NCAA Move to create new Division

[Obadiah]

What is discussed in this WaPo article is just a proposal, but it does show that the direction the NCAA has already been moving will intensify. Essentially, the "haves" do not what to be subjected to the concerns of the "have nots" and that motivation is becoming more transparent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2 ... -proposal/

[section(105)]

For whatever variations there will be forth coming, it appears to be a given that there will be the “haves” division. For me the question remains what divion(s) the “have nots” will be assigned to or colleges choose to be in ? Maybe that subdivision could be called the “leftovers”. Even with the final proposal details pending I don’t see much changing for URI, or the A-10 as now comprised. However maybe this NCAA proposal will be the window/opportunity for some conference realignment in the “have nots”. Will be interesting to watch.

[RF1]

Per the Post, the financial formula for the new division's baseline annual payment would be:
Total number of athletes divided by two, then multiplied by $30,000 to estimate the minimum each school would have to spend

The Washington Post calculated the number of athletes for each school by counting all those that compete in sports that have an NCAA Championship. It noted however that it is possible that other school athletes might also be included.

Some annual dollar estimates for select schools
Boise State 533 athletes $5.3M
UConn 554 athletes $8.6M
Houston 426 athletes $6.4M
Cincinnati 443 athletes $6.6M
UCLA 639 athletes $9.6M
Rutgers 718 athletes $10.8M
California 745 athletes $11.2M
North Carolina 771 athletes $11.6M

[RF1]

I found a source that indicates that URI has a total of 575 athletes - 296 males and 279 females. The same source lists UConn with 777 athletes. The WaPo however only used approx 554 athletes (71% of total) for its UConn cost calculation. If that same percentage was used for URI, that would equate to 408 athletes.

URI annual cost estimate range (408 to 575 athletes)
Rhode Island 575 athletes $8.6M
Rhode Island 408 athletes $6.1M


Source: https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges ... fe/sports/

[rambone 78]

No way we meet those numbers if a split happens.

I wonder what our total NIL number is for all sports right now.

Maybe 1 million? Just about all of it has to be in mens and womens BB and football. In other words our revenue sports.

[Jdrums#3]

I think paying athletes is an admirable idea but paying athletes in non-revenue generating sports like or under the same system/process they pay athletes in revenue generating sports doesn’t make sense to me - if that is what this proposal is advocating.

Shouldn’t the non-revenue generating athletes be under a different system (an expense or living allowance perhaps?) and therefore, not included in the athlete count?

Although, would it be legal to have one system for revenue generating sports/athletes versus non-revenue generating sports/athletes?

Or how about having an athlete payment system with a ceiling or cap but leave it to individual schools on what sports they choose to pay and how much? Or, break out football only with a separate cap ?

I have no idea. Just spit-balling because I am concerned we eventually get priced out of the elite basketball competition.

Or. am I not understanding this whole thing correctly? Hope others come along with a clearer understanding to shed light what this ultimately means to Rhody basketball.

[section(105)]

I think we are already priced out of the elite basketball competition. I don’t see how Rhody basketball, in whatever the final elite division requirements are being able to compete at that highest level.

[NYGFan_Section208]

I think paying athletes is an admirable idea but paying athletes in non-revenue generating sports like or under the same system/process they pay athletes in revenue generating sports doesn’t make sense to me - if that is what this proposal is advocating.

Shouldn’t the non-revenue generating athletes be under a different system (an expense or living allowance perhaps?) and therefore, not included in the athlete count?

Although, would it be legal to have one system for revenue generating sports/athletes versus non-revenue generating sports/athletes?

Or how about having an athlete payment system with a ceiling or cap but leave it to individual schools on what sports they choose to pay and how much? Or, break out football only with a separate cap ?

I have no idea. Just spit-balling because I am concerned we eventually get priced out of the elite basketball competition.

Or. am I not understanding this whole thing correctly? Hope others come along with a clearer understanding to shed light what this ultimately means to Rhody basketball.

We already have rules that only really exist because of circumstances in certain sports. But, if a sport generates revenue, everyone would probably agree that the players should get the cash. But if you do a sport that generates no $...(except at the 50/50 raffle at mbb games) how should that work?

[rhodyblue12]

No way we meet those numbers if a split happens.

I wonder what our total NIL number is for all sports right now.

Maybe 1 million? Just about all of it has to be in mens and womens BB and football. In other words our revenue sports.

So if we cut all sport except men's and women's basketball, maybe we can compete?

[rhodyblue12]

(kidding, obviously)

[RF1]

No way we meet those numbers if a split happens.

I wonder what our total NIL number is for all sports right now.

Maybe 1 million? Just about all of it has to be in mens and womens BB and football. In other words our revenue sports.

So if we cut all sport except men's and women's basketball, maybe we can compete?

My guess is that there will be minimum sports and athlete thresholds for this new division. The power schools all have football and sponsor many sports. They will not accept other schools spending just a small fraction of what they do. They are therefore not going to allow little fish to swim in their pond, even if it were to be for a single specific sport such as basketball.

[Rhodymob05]

This will never happen. Wouldn’t the heads of all the schools have to agree? This essentially breaks up all conferences? I saw the Alabama vs Vanderbilt example, which applies to all leagues.

[steviep123]

The best move would be to allow football to do it's own then and the other sports stay alone. That way football can bloat itself all it wants without ruining college hoops.

[section(105)]

This will never happen. Wouldn’t the heads of all the schools have to agree? This essentially breaks up all conferences? I saw the Alabama vs Vanderbilt example, which applies to all leagues.

I do think this NCAA new division will be the mechanism by which current conferences will break up. Into some subdivisions where the athletes would be compensated way less than the talked about $30,000. Whether it be schools of similar enrollment, similar sports being played, geography etc. I think when it all shakes out, our basketball program will be in some new conference that will look more the America East caliber. Unfortunately.

[Rhodymob05]

If Rhody is moved to an “American East” then where do the Bryant’s and the Albanys go? Down a league as well? URI is high up enough compared to the entire NCAAB landscape IMO.

[section(105)]

If Rhody is moved to an “American East” then where do the Bryant’s and the Albanys go? Down a league as well? URI is high up enough compared to the entire NCAAB landscape IMO.

Maybe stay, and make the commitments financial to be eligible for a new subdivision? Or move into a lower subdivision ? Like water, these schools, including URI, will find their own level. The often stated argument here that the RC was not built to move down no longer is a factor. IMO.