http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/4640857/

As we know, there was some stonewalling going on in the governance debate in San Diego.

What we see being reported in today's piece in USA Today is what appears to me to be reporting about the Big Dog's response to their desires being questioned.

Overall this piece appears at first glance to be about the transfer waiver rules and the debate going on as to whether or not these student athletes should be granted extensions on their eligibility since they are being forced to sit out a year.

That is the cover piece. What it truly appears to be, to me, is a direct questioning of the legitimacy of the NCAA and it's officers to lead and be in charge. The attack is on. If you read the entire piece I too think you will see the same thing.

Monday should be full of articles for us to peruse.

(01-18-2014 11:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/4640857/

As we know, there was some stonewalling going on in the governance debate in San Diego.

What we see being reported in today's piece in USA Today is what appears to me to be reporting about the Big Dog's response to their desires being questioned.

Overall this piece appears at first glance to be about the transfer waiver rules and the debate going on as to whether or not these student athletes should be granted extensions on their eligibility since they are being forced to sit out a year.

That is the cover piece. What it truly appears to be, to me, is a direct questioning of the legitimacy of the NCAA and it's officers to lead and be in charge. The attack is on. If you read the entire piece I too think you will see the same thing.

Monday should be full of articles for us to peruse.

I didn't see that. The big boys are getting what they want with a handful of limits. What is there for the P5 to gripe about? They never even had to speak---it was a done deal long before they ever got to San Diego. San Diego was a dog and pony show designed to let the rest of D1 think they had input. The participants said they wanted increased involvement by AD's and student athletes in the legislative process. That will happen. The real news was that the scholarship limit for football will not be independently set by the P5 (a change from the public proposal) and the regular season will not be extended. Beyond these relatively minor changes (scholarship limits, length of season, and the AD/Student athlete participation) the proposal will pass as presented.

(01-18-2014 11:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 11:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/4640857/

As we know, there was some stonewalling going on in the governance debate in San Diego.

What we see being reported in today's piece in USA Today is what appears to me to be reporting about the Big Dog's response to their desires being questioned.

Overall this piece appears at first glance to be about the transfer waiver rules and the debate going on as to whether or not these student athletes should be granted extensions on their eligibility since they are being forced to sit out a year.

That is the cover piece. What it truly appears to be, to me, is a direct questioning of the legitimacy of the NCAA and it's officers to lead and be in charge. The attack is on. If you read the entire piece I too think you will see the same thing.

Monday should be full of articles for us to peruse.

I didn't see that. The big boys are getting what they want with a handful of limits. What is there for the P5 to gripe about? They never even had to speak---it was a done deal long before they ever got to San Diego. San Diego was a dog and pony show designed to let the rest of D1 think they had input. The participants said they wanted increased involvement by AD's and student athletes in the legislative process. That will happen. The real news was that the scholarship limit for football will not be independently set by the P5 (a change from the public proposal) and the regular season will not be extended. Beyond these relatively minor changes (scholarship limits, length of season, and the AD/Student athlete participation) the proposal will pass as presented.

You had to read some of the earlier pieces done. They have links to them in that article.

The real news, as you say, isn't really news. None of that was going to be changed at THIS convention. When the P5 gets control of their own autonomy and rule making then those accomplishments are inevitable in the future. One step at a time is how it goes. It is not yet time for those steps.

It's all lipstick on a pig. The P5 do not just want autonomy over players issues, they need autonomy to do what is best for their futures from a daily operations and business standpoint. The waiver issue being voted down narrowly is a case in point. Why shouldn't kids get their full four years of playing time? If they sit a year that's fine, but to take that year away from them serves no good purpose. If playing time, usually at a smaller school, is what they want why limit them? Subtly dropped from the discussion in this paper is autonomy over structure and scheduling issues. This isn't going to fly! Autonomy by definition implies no outside limitations on the governance of the entity with autonomy. The NCAA is wanting to call limited rights autonomy and that is by definition a lie.

So far all the usual bureaucratic tricks are being utilized: committee, subcommittees, think groups, discussion groups, all of the usual busy work designed to delay real change and to diffuse it in gridlock until it can't be obtained thereby protecting the status quo. If the P5 goes along with it this year it means to me that they are utilizing 2014 to map out their strategies for how to manage and coordinate lower lever sports when a breakaway occurs.

Stipends are the lead issue because they are on behalf of the players and therefore the most publicly sympathetic issue to lift up. The real issues are over structure and the ability to make decisions that from a business standpoint arise rather quickly with opportunities and pass by just as quickly because of market changes. That is where the NCAA is woefully and destructively lethargic to the larger schools.

What I see happening with the proposal going forward this year, I liken to a patch on a roadside flat. The P5 doesn't intend to drive on it for very long, in fact just long enough to get them to where they can buy the tires they want and be on their merry way. This whole effort has been nothing but a stall and dodge tactic and it has resolved nothing of any real substance.

Emmert will let the stipends pass because that blunts the demands of the P5 in the eyes of the public. He will then hope that their movement loses momentum. The real issues, the freedom to conduct trade with the permission of peers, remains. The G5 and lower are not the peers of the P5 in business model or in issues faced. That is why the P5 needs autonomy and why this issue is anything but resolved. Granting autonomy for one issue only, the players well being and benefits, is not anywhere close to what this has all been about, and while good for the players, will do nothing to help the large schools leverage their products and conduct their business free of interference from the parasite that is the NCAA, or from the fears of those who do not share their milieu.

If it was really about student welfare, then they would just let kids freely transfer as one would think a free person would be allowed to do. They aren't, when they sign the dotted line and accept, they lose that freedom. Some schools don't want the time they put in to building up and training kids to be taken advantage of by bigger, better and more prestigious programs. Without the year sit out transfer rule, that would happen quite often. Schools like Alabama probably wouldn't even have to recruit high school kids as much. They would recruit your school's players. They would be able to see who has panned out and who hasn't.

I don't think the year off will ever change. I do think that the extension of eligibility is good to do because sometimes there are good reasons for these transfers, necessary reasons. The student athlete should not be punished in such individual cases just because the NCAA doesn't have the combined intelligence to be able to recognize by individual case.

The fact that this particular situation is brought up in the way that it is, just shows the building case the Majors are making against the NCAA. They either get what they want or they tear the house down.

(01-19-2014 08:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If it was really about student welfare, then they would just let kids freely transfer as one would think a free person would be allowed to do. They aren't, when they sign the dotted line and accept, they lose that freedom. Some schools don't want the time they put in to building up and training kids to be taken advantage of by bigger, better and more prestigious programs. Without the year sit out transfer rule, that would happen quite often. Schools like Alabama probably wouldn't even have to recruit high school kids as much. They would recruit your school's players. They would be able to see who has panned out and who hasn't.

I don't think the year off will ever change. I do think that the extension of eligibility is good to do because sometimes there are good reasons for these transfers, necessary reasons. The student athlete should not be punished in such individual cases just because the NCAA doesn't have the combined intelligence to be able to recognize by individual case.

The fact that this particular situation is brought up in the way that it is, just shows the building case the Majors are making against the NCAA. They either get what they want or they tear the house down.

I have no problem with waiting a year, just with losing eligibility. Remember too many of these kids transfer because of personal situations or because the coach they trusted when they signed their scholarship has just bailed for a better job and more money and the new guy doesn't run their style of offense or defense.

H1 I see this as a huge stall. Because of that, and unless there is an immediate response, we won't see any action on the realignment front until August, if then. It will be status quo while the P5 agree upon their course of action. Also remember that among P5 conferences the need to notify two years in advance of a move by August 15th applies to movement within the NCAA (although slightly different annual dates depending upon the conferences involved). Should a breakaway occur conferences may have to undergo some minor legal face-lifts on their brands (because of ties to NCAA branding) before reconstituting in the new alliance. This might well provide an opportunity for realignment free of some of the current restrictions, at least for a short duration, until the new structure is set. So if there are schools that file for departure by August 15th it will be a clear indication that the P5 chooses to remain within the NCAA. And if there is no action by August 15th, particularly from any schools choosing to be part of the new contract negotiations for the Big 10, that may be an indicator that a breakaway is imminent (meaning prior to 2016), otherwise it would mean that the Big 10 will be adding nobody before their new contract is inked. So what I'm saying is that we might have a dead silence between now and August, or we might have massive saber rattling by the P5, but none of that will be indicative of a direction until we get to the closing of the notification period for conferences to handle departures, the latest of which falls on the 15th of August (being the last date for the ACC).

Also remember that each conference's current contracts with the Networks are for the broadcast of NCAA Football games. If there is a breakaway a new entity will replace the NCAA and new contracts might need to be written. It will be an opportunity to replace old GOR's with new ones, old contracts with new ones, and a wonderful opportunity to end the disparity in television contracts, all in addition to being an open window for realignment. Remember also that if the networks choose to equalize, or at least close the gap on the television revenue, it is also the perfect time for conferences to pick up schools like T.C.U., Baylor, B.Y.U., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida, Colorado State, South Florida, New Mexico, Buffalo, Temple, or Nevada if they so choose. The reason is because at this juncture no conference would suffer a loss of revenue because all of them would receive the same income. Bowl and playoff revenue could be adjusted accordingly as well. It is under this kind of umbrella that final moves would be very inclusive and without fear for the existing conference members. It is also one of the chief reasons I have supported a full breakaway. It is perhaps only in the largess of that move that realignment can be successfully and inclusively brought to a conclusion where none of the existing P5 schools need suffer and the cut off boundaries can be established and conferences grown without the objections to lost revenue by inclusion. Anything done under the NCAA banner will move at a snails pace and become embroiled in countless, needless, legal wranglings, and will remain subject to fear driven decisions. It's time to put up or shut up for the P5 and its leadership. This is their moment and if they fail to seize it most of us will remain disgusted with the state of intercollegiate athletics for the remainder of our lives.

I hadn't even thought about whether or not these conferences would have to renegotiate all their contracts if they are no longer involved in the NCAA. I could see how a lot of the wording in those contracts would be based upon NCAA stipulations.

I still think that once the P5 makes its adjustments to Student Welfare and the AAC/MWC follow suit that the real movement is going to occur a the MAC/SBC/CUSA level.

The possibility of forming a 16 team conference comprised of schools willing to pay for the full cost of attendance out of CUSA, SBC, MAC makes some sense. Possibly the situation could be that CUSA votes in the full cost of attendance and takes in a group of 4-6 from MAC and/or SBC where they can't get it passed.

The transfer issue exposes the fundamental obstacle to any NCAA reform. There is a Cold War Soviet-US mentality throughout the Association.

The NCAA came up with two good ideas that most people outside the fray considered reasonable.
1. The free transfer if there were a mitigating issue(s). Some examples that have been granted where I know the circumstances. Player from NE Arkansas goes to Texas, his child develops a serious health issue. Transfers to Arkansas State, 25 minutes from where his child is. Player is granted a waiver but the issue becomes moot as he gives up football. Player from Atlanta signs with Arkansas State, his freshman year grandmother has a stroke he transfers home to Georgia Tech. From a playing standpoint dumb decision as he gets far reduced minutes, if he had gone to Georgia State probably would have been a star.

The first, every decent human being is going to agree with. The second smelled a little funny but it seemed reasonable (as he was leaving he named three schools he was considering, two were further away). But decency says if circumstances change and a student has a good reason to need be closer to home, a waiver makes sense.

2. Free transfer for players that have graduated. The current rule is a bit onerous. The newly minted grad has to apply to a program that the current school does not offer and the school he/she is leaving has to consent.

What has happened is now coaches are complaining about the grad transfer as being unfair, they've invested in the kid and they want to keep him or her even though they have completed the degree, the purported goal of the process. If Northeastsouthwest Tech offers a masters in computer science but the kid has been accepted to Stanford for their program, the student isn't eligible because his current school offers the degree even though it lacks the pop of the Stanford degree.

The hardship waiver has like any NCAA program produced puzzling results so the answer to many is kill it rather than try to improve the consistency of the decision-making.

The irony of this is that while the P5 (and others) are promoting full cost of attendance as a student welfare issue there is significant opposition to the hardship transfer and the graduated student transfer based on fear that it might somehow be used to gain an advantage.

(01-19-2014 10:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I still think that once the P5 makes its adjustments to Student Welfare and the AAC/MWC follow suit that the real movement is going to occur a the MAC/SBC/CUSA level.

The possibility of forming a 16 team conference comprised of schools willing to pay for the full cost of attendance out of CUSA, SBC, MAC makes some sense. Possibly the situation could be that CUSA votes in the full cost of attendance and takes in a group of 4-6 from MAC and/or SBC where they can't get it passed.

That could be a real possibility. That would essentially whittle down to a G4 conferences.

(01-19-2014 07:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So far all the usual bureaucratic tricks are being utilized: committee, subcommittees, think groups, discussion groups, all of the usual busy work designed to delay real change and to diffuse it in gridlock until it can't be obtained thereby protecting the status quo. If the P5 goes along with it this year it means to me that they are utilizing 2014 to map out their strategies for how to manage and coordinate lower lever sports when a breakaway occurs.

I think the lack of more movement on some of these issues reflects a lack of consensus within the P5. There is not strong support to increase the FB scholarship limit or the number of regular-season FB games. And despite the lip service, most programs continue to view the athletes as indentured servants, so there isn't much support for making it easier for players to transfer to another school of their choice.

Also, as I've said a few times, the Hatch committee was designed to throw the P5 a bone rather than to give them complete autonomy. One look at the membership of that committee confirms that.

(01-19-2014 12:05 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 10:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I still think that once the P5 makes its adjustments to Student Welfare and the AAC/MWC follow suit that the real movement is going to occur a the MAC/SBC/CUSA level.

The possibility of forming a 16 team conference comprised of schools willing to pay for the full cost of attendance out of CUSA, SBC, MAC makes some sense. Possibly the situation could be that CUSA votes in the full cost of attendance and takes in a group of 4-6 from MAC and/or SBC where they can't get it passed.

That could be a real possibility. That would essentially whittle down to a G4 conferences.

I think it makes more sense for the MAC and CUSA to absorb all the promising SBC schools than for the SBC to continue to add FCS upgrades down to the bottom of the barrel possibilities.

CUSA (Ark St, ULL, USA, Georgia St)
MAC (App St, GSU, Troy)

Then you have Idaho, NMSU, ULM, Texas St all either making the decision to move back to FCS or wait until there is an opening in the G4 (the case probably of NMSU and Texas St).

(01-19-2014 09:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 08:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If it was really about student welfare, then they would just let kids freely transfer as one would think a free person would be allowed to do. They aren't, when they sign the dotted line and accept, they lose that freedom. Some schools don't want the time they put in to building up and training kids to be taken advantage of by bigger, better and more prestigious programs. Without the year sit out transfer rule, that would happen quite often. Schools like Alabama probably wouldn't even have to recruit high school kids as much. They would recruit your school's players. They would be able to see who has panned out and who hasn't.

I don't think the year off will ever change. I do think that the extension of eligibility is good to do because sometimes there are good reasons for these transfers, necessary reasons. The student athlete should not be punished in such individual cases just because the NCAA doesn't have the combined intelligence to be able to recognize by individual case.

The fact that this particular situation is brought up in the way that it is, just shows the building case the Majors are making against the NCAA. They either get what they want or they tear the house down.

I have no problem with waiting a year, just with losing eligibility. Remember too many of these kids transfer because of personal situations or because the coach they trusted when they signed their scholarship has just bailed for a better job and more money and the new guy doesn't run their style of offense or defense.

H1 I see this as a huge stall. Because of that, and unless there is an immediate response, we won't see any action on the realignment front until August, if then. It will be status quo while the P5 agree upon their course of action. Also remember that among P5 conferences the need to notify two years in advance of a move by August 15th applies to movement within the NCAA (although slightly different annual dates depending upon the conferences involved). Should a breakaway occur conferences may have to undergo some minor legal face-lifts on their brands (because of ties to NCAA branding) before reconstituting in the new alliance. This might well provide an opportunity for realignment free of some of the current restrictions, at least for a short duration, until the new structure is set. So if there are schools that file for departure by August 15th it will be a clear indication that the P5 chooses to remain within the NCAA. And if there is no action by August 15th, particularly from any schools choosing to be part of the new contract negotiations for the Big 10, that may be an indicator that a breakaway is imminent (meaning prior to 2016), otherwise it would mean that the Big 10 will be adding nobody before their new contract is inked. So what I'm saying is that we might have a dead silence between now and August, or we might have massive saber rattling by the P5, but none of that will be indicative of a direction until we get to the closing of the notification period for conferences to handle departures, the latest of which falls on the 15th of August (being the last date for the ACC).

Also remember that each conference's current contracts with the Networks are for the broadcast of NCAA Football games. If there is a breakaway a new entity will replace the NCAA and new contracts might need to be written. It will be an opportunity to replace old GOR's with new ones, old contracts with new ones, and a wonderful opportunity to end the disparity in television contracts, all in addition to being an open window for realignment. Remember also that if the networks choose to equalize, or at least close the gap on the television revenue, ........"it is also the perfect time for conferences to pick up schools like T.C.U., Baylor, B.Y.U., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida, Colorado State, South Florida, New Mexico, Buffalo, Temple, or Nevada if they so choose"............ The reason is because at this juncture no conference would suffer a loss of revenue because all of them would receive the same income. Bowl and playoff revenue could be adjusted accordingly as well. It is under this kind of umbrella that final moves would be very inclusive and without fear for the existing conference members. It is also one of the chief reasons I have supported a full breakaway. It is perhaps only in the largess of that move that realignment can be successfully and inclusively brought to a conclusion where none of the existing P5 schools need suffer and the cut off boundaries can be established and conferences grown without the objections to lost revenue by inclusion. Anything done under the NCAA banner will move at a snails pace and become embroiled in countless, needless, legal wranglings, and will remain subject to fear driven decisions. It's time to put up or shut up for the P5 and its leadership. This is their moment and if they fail to seize it most of us will remain disgusted with the state of intercollegiate athletics for the remainder of our lives.

Why do you include Baylor and TCU among those schools to be picked up? I thought they had already been picked up.

(01-19-2014 03:20 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:05 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 10:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I still think that once the P5 makes its adjustments to Student Welfare and the AAC/MWC follow suit that the real movement is going to occur a the MAC/SBC/CUSA level.

The possibility of forming a 16 team conference comprised of schools willing to pay for the full cost of attendance out of CUSA, SBC, MAC makes some sense. Possibly the situation could be that CUSA votes in the full cost of attendance and takes in a group of 4-6 from MAC and/or SBC where they can't get it passed.

That could be a real possibility. That would essentially whittle down to a G4 conferences.

I think it makes more sense for the MAC and CUSA to absorb all the promising SBC schools than for the SBC to continue to add FCS upgrades down to the bottom of the barrel possibilities.

CUSA (Ark St, ULL, USA, Georgia St)
MAC (App St, GSU, Troy)

Then you have Idaho, NMSU, ULM, Texas St all either making the decision to move back to FCS or wait until there is an opening in the G4 (the case probably of NMSU and Texas St).

I think you leave at least 8 teams behind in the Sunbelt with a gentlemans agreement that they do not add any more FCS schools. CUSA takes Arky St and LLU. MAC grabs App St. Leave the SB as a viable conference. There i s not enough to leave anyone homeless at this point. It would just cause more FCS move-ups and further dilution of the G5 product.

(01-19-2014 03:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 03:20 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:05 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 10:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I still think that once the P5 makes its adjustments to Student Welfare and the AAC/MWC follow suit that the real movement is going to occur a the MAC/SBC/CUSA level.

The possibility of forming a 16 team conference comprised of schools willing to pay for the full cost of attendance out of CUSA, SBC, MAC makes some sense. Possibly the situation could be that CUSA votes in the full cost of attendance and takes in a group of 4-6 from MAC and/or SBC where they can't get it passed.

That could be a real possibility. That would essentially whittle down to a G4 conferences.

I think it makes more sense for the MAC and CUSA to absorb all the promising SBC schools than for the SBC to continue to add FCS upgrades down to the bottom of the barrel possibilities.

CUSA (Ark St, ULL, USA, Georgia St)
MAC (App St, GSU, Troy)

Then you have Idaho, NMSU, ULM, Texas St all either making the decision to move back to FCS or wait until there is an opening in the G4 (the case probably of NMSU and Texas St).

I think you leave 8 teams behind in the Sunbelt with a gentlemans agreement that they do not add any more FCS schools. CUSA takes Arky St and LLU. MAC grabs App St. Leave the SB as a viable conference.

I suppose. Or do you have everyone try to 12 members in the G5 nice and evenly.

SWC (NMSU, TXst, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, UNT, Ark St, ULL, La Tech, USM, USA, UAB)

CUSA (WKU, MTSU, Troy, App St, Charlotte, ODU, UMass, Marshall, GSU, Georgia St, FAU, FIU)

MAC (12 Core Members)

This leaves ULM and Idaho looking for homes while all G5 conferences have 12 members (MWC, SWC, MAC, CUSA, AAC). It may be better for the G5 competitively to be at 12 schools and more conferences on their tier to play in bowl games.

(01-19-2014 12:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So far all the usual bureaucratic tricks are being utilized: committee, subcommittees, think groups, discussion groups, all of the usual busy work designed to delay real change and to diffuse it in gridlock until it can't be obtained thereby protecting the status quo. If the P5 goes along with it this year it means to me that they are utilizing 2014 to map out their strategies for how to manage and coordinate lower lever sports when a breakaway occurs.

I think the lack of more movement on some of these issues reflects a lack of consensus within the P5. There is not strong support to increase the FB scholarship limit or the number of regular-season FB games. And despite the lip service, most programs continue to view the athletes as indentured servants, so there isn't much support for making it easier for players to transfer to another school of their choice.

Also, as I've said a few times, the Hatch committee was designed to throw the P5 a bone rather than to give them complete autonomy. One look at the membership of that committee confirms that.

The seminal issue is over the discretion and autonomy to reform the structure of conferences to implement internal playoff structures that give the conferences the sole right to implement changes that maximize their participation, energize their fan bases deeper into the season, and open new revenue possibilities. The other stuff Wedge are really non issues for the time being. It's the structural issues that are key. That is what they are obfuscating. That is where the NCAA refuses to yield control.

(01-19-2014 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So far all the usual bureaucratic tricks are being utilized: committee, subcommittees, think groups, discussion groups, all of the usual busy work designed to delay real change and to diffuse it in gridlock until it can't be obtained thereby protecting the status quo. If the P5 goes along with it this year it means to me that they are utilizing 2014 to map out their strategies for how to manage and coordinate lower lever sports when a breakaway occurs.

I think the lack of more movement on some of these issues reflects a lack of consensus within the P5. There is not strong support to increase the FB scholarship limit or the number of regular-season FB games. And despite the lip service, most programs continue to view the athletes as indentured servants, so there isn't much support for making it easier for players to transfer to another school of their choice.

Also, as I've said a few times, the Hatch committee was designed to throw the P5 a bone rather than to give them complete autonomy. One look at the membership of that committee confirms that.

The seminal issue is over the discretion and autonomy to reform the structure of conferences to implement internal playoff structures that give the conferences the sole right to implement changes that maximize their participation, energize their fan bases deeper into the season, and open new revenue possibilities. The other stuff Wedge are really non issues for the time being. It's the structural issues that are key. That is what they are obfuscating. That is where the NCAA refuses to yield control.

I doubt there is an issue there. The P5 ARE discussing remaining in D1, so full autonomy was never going to be on the table in that type of discussion. Now, this could certainly end up with a new completely separate 4th division with FULL autonomy, but the current discussion is a big tent D1. That means full autonomy was never going to happen in these discussions. Limited autonomy was always the concept in the current talks and it is the avenue that the P5 are currently interested in exploring.

Within some very broad limits, it appears, that the P5 can be given a great deal of autonomy and there seems to be little "sacred ground" that the rest of D1 wants to protect. The only two areas that the rest of D1 wants to stay under the control of ALL of D1 appear to be length of the regular season and scholarship limits for sports teams. Everything else appears to be free to fall under "P5 autonomy".

Internal playoffs and divisional structure would be wide open to P5 autonomy. Playoffs are not part of the "regular" season. Some of the issues being leveled here sound like phantoms to me.

(01-19-2014 05:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So far all the usual bureaucratic tricks are being utilized: committee, subcommittees, think groups, discussion groups, all of the usual busy work designed to delay real change and to diffuse it in gridlock until it can't be obtained thereby protecting the status quo. If the P5 goes along with it this year it means to me that they are utilizing 2014 to map out their strategies for how to manage and coordinate lower lever sports when a breakaway occurs.

I think the lack of more movement on some of these issues reflects a lack of consensus within the P5. There is not strong support to increase the FB scholarship limit or the number of regular-season FB games. And despite the lip service, most programs continue to view the athletes as indentured servants, so there isn't much support for making it easier for players to transfer to another school of their choice.

Also, as I've said a few times, the Hatch committee was designed to throw the P5 a bone rather than to give them complete autonomy. One look at the membership of that committee confirms that.

The seminal issue is over the discretion and autonomy to reform the structure of conferences to implement internal playoff structures that give the conferences the sole right to implement changes that maximize their participation, energize their fan bases deeper into the season, and open new revenue possibilities. The other stuff Wedge are really non issues for the time being. It's the structural issues that are key. That is what they are obfuscating. That is where the NCAA refuses to yield control.

I doubt there is an issue there. The P5 ARE discussing remaining in D1, so full autonomy was never going to be on the table in that type of discussion. Now, this could certainly end up with a new completely separate 4th division with FULL autonomy, but the current discussion is a big tent D1. That means full autonomy was never going to happen in these discussions. Limited autonomy was always the concept in the current talks and it is the avenue that the P5 are currently interested in exploring.

Within some very broad limits, it appears, that the P5 can be given a great deal of autonomy and there seems to be little "sacred ground" that the rest of D1 wants to protect. The only two areas that the rest of D1 wants to stay under the control of ALL of D1 appear to be length of the regular season and scholarship limits for sports teams. Everything else appears to be free to fall under "P5 autonomy".

Internal playoffs and divisional structure would be wide open to P5 autonomy. Playoffs are not part of the "regular" season. Some of the issues being leveled here sound like phantoms to me.

If that is correct its workable within the structure. If not that's another matter. BTW you do realize that limited autonomy is an oxymoron. Autonomy is like pregnancy, you either are or you're not, there is no in between. What the NCAA should have called it is protected rights, but it's not autonomy.

(01-19-2014 06:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So far all the usual bureaucratic tricks are being utilized: committee, subcommittees, think groups, discussion groups, all of the usual busy work designed to delay real change and to diffuse it in gridlock until it can't be obtained thereby protecting the status quo. If the P5 goes along with it this year it means to me that they are utilizing 2014 to map out their strategies for how to manage and coordinate lower lever sports when a breakaway occurs.

I think the lack of more movement on some of these issues reflects a lack of consensus within the P5. There is not strong support to increase the FB scholarship limit or the number of regular-season FB games. And despite the lip service, most programs continue to view the athletes as indentured servants, so there isn't much support for making it easier for players to transfer to another school of their choice.

Also, as I've said a few times, the Hatch committee was designed to throw the P5 a bone rather than to give them complete autonomy. One look at the membership of that committee confirms that.

The seminal issue is over the discretion and autonomy to reform the structure of conferences to implement internal playoff structures that give the conferences the sole right to implement changes that maximize their participation, energize their fan bases deeper into the season, and open new revenue possibilities. The other stuff Wedge are really non issues for the time being. It's the structural issues that are key. That is what they are obfuscating. That is where the NCAA refuses to yield control.

I doubt there is an issue there. The P5 ARE discussing remaining in D1, so full autonomy was never going to be on the table in that type of discussion. Now, this could certainly end up with a new completely separate 4th division with FULL autonomy, but the current discussion is a big tent D1. That means full autonomy was never going to happen in these discussions. Limited autonomy was always the concept in the current talks and it is the avenue that the P5 are currently interested in exploring.

Within some very broad limits, it appears, that the P5 can be given a great deal of autonomy and there seems to be little "sacred ground" that the rest of D1 wants to protect. The only two areas that the rest of D1 wants to stay under the control of ALL of D1 appear to be length of the regular season and scholarship limits for sports teams. Everything else appears to be free to fall under "P5 autonomy".

Internal playoffs and divisional structure would be wide open to P5 autonomy. Playoffs are not part of the "regular" season. Some of the issues being leveled here sound like phantoms to me.

If that is correct its workable within the structure. If not that's another matter. BTW you do realize that limited autonomy is an oxymoron. Autonomy is like pregnancy, you either are or you're not, there is no in between. What the NCAA should have called it is protected rights, but it's not autonomy.

lol....so true.

(01-19-2014 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So far all the usual bureaucratic tricks are being utilized: committee, subcommittees, think groups, discussion groups, all of the usual busy work designed to delay real change and to diffuse it in gridlock until it can't be obtained thereby protecting the status quo. If the P5 goes along with it this year it means to me that they are utilizing 2014 to map out their strategies for how to manage and coordinate lower lever sports when a breakaway occurs.

I think the lack of more movement on some of these issues reflects a lack of consensus within the P5. There is not strong support to increase the FB scholarship limit or the number of regular-season FB games. And despite the lip service, most programs continue to view the athletes as indentured servants, so there isn't much support for making it easier for players to transfer to another school of their choice.

Also, as I've said a few times, the Hatch committee was designed to throw the P5 a bone rather than to give them complete autonomy. One look at the membership of that committee confirms that.

The seminal issue is over the discretion and autonomy to reform the structure of conferences to implement internal playoff structures that give the conferences the sole right to implement changes that maximize their participation, energize their fan bases deeper into the season, and open new revenue possibilities. The other stuff Wedge are really non issues for the time being. It's the structural issues that are key. That is what they are obfuscating. That is where the NCAA refuses to yield control.

I'm not sure I follow. You say the seminal issue is about "autonomy to reform the structure of conferences". And that the objective of reforming the structure of conferences is to "implement [new] internal playoff structures". And that these new internal playoff structures would give the autonomous conferences "the sole right to implement changes." And finally, that these changes would benefit the autonomous conferences by maximizing "their [playoff] participation" which would keep their fans energized and increase their revenue.

There are four different assertions there. As I sort through them, what they seem to be saying is that the seminal issue is giving the P5 conferences the ability to form their own de facto super-division within the NCAA D-1 FBS division, with its own rules and its own playoff structure that excludes FBS schools outside the P5.

If that's so, then why don't the P5 drop all pretense of remaining in the NCAA for football? Why not just break away and set up a new P5-only football entity? I'm sure it's not because the P5 schools are worried about the fate of the G5 and FCS athletic programs they would no longer be helping to fund with CFP money and bodybag game fees. And I doubt it's because the P5 schools are worried about being kicked out of the NCAA for other sports. The NCAA is funded by basketball tournament revenue that would dry up without P5 participation, so there's no chance of that kind of retaliation.

No, I'm guessing it's because the P5 schools want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to secure sufficient "autonomy" to keep the CFP playoff berths, the top football talent and the big TV bucks to themselves. But they also want to remain part of the NCAA D-1 FBS division and keep playing OOC games against G5 and FCS schools. Otherwise, in a P5-only football organization, they would have to play half of their games on the road, and half of them would finish each season with losing records. Their fans don't want that and neither do the TV networks.

To me the seminal issue is whether (a) the P5 will succeed in using a combination of breakaway threats and CFP money inducements to secure the G5's accession to this scheme, or (b) the G5 schools are smart enough to realize the P5 actually needs them, and unified enough to demand a continuation of basic parity between all FBS conferences in the rules governing FBS football and access to CFP playoff berths.