I think where it would impact the most would be in the conferences like
WCC- #10
Horizon- #12
WAC- #13
MAAC- #14
OVC- #16
Patriot- #17
Summit- #19
NEC- #20

who were all really close to:
C-USA #11
Sun Belt #15
MAC #18

Where Florida Gulf Coast is in- the Atlantic Sun- they're ranked #26 out of 31. This won't impact them too much at all- they were already clearly behind the lower FBS schools.

I wonder how this would impact schools with split programs between FBS and non-FBS conferences (Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico St.). Would they only be allowed to offer the stipend for football?

Well this could destroy my hopes of UC getting into the Big XII through default means of "forced" expansion in the coming year.

(09-24-2013 12:23 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  I wonder how this would impact schools with split programs between FBS and non-FBS conferences (Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico St.). Would they only be allowed to offer the stipend for football?

Don't forget BYU, Navy and Army.

If its a full blown FBS division as proposed in Section A, then BYU and Hawaii would have to join the MW for all sports. Army/Navy may need to be all in the AAC and Idaho and NMSU all in the Sunbelt. UMASS all in for the MAC also. Some institutions may not participate and I've heard from the Idaho AD that if a split did happen, they'll be on the other side...but that was a year ago and who knows now.

If its a FBS/DI proposal as in Section B. Then I can see still some of the schools with split programs still going to full FBS conference, because they can't give a stipend to all the sports if the conference they are in don't support it. The conferences would be with schools who are on equal ground and not 1 school paying stipends and the rest not.

The issue of independents will be debated. Expect Texas to fight for allowing independents, as it it preserves their options. Expect some of the other Big 12 members, especially those who favor expansion, to fight against independents. They want to limit UTs options, and force BYU to join.

(09-24-2013 08:49 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 08:02 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 01:59 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I wish they could find a way to allow more deserving teams into the tournament and less auto qualifiers. Turn the "first four" into the "first eight" and make them all the bottom 16 conference champs.

I disagree, They had to earn their way in, even if the years games were easier. If you are 8 place in a 14 team conf you shouldn't get treated better than the champ of another. No champ should have to be in the play in game. it should be the last 4 in.

I don't think you are automatically deserving of a spot because you beat out 8 or 9 of the worst teams in basketball...even if you call that group of 8 or 9 teams your conference.

Well if you can't beat out 8 or 9 teams from your own 14-16 team conference, you have no business being there either.

(09-24-2013 09:33 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think the big east might be regretting telling the AAC schools to stick it very badly now.

Or it could be that such a split may have forced the C7 to split off anyway. It will be interesting to see how schools like BYU, Navy, Idaho, NMSU, and Army deal with this, as none of those schools have their other sports in an FBS conference. If the rules dictate that to play FBS football, you have to have all of your sports up to the other FBS minimums, but if those minimums are greater than the rest of D1's maximums, then those schools will have to make some serious decisions about their future.

Good question. Hawaii also has that issue.

(09-24-2013 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think the big east might be regretting telling the AAC schools to stick it very badly now.

???

The NCAA Tournament isn't changing, and as long as that's the case, Division 4 will have minimal impact on non-football schools.

The fact that the Big East is getting paid more TV money for just basketball than the AAC is receiving for *both* football and basketball makes Division 4 almost irrelevant. Why on Earth would the Big East want to stick around with schools that they don't want to play, be subject to neverending conference realignment instability AND get paid less TV money just so that they have the "privilege" of paying an extra stipend for recruiting purposes that's almost entirely geared toward a sport (football) that they don't play? That makes no sense.

The group that Division 4 really matters to are the non-power Group of Five conferences. They HAVE to be in Division 4 at the end of the day or else they're DOA. So, they better hope that the faculty proposal linked here has some influence (as the commissioners and university presidents might have different ideas). This is a life-or-death matter for the G5 conferences, whereas it's a mild hindrance to the Big East and the other non-football Division I conferences.

The stipend will impact all sports. There's no way it passes Title IX muster without it. The fact it originally applied only to full scholarship sports was the reason some schools voted no.

Speaking of upcoming changes--I thought this Wolken tweet was interesting:

https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/382266725426671616

"Bob Bowlsby just expanded on what Emmert said earlier about possibility of NCAA model "federated" by sport, akin to USOC. Interesting idea."

After all the gaffs by the NCAA, I doubt many NCAA member schools are paying much attention to anything Emmert is saying. He's lost all credibility...

Also, anyone not playing ALL their sports at the highest level isn't worthy of inclusion into D4 IMO...

(09-24-2013 12:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:23 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  I wonder how this would impact schools with split programs between FBS and non-FBS conferences (Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico St.). Would they only be allowed to offer the stipend for football?

Don't forget BYU, Navy and Army.

If its a full blown FBS division as proposed in Section A, then BYU and Hawaii would have to join the MW for all sports. Army/Navy may need to be all in the AAC and Idaho and NMSU all in the Sunbelt. UMASS all in for the MAC also. Some institutions may not participate and I've heard from the Idaho AD that if a split did happen, they'll be on the other side...but that was a year ago and who knows now.

If its a FBS/DI proposal as in Section B. Then I can see still some of the schools with split programs still going to full FBS conference, because they can't give a stipend to all the sports if the conference they are in don't support it. The conferences would be with schools who are on equal ground and not 1 school paying stipends and the rest not.

The Idaho AD said that in response to the P5 schools breaking away, not the full FBS breakaway that is being proposed.

(09-24-2013 03:59 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:23 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  I wonder how this would impact schools with split programs between FBS and non-FBS conferences (Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico St.). Would they only be allowed to offer the stipend for football?

Don't forget BYU, Navy and Army.

If its a full blown FBS division as proposed in Section A, then BYU and Hawaii would have to join the MW for all sports. Army/Navy may need to be all in the AAC and Idaho and NMSU all in the Sunbelt. UMASS all in for the MAC also. Some institutions may not participate and I've heard from the Idaho AD that if a split did happen, they'll be on the other side...but that was a year ago and who knows now.

If its a FBS/DI proposal as in Section B. Then I can see still some of the schools with split programs still going to full FBS conference, because they can't give a stipend to all the sports if the conference they are in don't support it. The conferences would be with schools who are on equal ground and not 1 school paying stipends and the rest not.

The Idaho AD said that in response to the P5 schools breaking away, not the full FBS breakaway that is being proposed.

I'm not so sure, because there is no reason to state you'll choose to be on the other side if you are not going to be invited in the first place. Seriously though, Idaho is in a tough spot because the Sunbelt is not going to accept you as full member.

The real question will be whether or not teams like Idaho can play in two conferences, and still offer stipends. My guess the answer is no. That would mean Idaho would need to either be willing to commit all sports to the stipend, and move to an FBS league that might not be great for Olympic travel, or drop down. I expect NMSU would simply join the SBC in all sports.

The focus would then move to whether leagues like the SBC and MAC would move to extend invitations to regional basketball schools that don't offer football as a way for those schools to be able to offer a stipend, and in exchange both league will be able to enhance their Olympic sports profile.

(09-24-2013 04:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 03:59 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:23 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  I wonder how this would impact schools with split programs between FBS and non-FBS conferences (Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico St.). Would they only be allowed to offer the stipend for football?

Don't forget BYU, Navy and Army.

If its a full blown FBS division as proposed in Section A, then BYU and Hawaii would have to join the MW for all sports. Army/Navy may need to be all in the AAC and Idaho and NMSU all in the Sunbelt. UMASS all in for the MAC also. Some institutions may not participate and I've heard from the Idaho AD that if a split did happen, they'll be on the other side...but that was a year ago and who knows now.

If its a FBS/DI proposal as in Section B. Then I can see still some of the schools with split programs still going to full FBS conference, because they can't give a stipend to all the sports if the conference they are in don't support it. The conferences would be with schools who are on equal ground and not 1 school paying stipends and the rest not.

The Idaho AD said that in response to the P5 schools breaking away, not the full FBS breakaway that is being proposed.

I'm not so sure, because there is no reason to state you'll choose to be on the other side if you are not going to be invited in the first place. Seriously though, Idaho is in a tough spot because the Sunbelt is not going to accept you as full member.

Not sure I'm following you here. Spear has talked in the past that he thought the P5 might break away and, if that happened, he would like Idaho to be situated in the Tier 2 with the G5 schools and the top FCS schools. Unless I'm missing something, he hasn't said anything regarding this full FBS breakaway.

This kind of suggests what I've thought (and posted) would happen: either some or all of the MWC will merge with the some or all of the AAC or the A10, the MVC and the WCC will be split up among the AAC, MWC and the Big East, as there is no way that the BE is going anywhere.

Think about it; if the MWC and the ACC do not merge, at least to a degree, you could see the following:

VCU, George Mason, George Washington, Davidson, St Joe's, LaSalle, Witchita State and Richmond (they've got money to burn) to the AAC.

St Mary's, Loyola, Pepperdine, Denver and Gonzaga to the MWC. BYU joins for Olympics-only.

Dayton and St Louis to the Big East.

(09-24-2013 12:23 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  I wonder how this would impact schools with split programs between FBS and non-FBS conferences (Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico St.). Would they only be allowed to offer the stipend for football?

Related issue
"Paying college athletes would also present issues under Title IX and the Fair Pay Act. Title IX dictates that institutions accepting federal funds must offer equal opportunities to both men and women"

Another interesting thing that could come up is if schools that currently have a FCS football program Dayton, Villanova, Butler... and want to compete in division 4, assuming no FBS programs are allowed in the new setup, would pool all of their resources finacially to compete at the next level and fit the new requirments for the FBS. If this is allowed, I would expect to see a mass of schools that are strong basketball programs from the Big East and the likes of Dayton, St. Louis, Gonzaga... to invest/create a FBS program so they can compete in basketball depending on how important it is for them to compete with FBS basketball programs. That is if they become totally seperate divisions as some are assuming.

Here's a new article from USA Today that explains what's up. It's simply a way for all the FBS conferences to make their own rules for football.

No split between P5 and G5. No realignment necessary. Probably even no Division 4. Just a structural way to allow all the FBS schools to make the rules for football.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...m/2862095/