(04-23-2014 03:28 PM)Crump1 Wrote: This will allow them to expand the benefits to players just enough to keep the wolves at bay. There won't be a "split" except in governance and there will be a divide in the amount of benefits provided. Not a big deal to me because those schools already have an advantage over the rest of us in recruiting. We will provide more benefits to athletes as well an will continue to be more attractive than playing FCS. Some kids will still choose strong G5 programs over the bottom of the P5 schools. The balance of power is not going to shift. We will still get our access to one playoff spot and to the bowls.
I am interested in seeing if they guarantee scholarships for 4 years and if they alter the transfer rules. Locking players in for 4 years would help us in the SBC.
Media doesn't understand the proposal, very damn few people tasked to cover business, law or sports truly understand them. Your typical sports media person is someone who has an interest in writing or RTV and likes watching sports. Being able to report what happened in a game or asking a tough question like why did you use that timeout or why were you in prevent there is not a skill set that equips you for:
1. Reading and understanding the practical effects of legislation
2 Understanding how college athletics are actually financed.
3. Understanding how college presidents and athletic directors and commissioners work with one another.
4. Having institutional knowledge of past legislative proposals.
Here is the background.
The NCAA is being sued in a number of cases and the FBS members have been subpoenaed in those cases and that information has the potential of forming the basis of added suits against FBS schools.
These suits prompted a series of influential media reports (most notably NY Times) questioning how student-athletes are treated.
To address those issues, the FBS conferences prodded by the NCAA President voted unanimously (with some other leagues) for a series of reforms (recruiting, stipend, guaranteed scholarships, other aid).
As is often common when the NCAA acts nimbly, big changes send illogical shockwaves throughout the membership community and generates a wave of opposition that might not always be rationally thought out.
A number of schools began filing objections to those reforms, most notably the stipend and the general basis was either I can't afford it or That gives someone else a competitive advantage (some schools most notably Wake Forest objected because Title IX consequences had not been fully explored and they raise some serious questions).
The problem with the common objections is they fail to recognize reality.
The extra spending is optional, so no school was compelled to participate or they could participate in a limited manner. Those who do not participate aren't totally out of luck. Players with the greatest financial need can receive Federal grants that put them in a similar financial position or they can turn to student loans which isn't as good of a deal.
As to competitive advantage. The reality is the FBS leagues were going to embrace the changes as would leagues like the Big East, A10, and probably Mo Valley and WCC and maybe Horizon. The other 16 or so leagues might not be able to participate because of finances but as a general rule they don't win the recruiting battles against those 12 to 15 leagues as it stands today. Competitive advantage concerns don't come into play unless the Big West participates and Big Sky doesn't or CAA participates and Southern or OVC or Metro Atlantic or Northeast, or America East doesn't.
The over-ride created justified outrage. Schools who don't have someone trying to put their neck in a noose killed legislation that was designed to create a measure of protection for the top schools against those suits and bad publicity.
The P5 have made the decision that they are not going to be put in that situation again.
They are seeking the ability to adopt some changes not in the line-up of Division I or FBS but in benefits and regulation that they can adopt by their own vote. Some matters anyone who wishes to follow can do so simply by altering their league bylaws others will require Division consent.
But they did something else as well.
They made the decision that on broader issues that aren't covered by their ability to govern themselves they would seek to change the voting structure. The structure they have requested makes the vote of a P5 conference worth more than the vote of any other conference and makes the vote of the G5 worth more than vote of any other conference that isn't FBS. In theory, if the P5 and G5 agree those ten conferences combined have the power to make all the rules for Division I.
The irresponsible and hysterical reporting of this claims this is it. THE SPLIT WE'VE BEEN REPORTING SINCE THE 1950's IS ARRIVING.
The reality is far different. The P5 aren't breaking away. They are creating a special voting group but they will continue to compete in the NCAA Tournament and compete against the G5 on the field and for votes in the same polls and compete for the CFP slots against them.
If they were looking to split how stupid are they creating a structure where the Sun Belt members can sit down and vote to follow the same rules? How stupid is it to structure Division I governance in such a way that the P5 cannot alone determine the policies of the Division but rather need to form coalitions and if they need to form coalitions why would they hand enhanced voting power to the G5 if the plan were to try to run the G5 off? They handed the G5 enhanced voting because the G5 despite having fewer resources philosophically aligns with the P5 on most everything making them a more reliable coalition partner than the Atlantic Sun or Big Sky.