From article:

"Moving to Division IV would keep the Big Five under the NCAA umbrella while granting college football's biggest money makers the kind of power to better take care of student-athletes. The SEC, for example, would like to pay full cost of college attendance, provide long-term medical coverage and offer incentives to kids who return to school and complete degrees.

Smaller Division 1 schools likely can't afford the changes the major conferences are seeking. And while D-II and D-III have their own rules, forming a D-IV would seemingly create a wider divide between the Big Five and other smaller schools.

Slive, however, said a potential move wouldn't disrupt championship formats, including the NCAA men's basketball tournament.

"I've been so optimistic that we're going to stay in Division I that we haven't sat down and tried to map it out," Slive said. "But we know that failure to create what we're trying to create would result in doing something different. How we would construct a Division IV? We haven't looked in that.

"We hope everyone realizes we are moving into a new era and this is the way to retain your collegiate model. It would be a disappointment and in my view a mistake not to adapt the model. This is a historic moment. If we don't seize the moment, we'll make a mistake."

Florida President Bernie Machen wasn't nearly as confident about staying in Division I.

"We're in a squeeze here," Machen said. "There are now six lawsuits that name our conference in them that specifically have to do with the whole cost of attendance and stuff like that. We would like to make changes, but we can't because the NCAA doesn't allow us to. We're really caught between a rock and a hard place. We desperately would like some flexibility."

Southern Mississippi athletic director Bill McGillis believes the major conferences will get that flexibility and that a Division IV won't be needed.

He said more autonomy for the high-resource leagues is just "the reality of the situation" and that schools like Southern Miss in Conference USA agree with many of the proposed changes. McGillis expects schools from all Division I conferences will have a say in the process, and will adjust to whatever's decided.

"I think the system will work and that the schools outside the high-resource five conferences that are committed to competing at a high level will still be able to do that," McGillis said."

[url=Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05...k=cpy]Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05...rylink=cpy[/url]

Do we seriously need a new thread every time someone else says something or writes an article about D4 and autonomy? Especially when pretty much everyone is saying the same thing... the P5 wants autonomy and will use the threat of D4 to get it. Is there anything new here that hasn't been said before?

I posted this separately because it addresses things that are actually being discussed as far as things like the NCAA's etc.i.e. they don't want to break off from the NCAA tournament. Also the reaction from at least one G5 rep. which is contrary to what many speculated.

Other threads have deteriorated to pages of bickering or wild speculation.

USM sums it up.

This goes back to defeated proposals that the G5 supported and proposals most will implement to at least some degree.

Despite the wet dreams some folks get over the idea of an uberdivision, this is and has always been about correcting the problem created by the true low resource schools who are FCS or non-football who blocked those changes.

And Slive makes it pretty clear they want to stick with Division I and just take those schools out of the legislative equation and for the most part the G5 schools have said they ain't gotta problem as long as they are permitted to track and follow the legislation.

Why are they hell-bent to stay in Division I ought to be the question.

First they don't want to be the bad guys. It's one thing to swim out in deep water and some inexperienced swimmer follow you and drown, it's an entirely different thing to hold someone's head under water until they quit thrashing around.

Second there just aren't enough dollars out there to warrant the risk of litigation to pass rules designed to eliminate the number of members. The truth is there are easily 80 to 100 schools who would go quietly shedding crocodile tears if relegated. But not all would. As I've mentioned before, simply taming the kudzu that is the NCAA HQ would produce more revenue.

(05-31-2014 09:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USM sums it up.

This goes back to defeated proposals that the G5 supported and proposals most will implement to at least some degree.

Despite the wet dreams some folks get over the idea of an uberdivision, this is and has always been about correcting the problem created by the true low resource schools who are FCS or non-football who blocked those changes.

And Slive makes it pretty clear they want to stick with Division I and just take those schools out of the legislative equation and for the most part the G5 schools have said they ain't gotta problem as long as they are permitted to track and follow the legislation.

Why are they hell-bent to stay in Division I ought to be the question.

First they don't want to be the bad guys. It's one thing to swim out in deep water and some inexperienced swimmer follow you and drown, it's an entirely different thing to hold someone's head under water until they quit thrashing around.

Second there just aren't enough dollars out there to warrant the risk of litigation to pass rules designed to eliminate the number of members. The truth is there are easily 80 to 100 schools who would go quietly shedding crocodile tears if relegated. But not all would. As I've mentioned before, simply taming the kudzu that is the NCAA HQ would produce more revenue.

Trying to fix some of the specific legal exposures the P5 have is something I can go along with. Handing over complete autonomy in rule-making for my school now and forever is simply a power-grab.

I can even go along with independent governance for FBS as long as everyone in it has equal weight.

The P5 ask for complete autonomy for the sake of the student-athlete and the rest of us should trust them not to use it for competitive advantage or as a hammer against the non-P5.

Unfortunately, they've always used everything to try to widen gaps and increase competitive advantage and use everything as a hammer.

The talking points say that its to benefit student-athletes. But it sure seems like it benefits the football player at Alabama a lot more than the football player at Grambling, or the hurdler at Murray State. We're not talking about NCAA-wide efforts to help ALL student-athletes....we're talking about dividing out the rich schools out so they can help THEIR subset of athletes.

Hand me your wallet and jump under that bus.....its for the children.

(05-31-2014 10:28 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 09:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USM sums it up.

This goes back to defeated proposals that the G5 supported and proposals most will implement to at least some degree.

Despite the wet dreams some folks get over the idea of an uberdivision, this is and has always been about correcting the problem created by the true low resource schools who are FCS or non-football who blocked those changes.

And Slive makes it pretty clear they want to stick with Division I and just take those schools out of the legislative equation and for the most part the G5 schools have said they ain't gotta problem as long as they are permitted to track and follow the legislation.

Why are they hell-bent to stay in Division I ought to be the question.

First they don't want to be the bad guys. It's one thing to swim out in deep water and some inexperienced swimmer follow you and drown, it's an entirely different thing to hold someone's head under water until they quit thrashing around.

Second there just aren't enough dollars out there to warrant the risk of litigation to pass rules designed to eliminate the number of members. The truth is there are easily 80 to 100 schools who would go quietly shedding crocodile tears if relegated. But not all would. As I've mentioned before, simply taming the kudzu that is the NCAA HQ would produce more revenue.

Trying to fix some of the specific legal exposures the P5 have is something I can go along with. Handing over complete autonomy in rule-making for my school now and forever is simply a power-grab.

I can even go along with independent governance for FBS as long as everyone in it has equal weight.

The P5 ask for complete autonomy for the sake of the student-athlete and the rest of us should trust them not to use it for competitive advantage or as a hammer against the non-P5.

Unfortunately, they've always used everything to try to widen gaps and increase competitive advantage and use everything as a hammer.

The talking points say that its to benefit student-athletes. But it sure seems like it benefits the football player at Alabama a lot more than the football player at Grambling, or the hurdler at Murray State. We're not talking about NCAA-wide efforts to help ALL student-athletes....we're talking about dividing out the rich schools out so they can help THEIR subset of athletes.

Hand me your wallet and jump under that bus.....its for the children.

But if anyone sues Grambling it will be because Grambling has a weight room that leaks when it rains and the claim that they didn't take adequate steps to deal with a MRSA outbreak. Bama is getting sued for making fat money off players while refusing to even cover the cost of attendance and you've got players at other schools alleging that their scholarship agreement covers meals but because of the timing of practices and the times when the cafeteria are open they only receive 2 meals a day when the team is practicing and have to cover the third meal out-of-pocket.

So Grambling's issues and Bama's are a bit different.

(05-31-2014 09:53 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  I posted this separately because it addresses things that are actually being discussed as far as things like the NCAA's etc.i.e. they don't want to break off from the NCAA tournament. Also the reaction from at least one G5 rep. which is contrary to what many speculated.

Other threads have deteriorated to pages of bickering or wild speculation.

Your initial post was a good one and now your follow-up remarks are also right on. To solve problems and, the other side of that same coin, to take advantage of any potential gain, one must first recognize the reality of the situation.

(05-31-2014 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  But if anyone sues Grambling it will be because Grambling has a weight room that leaks when it rains and the claim that they didn't take adequate steps to deal with a MRSA outbreak. Bama is getting sued for making fat money off players while refusing to even cover the cost of attendance and you've got players at other schools alleging that their scholarship agreement covers meals but because of the timing of practices and the times when the cafeteria are open they only receive 2 meals a day when the team is practicing and have to cover the third meal out-of-pocket.

So Grambling's issues and Bama's are a bit different.

Oh I'm sure of it. But putting the SEC in charge of all college rule-making in perpetuity and allowing Grambling to "follow along if they can afford it" is not a plan formulated with helping the Grambling student-athlete in mind.

So when we talk about the P5 wanting autonomy to protect the student-athlete....what it really means is to protect the P5 student-athlete.

If the P5 had their autonomy in place during the 2000's would it have prevented the EA Sports game from making millions? Did the all-powerful G5 vote to gag the P5 or something? Why did I not hear the powerless P5 shouting and demanding that the NCAA stop exploiting and making money off of student-athletes likenesses back in 2003?

"They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say '****, it's raining!'"

(05-31-2014 09:51 AM)prp Wrote:  Do we seriously need a new thread every time someone else says something or writes an article about D4 and autonomy? Especially when pretty much everyone is saying the same thing... the P5 wants autonomy and will use the threat of D4 to get it. Is there anything new here that hasn't been said before?

IF that "someone" is a major media outlet or a big-time coach or AD, then yes, it's fine to create a new thread. Your keyboard has a conveniently located space bar, or just don't open the thread until it hits four or five pages.

If you don't like repetition, the Internet might not be for you.

(05-31-2014 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  So Grambling's issues and Bama's are a bit different.

The point remains that it's a pretty effective counter-argument.
"It's for the student-athletes--there's so much money and they see so little benefit."
"What about Grambling's student-athletes?"
"Who what now? I meant building a new level of skyboxes for the parents and close friends of starters."

(05-31-2014 09:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USM sums it up.

This goes back to defeated proposals that the G5 supported and proposals most will implement to at least some degree.

Despite the wet dreams some folks get over the idea of an uberdivision, this is and has always been about correcting the problem created by the true low resource schools who are FCS or non-football who blocked those changes.

G5 and the non-FB conferences are junior partners to the P5 in the football/basketball power structure.

FCS members, with a couple of exceptions have nothing to offer from a national standpoint.

They don't want Division 4 because:

1. It cost time and money to set up,
2. Not all the P5 agree on how to set it up,
3. It comes with various risks, from litigation to being viewed as villains
4. It will result in more intra-P5 games, which means more parity

It's much easier and less risky to bend the current system even more in their favor.

(05-31-2014 11:45 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  They don't want Division 4 because:

1. It cost time and money to set up,
2. Not all the P5 agree on how to set it up,
3. It comes with various risks, from litigation to being viewed as villains
4. It will result in more intra-P5 games, which means more parity

It's much easier and less risky to bend the current system even more in their favor.

1 is actually the biggest factor IMO. Starting a new division or a 'replacement' for the NCAA would be an enormous time suck, and if you are president of a large university, athletics is just one small part of your job.

So they want an easier path to where they want to go.

(05-31-2014 02:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 11:45 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  They don't want Division 4 because:

1. It cost time and money to set up,
2. Not all the P5 agree on how to set it up,
3. It comes with various risks, from litigation to being viewed as villains
4. It will result in more intra-P5 games, which means more parity

It's much easier and less risky to bend the current system even more in their favor.

1 is actually the biggest factor IMO. Starting a new division or a 'replacement' for the NCAA would be an enormous time suck, and if you are president of a large university, athletics is just one small part of your job.

So they want an easier path to where they want to go.

The ROI on that wouldn't be worth it.

Mostly by you.

(05-31-2014 09:53 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  I posted this separately because it addresses things that are actually being discussed as far as things like the NCAA's etc.i.e. they don't want to break off from the NCAA tournament. Also the reaction from at least one G5 rep. which is contrary to what many speculated.

Other threads have deteriorated to pages of bickering or wild speculation.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-31-2014 11:45 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  They don't want Division 4 because:

1. It cost time and money to set up,
2. Not all the P5 agree on how to set it up,
3. It comes with various risks, from litigation to being viewed as villains
4. It will result in more intra-P5 games, which means more parity

It's much easier and less risky to bend the current system even more in their favor.

Lets also assume they totally break-away from the NCAA. Serious question, who would the PAC-12 play in all their sports? There would only be 12 teams in the ENTIRE western region. Is UCLA really gonna send their softball, tennis, baseball, etc all the way to the east coast for every game because that is the only place any other teams exist in their new non-NCAA set-up?

.

If D1 votes against autonomy and D4, the only option is for the P5 to TOTALLY leave the NCAA which also means all the sports championships including the basketball set-up they keep stressing they don't want to leave. I'd like somebody to tell me in that scenario. Who would the PAC-12 play in all their sports? No MWC, No Big Sky, No WCC, No Big West could ever be on their schedule again.

There would be no team to play west of KANSAS. NONE whatsoever. Its the elephant in the room nobody is talking about because it would completely blow their cover that the P5 can't under any scenario leave the NCAA including other sports not having enough teams to participate in. All that talk is complete non-sense and a bluff. Shhhhhh.... If you are sitting at the poker table with Doyle Brunson and you know he is holding 3-9 off-suite and already seen the flop, it doesn't matter how legendary he is, how popular he is, how great he is, how intimidating he is, how many newspapers, CBS Sports, etc saying you need to fold.... call his bluff, you have him beat. There is no way the PAC-12 can break-away from the NCAA. CHECKMATE!



.

(05-31-2014 02:35 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 11:45 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  They don't want Division 4 because:

1. It cost time and money to set up,
2. Not all the P5 agree on how to set it up,
3. It comes with various risks, from litigation to being viewed as villains
4. It will result in more intra-P5 games, which means more parity

It's much easier and less risky to bend the current system even more in their favor.

Lets also assume they totally break-away from the NCAA. Serious question, who would the PAC-12 play in all their sports? There would only be 12 teams in the ENTIRE western region. Is UCLA really gonna send their softball, tennis, baseball, etc all the way to the east coast for every game because that is the only place any other teams exist in their new non-NCAA set-up?

.

Some of them believe that they can have cake and eat it too. They use the G5 and FCS schools as a convenient filler for non-revenue sports while locking them out of revenue and having autonomy to change the rules to preserve the status quo and further prevent irritating little rats like Boise State and NIU from threatening the status quo.

And it will work. If there is no unity or leadership in the non-P5 schools....and based on history....there rarely is.

(05-31-2014 02:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  If D1 votes against autonomy and D4, the only option is for the P5 to TOTALLY leave the NCAA which also means all the sports championships including the basketball set-up they keep stressing they don't want to leave. I'd like somebody to tell me in that scenario. Who would the PAC-12 play in all their sports? No MWC, No Big Sky, No WCC, No Big West could ever be on their schedule again.

There would be no team to play west of KANSAS. NONE whatsoever. Its the elephant in the room nobody is talking about because it would completely blow their cover that the P5 can't under any scenario leave the NCAA including other sports not having enough teams to participate in. All that talk is complete non-sense and a bluff. Shhhhhh....



.

If the P5 leave, my guess is that they will not leave alone. They will create their own organization and likely most or all of the G5 will follow them. FBS, will look basically the same to the typical fan, except the rules will change and the P5 will have control. The G5 will be there to fill out the new basketball 64, to fill in the TV voids, and to provide future audience growth. The Big East and A-10 will probably slip in. Another 10 or so remaining key basketball schools not included will be added to the G5 as Olympic members. The G5 will be willing to fill this role in order to maintain their position in the top level of football--plus it will make their leagues better basketball TV properties.

If a breakaway happens the way I think it would, it might actually be a good thing for the G5. They would make more money from basketball---which would probably allow them to fund most all the benefits the P5 would be offering. Additionally, the playoff would probably expand to 8. In an 8 team playoff, the P5 champs would be AQ, the G5 likely get an AQ slot for their top champ, ad there are 2 wild card slots for two highest ranked schools left after the AQ slots are filled. The only way its awful for the G5 is if its a 65 team exclusive break away. I just don't see that happening, though a few P5 fan boys believe it will.

(05-31-2014 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the P5 leave, my guess is that they will not leave alone. They will create their own organization and likely most or all of the G5 will follow them. FBS, will look basically the same to the typical fan, except the rules will change and the P5 will have control. The G5 will be there to fill out the new basketball 64, to fill in the TV voids, and to provide future audience growth. The Big East and A-10 will probably slip in. Another 10 or so remaining key basketball schools not included will be added to the G5 as Olympic members. The G5 will be willing to fill this role in order to maintain their position in the top level of football--plus it will make their leagues better basketball TV properties.

That scenario would work, but 65 teams breaking away themselves is plain non-sense.

It would also fit with the earlier rumors that the P5 really just want to get some more control while also trimming down D1 from 370 schools to more like 170 or so.