NCAA poised to create separate voting bloc for SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12 & Big XII...Here is the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-poised...ntentstory

I'm not sure that means a separate division, or just different rules for those five conferences. I don't think the P5 want to be a separate division all by themselves. They need to be able to play weaker schools to pad their won-loss records, and if they are limited to only one such game a year, a bunch of P5 schools won't qualify for bowls.

(01-17-2014 07:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure that means a separate division, or just different rules for those five conferences. I don't think the P5 want to be a separate division all by themselves. They need to be able to play weaker schools to pad their won-loss records, and if they are limited to only one such game a year, a bunch of P5 schools won't qualify for bowls.

"if they are limited to only one such game a year"
There's no reason why they couldn't make it 2-3.

(01-17-2014 07:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 07:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure that means a separate division, or just different rules for those five conferences. I don't think the P5 want to be a separate division all by themselves. They need to be able to play weaker schools to pad their won-loss records, and if they are limited to only one such game a year, a bunch of P5 schools won't qualify for bowls.

"if they are limited to only one such game a year"
There's no reason why they couldn't make it 2-3.

If they are a separate division, does that mean only schools from those conferences can be "national champions"? Can they limit access to the big money bowls and playoffs to the P5?

(01-17-2014 07:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 07:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 07:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure that means a separate division, or just different rules for those five conferences. I don't think the P5 want to be a separate division all by themselves. They need to be able to play weaker schools to pad their won-loss records, and if they are limited to only one such game a year, a bunch of P5 schools won't qualify for bowls.

"if they are limited to only one such game a year"
There's no reason why they couldn't make it 2-3.

If they are a separate division, does that mean only schools from those conferences can be "national champions"? Can they limit access to the big money bowls and playoffs to the P5?

Yes. I;m pretty sure that's exactly what it means.

(01-17-2014 07:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 07:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 07:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure that means a separate division, or just different rules for those five conferences. I don't think the P5 want to be a separate division all by themselves. They need to be able to play weaker schools to pad their won-loss records, and if they are limited to only one such game a year, a bunch of P5 schools won't qualify for bowls.

"if they are limited to only one such game a year"
There's no reason why they couldn't make it 2-3.

If they are a separate division, does that mean only schools from those conferences can be "national champions"? Can they limit access to the big money bowls and playoffs to the P5?

The left behind division could have their own playoffs or bowls and a National Championship for their own division. They would be ineligible for the National Championship of the higher division though.

I'd view the separation similar to the early 90's when D1 split into A and AA. I still think P5 schools will still have those buy in games against the MAC, Sun Belt and so on. I really wouldn't be surprised if the AAC, MWC, and a few hoops leagues like the Big East and A10 are also included in the bloc.

http://content.ncaa.org/ncaa-membership_...N_v_5C.pdf

Here is the power point presentation from the meeting. Page 12 and 13 is where the separation is discussed.

Proposed Areas for Autonomy

• Define a full grant-in-aid as meeting a student-athlete’s cost of attendance in a manner consistent with the core values of the collegiate model and not to exceed total cost of attendance.

• Lifetime opportunity to fund the undergraduate education of current and former student-athletes. New resources and greater accountability for success of student-athletes.

• Enhanced benefits provided to student-athletes for the purpose of supporting their needs based on available resources.

• Ensure that addressing health and safety needs remain a top priority.

• Creation of “athletics dead periods” for student-athletes to access opportunities outside of intercollegiate athletics.

• Comprehensive support for academically at-risk student-athletes.

• Redefinition of rules governing agents and advisors to assist student-athletes with career planning.

• Personnel limits (number of non-coaching personnel).


Shared Governance Across All Division I Institutions and Conferences

• Defined as any matter not otherwise identified as “autonomy” or “football,” will be part of shared governance across Division I. Intended to maintain standards of access and excellence in a uniform manner across all Division I conferences and institutions in specific areas.

Examples of Areas for Shared Governance

Access to championships to all conferences.
Revenue distribution maintained.
Team scholarship limits in sports other than football.
Establishment of minimum academic standards.

Thought Frank the Tank made some good points over on the AAC board.

(01-17-2014 05:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My interpretation of the autonomy being sought here isn't so much the P5 saying, "Only we can pay players and you can't", but rather, "You can't stop us from paying players if we want to, but you can decide what you want for yourselves."

From my reading, if the AAC, MWC or other G5 leagues want to adopt the same cost of attendances measures as the P5, then they're free to do so. The "autonomy" is that the G5 and rest of Division I would not longer have any say on what the P5 choose to adopt for themselves. If the P5 want to implement a measure, then they can do it and the rest of Division I can't block it even if they have a majority. The P5 is removing what they perceive as roadblocks as opposed to *stopping* other conferences from implementing the same measures.

That doesn't mean the NCAA Tournament goes way or the P5 will stop playing football games against the G5. What it *does* mean is that the P5 can essentially make whatever rules that they want for themselves and the rest of Division I can't stop them. Other Division I conferences, though, can choose on their own to match what the P5 is doing if they're willing to do so.

(01-18-2014 08:14 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Thought Frank the Tank made some good points over on the AAC board.

(01-17-2014 05:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My interpretation of the autonomy being sought here isn't so much the P5 saying, "Only we can pay players and you can't", but rather, "You can't stop us from paying players if we want to, but you can decide what you want for yourselves."

From my reading, if the AAC, MWC or other G5 leagues want to adopt the same cost of attendances measures as the P5, then they're free to do so. The "autonomy" is that the G5 and rest of Division I would not longer have any say on what the P5 choose to adopt for themselves. If the P5 want to implement a measure, then they can do it and the rest of Division I can't block it even if they have a majority. The P5 is removing what they perceive as roadblocks as opposed to *stopping* other conferences from implementing the same measures.

That doesn't mean the NCAA Tournament goes way or the P5 will stop playing football games against the G5. What it *does* mean is that the P5 can essentially make whatever rules that they want for themselves and the rest of Division I can't stop them. Other Division I conferences, though, can choose on their own to match what the P5 is doing if they're willing to do so.

I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence. I don't think individual G5 conferences can pick and choose which set of rules they will adopt. At least I don't think that's what the P5 conferences are proposing. I think they are saying that if other conferences want to change a particular rule, they will still need to get the rule changed by vote of all the D-I schools outside the P5.

Your characterization of the effect of this as "You can't stop us from paying players if we want to, but you can decide what you want for yourselves" does not mean that they can decide individually. Just that they can decide collectively.

That being said, this is a proposal that has not yet been vetted. It's entirely possible that the NCAA will modify it to allow other conferences to adopt P5 rules while still prohibiting them to vote on what those rules will be.

One thing we should watch for as this process plays out is whether the emphasis on "football" signals an intent on the part of the P5 to create rules for football scholarships (or revenue sports) that are different than those for other sports. That is, will they attempt, in effect, to exempt football from Title IX rules on the grounds that it has no female counterpart?

If you just want to pay football players $3K a year more, but you have to also pay that to every scholarship athlete, the average cost per football player increases to about $12K per year. But if you can limit the extra cash to football players, and survive any legal challenges to the practice, more D-I schools might be willing to follow.

(01-18-2014 10:29 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 08:14 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Thought Frank the Tank made some good points over on the AAC board.

(01-17-2014 05:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My interpretation of the autonomy being sought here isn't so much the P5 saying, "Only we can pay players and you can't", but rather, "You can't stop us from paying players if we want to, but you can decide what you want for yourselves."

From my reading, if the AAC, MWC or other G5 leagues want to adopt the same cost of attendances measures as the P5, then they're free to do so. The "autonomy" is that the G5 and rest of Division I would not longer have any say on what the P5 choose to adopt for themselves. If the P5 want to implement a measure, then they can do it and the rest of Division I can't block it even if they have a majority. The P5 is removing what they perceive as roadblocks as opposed to *stopping* other conferences from implementing the same measures.

That doesn't mean the NCAA Tournament goes way or the P5 will stop playing football games against the G5. What it *does* mean is that the P5 can essentially make whatever rules that they want for themselves and the rest of Division I can't stop them. Other Division I conferences, though, can choose on their own to match what the P5 is doing if they're willing to do so.

I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence. I don't think individual G5 conferences can pick and choose which set of rules they will adopt. At least I don't think that's what the P5 conferences are proposing. I think they are saying that if other conferences want to change a particular rule, they will still need to get the rule changed by vote of all the D-I schools outside the P5.

Your characterization of the effect of this as "You can't stop us from paying players if we want to, but you can decide what you want for yourselves" does not mean that they can decide individually. Just that they can decide collectively.

That being said, this is a proposal that has not yet been vetted. It's entirely possible that the NCAA will modify it to allow other conferences to adopt P5 rules while still prohibiting them to vote on what those rules will be.

You misunderstood the quote. It's not about "changing" rules. It's about "using" them. Much like conferences don't have to have basketball tournaments or football championship games, but it's within the rules that they can, and so most choose host them. That's what they were saying. The P5 will pass whichever rules it wants, and it will be up to non-P5 conferences whether they want to meet the financial obligations of the new rules or continue with the old way of things.

(01-18-2014 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing we should watch for as this process plays out is whether the emphasis on "football" signals an intent on the part of the P5 to create rules for football scholarships (or revenue sports) that are different than those for other sports. That is, will they attempt, in effect, to exempt football from Title IX rules on the grounds that it has no female counterpart?

If you just want to pay football players $3K a year more, but you have to also pay that to every scholarship athlete, the average cost per football player increases to about $12K per year. But if you can limit the extra cash to football players, and survive any legal challenges to the practice, more D-I schools might be willing to follow.

I believe that Title IX will require schools to provide an equivalent number of stipends to women athletes as provided to football and men's hoops. It will not require schools to fund stipends for all sports, though. Non revenue men's sports and an equal number of women's scholarship could be excluded.

(01-18-2014 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing we should watch for as this process plays out is whether the emphasis on "football" signals an intent on the part of the P5 to create rules for football scholarships (or revenue sports) that are different than those for other sports. That is, will they attempt, in effect, to exempt football from Title IX rules on the grounds that it has no female counterpart?

If you just want to pay football players $3K a year more, but you have to also pay that to every scholarship athlete, the average cost per football player increases to about $12K per year. But if you can limit the extra cash to football players, and survive any legal challenges to the practice, more D-I schools might be willing to follow.

I believe that Title IX will require schools to provide an equivalent number of stipends to women athletes as provided to football and men's hoops. It will not require schools to fund stipends for all sports, though. Non revenue men's sports and an equal number of women's scholarship could be excluded.

Agreed.

Title IX is a government thing, not an NCAA thing.

(01-18-2014 10:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing we should watch for as this process plays out is whether the emphasis on "football" signals an intent on the part of the P5 to create rules for football scholarships (or revenue sports) that are different than those for other sports. That is, will they attempt, in effect, to exempt football from Title IX rules on the grounds that it has no female counterpart?

If you just want to pay football players $3K a year more, but you have to also pay that to every scholarship athlete, the average cost per football player increases to about $12K per year. But if you can limit the extra cash to football players, and survive any legal challenges to the practice, more D-I schools might be willing to follow.

I believe that Title IX will require schools to provide an equivalent number of stipends to women athletes as provided to football and men's hoops. It will not require schools to fund stipends for all sports, though. Non revenue men's sports and an equal number of women's scholarship could be excluded.

Agreed.

I think if this is attempted, that Title IX will require what some court says it requires. If I were an AD, I'd hate to have to decide which of my sports get stipends and which ones don't.

(01-19-2014 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing we should watch for as this process plays out is whether the emphasis on "football" signals an intent on the part of the P5 to create rules for football scholarships (or revenue sports) that are different than those for other sports. That is, will they attempt, in effect, to exempt football from Title IX rules on the grounds that it has no female counterpart?

If you just want to pay football players $3K a year more, but you have to also pay that to every scholarship athlete, the average cost per football player increases to about $12K per year. But if you can limit the extra cash to football players, and survive any legal challenges to the practice, more D-I schools might be willing to follow.

I believe that Title IX will require schools to provide an equivalent number of stipends to women athletes as provided to football and men's hoops. It will not require schools to fund stipends for all sports, though. Non revenue men's sports and an equal number of women's scholarship could be excluded.

Agreed.

I think if this is attempted, that Title IX will require what some court says it requires. If I were an AD, I'd hate to have to decide which of my sports get stipends and which ones don't.

I expect the P5 schools will be providing stipends across the board. I was speculating on the minimum level that Title IX would require assuming football and Men's bb were provided stipends, not what the schools would likely do. For a school like SU, the difference would be up to 100 scholarships with discretionary stipend, an extra cost of around $500,000.

(01-19-2014 07:23 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing we should watch for as this process plays out is whether the emphasis on "football" signals an intent on the part of the P5 to create rules for football scholarships (or revenue sports) that are different than those for other sports. That is, will they attempt, in effect, to exempt football from Title IX rules on the grounds that it has no female counterpart?

If you just want to pay football players $3K a year more, but you have to also pay that to every scholarship athlete, the average cost per football player increases to about $12K per year. But if you can limit the extra cash to football players, and survive any legal challenges to the practice, more D-I schools might be willing to follow.

I believe that Title IX will require schools to provide an equivalent number of stipends to women athletes as provided to football and men's hoops. It will not require schools to fund stipends for all sports, though. Non revenue men's sports and an equal number of women's scholarship could be excluded.

Agreed.

I think if this is attempted, that Title IX will require what some court says it requires. If I were an AD, I'd hate to have to decide which of my sports get stipends and which ones don't.

I expect the P5 schools will be providing stipends across the board. I was speculating on the minimum level that Title IX would require assuming football and Men's bb were provided stipends, not what the schools would likely do. For a school like SU, the difference would be up to 100 scholarships with discretionary stipend, an extra cost of around $500,000.

I believe for UNC the number of additional scholarships would be about 240. Does Syracuse field that many fewer sports?

(01-19-2014 07:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:23 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I believe that Title IX will require schools to provide an equivalent number of stipends to women athletes as provided to football and men's hoops. It will not require schools to fund stipends for all sports, though. Non revenue men's sports and an equal number of women's scholarship could be excluded.

Agreed.

I think if this is attempted, that Title IX will require what some court says it requires. If I were an AD, I'd hate to have to decide which of my sports get stipends and which ones don't.

I expect the P5 schools will be providing stipends across the board. I was speculating on the minimum level that Title IX would require assuming football and Men's bb were provided stipends, not what the schools would likely do. For a school like SU, the difference would be up to 100 scholarships with discretionary stipend, an extra cost of around $500,000.

I believe for UNC the number of additional scholarships would be about 240. Does Syracuse field that many fewer sports?

Si

(01-20-2014 01:16 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:23 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Agreed.

I think if this is attempted, that Title IX will require what some court says it requires. If I were an AD, I'd hate to have to decide which of my sports get stipends and which ones don't.

I expect the P5 schools will be providing stipends across the board. I was speculating on the minimum level that Title IX would require assuming football and Men's bb were provided stipends, not what the schools would likely do. For a school like SU, the difference would be up to 100 scholarships with discretionary stipend, an extra cost of around $500,000.

I believe for UNC the number of additional scholarships would be about 240. Does Syracuse field that many fewer sports?

Si

I checked their website. The women's teams at SU are allowed 141 scholarships. The men don't have nearly as many sports. LAX, Track & X Country, Rowing and Soccer. I couldn't find what the number of allowable rowing schollys are, but the other three are allowed a total of 35.