sludevil Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10834339/ncaa-plan-give-major-conferences-more-authority-own-issues "If the plan is put into place, the 65 schools in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC would have autonomy to set their own rules on issues such as cost-of-attendance stipends, medical coverage and travel to games and tournaments for players' families. The board will continue to discuss whether the power conferences could set their own policies in areas such as per-week time limits, recruiting, coaching staff limits and outside career interests for players and transfers." Seems like this is a big step towards the major conferences breaking away from the NCAA. And, in any case, this doesn't look good for the Big East, A10, and similarly-situated conferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billikenboy Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Shocking news. We will see how it all looks in a year. Will probably make recruiting more difficult for teams in conferences outside of the so-called "Power Conferences." Clearly the NCAA is losing this battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesycow Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10834339/ncaa-plan-give-major-conferences-more-authority-own-issues "If the plan is put into place, the 65 schools in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC would have autonomy to set their own rules on issues such as cost-of-attendance stipends, medical coverage and travel to games and tournaments for players' families. The board will continue to discuss whether the power conferences could set their own policies in areas such as per-week time limits, recruiting, coaching staff limits and outside career interests for players and transfers." Seems like this is a big step towards the major conferences breaking away from the NCAA. And, in any case, this doesn't look good for the Big East, A10, and similarly-situated conferences. Is the plan for it to apply to basketball? I feel like Slive only ever pushes football stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Is the plan for it to apply to basketball? I feel like Slive only ever pushes football stuff. Doesn't sound like it's sport-specific. (And for what it's worth, I came across the article under ESPN's NCAA Men's Basketball page.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for-change-this-week When I read this one I took it to be that the big 5 would do what they want but other conferences would be free to do what they want too. So basically, if they decide to offer an additional 10k for cost of living expenses to athletes the others like the big east and a-10 could follow suit. It may be financially more difficult for non football schools to compete but they will still have the right to do so, if they choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayne's_World Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Well there goes all of the so called "parity" in college basketball. The power conferences are set to gain even more power. Basically the ncaa caved and is now legalizing all of the things these "power conference" schools have been doing under the table for years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The A10 commissioner is on the record supporting these changes and stating that her conference members support them. She said this on two different occasions on the Strauss, Burwell, and Ramsey show on 920. Apparently SLU and the majority of the other A10 members are ready to buck up to keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesycow Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Well there goes all of the so called "parity" in college basketball. The power conferences are set to gain even more power. Basically the ncaa caved and is now legalizing all of the things these "power conference" schools have been doing under the table for years... The NCAA only cares about the tournament making a boatload of cash but really has less power than the BCS conference commissioners, since football drives all the big media contracts making these conferences seemingly limitless coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for-change-this-week When I read this one I took it to be that the big 5 would do what they want but other conferences would be free to do what they want too. So basically, if they decide to offer an additional 10k for cost of living expenses to athletes the others like the big east and a-10 could follow suit. It may be financially more difficult for non football schools to compete but they will still have the right to do so, if they choose. That seems like a pyrrhic victory for the smaller conferences, though. I mean, there's just no way A10 and Big East schools are going to be financially competitive with BCS schools that are bringing in $20-30+ million (in TV money alone) per school every year. (We're talking payouts of 20 to 30 times what the Big East pays out per member, which is itself already several times what the A10 pays out.) Granted, most of these power conference schools have expenses that far exceed those of smaller schools - but if they really decide to start opening their wallets to recruits, I don't see any way that the Big East, A10, and other smaller conferences can keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 That seems like a pyrrhic victory for the smaller conferences, though. I mean, there's just no way A10 and Big East schools are going to be financially competitive with BCS schools that are bringing in $20-30+ million (in TV money alone) per school every year. (We're talking payouts of 20 to 30 times what the Big East pays out per member, which is itself already several times what the A10 pays out.) Granted, most of these power conference schools have expenses that far exceed those of smaller schools - but if they really decide to start opening their wallets to recruits, I don't see any way that the Big East, A10, and other smaller conferences can keep up. Well the A10 believes it can play in that play ground and if we believe McGlade were pushing for this change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JettFlight5 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Well the A10 believes it can play in that play ground and if we believe McGlade were pushing for this change. McGlade has been pretty aggressive in what she's wanted. #stillbetterthanBruno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Well the A10 believes it can play in that play ground and if we believe McGlade were pushing for this change. Yeah, that's interesting. I wonder what the thinking is there. The A10 will lose any spending battle with the BCS conferences, so she must believe it won't come down to that. But even so, I'm just not seeing how this benefits the A10 relative to our competition. Hopefully I'm missing something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yeah, that's interesting. I wonder what the thinking is there. The A10 will lose any spending battle with the BCS conferences, so she must believe it won't come down to that. But even so, I'm just not seeing how this benefits the A10 relative to our competition. Hopefully I'm missing something. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRN Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Chris May was on a radio show recently, I can't recall which one, on 920 AM. The subject of stipends and this scenario were specifically mentioned. He said SLU is prepared for whatever decision is made and had been preparing for either result for awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 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. Many if not all college basketball programs could make this change. The ranks are bloated right now. I could see this pushing some of the schools back down to D-2 status. Maybe D-1 teams number closer to 300 than 360 with this rule in effect. Title IX is another matter. If required most schools would bite the bullet and also pay the womens team. But if it isn't required they certainly won't. Even so I would expect BCS schools to adopt this not just to the money sports, football and basketball. This stipend will apply to all Olympic sports at most BCS schools. No way a school like SLU would or should be giving this stipend out to teams other than basketball, and maybe soccer. We may stay even on basketball but the other sports would fall way behind the BCS schools eventually so much that we wouldn't be able to compete at the same level anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Many if not all college basketball programs could make this change. The ranks are bloated right now. I could see this pushing some of the schools back down to D-2 status. Maybe D-1 teams number closer to 300 than 360 with this rule in effect. Title IX is another matter. If required most schools would bite the bullet and also pay the womens team. But if it isn't required they certainly won't. Even so I would expect BCS schools to adopt this not just to the money sports, football and basketball. This stipend will apply to all Olympic sports at most BCS schools. No way a school like SLU would or should be giving this stipend out to teams other than basketball, and maybe soccer. We may stay even on basketball but the other sports would fall way behind the BCS schools eventually so much that we wouldn't be able to compete at the same level anymore. I agree with this but let's be honest here, except for soccer the rest of our sports are pretty mediocre and some are closer to bad. Baseball is doing OK now because we play in a weak conference but we'd be nowhere near making the college world series if it wasn't for winning the A-10 tourney. I suspect if one fully examines our other sports and their records against the BCS teams its pretty darn ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesycow Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I agree with this but let's be honest here, except for soccer the rest of our sports are pretty mediocre and some are closer to bad. Baseball is doing OK now because we play in a weak conference but we'd be nowhere near making the college world series if it wasn't for winning the A-10 tourney. I suspect if one fully examines our other sports and their records against the BCS teams its pretty darn ugly. I think it hurts schools that have both basketball and football but aren't in BCS conferences the most. That'd be a huge expense for smaller schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I agree with this but let's be honest here, except for soccer the rest of our sports are pretty mediocre and some are closer to bad. Baseball is doing OK now because we play in a weak conference but we'd be nowhere near making the college world series if it wasn't for winning the A-10 tourney. I suspect if one fully examines our other sports and their records against the BCS teams its pretty darn ugly. And to be honest, the big power schools are not looking to increase expenses on Olympic sports. If they were they wouldn't be cutting programs like Rutgers and Cal have in the past few years. They have not been crying to increase the scholarship numbers for these sports. Football is going to take a huge chunk of change at these schools under these new proposed changes. Schools at the bottom half of these power conferences will more likely be dropping sports instead of extending these benefits to Olympic sports. This will be especially true if it is determined that Title IX means that schools will have to gives the exact same benefits they give to football players to an equal number of female athletes. I have never been happier that we don't have a football program in light of these coming changes. The cost of the football part of this is going to be a big burden for many of these schools. Where is the money going to come from for Wake Forest to cover this? Are Duke basketball fans going to be happy when new large chunks of basketball revenue has to be diverted to fund the football program and the associated increase in expenses for ladies athletics? This is going to end up being a win for the basketball only schools willing to make the commitment and who are in conferences that are willing to make the commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Just for an example men's football and basketball is a combined 98 scholarships. Double that number for Title IX and you got 196 athletes that will need to share in these benefits equally. I think a modest number for the total cost of these increased benefit (stipends, travel for family, some life long health benefits, etc) is $30,000 per athlete. That is $5.88 million per year. That is a huge amount of money. How big in college athletics? Well only one school (Duke) pays it's basketball coach a sum equal to or greater than that amount. The great majority of athletic programs even in the power conferences just don't have that amount of money sitting around. It is going to come from cuts somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Just for an example men's football and basketball is a combined 98 scholarships. Double that number for Title IX and you got 196 athletes that will need to share in these benefits equally. I think a modest number for the total cost of these increased benefit (stipends, travel for family, some life long health benefits, etc) is $30,000 per athlete. That is $5.88 million per year. That is a huge amount of money. How big in college athletics? Well only one school (Duke) pays it's basketball coach a sum equal to or greater than that amount. The great majority of athletic programs even in the power conferences just don't have that amount of money sitting around. It is going to come from cuts somewhere else. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesycow Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 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? I don't think Title IX is going anywhere, especially since it technically isn't only applied to athletics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 So I think people in this thread are downplaying just how much more money BCS schools are bringing in relative to basketball-only schools in the Big East and A10. True, their expenses from football can be enormous (and stand to increase further), but their revenue is also dozens of times greater than the basketball-only schools. And if conference realignment has taught us anything, it's that these schools know where the value is and are eager to capture that value for themselves. If they have to cut Olympic sports in order to capture more value in the revenue sports, I have no doubt they will do so. And their already massive resource pool means that, if it comes down to a spending war with basketball-only schools, the basketball-only schools will lose. As someone else mentioned, though, I don't think BCS schools want a spending war. The system as it stands now works just fine: why engage in a spending war and allow players to capture some of that value? As a collective, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. On the other hand, it just takes one conference (or even one school, depending on what these new regulations look like) to break rank. If that conference/school determines that basketball and/or football players really are worth far more than what they're currently receiving in compensation, and that the conference/school can capture that value (and, importantly in the world of competitive TV contracts, market share) by increasing player compensation, then ###### could really hit the fan. There's also the question of what happens if the BCS conferences do break away from the NCAA. If they set up their own postseason basketball tournament, they would be free to limit (or even squeeze out) smaller conference representation (say, for example, they invite only the best team from the A10 and Big East). I'm probably being a little doomsday over here, but, again, I just don't see how this benefits the A10 compared to the current system. Again, hopefully I'm missing something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesycow Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 So I agree that, if I'm in a non-revenue sport right now, I'm worried. We've already seen some schools cut sports (Temple, Rutgers, Cal, etc.) and other sports jump conferences (Maryland) in blatant attempts to balance their budgets. And there's no way men's gymnastics sticks around when schools start paying players (or, at least, compensating them for the "full cost of attendance"). On the other hand, I think people in this thread are downplaying just how much more money BCS schools are bringing in relative to basketball-only schools in the Big East and A10. True, their expenses from football can be enormous (and stand to increase further), but their revenue is also dozens of times greater than the basketball-only schools. And if conference realignment has taught us anything, it's that these schools know where the value is and are eager to capture that value for themselves. If they have to cut Olympic sports in order to capture more value in the revenue sports, I have no doubt they will do so. And their already massive resource pool means that, if it comes down to a spending war with basketball-only schools, the basketball-only schools will lose. As someone else mentioned, though, I don't think BCS schools want a spending war. The system as it stands now works just fine: why engage in a spending war and allow players to capture some of that value? As a collective, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. On the other hand, it just takes one conference (or even one school, depending on what these new regulations look like) to break rank. If that conference/school determines that basketball and/or football players really are worth far more than what they're currently receiving in compensation, and that the conference/school can capture that value (and, importantly in the world of competitive TV contracts, market share) by increasing player compensation, then ###### could really hit the fan. There's also the question of what happens if the BCS conferences do break away from the NCAA. If they set up their own postseason basketball tournament, they would be free to limit (or even squeeze out) smaller conference representation (say, for example, they invite only the best team from the A10 and Big East). I'm probably being a little doomsday over here, but, again, I just don't see how this benefits the A10 compared to the current system. Again, hopefully I'm missing something. I don't think it'll be that doomsday but there is merit to wondering about how it affects basketball-only conferences. The B1G network opened the door and now all the big conferences are going to have massive paydays that only get higher from their football programs. The money gap could conceivably get much much wider in the next 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills By 40 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 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. Yeah, certain parts of this proposed legislature will be for the better, (i.e. family travel expenses, better health benefits, more freedom to players trying to transfer schools, etcetera) but for the most part this is only going to create a monopoly in college sports and eventually run out all the runts of the litter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 So I think people in this thread are downplaying just how much more money BCS schools are bringing in relative to basketball-only schools in the Big East and A10. True, their expenses from football can be enormous (and stand to increase further), but their revenue is also dozens of times greater than the basketball-only schools. And if conference realignment has taught us anything, it's that these schools know where the value is and are eager to capture that value for themselves. If they have to cut Olympic sports in order to capture more value in the revenue sports, I have no doubt they will do so. And their already massive resource pool means that, if it comes down to a spending war with basketball-only schools, the basketball-only schools will lose. As someone else mentioned, though, I don't think BCS schools want a spending war. The system as it stands now works just fine: why engage in a spending war and allow players to capture some of that value? As a collective, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. On the other hand, it just takes one conference (or even one school, depending on what these new regulations look like) to break rank. If that conference/school determines that basketball and/or football players really are worth far more than what they're currently receiving in compensation, and that the conference/school can capture that value (and, importantly in the world of competitive TV contracts, market share) by increasing player compensation, then ###### could really hit the fan. There's also the question of what happens if the BCS conferences do break away from the NCAA. If they set up their own postseason basketball tournament, they would be free to limit (or even squeeze out) smaller conference representation (say, for example, they invite only the best team from the A10 and Big East). I'm probably being a little doomsday over here, but, again, I just don't see how this benefits the A10 compared to the current system. Again, hopefully I'm missing something. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.