Sometimes, to know why something is happening, you look at what's changed, what's new. First, let's look at some proposed explanations.

I don't think it's about P5/G5. Five years ago, there were 6 BCS-AQ conferences and 5 Non-AQ conferences, now we have the P5 and G5. TCU and UTAh moved up to the promised land, UConn, Cincinnati and USF got cast out. Not worth completely overturning the structure of college sports over. If the power-conferences were really mad about Georgia Southern and Old Dominion joining FBS and Idaho and San Jose State staying FBS, I don't think they'd have agreed to give the G5 27% of the playoff money.

I don't think it's about the new TV contracts. The TV contracts are huge now, they were big a minute ago. Again, not a structural change.

I don't think it's about the NCAA tournament, which is the only place that a breakaway *could* make the power-conferences more money--March Madness has about the same revenue breakdown it did a few years ago.

I don't really think it's about the particular rule changes the power conferences want. Executives tend to be institutional conservatives--do you think they'd tear up the NCAA and start over because they can't pay player stipends, or give families game tickets or hotel rooms or whatever?

I think it's partly about power and governance. I think the key is the quotes about "Why is Northern Iowa making rules for Texas"? But again, that was the same five years ago.

So what IS new and different? I think it's the O'Bannion lawsuit. The high-revenue schools have tons of money at stake. And they feel the need for flexibility in A) defending themselves against the O'Bannon lawsuit and B) settling the O'Bannon lawsuit.

So what I expect to happen is:
1. The January meeting passes the rule package the P5 want.
2. More votes for the P5, although they had enough votes to get the changes in the first place. (I'm guessing 3 votes for each P5 conference, 1 for each G5 conference, and 10 votes for everybody else, giving the P5 50% of the votes and FBS 66% of the votes.)
3. Changes to the review procedure, so that the low-revenue majority can't block rule changes the high-revenue schools want. This is probably the most important part.

(07-25-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  So what I expect to happen is:
1. The January meeting passes the rule package the P5 want.
2. More votes for the P5, although they had enough votes to get the changes in the first place. (I'm guessing 3 votes for each P5 conference, 1 for each G5 conference, and 10 votes for everybody else, giving the P5 50% of the votes and FBS 66% of the votes.)
3. Changes to the review procedure, so that the low-revenue majority can't block rule changes the high-revenue schools want. This is probably the most important part.

Got $20 that says this is the most accurate prediction so far.

(07-25-2013 11:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  So what I expect to happen is:
1. The January meeting passes the rule package the P5 want.
2. More votes for the P5, although they had enough votes to get the changes in the first place. (I'm guessing 3 votes for each P5 conference, 1 for each G5 conference, and 10 votes for everybody else, giving the P5 50% of the votes and FBS 66% of the votes.)
3. Changes to the review procedure, so that the low-revenue majority can't block rule changes the high-revenue schools want. This is probably the most important part.

Got $20 that says this is the most accurate prediction so far.

I'll give you another $20 dollars.

The best way to check the continual growth of D1 voting rights is to give all the FCS/non-FB playing leagues 10 collective votes. A brilliant idea really.

(07-25-2013 11:43 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  So what I expect to happen is:
1. The January meeting passes the rule package the P5 want.
2. More votes for the P5, although they had enough votes to get the changes in the first place. (I'm guessing 3 votes for each P5 conference, 1 for each G5 conference, and 10 votes for everybody else, giving the P5 50% of the votes and FBS 66% of the votes.)
3. Changes to the review procedure, so that the low-revenue majority can't block rule changes the high-revenue schools want. This is probably the most important part.

Got $20 that says this is the most accurate prediction so far.

I'll give you another $20 dollars.

The best way to check the continual growth of D1 voting rights is to give all the FCS/non-FB playing leagues 10 collective votes. A brilliant idea really.

That's not as big a change as you may think, though. The existing (previous) setup was that the 11 FBS leagues had permanent seats, and the other 7 seats rotated among the FCS and nonfootball leagues (I don't know if they were pooled together or not, and it doesn't really matter--the economics of most I-AA and I-AAA schools are about the same.)

Technically, the WAC still has their seat, but no one expects that to continue. The recourse that non-FBS schools had was the review process and general Division I meeting.

John, you present a valid argument. I've been thinking that this was to prevent eventual bracket creep but you lay out clear cut reasons for your argument and I agree with your point of view.

I hope it all pans out for my Georgia Southern Eagles.

(07-25-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think it's partly about power and governance. I think the key is the quotes about "Why is Northern Iowa making rules for Texas"? But again, that was the same five years ago.

I think this is the issue. It is a legitimate question.

(07-25-2013 12:27 PM)GaSouthern Wrote:  John, you present a valid argument. I've been thinking that this was to prevent eventual bracket creep but you lay out clear cut reasons for your argument and I agree with your point of view.

I hope it all pans out for my Georgia Southern Eagles.

The power conferences want to make their own rules. Everybody else wants to keep playing with the power conferences. So the answer is that the power conferences make the rules, and whoever can keep up gets to keep playing with them.

There's been a lot of fuss about player stipends, but that's not the true issue. The MAC commissioner said on Tuesday that the stipend thing failed not because of the smaller conferences voting it down, but because the power conferences couldn't agree on what it should be. Of course, that doesn't stop the power conferences from blaming the others for its failure, and using that as an excuse to re-make the voting structure even more in their favor.

NCAA Division 1 rules are not controlled by the p5 leagues. All D1 schools have a vote in that in the NCAA including FCS and BB only schools that all belong to D1. If the p5 want to change the rules on what it takes to belong to D1 football everyone who is a member of D1 gets a vote. The P5 need changes to get the rule changes they want and to keep the BB only and FCS school from controlling what it takes to belong to Division 1 football. There are over 300 Division 1 schools presently in the NCAA

(07-25-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Sometimes, to know why something is happening, you look at what's changed, what's new. First, let's look at some proposed explanations.

I don't think it's about P5/G5. Five years ago, there were 6 BCS-AQ conferences and 5 Non-AQ conferences, now we have the P5 and G5. TCU and UTAh moved up to the promised land, UConn, Cincinnati and USF got cast out. Not worth completely overturning the structure of college sports over. If the power-conferences were really mad about Georgia Southern and Old Dominion joining FBS and Idaho and San Jose State staying FBS, I don't think they'd have agreed to give the G5 27% of the playoff money.

I don't think it's about the new TV contracts. The TV contracts are huge now, they were big a minute ago. Again, not a structural change.

I don't think it's about the NCAA tournament, which is the only place that a breakaway *could* make the power-conferences more money--March Madness has about the same revenue breakdown it did a few years ago.

I don't really think it's about the particular rule changes the power conferences want. Executives tend to be institutional conservatives--do you think they'd tear up the NCAA and start over because they can't pay player stipends, or give families game tickets or hotel rooms or whatever?

I think it's partly about power and governance. I think the key is the quotes about "Why is Northern Iowa making rules for Texas"? But again, that was the same five years ago.

So what IS new and different? I think it's the O'Bannion lawsuit. The high-revenue schools have tons of money at stake. And they feel the need for flexibility in A) defending themselves against the O'Bannon lawsuit and B) settling the O'Bannon lawsuit.

So what I expect to happen is:
1. The January meeting passes the rule package the P5 want.
2. More votes for the P5, although they had enough votes to get the changes in the first place. (I'm guessing 3 votes for each P5 conference, 1 for each G5 conference, and 10 votes for everybody else, giving the P5 50% of the votes and FBS 66% of the votes.)
3. Changes to the review procedure, so that the low-revenue majority can't block rule changes the high-revenue schools want. This is probably the most important part.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...=cf_t11_a0

I think the combination of athletes getting in trouble and changes in media (which both make it easier for stories to get out there and then spread) is actually the biggest issue. Even small issues at schools are magnified a lot now.

All of that means, the schools want to avoid a lot of headaches and the best easy thing to do for that is to make sure the students have a little more spending money so they are less likely to involved in things that will later embarrass the schools.

(07-25-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  So what I expect to happen is:
1. The January meeting passes the rule package the P5 want.
2. More votes for the P5, although they had enough votes to get the changes in the first place. (I'm guessing 3 votes for each P5 conference, 1 for each G5 conference, and 10 votes for everybody else, giving the P5 50% of the votes and FBS 66% of the votes.)
3. Changes to the review procedure, so that the low-revenue majority can't block rule changes the high-revenue schools want. This is probably the most important part.

After digesting a perfectly cooked cheeseburger and a handful of migraine meds let me add some further predictions.

A. There will be at least consideration of a "stay-break". All 340+ remain Division I but Division I will look more and more like a Venn diagram composed of an alphabet soup of FBS/FCS for issues of football only and Division I (something, Major maybe? or maybe just the oft-used moniker Division IV that has been thrown around since at least 1975 without being used) and Division I for governance. If the "stay-break" happens everyone in FBS and some number of other conferences either based on some criteria or simply election of the schools will be Division IV, the rest Division IV. You will see Division IV offer stipends, an enhanced degree completion program, a slight increase in initial eligibility standards that will create a group of non-qualifiers who will be permitted to attend college and receive aid but cannot participate on the field or practice, they will have the use of student-athlete counseling and tutoring, but will not count the first two semesters of school agains their eligibility. Those conferences that are Division I will not be permitted to offer stipends and will not be eligible for the enhanced degree completion program. Everyone will still compete in the same post-season as currently and games against each other will count as they do now.

B. Mark Emmert's days are numbered and Delany might well be his replacement.

(07-25-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Sometimes, to know why something is happening, you look at what's changed, what's new. First, let's look at some proposed explanations.

I don't think it's about P5/G5. Five years ago, there were 6 BCS-AQ conferences and 5 Non-AQ conferences, now we have the P5 and G5. TCU and UTAh moved up to the promised land, UConn, Cincinnati and USF got cast out. Not worth completely overturning the structure of college sports over. If the power-conferences were really mad about Georgia Southern and Old Dominion joining FBS and Idaho and San Jose State staying FBS, I don't think they'd have agreed to give the G5 27% of the playoff money.

I don't think it's about the new TV contracts. The TV contracts are huge now, they were big a minute ago. Again, not a structural change.

I don't think it's about the NCAA tournament, which is the only place that a breakaway *could* make the power-conferences more money--March Madness has about the same revenue breakdown it did a few years ago.

I don't really think it's about the particular rule changes the power conferences want. Executives tend to be institutional conservatives--do you think they'd tear up the NCAA and start over because they can't pay player stipends, or give families game tickets or hotel rooms or whatever?

I think it's partly about power and governance. I think the key is the quotes about "Why is Northern Iowa making rules for Texas"? But again, that was the same five years ago.

So what IS new and different? I think it's the O'Bannion lawsuit. The high-revenue schools have tons of money at stake. And they feel the need for flexibility in A) defending themselves against the O'Bannon lawsuit and B) settling the O'Bannon lawsuit.

So what I expect to happen is:
1. The January meeting passes the rule package the P5 want.
2. More votes for the P5, although they had enough votes to get the changes in the first place. (I'm guessing 3 votes for each P5 conference, 1 for each G5 conference, and 10 votes for everybody else, giving the P5 50% of the votes and FBS 66% of the votes.)
3. Changes to the review procedure, so that the low-revenue majority can't block rule changes the high-revenue schools want. This is probably the most important part.

Good post. I agree...the more I have thought about this the more I think it is nothing more than the P5 posturing so that the G5 will eventually stop voting against P5 interests (full cost of tuition for example). It's either "play with us by our rules, or go play by yourself".

(07-25-2013 03:27 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Good post. I agree...the more I have thought about this the more I think it is nothing more than the P5 posturing so that the G5 will eventually stop voting against P5 interests (full cost of tuition for example). It's either "play with us by our rules, or go play by yourself".

Why do you say it is the G5 voting against P5? That simply is not the case.

(07-25-2013 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:27 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Good post. I agree...the more I have thought about this the more I think it is nothing more than the P5 posturing so that the G5 will eventually stop voting against P5 interests (full cost of tuition for example). It's either "play with us by our rules, or go play by yourself".

Why do you say it is the G5 voting against P5? That simply is not the case.

Exactly, the media appears to be lazy and not really looking into who shot down the stipend. It wasn't the G5. The G5 for the most part falls in line with the P5. It's the low/mid major non-FB D1 members who shot it down.

(07-25-2013 03:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:27 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Good post. I agree...the more I have thought about this the more I think it is nothing more than the P5 posturing so that the G5 will eventually stop voting against P5 interests (full cost of tuition for example). It's either "play with us by our rules, or go play by yourself".

Why do you say it is the G5 voting against P5? That simply is not the case.

Exactly, the media appears to be lazy and not really looking into who shot down the stipend. It wasn't the G5. The G5 for the most part falls in line with the P5. It's the low/mid major non-FB D1 members who shot it down.

And it's less the issue of the stipend itself than frustration that FCS and I-AAA programs are allowed a say at all in how the high-revenue conferences run things.

(07-25-2013 03:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:27 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Good post. I agree...the more I have thought about this the more I think it is nothing more than the P5 posturing so that the G5 will eventually stop voting against P5 interests (full cost of tuition for example). It's either "play with us by our rules, or go play by yourself".

Why do you say it is the G5 voting against P5? That simply is not the case.

Exactly, the media appears to be lazy and not really looking into who shot down the stipend. It wasn't the G5. The G5 for the most part falls in line with the P5. It's the low/mid major non-FB D1 members who shot it down.

That's why I think this rhetoric from the P5 schools isn't because they want to want break away. They want to scare enough schools to get the votes they need for the changes they want.

In effect, there wouldn't be a breaking away at the top, but a falling away at the bottom. The result would have most of the current FBS schools still involved, but for the bottom teams the structural disadvantages (because they can't afford to implement all of the changes) would be much greater than they are now.

(07-25-2013 04:23 PM)krup Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:27 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Good post. I agree...the more I have thought about this the more I think it is nothing more than the P5 posturing so that the G5 will eventually stop voting against P5 interests (full cost of tuition for example). It's either "play with us by our rules, or go play by yourself".

Why do you say it is the G5 voting against P5? That simply is not the case.

Exactly, the media appears to be lazy and not really looking into who shot down the stipend. It wasn't the G5. The G5 for the most part falls in line with the P5. It's the low/mid major non-FB D1 members who shot it down.

That's why I think this rhetoric from the P5 schools isn't because they want to want break away. They want to scare enough schools to get the votes they need for the changes they want.

In effect, there wouldn't be a breaking away at the top, but a falling away at the bottom. The result would have most of the current FBS schools still involved, but for the bottom teams the structural disadvantages (because they can't afford to implement all of the changes) would be much greater than they are now.

From what Delany said, at least for now, it's not even a falling away at the bottom. It's a transfer of rulemaking power to the high-revenue power conferences. Changes to what is allowed, not to what is mandated. The Atlantic Sun Conference and Big West and Big Sky and Southern Conference don't have to offer stipends, or copy any of the creative ways the power conferences will legalize to spend their TV money on athletics. They don't have the money, and so they can't spend the money. IF they still want to hang around Division I at an ever-increasing disadvantage vs their SEC and PAC neighbors, that's their choice. But they don't get to block what the power conferences want to do.

But here's the funny part. Change the Board of Directors structure is a fine idea, but that board PASSED the stipend and all the other various deregulations that later got shot down - and that was with the current makeup of the BoD (11 FBS votes, 7 non-FBS votes). So the problem with the governance structure isn't the BoD, it's that it only takes 20% pushback on a particular issue to request a headcount vote of all the membership, or that it only takes 36% pushback on a particular issue to suspend it. Then, the headcount vote requires a 5/8 majority to overturn a particular piece of legislation. To quote Pete Thamel's article today:

Quote:This is not about the divisive $2,000 stipend that's become a convenient anecdote to tie to the unhappiness and unrest (some of the Big 5 leagues are not in favor of the stipend). This is much bigger than that.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...z2a5mwZuKX

So I really have no idea why this is happening now. I disagree that the O'Bannon lawsuit has much influence here, although as the OP pointed out the P5 have far more at risk there than the rest of D1. Delany said yesterday he intends to fight it all the way, and I think the NCAA will do just that. Besides, even the preliminary verdict is years down the road. I also agree with Thamel that the stipend really is acting as a strawman here. Even as passed, it was up to the individual conferences to decide to implement it or not; there was no mandate. There's a lot of saber-rattling here, but to what end? What do the P5 get out of a new governance structure?

More power? Perhaps, but they already have a strong influence and recent history shows what they want happens and that they can't even show solidarity on those actions that clearly benefit them and them alone. So what does more power really get them that they don't already have?

More money? Perhaps, but they already get the lions' share of that at the moment, at least on the football side. The NCAA does have over $500M in net assets and will pull in over $1B/yr in revenue over the next decade.

But neither of those is particularly pressing. About the only thing that's really pressing is the CFP, and the NCAA has virtually no say in that at all. There has to be something else.

(07-25-2013 04:56 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  More money? Perhaps, but they already get the lions' share of that at the moment, at least on the football side. The NCAA does have over $500M in net assets and will pull in over $1B/yr in revenue over the next decade.

Maybe it is about basketball money.

Note this passage from Thamel's si.com article:

Quote:The Big 5 will likely form a new tier -- perhaps Division IV or a "super division" -- that creates an elite division of athletics still under the auspices of the NCAA. Think of a scenario where a total of 12-15 conferences -- about 150 schools -- end up in this new subset of Division I.

Hmmm. 150 schools? 12-15 conferences? How do you get that number?

You get it by taking the FBS conferences and adding 2 to 5 of the no-football conferences that are strongest. Big East, A-10, WCC -- maybe the other two would be MVC and Big West. Who knows. Could be a bit more or less than the number Thamel chose, anyway.

So once you have the FBS conferences and the select group of no-football conferences in Division IV, what do you do (besides letting Slive and Delany write some new football rules, that is)?

You start a Division IV basketball tournament. You re-negotiate the deal with CBS and Turner to pay that $775 million/year for the Division IV tournament.

And then, after the NCAA takes its cut off the top for administrative overhead and running NCAA championship events, the money left over can be divided among 150 schools instead of 350.