http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...lification

It wasn't well-publicized, but there was some major news out of this week's NCAA Board meetings. This news wasn't the suspension or revocation of some of the recruiting rules or academic standards, but rather about governance.

Among the issues passed was the official recognition of the American Athletic Conference as the new name for the current Big East conference, and the official recognition of the new Big East Conference, which will begin August 1. The American will retain all of their voting seats and committee appointments currently held by the Big East, whereas the Big East will get a spot in the rotation of non-FBS conferences in those respective leadership roles. The other takeaway here is that the non-FBS conferences now only get 1.14 votes each instead of 1.2 votes each, whereas the FBS conferences retain their 3 votes each position.

And this:

Quote:As part of the conference discussion, the presidents adopted a resolution that requests a thorough review of voting ratios and subdivision placement issues over the next 15 months. The resolution also asks that the review take place either through a substantial agreement between conferences or through the planned evaluation of the Division I governance structure and process.

That means that by 2014, there could be a new governance structure, and even possibly a new subdivision. This could mean that they are only looking at committee composition and other voting issues, but I would also guess that they could also be examining the possibility of a new wholly separate subdivision or even a separate division.

I think they are also looking at the requirements to be in Division I.

In any event, there is a good argument for a 4th division simply because of the mass migration of NAIA schools to the NCAA. Most of the old NAIA division I has moved over and many of the rest have moved. Division II has gotten very big. And there are a lot of schools in Division I with really no business being there. They just want a piece of the basketball money.

(05-04-2013 10:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...lification

It wasn't well-publicized, but there was some major news out of this week's NCAA Board meetings. This news wasn't the suspension or revocation of some of the recruiting rules or academic standards, but rather about governance.

Among the issues passed was the official recognition of the American Athletic Conference as the new name for the current Big East conference, and the official recognition of the new Big East Conference, which will begin August 1. The American will retain all of their voting seats and committee appointments currently held by the Big East, whereas the Big East will get a spot in the rotation of non-FBS conferences in those respective leadership roles. The other takeaway here is that the non-FBS conferences now only get 1.14 votes each instead of 1.2 votes each, whereas the FBS conferences retain their 3 votes each position.

And this:

Quote:As part of the conference discussion, the presidents adopted a resolution that requests a thorough review of voting ratios and subdivision placement issues over the next 15 months. The resolution also asks that the review take place either through a substantial agreement between conferences or through the planned evaluation of the Division I governance structure and process.

That means that by 2014, there could be a new governance structure, and even possibly a new subdivision. This could mean that they are only looking at committee composition and other voting issues, but I would also guess that they could also be examining the possibility of a new wholly separate subdivision or even a separate division.

This is a very interesting find. Thanks for posting it!

This is more evidence of the P5 telling the others do it our way or else we will do it our way.

Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5? Not sure if the sub-Big 5 would support that.

Looks like the voting for non-FBS conferences was reduced from 1.2 to 1.14 to compensate for a "new" conference: the renamed Big East. Will the voting rights be readjusted every time a new conference is added or lost? Surprised the AAC retained its votes at the same level as the Big 5. Was the WAC reduced in voting rights?

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5?

FCS already exists for anyone who wants to play football there.

Is there value in having three separate football divisions within D-I? Maybe, but the three groups ought to be:

FBS -- 85 FB scholarships, same requirements as FBS currently has.

FCS -- 63 FB scholarships, same additional FCS requirements.

Non-scholarship -- No FB scholarships, no additional requirements other than the baseline requirements for being in NCAA D-I.

There doesn't need to be a subdivision between FBS and FCS, it's just that many schools either need to decide they are best suited for FCS or they need to spend a lot more money and effort and go all-in for FBS rather than just barely scraping by in FBS.

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5? Not sure if the sub-Big 5 would support that.

Looks like the voting for non-FBS conferences was reduced from 1.2 to 1.14 to compensate for a "new" conference: the renamed Big East. Will the voting rights be readjusted every time a new conference is added or lost? Surprised the AAC retained its votes at the same level as the Big 5. Was the WAC reduced in voting rights?

The vote changes were for the Leadership Council and Legislative Council, not the Board of Directors. The 18-member Board of Directors is a one vote per member council with one member from each FBS conference and seven members total from the remaining 21 conferences (now with the BE) on a rotating basis.

The Legislative Council and Leadership Council each have members from every conference with the following breakdown of voting strength:

B1G, SEC, PAC, XII, ACC, AAC (fka BE), CUSA - 3 votes each
MWC, SBC, MAC, WAC - 1.5 votes each
The rest of the D1 conferences - 1.14 votes each

My guess is that this evaluation of voting strength may end up moving the WAC down with the rest of the non-FBS conferences and then the G5 might have their positions re-evaluated, considering some have more voting strength than others.

(05-04-2013 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  FCS already exists for anyone who wants to play football there.

Is there value in having three separate football divisions within D-I? Maybe, but the three groups ought to be:

FBS -- 85 FB scholarships, same requirements as FBS currently has.

FCS -- 63 FB scholarships, same additional FCS requirements.

Non-scholarship -- No FB scholarships, no additional requirements other than the baseline requirements for being in NCAA D-I.

There doesn't need to be a subdivision between FBS and FCS, it's just that many schools either need to decide they are best suited for FCS or they need to spend a lot more money and effort and go all-in for FBS rather than just barely scraping by in FBS.

The Big Sky Conference has been discussing a 3-tier football system at one of their recent Presidents' meeting.

http://mobile.grandforksherald.com/page/...id/262920/

Quote:1. Are we on the cusp of a three-tier system in college football, a revolutionary change that would attempt to better group universities with similar budgets?

One suggestion to close those financial and competitive gaps is to create three levels of Division I college football, an idea that seems to be generating steam. Most of those discussions to this point center on the second tier consisting of a set of conferences coined “The Group of Five,” which includes Conference USA, Mid-American, American Athletic (new conference primarily made up of former Big East members), Mountain West and Sun Belt — all FBS members.

But where the lines are actually drawn and where the top end of the FCS might figure into the mix is anyone’s guess.

“The trick is to know when it’s occurring,” Fullerton said. “Is it occurring now? No. But the indications are that they’re chewing around the edges of it. What does that mean for us? We’re in a heightened alert state.

Quote:4. Is the Big Sky destined for an FBS future?

If a three-tier system doesn’t formulate and teams in the Big Sky Conference aren’t happy with their peers in FCS, a future in the FBS isn’t as far-fetched as it might first seem. The Big Sky does possess some programs with an FBS appearance.

“With UND, Montana, Montana State — we look more like an FBS league,” Fullerton said. Yet, he adds an important qualifier to that: “TV sets hold us back a little bit,” — meaning broadcast rights and the revenue potential tied to that are somewhat limited based on population.

Even though it might end up as the necessary course of action, Fullerton is cautious of moving up in the current landscape. “People who cross that line right now aren’t in real good position to compete,” he said. “If you’re in the fourth quadrant, you’re asking nothing more than to spend more and have less success.”

There also were rumblings that the Big Sky will add NDSU, SDSU, and USD, as the Summit is crumbling.

(05-04-2013 01:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5? Not sure if the sub-Big 5 would support that.

Looks like the voting for non-FBS conferences was reduced from 1.2 to 1.14 to compensate for a "new" conference: the renamed Big East. Will the voting rights be readjusted every time a new conference is added or lost? Surprised the AAC retained its votes at the same level as the Big 5. Was the WAC reduced in voting rights?

The vote changes were for the Leadership Council and Legislative Council, not the Board of Directors. The 18-member Board of Directors is a one vote per member council with one member from each FBS conference and seven members total from the remaining 21 conferences (now with the BE) on a rotating basis.

The Legislative Council and Leadership Council each have members from every conference with the following breakdown of voting strength:

B1G, SEC, PAC, XII, ACC, AAC (fka BE), CUSA - 3 votes each
MWC, SBC, MAC, WAC - 1.5 votes each
The rest of the D1 conferences - 1.14 votes each

My guess is that this evaluation of voting strength may end up moving the WAC down with the rest of the non-FBS conferences and then the G5 might have their positions re-evaluated, considering some have more voting strength than others.

why does C-USA have the same votes as the major conferences and twice as many as its peer conferences?

(05-05-2013 12:26 AM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5? Not sure if the sub-Big 5 would support that.

Looks like the voting for non-FBS conferences was reduced from 1.2 to 1.14 to compensate for a "new" conference: the renamed Big East. Will the voting rights be readjusted every time a new conference is added or lost? Surprised the AAC retained its votes at the same level as the Big 5. Was the WAC reduced in voting rights?

The vote changes were for the Leadership Council and Legislative Council, not the Board of Directors. The 18-member Board of Directors is a one vote per member council with one member from each FBS conference and seven members total from the remaining 21 conferences (now with the BE) on a rotating basis.

The Legislative Council and Leadership Council each have members from every conference with the following breakdown of voting strength:

B1G, SEC, PAC, XII, ACC, AAC (fka BE), CUSA - 3 votes each
MWC, SBC, MAC, WAC - 1.5 votes each
The rest of the D1 conferences - 1.14 votes each

My guess is that this evaluation of voting strength may end up moving the WAC down with the rest of the non-FBS conferences and then the G5 might have their positions re-evaluated, considering some have more voting strength than others.

why does C-USA have the same votes as the major conferences and twice as many as its peer conferences?

If I remember correctly, it was a "compromise" (although I thought the MWC had the same 3 votes as well), to try to get C-USA and MWC on board with a previous key vote request, as the power-groups were short some needed votes.

(05-05-2013 12:26 AM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5? Not sure if the sub-Big 5 would support that.

Looks like the voting for non-FBS conferences was reduced from 1.2 to 1.14 to compensate for a "new" conference: the renamed Big East. Will the voting rights be readjusted every time a new conference is added or lost? Surprised the AAC retained its votes at the same level as the Big 5. Was the WAC reduced in voting rights?

The vote changes were for the Leadership Council and Legislative Council, not the Board of Directors. The 18-member Board of Directors is a one vote per member council with one member from each FBS conference and seven members total from the remaining 21 conferences (now with the BE) on a rotating basis.

The Legislative Council and Leadership Council each have members from every conference with the following breakdown of voting strength:

B1G, SEC, PAC, XII, ACC, AAC (fka BE), CUSA - 3 votes each
MWC, SBC, MAC, WAC - 1.5 votes each
The rest of the D1 conferences - 1.14 votes each

My guess is that this evaluation of voting strength may end up moving the WAC down with the rest of the non-FBS conferences and then the G5 might have their positions re-evaluated, considering some have more voting strength than others.

why does C-USA have the same votes as the major conferences and twice as many as its peer conferences?

There were the 6 BCS conferences, the WAC 16 and CUSA who were all a clear step above the Big West and MAC. CUSA had Houston fresh out of SWC, UL, Cincinnati, Tulane, Southern Miss, Memphis at the start. Army and ECU were probably in the conference at the time this was setup. Depaul, Marquette, St. Louis were in for basketball along with UAB, UNCC and USF. Those 8 conferences got 3 votes while the BW and MAC got 1.5 (might have been 1 at that time-the structure has changed). When the WAC split, the MWC and WAC got pushed down with the BW and MAC. And the Sun Belt eventually replaced the BW.

They've been talking about changing this and how they justify the two tiers for years. I thought it had already been changed. At the least, the MWC probably gets the WAC votes when the WAC gets pushed down out of the fb conferences. But they would still have the problem of justifying what they did with the SB and MAC.

This may have been posted on a different thread, but fits here:
http://buckeyextra.dispatch,com/content/stories/2013/05/05/0505-ohio-state-gene-smith-interview.html

About midway down is this part of the discussion with the Ohio St. AD:
Q: There’s been some speculation that the NCAA could become obsolete, that the power conferences could essentially supersede the NCAA. Do you share that opinion?

A: Not really. That’s the wrong conversation. The NCAA is going through change. But I do believe we need to pause and look at our structure. I do believe we need to think of a different structure for certain schools like Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska and Alabama and so on. There are probably 60-70 schools that are different than everybody else. We need to think about a different division for them, within the NCAA structure, not outside of it, a division that allows those schools to have its own legislation. The best example I can use is the $2,000 stipend (toward) the cost of attendance. There are schools that can afford it and there are schools that can’t. As far as the recruiting rules, our recruiting rules should be different than it is at Middle Tennessee State. They’re Division I and they’re voting on our legislation or the legislation we believe is applicable to our level. I think we need to pause. I think we need to have a conversation about, ‘Should there be a different division within the NCAA structure that allows X number of schools to be legislated differently, but within the structure?’

Q: You’ve given it some thought, obviously.

A: Oh yeah. A lot.

Q: Are you a leader in that movement?

A: There’s a lot of conversation right now. Yeah, I’m having conversations with a lot of my colleagues. We don’t know what that would take, but the conversation has started.

Q: Is there a time frame?

A: We’re not even on that. We’re just having the conversation about what’s the answer to the challenges that we have with our current structure. There are other ideas out there. My idea is not the only one. You’ll probably read and hear the ideas of other ADs and commissioners. The conversation has started about, ‘How do we address our challenges?’

Q: What do you think is different for the Middle Tennessee States than it is for the Ohio States?

A: We’ve created this monster, first of all. The membership has. Everyone says the NCAA like it’s some people sitting in Indianapolis in the back of a smoke-filled room. We voted all this stuff in and it’s flawed, a lot of it. One of the flaws that we used to have was so many pieces of our legislation that tried to take into consideration competitive balance and competitive equality, and that makes no sense. Really it doesn’t. You can’t take the Ohio State University and create legislation that allows a Middle Tennessee State to be as competitive as we are. It doesn’t happen. You can have all these rules where we’re operating under the same rules, but we still have an engine that they don’t have.

That’s no disrespect to them. When I was at Eastern Michigan University, I had a track coach come to me and talk about the things that Michigan and Michigan State had that we didn’t have. I said, ‘You’re awesome. You’re really good. If that’s where you want to be, go apply for a job at Michigan or Michigan State. I want to beat Toledo. I want to beat Bowling Green. I want to beat Central Michigan.’ I remember those times. I know what it’s like at that level. Eastern Michigan is not Michigan. In basketball, if they play 10 times, Eastern Michigan might get them one time. We’ve tried to legislate a level playing field when there’s no level playing field. What I’m proposing – and there are other models you’ll see surface – is to have a division inside the NCAA that says, ‘These schools can afford to pay a stipend. Let them do it.’ You can’t afford to do it. That’s fine. But don’t inhibit their ability to create opportunities for their young people.

Q: You’re talking about the five super conferences?

A: That’s really what it comes down to.

Q: The devil’s advocate argument is probably that you’ll make the difference between the haves and have-nots even greater.

A: Your point? Your point? See, that’s the argument, that we’ve always said, ‘We shouldn’t do that.’ I say, “Why? Isn’t that divide huge anyway? Do you think they’re going to be in the (football) playoff.’ When you look at the last 10 Final Fours, how many Cinderellas did you really have?

That’s why I say you stay within the NCAA structure because basketball is a different beast than football. You be a part of the NCAA basketball tournament that generates so much revenue that it helps those schools, because you can have some equalizers there periodically. So don’t break away from that. Do not do that because that hurts those opportunities at those schools that we contribute to. That’s just one example. You stay in the structure and you create ways where we’re beneficial to the structure to help those schools, but we’re not limited. All I’m talking about is legislation. I’m not talking about anything else

This may say the gang of 5 may have made a mistake not creating a gang of 4. MWC and AACK! are trying to separate themselves from the rest to be included, but if there were only 4, it might have given them a better chance to retain the current structure. Instead, they keep adding FCS schools.

(05-04-2013 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5?

FCS already exists for anyone who wants to play football there.

Is there value in having three separate football divisions within D-I? Maybe, but the three groups ought to be:

FBS -- 85 FB scholarships, same requirements as FBS currently has.

FCS -- 63 FB scholarships, same additional FCS requirements.

Non-scholarship -- No FB scholarships, no additional requirements other than the baseline requirements for being in NCAA D-I.

There doesn't need to be a subdivision between FBS and FCS, it's just that many schools either need to decide they are best suited for FCS or they need to spend a lot more money and effort and go all-in for FBS rather than just barely scraping by in FBS.

There is a clear difference between schools in CUSA, SBC, AAC, MAC, and MWC and most FCS level schools though. Many FCS schools average less than a few thousand people per game while the AAC, MWC, and CUSA have some schools that average 30,000+ with nearly all of them averaging over 20,000.

I'm not advocating it, but I think a three tier system with CUSA, SBC, AAC, MAC, MWC, and a new conference with some of the top western FCS schools (Montana, Montana State, NDSU for example) would do fairly well. Significantly better than the current FCS does.

(05-05-2013 06:20 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5?

FCS already exists for anyone who wants to play football there.

Is there value in having three separate football divisions within D-I? Maybe, but the three groups ought to be:

FBS -- 85 FB scholarships, same requirements as FBS currently has.

FCS -- 63 FB scholarships, same additional FCS requirements.

Non-scholarship -- No FB scholarships, no additional requirements other than the baseline requirements for being in NCAA D-I.

There doesn't need to be a subdivision between FBS and FCS, it's just that many schools either need to decide they are best suited for FCS or they need to spend a lot more money and effort and go all-in for FBS rather than just barely scraping by in FBS.

There is a clear difference between schools in CUSA, SBC, AAC, MAC, and MWC and most FCS level schools though. Many FCS schools average less than a few thousand people per game while the AAC, MWC, and CUSA have some schools that average 30,000+ with nearly all of them averaging over 20,000.

I'm not advocating it, but I think a three tier system with CUSA, SBC, AAC, MAC, MWC, and a new conference with some of the top western FCS schools (Montana, Montana State, NDSU for example) would do fairly well. Significantly better than the current FCS does.

The line between the 2012 versions of the MAC and Sun Belt and the FCS Missouri Valley, Colonial, Southern and Big Sky is not that clear. And of course, in 1981, there was no line with those FCS conferences. The MVC, Big Sky and Southern (which included a number of the Colonial schools) were all in the top level.

(05-05-2013 06:20 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5?

FCS already exists for anyone who wants to play football there.

Is there value in having three separate football divisions within D-I? Maybe, but the three groups ought to be:

FBS -- 85 FB scholarships, same requirements as FBS currently has.

FCS -- 63 FB scholarships, same additional FCS requirements.

Non-scholarship -- No FB scholarships, no additional requirements other than the baseline requirements for being in NCAA D-I.

There doesn't need to be a subdivision between FBS and FCS, it's just that many schools either need to decide they are best suited for FCS or they need to spend a lot more money and effort and go all-in for FBS rather than just barely scraping by in FBS.

There is a clear difference between schools in CUSA, SBC, AAC, MAC, and MWC and most FCS level schools though. Many FCS schools average less than a few thousand people per game while the AAC, MWC, and CUSA have some schools that average 30,000+ with nearly all of them averaging over 20,000.

I'm not advocating it, but I think a three tier system with CUSA, SBC, AAC, MAC, MWC, and a new conference with some of the top western FCS schools (Montana, Montana State, NDSU for example) would do fairly well. Significantly better than the current FCS does.

Any FCS schools included in such a division would be huge huge winners. Every current FBS school included in that division is finished. That's the end of any legitimate division I football at the 65 or so FBS schools cut off from real division I football. FCS is not considered real division one football by the average fan. It is by statute, but as a practical matter it's not even in the same universe.

Frankly, I suspect the culling of the herd would be far less drastic and would not result in a 60-70 school upper division. Im guessing we are looking more at a reduction that would result in a top division of college football that mirrors the historic average number of programs playing at that top level. At 126 FBS programs, we are way over the historic average. My guess is we end up reducing the total number of schools at the top level down to 80 to 100. Call that Super-FBS. Not sure if that would be accomplished by demoting whole conferences or if it would be based upon individual schools meeting certain criteria. If its the latter---it would mean realignment armegeddon at the gang of 5 level.

Once thats accomplished, I could see a middle level created that takes the 26-46 FBS programs and adds 10-20 of the top FCS programs. That would create a solid mid-level divsion (FBS) with about 50-60 competetive teams. FCS would continue on with reduced scholarship numbers. With lower scholarship costs, some Division 2 schools could move up if needed.

(05-05-2013 05:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 12:26 AM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Would there be value for an NCAA sponsored playoff outside of the Big 5? Not sure if the sub-Big 5 would support that.

Looks like the voting for non-FBS conferences was reduced from 1.2 to 1.14 to compensate for a "new" conference: the renamed Big East. Will the voting rights be readjusted every time a new conference is added or lost? Surprised the AAC retained its votes at the same level as the Big 5. Was the WAC reduced in voting rights?

The vote changes were for the Leadership Council and Legislative Council, not the Board of Directors. The 18-member Board of Directors is a one vote per member council with one member from each FBS conference and seven members total from the remaining 21 conferences (now with the BE) on a rotating basis.

The Legislative Council and Leadership Council each have members from every conference with the following breakdown of voting strength:

B1G, SEC, PAC, XII, ACC, AAC (fka BE), CUSA - 3 votes each
MWC, SBC, MAC, WAC - 1.5 votes each
The rest of the D1 conferences - 1.14 votes each

My guess is that this evaluation of voting strength may end up moving the WAC down with the rest of the non-FBS conferences and then the G5 might have their positions re-evaluated, considering some have more voting strength than others.

why does C-USA have the same votes as the major conferences and twice as many as its peer conferences?

There were the 6 BCS conferences, the WAC 16 and CUSA who were all a clear step above the Big West and MAC. CUSA had Houston fresh out of SWC, UL, Cincinnati, Tulane, Southern Miss, Memphis at the start. Army and ECU were probably in the conference at the time this was setup. Depaul, Marquette, St. Louis were in for basketball along with UAB, UNCC and USF. Those 8 conferences got 3 votes while the BW and MAC got 1.5 (might have been 1 at that time-the structure has changed). When the WAC split, the MWC and WAC got pushed down with the BW and MAC. And the Sun Belt eventually replaced the BW.

thanks