OT: New NCAA plan will give major conferences more power

[For-DaLove]

Reading another article (found here: http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20140424/SPORTS/304240045/NCAA-endorses-idea-increased-autonomy-power-conferences-Big-Ten-included) it looks like the Big Five have the authority to make these rules, but the smaller conferences are only allowed to have a group vote on whether or not to adopt these rules that were put in place... Recruiting is going to be a sh!tstorm when the BCS schools are paying x # of $$$s every year and small schools are held at the will of their big brothers.

So you're telling me nothing is going to change except the payments will be legal?

[sludevil]

I understand BCS revenues are much larger, but their expenses on this items alone are going to be almost ten times what they are at basketball only schools if not more because health insurance is going to be far more expensive for football players.

The thing you don't seem to understand is this move is being made for football. basketball is just coming along for the ride. When revenues are needed to cover these expenses for the woman's sports they are going to grab them from the men's basketball program. They are not going to take away any money from the football programs for who they want to make these changes for. They are going to pour an even larger share of revenue into football. They have to if they don't want to get left behind.

Also, they won't break away from the NCAA tournament. They don't want to face an anti trust suit.

Why would they deplete basketball, though? That doesn't make any sense. While football is certainly a much bigger earner than basketball, basketball is the only other revenue sport they have. (Their TV partners probably wouldn't be too thrilled about such a decision, either.) It seems more likely they'll just chop olympic sports if they need to cut expenses. (Although, again, I'm not sure how necessary any of this is going to be, given massive - and increasing - revenue streams from TV deals.)

At the end of the day, if BCS conferences determine they can efficiently steal basketball market share from smaller conferences (AAC, NBE, A10, MWC) by increasing player compensation, why wouldn't they? They get better players, they sell more tickets and merchandise, their TV deals become more valuable, alums donate more money, and more high schoolers apply for admission. These schools have demonstrated an eagerness to capture value, and a willingness to look outside football in capturing that value (see Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Colorado, Utah, and, to an extent, Notre Dame in conference realignment) - why would they change now?

Re: breaking away from the NCAA: I'm no antitrust expert, but I don't think the issue is nearly as clear as you're suggesting.

[kshoe]

Why would they deplete basketball, though? That doesn't make any sense. While football is certainly a much bigger earner than basketball, basketball is the only other revenue sport they have. (Their TV partners probably wouldn't be too thrilled about such a decision, either.) It seems more likely they'll just chop olympic sports if they need to cut expenses. (Although, again, I'm not sure how necessary any of this is going to be, given massive - and increasing - revenue streams from TV deals.)

At the end of the day, if BCS conferences determine they can efficiently steal basketball market share from smaller conferences (AAC, NBE, A10, MWC) by increasing player compensation, why wouldn't they? They get better players, they sell more tickets and merchandise, their TV deals become more valuable, alums donate more money, and more high schoolers apply for admission. These schools have demonstrated an eagerness to capture value, and a willingness to look outside football in capturing that value (see Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Colorado, Utah, and, to an extent, Notre Dame in conference realignment) - why would they change now?

Re: breaking away from the NCAA: I'm no antitrust expert, but I don't think the issue is nearly as clear as you're suggesting.

At this time, all the BCS conferences seem to be asking for is the ability to pay their players a nominal amount, roughly equal to the amount necessary to cover the full costs of school. I suppose someday that nominal amount could be modestly increased. However, as long as the amounts are capped and reasonable, the non-BCS schools will be able to afford the same payments and keep up.

The only way this becomes a real disaster for the basketball only schools is if this turns into a true open market bidding system for players. Nothing I have seen suggests that is really where this is heading.

[cgeldmacher]

I seriously doubt what the BCS conferences want is all out spending wars with unlimited payouts to players. What they want is to pay the players a nominal amount; think $5-$20k a year to cover the expenses of college. Once they do that they are hopeful that some of the outcry about kids not being paid, legal lawsuits like Obannon, under-the-table payments, etc. will be diminished.

So, let's assume the dollar amount they want to pay players is $10k a year. For a basketball team that means $130k a year. Even if Title 9 forces schools to also pay the women's team, that means only $260k a year.

SLU doesn't have unlimited funds but we can certainly swing that if necessary to keep up. It equates to 1/5 of a single NCAA tourney game's payout.

Two things: 1) The stipend does worry me if the big schools are allowed to pay players $20,000.00 per year, then SLU would have to also pay the same to compete. Under your calculations, that comes to over half a million a year. We already have issues about paying our assistant coaches. What would having to shell out $520,000.00 extra per year do to that issue.

2) The proposal discussed schools being allowed to pay for parents travel to games. If Kentucky said to the Tatums, "we'll fly you round trip to any game you want to go to, including tournaments in Hawaii, the Carribean, etc., and put you up in the nicest hotels," are the Tatums going to find that more appealing than driving down to SLU for home games and walking from the parking garage to Chaifetz when its 10 degrees? I tend to think they would. The result would be us having zero chance at landing the top guys.

[Old guy]

I honestly do not think any of the issues being discussed is either easy or straightforward, nor is the legality of doing or not doing any of the actions being mentioned. This whole confusion will eventually resolve itself and stabilize itself, but until this happens we are bound to see a very unstable period and also a period with much change.

[Billikenboy]

Two things: 1) The stipend does worry me if the big schools are allowed to pay players $20,000.00 per year, then SLU would have to also pay the same to compete. Under your calculations, that comes to over half a million a year. We already have issues about paying our assistant coaches. What would having to shell out $520,000.00 extra per year do to that issue.

2) The proposal discussed schools being allowed to pay for parents travel to games. If Kentucky said to the Tatums, "we'll fly you round trip to any game you want to go to, including tournaments in Hawaii, the Carribean, etc., and put you up in the nicest hotels," are the Tatums going to find that more appealing than driving down to SLU for home games and walking from the parking garage to Chaifetz when its 10 degrees? I tend to think they would. The result would be us having zero chance at landing the top guys.

Are these bad things?

[For-DaLove]

Two things: 1) The stipend does worry me if the big schools are allowed to pay players $20,000.00 per year, then SLU would have to also pay the same to compete. Under your calculations, that comes to over half a million a year. We already have issues about paying our assistant coaches. What would having to shell out $520,000.00 extra per year do to that issue.

2) The proposal discussed schools being allowed to pay for parents travel to games. If Kentucky said to the Tatums, "we'll fly you round trip to any game you want to go to, including tournaments in Hawaii, the Carribean, etc., and put you up in the nicest hotels," are the Tatums going to find that more appealing than driving down to SLU for home games and walking from the parking garage to Chaifetz when its 10 degrees? I tend to think they would. The result would be us having zero chance at landing the top guys.

Would the Tatums not have to walk at all at those other destinations? And you act like St. Louis is the only place that is cold. I get your point but I don't think it carries much weight.

I think your example would have been much better if you had used a player not from St. Louis, but we aren't landing top 50 kids from other areas so it doesn't matter anyways

[brianstl]

Why would they deplete basketball, though? That doesn't make any sense. While football is certainly a much bigger earner than basketball, basketball is the only other revenue sport they have. (Their TV partners probably wouldn't be too thrilled about such a decision, either.) It seems more likely they'll just chop olympic sports if they need to cut expenses. (Although, again, I'm not sure how necessary any of this is going to be, given massive - and increasing - revenue streams from TV deals.)

At the end of the day, if BCS conferences determine they can efficiently steal basketball market share from smaller conferences (AAC, NBE, A10, MWC) by increasing player compensation, why wouldn't they? They get better players, they sell more tickets and merchandise, their TV deals become more valuable, alums donate more money, and more high schoolers apply for admission. These schools have demonstrated an eagerness to capture value, and a willingness to look outside football in capturing that value (see Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Colorado, Utah, and, to an extent, Notre Dame in conference realignment) - why would they change now?

Re: breaking away from the NCAA: I'm no antitrust expert, but I don't think the issue is nearly as clear as you're suggesting.

The big TV contract money is for football. Have you seen the decline that has occurred in regular season basketball TV ratings that has occurred?

I think they will cut back on the Olympic sports, but I also think they will try to control the expenses on the men's basketball side like they haven't before. It isn't like Olympic sports are big budget items. It will be hard for most SEC schools to justify dumping more money into basketball when football is driving their economic engine and they need $5 million plus to cover these new expenses.

What do schools like Wake do? They already operate on a slim budget. Now they are going to have to add the huge expense of this for their football program. They know their football program sucks, but they need it to be in the ACC. They are going to have to divert money that would have gone to the basketball program to cover the expense.

It isn't going to help the basketball only programs catch Duke and Kentucky. It is going to help some of the basketball only programs move ahead of the bottom half and middle half programs in the Big 5 as they need to divert resources to cover the added football expenses.

[kshoe]

Two things: 1) The stipend does worry me if the big schools are allowed to pay players $20,000.00 per year, then SLU would have to also pay the same to compete. Under your calculations, that comes to over half a million a year. We already have issues about paying our assistant coaches. What would having to shell out $520,000.00 extra per year do to that issue.

2) The proposal discussed schools being allowed to pay for parents travel to games. If Kentucky said to the Tatums, "we'll fly you round trip to any game you want to go to, including tournaments in Hawaii, the Carribean, etc., and put you up in the nicest hotels," are the Tatums going to find that more appealing than driving down to SLU for home games and walking from the parking garage to Chaifetz when its 10 degrees? I tend to think they would. The result would be us having zero chance at landing the top guys.

1) SLU's financial situation is considerably better now than just a few years ago thanks to the 6 NCAA tourney games we have played in. That being said, your are right that we don't have unlimited funds and coaching salaries might not increase. But they won't increase at other schools either. What this proposal does is skim $500k (your example) off the top and give it to the players. The rest of the pie will get eaten up by the coaches, administrators, etc. If BCS school XYZ has a larger basketball budget than SLU now, they'll still have the same $ advantage over SLU after this (since they also have to pay the $500k).

2) The proposal on the table allows for them to pay for travel for postseason tournaments. Not regular season games. Quite frankly its a joke the Jordair Jett's mom isn't able to see him play in the NCAA tourney because we get sent to San Jose and Orlando despite the fact she made it to nearly every home game over his four year career. I fully support this proposal.

[ACE]

1) SLU's financial situation is considerably better now than just a few years ago thanks to the 6 NCAA tourney games we have played in. That being said, your are right that we don't have unlimited funds and coaching salaries might not increase. But they won't increase at other schools either. What this proposal does is skim $500k (your example) off the top and give it to the players. The rest of the pie will get eaten up by the coaches, administrators, etc. If BCS school XYZ has a larger basketball budget than SLU now, they'll still have the same $ advantage over SLU after this (since they also have to pay the $500k).

2) The proposal on the table allows for them to pay for travel for postseason tournaments. Not regular season games. Quite frankly its a joke the Jordair Jett's mom isn't able to see him play in the NCAA tourney because we get sent to San Jose and Orlando despite the fact she made it to nearly every home game over his four year career. I fully support this proposal.

Did she really? Wow! I did not know that.

[sludevil]

Edit: ignore

[JMM28]

this is a very good point. i think that if this ruling goes into effect, we have to take a good, hard look at repealing Title IX, and maybe women's athletics in general.

thoughts?

Probably time to bring back home economics sports. Competitive pie baking, Oven cleaning races, Speed folding championships, and so on and so forth.

[Zink]

To draw a parallel, this seems quite a bit like grad school in the sciences. The big name schools offer better stipends (usually up to $30k), travel funds for attending conferences, etc. Mid-tier research schools like SLU only pay out stipends for a subset of grad students, with little to no assurance of getting paid year to year. And even those are much smaller (<$15k). It makes for a system where the haves and have nots stay where they are for the most part.

For athletics, I think we would put full support behind our men's bball team in this scenario. No clue how it would affect other sports. It would almost definitely lead to a 1A-1AA system with fully supported schools only competing against one another. I think this would be an equitable solution for the "student athletes" and administrators.

[slufanskip]

How would you justify basketball and football players needing extra money to survive but baseball and soccer players don't?

The idea that a college kid needs an extra $1k a month to survive is ridiculous when they already get tuition plus room and board.

I believe this is all going to get out of hand and we're going end up having 60 or so schools in one division and everyone else in another.

[slu72]

This is all about the BCS'ers wanting all of the CBS money for the NCAA tourney. They've already got football under lock and key with the BCS system. Now, they simply want the whole pot. Think about it, how many BCS teams get in to the dance? I haven't checked but I'd guess about 30, the other 34 spots go to very minor conferences and more to some strong mid to high mid majorconferences. Like the A10 getting in 6 this year, which Coach K knew was going to happen and didn't like it, that's 10% of the CBS $$, or thereabouts. They want it all. If the A10 stands strong and gets commits from schools like SLU, VCU, et al and they say we'll match them, at least for hoops, we'll still be in the hunt. If this goes to all sports, per Title IX, we're dead. Football money will carry the day. Then we'll be watching SLU play on Fox Sports or Bravo for the Div IAA title. Shame on the NCAA, because most people enjoy seeing the Mercers of the world upsetting a Duke. That type of magic/drama will be gone from the dance. You'll still have the same old national powers competing against their lesser opponents, eg MSU thumping N.Western or KY trouncing Vandy, that they do in league play. It's a brand new day. Can't say it's appealing, but it is what it is.

[MB73]

this is a very good point. i think that if this ruling goes into effect, we have to take a good, hard look at repealing Title IX, and maybe women's athletics in general.

thoughts?

Title 9 should be restructured dramatically, the formula is inherently flawed. It will never be repealed, it is way, way too political.

[Yenlar]

This is going to kick off a bunch of realignment. If a school wants to do this and the conference they are a part of doesn't, or a school that doesn't want to and the conference does.

It is going to make things very interesting.

Something to think about is that the P5 schools each have athletics that have a minimum revenue of 43 million a year. Anybody outside of the P5 with revenue like that are targets for inclusion.

Basketball only schools are facing some interesting challenges in the future.

[Aquinas]

Safe to assume if bcs schools r writing the rules, the rules will favor bcs conferences. We may be seeing the end of the glory days of mid major basketball. First football wrecked college bb conferences, n now it threatens to wreck the whole dance.

[MB73]

This is going to kick off a bunch of realignment. If a school wants to do this and the conference they are a part of doesn't, or a school that doesn't want to and the conference does.

It is going to make things very interesting.

Agree.

There is a critical need for significant change in so many categories of NCAA sports, things are out of control.

This will take quite some time. NW players voted today, but results NA until other issues are resolved.

The lawyers and the Feds will make it a long convoluted process.

Hopefully, eventually, things will be better overall.

[kshoe]

I feel like people are missing the bigger picture about what is going on here. This isn't amount the Big 5 conferences deciding they want to screw the small conferences or that they want to break off from the rest of the NCAA. Rather this is about them protecting their business model.

The business model is under attack as the revenues to the school have become so large yet none of those revenues have found their way to the athletes. Northwestern could be unionizing. O'bannon is suing them. Shabaz Napier is telling the world that he's going to bed hungry despite being on a full scholarship. The general public is fed up with the greed of the schools and the fact that players get none of the spoils. The model is at risk of crumbling and the Big 5 want to protect this model by giving a small amount of the revenues back to the players. Their hope is that doing so will reduce all the opposition on multiple fronts they are currently facing.

So why is it the Big 5, and not the whole NCAA, pushing these changes to give the players a small taste of the revenue? Because they have the most to lose. They tried to get minimal payments to the players approved a year or two ago and it was shot down by the smaller schools that can't afford it (this does not include the A-10 and Big East which can afford it).

Well, the Big 5 have had enough and this is their power play to say that they aren't going to risk this incredibly lucrative model because schools ranked between 150-350 in revenues don't want it. They are taking things into their own hands and will give the athletes the bare minimum necessary to keep them happy and make all these lawsuits, talk of unionization, etc. go away.

This is far more about the Big 5 giving up relatively small concessions to maintain the status quo then it is them trying to revolutionize the industry and dramatically change how things are done.

[MB73]

I feel like people are missing the bigger picture about what is going on here. This isn't amount the Big 5 conferences deciding they want to screw the small conferences or that they want to break off from the rest of the NCAA. Rather this is about them protecting their business model.

The business model is under attack as the revenues to the school have become so large yet none of those revenues have found their way to the athletes. Northwestern could be unionizing. O'bannon is suing them. Shabaz Napier is telling the world that he's going to bed hungry despite being on a full scholarship. The general public is fed up with the greed of the schools and the fact that players get none of the spoils. The model is at risk of crumbling and the Big 5 want to protect this model by giving a small amount of the revenues back to the players. Their hope is that doing so will reduce all the opposition on multiple fronts they are currently facing.

So why is it the Big 5, and not the whole NCAA, pushing these changes to give the players a small taste of the revenue? Because they have the most to lose. They tried to get minimal payments to the players approved a year or two ago and it was shot down by the smaller schools that can't afford it (this does not include the A-10 and Big East which can afford it).

Well, the Big 5 have had enough and this is their power play to say that they aren't going to risk this incredibly lucrative model because schools ranked between 150-350 in revenues don't want it. They are taking things into their own hands and will give the athletes the bare minimum necessary to keep them happy and make all these lawsuits, talk of unionization, etc. go away.

This is far more about the Big 5 giving up relatively small concessions to maintain the status quo then it is them trying to revolutionize the industry and dramatically change how things are done.

Agree.

They are trying to take control before others do... it will be an interesting contest, their power versus everyone, everything, else.

[bills10]

1) SLU's financial situation is considerably better now than just a few years ago thanks to the 6 NCAA tourney games we have played in. That being said, your are right that we don't have unlimited funds and coaching salaries might not increase. But they won't increase at other schools either. What this proposal does is skim $500k (your example) off the top and give it to the players. The rest of the pie will get eaten up by the coaches, administrators, etc. If BCS school XYZ has a larger basketball budget than SLU now, they'll still have the same $ advantage over SLU after this (since they also have to pay the $500k).

2) The proposal on the table allows for them to pay for travel for postseason tournaments. Not regular season games. Quite frankly its a joke the Jordair Jett's mom isn't able to see him play in the NCAA tourney because we get sent to San Jose and Orlando despite the fact she made it to nearly every home game over his four year career. I fully support this proposal.

I think this might be the key as to why SLU supports this, and maybe the A10 on SLU/UD's behalf. We might see this as an opportunity to differentiate between us and the Fordhams of the world. If we can show we are the big boy within our conference, we might be able to leverage a better conference and more money in the future

[slu72]

The schools this will hurt the most are those mid major conferences that have FB, ie The MAC, MWC, CUSA, et al. Their FB programs don't generate anywhere near the $'s the power 5 programs do. The power 5 with their own networks and lucrative national network deals can easily fund their 50 + rosters, but an Ohio U or San Jose St would struggle to match them. So what does that mean for their hoops programs? They can't very well pay BB players and deny funds for their football teams. Despite Kshoes compelling argument, that the bigs aren't out to destroy hoops as we know it today, I disagree. There's only so much money out there for college sports, and the big dogs want most, if not all, of it.

[sludevil]

There's only so much money out there for college sports, and the big dogs want most, if not all, of it.

Agreed. I think kshoe's scenario seems likely, at least in the short term. But this a clearly a power move from the BCS conferences, and an act of desperation from the NCAA. The NCAA is doing everything it can to maintain (or prolong) its existence (see also its recent "unlimited food" rule), and the BCS conferences are quickly realizing they have massive leverage over the NCAA and its member schools. I think what ultimately ends up happening is the BCS conferences breaking away from the NCAA (if the NCAA refuses to play ball), or the BCS conferences effectively coopting the NCAA into a regulatory body that caters to their interests. Either scenario seems less than ideal for SLU.

An interesting article about how this might play out: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/56176162

[slu72]

Jay Bilas would be over the moon if the Dance was a tourney made up entirely of the bigs. And while fans of the underdogs and get enjoyment out of Mercer beating Duke might scream and moan, it would be forgotten in short order. The tourney would still be popular with all the bucks flowing to the power 5. Remember, the NIT up until the 50s was actually a bigger deal than the NCAA because they had better overall fields. That will be the argument here, ie they are improving the overall quality of the product. I don't see any of this being to SLUs advantage, unless the power 5 make concessions to the high mid major conferences if they agree to the play for pay idea.