(04-23-2014 09:50 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 01:16 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I love the let's take to court talk. Don't you think the NCAA lawyers are looking at how to get this pass the court? If the vast members vote for it, how can those who lose the vote complain? Does this not have to get the votes first to allow this to happen? Reminds of the the USFL vs NFL, USFL won the Antitrust suit for what, a whole 3 dollars.

The NCAA is being sued right as we speak on the basis of rules that were voted for by the current membership. The NCAA can be sued. My guess is that the NCAA would get sued on the whole "permissive" and "actionable" portion of P5 autonomy for preventing schools from implementing any P5 rules that the G5 schools are willing to pay for. Such a suit could come from the schools or the athletes at those schools--or both.

(04-21-2014 01:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 01:16 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I love the let's take to court talk. Don't you think the NCAA lawyers are looking at how to get this pass the court? If the vast members vote for it, how can those who lose the vote complain? Does this not have to get the votes first to allow this to happen? Reminds of the the USFL vs NFL, USFL won the Antitrust suit for what, a whole 3 dollars.

Yes, it doesn't make sense at all to wish/hope for some type of legal or political intervention to save the G5. Just look at how college sports have evolved in the past 30 years since the University of Oklahoma case that blew up the NCAA's restrictions on TV rights. What that Supreme Court case effectively stated was that the NCAA putting curbs on power school voting power and money is actually MORE of an antitrust violation than the power schools maximizing every single cent in the marketplace to the complete exclusion of the non-power schools. Believe it or not, in the eyes of the law, the "equal access" NCAA Tournament is a bigger potential antitrust violation than the old BCS/new CFP football system.

Note that the antitrust law does NOT protect financial equality. This is the mistake that I always see laypeople make. Instead, antitrust law is in place to protect the free market, which inherently ends up with anything but financial equality. (Indeed, financial equality can typically only be achieved by interfering with the free market itself.) In order for the G5 to win an antitrust case, they need to show that the P5 is actually taking money *away* from the G5 that they would otherwise be making in a real free market. That has always been the problem for the G5 (or formerly non-AQ) conferences - the market analysis showed that that the old BCS system actually made the non-power schools more than what they would have made in a pure free market. This means that the G5 can't show damages (just as the USFL couldn't show damages against the NFL and were awarded only $3 even though they technically "won") and why lawsuits are always threatened but NEVER filed.

The new rules present an illegal tiering arrangement. I see the P5 losing this case in court if anyone sued them. They've established tiers here with separate rules with nothing that allows schools to move from one tier to the other. If they had somehow legislated some metrics, whether budget, competing at the highest levels and winning, stadium size, etc., they would be off scot-free. But this is an illegal tier with no possibility of passage from one tier to the next.

It is illegal.

Okay, lets look at a no vote. Then what happens? Just a prediction.

1. P5 pulls out and networks follow.
2. P5 gets to create there own Titles for Football and Basketball. Do you think Networks will not follow?
3. P5 Basketball will now turn into football, they want make the same mistake as they did with Basketball.
4. Finally, for all you Anti-Trust lovers, the P5 is now competition to the NCAA. NCAA becomes a shell of it's former of itself.

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:02 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:56 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Yes they are --- and the votes are 'one vote per entity' - not weighted like the permissible side. So the G5 and the rest of the conferences are free to adopt ANY of the changes the P5 makes for themselves. If this isn't the case please show me specifically where that's stated --- since the definitions certainly appear to indicate otherwise. Thanks in advance -

http://csnbbs.com/thread-686730.html

Quote:Actionable legislation: Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions to modify specified rules in a manner that enhances the student-athlete experience, or decreases athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes. These legislative changes that address student-athlete interests or experience will apply only to the five conferences and their 65-member institutions, although Division I members generally would be free to address the same or similar issues through legislation considered by the new Council on any "actionable" item, the 27 other conferences will have the option to adopt at the next Council meeting (instead of waiting for a full legislative cycle), through a nonweighted vote of the 27, rather than a vote of the full Council.

Seems to indicate a vote of the full 27 non power conferences would be needed and all votes count the same regardless of conference.

Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

There are 27 conferences outside the G5 and no one here even knows if all the G5 would be interested in keeping up with the Joneses. The G5 would be relying on the goodwill of other conferences.

(04-23-2014 10:09 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:50 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 01:16 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I love the let's take to court talk. Don't you think the NCAA lawyers are looking at how to get this pass the court? If the vast members vote for it, how can those who lose the vote complain? Does this not have to get the votes first to allow this to happen? Reminds of the the USFL vs NFL, USFL won the Antitrust suit for what, a whole 3 dollars.

The NCAA is being sued right as we speak on the basis of rules that were voted for by the current membership. The NCAA can be sued. My guess is that the NCAA would get sued on the whole "permissive" and "actionable" portion of P5 autonomy for preventing schools from implementing any P5 rules that the G5 schools are willing to pay for. Such a suit could come from the schools or the athletes at those schools--or both.

(04-21-2014 01:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 01:16 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I love the let's take to court talk. Don't you think the NCAA lawyers are looking at how to get this pass the court? If the vast members vote for it, how can those who lose the vote complain? Does this not have to get the votes first to allow this to happen? Reminds of the the USFL vs NFL, USFL won the Antitrust suit for what, a whole 3 dollars.

Yes, it doesn't make sense at all to wish/hope for some type of legal or political intervention to save the G5. Just look at how college sports have evolved in the past 30 years since the University of Oklahoma case that blew up the NCAA's restrictions on TV rights. What that Supreme Court case effectively stated was that the NCAA putting curbs on power school voting power and money is actually MORE of an antitrust violation than the power schools maximizing every single cent in the marketplace to the complete exclusion of the non-power schools. Believe it or not, in the eyes of the law, the "equal access" NCAA Tournament is a bigger potential antitrust violation than the old BCS/new CFP football system.

Note that the antitrust law does NOT protect financial equality. This is the mistake that I always see laypeople make. Instead, antitrust law is in place to protect the free market, which inherently ends up with anything but financial equality. (Indeed, financial equality can typically only be achieved by interfering with the free market itself.) In order for the G5 to win an antitrust case, they need to show that the P5 is actually taking money *away* from the G5 that they would otherwise be making in a real free market. That has always been the problem for the G5 (or formerly non-AQ) conferences - the market analysis showed that that the old BCS system actually made the non-power schools more than what they would have made in a pure free market. This means that the G5 can't show damages (just as the USFL couldn't show damages against the NFL and were awarded only $3 even though they technically "won") and why lawsuits are always threatened but NEVER filed.

The new rules present an illegal tiering arrangement. I see the P5 losing this case in court if anyone sued them. They've established tiers here with separate rules with nothing that allows schools to move from one tier to the other. If they had somehow legislated some metrics, whether budget, competing at the highest levels and winning, stadium size, etc., they would be off scot-free. But this is an illegal tier with no possibility of passage from one tier to the next.

It is illegal.

Okay, lets look at a no vote. Then what happens? Just a prediction.

1. P5 pulls out and networks follow.
2. P5 gets to create there own Titles for Football and Basketball. Do you think Networks will not follow?
3. P5 Basketball will now turn into football, they want make the same mistake as they did with Basketball.
4. Finally, for all you Anti-Trust lovers, the P5 is now competition to the NCAA. NCAA becomes a shell of it's former of itself.

Call their bluff.

1. Destroy the current NCAA bball tournament.
2. Force all P5 schools into bed with the SEC and the inevitable push into semi-pro sports.
3. Force the P5 to spend $450 million a year (what the NCAA currently spends) on hosting and arranging all the D1 athletic championships and tournaments.

Call their bluff.

And here's the best part: what do you have to lose?

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

Right. So the G5 have to convince at least 9 of the 21 non-FBS conferences to agree with any changes we want to make.

Thinking outside the box here. Could the "G5" also say so long to the NCAA and go do their own thing? College Football and College Basketball would have kind of a NFL/AFL thing going.

(04-23-2014 10:14 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  Thinking outside the box here. Could the "G5" also say so long to the NCAA and go do their own thing? College Football and College Basketball would have kind of a NFL/AFL thing going.

Man your sig has me rolling!

(04-23-2014 10:04 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:50 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The SWAC can hold Tulane/SMU/UH/Tulsa back from being competitive with Miss. State/Texas Tech.

The NEC can hold UConn/Cincy back from being competitive with BC/Syracuse/Rutgers/UMD.

That's messed up.

No....

This type of thinking is what makes mid-majors exactly that. Only Tulane can hold Tulane back. Only UH can hold UH back. Only Tulsa can hold Tulsa back. To me it's gotten very old to sit around and say "Well this conference, or this team screwed us over because (excuse)". It is much easier to make sorry excuses for your program's ineptitude than to find their own weak spots and try to fix them.

He is referring to the fact that the small conferences are allowed to prevent UConn bball (the program is not inept) from adopting the same rules as Syracuse.

(04-23-2014 10:09 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:02 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:56 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Yes they are --- and the votes are 'one vote per entity' - not weighted like the permissible side. So the G5 and the rest of the conferences are free to adopt ANY of the changes the P5 makes for themselves. If this isn't the case please show me specifically where that's stated --- since the definitions certainly appear to indicate otherwise. Thanks in advance -

http://csnbbs.com/thread-686730.html

Quote:Actionable legislation: Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions to modify specified rules in a manner that enhances the student-athlete experience, or decreases athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes. These legislative changes that address student-athlete interests or experience will apply only to the five conferences and their 65-member institutions, although Division I members generally would be free to address the same or similar issues through legislation considered by the new Council on any "actionable" item, the 27 other conferences will have the option to adopt at the next Council meeting (instead of waiting for a full legislative cycle), through a nonweighted vote of the 27, rather than a vote of the full Council.

Seems to indicate a vote of the full 27 non power conferences would be needed and all votes count the same regardless of conference.

Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

There are 27 conferences outside the G5 and no one here even knows if all the G5 would be interested in keeping up with the Joneses. The G5 would be relying on the goodwill of other conferences.

That's fine but it's the permissible side that's the most important and makes the true difference. The AAC (or any single institution) can determine for itself - whether it will pay for the true "cost of attendance scholarships," meals, the new insurance rules, academic support and the others ---

The actionable side are mostly *limits* that the P5 hope gets them out of the looming union jam --- but can also be adopted, though vote by the other conferences.

(04-23-2014 10:12 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

Right. So the G5 have to convince at least 9 of the 21 non-FBS conferences to agree with any changes we want to make.

True -- and that's only if these conferences what the same limitations that the P5 think it's wise to adopt considering their different circumstances.

(04-23-2014 10:12 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

Right. So the G5 have to convince at least 9 of the 21 non-FBS conferences to agree with any changes we want to make.

You're automatically including the P5 as yes votes? Fellow G5s as yes votes?

I'm starting from the assumption that the G5 have 2 out of 32 votes as Yeses. Then the MAC, Sunbelt and CUSA have to be convinced. These schools would have to be convinced that the AAC deserves an expensive and powerful recruiting tool (an advantage) that these schools cannot afford. If you manage to convince those 3 to votes for you (and perhaps against their own interests) then you have 5 votes. After that, you talk to the P5 conferences. They want to eliminate you and take your money. The whole point of this proposal is to see you die. But maybe they can't deny you with a straight face, a public face, so you get their 5 votes (maybe not though, Cuse and BC want UConn to die). Now you have 10 votes. You need 7 more conferences to agree with you. Basketball conferences like the BE and A10 MAY agree to vote with you IF they have decided to pour money into their bball programs, but why would the other conferences give you an advantage?

(04-23-2014 10:14 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  Thinking outside the box here. Could the "G5" also say so long to the NCAA and go do their own thing? College Football and College Basketball would have kind of a NFL/AFL thing going.

Yes. They would not have to beat the P5 just carve out a niche more profitable than what they have now. It would open up for rule changes that P5 would not like.

But that would be a nuclear option and one of last resort.

Personally I think just a credible threat of such a thing, and a united G5 front, would solve the problem without actually doing it.

(04-23-2014 10:18 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:09 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:02 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:56 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Yes they are --- and the votes are 'one vote per entity' - not weighted like the permissible side. So the G5 and the rest of the conferences are free to adopt ANY of the changes the P5 makes for themselves. If this isn't the case please show me specifically where that's stated --- since the definitions certainly appear to indicate otherwise. Thanks in advance -

http://csnbbs.com/thread-686730.html

Quote:Actionable legislation: Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions to modify specified rules in a manner that enhances the student-athlete experience, or decreases athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes. These legislative changes that address student-athlete interests or experience will apply only to the five conferences and their 65-member institutions, although Division I members generally would be free to address the same or similar issues through legislation considered by the new Council on any "actionable" item, the 27 other conferences will have the option to adopt at the next Council meeting (instead of waiting for a full legislative cycle), through a nonweighted vote of the 27, rather than a vote of the full Council.

Seems to indicate a vote of the full 27 non power conferences would be needed and all votes count the same regardless of conference.

Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

There are 27 conferences outside the G5 and no one here even knows if all the G5 would be interested in keeping up with the Joneses. The G5 would be relying on the goodwill of other conferences.

That's fine but it's the permissible side that's the most important and makes the true difference. The AAC (or any single institution) can determine for itself - whether it will pay for the true "cost of attendance scholarships," meals, the new insurance rules, academic support and the others ---

The actionable side are mostly *limits* that the P5 hope gets them out of the looming union jam --- but can also be adopted, though vote by the other conferences.

Aha, that's why we disagree. I read the actionable side entirely differently than you do. And your reading makes little sense to me. Why would the small conferences need to be consulted on changes that LIMIT participation and scope? Makes no sense. They would be naturally in favor of that from the start. There would be no need for the terms "permissive" and "actionable" at all if this were simply a matter of limits and reductions on the actionable side.

(04-23-2014 10:23 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  You're automatically including the P5 as yes votes? Fellow G5s as yes votes?

I'm starting from the assumption that the G5 have 2 out of 32 votes as Yeses. Then the MAC, Sunbelt and CUSA have to be convinced. These schools would have to be convinced that the AAC deserves an expensive and powerful recruiting tool (an advantage) that these schools cannot afford. If you manage to convince those 3 to votes for you (and perhaps against their own interests) then you have 5 votes. After that, you talk to the P5 conferences. They want to eliminate you and take your money. The whole point of this proposal is to see you die. But maybe they can't deny you with a straight face, a public face, so you get their 5 votes (maybe not though, Cuse and BC want UConn to die). Now you have 10 votes. You need 7 more conferences to agree with you. Basketball conferences like the BE and A10 MAY agree to vote with you IF they have decided to pour money into their bball programs, but why would the other conferences give you an advantage?

It reads as if the P5 would not get a vote in the matters since they will be governing themselves. Only the 27 non power conferences would vote.

(04-23-2014 10:27 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:23 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  You're automatically including the P5 as yes votes? Fellow G5s as yes votes?

I'm starting from the assumption that the G5 have 2 out of 32 votes as Yeses. Then the MAC, Sunbelt and CUSA have to be convinced. These schools would have to be convinced that the AAC deserves an expensive and powerful recruiting tool (an advantage) that these schools cannot afford. If you manage to convince those 3 to votes for you (and perhaps against their own interests) then you have 5 votes. After that, you talk to the P5 conferences. They want to eliminate you and take your money. The whole point of this proposal is to see you die. But maybe they can't deny you with a straight face, a public face, so you get their 5 votes (maybe not though, Cuse and BC want UConn to die). Now you have 10 votes. You need 7 more conferences to agree with you. Basketball conferences like the BE and A10 MAY agree to vote with you IF they have decided to pour money into their bball programs, but why would the other conferences give you an advantage?

It reads as if the P5 would not get a vote in the matters since they will be governing themselves. Only the 27 non power conferences would vote.

I'm not sure if that even improves matters. Seems to me those 5 votes would be a YES on any changes, out of sheer embarrassment.

(04-23-2014 10:24 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:14 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  Thinking outside the box here. Could the "G5" also say so long to the NCAA and go do their own thing? College Football and College Basketball would have kind of a NFL/AFL thing going.

Yes. They would not have to beat the P5 just carve out a niche more profitable than what they have now. It would open up for rule changes that P5 would not like.

But that would be a nuclear option and one of last resort.

Personally I think just a credible threat of such a thing, and a united G5 front, would solve the problem without actually doing it.

If the P5 does do this, it may be our only course of action.

(04-23-2014 10:26 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:18 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:09 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:02 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  http://csnbbs.com/thread-686730.html

Seems to indicate a vote of the full 27 non power conferences would be needed and all votes count the same regardless of conference.

Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

There are 27 conferences outside the G5 and no one here even knows if all the G5 would be interested in keeping up with the Joneses. The G5 would be relying on the goodwill of other conferences.

That's fine but it's the permissible side that's the most important and makes the true difference. The AAC (or any single institution) can determine for itself - whether it will pay for the true "cost of attendance scholarships," meals, the new insurance rules, academic support and the others ---

The actionable side are mostly *limits* that the P5 hope gets them out of the looming union jam --- but can also be adopted, though vote by the other conferences.

Aha, that's why we disagree. I read the actionable side entirely differently than you do. And your reading makes little sense to me. Why would the small conferences need to be consulted on changes that LIMIT participation and scope? Makes no sense. They would be naturally in favor of that from the start. There would be no need for the terms "permissive" and "actionable" at all if this were simply a matter of limits and reductions on the actionable side.

Well I think it makes perfect sense --- the P5s, as already stated, have different interests, due to their different circumstances, than the smaller conferences. Different pressures with agents, different pressures with 'time' spent by 'students' in their respective sports, different numbers of so called assistants, ... the P5 doesn't want to be limited in making the changes by the other conferences here, especially with the new pressures on unions - which will affect the P5 more than the smaller conferences.

(04-23-2014 10:27 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:23 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  You're automatically including the P5 as yes votes? Fellow G5s as yes votes?

I'm starting from the assumption that the G5 have 2 out of 32 votes as Yeses. Then the MAC, Sunbelt and CUSA have to be convinced. These schools would have to be convinced that the AAC deserves an expensive and powerful recruiting tool (an advantage) that these schools cannot afford. If you manage to convince those 3 to votes for you (and perhaps against their own interests) then you have 5 votes. After that, you talk to the P5 conferences. They want to eliminate you and take your money. The whole point of this proposal is to see you die. But maybe they can't deny you with a straight face, a public face, so you get their 5 votes (maybe not though, Cuse and BC want UConn to die). Now you have 10 votes. You need 7 more conferences to agree with you. Basketball conferences like the BE and A10 MAY agree to vote with you IF they have decided to pour money into their bball programs, but why would the other conferences give you an advantage?

It reads as if the P5 would not get a vote in the matters since they will be governing themselves. Only the 27 non power conferences would vote.

My reading also - where the matter concerns ONLY the 27 conferences only those conferences vote. The P5 has no role.

(04-23-2014 10:35 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:26 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:18 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:09 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Exactly --- on the Actionable side it's one vote per conference - not weighted. On the Permissible side the P5 gets 4 votes per conference and the AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt, and MAC get two votes - the rest one vote.

There are 27 conferences outside the G5 and no one here even knows if all the G5 would be interested in keeping up with the Joneses. The G5 would be relying on the goodwill of other conferences.

That's fine but it's the permissible side that's the most important and makes the true difference. The AAC (or any single institution) can determine for itself - whether it will pay for the true "cost of attendance scholarships," meals, the new insurance rules, academic support and the others ---

The actionable side are mostly *limits* that the P5 hope gets them out of the looming union jam --- but can also be adopted, though vote by the other conferences.

Aha, that's why we disagree. I read the actionable side entirely differently than you do. And your reading makes little sense to me. Why would the small conferences need to be consulted on changes that LIMIT participation and scope? Makes no sense. They would be naturally in favor of that from the start. There would be no need for the terms "permissive" and "actionable" at all if this were simply a matter of limits and reductions on the actionable side.

Well I think it makes perfect sense --- the P5s, as already stated, have different interests, due to their different circumstances, than the smaller conferences. Different pressures with agents, different pressures with 'time' spent by 'students' in their respective sports, different numbers of so called assistants, ... the P5 doesn't want to be limited in making the changes by the other conferences here, especially with the new pressures on unions - which will affect the P5 more than the smaller conferences.

Throughout their whole history, the P5 ADs and coaches have been asking for INCREASED time and money to recruit, more coaches, more phone calls, etc., they are the last people who want to limit themselves.

Let me give you one example: transfer rules fall under actionable. What if they decided that transfers between P5 teams require a year off, but transfers from D1AA and D2 and G5 do NOT require a 1 year wait.

So the G5 then takes this to the D1AA schools and says, would it bother you if we took your kids with no 1 year penalty?

(04-23-2014 10:41 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:35 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:26 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:18 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:09 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  There are 27 conferences outside the G5 and no one here even knows if all the G5 would be interested in keeping up with the Joneses. The G5 would be relying on the goodwill of other conferences.

That's fine but it's the permissible side that's the most important and makes the true difference. The AAC (or any single institution) can determine for itself - whether it will pay for the true "cost of attendance scholarships," meals, the new insurance rules, academic support and the others ---

The actionable side are mostly *limits* that the P5 hope gets them out of the looming union jam --- but can also be adopted, though vote by the other conferences.

Aha, that's why we disagree. I read the actionable side entirely differently than you do. And your reading makes little sense to me. Why would the small conferences need to be consulted on changes that LIMIT participation and scope? Makes no sense. They would be naturally in favor of that from the start. There would be no need for the terms "permissive" and "actionable" at all if this were simply a matter of limits and reductions on the actionable side.

Well I think it makes perfect sense --- the P5s, as already stated, have different interests, due to their different circumstances, than the smaller conferences. Different pressures with agents, different pressures with 'time' spent by 'students' in their respective sports, different numbers of so called assistants, ... the P5 doesn't want to be limited in making the changes by the other conferences here, especially with the new pressures on unions - which will affect the P5 more than the smaller conferences.

Throughout their whole history, the P5 ADs and coaches have been asking for INCREASED time and money to recruit, more coaches, more phone calls, etc., they are the last people who want to limit themselves.

Let me give you one example: transfer rules fall under actionable. What if they decided that transfers between P5 teams require a year off, but transfers from D1AA and D2 and G5 do NOT require a 1 year wait.

So the G5 then takes this to the D1AA schools and says, would it bother you if we took your kids with no 1 year penalty?

If the 'small conferences' vote and decide that the existing one year transfer rule is fair and should stay in place (it's not considering the paid coaches move freely) than that's to their own harm. Why they would do this, ethical reasons aside, I'm not sure. But the P5 ain't blocking them one way or the other --- and that's my point. BTW -- The P5s have already voted (pending) for the P5s and only vote for the P5s on actionable --- so I'm not sure how they vote for the rest of the conferences here.

See here >>

Actionable legislation -- Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions to modify specified rules in a manner that enhances the student-athlete experience, or decreases athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes. These legislative changes that address student-athlete interests or experience will apply only to the five conferences and their 65-member institutions, although Division I members generally would be free to address the same or similar issues through legislation considered by the new Council ...

(04-23-2014 10:41 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:35 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:26 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:18 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:09 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  There are 27 conferences outside the G5 and no one here even knows if all the G5 would be interested in keeping up with the Joneses. The G5 would be relying on the goodwill of other conferences.

That's fine but it's the permissible side that's the most important and makes the true difference. The AAC (or any single institution) can determine for itself - whether it will pay for the true "cost of attendance scholarships," meals, the new insurance rules, academic support and the others ---

The actionable side are mostly *limits* that the P5 hope gets them out of the looming union jam --- but can also be adopted, though vote by the other conferences.

Aha, that's why we disagree. I read the actionable side entirely differently than you do. And your reading makes little sense to me. Why would the small conferences need to be consulted on changes that LIMIT participation and scope? Makes no sense. They would be naturally in favor of that from the start. There would be no need for the terms "permissive" and "actionable" at all if this were simply a matter of limits and reductions on the actionable side.

Well I think it makes perfect sense --- the P5s, as already stated, have different interests, due to their different circumstances, than the smaller conferences. Different pressures with agents, different pressures with 'time' spent by 'students' in their respective sports, different numbers of so called assistants, ... the P5 doesn't want to be limited in making the changes by the other conferences here, especially with the new pressures on unions - which will affect the P5 more than the smaller conferences.

Throughout their whole history, the P5 ADs and coaches have been asking for INCREASED time and money to recruit, more coaches, more phone calls, etc., they are the last people who want to limit themselves.

Let me give you one example: transfer rules fall under actionable. What if they decided that transfers between P5 teams require a year off, but transfers from D1AA and D2 and G5 do NOT require a 1 year wait.

So the G5 then takes this to the D1AA schools and says, would it bother you if we took your kids with no 1 year penalty?

This is a situation of "let's you and him fight!".

G5 would be stupid to take that lying down.