(07-25-2013 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Quick point off of JR's mention of a rumbling in the ACC about full cost stipends. Thinking through it, this separation appears to be a football only distinction at the moment. From what I can tell, basketball and other sports will not be greatly affected by whether or not a school goes the full attendance route or not. Assuming that a good chunk of current P5 schools chose to not pursue full costs, would it really hurt their revenue or intentions for athletics? I'm thinking primarily about the private schools (sans Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC) and a handful of state schools like Kansas, UVA, Cal, and Georgia Tech. As long as they are playing each other in football and still able to compete at the highest level in all other sports (namely basketball), does it really matter to Duke if they play FSU or if Vandy plays Alabama? Nationally, those games rarely register and are not adding value to the existing TV contracts. If anything, they are limiting to the potential inventory of realigning the conferences more properly.

I say all that to say that perhaps the full cost of attendance is not as cut and dry as we may assume. It may only be favorable to 40-50 schools rather than 60-80, especially if it is ruled that allowing full cost scholarships must apply to all athletes if they want to do it with football particularly in mind.

I think this is where the issue resides. Title 9 will not permit just football to receive the stipend. It will be all scholarships or nothing. Note I said scholarships. For sports like baseball, softball, etc., which are permitted to give 1/2 or 1/4 scholarships the stipend will be payable in the same percentages as the scholarship amounts.

So, yes this will be a bigger issue than some are letting on. The rumor I heard was that Duke, B.C., and Wake were resistant, and possibly a couple of more.

"If" these issues come to fruition for these schools, and "if" Texas has eyes on independence (in a N.D. kind of way) then 3 regional conferences of 20 is still within the realm of possibility. If schools like Duke, Wake, & B.C. opt out I could see an upper division of 60 schools divided into 3 conferences. I think the Big 10, PAC & SEC would be all in. Then further growth would be out of the Big 12 (once Texas left) and the ACC (due to the split over D4).

The power schools are going to have to be very careful about how they handle the entrance requirements for a potential D4. If they just leave it as you have to have X number of sports and pay full cost of tuition scholarships to every athlete, there will be some lower tier schools that will do whatever it takes to stay in that top division, even if they lose a ton of money every year. Apologies in advance to these schools, but I'm thinking specifically about ECU, USM, Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, and maybe Houston/SMU. These are schools that so badly want to be considered top tier that they would do just about anything to get in. The only thing stopping them at this point is the one thing that may be hardest to legally adopt for the initial split to D4; an invitation from existing members. The big boys need to be very, very careful about how they handle this potential split.