Quote:Michelle Hosick ‏@NCAAMichelle · 11m11 minutes ago
DI restructuring moves forward. Override period ends with only 27 schools requesting reconsideration. 75 needed for review

60 days ago, the NCAA BoD passed the new governance structure by a vote of 10-2. The 385 schools in D1 had 60 days to submit override requests and only 75 were needed, yet only 27 actually submitted them. It is now the law of the NCAA.

That said, yesterday was also the deadline for the P5 to submit formal proposals on areas of autonomy to be discussed and voted on in January. Four of the five conferences submitted something (the XII was the only one who submitted nothing), but all were vague and lacked any sort of detail.

http://30mileradius.com/2014/10/autonomy...of-topics/

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...ration.pdf

The really disturbing proposal though was one submitted by the B1G/PAC regarding when proposals in certain categories are due:

Quote:Resolution that creates a pathway and timeline for addressing a variety of student-athlete well-being related issues, including, but not limited to, health and safety, time demands, comprehensive academic support and career advice. Legislative proposals related to these topics may be submitted by December 1.

As John Infante points out, the initial governance structure allows 60 days to review for the rest of D1. Now that is being taken away.

Quote:The power conferences had two months to come up with ideas and could not even settle on those. Not to mention the Big 12 did not submit any areas for consideration. Given the comments from power conference leaders about wanting autonomy to determine the process of autonomy, using a loophole to avoid a generous deadline is a bad omen for the rest of Division I.

It is also less than promising for the power conferences themselves. Two months should have been plenty of time to generate full proposals, not just vague topics.

It seems that nobody has their act together. And there are some who think that this group would act in concert to break away. It's disorganization like this that suggests that they would not. Here they have the power to legislate for themselves, yet they can't even get it together enough to do that. How on earth would they be able to start over from scratch?

(10-06-2014 04:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:Michelle Hosick ‏@NCAAMichelle · 11m11 minutes ago
DI restructuring moves forward. Override period ends with only 27 schools requesting reconsideration. 75 needed for review

60 days ago, the NCAA BoD passed the new governance structure by a vote of 10-2. The 385 schools in D1 had 60 days to submit override requests and only 75 were needed, yet only 27 actually submitted them. It is now the law of the NCAA.

That said, yesterday was also the deadline for the P5 to submit formal proposals on areas of autonomy to be discussed and voted on in January. Four of the five conferences submitted something (the XII was the only one who submitted nothing), but all were vague and lacked any sort of detail.

http://30mileradius.com/2014/10/autonomy...of-topics/

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...ration.pdf

The really disturbing proposal though was one submitted by the B1G/PAC regarding when proposals in certain categories are due:

Quote:Resolution that creates a pathway and timeline for addressing a variety of student-athlete well-being related issues, including, but not limited to, health and safety, time demands, comprehensive academic support and career advice. Legislative proposals related to these topics may be submitted by December 1.

As John Infante points out, the initial governance structure allows 60 days to review for the rest of D1. Now that is being taken away.

Quote:The power conferences had two months to come up with ideas and could not even settle on those. Not to mention the Big 12 did not submit any areas for consideration. Given the comments from power conference leaders about wanting autonomy to determine the process of autonomy, using a loophole to avoid a generous deadline is a bad omen for the rest of Division I.

It is also less than promising for the power conferences themselves. Two months should have been plenty of time to generate full proposals, not just vague topics.

It seems that nobody has their act together. And there are some who think that this group would act in concert to break away. It's disorganization like this that suggests that they would not. Here they have the power to legislate for themselves, yet they can't even get it together enough to do that. How on earth would they be able to start over from scratch?

And people think they are going to work together to create a 4X16?
They are very reactive.

Is this like the dog chasing the car? He caught it, now what?

here is the full release from the NCAA, including th list of the 27 schools who submitted override requests. None were FBS, Big East, or even Ivy League - who was one of the two dissenters from the BoD vote.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med...es-forward

Bradley University
College of Charleston (South Carolina)
College of William and Mary
Drexel University
Elon University
Fordham University
Hofstra University
Houston Baptist University
Indiana State University
Iona College
James Madison University
Loyola University Chicago
McNeese State University
Nicholls State University
Northeastern University
Saint Peter's University
Sam Houston State University
Seattle University
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
Towson University
University of Delaware
University of Denver
University of New Hampshire
University of North Carolina Wilmington
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
University of Vermont
Wofford College

So...the Big 12 didn't bother to spend the effort required to create a formal proposal to be submitted about how Autonomy should be fully fleshed out?

You don't say...

(10-06-2014 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 04:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:Michelle Hosick ‏@NCAAMichelle · 11m11 minutes ago
DI restructuring moves forward. Override period ends with only 27 schools requesting reconsideration. 75 needed for review

60 days ago, the NCAA BoD passed the new governance structure by a vote of 10-2. The 385 schools in D1 had 60 days to submit override requests and only 75 were needed, yet only 27 actually submitted them. It is now the law of the NCAA.

That said, yesterday was also the deadline for the P5 to submit formal proposals on areas of autonomy to be discussed and voted on in January. Four of the five conferences submitted something (the XII was the only one who submitted nothing), but all were vague and lacked any sort of detail.

http://30mileradius.com/2014/10/autonomy...of-topics/

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...ration.pdf

The really disturbing proposal though was one submitted by the B1G/PAC regarding when proposals in certain categories are due:

Quote:Resolution that creates a pathway and timeline for addressing a variety of student-athlete well-being related issues, including, but not limited to, health and safety, time demands, comprehensive academic support and career advice. Legislative proposals related to these topics may be submitted by December 1.

As John Infante points out, the initial governance structure allows 60 days to review for the rest of D1. Now that is being taken away.

Quote:The power conferences had two months to come up with ideas and could not even settle on those. Not to mention the Big 12 did not submit any areas for consideration. Given the comments from power conference leaders about wanting autonomy to determine the process of autonomy, using a loophole to avoid a generous deadline is a bad omen for the rest of Division I.

It is also less than promising for the power conferences themselves. Two months should have been plenty of time to generate full proposals, not just vague topics.

It seems that nobody has their act together. And there are some who think that this group would act in concert to break away. It's disorganization like this that suggests that they would not. Here they have the power to legislate for themselves, yet they can't even get it together enough to do that. How on earth would they be able to start over from scratch?

And people think they are going to work together to create a 4X16?
They are very reactive.

I don't know about others but I never said that 4x16 would be created by the conferences themselves. Just the opposite, they could Never do it themselves. It will take an outside force.

(10-06-2014 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So...the Big 12 didn't bother to spend the effort required to create a formal proposal to be submitted about how Autonomy should be fully fleshed out?

You don't say...

To be honest, it doesn't sound like any P5 conference really did. A few ideas were hung on the wall, but it doesn't sound like any of them are formal proposals at all. Several sound like merely wishing. There are no details to any of them.

Shrug....been saying for a while that the P5 don't march in lock step. That's why they were so concerned with lowering the threshold for passing autonomous legislation. Its early in a very new process. Lots of sausage making going on.

(10-06-2014 08:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So...the Big 12 didn't bother to spend the effort required to create a formal proposal to be submitted about how Autonomy should be fully fleshed out?

You don't say...

To be honest, it doesn't sound like any P5 conference really did. A few ideas were hung on the wall, but it doesn't sound like any of them are formal proposals at all. Several sound like merely wishing. There are no details to any of them.

Yes, the others DID submit formal proposals. They just weren't fully fleshed out. There is a difference in putting in a proposal that doesn't completely outline Everything and not putting in a proposal at all.

In the end none of them will have full say in how it works out so if their proposals included only portions that meant a lot to them in particular, then that is about what I would expect from them.

The Big 12 was the only one to submit NOTHING. That was very clear.

Par for the course with the B12. It required being proactive in some manner. We only do reactive.

(10-06-2014 08:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So...the Big 12 didn't bother to spend the effort required to create a formal proposal to be submitted about how Autonomy should be fully fleshed out?

You don't say...

To be honest, it doesn't sound like any P5 conference really did. A few ideas were hung on the wall, but it doesn't sound like any of them are formal proposals at all. Several sound like merely wishing. There are no details to any of them.

Yes, the others DID submit formal proposals. They just weren't fully fleshed out. There is a difference in putting in a proposal that doesn't completely outline Everything and not putting in a proposal at all.

In the end none of them will have full say in how it works out so if their proposals included only portions that meant a lot to them in particular, then that is about what I would expect from them.

The Big 12 was the only one to submit NOTHING. That was very clear.

I agree with John Infante here:

Quote:Two months should have been plenty of time to generate full proposals, not just vague topics.

The real issue is that none of these topics are simple and most (especially the FCoA scholarship issue) require a lot of detail. If they couldn't add any detail over the past two months, that's just lost time to do so over the next two months, and less time for anyone to review them before it goes to a vote. And the fact that most of this were the same topics being discussed for months. It's not like any of these were really new ideas being brought to the table.

I really like the dog chasing the car analogy. Now what?

So you think having less time to review proposals is something that the Majors wouldn't want? I disagree.

(10-06-2014 06:30 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  None were FBS, Big East, or A10 schools, or even Ivy League - who was one of the two dissenters from the BoD vote.

Fordham.

I don't know if it means anything, but they are the misfit of that conference. It's a Patsy school who runs too deep and too big an athletic department. Fordham should just hop aboard the Patriot entirely now that it's finally taking on scholarships. Or make the mistake of joining CAA, which seems to be well-represented in that group.

(10-07-2014 08:45 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So you think having less time to review proposals is something that the Majors wouldn't want? I disagree.

Does it really matter? Autonomy gives the P5 the power to pass legislation in certain areas regardless of the what the rest of D1 wants. Having extra time to review proposals doesn't really make much difference that I can see. Besides--individual institutions are likely going to be allowed to adopt any P5 rule they wish---so adapting to P5 rule changes will be easier to handle for individual institutions that can be more nimble in their reactions than large lumbering organizations like FBS or D1.

Now will come the real interesting battle, seeing what the P5 can agree to among themselves. They now have no one standing in their way, so it will be fascinating to watch what happens if the middle to lower end of P5 leagues don't want the same things the top does.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-09-2014 11:32 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Now will come the real interesting battle, seeing what the P5 can agree to among themselves. They now have no one standing in their way, so it will be fascinating to watch what happens if the middle to lower end of P5 leagues don't want the same things the top does.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I will go ever farther:

It will be what the lower end Schools don't want. There will be the issue.

(10-09-2014 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:45 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So you think having less time to review proposals is something that the Majors wouldn't want? I disagree.

Does it really matter? Autonomy gives the P5 the power to pass legislation in certain areas regardless of the what the rest of D1 wants. Having extra time to review proposals doesn't really make much difference that I can see. Besides--individual institutions are likely going to be allowed to adopt any P5 rule they wish---so adapting to P5 rule changes will be easier to handle for individual institutions that can be more nimble in their reactions than large lumbering organizations like FBS or D1.

Or they are just keeping the details out of the Press by having their presentations be very vague at this point.

Who knows, like you say though, it doesn't really matter. It is obvious where all the leverage is. If some folks want to keep some semblance of hope from this that the Power Conferences don't know what they are doing with this and will end up "fumbling the ball" with it, well then whatever makes them sleep better at night I suppose.