According to Sports Illustrated, 58 percent of the attendees at the NCAA's Division I Governance Dialogue seminar - a group made up mostly of schools outside the Big Five conferences - indicated support for autonomy in January.

And that's even though there appears to be no current move to create an opportunity for a conference outside the Big Five to apply for inclusion into that group.

"I don't remember discussing it, exactly that way," Slive said. "But certainly, at this point, there's no contemplation that the five would change."
Mike Slive on the 21st century

"According to Sports Illustrated, 58 percent of the attendees at the NCAA's Division I Governance Dialogue seminar - a group made up mostly of schools outside the Big Five conferences - indicated support for autonomy in January."

If still true, that is a landslide vote and huge canyon for the G5 to attempt to crossover to the P5 side.

(04-22-2014 08:45 AM)Pirate1 Wrote:  According to Sports Illustrated, 58 percent of the attendees at the NCAA's Division I Governance Dialogue seminar - a group made up mostly of schools outside the Big Five conferences - indicated support for autonomy in January.

And that's even though there appears to be no current move to create an opportunity for a conference outside the Big Five to apply for inclusion into that group.

"I don't remember discussing it, exactly that way," Slive said. "But certainly, at this point, there's no contemplation that the five would change."
Mike Slive on the 21st century

Note the awkwardness of his wording. It's significant that the question is being asked of him...

"Up until now, the foundation or the philosophy or the basis of legislation in the NCAA has been the so-called level playing field," Slive said. "If you replace that foundation and make the student-athlete the primacy, then what happens is you do things that are in the best interest of the student-athlete."

Do these people think we are all morons? Nothing they are doing is in the best interest of the student athlete. Some of these decisions will benefit the student athlete, but everything they are doing is in the money making interests of the so called 'P5', and nothing more.

what else do you expect him to say? he does sound like he wasnt expecting this question and was unprepared for it.

can you imagine the firestorm that would erupt if he said...... "yea....gee..... we will always look at on field performance and bowl contracts to add or subtract from the P5. the P5 will be an ever evolving umbrella."

(04-22-2014 09:01 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  "Up until now, the foundation or the philosophy or the basis of legislation in the NCAA has been the so-called level playing field," Slive said. "If you replace that foundation and make the student-athlete the primacy, then what happens is you do things that are in the best interest of the student-athlete."

Do these people think we are all morons? Nothing they are doing is in the best interest of the student athlete. Some of these decisions will benefit the student athlete, but everything they are doing is in the money making interests of the so called 'P5', and nothing more.

Bingo.

(04-22-2014 08:55 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Do these people think we are all morons? Nothing they are doing is in the best interest of the student athlete. Some of these decisions will benefit the student athlete, but everything they are doing is in the money making interests of the so called 'P5', and nothing more.

They don't think we are all morons, just vast majority. And they would be right.

If another conference began earning the kind of money the P5 makes they might would be included. However, thus far, no conference has shown that's even possible to do. Whenever a conference began to improve its performance, it's best members are absorbed by the current P5 conferences. So essentially, the past has shown that individual schools can move to the P5, but an entire conference has never been able to make the jump from outside of the power conference group to inside the power conference group.

Even if the AAC matched the P5 in accomplishments, attendance, rating, and every other metric, we still wouldn't get in because the club is by invitation only and they have no interest in sharing their wealth and power.

They don't have any empathy for each other either. How quickly was the Big East destroyed in it's moment of weakness? Don't be surprised if in 15 years we see UT and OU get poached, and the B12 gets demoted, and the P5 becomes the P4. And then the ACC better start watching it's back because it will occupying the same territory as the more powerful SEC and B1G.

Eventually there will be three powers. Oceania (Pac 12), SouthEastAmerica (SEC), and NorthEastAmerica (B1G). They will control all (college sports) thought, and will stamp out all dissent. The Outer Party (G7) will still think they have it good because they can still look down on the Proles (FCS).

(04-22-2014 09:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If another conference began earning the kind of money the P5 makes they might would be included. However, thus far, no conference has shown that's even possible to do. Whenever a conference began to improve its performance, it's best members are absorbed by the current P5 conferences. So essentially, the past has shown that individual schools can move to the P5, but an entire conference has never been able to make the jump from outside of the power conference group to inside the power conference group.

Individual schools moving won't continue. There are not an endless number of slots.

(04-22-2014 09:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If another conference began earning the kind of money the P5 makes they might would be included. However, thus far, no conference has shown that's even possible to do. Whenever a conference began to improve its performance, it's best members are absorbed by the current P5 conferences. So essentially, the past has shown that individual schools can move to the P5, but an entire conference has never been able to make the jump from outside of the power conference group to inside the power conference group.

In fact, an entire conference was essentially booted out of the P5. the mechanism may have been to break apart and simply absorb most of the members, but the end result was to move from 6 to 5 power conferences. Big deal in terms of control, competition and $$$. It was really pissing off the ACC that the Big East was at, if not occasionally exceeding, their performance.

I still say this won't really work in the long term, you simply can't relegate the teams of the American to the status of the SBC/cUSA/MAC. Schools too big, too successful. If we end up 'tweener', get appropriate $$$, shots at BCS bowls, I can live with that. But no way are we completely relegated to the bottom. Aresco is crowing a bit, because this year really gave him significant ammo.

(04-22-2014 08:55 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 08:45 AM)Pirate1 Wrote:  According to Sports Illustrated, 58 percent of the attendees at the NCAA's Division I Governance Dialogue seminar - a group made up mostly of schools outside the Big Five conferences - indicated support for autonomy in January.

And that's even though there appears to be no current move to create an opportunity for a conference outside the Big Five to apply for inclusion into that group.

"I don't remember discussing it, exactly that way," Slive said. "But certainly, at this point, there's no contemplation that the five would change."
Mike Slive on the 21st century

Note the awkwardness of his wording. It's significant that the question is being asked of him...

Unfortunately, not really. The old BCS system had a mechanism in place for adding conferences or removing them, so it makes sense that someone would ask the same about the new system.

What's really significant about his answer is that it drives the point home that the term "P5", which until now has been just an informal, off-the-cuff term to designate the 5 most powerful conferences, will have a formal NCAA meaning in the new autonomy system, solidifying the gap between those in and those out.

What would be really, really nice would be a contract bowl tie-in. Even if it looks impossible (and it does for now...), THAT should be something Aresco continues to pursue. I think that adds more legitimacy than a few million more per team... the average fan is not tracking the TV contracts.

All this crap we've been going through the last few years is really changing the way I feel about college athletics.

(04-22-2014 09:02 AM)otown Wrote:  what else do you expect him to say? he does sound like he wasnt expecting this question and was unprepared for it.

can you imagine the firestorm that would erupt if he said...... "yea....gee..... we will always look at on field performance and bowl contracts to add or subtract from the P5. the P5 will be an ever evolving umbrella."

I agree. We have yet to play one down in the new playoff format. I just can not believe there will be any change to teams, conferences, bowls, amount of teams in the playoff, etc until at least 5 years. Unless something drastic happens.

(04-22-2014 09:33 AM)Bull Wrote:  I still say this won't really work in the long term, you simply can't relegate the teams of the American to the status of the SBC/cUSA/MAC. Schools too big, too successful. If we end up 'tweener', get appropriate $$$, shots at BCS bowls, I can live with that. But no way are we completely relegated to the bottom. Aresco is crowing a bit, because this year really gave him significant ammo.

Wishful thinking. We have already been relegated to non-AQ status with regard to bowls, and now when this proposal passes, our inferior status will take the even deeper form of NCAA imprimatur with regard to governance. There is nobody at Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, USC, or North Carolina who is in the least bit impressed with UCF winning the Fiesta Bowl in the sense of making them think it means the AAC merits Power status. It might make someone up there think UCF could be a viable expansion candidate (something that we at USF should greatly fear) but it does zilch for the AAC.

Heck, the only AAC school with the fundamentals that really count - money (Louisville) - is leaving for a P5 conference. There is nobody else among us who is "too big or successful" to ignore, and if one of us ever becomes that, they, but not the AAC will be promoted to a P5.

Aresco can wave national title T-shirts all he wants, but this proposal is a MAJOR threat to the AAC and what he needs to be doing is lobbying his fellow commissioners and ADs with all his allegedly genius bargaining skills to kill it. So far, of course, he's been far more effective at crowing to interviewers than getting deals done in the backrooms, so I am not optimistic.

Slive's words about moving from a "level playing field" model is extremely ominous. Many around here have asked (stupidly, but still) what the P5 will be able to do with their money advantage as if there are diminishing returns. If this proposal passes, they will be able to do a lot more with it, as many of the current NCAA regulations, like scholarship limits, do hamstring the power schools to some extent. With 'autonomy', many of those hamstrings will now come off.

(04-22-2014 09:36 AM)Bull Wrote:  What would be really, really nice would be a contract bowl tie-in. Even if it looks impossible (and it does for now...), THAT should be something Aresco continues to pursue. I think that adds more legitimacy than a few million more per team... the average fan is not tracking the TV contracts.

At the very least, we should have been taking a portion of our 12 million guranteed share of college playoff money (say 2-3 million) and pumped that into the payoff of the Miami Bowl to make that into our premier signature bowl with a payout high enough to attract a #3/4 power conference opponent. Even if it wasn't a CFP "contract" bowl, it would have been a quality bowl that was a suitable post season destination for a 10-2 AAC champion that fell jut short of winning the G5 CFP slot. This conference is in dire need of a signature bowl that's more highly regarded than a southern version of the MAC's old Little Ceasaes Pizza Bowl.

(04-22-2014 09:38 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  All this crap we've been going through the last few years is really changing the way I feel about college athletics.

I'm there too. Last year was probably the 1st time that I didn't watch a single team other than my own (and a few teams that were on our schedule just to see how they played).

I have always been a college football/basketball first kind of guy. I am really close to giving it up completely to follow something else--- NFL, MLB... hell, maybe even soccer. It just isn't fun to follow anymore, especially when your school is supposed to play with one hand tied behind its back while everyone else receives an extra hand.

(04-22-2014 08:45 AM)Pirate1 Wrote:  According to Sports Illustrated, 58 percent of the attendees at the NCAA's Division I Governance Dialogue seminar - a group made up mostly of schools outside the Big Five conferences - indicated support for autonomy in January.

And that's even though there appears to be no current move to create an opportunity for a conference outside the Big Five to apply for inclusion into that group.

"I don't remember discussing it, exactly that way," Slive said. "But certainly, at this point, there's no contemplation that the five would change."
Mike Slive on the 21st century

Well... DUH!

What did you expect Slive to say? "Well, yeah, we control the whole world at this point, but that's not fair, so we're contemplating letting more people into our club."

(04-22-2014 09:50 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:38 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  All this crap we've been going through the last few years is really changing the way I feel about college athletics.

I'm there too. Last year was probably the 1st time that I didn't watch a single team other than my own (and a few teams that were on our schedule just to see how they played).

I have always been a college football/basketball first kind of guy. I am really close to giving it up completely to follow something else--- NFL, MLB... hell, maybe even soccer. It just isn't fun to follow anymore, especially when your school is supposed to play with one hand tied behind its back while everyone else receives an extra hand.

I'm feeling the same way. I almost feel like focusing more on the Cubs, Magic and Bucs. The Cubs and Magic suck, but at least I feel like we're competing on the same level as everyone else.

I've really started following soccer over the last year. I enjoy watching the English Premier League games on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Its nice to have live sports on at 8AM. I even bought stock in Manchester United just for the hell of it. I'm also a big fan Of Orlando City SC. We move up to the MLS next year and we're building a soccer specific stadium downtown.