N.C.A.A. Votes to Give Greater Autonomy to Richest Conferences

[TrueOrange]

The only school that is still outside the Power 5 that I think could be a net gain would be BYU. For whatver reason, though, the Pac 12 and Big XII have kept the Cougars at an arm's length. I guess the LDS factor is a turn-off, though I really don't understand why.

That might be something a number of schools are uncomfortable with, unfortunately for BYU.

I remember a while back (like a few years), Tulsa's newspaper requested for (and got) Oklahoma to release the e-mails their president had received, from both fans, other universities, etc. , either when the Big 12 was looking to invite another team to replace either A&M or Missouri or when Oklahoma was considering a conference move.


I would have to find the article again.


I seem to recall at least one email from a fan about that specifically, and there was another from someone from San Diego State...I'll need to check again, but it was either an AD or assistant AD (who clearly must have known his school was a no chance). I can't remember the latter fully...I don't think he called BYU out about that directly, to any degree about it (fairly confident on that), but I think he mainly seemed to imply that the other schools in the Mountain West had some troubles/issues dealing with BYU (I seem to recall the message ending with him saying to ask him - the SDSU president - if they had any questions regarding SDSU or any questions about BYU).

I'll see if I can find the news article again.

 

[vol66]

I do agree about the insurance but other than that we just have different opinions. I respect yours and you make good points.

I appreciate your view and we can agree to disagree on many things. The truth is, it's not about you or me.

Cost of attendance is coming. That's a fact, it's not my opinion.

A guaranteed four year scholarship is coming and there will probably be many that stump for "a lifetime" scholarship for those that leave early.

There will be at least discussion on the time demands of athletes. Jim Delaney of the Big 10 said under oath in the O'Bannon trial that athletes spend far too much time on athletics. Most agree that the 20 hour rule is bogus and goes largely unenforced.

Insurance, allowing schools to pay for parents travel to games...all of these issues are at the fore in this, while names image and likeness, concussion suits, the Keller suit, anti-trust law are all behind the scenes in court rooms, but will be addressed in the near future.

None of this is my opinion, I'm not saying this or that should happen...this is just where things are...today.

There are many other issues coming...Chattanooga is on our football schedule this year. Former Asst. AD Blackburn is the AD at Chattanooga and his athletic department is going to get a big pay check from UT after that game. What happens if the Super 5 decide only to schedule each other and the UTC's, and MTSU's don't have those opportunities.

As a fan, I'd rather see us play USC, Ohio St. or Notre Dame than UTC, but I also see the other side, these schools are in the Tennessee system...what about the bench players that normally get a little experience in games like that, do they get any reps if every game is against one of the Super 5?

Oh, it's been discussed, in fact the Coaches have been polled...again, these aren't my opinions...

Majority of Power Five coaches want Power Five-only schedules - ESPN

 

[TrueOrange]

I appreciate your view and we can agree to disagree on many things. The truth is, it's not about you or me.

Cost of attendance is coming. That's a fact, it's not my opinion.

A guaranteed four year scholarship is coming and there will probably be many that stump for "a lifetime" scholarship for those that leave early.

There will be at least discussion on the time demands of athletes. Jim Delaney of the Big 10 said under oath in the O'Bannon trial that athletes spend far too much time on athletics. Most agree that the 20 hour rule is bogus and goes largely unenforced.

Insurance, allowing schools to pay for parents travel to games...all of these issues are at the fore in this, while names image and likeness, concussion suits, the Keller suit, anti-trust law are all behind the scenes in court rooms, but will be addressed in the near future.

None of this is my opinion, I'm not saying this or that should happen...this is just where things are...today.

There are many other issues coming...Chattanooga is on our football schedule this year. Former Asst. AD Blackburn is the AD at Chattanooga and his athletic department is going to get a big pay check from UT after that game. What happens if the Super 5 decide only to schedule each other and the UTC's, and MTSU's don't have those opportunities.

As a fan, I'd rather see us play USC, Ohio St. or Notre Dame than UTC, but I also see the other side, these schools are in the Tennessee system...what about the bench players that normally get a little experience in games like that, do they get any reps if every game is against one of the Super 5?

Oh, it's been discussed, in fact the Coaches have been polled...again, these aren't my opinions...

Majority of Power Five coaches want Power Five-only schedules - ESPN

The article says that only 46 percent of the power 5 head coaches (30 of the 65) want to play a schedule of only power 5 opponents.

I'm not bringing this up to argue with you. I'm just pointing out that they probably gave that link an incorrect title.

 

[Ohio Vol]

I was looking forward to taking my wife to her first UT regular season game this year. It's a shame that it will also be the last, because I refuse to sink another dollar into major college sports after this season. 65 schools are so hell-bent not just on looking out for themselves, but on burying everyone else, that they are willing to possibly sacrifice the ability of thousands of kids to go to college whose only crime is not being good enough to go to a "top conference" as an 18-year-old.

What will this mean for the MAC? Will they just drop football outright, costing over 1,100 kids their scholarships? Will they chop other sports to keep football, costing those kids their scholarships? Will they drop down to 1-AA or D-2, still costing a bunch of scholarships as well as other revenue streams as well? Would the lack of athletic revenue cost them applicants and enrolled students? Will it cause a further rise in tuition, which is already severely cramping the ability of the working and middle classes to be able to go to college in the first place?

This "we got ours, now **** everyone else" attitude on the part of the power brokers is absolutely disgraceful. And damn all who are now making it happen.

 

[vol66]

46 % for, 35 % opposed, 18.5 % (12 coaches) undecided...so the title isn't wrong, the majority of those polled favored it.

 

[bamawriter]

Let's say, SEC schools can spend however much money they want and have as much stuff as they want..

Would that be fair to Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miss. St.?

Given that every SEC football program, including the three dwarves you mentioned, runs comfortably in the black...

Yes, it's totally fair.

 

[bamawriter]

46 % for, 35 % opposed, 18.5 % (12 coaches) undecided...so the title isn't wrong, the majority of those polled favored it.

Actually, the correct term would be "plurality". A majority requires more than 50%.

 

[Vol4life25]

I guess the question is, can these schools compete with the bigger SEC football schools and are choosing not to invest the money, or do they just not have the money to compete.

If they are choosing not to invest, then that's their issue and all is fair, if they genuinely can't match them, then it's not fair. IMO

 

[vol66]

I was looking forward to taking my wife to her first UT regular season game this year. It's a shame that it will also be the last, because I refuse to sink another dollar into major college sports after this season. 65 schools are so hell-bent not just on looking out for themselves, but on burying everyone else, that they are willing to possibly sacrifice the ability of thousands of kids to go to college whose only crime is not being good enough to go to a "top conference" as an 18-year-old.

What will this mean for the MAC? Will they just drop football outright, costing over 1,100 kids their scholarships? Will they chop other sports to keep football, costing those kids their scholarships? Will they drop down to 1-AA or D-2, still costing a bunch of scholarships as well as other revenue streams as well? Would the lack of athletic revenue cost them applicants and enrolled students? Will it cause a further rise in tuition, which is already severely cramping the ability of the working and middle classes to be able to go to college in the first place?

This "we got ours, now **** everyone else" attitude on the part of the power brokers is absolutely disgraceful. And damn all who are now making it happen.

I share your disgust in many ways for what's taken place in big time college football.

In terms of what happens to sports programs at other levels, I type this to alleviate your fears.

Did you know that Centre College, a division III school offers 2 more men's sports and 1 more women's sport than UT does? Carson Newman has 1 more sport than UT offers, they are DII.

I realize it's not an apples to apples comparison as D III doesn't offer athletic scholarships (however, they do have very creative scholarship programs for athletes they want to get on campus)...

My broader point is that the fear that women's programs will be cut, that Title IX is under attack, all of that is BS. The real question is not whether these 65 institutions have the money to do the right thing by the athletes, it's why has it taken this threat...lawsuits, Congressional action, for them to do the right thing?

 

[bamawriter]

I guess the question is, can these schools compete with the bigger SEC football schools and are choosing not to invest the money, or do they just not have the money to compete.

If they are choosing not to invest, then that's their issue and all is fair, if they genuinely can't match them, then it's not fair. IMO

It's not possible to reign in spending enough to put Notre Dame on the same level as Idaho. It's well past time to acknowledge that the big guys are not playing the same sport as the little guys.

College sports will never be "fair".

 

[vol66]

Actually, the correct term would be "plurality". A majority requires more than 50%.

Okay.

 

[bamawriter]

I was looking forward to taking my wife to her first UT regular season game this year. It's a shame that it will also be the last, because I refuse to sink another dollar into major college sports after this season. 65 schools are so hell-bent not just on looking out for themselves, but on burying everyone else, that they are willing to possibly sacrifice the ability of thousands of kids to go to college whose only crime is not being good enough to go to a "top conference" as an 18-year-old.

What will this mean for the MAC? Will they just drop football outright, costing over 1,100 kids their scholarships? Will they chop other sports to keep football, costing those kids their scholarships? Will they drop down to 1-AA or D-2, still costing a bunch of scholarships as well as other revenue streams as well? Would the lack of athletic revenue cost them applicants and enrolled students? Will it cause a further rise in tuition, which is already severely cramping the ability of the working and middle classes to be able to go to college in the first place?

This "we got ours, now **** everyone else" attitude on the part of the power brokers is absolutely disgraceful. And damn all who are now making it happen.

What, exactly, do you think is happening here? No one is going to be shuttering their football team over this action.

 

[vol66]

What, exactly, do you think is happening here? No one is going to be shuttering their football team over this action.

C'mon Bama, that's not a fair question and you know it. The last program to be shuttered at the places we're talking about will be the football programs. He's asking, or at least I think he's asking, what happens to everyone else interested in playing collegiate sports other than the big two?

I watched a panel discussion just today, put on by the Big 12, and after two hours some of the smartest minds in the business, Oliver Luck, John Curry (KSU AD, former Vol), Ken Starr...were asking similar questions...

 

[bamawriter]

C'mon Bama, that's not a fair question and you know it. The last program to be shuttered at the places we're talking about will be the football programs. He's asking, or at least I think he's asking, what happens to everyone else interested in playing collegiate sports other than the big two?

I watched a panel discussion just today, put on by the Big 12, and after two hours some of the smartest minds in the business, Oliver Luck, John Curry (KSU AD, former Vol), Ken Starr...were asking similar questions...

They aren't going anywhere as long as Title IX is still in place. As much as some of the schools might want to do away with some of them...

 

[vol66]

They aren't going anywhere as long as Title IX is still in place. As much as some of the schools might want to do away with some of them...

I agree, but not for the same reason. If anything, people have a heightened sense of the good Title IX does and they are bound and determined to not let that get lost in the giant money grab going on, first with "realignment" and now with "autonomy".

Nobody should question, in terms of DI sports, the money is obscene, any cries of having to cut sports, it's fear mongering...plain and simple. Should the offensive coordinator make three quarters of a million dollars?

 

[oz615]

My broader point is that the fear that women's programs will be cut, that Title IX is under attack

As long as Title IX is in place,almost all the women's programs are safe! It's the non revenue men's sports that might suffer in the long term.

 

[bamawriter]

I agree, but not for the same reason. If anything, people have a heightened sense of the good Title IX does and they are bound and determined to not let that get lost in the giant money grab going on, first with "realignment" and now with "autonomy".

Nobody should question, in terms of DI sports, the money is obscene, any cries of having to cut sports, it's fear mongering...plain and simple. Should the offensive coordinator make three quarters of a million dollars?

I agree. But if the OC can get it, why not? Kirby Smart makes more than a million per year, but Bama's AD brought it more money that almost every NBA or NHL franchise, so is it fair to call him overpaid? That's the nature of the beast at this point.

 

[Ohio Vol]

I share your disgust in many ways for what's taken place in big time college football.

In terms of what happens to sports programs at other levels, I type this to alleviate your fears.

Did you know that Centre College, a division III school offers 2 more men's sports and 1 more women's sport than UT does? Carson Newman has 1 more sport than UT offers, they are DII.

I realize it's not an apples to apples comparison as D III doesn't offer athletic scholarships (however, they do have very creative scholarship programs for athletes they want to get on campus)...

My broader point is that the fear that women's programs will be cut, that Title IX is under attack, all of that is BS. The real question is not whether these 65 institutions have the money to do the right thing by the athletes, it's why has it taken this threat...lawsuits, Congressional action, for them to do the right thing?

If we're starting with the benchmark that paying student-athletes is "the right thing", we'll simply never agree.

What, exactly, do you think is happening here? No one is going to be shuttering their football team over this action.

C'mon Bama, that's not a fair question and you know it. The last program to be shuttered at the places we're talking about will be the football programs. He's asking, or at least I think he's asking, what happens to everyone else interested in playing collegiate sports other than the big two?

I watched a panel discussion just today, put on by the Big 12, and after two hours some of the smartest minds in the business, Oliver Luck, John Curry (KSU AD, former Vol), Ken Starr...were asking similar questions...

They aren't going anywhere as long as Title IX is still in place. As much as some of the schools might want to do away with some of them...

No, what I'm asking is what the fallout will be, whether in 2015 or 2025 or 2050.

65 schools represent a slight majority of the 1-A/FBS football schools. They also represent less than 20% of the D-1 basketball schools, and yet have somehow found a way to crush the remaining 80+ percent. This isn't even getting into other sports like hockey, which will now have a massive imbalance.

If I'm in charge of a MAC school, what's the incentive to maintain athletics at this point? 40 years of movement toward some type of competitive balance has just been blown up in one quick movement; rather than seeing a mid-level or small school with a chance to win a championship in basketball or football, it will now never happen. And not only will it not happen, but any voice that was once held by my school has now been silenced.

And for what? So the rich can get richer, and everyone else can get buried?

 

[BigZiti09]

Title 9 is reverse discrimination.

 

[vol66]

As long as Title IX is in place,almost all the women's programs are safe! It's the non revenue men's sports that might suffer in the long term.

I said that is BS.

I'm willing to cut to the chase. For those that want to keep the status quo, this is not for you.

For those that would like to see change...

Tie the college football coaches to the same deal college baseball coaches have.

No full rides. Partial scholarships tied to financial aid packs tied to grades. Freshman are ineligible.

Jim Delany called freshman ineligibility a "silver bullet."

When Mark Emmert stands before an audience and talks about the GSR, all of the non revenue sports pull football and men's basketball up.

Those students in the non-revenue sports have a value and their value is helping to sustain a model for the revenue generating sports. That is to lift up the GPA of the revenue generating sports so that intercollegiate athletics can keep it's current model while having embarrassingly low graduation rates in the revenue sports... sans a few colleges like Stanford.

 

[vol66]

If we're starting with the benchmark that paying student-athletes is "the right thing", we'll simply never agree.







No, what I'm asking is what the fallout will be, whether in 2015 or 2025 or 2050.

65 schools represent a slight majority of the 1-A/FBS football schools. They also represent less than 20% of the D-1 basketball schools, and yet have somehow found a way to crush the remaining 80+ percent. This isn't even getting into other sports like hockey, which will now have a massive imbalance.

If I'm in charge of a MAC school, what's the incentive to maintain athletics at this point? 40 years of movement toward some type of competitive balance has just been blown up in one quick movement; rather than seeing a mid-level or small school with a chance to win a championship in basketball or football, it will now never happen. And not only will it not happen, but any voice that was once held by my school has now been silenced.

And for what? So the rich can get richer, and everyone else can get buried?

I haven't suggested paying players in any response in this thread. We are already paying them though, so what's $2000 more in the grand scheme of things? I know it is frowned upon to answer a question with a question...but...

Why do you think these same 65 schools think it is important to allow the NCAA to put on March Madness and the Final Four and championships in every other sport as well, including the NCAA Track and Field Championship, The NCAA Baseball Tournament, The NCAA Softball Tournament etc...?

Why did these 65 schools decide that the NCAA is good at all the other ones but, and this is very important...the NCAA can not put on the football tournament?

 

[vol66]

I agree. But if the OC can get it, why not? Kirby Smart makes more than a million per year, but Bama's AD brought it more money that almost every NBA or NHL franchise, so is it fair to call him overpaid? That's the nature of the beast at this point.

"If the OC can get it" shouldn't Johnny Manziel get it? shouldn't Holdsclaw get it? Shouldn't Tim Tebow get it?

 

[vol66]

It's not possible to reign in spending enough to put Notre Dame on the same level as Idaho. It's well past time to acknowledge that the big guys are not playing the same sport as the little guys.

College sports will never be "fair".

Appy St. beat Michigan. UF lost to Ga. Southern...Heck, that's what makes the basketball tournament watchable, underdogs and bracket busters...

That's not what we want in college football?

 

[bamawriter]

"If the OC can get it" shouldn't Johnny Manziel get it? shouldn't Holdsclaw get it? Shouldn't Tim Tebow get it?

I'm not saying they shouldn't.

 

[bamawriter]

Appy St. beat Michigan. UF lost to Ga. Southern...Heck, that's what makes the basketball tournament watchable, underdogs and bracket busters...

That's not what we want in college football?

What happens 99% of the time that a Big 5 team plays a Little 5 team? The fact that you and I can recall the exceptions simply proves the rule.