ORLANDO — Despite recent saber rattling from Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive that resuscitated talk of a separate division for the 65 wealthiest athletic departments, NCAA president Mark Emmert told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday he remains confident the current framework for a new governance structure under the Division I umbrella will be approved in August.

"The reality is, they're not that far apart on the various ends of that and I'm pretty confident the whole thing is going to work out and probably be successful," Emmert said following a closed-door meeting with more than 100 Division I athletics directors at the National Association of College Directors of Athletics (NACDA) convention


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../10325455/

(06-11-2014 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ORLANDO — Despite recent saber rattling from Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive that resuscitated talk of a separate division for the 65 wealthiest athletic departments, NCAA president Mark Emmert told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday he remains confident the current framework for a new governance structure under the Division I umbrella will be approved in August.

"The reality is, they're not that far apart on the various ends of that and I'm pretty confident the whole thing is going to work out and probably be successful," Emmert said following a closed-door meeting with more than 100 Division I athletics directors at the National Association of College Directors of Athletics (NACDA) convention


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../10325455/

Guess that means some of our AAC schools will be included.

Is that reporter bias or reporter ignorance? Suggestion: organize and flood that reporters e-mail with the budgetary facts!!

He obviously meant "the 65 members of the 5 wealthiest conferences."

(06-11-2014 01:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  He obviously meant "the 65 members of the 5 wealthiest conferences."

He should work on his vocabulary then...

Sorry, we all know how very important this one authors phrasing is to the realignment dynamic.

(06-11-2014 01:09 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ORLANDO — Despite recent saber rattling from Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive that resuscitated talk of a separate division for the 65 wealthiest athletic departments, NCAA president Mark Emmert told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday he remains confident the current framework for a new governance structure under the Division I umbrella will be approved in August.

"The reality is, they're not that far apart on the various ends of that and I'm pretty confident the whole thing is going to work out and probably be successful," Emmert said following a closed-door meeting with more than 100 Division I athletics directors at the National Association of College Directors of Athletics (NACDA) convention


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../10325455/

Guess that means some of our AAC schools will be included.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

(06-11-2014 02:48 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:09 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ORLANDO — Despite recent saber rattling from Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive that resuscitated talk of a separate division for the 65 wealthiest athletic departments, NCAA president Mark Emmert told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday he remains confident the current framework for a new governance structure under the Division I umbrella will be approved in August.

"The reality is, they're not that far apart on the various ends of that and I'm pretty confident the whole thing is going to work out and probably be successful," Emmert said following a closed-door meeting with more than 100 Division I athletics directors at the National Association of College Directors of Athletics (NACDA) convention


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../10325455/

Guess that means some of our AAC schools will be included.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Because if it was purely the 65 wealthiest athletic programs, the AAC has a few that would be included. Including UConn, of course.

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

As it should be. Why should transfer rules be any different for the P5 than for the rest of D-I? The ostensible purpose of autonomy is to allow the P5 to bestow financial benefits on student-athletes that other conferences cannot afford. Allowing them to make their own transfer rules does nothing to advance this aim.

I would tend to agree the transfer issue is the biggest item in dispute. If you allow transfers without sit out time, you better have some real hard hitting penalty for a school who is caught talking to kids while they are still at their current schools. Like 1 year death penalty tough. Otherwise it becomes open season on the Gang and small schools for their top players.

If you stay with 1-year scholarships, then allow free transfers.

If you go to guaranteed 4-year rides, then make transfers sit out.

This is not rocket science.

(06-12-2014 02:44 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

As it should be. Why should transfer rules be any different for the P5 than for the rest of D-I? The ostensible purpose of autonomy is to allow the P5 to bestow financial benefits on student-athletes that other conferences cannot afford. Allowing them to make their own transfer rules does nothing to advance this aim.

Coaches can be pretty abusive with the transfer rules.

Athletes who aren't playing or who are in a different system under a different coach or who have personal problems at home and want to be closer are at the whim of the coach and school. Many may have already red-shirted and so would lose a season of eligibility.

(06-12-2014 08:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:44 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

As it should be. Why should transfer rules be any different for the P5 than for the rest of D-I? The ostensible purpose of autonomy is to allow the P5 to bestow financial benefits on student-athletes that other conferences cannot afford. Allowing them to make their own transfer rules does nothing to advance this aim.

Coaches can be pretty abusive with the transfer rules.

Athletes who aren't playing or who are in a different system under a different coach or who have personal problems at home and want to be closer are at the whim of the coach and school. Many may have already red-shirted and so would lose a season of eligibility.

No question. But that's no different whether the school is P5 or not. How the problem is addressed in transfer rules should be consistent among all D-I schools.

(06-12-2014 10:52 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 08:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:44 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

As it should be. Why should transfer rules be any different for the P5 than for the rest of D-I? The ostensible purpose of autonomy is to allow the P5 to bestow financial benefits on student-athletes that other conferences cannot afford. Allowing them to make their own transfer rules does nothing to advance this aim.

Coaches can be pretty abusive with the transfer rules.

Athletes who aren't playing or who are in a different system under a different coach or who have personal problems at home and want to be closer are at the whim of the coach and school. Many may have already red-shirted and so would lose a season of eligibility.

No question. But that's no different whether the school is P5 or not. How the problem is addressed in transfer rules should be consistent among all D-I schools.

The P5 is after autonomy. I don't think they are going to agree to penalties against themselves for skimming quality players from the G5. Once they have autonomy, I don't think you will ever see major penalties thrown at a P5 school again.

(06-12-2014 10:59 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 10:52 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 08:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:44 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

As it should be. Why should transfer rules be any different for the P5 than for the rest of D-I? The ostensible purpose of autonomy is to allow the P5 to bestow financial benefits on student-athletes that other conferences cannot afford. Allowing them to make their own transfer rules does nothing to advance this aim.

Coaches can be pretty abusive with the transfer rules.

Athletes who aren't playing or who are in a different system under a different coach or who have personal problems at home and want to be closer are at the whim of the coach and school. Many may have already red-shirted and so would lose a season of eligibility.

No question. But that's no different whether the school is P5 or not. How the problem is addressed in transfer rules should be consistent among all D-I schools.

The P5 is after autonomy. I don't think they are going to agree to penalties against themselves for skimming quality players from the G5. Once they have autonomy, I don't think you will ever see major penalties thrown at a P5 school again.

I disagree.

I think the NCAA has been so dependent on the power schools that they are afraid of going too far (notable exception Penn State and remember the investigators at Miami came out worse than Miami).

If you are the AD of East Tennessee State and Auburn is before you as a member of the infractions committee you have in the back of your head this is someone you might want to try to schedule, this is someone you might want to work for down the road, this is a school that if you hit too hard that can make life hard for you.

If you are AD of Michigan judging Auburn, this is a school that tried to screw you over by cheating, this is school you don't aspire to become AD of, and this is a school if they don't like the result, you feel no qualms about telling them that's just tough.

The P5 judging one another will be more likely to result in stiffer penalties because they are competing for the same kids and they have no fear of what one of them can do to them.

(06-12-2014 02:44 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

As it should be. Why should transfer rules be any different for the P5 than for the rest of D-I? The ostensible purpose of autonomy is to allow the P5 to bestow financial benefits on student-athletes that other conferences cannot afford. Allowing them to make their own transfer rules does nothing to advance this aim.

If the P5 made new transfer rules, everyone else would be able to follow them.

If some schools are trying to block the P5 from having the ability to change transfer rules, it means that they want to keep the current rules and their ridiculous abuses by some schools, as we saw recently with the K-State women's hoops player who wanted to transfer after the school fired her head coach.

(06-12-2014 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:44 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken ·12 mins
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point.

As it should be. Why should transfer rules be any different for the P5 than for the rest of D-I? The ostensible purpose of autonomy is to allow the P5 to bestow financial benefits on student-athletes that other conferences cannot afford. Allowing them to make their own transfer rules does nothing to advance this aim.

If the P5 made new transfer rules, everyone else would be able to follow them.

If some schools are trying to block the P5 from having the ability to change transfer rules, it means that they want to keep the current rules and their ridiculous abuses by some schools, as we saw recently with the K-State women's hoops player who wanted to transfer after the school fired her head coach.

Transfer rules really need an overhaul, as they stand today they really benefit no one.

I really need to see what new transfer rules are being proposed. Do we really want kids changing schools every year trying to put together the best chance to win a championship? What's next college kids having ESPN specials like LeBron's decision, "I'm taking my talents to UConn next year" type of stuff.

(06-12-2014 03:30 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I really need to see what new transfer rules are being proposed. Do we really want kids changing schools every year trying to put together the best chance to win a championship? What's next college kids having ESPN specials like LeBron's decision, "I'm taking my talents to UConn next year" type of stuff.

That is exactly what would happen. We would see free agency periods like in professional sports where schools would try and woo athletes from one school to another. How is this supposed to be beneficial for the student-athlete. Should he be studying after the football season instead of traveling to 5-6 campuses to check out his new potential home?