http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...n/2574369/

Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford said Monday the next six months are "very important" to the future of the NCAA and predicted that significant structural and governance changes could be implemented at the governing body's annual convention in January.

Among the changes up for discussion would be the formation of a so-called "super division" that would allow athletic departments with high-revenue football programs to make some of their own rules and implement things like athlete stipends. Many of those initiatives have been blocked by lower-revenue programs, which make up the majority of the NCAA.

whatever is going to happen, get it over with.

Wonder if this is what's needed to push BYU administration into one of the Power 5 conferences? Guess Notre Dame can continue being Notre Dame.

Leaving the NCAA to form the Collegiate Football League. Mike Slive as the 1st Commisioner of College Football.

Cue the Darth Vader music!

Bowlsby is saying it too, except I am beginning to think that they don't want to leave; they want to kick some schools out:

"Bowlsby told media in his state of union address that it is virtually impossible to pass meaningful legislation and hinted a separate division -- a so-called Division 4 -- is possible for the top football-playing schools. He added there is “unanimity” among his fellow FBS commissioners, saying leaving the NCAA and setting up a new organization is not likely “except as a last resort.”

“I think we all have a sense that transformative change has to happen,” Bowlsby said.

He went as far to agree with Alabama coach Nick Saban's belief that the top five BCS conferences (Pac-12, Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten) could play games amongst themselves in the future. Saban reiterated that belief last week at the SEC media days.

“If you do that it's a zero sum game,” Bowlsby said. “There are going to be winners and losers in there … If you have only those five conferences playing each other there's going to be half those people who are traditional losers.”

That comment could mean that the non-BCS conferences (Conference USA, Mountain West, MAC, Sun Belt and American beginning in 2014) could essentially be cut out of major-college football. Some would argue they already are.

“We've made it too easy to get into Division I and too easy to stay there,” Bowlsby said, later adding. "Northern Iowa and Texas aren't much alike."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-possible

I'm all for kicking some folks out of D1. We can pay the stipend. Whatever. Lets just get the rift raft out of here. I'm on board.

The end is near for FBS have-nots.

I propose any schools who have been playing Division 1 football since it's inception in 1973 should be allowed to stay at the top level.

College athletics is dead

(07-22-2013 11:27 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I'm all for kicking some folks out of D1. We can pay the stipend. Whatever. Lets just get the rift raft out of here. I'm on board.

I don't think you get it. ECU and the rest of the AAC would be out too.

(07-22-2013 11:28 AM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  The end is near for FBS have-nots.

No it is not. They just want to axe Sun Belt, etc. They just don't want to share anymore money with them.

I actually think that the American and the Mountain West would be brought along for the ride. Once you get those two you have everybody you need. The power five can treat them as junior members but I can't see them kicking out schools that want to be apart of major college football.

(07-22-2013 11:30 AM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:27 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I'm all for kicking some folks out of D1. We can pay the stipend. Whatever. Lets just get the rift raft out of here. I'm on board.

I don't think you get it. ECU and the rest of the AAC would be out too.

I don't think that that is what they are shooting at. They are not shooting at a school like UCF, because UCF has done well since moving up. They are shooting at UAB and it is self explanatory; and on top of that they can't kick UAB out.

I think its a power play to get the stipend

(07-22-2013 11:37 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think its a power play to get the stipend

And under Title IX this means more than paying football players. We're talking huge money here.

Ummmm... You do realize that ECU, UCF, UH, UC, and USF have lived most of their lives with the UABs and Rices of the world. You are absolutely fooling yourself if you don't think Bowlsby, Slive, Saban, Swofford, and company don't mean US when they say "it's been too easy" to get into their world. We are nothing more than "city" colleges and "directional" schools to them.

From Bowlsby's comments, it sounds like they might be targeting FCS & low-major conferences like the NEC and new WAC. I think thats where their problem is with regards to getting a stipend measure pushed through, not with the SBC (who voted in favor of the stipend) and the rest of the G5.

(07-22-2013 11:49 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Ummmm... You do realize that ECU, UCF, UH, UC, and USF have lived most of their lives with the UABs and Rices of the world. You are absolutely fooling yourself if you don't think Bowlsby, Slive, Saban, Swofford, and company don't mean US when they say "it's been too easy" to get into their world. We are nothing more than "city" colleges and "directional" schools to them.

I don't think that it has anything to do with directions or any of that city colleges stuff; and everything to do with whether a program is helping to grow the bottom line. Right now they see schools lunching at the teet, but not providing any kind of tangible benefit for allowing them to stay. And we know the SEC and B12 only care about football, because that is where the money is; so that points to things right there. They can't demote them, even though there is this attendance business that should allow them to do it. And on top of that there are more schools moving up each year that will also look to lunch at the teet.

(07-22-2013 11:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:37 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think its a power play to get the stipend

And under Title IX this means more than paying football players. We're talking huge money here.

Not really, they only need to write the rules that a stipend be paid to sports that generate revenue. Under such a provision, women's programs at schools like UConn and Tennessee would cover Title IX anti-discrimination standards.

(07-22-2013 11:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:37 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think its a power play to get the stipend

And under Title IX this means more than paying football players. We're talking huge money here.

Right, if 70 football players are paid and 13 in men's basketball than a school has to pay the same stipend to 80 plus female athletes. Otherwise a school would be allocating resources unfairly. Or, I guess, a school could just eliminate some men's programs and make up the money allocation difference that way.