I know this has been discussed in the past and tangentially in other threads, but I have not had the time to really read up on the implications of this. Some portray it as the P5's attempt to create a separate division. Others have said it's simply to let FBS schools make decisions without FCS and non-football schools vetoing them. I remember reading the Big 10 commissioner (?) saying this was NOT about the P5 breaking away and that all of FBS would be included if they wanted, but that he expected the ranks might be trimmed a bit.

So I'm not sure what to make of it. Even though I know realistically Rice is not going to compete for a national championship in football, I do want us in the top level. If not, I'd rather become a non-football school than be in the new FCS. The silver lining to me is that if there is some weeding out and we take the steps to be in the new system, maybe we'll actually be in a better spot?

That's my rambling for the morning.

What it sounds like is that the P5 conferences are going to be granted some autonomy on certain issues surrounding "student-athlete welfare". Mainly, this has to do with the full cost of attendance scholarship. Those schools want to do it; much of the rest of D1 doesn't. What looks like will come to pass will be that those rich schools will be able to use their resources in that manner. Sounds like there will be some limitations to the autonomy, for example, they can't go and change the number of scholarships they offer in each sport just because they can afford to give more.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. If Rice wants to remain within very loud shouting distance of the P5, we need to offer that stipend as well. IMO, the way that FBS is organized right now is completely ridiculous when it comes to the haves and have-nots, but money drives it all so unless there is some change in how money is handed out, it will remain this way.

I wonder is the spending autonomy will extend to equivalency (i.e. partial scholarship) sports? In baseball especially, one of the biggest structural factors that allows private schools to stay competitive is that even at the ESUs, recruits are still paying a good portion of their own way -- which means that recruits who have no interest in investing in education skip college altogether and go to the minors, which makes college baseball a more truly collegiate sport. But if the ESUs can effectively make baseball a full-scholarship sport, they instantly expand the recruiting pool in a way that does NOT favor schools like Rice.

This will help struggling Notre Dame in paying players. $90M from UnderArmour some of which could be in UA company stock.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...aa-history

(01-22-2014 08:57 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I wonder is the spending autonomy will extend to equivalency (i.e. partial scholarship) sports? In baseball especially, one of the biggest structural factors that allows private schools to stay competitive is that even at the ESUs, recruits are still paying a good portion of their own way -- which means that recruits who have no interest in investing in education skip college altogether and go to the minors, which makes college baseball a more truly collegiate sport.

There are two distinct issues.

One is the existence of an established minor league. With this, baseball players uninterested in school have incentive to bypass college, regardless of scholarship coverage. This works to the advantage of academically demanding, not necessarily private, schools.

Partial scholarships mean that public schools (for in-state athletes) are much less expensive than privates. Advantage to public schools in talent-rich states.

Both are difficult to measure, but it seems unlikely to me that the net effect benefits Rice.

If paying players becomes the norm in D-1, then I support a move to D-3. At that point intercollegiate athletics will have lost all connection to any valid purpose of a university. The only justification for paying players is that the "degrees" that they are receiving are totally worthless. If their education is worth hundreds of thousands, that's compensation enough.

We have a sham (meaningless "degrees" obtained after worthless "education"). Rather than fix the sham, lets paper over it.

(01-22-2014 08:57 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I wonder is the spending autonomy will extend to equivalency (i.e. partial scholarship) sports? In baseball especially, one of the biggest structural factors that allows private schools to stay competitive is that even at the ESUs, recruits are still paying a good portion of their own way -- which means that recruits who have no interest in investing in education skip college altogether and go to the minors, which makes college baseball a more truly collegiate sport. But if the ESUs can effectively make baseball a full-scholarship sport, they instantly expand the recruiting pool in a way that does NOT favor schools like Rice.

I don't think an increase in the scholarship will be large enough to make sports like baseball equivalent to full scholarship. Sounding like a couple thousand dollars more per scholarship. Granted, that's if it is applied to non-head count sports. I'm just assuming it will be.

I wonder if we will begin to see some fallout from schools that are big time basketball but are at a lower level or don't play football at all like Butler and Wichita State. This whole deal is beginning to smell like the CFA 64 of 15-20 years ago.

(01-22-2014 11:31 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I wonder if we will begin to see some fallout from schools that are big time basketball but are at a lower level or don't play football at all like Butler and Wichita State. This whole deal is beginning to smell like the CFA 64 of 15-20 years ago.

It is possible that the split occurs in Football only.

(01-22-2014 11:52 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:31 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I wonder if we will begin to see some fallout from schools that are big time basketball but are at a lower level or don't play football at all like Butler and Wichita State. This whole deal is beginning to smell like the CFA 64 of 15-20 years ago.

It is possible that the split occurs in Football only.

Which is what the CFA proposal of the "top"64 programs was. They would have existed outside the NCAA but only in football.

(01-22-2014 11:52 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:31 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I wonder if we will begin to see some fallout from schools that are big time basketball but are at a lower level or don't play football at all like Butler and Wichita State. This whole deal is beginning to smell like the CFA 64 of 15-20 years ago.

It is possible that the split occurs in Football only.

Yes, but how? I can't imagine a scenario in which football players get an extra $5k/year but other student-athletes don't. In that example, do schools like Cal State Fullerton and SIU-Edwardsville also cover the stipend for their low-level D1 basketball programs? If not, how do they even remotely compete for recruits?

Even if it is a football-only split, I have to think it will further differentiate the programs. Even now you occasionally here non-P5 basketball programs referred to as "non-BCS" - wait until there is even more of a structural disconnect.

I am actually empathetic to the goal of covering some sort of "real cost of attendance" number for student athletes. As with many issues with the NCAA, however, I'm fearful that the devil will be in the details.

As I said above, the real problem is that the "education" they get is often worthless.

(01-22-2014 12:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I said above, the real problem is that the "education" they get is often worthless.

To emphasize your point, Vince Young declared bankruptcy today

(01-22-2014 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If paying players becomes the norm in D-1, then I support a move to D-3. At that point intercollegiate athletics will have lost all connection to any valid purpose of a university. The only justification for paying players is that the "degrees" that they are receiving are totally worthless. If their education is worth hundreds of thousands, that's compensation enough.

We have a sham (meaningless "degrees" obtained after worthless "education"). Rather than fix the sham, lets paper over it.

Other than going down to D-3, I agree with your statement. Players shouldn't be paid anything. They can be employed by the university over the summer months, while they aren't in class. Athletes can work like everyone else. These kids are treated like kings and queens on campus. Their education, food and housing are all completely paid for. Anyway, aren't college student supposed to be poor?

The theory is, of course, that they can't have jobs like other students because they devote so much time to their sports, travel, etc.

(01-22-2014 12:40 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:52 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:31 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I wonder if we will begin to see some fallout from schools that are big time basketball but are at a lower level or don't play football at all like Butler and Wichita State. This whole deal is beginning to smell like the CFA 64 of 15-20 years ago.

It is possible that the split occurs in Football only.

Yes, but how? I can't imagine a scenario in which football players get an extra $5k/year but other student-athletes don't. In that example, do schools like Cal State Fullerton and SIU-Edwardsville also cover the stipend for their low-level D1 basketball programs? If not, how do they even remotely compete for recruits?

Even if it is a football-only split, I have to think it will further differentiate the programs. Even now you occasionally here non-P5 basketball programs referred to as "non-BCS" - wait until there is even more of a structural disconnect.

I am actually empathetic to the goal of covering some sort of "real cost of attendance" number for student athletes. As with many issues with the NCAA, however, I'm fearful that the devil will be in the details.

I think the argument is that the rich programs would get the kids anyway for other reasons (facilities, conference, prestige, etc). As well, there are only so many slots.

But, I agree with you. I think the goal is a good one, but as you said, the devil is in the details.

(01-22-2014 01:57 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I think the argument is that the rich programs would get the kids anyway for other reasons (facilities, conference, prestige, etc). As well, there are only so many slots.

But, I agree with you. I think the goal is a good one, but as you said, the devil is in the details.

And, I could do a 180 with that argument ... given that the P5 schools do already have such inherent recruiting advantages, would this stipend represent a tipping point that would make non-P5 program recruiting utterly non-competitive?

(01-22-2014 02:09 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:57 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I think the argument is that the rich programs would get the kids anyway for other reasons (facilities, conference, prestige, etc). As well, there are only so many slots.

But, I agree with you. I think the goal is a good one, but as you said, the devil is in the details.

And, I could do a 180 with that argument ... given that the P5 schools do already have such inherent recruiting advantages, would this stipend represent a tipping point that would make non-P5 program recruiting utterly non-competitive?

Well, as I said, there are only so many slots available. It would become another proposition for certain players: take all the luxury/advantages of a high program but possibly not play as much due to increased competition or be a starter or major contributor at a different program that is a bit lower in the rankings.

I do agree though it is something to be watched. The pundits I follow don't seem to think it will change much, but who knows?

(01-22-2014 02:12 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 02:09 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:57 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I think the argument is that the rich programs would get the kids anyway for other reasons (facilities, conference, prestige, etc). As well, there are only so many slots.

But, I agree with you. I think the goal is a good one, but as you said, the devil is in the details.

And, I could do a 180 with that argument ... given that the P5 schools do already have such inherent recruiting advantages, would this stipend represent a tipping point that would make non-P5 program recruiting utterly non-competitive?

Well, as I said, there are only so many slots available. It would become another proposition for certain players: take all the luxury/advantages of a high program but possibly not play as much due to increased competition or be a starter or major contributor at a different program that is a bit lower in the rankings.

Isn't that what happens now anyways?

(01-22-2014 02:28 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 02:12 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 02:09 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:57 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I think the argument is that the rich programs would get the kids anyway for other reasons (facilities, conference, prestige, etc). As well, there are only so many slots.

But, I agree with you. I think the goal is a good one, but as you said, the devil is in the details.

And, I could do a 180 with that argument ... given that the P5 schools do already have such inherent recruiting advantages, would this stipend represent a tipping point that would make non-P5 program recruiting utterly non-competitive?

Well, as I said, there are only so many slots available. It would become another proposition for certain players: take all the luxury/advantages of a high program but possibly not play as much due to increased competition or be a starter or major contributor at a different program that is a bit lower in the rankings.

Isn't that what happens now anyways?

Basically.