http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...ance-model

Nothing really all that earth-shattering.

Quote:•The highest decision-making body that would pass all legislation is tentatively called the Council.
•The steering committee has proposed the addition of two voting student-athletes on the Council, which would be comprised of 38 members – one from each conference, plus two student-athletes and four conference commissioners.
•Because the Council would have an athletics director as chair, that person would have a seat on the Board of Directors, though the steering committee has not made a recommendation on whether that person would have a vote. The Council would likely be made up mostly of athletics directors.
•Another major change to the current governance model would involve granting some legislative autonomy to the five major conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pacific-12 Conference and Southeastern). The steering committee has more to discuss in this area: More work needs to be done to explicitly state the areas of autonomy and how decisions would be made among the five conferences, though the steering committee is discussing a year-long legislative process. The committee also must discuss a process for adjusting these areas of autonomy in the future.

One thing the steering committee has determined regarding autonomy for the five conferences is that any matter not included on the list of areas for autonomy or football would then fall into shared governance to be decided by the collective group.

No matter what the new governance structure looks like, the steering committee wants to retain an override option for the Division I membership, with the possibility of increasing the majority required to override legislation also up for discussion.

The addition of 2 SA's to the Council is an interesting approach and one that somewhat leads into the idea of a SA union gaining representation of SA interests. The P5 autonomy is still there and it is still fairly uncertain what that means for anyone else. Do the P5 autonomous rules ONLY apply to them? Can other FBS schools adopt them, if they so choose?

(03-04-2014 05:19 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...ance-model

Nothing really all that earth-shattering.

Quote:•The highest decision-making body that would pass all legislation is tentatively called the Council.
•The steering committee has proposed the addition of two voting student-athletes on the Council, which would be comprised of 38 members – one from each conference, plus two student-athletes and four conference commissioners.
•Because the Council would have an athletics director as chair, that person would have a seat on the Board of Directors, though the steering committee has not made a recommendation on whether that person would have a vote. The Council would likely be made up mostly of athletics directors.
•Another major change to the current governance model would involve granting some legislative autonomy to the five major conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pacific-12 Conference and Southeastern). The steering committee has more to discuss in this area: More work needs to be done to explicitly state the areas of autonomy and how decisions would be made among the five conferences, though the steering committee is discussing a year-long legislative process. The committee also must discuss a process for adjusting these areas of autonomy in the future.

One thing the steering committee has determined regarding autonomy for the five conferences is that any matter not included on the list of areas for autonomy or football would then fall into shared governance to be decided by the collective group.

No matter what the new governance structure looks like, the steering committee wants to retain an override option for the Division I membership, with the possibility of increasing the majority required to override legislation also up for discussion.

The addition of 2 SA's to the Council is an interesting approach and one that somewhat leads into the idea of a SA union gaining representation of SA interests. The P5 autonomy is still there and it is still fairly uncertain what that means for anyone else. Do the P5 autonomous rules ONLY apply to them? Can other FBS schools adopt them, if they so choose?

The 4 conference commissioners is interesting. 4 of the P5? 3 of the P5 and 1 G5? 2 P5, 1 G5, 1 FCS? I would have expected that type of format to have 5-all of the P5.

They have addressed the easy stuff. The difficult issues apparently have not even been touched. They could have written the exact same autonomy progress summary directly following the January meetings. They have made absolutely zero progress in that area over the last month. Don't be surprised if the override process mentioned is a deal buster for the P5. Essentially, they are saying you are only going to be autonomous in certain areas and if we don't like what you do, there will be a mechanism by which we can use our massive majority to overturn it. Doesn't that sound a lot like what we already have? I mean that's almost exactly what happened to the stipend proposal. I could see the override provisions being the trigger for a true D4.

(03-04-2014 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They have addressed the easy stuff. The difficult issues apparently have not even been touched. They could have written the exact same autonomy progress summary directly following the January meetings. They have made absolutely zero progress in that area over the last month. Don't be surprised if the override process mentioned is a deal buster for the P5. I could see that being the trigger for a true D4.

That was my impression also.

Same Old "Stuff". The NCAA feels that the energy for separation has been blunted and that everyone will settle down now for business as usual. If there is impetus for a breakaway I think the P5 are hanging back a year to get organized for the event. I hate the NCAA! It's a bloated bureaucracy that steals too much from the schools and can't mete out justice for violators in an impartial way. It's way past time to be gone.

(03-04-2014 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They have addressed the easy stuff. The difficult issues apparently have not even been touched. They could have written the exact same autonomy progress summary directly following the January meetings. They have made absolutely zero progress in that area over the last month. Don't be surprised if the override process mentioned is a deal buster for the P5. Essentially, they are saying you are only going to be autonomous in certain areas and if we don't like what you do, there will be a mechanism by which we can use our massive majority to overturn it. Doesn't that sound a lot like what we already have? I mean that's almost exactly what happened to the stipend proposal. I could see the override provisions being the trigger for a true D4.

It's a little unclear, but my interpretation is that the override provision would only apply to decisions that are made by the entire Division I (and separate from the P5 autonomous areas). If that's the case, then the P5 probably doesn't have heartburn over it. However, if it's how you're seeing it (which could very well be the case since I'm just trying to decipher this piece of NCAA propaganda), then you're absolutely correct that it would be a non-starter for the P5.