Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
Author Message
Wahoowa84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,076
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #21
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 12:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Wow. The knives are out and disdain of Emmert is becoming even more transparent. The fact that both Sankey (SEC) and Bowlsby (B12) are making their grievances public is amazing. They are not going to let Emmert win the public relations war and have oversized influence over college athletics.

Emmert has been masterful in maintaining power…for himself and the NCAA. IMO, Sankey makes a great point when he points out that Alabama and Binghamton athletics share the same NCAA governance requirements for D1 scholarships, yet the financials of the athletic departments are wildly different. SUNY schools can barely afford D1 (https://www.uticaod.com/news/20200316/de...-athletics) while the Crimson Tide wants/needs to provide more scholarships.

Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I don't think low-income schools should be protected this way, at the expense of athletes. If a school doesn't have the money to compete fully at the highest level, they should drop down divisions or something. Athletes shouldn't suffer to boost them.

It’s not a simple argument to communicate to the general public. The A5 schools want/need to offer all full scholarships and more scholarships in certain sports. From the A5 perspective, Title IX may actually be helping their business model (relative to other D1 universities).

It's fascinating since it flies in the face of a lot of heartburn over how non-revenue sports were supposedly in danger with deregulation, NLI, etc. About half of this article was spent on how the P5 actually *wants* to spend more on non-revenue sports but can't due to NCAA scholarship limits.

That goes to my point in another thread: the power universities legitimately have zero problem with Title IX. It's a total red herring for fans and, regardless of what people think, it's the law and, if anything, it has a lot more strength today in the public realm than it did when it was first passed nearly 5 decades ago.

The end of the article was also surprising. Emmert's vision is to decentralize responsibilities away from the NCAA...into sports-specific agencies (e.g., USA Gymnastics, USA Volleyball, etc.). Yet Bowlsby directly questions whether that won't lead to the same problems...fundamentally asking for clarification on how student-athletes benefit from the decentralization. Just stripping away at the facade of some arguments.
07-19-2021 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,076
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #22
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 12:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Wow. The knives are out and disdain of Emmert is becoming even more transparent. The fact that both Sankey (SEC) and Bowlsby (B12) are making their grievances public is amazing. They are not going to let Emmert win the public relations war and have oversized influence over college athletics.

Emmert has been masterful in maintaining power…for himself and the NCAA. IMO, Sankey makes a great point when he points out that Alabama and Binghamton athletics share the same NCAA governance requirements for D1 scholarships, yet the financials of the athletic departments are wildly different. SUNY schools can barely afford D1 (https://www.uticaod.com/news/20200316/de...-athletics) while the Crimson Tide wants/needs to provide more scholarships.

Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I don't think low-income schools should be protected this way, at the expense of athletes. If a school doesn't have the money to compete fully at the highest level, they should drop down divisions or something. Athletes shouldn't suffer to boost them.

It’s not a simple argument to communicate to the general public. The A5 schools want/need to offer all full scholarships and more scholarships in certain sports. From the A5 perspective, Title IX may actually be helping their business model (relative to other D1 universities).

It's fascinating since it flies in the face of a lot of heartburn over how non-revenue sports were supposedly in danger with deregulation, NLI, etc. About half of this article was spent on how the P5 actually *wants* to spend more on non-revenue sports but can't due to NCAA scholarship limits.

That goes to my point in another thread: the power universities legitimately have zero problem with Title IX. It's a total red herring for fans and, regardless of what people think, it's the law and, if anything, it has a lot more strength today in the public realm than it did when it was first passed nearly 5 decades ago.

I think the A5 want to spend more (and what they are talking about is not that much more) on non-revenue sports under the current model. If suddenly--- the House court case ends up requiring a 50-50 revenue split between players and the school---that desire could dry up quite quickly. That said---I agree that a massive reorganization of D1 is likely coming. I see no way around at this point---especially if you think full on pay-for-play is the end game. My sense is pay-for-play will eventually be forced on the schools whether they like it or not.

Emmert needs to protect the revenue stream generated from the NCAA Tournament. The media contract runs for another decade. Restructuring of D1 may be coming, but there is a vested interest in being deliberate about changing this structure.
07-19-2021 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 18,157
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 865
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #23
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I agree that, in theory, more athletes could get full scholarships if the NCAA limits were not there.

But the scholarship limits don't just help low-revenue athletic departments, they also help high-revenue departments who want to offer a sport but don't have donors who want to go wild in a particular sport and fund full scholarships for every regular on the roster. Most schools are probably fine with (for example) the limits of 11.7 scholarship equivalents for baseball and 4.5 equivalents for men's tennis, because they see those as nice-to-have but not highest priority sports. They'd rather not have to deal with a few opponents with generous donors who would be happy to fund 25 baseball scholarships and 12 men's tennis scholarships.
07-19-2021 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,100
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 307
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #24
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
Emmert will be the fall guy, the whipping boy

For now I don't think anything comes of this. The P5 will continue to be granted ever more autonomy. The NCAA will likely allow them to do whatever they want, so long as the NCAA is not holding the liability bag. The P5 do not want to start a new regulatory and governing body from scratch. They like that this hassle is out of their hands.

The only realistic breakaway I can see is the P5 pulling Football and possibly Basketball from the NCAA and forming a lightweight governing body for those sports. Ultimately I think they will split their Athletic Departments into a revenue sports division and a non revenue sports division (basically everything except football and basketball), keeping the latter in the NCAA.

The current Athletic Department model is based on the NCAA requirements and organization. But if revenue sports need to be handled differently under different regulatory organization, and I thin it's clear they do, then they need to be under their own department. This is what any business would do, so I expect the same from schools (although it may take them some time to come to that conclusion).
07-19-2021 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,120
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 324
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #25
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 02:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I agree that, in theory, more athletes could get full scholarships if the NCAA limits were not there.

But the scholarship limits don't just help low-revenue athletic departments, they also help high-revenue departments who want to offer a sport but don't have donors who want to go wild in a particular sport and fund full scholarships for every regular on the roster. Most schools are probably fine with (for example) the limits of 11.7 scholarship equivalents for baseball and 4.5 equivalents for men's tennis, because they see those as nice-to-have but not highest priority sports. They'd rather not have to deal with a few opponents with generous donors who would be happy to fund 25 baseball scholarships and 12 men's tennis scholarships.

What about 20 basketball scholarships? 125 football scholarships?
07-19-2021 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 18,157
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 865
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #26
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 02:24 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 02:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I agree that, in theory, more athletes could get full scholarships if the NCAA limits were not there.

But the scholarship limits don't just help low-revenue athletic departments, they also help high-revenue departments who want to offer a sport but don't have donors who want to go wild in a particular sport and fund full scholarships for every regular on the roster. Most schools are probably fine with (for example) the limits of 11.7 scholarship equivalents for baseball and 4.5 equivalents for men's tennis, because they see those as nice-to-have but not highest priority sports. They'd rather not have to deal with a few opponents with generous donors who would be happy to fund 25 baseball scholarships and 12 men's tennis scholarships.

What about 20 basketball scholarships? 125 football scholarships?

Those are also things that many high-revenue athletic departments don't want to see. Especially because, in the highest profile sports, many of them would feel compelled to try to match it.

More important is what that would do to the rosters of all but a very few teams. If Ohio State gets an extra 40 football scholarships, they're going to be padding their depth chart with players who otherwise could be starting for other Big Ten teams, and those other teams will have less starting talent and less quality depth than they do now. There are, at most, only 5-10 football programs in FBS who would benefit from raising the scholarship limit that drastically.
07-19-2021 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,120
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 324
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #27
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 02:24 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 02:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I agree that, in theory, more athletes could get full scholarships if the NCAA limits were not there.

But the scholarship limits don't just help low-revenue athletic departments, they also help high-revenue departments who want to offer a sport but don't have donors who want to go wild in a particular sport and fund full scholarships for every regular on the roster. Most schools are probably fine with (for example) the limits of 11.7 scholarship equivalents for baseball and 4.5 equivalents for men's tennis, because they see those as nice-to-have but not highest priority sports. They'd rather not have to deal with a few opponents with generous donors who would be happy to fund 25 baseball scholarships and 12 men's tennis scholarships.

What about 20 basketball scholarships? 125 football scholarships?

Those are also things that many high-revenue athletic departments don't want to see. Especially because, in the highest profile sports, many of them would feel compelled to try to match it.

More important is what that would do to the rosters of all but a very few teams. If Ohio State gets an extra 40 football scholarships, they're going to be padding their depth chart with players who otherwise could be starting for other Big Ten teams, and those other teams will have less starting talent and less quality depth than they do now. There are, at most, only 5-10 football programs in FBS who would benefit from raising the scholarship limit that drastically.

Yes - it wasn't Tulane or Bowling Green that pushed to keep Nebraska from offering 110+ scholarships before the limits were in place -it was Kansas and Kansas State, etc.
07-19-2021 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,773
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 315
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #28
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
Is it time to SECede?
07-19-2021 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,583
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 116
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #29
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 03:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is it time to SECede?

Perhaps, but then it's got to find a way to schedule all its other sports, because the NCAA could simply kick them out altogether.
07-19-2021 03:47 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,812
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 561
I Root For: ODU and VCU
Location:
Post: #30
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 08:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  “We’re tired of being told by some small school up in the northeast that we can’t do something,” says one SEC school administrator. “Why is Alabama and Binghamton in the same division? We continue to put those two on equal footing and it’s about time that all of us admitted that.”

reading are fundamental
07-19-2021 04:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,516
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 219
I Root For: tOSU/UNL/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #31
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 01:48 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:51 AM)cubucks Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

Agreed. The Tide schedule that way because they are competing for playoff spots against other teams that schedule that way. Saban has said he wants tougher schedules, but Alabama isn't going to hurt its playoff prospects by being the only team that schedules 11 or 12 P5 opponents. No other playoff contender is going to unilaterally toughen up its schedules, either.

Alabama is obviously the greatest college football program in the history of this fabulous sport.

With that said, your comment is complete BS as far as I'm concerned. Why do you conveniently jump over 10 P5 games to 11 and 12? All BIG schools will play 10 P5 games in 2021 except for Indiana and Purdue is playing 11. That 2021 Alabama schedule is complete crap and the fans, I would hope, are demanding better!?!?!

I'm sure there are Big 12, ACC, PAC and other SEC schools playing 10 or more P5 games, I never looked into it.

Alabama's home games 2021:
Mercer
Southern Miss
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
New Mexico State
Auburn

If I'm a fan down there, that's not very attractive. I can't even imagine the abuse tOSU would take up here with those OOC games, ridiculous!

Tulsa and Akron say hello CUBucks. Bama play Miami, FL neutral site. Do if you look at OOC include all of them.
10 P5 vs 9 P5. Ohio State is playing Oregon plus 9 conference games.
Ohio State ooc > Alabama ooc
I'm not cherry picking as you are implying. Please research before debating.
07-19-2021 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,516
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 219
I Root For: tOSU/UNL/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #32
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 04:15 PM)cubucks Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 01:48 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:51 AM)cubucks Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

Agreed. The Tide schedule that way because they are competing for playoff spots against other teams that schedule that way. Saban has said he wants tougher schedules, but Alabama isn't going to hurt its playoff prospects by being the only team that schedules 11 or 12 P5 opponents. No other playoff contender is going to unilaterally toughen up its schedules, either.

Alabama is obviously the greatest college football program in the history of this fabulous sport.

With that said, your comment is complete BS as far as I'm concerned. Why do you conveniently jump over 10 P5 games to 11 and 12? All BIG schools will play 10 P5 games in 2021 except for Indiana and Purdue is playing 11. That 2021 Alabama schedule is complete crap and the fans, I would hope, are demanding better!?!?!

I'm sure there are Big 12, ACC, PAC and other SEC schools playing 10 or more P5 games, I never looked into it.

Alabama's home games 2021:
Mercer
Southern Miss
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
New Mexico State
Auburn

If I'm a fan down there, that's not very attractive. I can't even imagine the abuse tOSU would take up here with those OOC games, ridiculous!

Tulsa and Akron say hello CUBucks. Bama play Miami, FL neutral site. Do if you look at OOC include all of them.
10 P5 vs 9 P5. Ohio State is playing Oregon plus 9 conference games.
Ohio State ooc > Alabama ooc
I'm not cherry picking as you are implying. Please research before debating.
Also, if you read it correctly, you'll see I didn't include Miami because I was only showing the CRAP the Alabama athletic department is rewarding their fanbase with for home games.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2021 04:28 PM by cubucks.)
07-19-2021 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 36,385
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #33
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 02:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Emmert will be the fall guy, the whipping boy

For now I don't think anything comes of this. The P5 will continue to be granted ever more autonomy. The NCAA will likely allow them to do whatever they want, so long as the NCAA is not holding the liability bag. The P5 do not want to start a new regulatory and governing body from scratch. They like that this hassle is out of their hands.

The only realistic breakaway I can see is the P5 pulling Football and possibly Basketball from the NCAA and forming a lightweight governing body for those sports. Ultimately I think they will split their Athletic Departments into a revenue sports division and a non revenue sports division (basically everything except football and basketball), keeping the latter in the NCAA.

The current Athletic Department model is based on the NCAA requirements and organization. But if revenue sports need to be handled differently under different regulatory organization, and I thin it's clear they do, then they need to be under their own department. This is what any business would do, so I expect the same from schools (although it may take them some time to come to that conclusion).

I kinda think Emmert's getting a bit of bad rap. He doesnt control the NCAA---he just implements policy thats is decided by the schools. His job is to represent the stated desires of his membership---not to cram things his membership doesnt want down their throats. The final outcome may be the same---but the schools are looking to have their position on issues advocated by the head of the NCAA---not undermined.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2021 04:27 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-19-2021 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,076
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #34
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 02:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Emmert will be the fall guy, the whipping boy

For now I don't think anything comes of this. The P5 will continue to be granted ever more autonomy. The NCAA will likely allow them to do whatever they want, so long as the NCAA is not holding the liability bag. The P5 do not want to start a new regulatory and governing body from scratch. They like that this hassle is out of their hands.

The only realistic breakaway I can see is the P5 pulling Football and possibly Basketball from the NCAA and forming a lightweight governing body for those sports. Ultimately I think they will split their Athletic Departments into a revenue sports division and a non revenue sports division (basically everything except football and basketball), keeping the latter in the NCAA.

The current Athletic Department model is based on the NCAA requirements and organization. But if revenue sports need to be handled differently under different regulatory organization, and I thin it's clear they do, then they need to be under their own department. This is what any business would do, so I expect the same from schools (although it may take them some time to come to that conclusion).

I kinda think Emmert's getting a bit of bad rap. He doesnt control the NCAA---he just implements policy thats is decided by the schools. His job is to represent the stated desires of his membership---not to cram things his membership doesnt want down their throats. The final outcome may be the same---but the schools are looking to have their position on issues advocated by the head of the NCAA---not undermined.

Eh…I get that he advocates the most common D1 school viewpoints, but the positions have no intellectual underpinning. Governance and compliance are known quagmires…managing championships events are now being questioned. He’s not really providing a vision nor is the NCAA executing competent management.

After the SCOTUS ruling and NIL changes, he should be advocating for student-athletes rights.
07-19-2021 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,028
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #35
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
Maybe limit to that you have to have a minimum of a 10,000 seat stadium, or you can't be D1? Or?

BreaK D1 into 1A and 1AA for all sports. It is something that I have said in the past that the FBS schools want to break away from FCS schools and non-football schools. What would it mean?

It sounds like the SEC's man does not like to be dictated by schools like in the Big East anymore.

I could see this.
AAC + Wichita State adding football. Delaware, ODU, James Madison, Southern Mississippi, UConn, UMass or somebody else have to be 13 and 14th school.
ACC
Big 10
Big 12
CUSA
MAC
MWC
Pac 12
SEC
SBC
MVFC qualifies with all of their schools have the 10,000 seat stadiums.

Army, BYU, Liberty, New Mexico State, UConn and UMass. must have all their sports in an FBS conference.

Big Sky FBS would look like this:
UC-Davis
Cal. Poly
Eastern Washington could get over 11,000 capacity with temp seatings.
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Northern Arizona
Sacramento State

Northern Colorado and Portland State do not qualify.

Big South:
Hampton U.
North Carolina A&T
The rest do not.

CAA:
Delaware
Elon
James Madison
New Hampshire
Stony Brook
Towson
Villanova
William & Mary

Albany, Maine, Richmond and URI need to build up their stadiums some.

Ivy League all qualifies, but with no scholarships for football, they are losing out big money for football games if they have something like Boston College goes to Harvard University to play football.

MEAC:
Howard
Morgan State
Norfolk State
North Carolina Central
South Carolina State

OVC
Austin Peay State
Eastern Illinois
Morehead State
SE Missouri State
Murray State
Tenn. State
Tenn Tech

Patriot:
Bucknell
Colgate
Holy Cross
Lafayette
Lehigh

Fordham could get the money to get to 10,000.

Pioneer:
Dayton did mentioned at the past to going to FBS to keep up with Ohio State and the rest.
Drake

Southern:
Chattanooga
The Citadel
Furman
Mercer
VMI
Western Carolina
Wofford

East Tennessee State would expand their stadium to keep up.


Southland:
McNeese State
Nicholls
NW La. State

SWAC: All of them.

WAC:
Abilene Christian
UCA
Dixie State
EKU
Jacksonville State
Lamar
Sam Houston State
SFAU

Southern Utah and Tarleton State needs to build up.

D2 with 10000 seat stadiums:
Albany State
Central Missouri
Central Oklahoma is at 12,000, not 10,000 that is listed on Wiki. They added seats recently.
U. Of Charleston
Fort Valley State
Grand Valley State
Henderson State
Morehouse
Midwestern State
SE Oklahoma State
SW Oklahoma State
Slippery Rock
Texas A&M-Commerce
Texas A&M-Kingsville
UTPB
Tuskegee
Virginia Union
Valdosta State
Walsh
West Texas A&M

Wichita State, Little Rock and UTA must add football if they want to stay with this group.

UTRGV, Seattle, Grand Canyon, California Baptist and Utah Valley also must add football.

There are schools that are willing to be up there with the P5, but there are schools who hired bad leadership and who are anti-football.
07-19-2021 05:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 36,385
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #36
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 05:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Maybe limit to that you have to have a minimum of a 10,000 seat stadium, or you can't be D1? Or?

BreaK D1 into 1A and 1AA for all sports. It is something that I have said in the past that the FBS schools want to break away from FCS schools and non-football schools. What would it mean?

It sounds like the SEC's man does not like to be dictated by schools like in the Big East anymore.

I could see this.
AAC + Wichita State adding football. Delaware, ODU, James Madison, Southern Mississippi, UConn, UMass or somebody else have to be 13 and 14th school.
ACC
Big 10
Big 12
CUSA
MAC
MWC
Pac 12
SEC
SBC
MVFC qualifies with all of their schools have the 10,000 seat stadiums.

Army, BYU, Liberty, New Mexico State, UConn and UMass. must have all their sports in an FBS conference.

Big Sky FBS would look like this:
UC-Davis
Cal. Poly
Eastern Washington could get over 11,000 capacity with temp seatings.
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Northern Arizona
Sacramento State

Northern Colorado and Portland State do not qualify.

Big South:
Hampton U.
North Carolina A&T
The rest do not.

CAA:
Delaware
Elon
James Madison
New Hampshire
Stony Brook
Towson
Villanova
William & Mary

Albany, Maine, Richmond and URI need to build up their stadiums some.

Ivy League all qualifies, but with no scholarships for football, they are losing out big money for football games if they have something like Boston College goes to Harvard University to play football.

MEAC:
Howard
Morgan State
Norfolk State
North Carolina Central
South Carolina State

OVC
Austin Peay State
Eastern Illinois
Morehead State
SE Missouri State
Murray State
Tenn. State
Tenn Tech

Patriot:
Bucknell
Colgate
Holy Cross
Lafayette
Lehigh

Fordham could get the money to get to 10,000.

Pioneer:
Dayton did mentioned at the past to going to FBS to keep up with Ohio State and the rest.
Drake

Southern:
Chattanooga
The Citadel
Furman
Mercer
VMI
Western Carolina
Wofford

East Tennessee State would expand their stadium to keep up.


Southland:
McNeese State
Nicholls
NW La. State

SWAC: All of them.

WAC:
Abilene Christian
UCA
Dixie State
EKU
Jacksonville State
Lamar
Sam Houston State
SFAU

Southern Utah and Tarleton State needs to build up.

D2 with 10000 seat stadiums:
Albany State
Central Missouri
Central Oklahoma is at 12,000, not 10,000 that is listed on Wiki. They added seats recently.
U. Of Charleston
Fort Valley State
Grand Valley State
Henderson State
Morehouse
Midwestern State
SE Oklahoma State
SW Oklahoma State
Slippery Rock
Texas A&M-Commerce
Texas A&M-Kingsville
UTPB
Tuskegee
Virginia Union
Valdosta State
Walsh
West Texas A&M

Wichita State, Little Rock and UTA must add football if they want to stay with this group.

UTRGV, Seattle, Grand Canyon, California Baptist and Utah Valley also must add football.

There are schools that are willing to be up there with the P5, but there are schools who hired bad leadership and who are anti-football.

I see absolutely ZERO motivation for the AAC to do any of that.
07-19-2021 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 36,385
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #37
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 04:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 02:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Emmert will be the fall guy, the whipping boy

For now I don't think anything comes of this. The P5 will continue to be granted ever more autonomy. The NCAA will likely allow them to do whatever they want, so long as the NCAA is not holding the liability bag. The P5 do not want to start a new regulatory and governing body from scratch. They like that this hassle is out of their hands.

The only realistic breakaway I can see is the P5 pulling Football and possibly Basketball from the NCAA and forming a lightweight governing body for those sports. Ultimately I think they will split their Athletic Departments into a revenue sports division and a non revenue sports division (basically everything except football and basketball), keeping the latter in the NCAA.

The current Athletic Department model is based on the NCAA requirements and organization. But if revenue sports need to be handled differently under different regulatory organization, and I thin it's clear they do, then they need to be under their own department. This is what any business would do, so I expect the same from schools (although it may take them some time to come to that conclusion).

I kinda think Emmert's getting a bit of bad rap. He doesnt control the NCAA---he just implements policy thats is decided by the schools. His job is to represent the stated desires of his membership---not to cram things his membership doesnt want down their throats. The final outcome may be the same---but the schools are looking to have their position on issues advocated by the head of the NCAA---not undermined.

Eh…I get that he advocates the most common D1 school viewpoints, but the positions have no intellectual underpinning. Governance and compliance are known quagmires…managing championships events are now being questioned. He’s not really providing a vision nor is the NCAA executing competent management.

After the SCOTUS ruling and NIL changes, he should be advocating for student-athletes rights.

lol---I mean---I agree to an extent---but its kinda like a lawyer. Sometimes your client is just full of crap--but you still have to represent his point of view as best you can. That said, as long as the amateur argument remained, the NCAA school position at least had some sort of viable foundation. Now that the amateur model defense has been found to be irrelevant by the courts---I see nothing on the horizon for the NCAA, the conferences, and the schools but legal loss after legal loss. Their only hope is a legislative exception and thats probably not coming. I think there is a deal to be made on the legislative side---but I suspect they are going to have to submit to government oversight for college sports AND share a substantial percentage of the money with the players in order to coax a legislative exception from the Congress.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2021 06:07 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-19-2021 06:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 40,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1329
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #38
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 01:29 PM)cubucks Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 11:51 AM)cubucks Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

Agreed. The Tide schedule that way because they are competing for playoff spots against other teams that schedule that way. Saban has said he wants tougher schedules, but Alabama isn't going to hurt its playoff prospects by being the only team that schedules 11 or 12 P5 opponents. No other playoff contender is going to unilaterally toughen up its schedules, either.

Alabama is obviously the greatest college football program in the history of this fabulous sport.

With that said, your comment is complete BS as far as I'm concerned. Why do you conveniently jump over 10 P5 games to 11 and 12? All BIG schools will play 10 P5 games in 2021 except for Indiana and Purdue is playing 11. That 2021 Alabama schedule is complete crap and the fans, I would hope, are demanding better!?!?!

I'm sure there are Big 12, ACC, PAC and other SEC schools playing 10 or more P5 games, I never looked into it.

Alabama's home games 2021:
Mercer
Southern Miss
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
New Mexico State
Auburn

If I'm a fan down there, that's not very attractive. I can't even imagine the abuse tOSU would take up here with those OOC games, ridiculous!

Well, if I'm a Tide fan (and I'm decidedly NOT, but if) and I look at that schedule, what I see is home games vs

Ole Miss ....... a traditional rival coached by Lane Kiffin for extra spice.

Tennessee .... Another rival.

LSU ............. Another rival.

Auburn ........ Auburn.

So that's four very attractive games to me. Now, does this mean I think every game will be great? Of course not. Realistically, we will probably clobber Tennessee and Ole Miss. We might clobber Auburn and LSU too, but those are wild-cards. But that's fine! I like seeing my Tide clobber rivals, I'm not looking to have my heart stop every Saturday, LOL.

True, the games vs Mercer, NM State and USM are weak sauce. But still, why would I complain? I want us to win the SEC and CFP titles, and you can't do that getting beat up every week playing good teams. You need breathers, and these are the breathers.

Plus, to me, every home game is basically an "event". There's only 7 times out of 365 days that my beloved Tide take the field at home. So why wouldn't I want to be there for any of them?

I would personally have zero complaints.
Auburn and LSU are "events". Tennessee and Ole Miss are historical conference games, not moving the needle as much as the former.

Alabama is the absolute best and you have 3 home slots to fill and that's what you give your fans?

I'll remember your "event" comment when you're constantly throwing around Massey Rankings this fall. I too think Massey is the cleanest, but I'm not defending crap when I see it.
Greatness doesn't make you immune to criticism.

I argue this with complete respect to my fellow posters.

Yep, I'll be throwing them around, but why not?

I said some of those games were weak sauce. And that may very well be reflected in the Massey rankings. You play soft opponents your SOS suffers.

Sometimes, people see these OOC games and think Alabama is playing a soft schedule. But if the conference schedule is tough, the overall schedule may still be too.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2021 06:22 PM by quo vadis.)
07-19-2021 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 40,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1329
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #39
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 02:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Emmert will be the fall guy, the whipping boy

Well since he makes about $3 million a year, he'll be a highly-paid one.
07-19-2021 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 40,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1329
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #40
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-19-2021 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 02:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Emmert will be the fall guy, the whipping boy

For now I don't think anything comes of this. The P5 will continue to be granted ever more autonomy. The NCAA will likely allow them to do whatever they want, so long as the NCAA is not holding the liability bag. The P5 do not want to start a new regulatory and governing body from scratch. They like that this hassle is out of their hands.

The only realistic breakaway I can see is the P5 pulling Football and possibly Basketball from the NCAA and forming a lightweight governing body for those sports. Ultimately I think they will split their Athletic Departments into a revenue sports division and a non revenue sports division (basically everything except football and basketball), keeping the latter in the NCAA.

The current Athletic Department model is based on the NCAA requirements and organization. But if revenue sports need to be handled differently under different regulatory organization, and I thin it's clear they do, then they need to be under their own department. This is what any business would do, so I expect the same from schools (although it may take them some time to come to that conclusion).

I kinda think Emmert's getting a bit of bad rap. He doesnt control the NCAA---he just implements policy thats is decided by the schools. His job is to represent the stated desires of his membership---not to cram things his membership doesnt want down their throats. The final outcome may be the same---but the schools are looking to have their position on issues advocated by the head of the NCAA---not undermined.

Eh, I think the truth is in between. No, Emmert doesn't control the NCAA - just like Aresco doesn't control the AAC. But nor is he a mere puppet who implements presidential policies. If he was just that, he wouldn't be making $3 million a year.

The members hired Emmert, just as the AAC schools hire Aresco, to be a leader, to be the point man in formulating policy for the Association and conference because (a) they allegedly have more skills in doing this and (b) the presidents of schools have many other duties to think about beyond athletics. So you hire a "pro" to do that, think about that sports entity all the time - with your approval of the ideas they come up with, of course.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2021 06:26 PM by quo vadis.)
07-19-2021 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.