Looks like the ruling elite in D1 will get even smaller than the 125 BCS schools. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-i-moves-closer-new-structure
Thanks for the informative link! If these new proposals pass, I do not believe the ruling elite will have actually gotten much smaller, though. Under the old system, where 11 conferences voted, the 6 BCS conferences could win any vote that required a simple majority of the 11 football bowl/playoff conferences. Now if the proposal passes, where there are only 10 such football conferences and weighted voting, the 5 now former BCS conferences can out-vote the other 5 conferences 10-5. In other words, the football elite is still the elite. However, football scholarship limits were excepted from the weighted voting. So, as to football scholarship limits, the Power 5 conferences can be deadlocked 5-5 with the other 5 football conferences. For non-football issues, which have different weighted voting rules, the Power 5 conferences don't come close to having a majority and, so, can't impose their wishes on everybody else. It is accurate, though, that the Power 5 conferences will be given extraordinary autonomy to make their own rules for just themselves in many areas, but that autonomy does not extend to scholarship limits in any sport nor to transfer rules. To the extent the Power 5 adopts an unique rule within their autonomous area, any other conference (not just the football bowl/playoff ones) is free to follow any of those rules if it wants.
As I read it, 48 schools could now pass legislation . (2/3 of 65 (ish) teams in 5 conferences) on the revenue sports, so apparently football and later basketball. They talk about a review on that in two years. I wonder what they will decide? That's a substantial difference from the 5/6 of the 125 schools in the BCS needed to ensure that the BCS has more than 50% of the total NCAA vote. (NCAA bylaws ensure now that the BCS has 60% of the voting power and membership on all committees) the BCS , which is less than 1/3 of the D1 schools, would retain their 60% voting block for the other sports.
NCAA BOD passed the autonomy legislation 16-2. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...d-votes-allow-autonomy-five-power-conferences Article quotes opinion that there will not be a vote to over-ride. It'll be interesting to see what issue divide the Power 5 and what other schools/conferences opt to follow some or all of whatever rules the Power 5 adopt for themselves.
Well, duh. An override requires a 62.5% override within 60 days, or over 250 schools. Not much chance of organizing that even if they were in agreement. But in the non revenue sports I have asked. The ADs I have talked to are universally in agreement that all ncaa teams will operate on the same level in the sports they participate in or lawsuits will ensue. They cite justice department policy ( not NCAA policy) to back them up.
I don't know what "on the same level" means. There are already 3 division that don't operate on the same level, and D1 football operates on 2 different levels already. Let's consider one of the issues where the Power 5 might exercise autonomy: health insurance extending past eligibility. If the Power 5 decide to allow schools to purchase health insurance for all of its athletes that will cover injuries sustained while playing but not healed/cured by the time eligibility ends, I can't see the DOJ stepping in and stopping that just because other schools/conference don't want to provide it for athletes in non-revenue sports. As long as the implementation of a new rule complies with Title IX, I can't think of a single issue on which the Power 5 have been given autonomy that could justify DOJ involvement. I'm not saying such an issue doesn't exist, just that I can't think on one as I sit here typing this reply. It would appear that most (maybe all) of the rules that govern competitive balance on the filed are outside the Power 5's grant of autonomy. They can't change: the eligibility rules, the transfer rules, the scholarship limits, the playing rules, the signing dates, the recruiting rules, the limits on practices or length of season, or the rules governing the NCAA play-off/championship.
I'm curious: Are you an attorney? The way you write, you might be. The issues are going to be with rules that indirectly affect competitive balance on the field: Specifically, how much financial benefit can and will schools offer to their athletes? This will include items such as health insurance carrying into the future to address injuries incurred at school. If the Power 5 now can increase financial benefits and the other conferences theoretically can but practically can't, it certainly will affect competitive balance.
As I understand the grant of autonomy it is with respect to the revenue sports, which the justice department doesn't give a hoot about in prosecuting tittle IX cases. So we are talkin 85 Football, 13 men's basketball, and 15 womens basketball scholarships. You don't think that providing "full cost of attendance" in the revenue sports, which would mean for 98 males and 15 females creates an imbalance? I suspect that the justice department might see that as regressive with respect to equal opportunities for men and women as mandated by title IX.
The Power 5 already have so much to offer players that, IMO, competitive balance is a myth today. In the past 20 years, exactly 5 schools from outside the Power 5 have ever made it to the College Cup in D1 women's soccer. Two of theses five schools (Princeton and UCONN) could match any Power 5 money-related rule, if they wanted. Portland and Santa Clara (2 of the other 3; SMU is the 3d) currently compete successfully despite the imbalance that already exists, probably because student-athletes want to go to these schools more than they want the benefits available at the Power 5 schools. Is there a tipping point at which new benefits completely end the chance of all non-Power 5 schools to make it to the College Cup? I don't know. Yet, there are lots of ways to increase balance through other rules, which the Power 5 do not control. For example, make all soccer scholarships head-count sports and/or reduce the number of scholarships in soccer. College football became more competitive when it placed the 85 scholarship limit on the teams.
You may be right, but that's not how I read the legislation. As I read it, there is autonomy in certain areas (generally referred to as the health and well-being of players) across all sports and in the non-autonous areas there is weighted voting that only gives control to the Power 5 for football. That for non-health & well-being issues, men's basketball remains outside of the control of the Power 5 appears to be the deal that made the new structure pass. The revenue from the men's D1 basketball tournament March Madness) funds the entire NCAA.
An NCAA article said they would defer a decision on Basketball for two years, so if there was a deal, I'd be willing to bet it was to do it in pieces to make it more manageable and palatable. But even so, the only part as I read it that they have the power to change ncaa rules is in the one big revenue sport right now, which makes the title IX imbalance 100% to zero. That's probably why we don't see specifics. The conferences are probably still trying to figure out how to get past the justice department and sell a package the rest of the NCAA membership will buy into. They can't do a full title IX redress without the full membership signing on.
NCAA article on the passage: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-adopts-new-division-i-structure Article also includes a PDF of the full proposal: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DI Steering Commitee on Gov Proposed Model 07 18 14 4.pdf fourty-five pages of garish details. It seems to have been edited in-place before submittal (strikethroughs and such) including the designation that "Shared" Governance has become "Council" Governance (in several places, including the chapter-header page 35.)
If this happens and the 65 teams just play each other and have their own NCAA tournament for just them look for several schools to be dropping other sports. The big 5 conferences already have schools with very few sports teams due to the cost of running the teams. If these schools are paying these football and basketball players $2-5k on top of their scholarships and they are flying family members to games the cost of these programs will be insane. Schools will be dropping men's soccer, baseball and several other men's sports to save money
The SEC already does not have field hockey, men's and women's ice hockey, men's and women's lacrosse so alot less STUDENT athletes My guess is tht the big 5 conferences will look to each have 16 schools in their conferences. Still the big time football programs will ave a huge advantage with how they send their $$$
Yesterday's Obannon decision, coupled with the NorthWestern union decision, casts a whole new light on things. While the decision applies only to Football and Men's Basketball, the principles on which the decision was based would have to be applied to all the scholarship sports. It would seem to severely restrict what the NCAA could do about limiting what sorts of limits on compensation the NCAA could place. The judge seems to say that any attempt to limit competition for student services is an illegal cartel under the Sherman antitrust act unless the NCAA can show harm to the sport. And while the reports are listing numbers around $5K for a stipend, the judge specifically did not limit the amount to that figure. As part of his reasoning, he used Pell Grants, which are not figured in how the limit on current compensation is figured. Typically, these are in the $5K range per year. But he also used the current rule that allows Tennis players to receive $10K in prize money before they enroll and still retain amateur status. He reasoned that since that inconsistency in the rule on amateurism hasn't harmed college sports, is could be reasonably also be applied as an an allowable standard for a stipend in other sports. The main thing is that neither the NCAA nor the conferences could act as a cartel by setting the limits on player compensation. And the ruling moots large parts of the PDF cited above on the new governance model. Colleges can no longer depress limits to anything less than full compensation plus the reasonable stipend, which he says in his ruling must be "not less than $5K" ( citing the allowance of Pell Grants) consistent with the actual revenue produced from licensing and the full cost of attendance. Full cost of attendance includes nutrition, health care and travel, which the NCAA only recently acknowledged. The schools will have little to legislate even under the new governance model, since the ruling prohibits the schools or ncaa from disallowing those payments. Part of the ruling: (p98 of 99) So now players being recruited will be able to shop around for the best stipends. And a logical extension of the ruling would seem to preclude the current ban on agents as anticompetitive. The full decision: http://i.usatoday.net/sports/!Invesitgations-and-enterprise/OBANNONRULING.pdf
While the Order would allow any amount above $5K as the NIL (name-image-likeness) stipend, my feeling is that the 5K-as-a-cap concept comes from thought that the schools will pay athletes the least amount the order allows, which the Order allows the NCAA to make $5K per player, especially as the school has to pay the same amount to every player on the team. So, while a school might be willing to pay $100K for a certain quarterback, it probably doesn't want to pay that to the punter and every other scholarship player. (The Order doesn't appear to address walk-ons, but if they get in a game, their NIL rights would seem to become compensable, too, at that point.) The Order has not made this a free market for players (although the Kessler lawsuit, which I believe is before the same judge, could do that!). The huge wrinkle in this Order is that the NIL stipend has to come from NIL revenue. So, what happens if a sport has no NIL revenue? Arguably, paying a $0 NIL stipend would be fine in such a situation. To what extent are the non-revenue sports generating zero dollars in NIL revenue? I don't know. The complicating factor is the conference cable networks. They charge viewers and they show lots of non-revenue sports both live and in replay. If an economist told me that the value of NIL rights to a D1 women's soccer match was worth 1/100,000 of a Power 5 football game, I might think it too high! But the reality is that I don't know. By tying the NIL stipend to NIL revenue, the Court has probably taken Title IX out of the equation. Congress can legislate equal opportunity. It cannot legislate equal revenue from paying customers. Nonetheless, there are probably a few schools that might have a greater than zero NIL revenue from specific women's sports. If the Power 5 decided to create artificial NIL revenue just to be able to pay non-revenue players an NIL stipend (which would only make sense to take players away from other schools by offering more money), I could easily see a lawsuit by other schools to stop that practice. My guess is that the Power 5 will self-regulate to avoid this situation. In other words, for the non-revenue sports, they'll pay what they have to pay for NIL rights but not a penny more.
There is currently no NIL revenue because the ncaa suppressed the possibility. But when the judged wrote about whether they had value, she ruled they had as much value as the licensing arrangements schools currently sign for their own rights, and that they should be shared on an equal basis. Electronic Arts, for instance, said that they would be willing to pay players for those rights if the NCAA allowed it, as they make their games more marketable. And I think the judge's whole reasoning on anti competitiveness eliminates the idea of the non revenue sport altogether. The sports may be non revenue because the possibility of making money in them is suppressed by current ncaa rules. I think we have to change our whole thinking about the current structure of NCAA rules on amateurism.
By vote of the Presidents of the schools on Monday, the PAC-12 has now become the first conference to adopt certain reform rules. The Conference’s new rules apply to Pac-12 student-athletes across all sports. PAC-12 STUDENT-ATHLETE REFORM PACKAGE (i) Guaranteeing four-year scholarships that can neither be reduced nor canceled provided the student-athlete remains in good standing and meets his/her terms of the agreement. Effective in 2015-16, all financial aid agreements offered to incoming student-athletes will be multi-year agreements for no less than four academic years. (ii) Financially supporting student-athletes who do not graduate in four years and return to school to complete their degrees. Effective 2016-17, if a student-athlete departs the institution in good standing and has completed a reasonable portion of their degree (50%), the student-athlete can return and receive necessary educational expenses for the remaining terms of the agreement. (iii) Enhancing medical support for both current and former student-athletes. Effective in 2015-16, Conference schools will be required to provide direct medical expenses for documented athletically related injuries to former student-athletes for a period of four years after separation from the team or institution. (iv) Liberalizing Transfer Rules within the Conference. The CEOs approved elimination of the financial aid penalty of the intra-conference transfer rule. Effective immediately, a student-athlete who transfers between Pac-12 institutions can receive an athletic scholarship from the second school without restriction, provided he or she is otherwise eligible to receive the aid. (v) Increasing student-athlete representation in Pac-12 governance. The CEOs supported including student-athletes in Council meetings and giving them a meaningful role in its deliberations. Final recommendations will be determined June 2015.
Interesting to see how (ii) is computed in the scholarship allotment sports by the NCAA. It would seem that any athletic based scholarship portion would have to count towards the sport scholarship limit, even if eligibility is completed. No mention as to whether (iv) includes a waiver of the double penalty for intra conference thansfers in the PAC12. Currently, a transfer sits a year and loses a year of eligibility. In addition, the student cannot receive ANY direct or indirect athletic compensation during the year In which the student is ineligible. It appears that only the aid ban during the ineligible year is now waived, not the requirement to sit or the loss of the eligibility ( and again, would count towards scholarship limits). Currently, a player who transfers after the start of Junior year is done with all sports, as far as playing in the PAC12 is concerned.
Wow...what a great thing to wake up to. Thanks Hooked for posting. My Daughter is commited to a Pac12 school with her scholarship scaling up through the four years. Nice to know the numbers will be guaranteed. All aspects of this are outstanding. Well done Pac12
I agree. None of the so-called Power 5 Conferences (including the PAC-12) was granted autonomy over NCAA's rules on transfers or scholarship limits, so those remain in place. So, I read it as you do, i.e., that it just removes the additional PAC-12 imposed penalty of being ineligible for aid during the year the intra-conference-transferring player sits.
But it didn't remove all restrictive pac12 rules other conferences don't have. All conferences have the autonomy to add penalties to the terms of the NLI without ncaa interference. Some conferences do, some don't. The PAC12 has chosen to deduct one year of eligibility intra-conference transfers that does not apply to students transferring out of conference. The terms of the NLI do not include loss of eligibility for transfers. Here is the Pac12 rules on intra-conference transfers: ( PAC12 2013-2014 handbook p. 30) The waiver not being allowed in (5) and the loss of eligibility in (b.) are NOT part of either ncaa rules or in the standard NLI. They are PAC12 rules. The NCAA has no rules whatever on intra-conference transfers. The only way those rules can be changed for individual students is to have a near-unanimous vote of the conference AD's. I recall that happening once in the last 20 or so years.