NCAA President: A lot of change is coming

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

Found this on the A10 board via UMassHoops.com.

Here is the full document:
http://www.oneafar.org/Governance_Proposal.pdf

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... oming-ncaa

rhodylaw · Unread post by **rhodylaw** » 10 years ago

So because we don't have big boy football we will be screwed. Makes UMass move look smarter.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 10 years ago

The NCAA BB tournament is one of the most popular, if not THE most popular post season tournament out there. If they mess with it, and create a 2 tier system with the big boy football schools in one, and everyone else in the other, they will have really screwed things up.

Hopefully they will leave BB alone. Could care less what happens with football. In football, only a big boy school can win an FBS title anyway. BB is another story. Eliminate the chance for a school like Butler [or URI] to play for a national championship [for ALL schools], and that will be the death knell for the sport, at least imo. That opportunity, is what makes the tourney so great.

If we were relegated to second class status, any coach worth his salt, would want to bolt for the top tier. Who could blame him?

Rhode_Island_Red · Unread post by **Rhode_Island_Red** » 10 years ago

The NCAA is scared to death that the BCS cartel will break off and form its own organization, then go to the networks and say, "you want our football (whose ratings demolish anything basketball generates)? You'll take our basketball, on our terms." With the cartel leagues headed for 16 members (or more) each, there aren't enough networks to absorb all that inventory without displacing the non-cartel leagues or relegating them to playing league games at 10 a.m. on weekdays.

That would destroy the basketball tournament as we know it, but there are enough cartel shills in the media (not to mention any names, Jay Bilas) who already think the non-cartel leagues don't deserve as many at-large berths as they get.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 10 years ago

If the BCS cartel breaks off, then the new BB BE, and the A10, and everybody below that, is doomed.

No big time football, no money. Bye-bye networks.

The appeal of the NCAA tournament, is having mid majors in it, and doing well. There will be no Cinderellas. Three quarters of the country will tune out.

I have a feeling it's going to happen someday, let's hope that day holds off for a while.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

From the actual document, we find that they have no intention of changing the structure of non-football Division I championships. They specifically called out the importance of maintaining the men's basketball championship.

It looks like FBS schools that are not in "the cartel" or top 6 conferences are the ones who should be worried, as football TV revenue and focus will only get greater for the elite, and not for the UMass and Temples of the world.

For basketball schools, they will make specific efforts to not break that money machine, and the A10 is much closer to the top major basketball conferences than it is the bottom 2/3 of conferences.

The 1A FAR Board supports a governance structure that leaves intact the Division I
championship structure in which FBS institutions compete. We urge this for three reasons. First,
the men’s basketball tournament funds more than 90 percent of NCAA operations, both at the
national office and for all NCAA divisions, and we have no wish to create major impediments to
their ability to function. Second, many NCAA operations and services funded by the men’s
basketball tournament inure to the direct benefit of FBS institutions and conferences –
enforcement; the eligibility center; interpretations; and student-athlete reinstatement (just to
name a few). Third, because we believe that the Division I championship structure works well,
we see no good reason to isolate FBS teams and conferences.

URIGONZO · Unread post by **URIGONZO** » 10 years ago

I believe everyone involved makes more money if the BB tournament is left the same. Why would they ruin a product that makes the schools and the networks a ton of money? Especially if they don't have to ruin it.

bressler3south · Unread post by **bressler3south** » 10 years ago

What they say and what they do are two completely different things…..
Also, as I mentioned about three-four months ago, URI, the A-10, the New Big East, and everyone else in the same boat should be pro-active and create a Basketball Super-League, and set it up like the NFL or MLB, etc., Coast-to-Coast, etc., and grab whatever television, mass-media selling of rights it can BEFORE the barbarians destroy the NCAA Empire it helped to create.
There are schools in the so-called "football conferences," which are going to be tossed out of their leagues before they even blink, because they're not going to fit the profile of "Football Factory."
Watch…this thing has been unfolding for 10-15 years and finally it's going to hit the fan for everyone.
It's going to be "No Prisoners," and it'll be an "Exclusive Club" with no entry for at least 10 years when it comes to fruition.
The NCAA Basketball Tournament is going to become like a corporate-version of job-outsourcing, and the richest could care less about the haves-not. It's all about $$$ and greed.
Also, if the "Factories" don't get their way, they will threaten the NCAA with a mass-exodus, create their own version of an association -- complete with pay for their athletes -- and when the NCAA threatens legal action, the "Factories" will say: "Fine. Let the courts settle it…." knowing all-too-well that the case will take nearly a decade to litigate, while the "Factory Association" will have literally made billions.
Ironically, the NBA and the NFL are going to love this because it will refine their feeder-systems, and cut their scouting costs considerably.
What kid wouldn't grab a free education, a small trust-fund, the best coaching available, and probably a $20,000-a-year stipend???????

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 10 years ago

I believe they should pay the players !!!

rhodylaw · Unread post by **rhodylaw** » 10 years ago

What if the 1A players get paid but not the 1AA players. What then happens to the A 10. Would you go to a bottom feeder BB in the ACC and get paid or go to GTown, PC, Rhody, etc

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 10 years ago

The biggest confusion to me is the fact that it seems that the football schools would leave to chase profits, right? They seem angry that the NCAA takes such a big piece of their pie and feel they are entitled to more money. Then they could set up their own rules where they pay players, but it would also be more possible because of the profit structure giving them two or three times the money. However, outside of the talk of them trying to create a monopoly, could their be potential tax ramifications? Will these schools be able to hide under their 501(c) agreements created under the old NCAA structure? Or since they can now pay players and profit on their likeness and clean up on revenue from TV, Bowl Games, etc., will they now be forced to pay taxes on those earnings? In the end, is it going to be worth some of those schools to have to pay whatever tax rate? You look at a school like Rutgers or Cincinnati, they've had negative athletic department budgets for a few years now, they couldn't survive in a world with taxes and financial regulations. The only schools who benefit from such a life would be your true big boys - Texas, Alabama, Florida, etc. Outside of the top 5 or 10 schools, everyone else would be struggling to survive. Is it a move the others would be wanting to make knowing financial liability was on the horizon?

I'm not sure how that all works, but I think it's an aspect that at least needs to be discussed.

bressler3south · Unread post by **bressler3south** » 10 years ago

If political parties and others of questionable non-profit entities qualify for a 501(c), then the schools' lawyers will find a way….ALMOST ALL of these football factory schools are state universities, thus there are two U.S. Senators and one U.S. Representative per school to represent them in the U.S. Congress. Also, thousands of alumni work in D.C. government agencies, and who knows how many are lobbyists……
None of these schools would be willing to make the move unless they were well aware of positive outcomes.
Who's fooling whom????
Only those in denial.
Also, maybe they won't seek 501 (c) status; perhaps, they'll seek MLB-style anti-Trust status, as they'll cite that the NCAA IS their competition, thus they are not a monopoly.
One more thing: What was the ACTUAL corporate tax-rate payment in REAL DOLLARS???????
GE PAID NOT ONE PENNY TWO YEARS AGO!!!!!!!! Think about that. What did you pay, and who bore the burden?????

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 10 years ago

rambone 78 wrote:If the BCS cartel breaks off, then the new BB BE, and the A10, and everybody below that, is doomed.

No big time football, no money. Bye-bye networks.

The appeal of the NCAA tournament, is having mid majors in it, and doing well. There will be no Cinderellas. Three quarters of the country will tune out.

I have a feeling it's going to happen someday, let's hope that day holds off for a while.

The appeal of the first weekend is the Cinderella story and upsets but the ratings for the Elite 8 and FF are much worse when there is a George Mason or team like that. The networks know this. More importantly, the BCS presidents know this. Eventually the BCS football schools will break off and the NCAA hoop tourney will fall in line with what they want. I imagine that good mid and small major teams will still have access so it maintains legitimacy but it's not good for hoop only schools, unfortunately.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

Again, courtesy of UMassHoops.com, we have found another article that reiterates the plan to maintain basketball's championship structure.

http://www.ubbullrun.com/2013/9/24/4766 ... e-proposal

OBRAM · Unread post by **OBRAM** » 10 years ago

Frankly how many FBS (formerly 1-A) schools are in the same level as Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama and most SEC Schools, USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson when it comes to football, attendance, and money generated? Some people even say Nebraska is not at that level anymore and maybe also NotreDame. Does Washington State, BC, Vandy and you can mention about 50 other teams in the FBS ever have a chance of winning a FBS football championship the way it is now with the more wealthy and powerful getting more wealth and power? The only thing a BC has in common with a Florida State is that they are in the same conference and share the money, but I doubt BC would ever either win a National Football Championship or stoop to the level in recruiting that would be needed to win a football championship.

bressler3south · Unread post by **bressler3south** » 10 years ago

BRESSLER QUOTING BRESSLER:

"There are schools in the so-called 'football conferences,' which are going to be tossed out of their leagues before they even blink, because they're not going to fit the profile of 'Football Factory.'"

Read my previous two posts about this (Tuesday and Wednesday)…..

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 10 years ago

Obram has a point, although Notre Dame is right up there with almost any team. A national championship bid counts for far more than what you think. Anyways BC doesn't have a chance but I would say only a handful of teams do in the whole country! so BC plays these big schools and competes to a degree which brings in money and is entertaining to fans which is good enough in my book.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 10 years ago

BC got to #2 in the country (late in the season) in both football and hoops in the 2000s. They have had their fair share of great QBs over the last 30 years and they have a path to a playoff spot (win the ACC), especially when they go eight teams. That's a good enough combo where you can see something like that happen. While they might not be up there with the Bamas of the world when it comes to football revenue, they do OK with their ACC ties. And, they aren't getting kicked out of the ACC because their national TV ratings for football have been historically very good.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 10 years ago

BC will never be good again if they keep trying to chase this dream that they will get a coach that will want to stay there forever. They've gone safe on all recent hires and they will never be consistently good going for safe coaches who get average recruits. Al Skinner was the best thing that ever happened to the basketball program, and they pushed him away because he didn't have enough of the "personality." He might not have wowed people, but his teams were basically consistently headed for the NCAA and won a few games on occasion. As for football, it's a different beast but they still will never be good without getting "up and comers." Once Jagz screwed them, they basically went in a shell. They've sucked ever since.

At this point, it looks like neither program will ever be a threat in the new ACC outside of the occasional surprise.

OBRAM · Unread post by **OBRAM** » 10 years ago

I reading a book called 'Bowled Over'. The author states that the power schools in the BCS conferences need the other weaker teams. They need to have the Utah State's of the football world (which by the way have a very good team), play the Auburns. I don't think the Alabama's or Ohio State's want to be playing 12 games a year against equals. They want to have those pay out games, they want 7 home games, and they don't want to get physically beat up any more than they are so that they can play in the 4 team Championship for FBS football intact.
As for BC, I think even if they don't have much of a chance to compete against the Clemson's year in year out, the program will get there 30,000-40,000 at a game, and it still will be a great atmosphere.

Obadiah · Unread post by **Obadiah** » 10 years ago

I've learned long ago to avoid using the word never, especially in a context that suggests both arrogance and jealousy. BC is doing just fine as both a academic institution and in athletics. Their move to the ACC was a wise one because it supports the progress BC has made in the last 20 years in becoming a larger, more broad based university, the acquisition of a national reputation, and the association with schools of a similar stature. Any visit to Chestnut Hill on a Saturday game day clearly shows that.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

Yahoo! columnist Dan Wetzel reports on the proposal by Athletic Directors on new NCAA governance structure:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/athletic-d ... 02663.html

bressler3south · Unread post by **bressler3south** » 10 years ago

HERE'S THE LATEST FROM THE BEAUTIFUL NEW NCAA UNIVERSE:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... own-issues

Rhody74 · Unread post by **Rhody74** » 10 years ago

KMac talked to URI and PC ADs about this:

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports ... -rules.ece

Ramblinrose · Unread post by **Ramblinrose** » 10 years ago

Rich get richer.

Captainron@ · Unread post by **Captainron@** » 10 years ago

If you pay the guys, you have to pay the girls. Only big time programs can afford that

bressler3south · Unread post by **bressler3south** » 10 years ago

Things are coming to a head….MORE THREATS. AND MORE AND MORE HEADLINES.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... e-autonomy

PROACTIVITY NEEDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

...hate big football...

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 10 years ago

Thoughts from the A10

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /10338259/

Taylor Swift · Unread post by **Taylor Swift** » 10 years ago

All these big football programs are trying to operate like they are the AAA teams of MLB for the NFL. This has absolutely zippo to do with student athletes for these institutions.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

It's scary that because URI DOES have football, stipends could cripple the athletic dept's budget.

rhodyrob · Unread post by **rhodyrob** » 10 years ago

If the footnall stipends move forward URI must either move the a lesser division with less scho;arships or drop the sport completely.
This is esp. true if Title IX is part of the stipends.
Right now we are one of the few teams in the A10 that provides football and we do so at a higher level then most of the ones that do.(can be found in the other athletics section of this site-URI competitiveness in A10)

Rhode_Island_Red · Unread post by **Rhode_Island_Red** » 10 years ago

rhodyrob wrote:If the footnall stipends move forward URI must either move the a lesser division with less scho;arships or drop the sport completely.
This is esp. true if Title IX is part of the stipends.
Right now we are one of the few teams in the A10 that provides football and we do so at a higher level then most of the ones that do.(can be found in the other athletics section of this site-URI competitiveness in A10)

Maybe this will be the thing that finally ends the charade known as URI football.

BFC · Unread post by **BFC** » 10 years ago

So is the theory here that if the Atlantic 10 adopts full cost scholarships, then URI will have to adopt it across all of its sports even football, a non-Atlantic 10 sport?

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 10 years ago

Rhode_Island_Red wrote:
rhodyrob wrote:If the footnall stipends move forward URI must either move the a lesser division with less scho;arships or drop the sport completely.
This is esp. true if Title IX is part of the stipends.
Right now we are one of the few teams in the A10 that provides football and we do so at a higher level then most of the ones that do.(can be found in the other athletics section of this site-URI competitiveness in A10)
Maybe this will be the thing that finally ends the charade known as URI football.

There is NO WAY the colleges are going to pay for this. This is going to be paid by the media. Absolutly the media contracts are going to be rewritten to pay for this. The whole premise of paying athletes is due to the money the schools make from media contracts.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 10 years ago

Considering how much money the NCAA and its' schools take in it seems odd to say that they're leaving a big chunk of money on the table, but they are. If athletes can get paid that opens up all kinds of extra revenue streams. Using players officially in video games, authentic jerseys with players names, card sets, autographs and other memorabilia, and increased sponsorship opportunities for the players are all things that could come to pass if the O'Bannon suit comes down in favor of the players.

BFC · Unread post by **BFC** » 10 years ago

Even the BCS conferences aren't talking about paying athletes, they're talking about full-cost tuition which means they'll give the players more food options, spending and travel money, etc. but not actual compensation.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 10 years ago

Right, that's the BCS conference compromise to get out in front of the issue of pay, but the ongoing O'Bannon trial could make that proposal too little too late. Two weeks ago EA Sports settled their share of the Sam Keller case for $40 million and last week the NCAA settled for $20 million. Some of that money will be going to current college players. The floodgates are starting to open.

Here's a link for information on the Sam Keller settlements: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... ame-claims

And here's a link to information on the O'Bannon trial: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... es-payment

BFC · Unread post by **BFC** » 10 years ago

O'Bannon's legal team used a sports economics professor as a witness who gave a model for how pay could work based on conference broadcast revenue which would result in an SEC football player getting paid $65,000 a year and an American Conference player getting $14,000 a year.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... nnon-trial

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

Oh.. my.. gosh.

Ramulous · Unread post by **Ramulous** » 10 years ago

They should use the money from the post season tournaments in basketball, and the bowl games in football, and every school should have the same stipend which should come directly from the NCAA....otherwise the big BCS schools gain an ever greater advantage by being able to play their players more money than their smaller brethren....

rhodylaw · Unread post by **rhodylaw** » 10 years ago

I think gaining an advantage is the point. Anyways, the NCAA should set a cap on compensation if they do allow it at all.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 10 years ago

I like Ramulous' idea. It's not likely to be the way they go, unfortunately. JMHO

BFC · Unread post by **BFC** » 10 years ago

The NCAA is trying to keep the BCS from breaking off into its own Division, telling them we're going to use your revenues to support the programs that don't make money and level the playing field for everyone may not be the type of convincing BCS schools are looking for.

bressler3south · Unread post by **bressler3south** » 10 years ago

Wow, a powerful mover-and-shaker with some gonads. Sure, he may have some ulterior motives, but…..
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... nnon-trial

Login • Register