside the philosophy is the same, What's mine is mine and I aint sharing. The makers vs takers analogy so beloved by some

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Took a fresh look at this doc again. Know the word that leaps to mind? Mandarins.

[RichH2]

Took a fresh look at this doc again. Know the word that leaps to mind? Mandarins.
Apt. The oligarchy cometh for college sports also

[Bisonoline]

You folks realize that this whole thing is a crock and not official and was originially(not here) posted by a person with an agenda?

[Bogus Megapardus]

You folks realize that this whole thing is a crock and not official and was originially(not here) posted by a person with an agenda?

Are you saying that the letter is not authentic?

[RichH2]

If so where was it posted, post link,please

[SpiritCymbal]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/09/24/division-i-a-athletics-directors-discuss-ncaa-reform/2862095/


2) FBS seems unified: Despite the vast financial differences from top to bottom, it seems there is relative agreement between all 10 FBS conferences on the big issues. One of the major misconceptions is that schools in the Mid-American Conference or Sun Belt, for instance, are concerned that more rule-making power will favor the wealthier conferences. The truth is that those leagues have never been on a level playing field and are better off staying attached to the big schools.

"Everyone in the room brings something to the table that affects their campus, but at the end of the day you've got to have a united voice," TCU athletics director Chris Del Conte said. "It's the first time I ever felt like we had unbelievable dialogue from everybody. Some institutions drive a battleship, some drive tugboats, but coming out of it everybody was united on every front."

[Bisonoline]

Are you saying that the letter is not authentic?

Sorry. Brain shorted out. My thoughts were in regards to some idiots on another site who extrapolated some whacked out scenarios that werent based on the reality of what this letter is and isnt..How those thoughts ended up here???????????? mea cupla

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/09/24/division-i-a-athletics-directors-discuss-ncaa-reform/2862095/

After floating the line on "relative agreement" (what does that even mean?), the article then goes on to explain four different possible implementations on the stipend issue. xlolx

"There are four ways to deal with this murderer: cut off his hands, put him in the electric chair, lock him in prison for life, or set him free. Hey, we have 'relative agreement', because we agree something needs to be done!"

[MplsBison]

May be some posturing here by FBS. All sports may just be a bargaining chip as none of the other sports have any monetary clout. If its not money FBS does not care about it.

I don't get it. I know you and ursus said the same thing, so perhaps both of you can explain how FBS schools would use the threat of breaking up March Madness into FBS basketball tournament and FCS basketball tournament to their advantage??

[MplsBison]

You'd think that until the stipends come into play and then it gets a little stickier and more complicated for the have nots.

Not for the next 12 years, anyway. The G5 conferences are signed and sealed to receive a piece of the FBS playoff TV deal money and a guaranteed top 12 ranking every year.

[pike51]

Took a fresh look at this doc again. Know the word that leaps to mind? Mandarins.

So you think the Chinese are taking over college football? That's not good. I don't speak Mandarin but I do love their oranges!

[LeadBolt]

Interesting that they chose to release the report on 9/11...

[superman7515]

Interesting that they chose to release the report on 9/11...

The letter was sent prior to the actual quasi-public release of the documents.

[MplsBison]

After floating the line on "relative agreement" (what does that even mean?), the article then goes on to explain four different possible implementations on the stipend issue. xlolx

"There are four ways to deal with this murderer: cut off his hands, put him in the electric chair, lock him in prison for life, or set him free. Hey, we have 'relative agreement', because we agree something needs to be done!"

So you're saying that the scholarship enhancement issue is going to tear FBS apart? That given the following two options:

1) the G5 conferences have to allow the Big Five to implement scholarship enhancements however they see fit, even if there's no possible way that schools in the G5 can afford to offer the same enhancement to their scholarships

2) the G5 conference should tear up the 12-year contract they just signed up for, which nets them $86 million a year from the new FBS playoff/access bowl games - of which they get one guaranteed spot in the top 12 rankings, so that they can split away from FBS and perhaps join FCS

the G5 conferences will choose option 2?


That leads me to believe you're either just playing the part of the FCS-worshiping caricature you invented from thin air for your blog or you simply have no tether to reality. In either case, carry on.

[RichH2]

I don't get it. I know you and ursus said the same thing, so perhaps both of you can explain how FBS schools would use the threat of breaking up March Madness into FBS basketball tournament and FCS basketball tournament to their advantage??
Bball tourney is not the leverage we are referring to. If anything the tourney is a wedge for NCAA not FBS. FBS has no interest in mucking up cash cow. Their give back is "other sports" where there has never been a FBS designation.
Not much of a giveback monetarily but important to lax and other "minor" sports schools and fans.

[WH49er]

You'd think that until the stipends come into play and then it gets a little stickier and more complicated for the have nots.


Can't speak for the other conferences but the CUSA schools have already voted to pay stipends if need be.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So you're saying that the scholarship enhancement issue is going to tear FBS apart? That given the following two options:

1) the G5 conferences have to allow the Big Five to implement scholarship enhancements however they see fit, even if there's no possible way that schools in the G5 can afford to offer the same enhancement to their scholarships

2) the G5 conference should tear up the 12-year contract they just signed up for, which nets them $86 million a year from the new FBS playoff/access bowl games - of which they get one guaranteed spot in the top 12 rankings, so that they can split away from FBS and perhaps join FCS

the G5 conferences will choose option 2?


That leads me to believe you're either just playing the part of the FCS-worshiping caricature you invented from thin air for your blog or you simply have no tether to reality. In either case, carry on.

You are acting like the Wannabees have any sort of choice in this matter. The actual choice is as follows:

1) spend a hell of a lot more money to stay in "FBS"

2) get out

[ASUMountaineer]

I'd say the same about the FCS conferences as well, but let's not dwell on your team's or conference's issues with this and only mock others that is way more fun. Yippee!

Don't treat LFN like that, he knows all when it comes to every single FCS school. Heck, he's already said he knows more about what's best for App State than the Chancellor, AD, and BOT. Why would you question him?

Plus, don't forget that he has Mr. C putting every moron that disagrees with his view in their place by neg repping people for simply disagreeing with LFN. If that doesn't sell you on how knowledgeable and legit he is then you are way lost, my friend.

[Saint3333]

Just glad to be in a position that we have a choice. Some refuse to see the difference.

[MplsBison]

You are acting like the Wannabees have any sort of choice in this matter. The actual choice is as follows:

1) spend a hell of a lot more money to stay in "FBS"

2) get out

No. Because scholarship enhancements won't be mandatory. That suits the big schools just fine since they will be able to afford them, their goal is accomplished.

[MplsBison]

Bball tourney is not the leverage we are referring to. If anything the tourney is a wedge for NCAA not FBS. FBS has no interest in mucking up cash cow. Their give back is "other sports" where there has never been a FBS designation.
Not much of a giveback monetarily but important to lax and other "minor" sports schools and fans.

Now you've completely lost me. Let's start over.


This report was concocted by some FBS school presidents and the punchline is more or less proposing that the whole of Division I (not just football) be split along the FBS/not-FBS line.

What I'm saying is that the proposal isn't worth the paper it's printed on for the simple fact that it would kill March Madness. That kills the proposal. It's dead. Barbecue it, fish fry it - whatever. The buck stops there, well before we would even get to sports like lax or ice hockey.

[slycat]

The G5 conferences aren't going anywhere as much as LFN prays for it to happen. The G5 conferences will stick with the P5 conferences but will do as they are told. Plus if the stipend is $2000, thats only $170,000 more a year for football. Even if you add all sports its under 3M for 16 sports if they all had 85 scholarships which they don't. So it's probably under 2M and even if its $4000 a player thats under 4M a year extra. I would expect 0-5 schools to maybe consider not doing that. Maybe. The rest will happily pay the money. I know all but maybe ULM and Idaho in the Sun Belt will and I'm guessing they find a way. The extra million or so earned from the new playoff system is a start and ULM will just play another body bag game.

[slycat]

If anything I expect JMU, Delaware, NDSU, Missouri St, Jax St, and others to make a push to move up. More will want in FBS then out due to the changes knowing it creates a larger gap between FBS and FCS. Plus even if D1 stays the same for basketball, the schools that offer stipends will have a new recruiting advantage.

[superman7515]

Delaware doesn't have the support needed to make such a move.

[walliver]

The Big 5 would never dream of kicking out the Little 5 - too much legal hassle.

What they will do is out-spend them, The extra women's scholarship won't make a big difference, and in fact would probably help the G5 members since it is cheaper to add a few scholarships to existing teams instead of creating new teams for Title IX purposes. Where the big boys will shine is the marquee sports. Does anyone really believe the stipend will stay @$2K/month? Will scholarships stay at 85 (big time programs already have "grey shirts" because 85 isn't enough)? Will athletes get a cut of the licensing money (a big chunk of money for the Big 5, not much for the G5)?

The G5 really have no choice but to go along with whatever the Big5 want. The Big 5 don't need the G5 (or FCS). The G5 need the Big 5 in order to remain relevant.

No FBS team wants to face the embarrassment of "moving down", but many G5 schools will face major financial issues if they try to keep up with the big boys. G5 schools that control costs will get by, those that don't will be in a world of hurt.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The G5 conferences aren't going anywhere as much as LFN prays for it to happen. The G5 conferences will stick with the P5 conferences but will do as they are told. Plus if the stipend is $2000, thats only $170,000 more a year for football. Even if you add all sports its under 3M for 16 sports if they all had 85 scholarships which they don't. So it's probably under 2M and even if its $4000 a player thats under 4M a year extra. I would expect 0-5 schools to maybe consider not doing that. Maybe. The rest will happily pay the money. I know all but maybe ULM and Idaho in the Sun Belt will and I'm guessing they find a way. The extra million or so earned from the new playoff system is a start and ULM will just play another body bag game.


If anything I expect JMU, Delaware, NDSU, Missouri St, Jax St, and others to make a push to move up. More will want in FBS then out due to the changes knowing it creates a larger gap between FBS and FCS. Plus even if D1 stays the same for basketball, the schools that offer stipends will have a new recruiting advantage.

Which is it - not all that big a deal, or a huge gap causing throngs of FCS teams to be praying to get in to FBS? It's not both.

[slycat]

I'm saying if it ends up creating a larger gap as far as perception, then teams may be willing to pay a few million more to join in. I don't think the amount will cause teams to move down unless the P5 force the G5 out. I do not think any go on their own. Now ULM may be an exception because they have such a low budget in the first place.

You have schools like Wichita St and VCU paying basketball coaches millions. I would think they would pay stipends to players to keep up with the others and not lose recruits. WSU is fully committed to basketball. I wouldn't be shocked to see them join a G5 conference if it helps them. Its too early to tell how it will really affect conferences like the MVC at this point.

[WH49er]

Does anyone really believe the stipend will stay @$2K/month? Will scholarships stay at 85 (big time programs already have "grey shirts" because 85 isn't enough)? Will athletes get a cut of the licensing money (a big chunk of money for the Big 5, not much for the G5)?


I believe the stipend will stay at $2K but where it gets really cloudy is if they allow players to make money on their likeness. On top of that, how will a coach manage these superstar athletes making huge paychecks? I really believe they are about to open Pandora's box.

[dbackjon]

The G5 conferences aren't going anywhere as much as LFN prays for it to happen. The G5 conferences will stick with the P5 conferences but will do as they are told. Plus if the stipend is $2000, thats only $170,000 more a year for football. Even if you add all sports its under 3M for 16 sports if they all had 85 scholarships which they don't. So it's probably under 2M and even if its $4000 a player thats under 4M a year extra. I would expect 0-5 schools to maybe consider not doing that. Maybe. The rest will happily pay the money. I know all but maybe ULM and Idaho in the Sun Belt will and I'm guessing they find a way. The extra million or so earned from the new playoff system is a start and ULM will just play another body bag game.

Since UL-M's budget is currently 11 million, where they gonna get $4 million?

[URMite]

I see this as:

We, the P5 (formerly BCS) & G5 (the rest of FBS) have decided we want to make our own rules with the P5 having the vast majority of voting power for those rules. We will decide which sports we will & will not play non-FBS teams in post season based on our own financial benefit. Therefore we will not play non-FBS in football, we will in basketball. We don't believe we will any other sport, but reserve the right to change any of the above decisions at any time in the future.

[Bogus Megapardus]

I see this as:

We, the P5 (formerly BCS) & G5 (the rest of FBS) have decided we want to make our own rules with the P5 having the vast majority of voting power for those rules. We will decide which sports we will & will not play non-FBS teams in post season based on our own financial benefit. Therefore we will not play non-FBS in football, we will in basketball. We don't believe we will any other sport, but reserve the right to change any of the above decisions at any time in the future.

+1

Don't you wish it could be presented as plainly and simply as that?

You have to read through ten pages of obfuscatory bullcrap to get to the bottom of it.

[RichH2]

I see this as:

We, the P5 (formerly BCS) & G5 (the rest of FBS) have decided we want to make our own rules with the P5 having the vast majority of voting power for those rules. We will decide which sports we will & will not play non-FBS teams in post season based on our own financial benefit. Therefore we will not play non-FBS in football, we will in basketball. We don't believe we will any other sport, but reserve the right to change any of the above decisions at any time in the future.

Yup, in a nutshell

[PAllen]

Honestly, my biggest surprise was the number of non "BCS" conferences that apparently signed off on this letter.

[URMite]

Did I just get +1d by both a Lehigh & Lafayette poster? Now, I know my summary was accurate.

[Sader87]

The thing is, the more the bigger FBS schools seperate themselves from everyone else, the "less" they become truly, amateur collegiete athletics and become de facto "minor league NFL" teams.

Believe me, I realize that college athletics (at the national level) were never truly pure but what some are envisioning (stipends, $ made on their own likeness etc.) could very well lead to the end of "college football" or at least college football as it's been known for over a 100 years.

I can see this type of "college football" flourishing in some parts of the country, namely the South, but elsewhere it could lose its appeal completely and become just like any other minor league sport (baseball, basketball and hockey) which has a very limited following throughout much of the country.

[RichH2]

The thing is, the more the bigger FBS schools seperate themselves from everyone else, the "less" they become truly, amateur collegiete athletics and become de facto "minor league NFL" teams.

Believe me, I realize that college athletics (at the national level) were never truly pure but what some are envisioning (stipends, $ made on their own likeness etc.) could very well lead to the end of "college football" or at least college football as it's been known for over a 100 years.

I can see this type of "college football" flourishing in some parts of the country, namely the South, but elsewhere it could lose its appeal completely and become just like any other minor league sport (baseball, basketball and hockey) which has a very limited following throughout much of the country.

Perhaps so but not relevant to this movement by Big5 as they are only seeing immediate gain form controlling football TV and Bowls. Greed incapable of seeing beyond monetary gain

[WH49er]

Since UL-M's budget is currently 11 million, where they gonna get $4 million?

Duck Dynasty?

[Go...gate]

The proposal separates FBS-member schools from everyone else, for all purposes and for all sports.

Do I read this as also eliminating FBS conferences, so everybody stands alone?

[walliver]

Do I read this as also eliminating FBS conferences, so everybody stands alone?

The Big 5 will all be held together by their conferences billion dollar TV deals.

[dbackjon]

Duck Dynasty?

Quack!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The Big 5 will all be held together by their conferences billion dollar TV deals.

With the Wannabe conferences acting as vassal states.

[SpiritCymbal]

Just glad to be in a position that we have a choice. Some refuse to see the difference.

Good point Saint. Very understated in all of this back and forth.

[MplsBison]

The Big 5 would never dream of kicking out the Little 5 - too much legal hassle.

What they will do is out-spend them, The extra women's scholarship won't make a big difference, and in fact would probably help the G5 members since it is cheaper to add a few scholarships to existing teams instead of creating new teams for Title IX purposes. Where the big boys will shine is the marquee sports. Does anyone really believe the stipend will stay @$2K/month? Will scholarships stay at 85 (big time programs already have "grey shirts" because 85 isn't enough)? Will athletes get a cut of the licensing money (a big chunk of money for the Big 5, not much for the G5)?

The G5 really have no choice but to go along with whatever the Big5 want. The Big 5 don't need the G5 (or FCS). The G5 need the Big 5 in order to remain relevant.

No FBS team wants to face the embarrassment of "moving down", but many G5 schools will face major financial issues if they try to keep up with the big boys. G5 schools that control costs will get by, those that don't will be in a world of hurt.

One could argue that some (most?) of the G5 schools already face major financial issues in trying to "keep up with the big boys" in spending.

Has that stopped them? Nope. Not a team has dropped the sport and not a team has moved down to FCS.


That simple fact alone should spell things out pretty well. Some people just refuse to accept reality.

[MplsBison]

I see this as:

We, the P5 (formerly BCS) & G5 (the rest of FBS) have decided we want to make our own rules with the P5 having the vast majority of voting power for those rules. We will decide which sports we will & will not play non-FBS teams in post season based on our own financial benefit. Therefore we will not play non-FBS in football, we will in basketball. We don't believe we will any other sport, but reserve the right to change any of the above decisions at any time in the future.

And since no college sports other than football and men's basketball (but mostly football) matter, then such a proposal very rapidly boils down to nothing more than giving the FBS sub-division the ability to vote rules that apply to football only for itself.

March Madness won't be changed so the big schools will never be able to get away with voting themselves the ability to offer scholarship enhancements in men's basketball *without* the approval of the rest of Division I. And the rest of the sports no one really cares about enough to make a distinction.


It's just that simple.

[MplsBison]

RichH2, no reply to post #79?

[RichH2]

RichH2, no reply to post #79?

why you're both saying the same thing, that they have no choice. As to your slur vs LFN, I assume that your recent spate of inteliigent posts is coming to an end.

[Saint3333]

Good point Saint. Very understated in all of this back and forth.

It feels like we've been playing at a nice golf club for 30 years, had good times with our friends even won the club championship a few times. Then we get invited to the best club in the city and some friends are all of a sudden bitter. Now they are happy the new club has issued an assessment on us, "serves us right".

[Southern Bison]

It feels like we've been playing at a nice golf club for 30 years, had good times with our friends even won the club championship a few times. Then we get invited to the best club in the city and some friends are all of a sudden bitter. Now they are happy the new club has issued an assessment on us, "serves us right".

Saint, I don't think that analogy fits quite right. Yes, you have been invited to a higher-rated club, but that club is looking to further segregate its' members into two categories: Elite members (P5) & Standard members (G5). They are going to create these classes based solely upon how much $$ you earn (Merchandise sales, TV contracts, ticket sales).

Elite membership benefits include use of Elite members locker room, course play 7 days a week, a caddie for every round, free beverage service on the course, etc.
Standard members may use the public restrooms to change and use their own lock for a free cubby locker, limited to 1 round per month, no caddie or cart provided, must spend minimum of $50/month with the beverage cart.

Now I love to see the mid-major make the Final Four (Butler, Wichita St., etc) and win over the basketball powerhouses just like we all love to see an FBS team fall to an FCS team. We have all gone to a school or cheer for a program that at one time or another has been a David when taking on a Goliath. I see this as the P5 attempting to separate themselves as has been discussed on AGS extensively. The notion of the "G5" teaming up with top FCS programs/conferences is not a step down for them, but the opportunity to create a NCAA Football Division containing what we all enjoy about sports and determining a champion...fierce and reasonably level competition, student athletes on the field for the love of the game, and the determination of the champion through a tried & true testing of their will, talent, and fortitude...a playoff system.

[Sader87]

Again, I think the power conferences should tread very carefully in seperating themselves from the rest of D1 (FBS/FCS) football. If you look at the Northeast, the only program that really has a solid footing right now vis a vis attendance/following /support etc is Penn St of all places. BC, Syracuse, Army, Navy, Temple, Pitt. Rutgers etc. are all very much "2nd fiddles" when it comes to football vs. the NFL in their respective area.

I realize the Northeast hasn't been a major college "hot-bed" since probably the 1950's but if and when the power conferences go into the "hell with everything mode" i.e. paying athletes, allowing kids to make money etc on shirts/their likenesses etc.....how long is it before the Notre Dames, the Northwesterns, the Vanderbilts, the BC's etc say "enough is enough" and pull away from FBS football???

I'm not saying it won't exist....and probably thrive in some regions...but it wouldn't be "college football" as it has been for over a century....and possibly on its way to becoming a niche attraction ala NASCAR in the Southeast or college hockey in the Northeast and Upper Midwest.

[SpiritCymbal]

Sounds like the Big10 doesn't support the implementation of a stipend. Are they just posturing or might there be something to this?


http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9723411/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-discusses-possible-football-basketball-changes



Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Wednesday that Division I football and basketball may be better served by following Major League Baseball's model, in that players are allowed to sign professionally right out of high school.


"Maybe in football and basketball, it would work better if more kids had a chance to go directly into the professional ranks," Delany said. "If they're not comfortable and want to monetize, let the minor leagues flourish. Train at IMG, get agents to invest in your body, get agents to invest in your likeness, and establish it on your own. But don't come here and say, 'We want to be paid $25,000 or $50,000.' Go to the D-League and get it, go to the NBA and get it, go to the NFL and get it. Don't ask us what we've been doing.


-----------------------------------------------------


The athletic directors say they discussed topics ranging from NCAA governance and enforcement to the disparity of interests and resources among Div. I schools to the rejection of "pay-for-play."


Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke said: "Pay for play has no part in the amateur setting."


Burke notes the value of a full scholarship and support services at Purdue is worth more than $250,000.

[RichH2]

From what I read both Big10 and Pac12 have reservations about stipends. Doubt they will make a crusade out of them

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Sounds like the Big10 doesn't support the implementation of a stipend. Are they just posturing or might there be something to this?


http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9723411/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-discusses-possible-football-basketball-changes

Whether it has to do with losing something to the SEC or a personal animus against Mike Slive, I'm not sure, but what I'm fairly certain about is that stipends here are just being used as a political stick to hit someone else. This is the same guy, after all, who publicly opined that maybe it was better for the Big 10 to go D-III.

[MplsBison]

I think they're talking about literally players earning a paycheck for playing football (or basketball) from the school for each game. So you play the game, then you get your paycheck for that game.

That's payment beyond the context of a scholarship. A scholarship enhancement is a one time payment, $2,000 amount (for example) that goes for living expenses not already covered by the rest of it (for tuition, fees, books, board, etc.).


People have been talking about scholarship enhancements recently, but I haven't heard much talk about outright pay for play until this article. There is the lawsuit. I actually side with Delany on this. If you want game paychecks, then go pro. If you want a scholarship (a *REAL* scholarship that actually covers the costs of living, that is) then you can go to college.

[SpiritCymbal]

Saint, I don't think that analogy fits quite right. Yes, you have been invited to a higher-rated club, but that club is looking to further segregate its' members into two categories: Elite members (P5) & Standard members (G5). They are going to create these classes based solely upon how much $$ you earn (Merchandise sales, TV contracts, ticket sales).

Elite membership benefits include use of Elite members locker room, course play 7 days a week, a caddie for every round, free beverage service on the course, etc.
Standard members may use the public restrooms to change and use their own lock for a free cubby locker, limited to 1 round per month, no caddie or cart provided, must spend minimum of $50/month with the beverage cart.

Continuing on with this analogy...the "standard members" still get to play at this new course, no? To some, being able to play at that course is more important than the limitations for the "standard membership". To others, it isn't.

Some people play at a golf course and they see torn up greens, concrete hard fairways, a clubhouse that only serves water and a Snickers bar and they want more. They're willing to fork over some more money for the chance to play on a better course once in a while knowing that it's highly unlikely they'll ever be able to afford an annual membership. Others play at the same golf course and they're perfectly content with just having a place to swing the clubs for $25 a round.

Neither person is "wrong". It's just a matter of taste.

[Southern Bison]

Sounds like the Big10 doesn't support the implementation of a stipend. Are they just posturing or might there be something to this?


http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9723411/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-discusses-possible-football-basketball-changes

Shape Ups can really help with someone's posture...

http://cdn3.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2013-September-21-9-44-47.jpg

[SpiritCymbal]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/23847226/big-tens-delany-if-they-want-to-be-paid-let-em-turn-pro-out-of-high-school



Delany's comments may have been the strongest yet since BCS commissioners began speaking out for NCAA reform in July. The commissioners all agree that change has to come to an NCAA bogged down by governance issues and lack of faith in president Mark Emmert. Athletic directors in general want more say in NCAA policy. The commissioners want similar freedoms. They are already the de facto administrators of college football, having restructured the sport's postseason twice since 1998. The lucrative College Football Playoff begins in 2014.


While NCAA reform is expected to be a collaborative effort, Delany's stand is significant. He is considered one of the most powerful persons in college sports.

[Sader87]

As Delaney stated, and I'm not defending him or some other FBS scum-sucker....but it's patently ridiculous to call college football college football when kids are getting paid tens of thousands of dollars to play football at their institution above and beyond the scholarship they are receiving at said institution.

We are fast approaching the day of reckoning in college athletics....which is a good thing imo.

[Go...gate]

As Delaney stated, and I'm not defending him or some other FBS scum-sucker....but it's patently ridiculous to call college football college football when kids are getting paid tens of thousands of dollars to play football at their institution above and beyond the scholarship they are receiving at said institution.

We are fast approaching the day of reckoning in college athletics....which is a good thing imo.

As much as I love college sports, I agree with you that the day of reckoning is near and college sports as we know them will not be the same.

[Sader87]

I actually think it will be good for schools like Holy Cross and Colgate....all the bs about the facade of student-athletes will be gone and we will be on a much better/level playing field going forward.

[MplsBison]

Continuing on with this analogy...the "standard members" still get to play at this new course, no? To some, being able to play at that course is more important than the limitations for the "standard membership". To others, it isn't.

Some people play at a golf course and they see torn up greens, concrete hard fairways, a clubhouse that only serves water and a Snickers bar and they want more. They're willing to fork over some more money for the chance to play on a better course once in a while knowing that it's highly unlikely they'll ever be able to afford an annual membership. Others play at the same golf course and they're perfectly content with just having a place to swing the clubs for $25 a round.

Neither person is "wrong". It's just a matter of taste.

I like this analogy. Carrying it all the way out:

- at the city course an end of the season tournament was held in which the top 24 golfers were selected and paired up in a bracket, teeing off and playing against each other until the final two played for the course championship

- at the private course, the top 25 golfers were ranked and many golfers (even beyond the top 25) were allowed to tee off against another golfer for a final match, but only the top two golfers got to tee off for the course championship


Some at the city course claim to hate the private course because of the way they conduct the end of the season and say that any new "standard" member at the private course will never, ever be able to make that championship tee off match. The private course has some legendary players who spend way more money on clubs, balls, training, lessons, etc. than any "standard" member could ever invest.

But as you said, some golfers look at all these facts - and still want to give the private course a shot.


Sounds pretty good to me.

[MplsBison]

As Delaney stated, and I'm not defending him or some other FBS scum-sucker....but it's patently ridiculous to call college football college football when kids are getting paid tens of thousands of dollars to play football at their institution above and beyond the scholarship they are receiving at said institution.

We are fast approaching the day of reckoning in college athletics....which is a good thing imo.

I absolutely agree that pay for play has no place in college athletics.

That said, everyone needs to be very careful not to mistakenly conflate pay for play and scholarship enhancements. They're not even close to the same thing. Not even by a mile. One aims to bring the one time scholarship payment a bit closer to reality, in terms of covering living expenses. The other aims to provide straight cash to players, as if they were playing pro.


Delany is talking about pay for play. NOT scholarship enhancements.

[MplsBison]

By the way -- does anyone see the true brilliance of what Delany is doing here??

Think about it for half a second: if the NFL started a true minor league system and allowed players directly from high school to go to the minors for 3-4 years before being drafted into the big league --- who are the players most likely to be sucked into such a minor league system?

- player A: graduated high school in Michigan, high GPA and test scores, White, parents can afford to contribute $15k per year towards education, three star recruit

- player B: graduated high school in Alabama, at NCAA minimum clearinghouse for GPA and test scores, Black, parents can't afford to contribute any money towards education, five star recruit (ranked top 25 at his position in nation)


Hmm....now which type of player is most likely to go to an SEC school and which kind to a B1G school?

[JimLU]

Just one question. What the hell is the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives (1A FAR). Sounds like something like HAL from A Space Odyssey. And the guy who signed the letter is a law professor from Texas Tech? One of America's finer institutions of higher learning with a fine history of caring for the well being of their student athletes (read LEACH v. JAMES)......

[Saint3333]

Southern Bison my analogy works perfectly, it is being the small fish in the big pond vs. high roller at the smaller/cheaper course. Either way we're in the club with the option to play the "city course" if we choose.

That said I've always preferred a subdivision of the bottom 4-5 FBS conferences and the top 4 FCS conferences. If 1-AA had minimum requirements and an avenue for moderate TV coverage that would be the ideal play for App (IMO).

[RichH2]

I absolutely agree that pay for play has no place in college athletics.

That said, everyone needs to be very careful not to mistakenly conflate pay for play and scholarship enhancements. They're not even close to the same thing. Not even by a mile. One aims to bring the one time scholarship payment a bit closer to reality, in terms of covering living expenses. The other aims to provide straight cash to players, as if they were playing pro.


Delany is talking about pay for play. NOT scholarship enhancements.
Absolutely correct but I think,unlike most,he is look ahead to the possible/probable evolution of stipends into pay for play. Raising again the question of why sports ae tied to colleges rather thn sports clubs.

[RichH2]

Just a comment. This thread is an excellent and perceptive discussion of serious issues. One of the best I've ever seen on AGS.xsmileyclapx

[MplsBison]

Absolutely correct but I think,unlike most,he is look ahead to the possible/probable evolution of stipends into pay for play. Raising again the question of why sports ae tied to colleges rather thn sports clubs.

But again, I reject the assertion that scholarship enhancements are even in the same track of thinking as pay for play.

A scholarship enhancement is nothing more than boosting the total payment of the scholarship a little bit to help cover the true costs of living, beyond the direct costs of school.


Getting paychecks for nothing more than playing in a game is something entirely different.

[WH49er]

This whole issue is also a prime example of how the media will portray the story in a light that will fit their agenda. Players starving because they are not getting paid? Seriously, this is what media and journalism has become?

[RichH2]

Agree to an extent Mpls. As to just the kids ,I have no issue with them getting additional help.Many of them need it. But that opens up an entirely different discussion. On an institutioal basi ,however, the ability to morph stipends into pay for play is a real issue in a competitive environment.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This whole issue is also a prime example of how the media will portray the story in a light that will fit their agenda. Players starving because they are not getting paid? Seriously, this is what media and journalism has become?

You're not kidding. You know what the best, most underreported part is? Some schools already make money available for books, as Tennessee State's chairman said they already do this for their student-athletes.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-showdown-regarding-division-i.html


“Our athletes already get free room, board, tuition, books, and fees,” she said. “I’m not trying to keep athletes from getting money they need. But the only way to get more money to them would be to raise fees on all students.”

This blog posting tries to navigate the stipend issue overall, one of my better pieces, IMO.

[RichH2]

One additional comment on stipends. Most of my concerns deal with what model ,if any,NCAA adopts. Original proposal was for non need based $2000 per year. C-USA and Big10 have endorsed only a need based stipend. Both extend only to scholarship athletes. Other athletes dont have same need? OK,BACK TO THE BIG5 POWER GRAB

[SpiritCymbal]

Southern Bison my analogy works perfectly, it is being the small fish in the big pond vs. high roller at the smaller/cheaper course. Either way we're in the club with the option to play the "city course" if we choose.

That said I've always preferred a subdivision of the bottom 4-5 FBS conferences and the top 4 FCS conferences. If 1-AA had minimum requirements and an avenue for moderate TV coverage that would be the ideal play for App (IMO).

Agreed from my end too.

[walliver]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/09/26/ea-sports-ncaa-13-video-game-keller-obannon/2878307/

Terms of the deal remained confidential pending their presentation to various courts, but it is likely to result in the landmark distribution of tens of millions of dollars to thousands of college athletes — including current athletes — whose names or avatars have been in EA games since the early 2000s.

This is likely to have more of an impact on college football than any "1A FAR" statement. If the NCAA loses this lawsuit, $2000 stipends will be chump change.