Big 5 "Autonomy" and the Purpose of College Athletics

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/816-the-battle-over-the-purpose-of-college-athletics

"Autonomy" isn't just a battle over control of the NCAA's legislative agenda - it's a battle between the purpose of college athletics, whether it's a moneymaking enterprise, or something you pay into to give your students a better educational experience.

[Daytripper]

Let's don't start fooling ourselves. For the top tier programs it is a money-making business disguised as college athletics. Period.

[RichH2]

Excellent article. Regardless of the eloquent verbiage of their proposal, there is no doubt that the sole issue is controlof the money, As I've said before , Athletic Depts are just one part of most school's abministrations, for the Big 5 the schools are merely an adjunct Athletic Dept providing a name for their team and a built in fan base.

[bkrownd]

"Autonomy" isn't just a battle over control of the NCAA's legislative agenda - it's a battle between the purpose of college athletics, whether it's a moneymaking enterprise, or something you pay into to give your students a better educational experience.

The money is there, and nobody is going to just walk away from it. More importantly, they aren't going to give up the prestige and influence the television exposure provides. As long as the schools and conferences are the ones who control television rights the NCAA is just trying to stay relevant...oops, except they aren't really relevant as it is - that battle was lost long ago.

[Catatonic]

I must have missed something. I found the article confusing. The Power 5 propose to form their own subdivision. Other schools may opt to adopt Power 5 rules, or not.

How a decision affecting only schools in this new football subdivision shows disregard for the vast majority of schools that already spend more than they make on college athletics is unclear to me. It seems the creation of an additional tier just does the opposite. It acknowledges that the athletes who complain that they go hungry while their institutions and coaches make millions is a fair criticism. To address this grievance the big schools are willing to share in the wealth by providing a supplement for the student athlete. Meanwhile, Schools with less income are not required to share revenue they don't make.

Yes, an arrangement where student athletes at big schools receive a stipend and their counterparts at mid-major, FCS, D2 and do not creates a recruiting advantage for the big schools....but that advantage already exists. Not many athletes turn down an offer from Ohio State or Alabama to attend Troy or Chattanooga under the present system. This fundamental truth will not change, even if Chatty or Troy try to keep up with Ohio State by offering similar stipends, which I hasten to add they would be foolish to attempt.

Whether this shift fundamentally alters the purpose of college athletics for big schools is another, much thornier issue. But unless I am missing something, the only financial pressure applied under the proposals I have read affect only those schools that already generate megabucks, not the Alcorn States and Elon's of the athletic world.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I must have missed something. I found the article confusing. The Power 5 propose to form their own subdivision. Other schools may opt to adopt Power 5 rules, or not.

How a decision affecting only schools in this new football subdivision shows disregard for the vast majority of schools that already spend more than they make on college athletics is unclear to me. It seems the creation of an additional tier just does the opposite. It acknowledges that the athletes who complain that they go hungry while their institutions and coaches make millions is a fair criticism. To address this grievance the big schools are willing to share in the wealth by providing a supplement for the student athlete. Meanwhile, Schools with less income are not required to share revenue they don't make.

Yes, an arrangement where student athletes at big schools receive a stipend and their counterparts at mid-major, FCS, D2 and do not creates a recruiting advantage for the big schools....but that advantage already exists. Not many athletes turn down an offer from Ohio State or Alabama to attend Troy or Chattanooga under the present system. This fundamental truth will not change, even if Chatty or Troy try to keep up with Ohio State by offering similar stipends, which I hasten to add they would be foolish to attempt.

Whether this shift fundamentally alters the purpose of college athletics for big schools is another, much thornier issue. But unless I am missing something, the only financial pressure applied under the proposals I have read affect only those schools that already generate megabucks, not the Alcorn States and Elon's of the athletic world.

The problem is the solution to problems for the cost-is-no-object Big 5 ("build another ivory tower of learning! Pay each player $5,000 for incidentals!") are potentially bankrupcy-causing for the rest of the membership (e.g. stipends cost extra $500,000/year for a school whose athletic budget before was $5 million/year).

With "autonomy", it gives the Big 5 power to bankrupt everyone else by spending more, with no recourse for the rest to stop them from making their own rules, or even to propose their own ways to limit costs in anything.

[Catatonic]

The problem is the solution to problems for the cost-is-no-object Big 5 ("build another ivory tower of learning! Pay each player $5,000 for incidentals!") are potentially bankrupcy-causing for the rest of the membership (e.g. stipends cost extra $500,000/year for a school whose athletic budget before was $5 million/year).

With "autonomy", it gives the Big 5 power to bankrupt everyone else by spending more, with no recourse for the rest to stop them from making their own rules, or even to propose their own ways to limit costs in anything.

If the Big 5 makes their own spending rules that apply only to themselves, how does this bankrupt everyone else? Everyone else will not be bound by the spending guidelines adopted by the Big 5, as I understand what they are proposing. The spending will affect only schools who are members in one the the Big 5 conferences.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If the Big 5 makes their own spending rules that apply only to themselves, how does this bankrupt everyone else? Everyone else will not be bound by the spending guidelines adopted by the Big 5, as I understand what they are proposing. The spending will affect only schools who are members in one the the Big 5 conferences.

Does it really not affect everyone else?

* Big 5 conference offers stipends
* Title IX means, essentially, men's and women's basketball players all get stipends
* UConn goes into their AAC meeting and says, "We need stipends for basketball - we need them to be able to keep recruiting against Tennessee for women's basketball"
* AAC gets stipends
* Sun Belt says, "Tulane football players get stipends - we need them for Louisiana-Lafayette to keep up"
* Sun Belt gets stipends

The problem with this is that it becomes:

* Butler discontinues football so it can keep up in basketball
* ACU discontinues football due to cost-cutting
* Grambling folds its 100 year-old athletics program because it can't compete for football recruits with schools who can offer full scholarships plus stipends

[RichH2]

catatonic , IMO your premise is flawed by attempting to treat stipends separately in a vacuum. If that were possible then you are correct,what difference does it make to anyone not in the group of 5.In the real world, it really isn't possible to view the issue here as merely athlete stipends. In actuality they are just a stalking horse pushed by Big 5 to justify their real agenda of controlling TV money.

[bkrownd]

They already control the money. Of course they want to keep as much of that at home as possible. It isn't like that's a naughty "secret agenda".

[RichH2]

They already control the money. Of course they want to keep as much of that at home as possible. It isn't like that's a naughty "secret agenda".

No one said it was secret,my point is that this move has nothing to do with students only money

[JayJ79]

yup, this will spell the end of college athletics. just like the introduction of athletic scholarships did.

[bkrownd]

No one said it was secret,my point is that this move has nothing to do with students only money

Well, finding sources of money is kind of central to how colleges and universities operate. (I get several alumni donation requests a month, just in case I should ever forget that...)

[bonarae]

Unfortunately, what will happen to Divisions II and III? Aren't they missing out, or are they also included in this mess that was started by Division I?

[eaglewraith]

Unfortunately, what will happen to Divisions II and III? Aren't they missing out, or are they also included in this mess that was started by Division I?

They should be scared, as should FCS.

[Green26]

If the Big 5 makes their own spending rules that apply only to themselves, how does this bankrupt everyone else? Everyone else will not be bound by the spending guidelines adopted by the Big 5, as I understand what they are proposing. The spending will affect only schools who are members in one the the Big 5 conferences.

I agree with you. Allowing the Big 5 to do what it wants is not going to bankrupt any other level. Sure, it may cause some pressure on other schools or other levels, but, after looking at their budgets, the other schools and levels will either follow some of what the Big 5 does, or they won't, or they will do something in-between that they can afford. I don't see schools/conferences/levels dropping sports so that they can afford to pay more for the football and basketball teams, but I suppose that could eventually occur. If a few more top recruits chose a Big 5 school in order to get the additional benefits, I'm not sure that's a big deal. The others not recruited by the Big 5 will still have to go somewhere, and the only choices are non-Big 5 schools. I suppose there may be some lessor schools in the Big 5 who would prefer not to add this expense, but I don't particularly care about or feel sorry for them. They get the financial benefits of the Big 5.

- - - Updated - - -


They should be scared, as should FCS.

What should they be scared of?

[eaglewraith]

- - - Updated - - -



What should they be scared of?

Non-FBS is about to be marginalized. P5 and G5 schools will have enough weight added to their votes that they can pass legislation with ZERO positive votes from the rest of the NCAA.

[JayJ79]

Non-FBS is about to be marginalized. P5 and G5 schools will have enough weight added to their votes that they can pass legislation with ZERO positive votes from the rest of the NCAA.

if we're talking autonomy, wouldn't that legislation apply only to those "Big 5" schools?
much like the whole Bowl system doesn't apply to FCS, D2, or D3

[RichH2]

Autonomy. Some here seem to think it will have little impacton the rest ofcollegefootball. .When Big 5 autonmous group decides to allow 100 scholarships per year. Then they decide not to play any non B5 members. Of course they wouldn.t do that would they?

[eaglewraith]

if we're talking autonomy, wouldn't that legislation apply only to those "Big 5" schools?
much like the whole Bowl system doesn't apply to FCS, D2, or D3

Any legislation would be optional. That's the only way this can work. The P5 cannot vote for something that would force the rest of the NCAA to implement it. Anyone will be allowed to use what is voted on if they so choose, but they won't have to. As an FYI, I looked at a list of 109 negative votes to the original stipend vote (160 were received) and only 10 of them were from FBS, with 1 a no on implementation, not that they were against it. This amounts to ~8% in the ones listed.....with that trend not many from FBS were voting against it which means the P5 and G5 are aligned in their interests. The P5 needs the G5, so they will make sure we get enough to keep us happy and not causing issues if it lets them get stuff they want....hence why once this proposal is implemented, FBS schools will be able to make the changes they want.

FCS might have shot themselves in the foot by shooting the stipend down. That action is part of what led to what's going on now. I suspect we're going to see things like more and more conferences not scheduling FCS schools and potential changes to transfer rules that would make FCS no longer the haven for players to escape to among other potential changes. FCS would suffer from any of those.

[eaglewraith]

Autonomy. Some here seem to think it will have little impacton the rest ofcollegefootball. .When Big 5 autonmous group decides to allow 100 scholarships per year. Then they decide not to play any non B5 members. Of course they wouldn.t do that would they?

Well Title IX would come into play dramatically, and law supercedes NCAA policy. I don't think schools want to waste money on potentially having to start a new women's sport to be able to get enough women's scholarships to satisfy Title IX. There's a great deal of cost associated there. Also, I imagine the G5 would vote against that particular change as a cost management move....couple with the rest of the NCAA the P5 would be shot down even with the heavier weighting on their votes. Not to mention schools like Vandy and Wake (among others) have to pay a dramatically higher cost to add relatively 30 scholarships (mens/womens) and they wouldn't be in favor of it.

P5 schools also aren't going to sit there and destroy each other week in and week out when they could schedule Georgia State. They get the benefit of a full FBS schedule, they have an extended conference schedule which gives them another quality opponent, and no FCS schools.

[bonarae]

FCS might have shot themselves in the foot by shooting the stipend down. That action is part of what led to what's going on now. I suspect we're going to see things like more and more conferences not scheduling FCS schools and potential changes to transfer rules that would make FCS no longer the haven for players to escape to among other potential changes. FCS would suffer from any of those.

Uh oh. Looks like the FCS membership will be playing themselves and opponents from lower divisions and non-NCAA opponents now... xsmhx What about the Ivies? Is a NESCAC type schedule for them looming over the horizon now?

What about the transferring players? Will they be forced to play D-II, D-III, NAIA or even USCAA? xchinscratchx


Well Title IX would come into play dramatically, and law supercedes NCAA policy. I don't think schools want to waste money on potentially having to start a new women's sport to be able to get enough women's scholarships to satisfy Title IX. There's a great deal of cost associated there. Also, I imagine the G5 would vote against that particular change as a cost management move....couple with the rest of the NCAA the P5 would be shot down even with the heavier weighting on their votes. Not to mention schools like Vandy and Wake (among others) have to pay a dramatically higher cost to add relatively 30 scholarships (mens/womens) and they wouldn't be in favor of it.

Has there been any action to take down Title IX? It is too much for me to digest about the balance of athletes. We need more men's sports anyway. I can't even think of any women's sport that's still a niche / club / rec sport right now.

[Green26]

Non-FBS is about to be marginalized. P5 and G5 schools will have enough weight added to their votes that they can pass legislation with ZERO positive votes from the rest of the NCAA.

So what? Who cares? The Big 5, with their tv contracts, have already moved away from the others. Where have you been? This has been happening for years.

[Green26]

Any legislation would be optional. That's the only way this can work. The P5 cannot vote for something that would force the rest of the NCAA to implement it. Anyone will be allowed to use what is voted on if they so choose, but they won't have to. As an FYI, I looked at a list of 109 negative votes to the original stipend vote (160 were received) and only 10 of them were from FBS, with 1 a no on implementation, not that they were against it. This amounts to ~8% in the ones listed.....with that trend not many from FBS were voting against it which means the P5 and G5 are aligned in their interests. The P5 needs the G5, so they will make sure we get enough to keep us happy and not causing issues if it lets them get stuff they want....hence why once this proposal is implemented, FBS schools will be able to make the changes they want.

FCS might have shot themselves in the foot by shooting the stipend down. That action is part of what led to what's going on now. I suspect we're going to see things like more and more conferences not scheduling FCS schools and potential changes to transfer rules that would make FCS no longer the haven for players to escape to among other potential changes. FCS would suffer from any of those.


Good post. My thoughts too.

[citdog]

So what? Who cares?

Sums up my feelings EXACTLY. Wonder why the OTHER GSU in pigs ass, ga folks don't get it.......

[Green26]

Uh oh. Looks like the FCS membership will be playing themselves and opponents from lower divisions and non-NCAA opponents now... xsmhx What about the Ivies? Is a NESCAC type schedule for them looming over the horizon now?

What about the transferring players? Will they be forced to play D-II, D-III, NAIA or even USCAA? xchinscratchx



Has there been any action to take down Title IX? It is too much for me to digest about the balance of athletes. We need more men's sports anyway. I can't even think of any women's sport that's still a niche / club / rec sport right now.

Might this cause the non-Big 5 to want to play more FCS teams?

[Green26]

There's no official list yet, but do you really think this these things are going to kill the non-Big 5 and FCS?

" ...the list of autonomous items has not been finalized, it is likely to include issues such as providing money to students that goes uncovered by traditional scholarships; expanded insurance, including coverage for pro prospects; more resources for academic and career counseling; and funding to help athletes' families travel to NCAA tournaments..."

[bonarae]

There's no official list yet, but do you really think this these things are going to kill the non-Big 5 and FCS?

" ...the list of autonomous items has not been finalized, it is likely to include issues such as providing money to students that goes uncovered by traditional scholarships; expanded insurance, including coverage for pro prospects; more resources for academic and career counseling; and funding to help athletes' families travel to NCAA tournaments..."

I agree with the list of possible things. Those items are too much for the non-Big 5 and FCS to handle by themselves.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

estroy each other week in and week out when they could schedule Georgia State. They get the benefit of a full FBS schedule, they have an extended conference schedule which gives them another quality opponent, and no FCS schools.

So let me get this straight... the defense of the Wannabe 5 is... Georgia State is so terrible and FBS in name only, that the Power 5 will want to schedule them more than an FCS team? xlolx

Of course, the Power 5 can (and most likely wil) continue to schedule Western Carolina and Austin Peay, and can (and most likely will) continue to schedule one-time home games to fill the seats. The answer, of course, is economics. Power 5 teams will always take more home games for the lowest cost.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There's no official list yet, but do you really think this these things are going to kill the non-Big 5 and FCS?

" ...the list of autonomous items has not been finalized, it is likely to include issues such as providing money to students that goes uncovered by traditional scholarships; expanded insurance, including coverage for pro prospects; more resources for academic and career counseling; and funding to help athletes' families travel to NCAA tournaments..."


I agree with the list of possible things. Those items are too much for the non-Big 5 and FCS to handle by themselves.

What are the solutions for these "problems", in the eyes of the Big 5? Throw money at it.

Kids aren't graduating enough, the solution is buy an academic staff that costs $1M a year to hound the kids into attending class and guide them towards taking easier classes. Kids are misbehaving and selling Ohio State memorabilia for tattoos, the solution is to throw the kids $5,000 and have them pay for the tattoos out of their own pocket. Kids are having money thrown at them by agents, the solution is to have the conferences register agents (which will net them even more money, but will cost millions to set up) and then blame the kid when they choose some other money-grubber.

And that's just for the ones listed. The Power 5 is saying that they can change the rules, or the mandates, at a whim. The Power 5 have issues they want to try to solve (which actually might be legitimate), but the problems and their solutions are borne from, and solved by, money.

For the 75% of the membership that is in this game for different reasons, they are expensive solutions to problems that are either exceedingly minor or nonexistent.

[Catatonic]

What are the solutions for these "problems", in the eyes of the Big 5? Throw money at it.

Kids aren't graduating enough, the solution is buy an academic staff that costs $1M a year to hound the kids into attending class and guide them towards taking easier classes. Kids are misbehaving and selling Ohio State memorabilia for tattoos, the solution is to throw the kids $5,000 and have them pay for the tattoos out of their own pocket. Kids are having money thrown at them by agents, the solution is to have the conferences register agents (which will net them even more money, but will cost millions to set up) and then blame the kid when they choose some other money-grubber.

And that's just for the ones listed. The Power 5 is saying that they can change the rules, or the mandates, at a whim. The Power 5 have issues they want to try to solve (which actually might be legitimate), but the problems and their solutions are borne from, and solved by, money.

For the 75% of the membership that is in this game for different reasons, they are expensive solutions to problems that are either exceedingly minor or nonexistent.

Let the 25% set rules that make sense to them.

This might actually free the rest of us to adopt rules to ensure we keep the student in student athlete.

[eaglewraith]

For the 75% of the membership that is in this game for different reasons, they are expensive solutions to problems that are either exceedingly minor or nonexistent.

And for the 75% who don't want it, they won't have to implement it. Programs at each end of the spectrum have different issues that are not applicable to the other. There's no reason why FBS shouldn't be able to make policies that only affect them, with the option for the rest of NCAA to opt in if they so choose.

[eaglewraith]

So let me get this straight... the defense of the Wannabe 5 is... Georgia State is so terrible and FBS in name only, that the Power 5 will want to schedule them more than an FCS team? xlolx

Of course, the Power 5 can (and most likely wil) continue to schedule Western Carolina and Austin Peay, and can (and most likely will) continue to schedule one-time home games to fill the seats. The answer, of course, is economics. Power 5 teams will always take more home games for the lowest cost.

The B1G has already moved in a direction that would eliminate options for northern FCS schools to get a game with them. With the CFP coming, as soon as a school gets left out because they played an FCS and the team that makes it ahead of them didn't....guess what happens?

[MplsBison]

What are the solutions for these "problems", in the eyes of the Big 5? Throw money at it.

Kids aren't graduating enough, the solution is buy an academic staff that costs $1M a year to hound the kids into attending class and guide them towards taking easier classes. Kids are misbehaving and selling Ohio State memorabilia for tattoos, the solution is to throw the kids $5,000 and have them pay for the tattoos out of their own pocket. Kids are having money thrown at them by agents, the solution is to have the conferences register agents (which will net them even more money, but will cost millions to set up) and then blame the kid when they choose some other money-grubber.

And that's just for the ones listed. The Power 5 is saying that they can change the rules, or the mandates, at a whim. The Power 5 have issues they want to try to solve (which actually might be legitimate), but the problems and their solutions are borne from, and solved by, money.

For the 75% of the membership that is in this game for different reasons, they are expensive solutions to problems that are either exceedingly minor or nonexistent.

And?

As is your M.O., you're preaching doomsday to anyone who will listen. But the fact is that any school who can't currently afford the improvements will either ask their students and donors to foot the bill or they just won't have them.

The P5 already operate at a significant budget advantage over the G5, so it doesn't change anything.

In fact, there are G5 schools playing right now with less than 85 scholarships. So even your supposed trump card of the P5 going to 100 scholarships (even though Mike Slive is on record saying they have zero intention of doing that) does nothing. The G5 will soldier on at 80-85 scholarships and continue competing with the P5 on the field, while collecting more money and having more bowl access via the CFP than ever before.

[MplsBison]

And for the 75% who don't want it, they won't have to implement it. Programs at each end of the spectrum have different issues that are not applicable to the other. There's no reason why FBS shouldn't be able to make policies that only affect them, with the option for the rest of NCAA to opt in if they so choose.

Exactly correct. At the end of the day, athletes at the P5 schools (and any other DI schools who chose to implement the improvements) gain some benefits. The rest continue on as they did last season, while still competing against those top programs as they did last year.

Please realize tat LFN has an agenda and will try to pigeonhole any discussion ultimately towards that end. He wants to make it so that only the P5 are in their own special division that only plays games internally. The idea makes him giddy, because he thinks that would spell the end of any distinction between the G5 and FCS officially and the two groups would be forced to merge. That's his endgame and he'll go to any length to obtain it.

[MplsBison]

Unfortunately, what will happen to Divisions II and III? Aren't they missing out, or are they also included in this mess that was started by Division I?

The vote on Thursday was made by the NCAA Division I board of directors. It applies only to Division I.

Any new rules that the P5 devise to benefit themselves therefore only apply to DI. The other divisions have their own rulebooks.

[eaglewraith]

The idea makes him giddy, because he thinks that would spell the end of any distinction between the G5 and FCS officially and the two groups would be forced to merge. That's his endgame and he'll go to any length to obtain it.

The only way a merger would happen is if schools from FCS stepped up to the financial obligation level of the G5. No way would they just be mashed together. Anyone that thinks differently is just delusional.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The only way a merger would happen is if schools from FCS stepped up to the financial obligation level of the G5. No way would they just be mashed together. Anyone that thinks differently is just delusional.

The incentives to spend more to become a member of the Wannabe 5 conferences are dwindling fast.

I love how the Wannabe 5 schools are in complete denial that they are somehow going to be immune to the explosion of spending, and that the Power 5 will continue to throw money at them. Once they have autonomy, they'll literally have no use for them anymore.

In fact, you could say that these things that the Power 5 will be providing will put an enormous amount of pressure on the Wannabe 5 - even more than FCS. FCS, after all, can say they're cost-containment. Wannabe FBS is all about pretending to be Power 5, so they will have to try to spend the money, with no real easy recourse except to jack up student fees even more.

[Sader87]

Who knows how this will all play out? We're all basically speculating at this point. I do think a shift to a "Power 5 and everyone else" will effect a lot of Eastern schools though. I don't see either Army or Navy being a part of/near part of this sort of alignment nor do I see BC or Syracuse being too sanguine with this type of alignment. UConn is also "on the outside looking in" right now too.

[MplsBison]

The incentives to spend more to become a member of the Wannabe 5 conferences are dwindling fast.

I love how the Wannabe 5 schools are in complete denial that they are somehow going to be immune to the explosion of spending, and that the Power 5 will continue to throw money at them. Once they have autonomy, they'll literally have no use for them anymore.

In fact, you could say that these things that the Power 5 will be providing will put an enormous amount of pressure on the Wannabe 5 - even more than FCS. FCS, after all, can say they're cost-containment. Wannabe FBS is all about pretending to be Power 5, so they will have to try to spend the money, with no real easy recourse except to jack up student fees even more.

See eagle, he doesn't even try to hide it.

LFN, you know that any DI school will be "immune" to the improvements to the extent that they choose to be. And that goes for every DI school, G5, FCS and non-football included

And the benefits will certainly extend immediately to men's basketball, so non-football high mid-majors like the Big East are in this discussion too. Though I'm doubtful even the P5 will rush to extend the benefits to athletes outside of football and men's basketball.

[MplsBison]

The only way a merger would happen is if schools from FCS stepped up to the financial obligation level of the G5. No way would they just be mashed together. Anyone that thinks differently is just delusional.

I don't see it either.

Even in LFN's dream scenario where the P5 are in their own division playing games only amongst themselves and the CFP is dissolved for a new post-season agreement involving only the P5 division, the teams remaining in the G5 will soldier on under the current rules of the FBS. They'll continue to have 80-85 scholarships and go to bowl games, or hold their own playoff.

Moving back down to FCS will be too bitter of a pill to swallow, so they'll figure out a way to avoid it. Like Idaho and NMSU did.

[Sader87]

Again, who knows, but I just don't see a "middle D1 division" coming into fruition. My guess is that what evolves ultimately is a "Power 5/Super 64 etc" and everybody else in D1 (FBS and FCS included). I foresee a fair amount of schools either dropping or cutting back on $$$ to football.

In a way a lot of this is semantics. Yes, a lot of the "non-Power 5" spend a lot of $$$ on football but a lot of the NP5 were FCS themselves (or in some cases didn't have a football program) a decade or two earlier.

This is basically just making the demarcation between the P5 and everyone else at the D1 level a little clearer/more transparent.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Again, who knows, but I just don't see a "middle D1 division" coming into fruition. My guess is that what evolves ultimately is a "Power 5/Super 64 etc" and everybody else in D1 (FBS and FCS included). I foresee a fair amount of schools either dropping or cutting back on $$$ to football.

In a way a lot of this is semantics. Yes, a lot of the "non-Power 5" spend a lot of $$$ on football but a lot of the NP5 were FCS themselves (or in some cases didn't have a football program) a decade or two earlier.

This is basically just making the demarcation between the P5 and everyone else at the D1 level a little clearer/more transparent.

There is still a lot of separation within the G5. The AAC has several programs that were in fact "BCS" at one time or another, some times twice. The MWC is also a tweener despite the fact that the vast majority of their programs have always been considered "second tier" by association.

[Sader87]

I don't disagree. There are a fair amount of NP5 who are closer to the P5 but there are just as many NP5 who in reality are much closer to FCS (in terms of attendance, $$$ spent etc etc) than they are to the P5.

There are also some P5 schools, as we've mentioned like BC, Duke, Northwestern etc, who may have philosophical disagreements with how college football will be set up in this brave new world.

It's not going to be pretty or easy sorting this all out.

[walliver]

This won't hurt the SoCon at all. Our malcontents are gone as of June 1st. We will play the same teams we always play and enjoy ourselves at the games. Our players will continue to graduate and get non-athletic jobs. The sun will rise in the East and set in the West. At tailgates, the beer will be cold and the Chardonnay chilled.

We will not bankrupt ourselves trying to compete with the NFL development league.

We don't want FCS and the wannabe 5 to merge as we have no need for those people.

[Sader87]

This won't hurt the SoCon at all. Our malcontents are gone as of June 1st. We will play the same teams we always play and enjoy ourselves at the games. Our players will continue to graduate and get non-athletic jobs. The sun will rise in the East and set in the West. At tailgates, the beer will be cold and the Chardonnay chilled.

We will not bankrupt ourselves trying to compete with the NFL development league.

We don't want FCS and the wannabe 5 to merge as we have no need for those people.

This is essentially how I feel but I do think we have let things slide at HC (and the PL) a little too much over the past couple of decades. Hopefully that is turning in the other direction with the addition of scholarships....while I don't think we should sell our soul for football success, we have gone too far in the other direction and that has greatly hurt support/enthusiasm for the program with alums and local fans.

There can exist a "happy medium" between good D1 football, academics and overall support (media, alums, fans etc) I believe...hopefully scholarship football in the PL will bring this about.

[citdog]

This won't hurt the SoCon at all. Our malcontents are gone as of June 1st. We will play the same teams we always play and enjoy ourselves at the games. Our players will continue to graduate and get non-athletic jobs. The sun will rise in the East and set in the West. At tailgates, the beer will be cold and the Chardonnay chilled.

We will not bankrupt ourselves trying to compete with the NFL development league.

We don't want FCS and the wannabe 5 to merge as we have no need for those people.

INDEED. GOOD RIDDANCE.

[bonarae]

This won't hurt the SoCon at all. Our malcontents are gone as of June 1st. We will play the same teams we always play and enjoy ourselves at the games. Our players will continue to graduate and get non-athletic jobs. The sun will rise in the East and set in the West. At tailgates, the beer will be cold and the Chardonnay chilled.

We will not bankrupt ourselves trying to compete with the NFL development league.

We don't want FCS and the wannabe 5 to merge as we have no need for those people.

So do the Ivies... can we academic-oriented FCS teams weather this long-term storm? xchinscratchx

[MplsBison]

So do the Ivies... can we academic-oriented FCS teams weather this long-term storm? xchinscratchx

The Ivy League teams don't award athletic scholarships in the first place. By far the most significant component of the improvements is increasing the value of an athletic scholarship to include cost of living.

This whole ordeal is not applicable to the IL.

[MplsBison]

This won't hurt the SoCon at all. Our malcontents are gone as of June 1st. We will play the same teams we always play and enjoy ourselves at the games. Our players will continue to graduate and get non-athletic jobs. The sun will rise in the East and set in the West. At tailgates, the beer will be cold and the Chardonnay chilled.

We will not bankrupt ourselves trying to compete with the NFL development league.

We don't want FCS and the wannabe 5 to merge as we have no need for those people.

And the G5 have no intention of merging with the FCS. Glad that's settled.

Now someone just needs to implant a friggin' clue in LFN's noggin.

[TribeNomad]

This won't hurt the SoCon at all. Our malcontents are gone as of June 1st. We will play the same teams we always play and enjoy ourselves at the games. Our players will continue to graduate and get non-athletic jobs. The sun will rise in the East and set in the West. At tailgates, the beer will be cold and the Chardonnay chilled.

We will not bankrupt ourselves trying to compete with the NFL development league.

We don't want FCS and the wannabe 5 to merge as we have no need for those people.


Agree.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Nothing to see here, Wannabe 5 fans...

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250851/sec-announces-format-for-future-football-schedules.aspx


The Southeastern Conference on Sunday announced the format for future football scheduling that is a continuation of the existing format and adds a strength-of-schedule component that requires all schools to play an ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or Pac-12 opponent on an annual basis. The announcement comes after a vote of the league's institutions.

What's Alabama more likely to cut out of the schedule now thanks to this decision - that second home-and-home against Louisiana-Lafayette, or home games vs. Western Carolina and Gardner-Webb?

And just wait when they vote the number of these games to increase to two or three a season.

[Catatonic]

Nothing to see here, Wannabe 5 fans...

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250851/sec-announces-format-for-future-football-schedules.aspx



What's Alabama more likely to cut out of the schedule now thanks to this decision - that second home-and-home against Louisiana-Lafayette, or home games vs. Western Carolina and Gardner-Webb?

And just wait when they vote the number of these games to increase to two or three a season.

Alabama and most SEC schools already comply with the new scheduling requirement and still manage to play one FCS game a year. I checked Bama's scheduling history back to 2007. The have scheduled at least one OOC game against a Big 5 opponent each of those years. This change should not affect FCS games for most, if not all, the SEC.

This could certainly change if the number of required OOC games vs Big 5 opponents is increased, but we are good for now.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Alabama and most SEC schools already comply with the new scheduling requirement and still manage to play one FCS game a year. I checked Bama's scheduling history back to 2007. The have scheduled at least one OOC game against a Big 5 opponent each of those years. This change should not affect FCS games for most, if not all, the SEC.

This could certainly change if the number of required OOC games vs Big 5 opponents is increased, but we are good for now.

I agree, for FCS there is no impact for now. But it's likely to mean fewer opportunities for Wannabe 5 schools. Economics.

[MplsBison]

Literally nothing changes for Kentucky, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, since they've been scheduling a P5 non-conference game for many years (ie, UK-Louisville, UGA-GT, FL-FSU, SC-Clemson). The other schools will follow suit, because as Slive correctly points out, the endgame is now in control humans who will consider strength of schedule to be critically important in rankings.

That's also why the SEC will be scheduling more games against the G5 and less against the FCS going forward.


They'll be guarantee games at the SEC site, of course. The SEC teams aren't going to give up home games to meet strength of schedule concerns. But that just means the $400k that would've gone to a SoCon school will now become $1million+ to a G5 school to perform the same duty.

Now if I were the G5, I'd start holding out for $1.5-2million per game, knowing that the SEC schools can easily afford it and will be in dire need of games against FBS teams to pump up their schedule strength numbers. After all, a game against an FCS team does nothing for them in the eyes of the committee. They might as well be playing a DII team.

[DFW HOYA]

Now if I were the G5, I'd start holding out for $1.5-2million per game, knowing that the SEC schools can easily afford it and will be in dire need of games against FBS teams to pump up their schedule strength numbers. After all, a game against an FCS team does nothing for them in the eyes of the committee. They might as well be playing a DII team.

The SEC doesn't worry about strength of schedule. Imagine if they simply went to 10 conference games a year.

[walliver]

Clemson played two FCS games in 2013 and still went to a BCS bowl. FCS games don't really seem to hurt.

[Catatonic]

Literally nothing changes for Kentucky, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, since they've been scheduling a P5 non-conference game for many years (ie, UK-Louisville, UGA-GT, FL-FSU, SC-Clemson). The other schools will follow suit, because as Slive correctly points out, the endgame is now in control humans who will consider strength of schedule to be critically important in rankings.

That's also why the SEC will be scheduling more games against the G5 and less against the FCS going forward.


They'll be guarantee games at the SEC site, of course. The SEC teams aren't going to give up home games to meet strength of schedule concerns. But that just means the $400k that would've gone to a SoCon school will now become $1million+ to a G5 school to perform the same duty.

Now if I were the G5, I'd start holding out for $1.5-2million per game, knowing that the SEC schools can easily afford it and will be in dire need of games against FBS teams to pump up their schedule strength numbers. After all, a game against an FCS team does nothing for them in the eyes of the committee. They might as well be playing a DII team.

LSU and Alabama have each scheduled a Big 5 conference opponent as well, rotating conferences and schools in lieu of a traditional rival. I think I read that TAMU and Vandy are the only schools whose scheduling pattern will need to change.

[Catatonic]

Clemson played two FCS games in 2013 and still went to a BCS bowl. FCS games don't really seem to hurt.

The shift from BCS to a selection committee for the four team playoff is supposed to place more emphasis on SOS. We shall see.

[MplsBison]

The SEC doesn't worry about strength of schedule. Imagine if they simply went to 10 conference games a year.

They're doing this because of strength of schedule. 10-2 becomes 8-2 with two of the games being FCS wins, in the eyes if the selection committee.

But change that Western Carolina win into a Georgia State win and you get credit for it.

Not saying that's the way it should be, I'm just saying that's how it will work.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Joe Schad @schadjoe
(https://twitter.com/schadjoe)Big Ten Commish Jim Delany says the list of autonomy items "is modest. We want more."



Agenda clarified.

[walliver]

They're doing this because of strength of schedule. 10-2 becomes 8-2 with two of the games being FCS wins, in the eyes if the selection committee.

But change that Western Carolina win into a Georgia State win and you get credit for it.

Not saying that's the way it should be, I'm just saying that's how it will work.

It's hard to see through the eyes of a committee that does not yet exist.

When the 4-team playoff format was initially developed, it was interesting to see that the SEC was the primary organization wanting a committee, not a computer/poll ranking like BCS. If the SEC supports a committee, it is because the SEC believes that that committee will look out for the SEC's interests. Despite all the hoopla otherwise, I believe the role of the committee is to keep usurpers like Northern Michigan out of the playoffs, not create a fair playing field. You apparently believe otherwise.

[344Johnson]

It's hard to see through the eyes of a committee that does not yet exist.

When the 4-team playoff format was initially developed, it was interesting to see that the SEC was the primary organization wanting a committee, not a computer/poll ranking like BCS. If the SEC supports a committee, it is because the SEC believes that that committee will look out for the SEC's interests. Despite all the hoopla otherwise, I believe the role of the committee is to keep usurpers like Northern Michigan out of the playoffs, not create a fair playing field. You apparently believe otherwise.

I hope northern Michigan doesn't get any ideas.... D2! Lulz. I get what you mean though

[walliver]

I hope northern Michigan doesn't get any ideas.... D2! Lulz. I get what you mean though

I should have said Northern Illinois, I knew it was something Northern.

[MplsBison]

A committee is the only possible way that a team like Northern Illinois could actually make it into the four team playoff. A computer poll would never allow it.

The committee does exist and is formed. Here are the members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_Playoff#Selection_committee

And here are some more articles.

i) http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10859331/college-football-playoff-1st-ranking-released-oct-28

Thing to note in that article is that the PAC, B1G and XII are officially at nine conference games while the SEC is at a defacto nine games, since some of their members are locked into a yearly rivalry with an ACC team. I suspect that the ACC will also go with the defacto nine route, dictating the rest of their league (other than L'ville, GT, FSU and Clem) to schedule a yearly game with a P5 team when they aren't playing Notre Dame. Though I have to say it's going to be tough to get any team from the nine conference game leagues to play 10 tough games in a year. Therefore, the SEC and ACC might just do well to have a permanent, 14 team cross-over series as their defacto ninth conference game. If such a thing was worked out, I would rather have the PAC and B1G to follow suit than play nine conference games amonst themselves. That's if the PAC could find two more reasonable members, perhaps choosing the best among not great options: New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada, Boise and Hawaii.

But the punchline is that with basically every P5 league playing nine tough games a year and still needing to maintain a tough strength of schedule, there is going to be a lot less room for FCS guarantee games against the P5. I think the G5 will be more willing to schedule games against the FCS, though. They'll need home games after all.

ii) http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10856218/college-football-playoff-officials-discuss-how-select-teams

[MplsBison]

Agenda clarified.

"Delany went on to say, 'Our goal is to destroy the NCAA sub-division called FCS. I want every stadium in that sub-division to be set on fire.' Delany was then heard making deep, roaring laughter-like sounds for the next several minutes."

I guess you were right LFN!!

[CrazyCat]

Stanford Coach Shaw


Because what you see in our conference is not just the nine-game schedule, it's the fact that you have to play your non-conference games early in the season. So for those teams that don't have that, both of those caveats, where they can play eight games and then schedule a I-AA or an easy victory – let's call it what it is – in week 10, so they can get a break in between two tough opponents… we talked about that in our conference. Steve Sarkisian was one of the guys who said it. "Hey, if I can schedule a game between Oregon and Stanford that's a break of a game for me, great. I'd love to do that."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/04/28/coachs-corner-david-shaw-stanford-football-four/8406907/

[MplsBison]

Stanford Coach Shaw


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/04/28/coachs-corner-david-shaw-stanford-football-four/8406907/

Thanks for the link. Couple comments:

1) He's saying (complaining) that the PAC teams can't do that. They're required to play all their non-conference teams upfront, in the early portion of their schedule. Then the nine PAC conference games come in the last nine or ten weeks of the regular season.

But other leagues apparently can do this, which brings me to my second point.

2) It will be just as much of a "break" or "easy victory" for these schools to schedule a Louisiana-Monroe instead of a Northwest Louisiana St. Except that in the minds of the selection committee, a win against ULM counts while a win against NWSt. doesn't.

[MplsBison]

Couple more links on the CFP from this morning, wrapping up the CFP meetings from yesterday. The Q&A link is particularly helpful.

Everything appears to be set for this season. I for one am excited that there is finally a playoff in the FBS!

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10864040/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-sets-parameters-season

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/94936/college-football-playoff-qa

[CrazyCat]

Bobcats just signed to play at Washington State in 2017.

[MplsBison]

Doesn't surprise me. FBS options are much more limited in the west.

Idaho, New Mexico St and the Mountain West are all they have. And most of the MWC teams would not be considered "easy wins", like playing Montana St will be considered.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Couple more links on the CFP from this morning, wrapping up the CFP meetings from yesterday. The Q&A link is particularly helpful.

Everything appears to be set for this season. I for one am excited that there is finally a playoff in the FBS!

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10864040/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-sets-parameters-season

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/94936/college-football-playoff-qa



Yes. So Osborne can vote for Nebraska, Tranghese can vote for former Big East schools, Manning for Ole Miss, Willingham can vote for Notre Dame, Washington or Stanford, etc.

A joke. An absolute joke.

[DFW HOYA]

. That's if the PAC could find two more reasonable members, perhaps choosing the best among not great options: New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada, Boise and Hawaii.

If the Pac-12 wants things to get really interesting, forget those schools and select these two:

Texas
Oklahoma

[MplsBison]

If the Pac-12 wants things to get really interesting, forget those schools and select these two:

Texas
Oklahoma

It would absolutely be interesting, but it won't happen. We were just there a couple years ago (when the PAC was looking at absorbing the entire south half of the Big XII).

Ultimately, the PAC would not accept Texas having its own TV network and Texas decided it could not give up being the master of a conference. They were the ones who worked hard to save the Big XII, so they could give birth to the Longhorn Network.

- - - Updated - - -


A joke. An absolute joke.

Is it any different than the FCS selection committee?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/05/acc-scheduling-decision-could-affect-odu-football


The Atlantic Coast Conference will hold its spring meeting the same time as C-USA, and the critical issue on the agenda is future conference football schedules. ACC officials will consider a proposal to expand the conference schedule from eight games to nine.
If such a proposal is adopted, it likely would hurt ODU and other mid-major Football Bowl Subdivision schools when it comes to scheduling ACC opponents. The proposal would result in 14 fewer potential games for mid-major schools to schedule against the ACC.

ODU has a home and home series with North Carolina State beginning this fall. In 2017, the Monarchs begin a long-term series with Virginia Tech, playing seven of the next nine seasons, including three games in Norfolk.

East Carolina, Navy, Marshall, Army, Troy and many other mid-major schools also have long-term plans to play ACC schools.

If the ACC goes to nine games, some of those games won’t be played. And the potential change has already affected ODU’s scheduling.


Note that there's no discussion about reducing FCS schools being scheduled by ACC teams.

And remember, with autonomy, the Big 5 will be able to say, "We require a championship game to qualify for the CFP, and we require 9 conference games," and the rest of the membership won't have any say in the matter. In this case, the other FBS conferences.

[MplsBison]

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/05/acc-scheduling-decision-could-affect-odu-football



Note that there's no discussion about reducing FCS schools being scheduled by ACC teams.

And remember, with autonomy, the Big 5 will be able to say, "We require a championship game to qualify for the CFP, and we require 9 conference games," and the rest of the membership won't have any say in the matter. In this case, the other FBS conferences.

The reason they didn't mention the FCS is because the authors of these articles are only required to be competent on what most of their audience consider to be DI football. That means just the FBS. Rest assured, any decrease in scheduling opportunities for P5 schools (particularly in the central and east time zones) will be felt most bluntly by FCS teams hoping to schedule them. The strength of schedule component in the new rankings dictates this.


You're certainly free to predict any number of misleading, unreasonable demands that the P5 could make via autonomy -- but isn't it rather dim of you to predict them mandating nine conference games when the SEC just announced they would stay at eight??

[CrazyCat]

http://www.ask8ball.net/

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Nobody can predict with any amount of accuracy what will happen definitively. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say that granting all the power to one set of schools/groups/people without any checks and balances from everyone else is a bad idea, allowing the possibility of something really bad happening.

You'd have thought that people learned from the toppling of the European monarchs in the 16th century, but occasionally, it seems, people need to be reminded about what a bad idea it is to concentrate unchecked power.

[MplsBison]

A committee is the only possible way that a team like Northern Illinois could actually make it into the four team playoff. A computer poll would never allow it.

The committee does exist and is formed. Here are the members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_Playoff#Selection_committee

And here are some more articles.

i) http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10859331/college-football-playoff-1st-ranking-released-oct-28

Thing to note in that article is that the PAC, B1G and XII are officially at nine conference games while the SEC is at a defacto nine games, since some of their members are locked into a yearly rivalry with an ACC team. I suspect that the ACC will also go with the defacto nine route, dictating the rest of their league (other than L'ville, GT, FSU and Clem) to schedule a yearly game with a P5 team when they aren't playing Notre Dame. Though I have to say it's going to be tough to get any team from the nine conference game leagues to play 10 tough games in a year. Therefore, the SEC and ACC might just do well to have a permanent, 14 team cross-over series as their defacto ninth conference game. If such a thing was worked out, I would rather have the PAC and B1G to follow suit than play nine conference games amonst themselves. That's if the PAC could find two more reasonable members, perhaps choosing the best among not great options: New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada, Boise and Hawaii.

But the punchline is that with basically every P5 league playing nine tough games a year and still needing to maintain a tough strength of schedule, there is going to be a lot less room for FCS guarantee games against the P5. I think the G5 will be more willing to schedule games against the FCS, though. They'll need home games after all.

ii) http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10856218/college-football-playoff-officials-discuss-how-select-teams

As I thought, the ACC has decided to stay with eight conference games and require one non-conference game scheduled against a P5 opponent or Notre Dame.

Interesting that some ACC teams have already gone quite a bit above and beyond that, like Florida State which has its annual rivalry game with Florida (SEC), gets Notre Dame this year AND still scheduled Oklahoma St as another non-conference game. Good for them! Obviously aiming for a top four ranking and spot in the first ever playoff. Though the game against Citadel won't help them in that regard!

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10922297/acc-votes-keep-eight-game-conference-schedule

[SpiritCymbal]

So let me get this straight... the defense of the Wannabe 5 is... Georgia State is so terrible and FBS in name only, that the Power 5 will want to schedule them more than an FCS team? xlolx

Of course, the Power 5 can (and most likely wil) continue to schedule Western Carolina and Austin Peay, and can (and most likely will) continue to schedule one-time home games to fill the seats. The answer, of course, is economics. Power 5 teams will always take more home games for the lowest cost.


Nothing to see here, Wannabe 5 fans...

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250851/sec-announces-format-for-future-football-schedules.aspx



What's Alabama more likely to cut out of the schedule now thanks to this decision - that second home-and-home against Louisiana-Lafayette, or home games vs. Western Carolina and Gardner-Webb?

And just wait when they vote the number of these games to increase to two or three a season.

I agree, for FCS there is no impact for now. But it's likely to mean fewer opportunities for Wannabe 5 schools. Economics.

Anyone that thinks that the new scheduling parameters the P5 conferences are adopting is going to hurt the G5 programs more than 1-aa programs is fooling themselves.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Saban-No-not-by-choice-to-play-FCS-schools-28828472 (http://247sports.com/Bolt/Saban-No-not-by-choice-to-play-FCS-schools-28828472)


Saban said Alabama schedules an FCS team every year "not by choice," as other larger schools frequently turn Alabama down for non-conference games. The Crimson Tide has generally played one FCS school per year under Saban. Florida coach Will Muschamp earlier in the day said the Gators would no longer schedule FCS teams.

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN (https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN)57m (https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/471341124708085760)
Saban on playing FCS schools: “it’s not by choice we want to do it. We do not want to play those type of teams"

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So let me get this straight - Nick Saban speaks for everybody?

So Florida elects not to schedule an FCS team. That certainly is their right. That's not how everyone, nor how the majority of P5 schools, feel.

Contrary to popular belief, what two schools do does not set policy for the entire P5.

[SpiritCymbal]

So let me get this straight - Nick Saban speaks for everybody?

So Florida elects not to schedule an FCS team. That certainly is their right. That's not how everyone, nor how the majority of P5 schools, feel.

Contrary to popular belief, what two schools do does not set policy for the entire P5.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24573718/will-muschamp-gators-probably-wont-play-fcs-opponents


Big Ten Schools in 2013 agreed not to schedule FCS schools moving forward. The SEC appears to be letting each school decide.

http://www.stevebloom.com/images/b/002491-SB1.jpg

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24573718/will-muschamp-gators-probably-wont-play-fcs-opponents

This will last until it is discovered that Florida's loss of a home game will impact revenue, and do absolutely nothing in regards to their schedule strength.

Of course I just told them that for free.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Big Ten Schools in 2013 agreed not to schedule FCS schools moving forward. The SEC appears to be letting each school decide.

Big Ten schools agreed to let their schools decide, which is bad reporting. The SEC appears to be letting each school decide. Which is the way it has always been, so it's a complete non-news item.

[eaglewraith]

Big Ten schools agreed to let their schools decide, which is bad reporting. The SEC appears to be letting each school decide. Which is the way it has always been, so it's a complete non-news item.

All it takes is one domino.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It's so cute to see the fans of the teams self-evicted from FCS to cling to the crumb of hope that since Florida is saying they're not going to schedule FCS teams, then the rest of the P5 will, too.

For Florida it makes zero economic sense, but in time, they will change their minds, probably about the same time Lousiana-Lafayette meekly asks about their return game. "We spent the money to buy out the Ragin' Cajuns out of their home game to schedule FAMU instead. After all, it's all about getting in-state interest!" xlolx

[MplsBison]

What it means is that Florida will schedule a Sun Belt team for a guarantee home game instead of a SoCon. Nothing more, nothing less.

Except that the Sun Belt team will get more than a $1million for the game while the SoCon team would only get $400k or so.


But that very minor increase of expenses (compared to their revenues) is worth it to Florida because they can't risk being left out of the big money bowl games due to scheduling an FCS team.

The selection commitee will say "Why should we send SEC #2 Florida to the Orange bowl this year when they beat Eastern Kentucky 50-7, while on the other hand B1G #2 Michigan played all FBS teams??"

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Suddenly, the Sun Belt gang is nowhere to be found.

http://m.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/may/28/fcs-foes-to-remain-part-of-sec-scheduling/


The little guy kept coming up at the big-boy table Tuesday as the Southeastern Conference spring meetings got under way in Destin, Fla.

SEC football scheduling as far as league opponents is known through 2025, but will conference members keep playing teams from the Championship Subdivision? As with other scheduling matters in recent months, league coaches were divided.

"I believe it is best for us to continue doing that," Ole Miss coach Hugh Freeze said in a news conference. "I came up from a smaller school, and I know the value it adds to those programs. I find it hard to believe that one game over the totality of a season would really hinder you if you played well in those other games."

Ole Miss had a convincing win at traditional power Texas last season and also waxed FCS member Southeast Missouri State. The Rebels have FCS matchups this year against Presbyterian and next year against UT-Martin.

In agreement with Freeze is Georgia's Mark Richt, who does not have experience coaching at smaller schools but understands the challenge of FCS members. The Bulldogs have played one FCS team each of the last eight seasons and are scheduled to play Charleston Southern this year and Southern next year.

"If we don't have those games with the FCS schools, a lot of them have a very difficult time making their budgets," Richt told reporters. "I think college football is too important at all levels to hurt them by setting criteria that would not allow you to play them."

Alabama has played an FCS program every year under Nick Saban, winning those contests by an average score of 49-6. The Crimson Tide have defeated Western Kentucky and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga the past two seasons by a combined 98-0.

Saban has proposed that the five power conferences schedule nonconference games against each other, but he knows that is not realistic right now and that FCS opponents will continue to exist.

"We try not to do it now, but sometimes it's all that we have left to schedule so we can get 12 games," Saban told reporters. "It's not by choice that we want to do it. I'm for the first people who need to be taken into consideration here who get no consideration -- the fans and the people who support the programs."

SEC commissioner Mike Slive said scheduling FCS schools would be left up to each league member.

[MplsBison]

"I find it hard to believe that one game over the totality of a season would really hinder you if you played well in those other games."

It's easy to be so audacious with your words in an unprecedented year. Let's see him be so bold after a year or two where the first team out of the top four or top twelve could have been on the inside if they hadn't played an FCS team!

No, you'll see any P5 team that fancies itself as a contender falling over itself to purge their schedules of FCS teams as soon as it happens. Mark my words.


"If we don't have those games with the FCS schools, a lot of them have a very difficult time making their budgets"

At most you're talking around $800k minus the revenue that would've come from a home game. Let's call it $500k max. Compared to budges of $3million and up, if you can't afford to miss that revenue then you shouldn't be playing DI football. You either need to drop the sport or go to your students to ask for a fee increase. Do the right thing.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Season ticket holders, aka large donors, do not want games against FCS schools.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Season ticket holders, aka large donors, do not want games against FCS schools.

Were the season ticket holders asked when schools jumped to conferences where most of the conference games are played one or two timezones away?

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Were the season ticket holders asked when schools jumped to conferences where most of the conference games are played one or two timezones away?

They were, just listen to Scott Van Pelt's Maryland rant. The amount it mattered is another question. Overall though, that's a little different.

This is where the fans/alums and school's elitist views are shared at the football factories. They're simply too good to play FCS opponents. There's no need when there's 130 FBS programs.

[MplsBison]

SEC says that if the NCAA won't give them the tools they need to fight the upcoming lawsuits within the framework of Division I, then they'll seek to remain in the NCAA but have a new, separate Division created.

SEC (and the other P5 conferences) need to be able to make a slew of upgrades to the benefits they provide student-athletes in order to have a chance of winning the upcoming lawsuits. Without autonomy, the rest of the Division I membership can veto the requested changes, even though the upgrades would not be mandatory for the DI membership.

The NCAA gave the P5 a proposal for autonomy, but the P5 want less stringent voting requirements and more control in a few areas.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/30/sec-meetings-mike-slive-ncaa-governance-reform-autonomy/9780933/


Discussion points:

1) this is not the P5 proposing a breakaway from the NCAA. In either scenario (whether they remain in Division I or get a new division) they're not leaving the NCAA.

2) the bowl games and the CFP agreement would not be affected if it came to a new Division for the P5.

3) for the rest of the sports, I suspect that if it came to a new division then non-football sports would combine post season tournaments for the top two divisions. In other words, they'd all stay like they are this season.

4) if it turns out that only the G5 conferences will be left in the FBS sub-division of DI football, it may be possible that they'll decide to let FCS teams move up on their own as independents or possibly a new conference or a reclassified conference to exist in FBS. However, any new conference wouldn't be entitled to any of the benefits that the G5 will receive under the CFP agreement, just because those new or reclassified conferences were in FBS.

The CFP is a contract between the P5 and the G5. The entire agreement would have to be renegotiated to expand the number of conferences in the G5. They won't do that until the next contract cycle, in 12 years.

[WestCoastAggie]

I say let this group create another Division. There should've been 4 in the first place.

[MplsBison]

I say let this group create another Division. There should've been 4 in the first place.

If a new Division I is created with only the P5 conferences as members and a new Division II is created for the rest of the current DI membership, I wonder if the NCAA would consider abolishing the sub-divisions of the current DI football for the new DII football.

This would be the simple way to do it:

- 85 scholarships max allowed
- no scholarship minimum, partial scholarships allowed
- 85 participants allowed to receive some type of scholarship
- all other auxiliary rules (for example, the maximum number of coaches allowed) would match FBS
- 12 regular season games allowed every season
- any conference can host a championship game in any way it sees fit (divisions aren't required and no minimum number of teams required), but it's not required (a conference can choose to simply crown the regular season champ as the conference champion)

- NCAA administered championship tournament would be held the same as the current FCS championship (Frisco would be the host of this DII championship through it's current FCS championship host contract, then bid out again)
- every conference champion (however the conference decides to crown it) would receive an invite to the NCAA DII championship
- however, any DII team that meets minimum criteria could play in one post season game independent of the championship
- if a team is invited to the NCAA DII tournament as well as a game independent of the tournament, it must choose one or the other (can't participate in both)
- the NCAA will send at-large invitations to fill the spots of teams that opt out
- minimum criteria for post season games: must play at least ten games against DII or DI teams with a minimum of six wins from those games, and of course it must be eligible for post season play (APR or other penalties)

I think that would cover everything. That would be the ideal scenario in my mind. The G5 would probably fight to maintain a distinction from FCS, though.

[WestCoastAggie]

If a new Division I is created with only the P5 conferences as members and a new Division II is created for the rest of the current DI membership, I wonder if the NCAA would consider abolishing the sub-divisions of the current DI football for the new DII football.

This would be the simple way to do it:

- 85 scholarships max allowed
- no scholarship minimum, partial scholarships allowed
- 85 participants allowed to receive some type of scholarship
- all other auxiliary rules (for example, the maximum number of coaches allowed) would match FBS
- 12 regular season games allowed every season
- any conference can host a championship game in any way it sees fit (divisions aren't required and no minimum number of teams required), but it's not required (a conference can choose to simply crown the regular season champ as the conference champion)

- NCAA administered championship tournament would be held the same as the current FCS championship (Frisco would be the host of this DII championship through it's current FCS championship host contract, then bid out again)
- every conference champion (however the conference decides to crown it) would receive an invite to the NCAA DII championship
- however, any DII team that meets minimum criteria could play in one post season game independent of the championship
- if a team is invited to the NCAA DII tournament as well as a game independent of the tournament, it must choose one or the other (can't participate in both)
- the NCAA will send at-large invitations to fill the spots of teams that opt out
- minimum criteria for post season games: must play at least ten games against DII or DI teams with a minimum of six wins from those games, and of course it must be eligible for post season play (APR or other penalties)

I think that would cover everything. That would be the ideal scenario in my mind. The G5 would probably fight to maintain a distinction from FCS, though.

What happens to the APR?

[MplsBison]

It would stay in place as it is now. Applicable to DI and DII schools to determine post season eligibility.

[DFW HOYA]

I-A scholarships are on a "counter" basis, so any player receiving a scholarship, large or small, counts towards the 85 man limit, but has an effect of forcing teams to offer full grants as a matter of competitive necessity. I-AA scholarships are equivalencies (63) among up to 85 players. This would need some clarification as to which model works going forward.

[MplsBison]

I-A scholarships are on a "counter" basis, so any player receiving a scholarship, large or small, counts towards the 85 man limit, but has an effect of forcing teams to offer full grants as a matter of competitive necessity. I-AA scholarships are equivalencies (63) among up to 85 players. This would need some clarification as to which model works going forward.

It's a moot point because the maximum number of scholarship participants is the same for both sub-divisions (85) and the fact that you can't award more than a full scholarship to any single participant.

So for example, say that team X gives 85 players scholarships that are all valued at 50% of a full scholarship.

In FCS that would mean they're providing 42.5 scholarship equivalencies.
In FBS that would mean they're providing scholarships to 85 participants.


It would only matter if: a) equivalency sports were allowed to award greater than 100% of a full scholarship to a single participant, which obviously would never be allowed or b) the maximum scholarship participants was greater for the equivalency than the head count.

Hypothetical example for b would be if FBS could only have 63 players on scholarship while FCS could award a maximum of 63 scholarship equivalencies to a maximum of 85 participants.


However, FBS does have a rule saying that teams must provide at least 90% of the scholarship maximum. So in fact they have to provide at least 76.5 scholarship equivalencies to a maximum of 85 players.

That rule would be done away with in this hypothetical harmonized DII.


Basically, the rules are pretty simple:

- you can provide from 0 to 85 participants with some type of scholarship
- each participant to whom you provide a scholarship can receive from 0% to 100% of the value of a full scholarship

There would be teams at both extremes (Pioneer, Ivy and Georgetown at zero, Group of five at close to 85 fulls) and the current scholarship FCS teams would probably dot the spectrum between.

Conferences would probably have a say too. For example, the NEC would probably still cap its members at 40 and other formerly FCS conferences may introduce a cap. But that is their business, not the Division's.

[MplsBison]

I don't know why I'm getting excited about this though.

Neither the P5 nor the NCAA want the P5 to leave Division I. The NCAA will cave and approve whatever autonomy proposal that the SEC, B1G and PAC come up with.

Creating a separate Division just for the P5 would create too many headaches. Easier to just let them do whatever they want within Division I.

[MplsBison]

I guess there's also a possibility that the P5 could pull the G5 along for the ride with them, in a new DI.

That would leave just the FCS football schools and non-football DI schools left in a new DII.


In such a case I suppose the new division probably would make a hard cut for all sports in the post season tournaments. That would mean March Madness would only be the P5 and G5 basketball teams.

To me the best part of March Madness is seeing the FCS and non-football DI schools upsetting the P5 schools. So that would be all gone.


If it ends up being this case, then Gene Taylor needs to threaten, stab, cheat, lie and generally set ablaze whomever's house he has to in order to get NDSU into that new DI.

No point being kings of that new DII. We've already been there, twice in the last 35 years.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I-A scholarships are on a "counter" basis, so any player receiving a scholarship, large or small, counts towards the 85 man limit, but has an effect of forcing teams to offer full grants as a matter of competitive necessity. I-AA scholarships are equivalencies (63) among up to 85 players. This would need some clarification as to which model works going forward.

And it is this difference that affects FCS and non-revenue sports in regards to the APR. The APR was devised for counters, and forced into the round hole of equivalencies.

Which then gets to the great question about stipends. Does a kid on 1/2 scholarship get a stipend? Half the stipend? The whole stipend? If it's the whole stipend, how is that not scholarship money...?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The NCAA will cave and approve whatever autonomy proposal that the SEC, B1G and PAC come up with.

The fact that Slive is essentially threatening the membership to get what he wants leads me to believe the direct opposite.

[MplsBison]

The fact that Slive is essentially threatening the membership to get what he wants leads me to believe the direct opposite.

The NCAA already gave them a proposal for autonomy within Division I. The reason Slive made the remarks is because he, like the PAC commissioner before him, don't agree on some of the specifics of the proposal. They're already working or perhaps finished (not quite sure) a counter-proposal to send back to the NCAA for review.

The Florida president was quoted in the USA Today article as being pessimistic that it's going to get worked out in time and so he thinks just going to a new division is faster. But the South Carolina president is optimistic it will get done in time.


The rest of the Division I membership doesn't get a say in this. It's being done for the P5 solely, to keep them within Division I in such a way that allows them to fight the impending litigation.


If the FCS football schools and non-football DI schools banded together and approached the NCAA to say "we don't like autonomy for the P5 within Division I and we want them to have their own division or leave the NCAA entirely" the NCAA would say "tough s___".

[MplsBison]

And it is this difference that affects FCS and non-revenue sports in regards to the APR. The APR was devised for counters, and forced into the round hole of equivalencies.

Which then gets to the great question about stipends. Does a kid on 1/2 scholarship get a stipend? Half the stipend? The whole stipend? If it's the whole stipend, how is that not scholarship money...?

The APR has nothing to do with the value of a participant's scholarship. You have a hypothesis to the contrary, but have done no work to verify its main assertion.

Also, just because a particular sport is head count does not mean a participant is guaranteed a full scholarship. It just means that no matter the value of his scholarship, he's counted as a whole participant against the maximum participant limit. But if the school doesn't want to spend the money of a full scholarship on him, they are not required to do so.


Finally, the enhancement that will be made to scholarships for cost of living will absolutely be scholarship money. Where did you read to the contrary?

For example, if the full-time, yearly undergraduate cost at university X are $25,000 for tuition, fees, room, board (15 meals/week) and books (allow $1000 per year) and the school determines that the cost of living upgrade should be worth $5,000 per year then the value of a full scholarship is now worth $30k. That's the amount that will be dispersed to the student-athlete per year with any excess in his student account being cut to him as a check. So basically he would get about $2500 each semester after paying his university bills.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Finally, the enhancement that will be made to scholarships for cost of living will absolutely be scholarship money. Where did you read to the contrary?

For example, if the full-time, yearly undergraduate cost to university X are $25,000 for tuition, fees, room, board (15 meals/week) and books (allow $1000 per year) and the school determines that the cost of living upgrade should be worth $5,000 per year then the value of a full scholarship is now worth $30k. That's the amount that will be dispersed to the student-athlete per year with any excess in his student account being cut to him as a check. So basically he would get about $2500 each semester after paying his university bills.

So the kind on a partial scholarship gets a full allotment of $2,000 for incidentals. The student then applies that to his tuition payment - because that money is needed by his family to pay his tuition bill. Is that the intent of the stipend? Is that how it is going to work in FBS?

[MplsBison]

So the kind on a partial scholarship gets a full allotment of $2,000 for incidentals. The student then applies that to his tuition payment - because that money is needed by his family to pay his tuition bill. Is that the intent of the stipend? Is that how it is going to work in FBS?

The intent is to give the kids money to live life outside of school and athletics. If they want taco bell with their friends, or go to the movie, etc. Maybe it's better to give these kids a debit card rather than cash. I don't know.

I don't see the point in giving kids that type of money if they still have an amount due on their university bill. So in that sense, I can't see it being given to non full scholarship participants.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The intent is to give the kids money to live life outside of school and athletics. If they want taco bell with their friends, or go to the movie, etc. Maybe it's better to give these kids a debit card rather than cash. I don't know.

I don't see the point in giving kids that type of money if they still have an amount due on their university bill. So in that sense, I can't see it being given to non full scholarship participants.

So you're saying that a stipend in FBS is one thing, and in FCS and every single nonrevenue sport it's another.

Just like the APR is one thing in FBS, and in FCS and every single nonrevenue sport it's another.

And then people wonder why there's such resistance from the 75% of the NCAA membership that doesn't sponsor FBS football.

[MplsBison]

So you're saying that a stipend in FBS is one thing, and in FCS and every single nonrevenue sport it's another.

Just like the APR is one thing in FBS, and in FCS and every single nonrevenue sport it's another.

And then people wonder why there's such resistance from the 75% of the NCAA membership that doesn't sponsor FBS football.

It has nil to do with FBS vs FCS.

I'd be willing to bet that the two deep on full strength FCS teams are all full scholarship. And there are FBS players who don't have full scholarships.


Scholarship enhancements are completely optional. Therefore, resistance to letting those DI members who can afford it to provide it is irrelevant. If they can't afford it, don't provide it. End

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It has nil to do with FBS vs FCS.

I'd be willing to bet that the two deep on full strength FCS teams are all full scholarship. And there are FBS players who don't have full scholarships.

Scholarship enhancements are completely optional. Therefore, resistance to letting those DI members who can afford it to provide it is irrelevant. If they can't afford it, don't provide it. End

It's not a function of affording/not affording it. It's a function of either having two different classes of FCS citizens on the roster, or allowing stipends for all and having the 1/2 scholarship kids use them in a way that's not intended (or sends things down a very slippery slope to pay-for-play).

Every FCS school with scholarships splits some of the scholarship money.

[MplsBison]

It's not a function of affording/not affording it. It's a function of either having two different classes of FCS citizens on the roster, or allowing stipends for all and having the 1/2 scholarship kids use them in a way that's not intended (or sends things down a very slippery slope to pay-for-play).

Every FCS school with scholarships splits some of the scholarship money.

You're presenting a false dilemma. Full scholarship vs half scholarship kids are already two classes.

I don't in fact know that those participants receiving less than full scholarships will not be offered scholarship cost of living enhancements. A particular school or conference could decide that if the school is going to offer it, then it has to be given to every participant with a scholarship. If a particular participant chooses to then invest that money back into his remaining university bill instead of pocketing it, that is his business.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

A particular school or conference could decide that if the school is going to offer it, then it has to be given to every participant with a scholarship.

More likely they'd be forced to do so when the inevitable lawsuit comes down the line.

It would also have to have "cost of living in the area" factored in, which is why folks are actively wondering if the stipend at Stanford would be upwards of $4,000 when it might be $1,800 in Fargo.

So let's a stipend is (say) going to an out-of-state kid getting a 1/2 scholarship at Cal Poly. The value of the 1/2 scholarship is $10K of a $20K ride. He gets a $5K stipend, which then goes towards paying his tuition. How is this not a scholarship?

[MplsBison]

More likely they'd be forced to do so when the inevitable lawsuit comes down the line.

It would also have to have "cost of living in the area" factored in, which is why folks are actively wondering if the stipend at Stanford would be upwards of $4,000 when it might be $1,800 in Fargo.

So let's a stipend is (say) going to an out-of-state kid getting a 1/2 scholarship at Cal Poly. The value of the 1/2 scholarship is $10K of a $20K ride. He gets a $5K stipend, which then goes towards paying his tuition. How is this not a scholarship?

I can't see any logical grounds for such a lawsuit. It would be no different than any half-scholarship participant suing because some other participant gets a full scholarship. It's based on the value the participant brings to the team and the funds available.


The cost of living enhancements will have to be "enough" at each P5 school in order to win the lawsuit saying that the conferences have been artificially capping the value of a (full) scholarship. Not exactly sure if that means they'll index it at each school using a nationwide formula or what. But I do think if they're going to brand this as cost of living, then there's no way you can stick a single value on the thing for every P5 school in the nation.


For your example, the half scholarship player was getting a $10k scholarship out of $20k max and now he's getting a $15k scholarship out of $25k max. Why isn't this obvious to you or otherwise what are you getting at?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

For your example, the half scholarship player was getting a $10k scholarship out of $20k max and now he's getting a $15k scholarship out of $25k max. Why isn't this obvious to you or otherwise what are you getting at?

In FCS/non-revenue sports, that stipend money is scholarship money.


A scholarship is an award of financial aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_financial_aid) for a student to further his or her education.

But in FBS, that money is "extra money to pay for books and to take the guys out to Taco Bell". They are not the same.

[MplsBison]

Here is a great article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press that largely features and quotes NDSU athletic director Gene Taylor. http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_25884361/college-athletics-major-conferences-making-grab-more-power


Lots of great stuff in the article.


"It's pretty simple from our perspective," Taylor said. "We don't mind autonomy or how they spend their money, as long as they protect two things. One, don't mess with 85 (football) scholarships. ... And two, we want equal access to championships like we've always had, and to keep the (championship) revenue distribution the same."

Taylor has exactly the correct attitude towards autonomy for the P5 within Division I. So long as they do not try to increase the number of scholarships for football and so long as they don't try to limit automatic births to post season championships for low major and mid major DI conferences, then it really has nothing to do with the rest of DI.

And since none of the P5 schools are proposing anything of the sort (nor will they), then the rest of DI would do well to just get out of the way and let the P5 and the NCAA figure out how this thing is going to work best for the P5.


Another important part of this discussion that the article nails is the fact that all the changes the P5 are requesting will not be mandatory for the rest of DI. Taylor acknowledges that and explains it well.


According to an NCAA Steering Committee report, the rules would fall under "permissive legislation," meaning the Power 5 conferences would require them, and everyone else could follow them if they choose. Taylor said, for instance, that North Dakota State might supply NCAA tournament tickets to team family members if that were allowed. Some schools might choose to offer travel to family members if those rules were loosened.

But those changes require money. Consider that according to a 2013 USA Today study, only 23 of 228 athletics departments at the nation's Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012.

How would a mid-major trying to compete in big-time football -- Central Florida beat heavily favored Baylor 52-42 in last season's Fiesta Bowl -- keep up? More fund-raising? Cutting a sport?

"Those are the decisions that would need to be made at individual schools," Taylor said. "Do the athletes benefit? Absolutely. Do costs go up? Absolutely. Even within the BCS schools there are haves and have-nots. All of the sudden, now even Ohio State has more advantages."


Finally, the article does a great job of summarizing the ten point plan for reform that the P5 are advancing. It's at the end of the article.

[MplsBison]

In FCS/non-revenue sports, that stipend money is scholarship money.

But in FBS, that money is "extra money to pay for books and to take the guys out to Taco Bell". They are not the same.

I probably overstepped my bounds in saying that. Let's just back up a bit and wait until we get more clarification on how the additional money will be allowed to be spent, before we jump to any unnecessarily hysterical conclusions.

Here is a link to an article published today by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/261607251.html


A full scholarship currently covers room, board, tuition and books. But an additional $2,000 to $5,000 could be paid annually to cover expenses such as transportation, laundry and clothes and other reasonable student expenses under a “full cost of attendance” measure, which would vary from school to school based on estimated expenses and cost of living.

If you take that literally, then perhaps the extra money in the scholarship will have tight restrictions on how it can be spent after all.


Fact is, for you to make the assertion you did is totally unfounded at this point in time. We just don't know yet.

[walliver]

The problem with the 85 scholarship limit is, if you assume that the NCAA's current limit on the value of scholarship is an antitrust violation, then the 85 scholarship limit is also an anti-trust violation.

[MplsBison]

The problem with the 85 scholarship limit is, if you assume that the NCAA's current limit on the value of scholarship is an antitrust violation, then the 85 scholarship limit is also an anti-trust violation.

Actually, if it comes to the value of a scholarship growing by 200% or more of its current value today - I think you'll see the cap on max number of scholarships pushed down.

Doesn't that make sense? The NFL has a 53 man active roster per team.

I see no reason why college squads can't make do with say five classes of 12 scholarship players each. That's 60 full rides. Especially in this modern era where high school players are more ready than ever to play as true freshmen.

Then they could have a "practice squad" of another 25 players who don't get a scholarship and are trying to earn their way onto the scholarship roster.


That's where I see it going, if and when scholarship values grow significantly due to lawsuit settlements.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Perhaps the extra money in the scholarship will have tight restrictions on how it can be spent after all.

Fact is, for you to make the assertion you did is totally unfounded at this point in time. We just don't know yet.

The point is, though, you are either going to:

1) make the stipends "block grants", where the student is handed a check, and can do what he wants with it. If this is the case, in the FBS case, it is going towards "books and spending money", but it is likely in the FCS world to be additional subsidy for a half scholarship. This makes a mockery of FCS scholarship limits - in the case I outlined above, a 1/2 scholarship becomes a 3/4 scholarship.

2) make a laundry-list of "things you can do with the money" - books, yes, a new Laptop, yes, a year's subscription to Maxim, no, cigatrettes, no, bagels, yes, but no cream cheese, etc. This way would be an attempt to ensure that the money is being used as intended, by everybody, but makes a brand-new rulebook and ridiculous enforcement procedures. If you thought the "cream cheese exception" was bad, wait until there's a NCAA-approved list for what a student can and cannot buy with his stipend money.

One completely undermines scholarship limits in every equivalency sport. The other makes a brand-new wing of the rulebook trying to say what is and is not permissible. And that's before factoring in cost-of-living factors at each school, ex. living in Palo Alto, California is a lot more expensive than living in Macomb, Illinois.

Due to these real concerns, I think both options are fraught with danger and this whole idea should be scrapped. And scrapping the stipends is what more than 3/4s of the NCAA's membership wants to happen. Mike Slive is not one of them.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The other part of this is the effect on non-revenue sports within the P5. This stipend business is being put in place for two revenue sports - football and men's basketball. But how can athletes playing, say, golf for Alabama see football players get stipends but the 1/2 scholarship kids playing golf do not? At a bare minimum Title IX will dictate that some stipend spending be driven towards non-revenue women's sports, and then you're going to get in these situations where 1/2 scholarships become 3/4 scholarships within their own athletic departments.

Then UConn's women's basketball team will have to follow suit. Then, Kennesaw State's baseball team... and their softball team.

[MplsBison]

The point is, though, you are either going to:

1) make the stipends "block grants", where the student is handed a check, and can do what he wants with it. If this is the case, in the FBS case, it is going towards "books and spending money", but it is likely in the FCS world to be additional subsidy for a half scholarship. This makes a mockery of FCS scholarship limits - in the case I outlined above, a 1/2 scholarship becomes a 3/4 scholarship.

2) make a laundry-list of "things you can do with the money" - books, yes, a new Laptop, yes, a year's subscription to Maxim, no, cigatrettes, no, bagels, yes, but no cream cheese, etc. This way would be an attempt to ensure that the money is being used as intended, by everybody, but makes a brand-new rulebook and ridiculous enforcement procedures. If you thought the "cream cheese exception" was bad, wait until there's a NCAA-approved list for what a student can and cannot buy with his stipend money.

One completely undermines scholarship limits in every equivalency sport. The other makes a brand-new wing of the rulebook trying to say what is and is not permissible. And that's before factoring in cost-of-living factors at each school, ex. living in Palo Alto, California is a lot more expensive than living in Macomb, Illinois.

Due to these real concerns, I think both options are fraught with danger and this whole idea should be scrapped. And scrapping the stipends is what more than 3/4s of the NCAA's membership wants to happen. Mike Slive is not one of them.

Can't scrap it and win the lawsuit. They have to be able to show the judge that they're not artificially capping the value of a scholarship.

There are valid expenses that full-scholarship student athletes at every P5 school are facing which aren't covered by today's scholarship valuation. There's no way the student athletes should have to pay those valid costs out of their own pockets.


To your hysteria regarding FCS scholarships, all that happens is that the maximum dollar amount that can be provided from the athletic department to the student athlete is increased by some amount.

That doesn't mean the school has to provide any additional money to any of their student athletes. If a student athlete was receiving a "half scholarship" for $10k out of a possible $20k per year, just because the NCAA now says the school could provide up to $25k per year doesn't mean the school will have any obligation to give the student athlete one cent more than $10k.

Scholarships all ultimately boil down to a dollar commitment between the athletic department and the student athlete. Just because a general label of "half scholarship" was applicable before the increase doesn't obligate the athletic department to provide more money simply to maintain the notion of "half scholarship".

[MplsBison]

The other part of this is the effect on non-revenue sports within the P5. This stipend business is being put in place for two revenue sports - football and men's basketball. But how can athletes playing, say, golf for Alabama see football players get stipends but the 1/2 scholarship kids playing golf do not? At a bare minimum Title IX will dictate that some stipend spending be driven towards non-revenue women's sports, and then you're going to get in these situations where 1/2 scholarships become 3/4 scholarships within their own athletic departments.

Then UConn's women's basketball team will have to follow suit. Then, Kennesaw State's baseball team... and their softball team.

Title IX only requires that the schools provide equal opportunities for female participation, where interest in such participation is demonstrated.

If a school is currently satisfying female participation interest, then the dollar amounts of the scholarships do not suddenly negate the participation in female sports.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Title IX only requires that the schools provide equal opportunities for female participation, where interest in such participation is demonstrated.

If a school is currently satisfying female participation interest, then the dollar amounts of the scholarships do not suddenly negate the participation in female sports.

Not exactly.


The regulations implementing Title IX require all universities receiving federal funds to perform self-evaluations of whether they offer equal opportunities based on sex[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#cite_note-23) and to provide written assurances to the Department of Education that the institution is in compliance for the period that the federally funded equipment or facilities remain in use.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#cite_note-24) With respect to athletic programs, the Department of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#cite_note-25)



Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
The provision of equipment and supplies;
Scheduling of games and practice time;
Travel and per diem allowance;
Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.



Ergo, if a football scholarship costs $16,000, but a women's basketball scholarship costs $12,000, that's "unequal opportunity". Stipends would quickly be implemented on the women's side.

[MplsBison]

LFN, did you even read the text you highlighted?

- "will not constitute noncompliance"
- "may consider the failure to provide necessary funds"


If the women's teams are in compliance today, receiving the necessary and appropriate funding, facilities, etc. in the ten sections you quoted, then providing $5k x 85 additional dollars to football scholarship student athletes won't constitute noncompliance. Can't make it any clearer than that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Keep reading.


but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

[2ram]

this whole thing is pandora's box in my opinion.

the issue as i see it is this: if gaining autonomy by vote or by force, the p5 conferences will make their own rules, and those rules will most assuredly favor their institutions. the playing field across not just athletics, but academics, could tilt dramatically, leaving smaller, and/or less affluent institutions in the dust. some may simply consider this the natural evolution of our higher education system, others may see a depletion, or weakening, in the overall 'pool' of institutions offering higher education.

motive(s) aside, D-IV would be a money grab essentially. a vehicle to lock up most if not all profits generated from college athletics, by locking out institutions that are marginally profitable and/or unprofitable. when the p5 gains control (seems unstoppable) of the profits generated from college athletics via enhanced marketing, funding, perception, exclusive networking, etc., then those $'s will elevate them not just to the super conferences of sports, but to the elite of academia. larger and ever expanding universities with near unlimited resources to build and buy anyone out. keep in mind, many of these are public institutions.

that may ultimately be bad or ultimately good, but i don't like it either way. it certainly won't serve the interest of the greater institutional good, even if by chance it somehow winds up being better for students. it saddens me that diversity is is being marginalized, that cinderella appearances will be fewer and further between. i really liked watching ga southern run over and around florida for an afternoon.

[MplsBison]

Keep reading.

I already quoted the text you re-highlighted.

- "may consider the failure to provide necessary funds"

But since any athletic department that is in compliance right now is then obviously not failing to provide necessary funds to women's teams ...

If the women's teams are in compliance today, receiving the necessary and appropriate funding, facilities, etc. in the ten sections you quoted, then providing $5k x 85 additional dollars to football scholarship student athletes won't constitute noncompliance.

[MplsBison]

Why are we suddenly emphasizing Title IX in this discussion anyway? Why are you branching off now?

Is it because you have no answer to the main discussion, which I left you with on post #121?

[MplsBison]

this whole thing is pandora's box in my opinion.

the issue as i see it is this: if gaining autonomy by vote or by force, the p5 conferences will make their own rules, and those rules will most assuredly favor their institutions. the playing field across not just athletics, but academics, could tilt dramatically, leaving smaller, and/or less affluent institutions in the dust. some may simply consider this the natural evolution of our higher education system, others may see a depletion, or weakening, in the overall 'pool' of institutions offering higher education.

motive(s) aside, D-IV would be a money grab essentially. a vehicle to lock up most if not all profits generated from college athletics, by locking out institutions that are marginally profitable and/or unprofitable. when the p5 gains control (seems unstoppable) of the profits generated from college athletics via enhanced marketing, funding, perception, exclusive networking, etc., then those $'s will elevate them not just to the super conferences of sports, but to the elite of academia. larger and ever expanding universities with near unlimited resources to build and buy anyone out. keep in mind, many of these are public institutions.

that may ultimately be bad or ultimately good, but i don't like it either way. it certainly won't serve the interest of the greater institutional good, even if by chance it somehow winds up being better for students. it saddens me that diversity is is being marginalized, that cinderella appearances will be fewer and further between. i really liked watching ga southern run over and around florida for an afternoon.

What about DII and DIII teams now? Shouldn't they get their shot at Florida, as well?

I wouldn't see anything inherently wrong if the P5 and G5 made a hard cut in all sports from the rest of the current DI member body of non-football and FCS schools. It wouldn't be anything different than the hard cut between DI and DII or between DII and DIII.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I already quoted the text you re-highlighted.

- "may consider the failure to provide necessary funds"

But since any athletic department that is in compliance right now is then obviously not failing to provide necessary funds to women's teams ...

If the women's teams are in compliance today, receiving the necessary and appropriate funding, facilities, etc. in the ten sections you quoted, then providing $5k x 85 additional dollars to football scholarship student athletes won't constitute noncompliance.

So a generation of precedent in increasing women's athletic spending directly or indirectly due to Title IX compliance will now be drastically reinterpreted?

How many challenges to Title IX ratios/spending have been ruled in favor of the institution instead of the underrepresented sex? I'll wait here while you look all of them up.

[MplsBison]

You quoted the rules and I've pointed out correctly that, per the rules, any AD in compliance to the wording of those rules would no less be in compliance with the wording of those rules if they decided to spend an extra $400k on football players.

That's probably a reasonable estimate for the amount an AD spends on the football team if it makes a major bowl game, anyway.


If you want to claim that there will be legal challenges, be my guest. There can always be challenges, even when the defendant is patently in compliance.

[MplsBison]

Can we return to the main discussion now? There's not much here in Title IX.

Post #121.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You quoted the rules and I've pointed out correctly that, per the rules, any AD in compliance to the wording of those rules would no less be in compliance with the wording of those rules if they decided to spend an extra $400k on football players.

That's probably a reasonable estimate for the amount an AD spends on the football team if it makes a major bowl game, anyway.

If you want to claim that there will be legal challenges, be my guest. There can always be challenges, even when the defendant is patently in compliance.

Did you do that bit of homework I assigned to you about finding the number of times the defendants (the schools) actually won against the plaintiffs (athletes of the underrepresented sex)?

[MplsBison]

Did you do that bit of homework I assigned to you about finding the number of times the defendants (the schools) actually won against the plaintiffs (athletes of the underrepresented sex)?

It's a red herring. As is this entire sub-branch regarding Title IX.

Final input on Title IX implications that are (barely) related to this discussion: If you want to claim that there will be legal challenges, be my guest. There can always be challenges, even when the defendant is patently in compliance.


Back to the real discussion. Post #121.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So doubling or perhaps tripling the amount of financial responsibility of the stipend issue, which is driving the Big 5 Autonomy, has nothing to do with the discussion?

Never mind the fact that nobody knows what to do if a kid with 1/2 a scholarship gets a $4,000 stipend and then applies it to their tuition bill, making 1/2 scholarships 3/4 scholarships.

Never mind the fact that stipends are supposedly "optional", meaning 1/2 scholarship for women's golf at Kennesaw State will magically become 3/4 scholarships at Alabama should the Atlantic Sun not choose to participate.

The P5 want to get autonomy to pass this rule, over the objections of 75% of the NCAA membership, that is an explosion of new athletics spending even in the rosiest of estimates.

Title IX is one of the reasons it will.

[MplsBison]

P5 autonomy is driven by the lawsuits against those conferences. They won't wait for the NCAA to figure out what it wants to do.

As to your ideas:

- there won't be a doubling or tripling of costs associated with increasing the maximum valuation of a scholarship by two to five thousand dollars, because increasing the maximum valuation in no way obligates more money to be provided

- it will be entirely optional and on a per scholarship basis if a particular school wants to spend a single cent more on any particular scholarship above what they already spend

- it's unknown what restraints will be required to be placed on any additional money that schools may choose to provide if they choose to fulfill that new maximum valuation


However I can say that it's more than absurd that schools giving 100 "half scholarships" to various athletes in various sports that are valued at $5k per year are all suddenly going to decide to provide another $4k to all 100 of those scholarships, simply because some formula says that the maximum valuation of a scholarship is now increase by $4k.

They can't afford to do that, so they aren't going to do that. It's just that simple.

[2ram]

What about DII and DIII teams now? Shouldn't they get their shot at Florida, as well?

I wouldn't see anything inherently wrong if the P5 and G5 made a hard cut in all sports from the rest of the current DI member body of non-football and FCS schools. It wouldn't be anything different than the hard cut between DI and DII or between DII and DIII.

well in my opinion, no. dII and dIII are separate from dI. dI schools play each other, d2 the same, etc. not to mention it's hard enouhg for fcs schools to win against fbs teams, i can't imagine a scenario in which putting a d2 or d3 team on the field vs florida wouldn't be considered an unwarranted health risk.

in a p5/div IV scenario however, the p5 would have little to no incentive to play anyone else, essentially maintaining a weighty control over tv rights, premiere athletic quality, and branding. to keep the $ 'in house' so to speak, and to keep the other conferences 'under foot', why would they ever schedule a non p5 school? a dIV doesn't bring parity to college athletics or academics. it increases costs and it stratifies divisions further for the sake of maintaining revenues.

maybe that's the inevitable and/or right thing to do, idk, but like i said, i don't like it.

[RichH2]

Interesting thread. Move is repugnant to me as a mere money grab. It is not as a result of law suits,if it were Bball and all other sports would be included. The 5 dont want to give up March money which they would if they left NCAA. Nor is it to benfit student athletes,who to them are merely means to make money.
Repugnant or not it will happen in some form to the detriment of every one else. Eventually ,as DC looks for more revenue, the 5 will be excluded from NCAA exemption. They're gonna hate paying taxes.:)

[MplsBison]

well in my opinion, no. dII and dIII are separate from dI. dI schools play each other, d2 the same, etc. not to mention it's hard enouhg for fcs schools to win against fbs teams, i can't imagine a scenario in which putting a d2 or d3 team on the field vs florida wouldn't be considered an unwarranted health risk.

in a p5/div IV scenario however, the p5 would have little to no incentive to play anyone else, essentially maintaining a weighty control over tv rights, premiere athletic quality, and branding. to keep the $ 'in house' so to speak, and to keep the other conferences 'under foot', why would they ever schedule a non p5 school? a dIV doesn't bring parity to college athletics or academics. it increases costs and it stratifies divisions further for the sake of maintaining revenues.

maybe that's the inevitable and/or right thing to do, idk, but like i said, i don't like it.

If a new division were created for the P5 and the G5, then absolutely the P5 would continue to schedule games against the G5 in the regular season.

They are going to continue playing games against the G5 in the post season (CFP and other bowl games). And they need home games and wins in the regular season too.

[MplsBison]

Interesting thread. Move is repugnant to me as a mere money grab. It is not as a result of law suits,if it were Bball and all other sports would be included. The 5 dont want to give up March money which they would if they left NCAA. Nor is it to benfit student athletes,who to them are merely means to make money.
Repugnant or not it will happen in some form to the detriment of every one else. Eventually ,as DC looks for more revenue, the 5 will be excluded from NCAA exemption. They're gonna hate paying taxes.:)

The lawsuits against the P5 aren't targeting any sport. They are, among other things, saying that the P5 (and the NCAA) artificially cap the maximum valuation of a (full) scholarship.

That isn't specific to any sport. So you're incorrect. It does include basketball and every other sport for that matter.

March Madness is a decent chunk of change, but it's peanuts compared to football money for the P5. They would give up their shares from the current March Madness tournament and create a new tournament for just the P5 and G5 in the new division if it meant saving the football revenue.

They'd prefer to have both stay just like they are, of course. But they know they're going to have to spend some more money on scholarships, among other increased benefits to student-athletes.


Which brings us to autonomy...which will be the means to achieve those increased benefits. Assuming the DI member body gets the heck out of the way and lets it happen, as they darn well ought to.

Otherwise it will be a new division with a hard cut in all sports and a new bball tournament.

And in that case, I'll be on my hands and knees begging Gene Taylor to sell his kidney in order to get NDSU into one of the very last spots at the bottom of the new division. Better that than stuck in DII all over again.

[2ram]

If a new division were created for the P5 and the G5, then absolutely the P5 would continue to schedule games against the G5 in the regular season.

They are going to continue playing games against the G5 in the post season (CFP and other bowl games). And they need home games and wins in the regular season too.

ofc, you may be right, indeed this whole thread is rife with speculation... but i don't see any incentive whatsoever to support your theory. on the contrary, it seems there's plenty of incentive for the p5 to expand it's membership, increase it's scholarship limits, monopolize the postseason, etc., thus enabling it to exclude undesirable teams, further relegating them to obscurity.

but hey, maybe they won't change a thing with their billions and new found autonomy...

[MplsBison]

ofc, you may be right, indeed this whole thread is rife with speculation... but i don't see any incentive whatsoever to support your theory. on the contrary, it seems there's plenty of incentive for the p5 to expand it's membership, increase it's scholarship limits, monopolize the postseason, etc., thus enabling it to exclude undesirable teams, further relegating them to obscurity.

but hey, maybe they won't change a thing with their billions and new found autonomy...

You're not the first and won't be the last to preach doom and gloom regarding autonomy. Myself, I just don't comprehend that sentiment.

The P5 have it as good as they've ever had it this upcoming season with their own TV networks and the CFP deal. And that includes the G5 to the greatest extent that they've ever been included before.

As I said, even in a new hard-cut division they'd still need extra home games. They'll still be playing the G5 in the post season for the next twelve seasons. And the G5 can use federal government pressure to wiggle their way in.

I just can't see the P5 ever truly having a way or desire to make a hard break from the G5. And that's not a bad thing at all.

[SoCal_Dane]

Has there been any discussion that as a part of creating a "division 4" allowing the top FCS conferences to voluntarily move up to join the leftover 5? Either on this board as speculation or by actual negotiators in this deal?

It always seemed unfair to restrict a conference that has the ability to meet the higher standards in attendance, schollies, etc from moving up. In lieu of autonomy votes or creating division 4, the CAA and others would be allowed to upgrade if or when the membership should meet the standard.

[SoCal_Dane]

At a minimum FCS schools should demand that the NCAA drop the requirement to have a conference to move up to FBS. That would be a minimum for an autonomy vote.

Why should FBS football be different from other sports or divisions?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Has there been any discussion that as a part of creating a "division 4" allowing the top FCS conferences to voluntarily move up to join the leftover 5? Either on this board as speculation or by actual negotiators in this deal?

It always seemed unfair to restrict a conference that has the ability to meet the higher standards in attendance, schollies, etc from moving up. In lieu of autonomy votes or creating division 4, the CAA and others would be allowed to upgrade if or when the membership should meet the standard.

What would the point of a "wannabe 5" without access to the playoffs/Rose Bowl/Fiesta Bowl/etc? There are real concerns that a "Division 4" would cause the revenue model of the other FBS schools to collapse.

[2ram]

You're not the first and won't be the last to preach doom and gloom regarding autonomy. Myself, I just don't comprehend that sentiment.

The P5 have it as good as they've ever had it this upcoming season with their own TV networks and the CFP deal. And that includes the G5 to the greatest extent that they've ever been included before.

As I said, even in a new hard-cut division they'd still need extra home games. They'll still be playing the G5 in the post season for the next twelve seasons. And the G5 can use federal government pressure to wiggle their way in.

I just can't see the P5 ever truly having a way or desire to make a hard break from the G5. And that's not a bad thing at all.

i never postulated the changes i suggested as happening overnight, and i'm not preaching doom and gloom at all.

i'm saying might makes right. it's only natural. when you keep in mind that the governors of the p5/g5 are only players "in" the game, and that a large part of the changes we're seeing are from actual players "of" the game, you'll see where money/power are showing they prevail once again. it's not unilaterally up to the g5 conferences/presidents to decide what they do, they are only part of the g5/ncaa equation.

that's as easy a way as i can put it. we should reconvene in 10 years, and see if/how the landscape has changed.

[citdog]

we should reconvene in 10 years, and see if/how the landscape has changed.

You should have been here 10 years ago!

[RichH2]

Good point ,dog

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You should have been here 10 years ago!

I think back then the men were men, and the women were glad of it :)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'll just drop this here:

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/28/group-five-cinderella-college-football-playoff


Teams either currently (Boise State and Hawaii (http://www.si.com/college-football/team/hawaii-rainbow-warriors)) or formerly (TCU and Utah) in the Mountain West finished in the top 10 of the BCS standings 11 times since 2004. From Utah’s thumping of Alabama (http://www.si.com/college-football/team/alabama-crimson-tide) in the ‘09 Sugar Bowl to TCU’s victory overWisconsin (http://www.si.com/college-football/team/wisconsin-badgers) in the ‘11 Rose Bowl, Mountain West teams delivered definitive victories over blue-blood programs on the biggest stages. But Utah fled to the Pac-12 in '11 and TCU to the Big 12 in ‘12, greener pastures both in metaphor and money: The Pac-12 and Big 12 pay their members more than $20 million annually; the Mountain West pays an average of roughly $2.7 million.While the Mountain West’s historical success would make potential inclusion the College Football Playoff realistic, the new system has dimmed those chances. When asked about the conference’s prospects for playing for the national title, Hawaii coach Norm Chow said, “Gone. Long gone.” He added: “It’s frightening to think what’s going to happen.”

Like I said over a year ago, the BCS formula at least guaranteed that if a non-P5 team was good enough, they'd make a BCS bowl. Now, though, people are starting to realize that without a BCS formula to force inclusion, "wannabe 5" schools are going to be left out of any playoffs.

[eaglewraith]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/02/4269092/checkbooks-and-balances-budgets.html?sp=/99/1444/1649/

[Lehigh Football Nation]

FIU had previously played guarantee games at Alabama, Kansas and Penn State, but Garcia stopped scheduling those agreements after he became athletic director in 2006.

Instead, FIU has parlayed increased leverage into more home games. In the coming years, the Panthers will play home-and-home sets with Indiana, the University of Massachusetts, Maryland and UCF.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[eaglewraith]

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

What's so funny? They've got home games with 2 Big 10 teams, an on the rise AAC team, and a MAC team.

This is a good thing.

You truly see what you want to see.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

"FIU leveraged away games with Alabama into a home-and-home with UMass" was apparently written without any sense of reality.

Also, Indiana "averaged" 42,000 at home games, good enough for second-last in the Big 10...

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/73807/a-closer-look-at-big-ten-attendance-for-2012

Apparently, FIU "leveraged" their away game with Penn State with an home-and-home with the second worst drawing school in the Big 10!

[DFW HOYA]

Apparently, FIU "leveraged" their away game with Penn State with an home-and-home with the second worst drawing school in the Big 10!

Indiana struggles in football (think Bucknell in the PL) but their stadium is smaller than most Big 10 stadia:

1. Michigan: 111,592 average out of 112K
2-Ohio State: 104,933 out of 102K (oversells)
3-Penn State: 96,857 out of 106K
4-Nebraska: 90,933 out of 81K (oversells)
5-Wisconsin: 78,911 out of 80K
6-Michigan State: 72,328 out of 75K
7-Iowa: 67,125 out of 70K
8-Purdue: 48,953 out of 62K
9-Minnesota: 47,797 out of 50K
10-Indiana: 44,353 out of 52K
11-Illinois: 43,787 out of 60K
12-Northwestern: 39,307 out of 47K

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Basically, FIU's AD has "leveraged" his athletic department from making some money to sustain his athletic department to entering agreements where he will make near-zero money. UMass, Maryland and Indiana will engender few travelling fans and even less national interest.

What about UCF?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-12/sports/fl-fau-fiu-college-football-0913-20130912_1_pat-chun-fau-sun-belt


The FIU football teamhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-12/sports/fl-fau-fiu-college-football-0913-20130912_1_pat-chun-fau-sun-belt#) was embarrassed during its home opener.

The Panthers lost 38-0 to in-state rival UCF seven days ago. FIU Stadium, which seats 23,500 fans, appeared to be half full at kickoff and there may have been more people on the sidelines than in the stands by the end of the blowout loss.

And:



To make up for the nearly $3 million FAU is losing by changing conferences, athletic director Pat Chun is counting on ticket sales to be better than last year, when the team averaged only 13,459 fans for five home games at its two-year old, 30,000-seat stadium.

Chun has promised to pass on a guarantee game — larger schools paying millions for FAU to play at their stadiums with no promise of ever playing on the Owls' home turf — in favor of adding another home game in 2014 and beyond. FAU received nearly 10 percent of its athletic budget from $1 million guarantee games at Alabama and Georgia last season. This year, Auburn will pay $1 million. Miami paid $500,000 to play FAU in Week One.

"We're going to try to make up some of the moneyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-12/sports/fl-fau-fiu-college-football-0913-20130912_1_pat-chun-fau-sun-belt#) we won't make on a guarantee in September by hopefully making some of that money back in November, meaning we're selling more tickets," Chun said.

FIU was invited to Conference USA seven months earlier than FAU, so it did not have to pay a buy-outfeehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-12/sports/fl-fau-fiu-college-football-0913-20130912_1_pat-chun-fau-sun-belt#) to the Sun Belt to switch leagues by the start of the 2013 season. But the Panthers do have to buy into Conference USA — though most of that money will be withheld in league revenue sharing.

Sources inside the FIU athletic department told the Sun Sentinel the Panthers have struggled to raise money since the firing of Cristobal. FIU fans are so down on the program, they've taken to calling for FIU athletic director Pete Garcia's job.

And:


Currently, student feeshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-12/sports/fl-fau-fiu-college-football-0913-20130912_1_pat-chun-fau-sun-belt#) are the largest source of funding for both athletic departments. At FIU, 83 percent of the budget is subsidized by student fees, the third-highest total at the Football Bowl Subdivision level. FAU relies on student fees for 60 percent of its athletics budget, but it has incurred the additional annual cost of $2.5 million to pay down the $44.5 million loan it took out on FAU Stadium.

Rather than "leverage", you wonder if FAU and FIU will have football programs in five years, after reading the reality of the situation and the tone-deaf economics of the people in charge.

[DFW HOYA]

Rather than "leverage", you wonder if FAU and FIU will have football programs in five years, after reading the reality of the situation and the tone-deaf economics of the people in charge.

Since the I-A/I-AA split, only Division I-A school outside California has dropped football for good--Wichita State in 1988. Once you're in, you stay there.