Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
Author Message
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #1
MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...e-autonomy

The last paragraph from the MW Commissioner pretty much wraps up what the G5 concerns will be in this whole new structure of the P5.

Keeping the scholarship limit to 85 seems to be the bigger issue for any G5 school/conference.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2014 09:37 AM by MWC Tex.)
01-17-2014 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #2
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 09:31 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...e-autonomy

The last paragraph from the MW Commissioner pretty much wraps up what the G5 concerns will be in this whole new structure of the P5.

Keeping the scholarship limit to 85 seems to be the bigger issue for any G5 school/conference.

The only ones who would benefit from going beyond 85 scholarships would be about 15-20 power schools. Athletes wouldn't get to play, lower tier P5 schools would have less talent and the G5 would get less talent. Everyone would have Title IX issues.

Realistically, they don't need 85. 75 would do just as well. That gives you 3 full teams + 9 for injuries + walk-ons. But if you reduce, it leaves you less room for recruiting errors. SEC West schools have been manipulating that with their over-signing practices. No doubt that is a big factor in the rise of the SEC-West over the last 5 years.
01-17-2014 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #3
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
I don't see any reason for extended scholarships. If they are a pro, they really don't need the scholarship. They have the time to get their degree like any other student, except theirs is paid for.

And there is nothing to stop the schools from doing that anyway with their own funds. In fact, Texas has done that with some former athletes recently.
01-17-2014 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
domer1978 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,469
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 367
I Root For: Notre Dame/Chaos
Location: California/Georgia
Post: #4
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
115 is the number I wish to see.
01-17-2014 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,519
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #5
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  Realistically, they don't need 85. 75 would do just as well. That gives you 3 full teams + 9 for injuries + walk-ons. But if you reduce, it leaves you less room for recruiting errors.
Remember when there weren't any scholarship limits at all?03-shhhh

I am convinced that the limits are what made it possible for "new" football programs to be created and to achieve some success.
01-17-2014 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #6
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
Another thought I had was if the 'full cost of attendance' is going to happen the increasing the scholarship limit would be an additional expense even for the mid-to lower P5 schools. In that case, I don't think it'll happen as why would they be willing to pay the 4th string bench players the full cost attendance when they won't even play in the game and are just used for practice.
01-17-2014 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Big Frog II Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,016
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 116
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #7
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
Add more football scholarships, and then get ready to add another women's sports. 85 is at least enough for football.
01-17-2014 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tallgrass Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,396
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
The MWC's statement if fine....but expressing the concerns and hopes of the NonBCS schools would have a much stronger impact if these kind of statements were made by a coalition of NonBCS conferences.

The 4 Game National Playoff has yet even to start....but it is obvious where this train is headed. There is just too much money involved to keep it at 4 teams but expand it to 8 or perhaps even more teams. NonBCS conferences need to start positioning themselves for the next go round. Unfortunately, because of Nbe/ACC gyrations and ultimate futility, the opportunity for an expanded role for NonBCS conferences in the 4 game National Playoff and BCS bowls was lost. An opportunity was lost. There will be another opportunity and this time a united NonBCS coalition needs to be in place.
01-17-2014 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyU Offline
Big East Overlord
*

Posts: 22,802
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1182
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
Post: #9
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
If the P5 were to break off and do their own thing, Notre Dame would have to join one of the P5's as a full member, right?
01-17-2014 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #10
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 10:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  If the P5 were to break off and do their own thing, Notre Dame would have to join one of the P5's as a full member, right?

No. If there were a split at that level (very unlikely a formal split at that level anyway; if there were one, it would more likely be between FBS and FCS division 1), then however they made the split, they'd definitely include Notre Dame.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2014 10:28 AM by ohio1317.)
01-17-2014 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #11
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 10:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  If the P5 were to break off and do their own thing, Notre Dame would have to join one of the P5's as a full member, right?

Nope. Not at all. For the purposes of NCAA governance, they are a member of the ACC. Look at all of these quotes talking about "65 schools" in the power conferences. Well, there are 64 full football members of the power conferences if you add them up. That "plus 1" is Notre Dame to get it to 65. They are absolutely, positively, 100% iron-clad within the power club (just as they had more power alone as an individual school than all of the G5 conferences combined in the CFP playoff and bowl discussions). Whatever structure is put into place, there will ALWAYS be an exception for Notre Dame. Count on it.
01-17-2014 10:57 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #12
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 10:11 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Add more football scholarships, and then get ready to add another women's sports. 85 is at least enough for football.

Maybe this is going to happen?

Several Pac-12 schools recently added sand volleyball as a women's sport, and overall there are almost enough D-I schools sponsoring it to start an official NCAA championship in the sport. (Minimum number of schools for that is 40.)

Why add another women's sport when you're already spending every penny you can find and you're already in compliance with Title IX? Maybe because the scholarship limit might be raised for some men's sports. Even if football stays at 85, men's basketball and baseball have been wanting more scholarships for quite awhile, and if the P5 gets to make the rules now, then the D-I-in-name-only conferences who joined D-I just to get March Madness money can't veto increasing men's hoops to 14-15 scholarships and baseball to 18-20.
01-17-2014 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,692
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 170
I Root For: USC, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #13
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 09:49 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  115 is the number I wish to see.

Why? It ruins the depth factor because a team could have ten freaking QB's on the roster.
01-17-2014 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,692
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 170
I Root For: USC, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #14
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 10:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The MWC's statement if fine....but expressing the concerns and hopes of the NonBCS schools would have a much stronger impact if these kind of statements were made by a coalition of NonBCS conferences.

The 4 Game National Playoff has yet even to start....but it is obvious where this train is headed. There is just too much money involved to keep it at 4 teams but expand it to 8 or perhaps even more teams. NonBCS conferences need to start positioning themselves for the next go round. Unfortunately, because of Nbe/ACC gyrations and ultimate futility, the opportunity for an expanded role for NonBCS conferences in the 4 game National Playoff and BCS bowls was lost. An opportunity was lost. There will be another opportunity and this time a united NonBCS coalition needs to be in place.

So how did that MWC & CUSA merger work out? Or when was the last time CUSA partnered with the Sun Belt for anything considering how similar they are? I don't understand why you think the AAC is the only league looking out for itself.
01-17-2014 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,692
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 170
I Root For: USC, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #15
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 11:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-17-2014 10:11 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Add more football scholarships, and then get ready to add another women's sports. 85 is at least enough for football.

Maybe this is going to happen?

Several Pac-12 schools recently added sand volleyball as a women's sport, and overall there are almost enough D-I schools sponsoring it to start an official NCAA championship in the sport. (Minimum number of schools for that is 40.)

Why add another women's sport when you're already spending every penny you can find and you're already in compliance with Title IX? Maybe because the scholarship limit might be raised for some men's sports. Even if football stays at 85, men's basketball and baseball have been wanting more scholarships for quite awhile, and if the P5 gets to make the rules now, then the D-I-in-name-only conferences who joined D-I just to get March Madness money can't veto increasing men's hoops to 14-15 scholarships and baseball to 18-20.

I seriously with to see Title IX challenged at some point. It is a major road block to the development of many university athletic programs.

It's okay in high school because parents take up the cost of women's sports and they are very local. But there seriously needs to be a change at the college level.
01-17-2014 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tallgrass Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,396
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #16
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 11:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(01-17-2014 10:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The MWC's statement if fine....but expressing the concerns and hopes of the NonBCS schools would have a much stronger impact if these kind of statements were made by a coalition of NonBCS conferences.

The 4 Game National Playoff has yet even to start....but it is obvious where this train is headed. There is just too much money involved to keep it at 4 teams but expand it to 8 or perhaps even more teams. NonBCS conferences need to start positioning themselves for the next go round. Unfortunately, because of Nbe/ACC gyrations and ultimate futility, the opportunity for an expanded role for NonBCS conferences in the 4 game National Playoff and BCS bowls was lost. An opportunity was lost. There will be another opportunity and this time a united NonBCS coalition needs to be in place.

So how did that MWC & CUSA merger work out? Or when was the last time CUSA partnered with the Sun Belt for anything considering how similar they are? I don't understand why you think the AAC is the only league looking out for itself.

The MWC made the same mistake as ACC by signing a tv contract of too long a duration. It was the MWC tv contract that proved a stumbling block legally.

Regarding the statement I bolded, you, like many others, are coming from a win/lose view point. For anything to work, it must be a win/win situation. The best way the AAC can look out for itself and gain a better position with BCS...is to cooperate with its NonBCS colleagues via a COALITION. A NonBCS conference looking out for itself and working thru a COALITION of the 5 NonBCS conferences is not mutually exclusive.
01-17-2014 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #17
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 10:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The MWC's statement if fine....but expressing the concerns and hopes of the NonBCS schools would have a much stronger impact if these kind of statements were made by a coalition of NonBCS conferences.

The 4 Game National Playoff has yet even to start....but it is obvious where this train is headed. There is just too much money involved to keep it at 4 teams but expand it to 8 or perhaps even more teams. NonBCS conferences need to start positioning themselves for the next go round. Unfortunately, because of Nbe/ACC gyrations and ultimate futility, the opportunity for an expanded role for NonBCS conferences in the 4 game National Playoff and BCS bowls was lost. An opportunity was lost. There will be another opportunity and this time a united NonBCS coalition needs to be in place.


You mean while CUSA was stealing Sunbelt schools to grow wildly to 14? Or do you mean while CUSA was in negotiations with the MW to merge (which would require adding no schools, no FCS schools, or damaging any other conferences), but was actually planning to expand by moving up FCS teams and stealing teams from other conferences? Do you mean that period of time where the MW and CUSA---who were supposedly merging, were BOTH extending invitations to UTSA? There were plenty of uncooperative and insincere "gyrations" going on in that period by multiple conferences. To claim the AAC alone is responsible is equal parts ridiculous and simplistic. At some point you will realize that ALL conferences, just like individual schools, always act in their own best interests.

I do agree that a united voice would help and if there is anyplace that such a voice should be used is to prevent an expansion of the scholarship limit over 85. In fact, lowering the limit to 80 and the promise of guaranteed access in any future playoff expansion should be the two bargaining chips the G5 receive for allowing the P5 to have everything they want in NCAA governance.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2014 12:35 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-17-2014 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,692
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 170
I Root For: USC, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #18
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 12:03 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  
(01-17-2014 11:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(01-17-2014 10:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The MWC's statement if fine....but expressing the concerns and hopes of the NonBCS schools would have a much stronger impact if these kind of statements were made by a coalition of NonBCS conferences.

The 4 Game National Playoff has yet even to start....but it is obvious where this train is headed. There is just too much money involved to keep it at 4 teams but expand it to 8 or perhaps even more teams. NonBCS conferences need to start positioning themselves for the next go round. Unfortunately, because of Nbe/ACC gyrations and ultimate futility, the opportunity for an expanded role for NonBCS conferences in the 4 game National Playoff and BCS bowls was lost. An opportunity was lost. There will be another opportunity and this time a united NonBCS coalition needs to be in place.

So how did that MWC & CUSA merger work out? Or when was the last time CUSA partnered with the Sun Belt for anything considering how similar they are? I don't understand why you think the AAC is the only league looking out for itself.

The MWC made the same mistake as ACC by signing a tv contract of too long a duration. It was the MWC tv contract that proved a stumbling block legally.

Regarding the statement I bolded, you, like many others, are coming from a win/lose view point. For anything to work, it must be a win/win situation. The best way the AAC can look out for itself and gain a better position with BCS...is to cooperate with its NonBCS colleagues via a COALITION. A NonBCS conference looking out for itself and working thru a COALITION of the 5 NonBCS conferences is not mutually exclusive.

The thing you fail to understand is that within the Non BCS conferences they only want to work with the person on the side, in front, but not the person behind them. The AAC views CUSA the same way CUSA views the Sun Belt.

For your fantasy to ever come true the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA need to work together for a few years first because they are the conferences that are truly standing in the same pile of crap right now. The MWC would be the next to fall but it's going to take some time if ever to the AAC to work with the G5. Why? The AAC is likely going to be a 3-5 bid league in basketball, has the best chance of producing ranked teams in football, has the best brands of the G5 in football.

I just don't see them working with the G5 unless there were some massive meltdown and they get destroyed by realignment. And there is absolutely no reason they should because any conference in the G5 would happily trade positions with them right now.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2014 12:30 PM by TrojanCampaign.)
01-17-2014 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LSUtah Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,139
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 50
I Root For: LSU
Location: Salt Lake City
Post: #19
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
This is a bit scary...

"The cost of attendance -- unofficially referred to as a stipend -- would account for miscellaneous costs that full academic scholarships cover but athletic scholarships do not. No actual dollar amount has been proposed, but the cap would be set as the full cost of attendance as designated by the university."

This would allow universities to set the rate, which would shift the competitive balance considerably (think NY Yankees). Hopefully this never comes to fruition...there should be an aligned maximum, with universities having the autonomy to meet the max or not. An uber rich program like Texas could literally pay four times the "stipend" anyone else could if left to their own devices.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2014 12:38 PM by LSUtah.)
01-17-2014 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 21,880
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1171
I Root For: Jimmy Nippert
Location:
Post: #20
RE: MW Commissioner Statement after Day 1 of NCAA meetings
(01-17-2014 12:38 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  This is a bit scary...

"The cost of attendance -- unofficially referred to as a stipend -- would account for miscellaneous costs that full academic scholarships cover but athletic scholarships do not. No actual dollar amount has been proposed, but the cap would be set as the full cost of attendance as designated by the university."

This would allow universities to set the rate, which would shift the competitive balance considerably (think NY Yankees). Hopefully this never comes to fruition...there should be an aligned maximum, with universities having the autonomy to meet the max or not. An uber rich program like Texas could literally pay four times the "stipend" anyone else could if left to their own devices.

Exactly... and it wouldn't just be a P5 v. G5 thing. Most P5 schools would struggle to compete with the likes of Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. Factor in discussions of increasing scholarships and many P5 schools would lose recruits they could normally snag to the Big Boys.

If all of this comes to fruition I don't know if I will be following college football in the future.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2014 12:42 PM by CliftonAve.)
01-17-2014 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.