http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports
During his remarks at SEC Media Days today, Commissioner Mike Slive made some really curious remarks.
Quote:Speaking at his address to kick off SEC Media Days, Slive said determining the proper role, function, composition and size of the board of directors should be addressed. Slive also questioned whether members need all of the services provided by the NCAA office and wants streamlined NCAA committee processes.
Quote:During an interview after the speech, Slive would not specify what changes he would like to see with the board of directors structure. Rather, he said, the NCAA's ongoing review of its governance structure should be realistic, include all constituents and the NCAA should decide what the nature of the board should be.
Quote:Slive said conferences and their members "must be allowed to meet the needs" of their athletes.
"In recent conversations with my commissioner colleagues, there appears to be a willingness to support a meaningful solution to this important change," he said. "... I think I really do speak for my colleagues when I say we want the NCAA to be an effective organization, and the conversation stops there."
When asked what's the alternative to the NCAA not changing, Slive replied, "I'm going to let you decide that."
To be clear, Slive says he wants changes made to the scope and direction of the Board of Directors (a panel within the NCAA that is comprised of 18 university presidents, 11 from FBS (or former FBS) conferences and 7 from the rest of D1), but does not specify what he thinks those changes should be.
It's almost comical to hear him say these things when his own university presidents are ones who continue to shoot down some of those very same proposals that he advocates. Then the media jumps on the bandwagon to say that the top of FBS needs to break away because the small schools are holding them back. Yet it isn't only the small schools that submit override proposals for new legislation.
If they want to go semi-pro let them go semi-pro and deal with all the associated issues.
But make them leave the NCAA in all sports. No cake and eat it too.
(07-16-2013 03:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]If they want to go semi-pro let them go semi-pro and deal with all the associated issues.
But make them leave the NCAA in all sports. No cake and eat it too.
They already are semipro. They have been semipro for a long, long time.
Other than that, it's difficult too judge the exact timeline, but I think eventually that is what will happen: they will withdraw from the NCAA and create their own "oversight" organization devoted to promoting semipro athletics sponsored by a handful of major universities like Florida State and Tennessee and Michigan and Oklahoma and UCLA. There are probably about 40-50 schools nationwide that are ready, willing, and able to effectively compete in such an organization.
Everyone else will play "College sports" in the NCAA or NAIA. The 20 or so schools that are currently in the bottom rung of the BCS/Cartel will get less money and media-attention than they are getting now, but it will probably be a healthier situation overall, both for them, for the semipro teams, and for the Go5 teams, too.
Since the P5 teams won't play G5 teams on a level playing field, maybe they might as well break away officially. They've mostly done it already.
(07-16-2013 03:37 PM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports
During his remarks at SEC Media Days today, Commissioner Mike Slive made some really curious remarks.
Quote:Speaking at his address to kick off SEC Media Days, Slive said determining the proper role, function, composition and size of the board of directors should be addressed. Slive also questioned whether members need all of the services provided by the NCAA office and wants streamlined NCAA committee processes.
Quote:During an interview after the speech, Slive would not specify what changes he would like to see with the board of directors structure. Rather, he said, the NCAA's ongoing review of its governance structure should be realistic, include all constituents and the NCAA should decide what the nature of the board should be.
Quote:Slive said conferences and their members "must be allowed to meet the needs" of their athletes.
"In recent conversations with my commissioner colleagues, there appears to be a willingness to support a meaningful solution to this important change," he said. "... I think I really do speak for my colleagues when I say we want the NCAA to be an effective organization, and the conversation stops there."
When asked what's the alternative to the NCAA not changing, Slive replied, "I'm going to let you decide that."
To be clear, Slive says he wants changes made to the scope and direction of the Board of Directors (a panel within the NCAA that is comprised of 18 university presidents, 11 from FBS (or former FBS) conferences and 7 from the rest of D1), but does not specify what he thinks those changes should be.
It's almost comical to hear him say these things when his own university presidents are ones who continue to shoot down some of those very same proposals that he advocates. Then the media jumps on the bandwagon to say that the top of FBS needs to break away because the small schools are holding them back. Yet it isn't only the small schools that submit override proposals for new legislation.
I think that the P5 schools should form a new division and the g5 schools would be treated like FCS schools are now. They would have their own thing going on, but they would be allowed to play P5 schools. I think that the biggest difference between the two divisions should be player stipends.
I don't think that a complete break from the NCAA is a good idea.
(07-16-2013 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]Since the P5 teams won't play G5 teams on a level playing field, maybe they might as well break away officially. They've mostly done it already.
So who's going to watch their NCAA March Madness tourney when Washington State plays Boston College while UConn, Georgetown, and Memphis are barred from competing?
They only want to split away in football, I'm sure. Everything is just hunky-dory in the other sports.
I wouldn't be so sure. They give a lot of basketball money up. Everyone says they need the underdogs but I think teams like Miami, Vandy, Baylor or whoever catches fire that year could fill that role.
EDIT: I also don't think the split would be as severe as others do. I can see the FBS schools along with possibly the BE and another one or two bball conferences splitting. Div 1 is too big and the FBS conferences have proven they'll do what is necessary to stay with the P5.
(07-16-2013 04:26 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]Since the P5 teams won't play G5 teams on a level playing field, maybe they might as well break away officially. They've mostly done it already.
So who's going to watch their NCAA March Madness tourney when Washington State plays Boston College while UConn, Georgetown, and Memphis are barred from competing?
They only want to split away in football, I'm sure. Everything is just hunky-dory in the other sports.
I wouldn't be so sure. They give a lot of basketball money up. Everyone says they need the underdogs but I think teams like Miami, Vandy, Baylor or whoever catches fire that year could fill that role.
The biggest issue there is not the money taken by the smaller conferences, but the money taken off the top by the NCAA itself.
Only about 26% of the money received by the NCAA in rights fees from CBS/TBS goes back to the schools in the form of tournament "units". The rest is kept by the NCAA and used/distributed as Emmert & Co. see fit.
See
this article, and the calculations I did to arrive at the 26% figure
here.
I listened to a Slive interview on SIRIUS channel 91 and my interpretation was a bit different. He talked about a desire to "restructure" the NCAA in a way that hints more toward a new division, not a full breakaway. He stated those universities that have the resources to provide a student athlete with the "full cost of attendance" should be able to do so.
I see no impact here except a new division for football that provides a "full" scholarship to include some cost of livings element. No impact on basketball or other olympic sports.
(07-16-2013 04:32 PM)LSUtah Wrote: [ -> ]I listened to a Slive interview on SIRIUS channel 91 and my interpretation was a bit different. He talked about a desire to "restructure" the NCAA in a way that hints more toward a new division, not a full breakaway. He stated those universities that have the resources to provide a student athlete with the "full cost of attendance" should be able to do so.
I see no impact here except a new division for football that provides a "full" scholarship to include some cost of livings element. No impact on basketball or other olympic sports.
With Title IX, doing it only for football or only full scholarship sports will never work. They will have to do it for all sports.
(07-16-2013 04:32 PM)LSUtah Wrote: [ -> ]I listened to a Slive interview on SIRIUS channel 91 and my interpretation was a bit different. He talked about a desire to "restructure" the NCAA in a way that hints more toward a new division, not a full breakaway. He stated those universities that have the resources to provide a student athlete with the "full cost of attendance" should be able to do so.
I see no impact here except a new division for football that provides a "full" scholarship to include some cost of livings element. No impact on basketball or other olympic sports.
I don't think you would be able to get away with just giving football players full cost of attendance. That wouldn't work with Title 9.
There would probably be some number of basketball conferences that would be given the choice to join. Then the remaining current division 1 would probably have some accelerated promotion from lower divisions for a few years to fill in with numbers.
(07-16-2013 04:48 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:45 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2013 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]Since the P5 teams won't play G5 teams on a level playing field, maybe they might as well break away officially. They've mostly done it already.
So who's going to watch their NCAA March Madness tourney when Washington State plays Boston College while UConn, Georgetown, and Memphis are barred from competing?
Who's to say the P5 wouldn't split (all sports) and take the Big East basketball conference, as well as the West Coast Conference with them..?
That way, Georgetown, Butler and Gonzaga are covered.
But they wouldn't take the AAC with UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, and Temple?
I question your sanity.
And I question the sanity of the UConn brass for not aligning their basketball programs with the Big East members.
So, there's that.
