|
Post by Ken D on Jan 21, 2014 10:43:30 GMT -5
The talk has become pretty overt now. It's not just in private between ADs and Conference Commissioners. The five power conferences (P5) have pretty much said that either you let us do football our way, or we're outta here (here being the NCAA). So, what is their way? What would they change? What should they change?
|
|
|
Post by Marty Da Hungry Wolf on Jan 21, 2014 13:32:43 GMT -5
If so it would be the first domino to fall in the eventual dissolution of the NCAA, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Jan 21, 2014 14:00:28 GMT -5
If so it would be the first domino to fall in the eventual dissolution of the NCAA, in my opinion. If they leave, or if they get their way? I don't think they want to leave, and the NCAA can't let them leave for the reason you give. It would be suicide for the NCAA. That only leaves letting them (the P5) call the shots for football. I don't think you will see a new division that only includes the P5. I think you will see a smaller version of the FBS, but with one major difference. Now, all D-I schools (both FBS and FCS) get a vote on football matters. That means the P5 schools are outnumbered about 3 to 1. If you had a new division that allowed only schools that either average 30,000 in football attendance, or belong to a conference that does, you would have between 80-90 members. The P5 would dominate that, and could set their own rules. The 120 or so FCS schools wouldn't be able to block change. Neither would the roughly 20 schools that recently moved up to the FBS and are now members of the Sun Belt or CUSA, or the MAC schools who likely wouldn't qualify for membership in the new division.
|
|
|
Post by Marty Da Hungry Wolf on Jan 21, 2014 18:23:21 GMT -5
The horse is loooooong out of the barn on the football issue.
|
|
|
Post by Tizu on Jan 22, 2014 7:46:54 GMT -5
If that were to happen, first of all it'd be interesting and yes, the death of NCAA as we know it. Which all in all may not be a bad thing, but what would happen to all the other sports other than Football?
It's tough to say what'd they'd change for sure. I would imagine they'd have more of a playoff system instead of just the top 4 teams. A self governing body could be dangerous, but that's where all the members schools would have to step in and each school would have a say in what's going on as opposed to a small board who make all the rules.
Which conferences do you foresee being the P5? Obviously the SEC and Big 10...maybe ACC, who else? PAC? Big 12?
What would happen to schools who are independent in football, such as Notre Dame?
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Jan 22, 2014 10:52:25 GMT -5
If that were to happen, first of all it'd be interesting and yes, the death of NCAA as we know it. Which all in all may not be a bad thing, but what would happen to all the other sports other than Football? It's tough to say what'd they'd change for sure. I would imagine they'd have more of a playoff system instead of just the top 4 teams. A self governing body could be dangerous, but that's where all the members schools would have to step in and each school would have a say in what's going on as opposed to a small board who make all the rules. Which conferences do you foresee being the P5? Obviously the SEC and Big 10...maybe ACC, who else? PAC? Big 12? What would happen to schools who are independent in football, such as Notre Dame? The P5 are the BCS conferences minus the AAC. They would include Notre Dame.These schools want and need the NCAA to continue. That umbrella organization gives the P5 schools the fig leaf that their football and basketball programs are amateur activities protected from taxation. I think Swofford hinted that they would change rules governing contact with agents. Lesser schools don't have as much problem with agents simply because they don't have many players good enough to attract them. Agents are uniquely a P5 problem. I'd like the P5 to require higher academic standards for initial eligibility in exchange for lesser emphasis on APRs and GSRs. Personally, instead of punishing schools when athletes don't perform academically, I'd prefer they get rewarded when they do perform. I'll do a separate post on how I would do that when I return later this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Jan 22, 2014 17:57:25 GMT -5
Currently, each player has four years of eligibility, and he must use them within five years of his first enrollment in college or he loses them. This has led to the practices of redshirting and grayshirting. What it hasn't led to is noticeable improvement in the educational achievements of its less intellectually gifted players. There are still too many players who have no business being in college. Maybe we will never be able to fix this problem. But they only way we have a chance is if schools are motivated to make every recruited athlete a potential college graduate.
Here's what I'd do. First, make initial eligibility tougher than it is now, and tougher for the top division than it is for lesser conferences. Then give every player three years initial eligibility. Schools can use any standards they want for academic progress during this three years. After three years, any player who has completed 60% of the credits required for a degree, including all of the required courses other than those in his major, with a GPA of 2.3 or better receives a fourth year of eligibility. If he has not met this standard, not only is his eligibility finished, but he also continues to count against the scholarship limit for what would have been his fourth season.
After his fourth year, if he is within 24 credits of earning a degree, he receives a fifth year of eligibility. If he has earned his degree after four years, he earns two years of eligibility, provided he is enrolled in a graduate degree program. Further, and this is important, he does not count against the school's limit of 85 scholarship players.
Schools should submit their roster each year, but only after it has been audited for compliance by a nationally recognized CPA firm approved by the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by animus on Jan 22, 2014 19:28:17 GMT -5
I'm anticipating something similar to the split of Division 1 back in 1978. Don't know how it'll be accomplished but that's what I see happening. Maybe the new D1A will be the P5 conferences + AAC and MWC and D1A hoops will be the current FBS conferences + WCC, Big East, and the A10.
|
|
|
Post by Tizu on Jan 23, 2014 9:28:07 GMT -5
Ken,
Very very interesting. I like those ideas. Not sure they would ever get anywhere, but still.
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Jan 23, 2014 10:49:42 GMT -5
I'm anticipating something similar to the split of Division 1 back in 1978. Don't know how it'll be accomplished but that's what I see happening. Maybe the new D1A will be the P5 conferences + AAC and MWC and D1A hoops will be the current FBS conferences + WCC, Big East, and the A10. I agree with you on the football side. On your board I suggested that to be in the top football division you need to average 30K home attendance or be in a conference that averages 30K. That would look much like what you said, minus a few marginal MWC and AAC schools. Basketball's trickier. You don't want to kill the golden goose that is the NCAAT. The conferences you include would only consist of about 120 schools. If the tournament field is 64, the bar for entry is set awfully low. And some pretty good schools get left out - Wichita State, for example. Also some crowd favorites like Valpo. Some of that can't be avoided. I would probably add a few more conferences that have done OK in the tournament in the past, and would help retain some of the David-Goliath atmosphere of the early rounds. My choices would be the Missouri Valley, Horizon, CUSA, Colonial, Ivy and MAC. That brings the total to roughly 180 schools, or about half of the current D-I.
|
|
|
Post by animus on Jan 23, 2014 20:38:49 GMT -5
I'd be anticipating a 32 team tourney on the hoops side... if I'm correct of course.
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Jan 23, 2014 20:44:46 GMT -5
I'd be anticipating a 32 team tourney on the hoops side... if I'm correct of course. That's not going to sit well with about 50 basketball coaches. So much so I think it would be a deal breaker. Like it or not, an invitation to the tourney has become the standard for keeping a coach's job in the power conferences. That's hard to back away from.
|
|
|
Post by Marty Da Hungry Wolf on Jan 25, 2014 4:50:52 GMT -5
Quick thought that popped into my head in the hazy daze that is Percocet, Dilaudid, and Hydrocodone. The schools themselves are, in fact, the NCAA. I wouldn't anticipate the death of the NCAA simply for that reason.
|
|