Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-Autonomy ...
Author Message
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,746
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 134
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #41
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
Here is a thought. These are the schools that are P5 at filling their stadiums which includes the bottom of the ACC schools.

Air Force
Army
Boise State
BYU
Cincinnati
Colorado State
East Carolina
Fresno State
Houston
Memphis
Navy
San Diego State
USF
Temple
UAB
UCF

UAB would be the bottom of the P5 around the area of Duke.

FCS and D2 that have 15,000 average base that could be part of the G5.
Montana
James Madison
Florida A&M
Yale
Montana State
Jacksonville State
North Dakota State
Prairie View A&M
Delaware
North Carolina A&T
Grambling
Tuskegee

Several G5 is more or less an FCS size fans to fill seats. D1 in football have 6 levels of schools.
High P5
Low P5 (Duke, Wake Forest, Washington State)
High G5 BYU, UCF, USF, Boise State, East Carolina)
Low G5 FCS type (MAC schools, San jose State, Georgia State)
High FCS FBS types (Montana, james madison, North Dakota State)
Low FCS like Presbyterian
High D2 HBCUs, Lone Star schools would be middle grounds of FCS.
04-11-2018 06:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,103
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 369
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #42
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-10-2018 08:44 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

Whatever they want - it's more about freedom as a principle and playing under the same set of rules as the banner institutions that represent FBS.

That's kind of non responsive. Do they just want to be labeled "autonomous" or do they want to do something they aren't now permitted to do?
04-12-2018 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,604
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 623
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #43
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-12-2018 08:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:44 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

Whatever they want - it's more about freedom as a principle and playing under the same set of rules as the banner institutions that represent FBS.

That's kind of non responsive. Do they just want to be labeled "autonomous" or do they want to do something they aren't now permitted to do?

Well, a "label" can be important in a tangible sense, because it can reflect the capacity to do something, even if you don't want to do it right now.

It's always nice, and meaningful, to know that you have the power to do something, even if you haven't decided if you want to or not. That's autonomy.
04-12-2018 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,903
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #44
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-12-2018 08:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:44 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

Whatever they want - it's more about freedom as a principle and playing under the same set of rules as the banner institutions that represent FBS.

That's kind of non responsive. Do they just want to be labeled "autonomous" or do they want to do something they aren't now permitted to do?

The P5 - as a group and as a collective - decided on autonomy in regards to issues such as stipends and recruiting rules, as well as scheduling (like the B1G/SEC mandating each team play one OOC P5 team per year). These five conferences came together and decided on an autonomous structure - without consultation of the G5 - and is another prime example of a clear divide within FBS.

The fact that the G5 are able to follow these autonomous guidelines is irrelevant. They were, and are not currently, involved with any macro-discussions with the P5. They react and adjust to the guidelines provided to them. The separation in conference television revenue is yet another indicator of such a divide. Any wins/losses between the two groups, in bowl games or otherwise, is very much irrelevant. A NY6 win, or a OOC September upset, does not grant access to a team or a conference to be accepted into the Power Five. If anything, it most likely just encourages a majority of members within the P5 to avoid scheduling high-G5 schools because of the limited benefit it would ultimately provide.

In summary, any G5 conference "demanding" autonomy is simply wasted effort. They can easily incorporate any legislation the P5 draw up and/or approve, but that doesn't include them with the P5 decision process - and more importantly - the money/revenue/exposure they currently receive.
04-12-2018 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,879
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #45
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-12-2018 08:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:44 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

Whatever they want - it's more about freedom as a principle and playing under the same set of rules as the banner institutions that represent FBS.

That's kind of non responsive. Do they just want to be labeled "autonomous" or do they want to do something they aren't now permitted to do?

AAC is not demanding autonomy, but "Power 6" means investing in doing everything the autonomy conferences do. Separating from the four behind them, but keeping pace with the five ahead of them keeps the AAC on the path to strategic goal of being on the right side of the next divide.

Read the AAC Strategic Plan.
Pillar 1, Student Health Safety and Well-Being, talks about "Adopt autonomous legislation that enhances the well-being and opportunities for our student-athletes.
Pillar 3, Athletic Excellence, says "By virtue of its competitive success and its adoption of autonomous intiatives..."
04-12-2018 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,604
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 623
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #46
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-12-2018 08:52 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 08:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:44 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

Whatever they want - it's more about freedom as a principle and playing under the same set of rules as the banner institutions that represent FBS.

That's kind of non responsive. Do they just want to be labeled "autonomous" or do they want to do something they aren't now permitted to do?

The P5 - as a group and as a collective - decided on autonomy in regards to issues such as stipends and recruiting rules, as well as scheduling (like the B1G/SEC mandating each team play one OOC P5 team per year). These five conferences came together and decided on an autonomous structure - without consultation of the G5 - and is another prime example of a clear divide within FBS.

The fact that the G5 are able to follow these autonomous guidelines is irrelevant.

Yes, the G5 are not autonomous, because they cannot initiate actions on their own, as the P5 can. They can only 'match' what the P5 decide to do.

Matching what someone else is dictating is the opposite of autonomy. 07-coffee3
04-12-2018 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,746
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 134
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #47
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-12-2018 08:56 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 08:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:44 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

Whatever they want - it's more about freedom as a principle and playing under the same set of rules as the banner institutions that represent FBS.

That's kind of non responsive. Do they just want to be labeled "autonomous" or do they want to do something they aren't now permitted to do?

AAC is not demanding autonomy, but "Power 6" means investing in doing everything the autonomy conferences do. Separating from the four behind them, but keeping pace with the five ahead of them keeps the AAC on the path to strategic goal of being on the right side of the next divide.

Read the AAC Strategic Plan.
Pillar 1, Student Health Safety and Well-Being, talks about "Adopt autonomous legislation that enhances the well-being and opportunities for our student-athletes.
Pillar 3, Athletic Excellence, says "By virtue of its competitive success and its adoption of autonomous intiatives..."


AAC and MWC are leaving the other three behind. I have to say that MVFC, Big Sky, CAA, Jacksonville State and a couple of the Southland schools have caught up or doing better than the other three.
04-12-2018 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,551
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 155
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #48
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-10-2018 09:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

They can make their own decisions on football matters as autonomous conferences.

For other sports the voting is 3 votes for a P5, 2 votes for a G5 and 1 vote for a non-FBS league.

Interesting, so by virtue of fielding FBS football, a conference receives a weighted vote worth double non-FBS conferences on matters not related to football. IIRC, CUSA was considered an equity partner (equal share vote) under the old BCS structure even though they weren't AQ. Not that it ever really amounted to much, just interesting to note.
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2018 03:54 PM by gulfcoastgal.)
04-12-2018 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,459
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #49
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-12-2018 03:05 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 09:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

They can make their own decisions on football matters as autonomous conferences.

For other sports the voting is 3 votes for a P5, 2 votes for a G5 and 1 vote for a non-FBS league.

Interesting, so by virtue of fielding FBS football, a conference receives a weighted vote worth double non-FBS conferences on matters not related to football. IIRC, CUSA was considered an equity partner (equal share vote) under the old BCS structure even though they weren't AQ. Not that it ever really amounted to much, just interesting to note.

At the time that equal share vote was given to CUSA 1.0 it was before the carnage of the BCS system redefined any conference without an AQ to the system as inferior.

MAC/Big West were considered inferior back then of course and not part of the CFA package which was a huge loss of income for both from the 750k per school cut they were receiving as part of the last NCAA controlled contract. It is surprising that none of the MAC programs moved down around that time.
04-16-2018 11:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,052
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 303
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #50
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-16-2018 11:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  MAC/Big West were considered inferior back then of course and not part of the CFA package which was a huge loss of income for both from the 750k per school cut they were receiving as part of the last NCAA controlled contract. It is surprising that none of the MAC programs moved down around that time.

Source on that? IT's popped up now in 2 different threads.

This article from 2004 gives the value of the voided 1984 contract as $74M. Dividing that by...wikipedia says 110 Division 1A teams would give a little under $740,000.

But it seems that payment was per apperance. Burciaga is the judge in NCAA vs Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma:

Quote:"Burciaga pointed out an example of the control and price fixing by noting that in 1981, Oklahoma and the University of Southern California (both then ranked in the top 5 of the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll) appeared on 200 stations in a regional broadcast. On the same weekend, ABC televised a game between The Citadel and Appalachian State on four stations. All four teams received the same amount of money for appearing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2018 10:55 AM by johnbragg.)
04-17-2018 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,604
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 623
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #51
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 10:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  MAC/Big West were considered inferior back then of course and not part of the CFA package which was a huge loss of income for both from the 750k per school cut they were receiving as part of the last NCAA controlled contract. It is surprising that none of the MAC programs moved down around that time.

Source on that? IT's popped up now in 2 different threads.

This article from 2004 gives the value of the voided 1984 contract as $74M. Dividing that by...wikipedia says 110 Division 1A teams would give a little under $740,000.

But it seems that payment was per apperance. Burciaga is the judge in NCAA vs Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma:

Quote:"Burciaga pointed out an example of the control and price fixing by noting that in 1981, Oklahoma and the University of Southern California (both then ranked in the top 5 of the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll) appeared on 200 stations in a regional broadcast. On the same weekend, ABC televised a game between The Citadel and Appalachian State on four stations. All four teams received the same amount of money for appearing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

Yes, the payment structure had two classifications, "national" and "regional". Typically, the fee for appearing in a "national" broadcast was twice that of fee for "regional", so if a game was classified "national", a school would get about $700,000, if regional they would get $350,000.

But as that example shows, the NCAA was tricky, they could send a game like USC vs Oklahoma, which was of obvious national interest (I recall watching it, going on 37 years ago), to 95% of all areas but because it wasn't literally 100% still call it "regional" and thus avoid paying the bigger amount.
04-17-2018 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,052
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 303
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #52
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-17-2018 10:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  MAC/Big West were considered inferior back then of course and not part of the CFA package which was a huge loss of income for both from the 750k per school cut they were receiving as part of the last NCAA controlled contract. It is surprising that none of the MAC programs moved down around that time.

Source on that? IT's popped up now in 2 different threads.

This article from 2004 gives the value of the voided 1984 contract as $74M. Dividing that by...wikipedia says 110 Division 1A teams would give a little under $740,000.

But it seems that payment was per apperance. Burciaga is the judge in NCAA vs Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma:

Quote:"Burciaga pointed out an example of the control and price fixing by noting that in 1981, Oklahoma and the University of Southern California (both then ranked in the top 5 of the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll) appeared on 200 stations in a regional broadcast. On the same weekend, ABC televised a game between The Citadel and Appalachian State on four stations. All four teams received the same amount of money for appearing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

Yes, the payment structure had two classifications, "national" and "regional". Typically, the fee for appearing in a "national" broadcast was twice that of fee for "regional", so if a game was classified "national", a school would get about $700,000, if regional they would get $350,000.

But as that example shows, the NCAA was tricky, they could send a game like USC vs Oklahoma, which was of obvious national interest (I recall watching it, going on 37 years ago), to 95% of all areas but because it wasn't literally 100% still call it "regional" and thus avoid paying the bigger amount.

But you still got jack if you weren't one of the 50 or so teams that got to appear on TV, right?

Actually wait, that 50 estimate is low--I figured 12 weeks, 2 games a week, 2 teams per game = 48. But I have no idea how many regional games were televised.
04-17-2018 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,885
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 466
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #53
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 10:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  But it seems that payment was per apperance. Burciaga is the judge in NCAA vs Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma:

Quote:"Burciaga pointed out an example of the control and price fixing by noting that in 1981, Oklahoma and the University of Southern California (both then ranked in the top 5 of the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll) appeared on 200 stations in a regional broadcast. On the same weekend, ABC televised a game between The Citadel and Appalachian State on four stations. All four teams received the same amount of money for appearing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

The payments per appearance made to the schools were very small, and the NCAA kept a large chunk of the money for itself (as they do now with the March Madness TV money).

This article says that in 1982, Division I-A schools received a total of $7 million from televised football games. That is an average of about $70,000 per school, and because it's a pay-per-appearance deal, some schools were on TV twice, and some were on not at all, and those that weren't on TV at all didn't get any of the money, unless their conference required the teams that were on TV to share the appearance money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...db7be2a5c/
04-17-2018 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,604
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 623
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #54
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 11:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  But you still got jack if you weren't one of the 50 or so teams that got to appear on TV, right?

Actually wait, that 50 estimate is low--I figured 12 weeks, 2 games a week, 2 teams per game = 48. But I have no idea how many regional games were televised.

This NY Times article from July 31st, 1981 is pretty fascinating. It reports on the new 1982-1985 college football TV deal signed that day with ABC and CBS. Some highlights:

1) The deal is for $264m for the four years, double what ABC had been paying, which was $31m a year.

2) The deal is hailed as a "major victory" for the NCAA, as it is expected to quell recent complaints by power schools, which were threatening to sign their own deal:

"This new agreement was a major victory for the N.C.A.A. and its executive director, Walter Byers, who is the primary negotiator in such matters for the association. A recent challenge to the N.C.A.A. and its television policies had been mounted by the College Football Association, whose 62 major football members threatened to negotiate their own contract with a network.

The N.C.A.A. appears to have lessened that threat by getting the richest television contract in college sports history."

Of course, as it turned out, the power schools were not quelled, and the last two years of this deal, 1984 and 1985, would actually later be voided by the courts.

3) Also, as a concession to the power schools, the deal now allowed a maximum of 3 TV appearances by a school, 2 national and 1 regional.

National games would now pay $1 million (escalating a little over the contract life), regional broadcasts $800,000 ... up from $300,000 for national and $210,000 for regional in the expiring 1981 contract.

So that means USC and Oklahoma got $210,000 each for that 1981 game (about $530,000 in today's money).

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/31/sport...works.html
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2018 11:49 AM by quo vadis.)
04-17-2018 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,504
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 654
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #55
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 11:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-17-2018 10:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  But it seems that payment was per apperance. Burciaga is the judge in NCAA vs Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma:

Quote:"Burciaga pointed out an example of the control and price fixing by noting that in 1981, Oklahoma and the University of Southern California (both then ranked in the top 5 of the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll) appeared on 200 stations in a regional broadcast. On the same weekend, ABC televised a game between The Citadel and Appalachian State on four stations. All four teams received the same amount of money for appearing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

The payments per appearance made to the schools were very small, and the NCAA kept a large chunk of the money for itself (as they do now with the March Madness TV money).

This article says that in 1982, Division I-A schools received a total of $7 million from televised football games. That is an average of about $70,000 per school, and because it's a pay-per-appearance deal, some schools were on TV twice, and some were on not at all, and those that weren't on TV at all didn't get any of the money, unless their conference required the teams that were on TV to share the appearance money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...db7be2a5c/

There was a small base distribution to each conference. Plus each conference was guaranteed one appearance every two years and no team was permitted more than 5 national appearances in a rolling two year period.

It was a two-part deal.

The network paid a fee to the NCAA for the right to be the exclusive distributor. That money went to the NCAA with some turned back in the form of the per school payment (sent directly to the conference those in a conference).

The second part was the network "buying" the game. If for example ABC wanted to show OU-Texas, they would contact the home team for the game and request to buy the game and have the home team move the kickoff to accommodate TV. If the school agreed, ABC then sent one check to Texas and one check to Oklahoma.

It was not home team based like current contracts.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2018 12:44 PM by arkstfan.)
04-17-2018 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 381
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #56
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-10-2018 09:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

They can make their own decisions on football matters as autonomous conferences.

For other sports the voting is 3 votes for a P5, 2 votes for a G5 and 1 vote for a non-FBS league.

Interesting. So how does that work for the Big East? They're not an FBS conference so they're non-autonomous and they only get 1 vote, but the media considers them a "power league"?
04-17-2018 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,551
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 155
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #57
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 01:07 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 09:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

They can make their own decisions on football matters as autonomous conferences.

For other sports the voting is 3 votes for a P5, 2 votes for a G5 and 1 vote for a non-FBS league.

Interesting. So how does that work for the Big East? They're not an FBS conference so they're non-autonomous and they only get 1 vote, but the media considers them a "power league"?

That's the whole premise of the P6 AAC narrative. It's made up media verbiage. In terms of NCAA power structure transitioning from BCS to CFP, teams from CUSA/BE (new and old) saw diminished voting power...their current conferences that is (with NBE being slashed the most).

ETA: Like I previously mentioned, CUSA was a full voting member, but was never promoted as equal in the press due to being non-AQ. Just b/c the Big East lost voting power within the NCAA hierarchy doesn't mean squat when it comes to press.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2018 02:15 PM by gulfcoastgal.)
04-17-2018 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,504
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 654
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #58
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 02:06 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(04-17-2018 01:07 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 09:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 08:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

They can make their own decisions on football matters as autonomous conferences.

For other sports the voting is 3 votes for a P5, 2 votes for a G5 and 1 vote for a non-FBS league.

Interesting. So how does that work for the Big East? They're not an FBS conference so they're non-autonomous and they only get 1 vote, but the media considers them a "power league"?

That's the whole premise of the P6 AAC narrative. It's made up media verbiage. In terms of NCAA power structure transitioning from BCS to CFP, teams from CUSA/BE (new and old) saw diminished voting power...their current conferences that is (with NBE being slashed the most).

ETA: Like I previously mentioned, CUSA was a full voting member, but was never promoted as equal in the press due to being non-AQ. Just b/c the Big East lost voting power within the NCAA hierarchy doesn't mean squat when it comes to press.
The WAC was full (ie. 3 votes) and after the split the WAC received 1.5 votes and MWC 1.5 votes.
04-17-2018 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,551
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 155
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #59
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-Autonomy ...
^ Good to know, thanks.
04-17-2018 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,052
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 303
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #60
RE: NCAA Recognizes 3 Division I "subdivisions": FCS, FBS-Autonomy, FBS-Non-...
(04-17-2018 01:07 PM)McKinney Wrote:  Interesting. So how does that work for the Big East? They're not an FBS conference so they're non-autonomous and they only get 1 vote, but the media considers them a "power league"?

As far as the rules are concerned, we the Big East are no different than America East or the Big West. But, in terms of the most important concession, the autobid, we were given respect and status. On other matters, we're generally comfortable with what The Powers That Be want the NCAA to do--rig things for the rich and powerful, which we are.
04-17-2018 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.