Dennis Dodd of CBS-Sports breaks down the bigger points of the NCAA's P5 "autonomy" proposal. This doesn't cover everything, but its a nice general primer for those that do not wish to wade through the entire 80+ page document.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-this-week

So can anyone meet these standards if they so choose? Like if the entire AAC or just a few members of the AAC want to do all these things can they?

(04-19-2014 12:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So can anyone meet these standards if they so choose? Like if the entire AAC or just a few members of the AAC want to do all these things can they?

The areas of autonomy are divided into two categories---"permissive" and "actionable". Any rule in the "Permissive" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 may be immediately adopted by individual schools or conferences at the D1 level without any further action needed. However, any rule in the "actionable" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 are only immediately available to the P5 conferences. In order for any other school or conference outside of the P5 to adopt them, they must be approved by a vote of the remaining 27 D-1 conferences.

As for who can adopt "permissive" rules---any school can choose to adopt them. However, its possible that a group of schools could decide at the conference level NOT to allow it. Then it would be up to the schools in that conference to either comply with the conference rule or move to a conference that adopts the rule. So, say a $3,000 stipend is adopted by the P5 (which is classified as a permissive area of autonomy) then any school or conference in D1 can adopt the $3000 stipend rule. But lets say a 8-4 majority of schools in the "XWZ" conference vote against allowing a stipend in the "XWZ" conference. Then "XWZ" conference schools would not offer stipends. The 4 schools in the XWZ conference that voted for stipends would have to leave the conference in order to offer stipends.

(04-19-2014 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 12:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So can anyone meet these standards if they so choose? Like if the entire AAC or just a few members of the AAC want to do all these things can they?

The areas of autonomy are divided into two categories---"permissive" and "actionable". Any rule in the "Permissive" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 may be immediately adopted by individual schools or conferences at the D1 level without any further action needed. However, any rule in the "actionable" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 are only immediately available to the P5 conferences. In order for any other school or conference outside of the P5 to adopt them, they must be approved by a vote of the remaining 27 D-1 conferences.

That is crap. If we want to do anything they are and have the means we should have the right to do so

(04-19-2014 01:32 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 12:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So can anyone meet these standards if they so choose? Like if the entire AAC or just a few members of the AAC want to do all these things can they?

The areas of autonomy are divided into two categories---"permissive" and "actionable". Any rule in the "Permissive" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 may be immediately adopted by individual schools or conferences at the D1 level without any further action needed. However, any rule in the "actionable" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 are only immediately available to the P5 conferences. In order for any other school or conference outside of the P5 to adopt them, they must be approved by a vote of the remaining 27 D-1 conferences.

That is crap. If we want to do anything they are and have the means we should have the right to do so

Pretty much my feeling. I feel like all powers of P5 autonomy should either be "permissive" or remain as shared governance items.

(04-19-2014 01:32 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 12:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So can anyone meet these standards if they so choose? Like if the entire AAC or just a few members of the AAC want to do all these things can they?

The areas of autonomy are divided into two categories---"permissive" and "actionable". Any rule in the "Permissive" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 may be immediately adopted by individual schools or conferences at the D1 level without any further action needed. However, any rule in the "actionable" areas of autonomy enacted by the P5 are only immediately available to the P5 conferences. In order for any other school or conference outside of the P5 to adopt them, they must be approved by a vote of the remaining 27 D-1 conferences.

That is crap. If we want to do anything they are and have the means we should have the right to do so

I agree and that's how the so called "p5" are specifically minimizing the AAC. Specifically.

The way I understood it, from reading a previous article, is that "permissive" legislation, which the G5 or other conferences/schools can adapt at will, pertains to ADDING benefits, like stipends, etc.

The "actionable" legislation only pertains to LIMITING benefits, such as cutting back practice hours, or summer workouts, etc. IF that is true, then there is no potential harm to us.

Grounds for lawsuit

If the way that you guys have describe it is true ie, the power 5 schools get to make changes, and then on some issues the Aac can only make changes if all of the conferences agree, how is that fair?

Aresco needs to come out now and put a stop to it.

If not, poster upstater from Uconn is right. This smells of a lawsuit.

Incidentally, why Aresco would ever voluntarily let the P5 seperate themselves in the first place is mind boggling.

And how does Notre Dame get to be part of this? This is craziness.

(04-19-2014 03:05 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  If the way that you guys have describe it is true ie, the power 5 schools get to make changes, and then on some issues the Aac can only make changes if all of the conferences agree, how is that fair?

Aresco needs to come out now and put a stop to it.

If not, poster upstater from Uconn is right. This smells of a lawsuit.

Incidentally, why Aresco would ever voluntarily let the P5 seperate themselves in the first place is mind boggling.

And how does Notre Dame get to be part of this? This is craziness.

lol, you think Aresco has some magic wand to stop the P5 from doing whatever they damn well please?

Golden Rule applies: he who has the gold, makes the rules.

(04-19-2014 03:05 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  If the way that you guys have describe it is true ie, the power 5 schools get to make changes, and then on some issues the Aac can only make changes if all of the conferences agree, how is that fair?

Aresco needs to come out now and put a stop to it.

If not, poster upstater from Uconn is right. This smells of a lawsuit.

Incidentally, why Aresco would ever voluntarily let the P5 seperate themselves in the first place is mind boggling.

And how does Notre Dame get to be part of this? This is craziness.

Aresco should be yelling about this at the top of his lungs but we hear nothing. These autonomy rules are nothing but a power grab. Why shouldn't AAC also be allowed to implement and be a part of it if they have the means to do so. Aresco has been a great spokesperson but this is where he needs to speak up the most.

Key issues I see developing here long term. Sorry if these are repeat comments.

-65 member private club with more voting rights.
-Div 1 schools can follow same approach like our conference And the MWC, cusa, sunbelt but will not be in the power voting block. Exclusion means non relevant however winning helps as long as the P5 keep scheduling our teams.
-Could see the P5 telling their members to stop scheduling G5 schools to maximize SOS. I can think of maybe 8-10 programs in the G5 that would not hurt a P5 team's SOS. Most are in the AAC.
-Bigger schools in P5 will be able to pay better overall benefits to student athletes thus having an edge in recruiting, etc. Elitism.
-Next step after this is complete autonomy from the NCAA.
-Hello P5 NFL/NBA/MLB Div 11 development league. Follow the money.
-Would not be shocked if the P5 becomes the P4.

How does the AAC compete and stay relevant?

-corporate endorsements. $$
-partnerships with the NFL, NBA, and MLB focused on regional match...ECU and the Panthers, Cincy and the Bengals, etc. Half time shout outs, commercials, etc. Essentially a professional team sponsor for each AAC school for all 3 major sports.
-media blitz in all the AAC cities.

ECU has a habit of recruiting guys and gals who want to be Pirates. To get some of the supposed 5 stars we need to be in the hearts and minds of players. UCF and UCONN and others waved the flag big time this year. Momentum is in our favor. Need to capitalize especially with the coming changes.

Go Pirates!

(04-19-2014 03:10 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 03:05 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  If the way that you guys have describe it is true ie, the power 5 schools get to make changes, and then on some issues the Aac can only make changes if all of the conferences agree, how is that fair?

Aresco needs to come out now and put a stop to it.

If not, poster upstater from Uconn is right. This smells of a lawsuit.

Incidentally, why Aresco would ever voluntarily let the P5 seperate themselves in the first place is mind boggling.

And how does Notre Dame get to be part of this? This is craziness.

lol, you think Aresco has some magic wand to stop the P5 from doing whatever they damn well please?

Golden Rule applies: he who has the gold, makes the rules.

Wrong. There are only 65 so called p5 schools out of 300+ d1 schools and27 conferences. They can't push anything through without help. Obviously someone or some conferences are helping.

(04-19-2014 02:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  The way I understood it, from reading a previous article, is that "permissive" legislation, which the G5 or other conferences/schools can adapt at will, pertains to ADDING benefits, like stipends, etc.

The "actionable" legislation only pertains to LIMITING benefits, such as cutting back practice hours, or summer workouts, etc. IF that is true, then there is no potential harm to us.

Yes. I read that article and I consider it misleading. In some cases, its true that actionable items would in fact represent more restrictive standards the P5 would hold themselves to. However, I think where that article goes off the rails is "actionable" items are not universally "limiting". Below is an "actionable" item that would effectively allow the school to pay more expenses for recruits interested in looking into attending their schools. This is not the only item like this. The ability to expand and redefine coaching staff is another. I see little reason for these not to be "permissive" items.

**Expenses and Benefits (Pre-Enrollment Support)**
In the proposed model, the five conferences and their 65-member institutions also would be granted autonomy over regulations addressing expenses and benefits provided prior to enrollment. These rules directly impact student-athlete welfare by permitting assistance to families who would like to visit universities, and who incur other legitimate expenses in connection with the recruiting process. Benefits in this area have the potential to ease a student-athlete’s transition to college (e.g., medical expenses and academic support the summer prior to enrollment, transportation to enroll). Funding such pre-enrollment expenses would provide important support for student-athletes as they evaluate colleges and transition to the college environment.
(NCAA Bylaw 13.2—Actionable)

(04-19-2014 05:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 02:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  The way I understood it, from reading a previous article, is that "permissive" legislation, which the G5 or other conferences/schools can adapt at will, pertains to ADDING benefits, like stipends, etc.

The "actionable" legislation only pertains to LIMITING benefits, such as cutting back practice hours, or summer workouts, etc. IF that is true, then there is no potential harm to us.

Yes. I read that article and I consider it misleading. In some cases, its true that actionable items would in fact represent more restrictive standards the P5 would hold themselves to. However, I think where that article goes off the rails is "actionable" items are not universally "limiting". Below is an "actionable" item that would effectively allow the school to pay more expenses for recruits interested in looking into attending their schools. This is not the only item like this. The ability to expand and redefine coaching staff is another. I see little reason for these not to be "permissive" items.

**Expenses and Benefits (Pre-Enrollment Support)**
In the proposed model, the five conferences and their 65-member institutions also would be granted autonomy over regulations addressing expenses and benefits provided prior to enrollment. These rules directly impact student-athlete welfare by permitting assistance to families who would like to visit universities, and who incur other legitimate expenses in connection with the recruiting process. Benefits in this area have the potential to ease a student-athlete’s transition to college (e.g., medical expenses and academic support the summer prior to enrollment, transportation to enroll). Funding such pre-enrollment expenses would provide important support for student-athletes as they evaluate colleges and transition to the college environment.
(NCAA Bylaw 13.2—Actionable)

Add to that, adjustments to recruiting rules (VERY ambiguous description, but does talk about curtailing recruiting activities that infringe on recruits' academic progess), and the concept of academic redshirts, and there are certain aspects that will definitely add and benefit the P5 that the rest of D1 will have to vote on by simple majority of the remaining 27 conferences to accept. It's not that limiting.

As for the coaching staff thing, I think more P5 programs are leery of all the support staff that a Alabama or Texas have and want some of that reigned in. That would be a good thing. I don' think they are looking too hard at expanding staffs, but more stringently defining them.

And not detailed in Dodd's article - and seemingly passed over by others - is the fact that the P5 will have a 2-to-1 majority in voting on FBS legislation in addition to the areas of autonomy. Essentially, they have total control over FBS and the G5 have no say at all - and they really don't even need to have consensus among the P5 to enact changes. They only need 4 of the 5.

The G5 should call their bluff. If they want to split off, let them. There are a bunch of P5 schools that are not going to want to play only 6 (or 7 home games). A split would hurt both P5 and G5 but the way things are going the G5 will be screwed just as much.

(04-21-2014 09:31 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  And not detailed in Dodd's article - and seemingly passed over by others - is the fact that the P5 will have a 2-to-1 majority in voting on FBS legislation in addition to the areas of autonomy. Essentially, they have total control over FBS and the G5 have no say at all - and they really don't even need to have consensus among the P5 to enact changes. They only need 4 of the 5.

Which is strange. There is really no need for the P5 to have weighted voting within FBS when the P5 has autonomy. It should be equal voting in FBS. If the P5 cant convince one G5 conference to go along with a measure, then there is probably an issue there. The fact is, with autonomy, the P5 could still enact the measure for their own use---so I see no real need for weighted voting within FBS.

(04-21-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 09:31 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  And not detailed in Dodd's article - and seemingly passed over by others - is the fact that the P5 will have a 2-to-1 majority in voting on FBS legislation in addition to the areas of autonomy. Essentially, they have total control over FBS and the G5 have no say at all - and they really don't even need to have consensus among the P5 to enact changes. They only need 4 of the 5.

Which is strange. There is really no need for the P5 to have weighted voting within FBS when the P5 has autonomy. It should be equal voting in FBS. If the P5 cant convince one G5 conference to go along with a measure, then there is probably an issue there. The fact is, with autonomy, the P5 could still enact the measure for their own use---so I see no real need for weighted voting within FBS.

Agreed. It seems really outrageous to have a 2-1 majority. A 1.2 to 1 vote would be much more reasonable, if there had to be weighting at all.

(04-21-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 09:31 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  And not detailed in Dodd's article - and seemingly passed over by others - is the fact that the P5 will have a 2-to-1 majority in voting on FBS legislation in addition to the areas of autonomy. Essentially, they have total control over FBS and the G5 have no say at all - and they really don't even need to have consensus among the P5 to enact changes. They only need 4 of the 5.

Which is strange. There is really no need for the P5 to have weighted voting within FBS when the P5 has autonomy. It should be equal voting in FBS. If the P5 cant convince one G5 conference to go along with a measure, then there is probably an issue there. The fact is, with autonomy, the P5 could still enact the measure for their own use---so I see no real need for weighted voting within FBS.

Remember when the discussion was they had no problem with the G5, only with the Northern Iowa's and McNeese State type schools-- schools that did not have FBS football teams that could not afford to vote lock step with them.

This legislation proves that to be fiction.