A New Division For Power Conferences?

[ResLife Hero]

I don't personally like the idea of this, but it would certainly be a major change.

Y! SPORTS

The big leagues appear poised to get their way and their own division within the NCAA.

Polling of the roughly 800 administrators at the NCAA convention's dialog on governance revealed solid support for an autonomous voting body for the five most powerful conferences – the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12 and Big 12. Fifty-eight percent of those administrators – from all levels of NCAA membership – were in support of autonomy for the power conferences; 30 percent were opposed; 12 percent were neutral.

Also, I'm assuming our ACC ties would keep us in this new division.

 

[RyCo1983]

Dislike.

 

[rikkitikki08]

And it will still continue to be all about the $$$$$$$$

 

[ResLife Hero]

And it will still continue to be all about the $$$$$$$$

Yep. I get that small schools can't always afford to compete in all aspects with the SECs of the world, but I don't like the idea of just excusing them from the table.

 

[IrishLax]

Yep. I get that small schools can't always afford to compete in all aspects with the SECs of the world, but I don't like the idea of just excusing them from the table.

The problem is that these small poor schools for years have fucked up the NCAA because improvement to the system would come at increased cost. It's absurd how much influence the "have nots" have.

Why are scholarship limits as low as they are? To cater to the have-nots. You have literally thousands of student athletes every year deprived of scholarships they would earn in a "free market" based on their merits. Looking at football, you used to be able to give up to 105 kids a year a free education. Now that number is down almost 20%... while simultaneously revenue has grown by leaps and bounds during that period of time, and access to education has increased across the country. Why? Because small crappy schools who want to be "big time" whined and complained about "competitive advantage" and lobbied their way incrementally towards less and less aid for student athletes because it was "too expensive for them."

That is criminal. And downright un-American. About 50% of the systemic issues and dumbass rules within the NCAA are directly related to little schools being cock suckers. Fuck 'em.

 

[ResLife Hero]

The problem is that these small poor schools for years have fucked up the NCAA because improvement to the system would come at increased cost. It's absurd how much influence the "have nots" have.

Why are scholarship limits as low as they are? To cater to the have-nots. You have literally thousands of student athletes every year deprived of scholarships they would earn in a "free market" based on their merits. Looking at football, you used to be able to give up to 105 kids a year a free education. Now that number is down almost 20%... while simultaneously revenue has grown by leaps and bounds during that period of time, and access to education has increased across the country. Why? Because small crappy schools who want to be "big time" whined and complained about "competitive advantage" and lobbied their way incrementally towards less and less aid for student athletes because it was "too expensive for them."

That is criminal. And downright un-American. About 50% of the systemic issues and dumbass rules within the NCAA are directly related to little schools being cock suckers. Fuck 'em.

Interesting point, and some stuff I hadn't really thought much about. I guess my biggest beef with this change is that it would be conference-based. Does Wake Forest really deserve to push a Boise State or BYU out? I agree with you that the "have nots" shouldn't hold back the system as a whole, but I think there could be smarter ways of doing it. Raise the limits on scholarships back to 105 and whatnot, but then also require a minimum number of those types of benefits as a barrier to entry. That way any school willing to compete still has the opportunity.

 

[Cali_domer]

The problem is that these small poor schools for years have fucked up the NCAA because improvement to the system would come at increased cost. It's absurd how much influence the "have nots" have.

Why are scholarship limits as low as they are? To cater to the have-nots. You have literally thousands of student athletes every year deprived of scholarships they would earn in a "free market" based on their merits. Looking at football, you used to be able to give up to 105 kids a year a free education. Now that number is down almost 20%... while simultaneously revenue has grown by leaps and bounds during that period of time, and access to education has increased across the country. Why? Because small crappy schools who want to be "big time" whined and complained about "competitive advantage" and lobbied their way incrementally towards less and less aid for student athletes because it was "too expensive for them."

That is criminal. And downright un-American. About 50% of the systemic issues and dumbass rules within the NCAA are directly related to little schools being cock suckers. Fuck 'em.

I agree(Minus the colorful language)

 

[IrishLax]

Interesting point, and some stuff I hadn't really thought much about. I guess my biggest beef with this change is that it would be conference-based. Does Wake Forest really deserve to push a Boise State or BYU out? I agree with you that the "have nots" shouldn't hold back the system as a whole, but I think there could be smarter ways of doing it. Raise the limits on scholarships back to 105 and whatnot, but then also require a minimum number of those types of benefits as a barrier to entry. That way any school willing to compete still has the opportunity.

I would wager that IF there was a move to a brand new division and not just some more autonomy for conferences, that all schools/conferences that wanted to opt-in could opt-in. So BYU would likely be in as an independent, whereas Boise State would get left behind as their conference would not want to opt in.

I think we are really far away from a new division where this would happen, and think we're much closer to just more autonomy for conferences within the NCAA confines and leverage for those schools affiliated with those conferences or independent. Also, with the CFB Playoff system and the current bowl system and everything else, frankly nothing would change for a Boise type of school in either scenario really. They're already going to be very much so on the outside looking in. The BCS where they could get defaulted into a big game by beating a schedule of nobodies is over.

You also have to ask yourself how many Boise States are there? Really none. There is no reason to make rules to cater to one school over the needs of the many. Catering to the little guys is what has everything as screwed up as it is right now to begin with.

 

[GATTACA!]

Interesting point, and some stuff I hadn't really thought much about. I guess my biggest beef with this change is that it would be conference-based. Does Wake Forest really deserve to push a Boise State or BYU out? I agree with you that the "have nots" shouldn't hold back the system as a whole, but I think there could be smarter ways of doing it. Raise the limits on scholarships back to 105 and whatnot, but then also require a minimum number of those types of benefits as a barrier to entry. That way any school willing to compete still has the opportunity.

Maybe we would finally dress 85

 

[IrishLax]

Yahoo already corrected their story from "separate division" to "separate voting bloc"... which is what I've heard is likely the way things are trending. Take the power out of the hands of the leeches so that major schools can vote on fixes/rules/etc. in a more productive and efficient manner.

 

[Irish YJ]

I'd be all for a separate division, but I'm like to the Big 5, maybe a big 6, plus a major independent cluster. I'd also like to see an 8 game team playoff with the winner from each conference, plus the rest at large. Along with curing world hunger, I'll never get my wish, but I guy can dream.

In all seriousness, Lax is spot on. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing a small conference team make some noise on the football field, but giving them the amount of leverage they have over the big guys is plane insanity.

Like it or not, it's business. Should it be, that's another argument, but "we are what we are".....

 

[dshans]

That is criminal. And downright un-American. About 50% of the systemic issues and dumbass rules within the NCAA are directly related to little schools being cock suckers. Fuck 'em.

R U Fucking Serious? I prefer to think that you, like me, are averse to use of the "sarcasm font." Yep, yup, damn straight, youfugon wid me, hiijodeputo, youbetcha.

"The Little Guy" is "The American way.

 

[woolybug25]

I would be all for a Power Division, if all teams in it, only played eachother. It would be a true test for the playoffs.

 

[Irish YJ]

R U Fucking Serious? I prefer to think that you, like me, are averse to use of the "sarcasm font." Yep, yup, damn straight, youfugion wid me, hiijodeputo, youbetcha.

"The Little Guy" is "The American way.

The American way is that the little guy has an opportunity to grow up and be a big guy. Doesn't necessarily mean they should have the same clout of larger universities who offer much more.

I guess under Obama it does. While we're redistributing wealth, might as well redistribute all of the power and proceeds that the larger universities have as well. Let's move all of those NBC $$ while we're at it to Indiana State!

 

[Irish YJ]

I would be all for a Power Division, if all teams in it, only played eachother. It would be a true test for the playoffs.

I'd be OK with giving every Power Division one, and one only game a year from the lower division. Mostly just to let the kids from the lower division have Power experience in a big stadium, not to mention make a little money.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I would be all for a Power Division, if all teams in it, only played eachother. It would be a true test for the playoffs.

Yeah but they'll never do it. What percentage of BCS teams have winning seasons in a given year? 80? Relegating schools like IU to 1 and 2 wins a season in perpetuity will strangle interest in those places or fracture conference membership. There is no talent distributing draft in cfb; there will always be a semi-permanent underclass.

The little guy schools deliver tons of fans to cfb that the big schools make money off of. All they get in return is a purely fictitious opportunity to compete for a national title.

As to the forces driving NCAA rules based on cost suppression... why would those go away? Are the schools going to collectively agree to spend more money for no additional benefit? There are also issues of compliance with Title IX. Increasing those numbers means the death of other non-revenue sports.

College football is a revenue hog because it has over 100 members in every geographic nook and cranny of the U.S. IMO, they would be utter fools to mess with that.

 

[dshans]

The American way is that the little guy has an opportunity to grow up and be a big guy. Doesn't necessarily mean they should have the same clout of larger universities who offer much more.

"Opportunity" is the key. Balkanization, be it by size, economic advantage, "military might," or any other perceived "invisible hand of economic good" does little to promote or enhance actual one-on-one, mano a mano competition.

Roadblocks, regardless of the of the power source, are anathema to reality.

 

[Irish YJ]

"Opportunity" is the key. Balkanization, be it by size, economic advantage, "military might," or any other perceived "invisible hand of economic good" does little to promote or enhance actual one-on-one, mano a mano competition.

Roadblocks, regardless of the of the power source, are anathema to reality.

 

[pumpdog20]

The problem is that these small poor schools for years have fucked up the NCAA because improvement to the system would come at increased cost. It's absurd how much influence the "have nots" have.

Why are scholarship limits as low as they are? To cater to the have-nots. You have literally thousands of student athletes every year deprived of scholarships they would earn in a "free market" based on their merits. Looking at football, you used to be able to give up to 105 kids a year a free education. Now that number is down almost 20%... while simultaneously revenue has grown by leaps and bounds during that period of time, and access to education has increased across the country. Why? Because small crappy schools who want to be "big time" whined and complained about "competitive advantage" and lobbied their way incrementally towards less and less aid for student athletes because it was "too expensive for them."

That is criminal. And downright un-American. About 50% of the systemic issues and dumbass rules within the NCAA are directly related to little schools being cock suckers. Fuck 'em.

You raise football back up 20 spots, you've now just cost another men's team their sport(s). I'm guessing that's right around the amount of players on a men's lacrosse team. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[IrishLax]

R U Fucking Serious? I prefer to think that you, like me, are averse to use of the "sarcasm font." Yep, yup, damn straight, youfugon wid me, hiijodeputo, youbetcha.

"The Little Guy" is "The American way.

"Opportunity" is the key. Balkanization, be it by size, economic advantage, "military might," or any other perceived "invisible hand of economic good" does little to promote or enhance actual one-on-one, mano a mano competition.

Roadblocks, regardless of the of the power source, are anathema to reality.

This is completely incomprehensible dribble. Are you trying to say that collusion among parties to artificially hold down the amount of financial aid that would otherwise be available to gifted athletes via scholarships is a GOOD thing?

 

[IrishLax]

You raise football back up 20 spots, you've now just cost another men's team their sport(s). I'm guessing that's right around the amount of players on a men's lacrosse team. Be careful what you wish for.

Yes and no. Warning... long winded post incoming.

It's really not apples to apples when talking about the financial impact of relaxing or eliminating scholarship limits. You're absolutely right that in a "free market" revenue sports are going to get the VAST amount of resources and scholarship money and the like. And there are many examples recently of schools cutting swimming/track/baseball/etc. from struggling athletic departments to save $$.

However, before the age of scholarship limits and such, there were plenty of non-revenue teams and there always will be. Then Title IX happened, which made each team effectively cost more than double. The truth is so few scholarships are used by non-revenue sports that the majority of the cost has absolutely nothing to do with scholarships and it isn't a sum zero game. There are many (if not the majority) of non-revenue teams across the country right now that don't even hand out the max scholarships each year because it isn't in their budget.

In reality, an increase in available scholarships would most likely mean reallocation of wasted funds in the football budget for most schools. Instead of the facilities arm race, bloated recruiting budgets, absurd amounts of direct mail, etc. they'd reallocate towards more scholarships. There would absolutely be some schools that go "all in" for football and scrap programs to reallocate more money... and I have no problem with that. If there isn't institutional support for the team and the admin wants to scrap it, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. No one should be compelled to field a team they don't want to field. The number of programs around the country that function just fine with no scholarships in DII or DIII or even DI shows you that you can easily field teams for lesser sports with no scholarships at all.

A good example of how things could go down is Maryland and Cal recently. Maryland athletic department had an absolute ton of teams they were supporting. They decided it was too much of a burden as the department was in the red. So they cut a bunch of programs no one cared about and couldn't raise enough money to support. Not many shed a tear for water polo or acrobatics, which is why they don't exist anymore. Conversely, Cal was in a similar predicament. They announced they were cutting baseball, rugby, gymnastics, and women's lacrosse. The savings would be $4mil/year (the equivalent of 100 scholarships to ND... which shows you just how much of an operating budget for these sports is completely outside scholarship costs). People said "what! we love those teams!" and they got enough support/donations to keep lacrosse, and then enough to keep rugby, and then enough to keep men's gymnastics... and finally, enough to keep baseball and women's gymnastics. The point is that if a school should have a sport, then it will have a sport. And if it shouldn't have a sport, then it won't have a sport. The system self regulates if you let it.

There is also a whole separate debate to be had about Title IX that should be reserved for another thread, but is worth having.

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah but they'll never do it. What percentage of BCS teams have winning seasons in a given year? 80? Relegating schools like IU to 1 and 2 wins a season in perpetuity will strangle interest in those places or fracture conference membership. There is no talent distributing draft in cfb; there will always be a semi-permanent underclass.

IU would be part of the BIG, and thus in the game. They would have way more to gain than teams like ND, Bama or USC. They would now be able to attract better talent and better coaches. Guys that want to compete in the major division.

The little guy schools deliver tons of fans to cfb that the big schools make money off of. All they get in return is a purely fictitious opportunity to compete for a national title.

I don't believe that. Little schools are the ones making money off of the bigs. That's why they all line up to get their ass beat by the big boys. If anything, trying to compete with the big programs hurts their universities. Most schools don't make money through their athletics (look it up, sounds crazy, but its absolutely true), it's typically a net loss.

As to the forces driving NCAA rules based on cost suppression... why would those go away? Are the schools going to collectively agree to spend more money for no additional benefit? There are also issues of compliance with Title IX. Increasing those numbers means the death of other non-revenue sports.

See LAX's post above. He said it better than I could.

College football is a revenue hog because it has over 100 members in every geographic nook and cranny of the U.S. IMO, they would be utter fools to mess with that.

That philosophy has hurt the quality of the game. Not only is the talent getting spread out, but its also forcing schools to get away from their core values of education in order to chase a money losing venture of competing with a grouping of programs that have too big of advantages for them to overcome.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Screw the WNBA, that is all.....

 

[Irish YJ]

Screw the WNBA, that is all.....

I'd like to keep women's volleyball though, if you don't mind. That is all. Oh, and women's professional beach volleyball. Everybody enjoys that don't they?

 

[Goldedommer44]

It will be very interesting to see how they work this out. I don't believe doing it by conferance is the right way since as one else said IU or Wake forest should not be considered a big boy and enjoy in the spoils of this new super division. If this is strictly about voting rights and the big boys vote counting more then the little guys then I would agree, but I think it will only lead to the big boys making a super division and cutting the little guys out.

 

[Irish YJ]

It will be very interesting to see how they work this out. I don't believe doing it by conferance is the right way since as one else said IU or Wake forest should not be considered a big boy and enjoy in the spoils of this new super division. If this is strictly about voting rights and the big boys vote counting more then the little guys then I would agree, but I think it will only lead to the big boys making a super division and cutting the little guys out.

I'd agree if this was just about FB. IU is a major player in both BB and Soccer. I would agree FB rules, but BB is pretty damn big too.

 

[irishog77]

I'd agree if this was just about FB. IU is a major player in both BB and Soccer. I would agree FB rules, but BB is pretty damn big too.

I love college hoops and used to believe the bolded too. Then, when the Big XII almost collapsed/absorbed into the sec/pac 10 a couple years ago, my opinion changed.

I'd say while we think b-ball is pretty damn big, it's really not...not compared to football. Kansas, one of the bluest of the blue blood programs in college basketball, a team with tons of loyal and fanatic fans, a program that ranks up near the top in attendance every year, a team just recently removed from a title (and on the precipice of another title game appearance), etc., etc. was going to be left by the wayside when major conference realignment almost happened a couple years ago. On top of that KU wasn't that far removed from an Orange Bowl season and a couple other decent years under Jabba the Hut.

Point being that if KU, who can stand toe-to-toe with IU basketball any day of the week (plus have a fairly successful football team while some of this was occurring, unlike IU), can get left at the altar...then any team who doesn't generate a lot of money in football can get left at the altar, basketball and any other successful sport be damned.

 

[dshans]

This is completely incomprehensible dribble. Are you trying to say that collusion among parties to artificially hold down the amount of financial aid that would otherwise be available to gifted athletes via scholarships is a GOOD thing?

I don't dribble, much as I've tried. It's more a bouncy-bouncy-bouncy the ball thing in my case.

I'm also able to keep my saliva in my mouth. Although since I'm "getting on in years" it may just be a short matter of time.

I do spew drivel now and then. Sometimes in earnest, sometimes for effect, sometimes in jest.

"Power," historically, is fleeting.

"Gifted," and the value assigned, is in the eye of the beholder. Results may vary. Randy Moss, a bottom feeder of a man, may well have been a fully paid Notre Dame Man had Lou had his way.

My point is simple: excellence should be recognized and encouraged, be it designing an aerodynamic design for dimples on a golf ball or perfecting a technique for a bump set in volleyball. To be football centric and revenue centric at the expense of being liberal arts (universal) centric is folly.

As Randy Newman posited "it's money that matters." As William Shakespeare posited "Better a witty fool than a foolish wit."

What is, is. What isn't might be.

 

[bigedefense]

I'd like to keep women's volleyball though, if you don't mind. That is all. Oh, and women's professional beach volleyball. Everybody enjoys that don't they?

Here, here! Give this man an ARRUMPH!

 

[bigedefense]

Here, here! Give this man an ARRUMPH!

Anyone get that movie quote???