(04-30-2013 07:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: (04-29-2013 04:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports
Mike Slive was interviewed about the athlete stipend issue and had this informative nugget to say:
Quote:"When there are certain things that many of us would like to come into play, it's our hope that those things can all occur in the current system," Slive said today during an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."
Is he drawing a line in the sand? Do this or FBS (or maybe even only the P5) split away?
I agree that he's testing the waters for a split. The Big 10 will not support pay-for-play under any circumstances, and the Pac-12 will be in lockstep with them. The SEC would lead the other side.
If it came to a split, I think the Big 12 would side with the SEC, and so would the MWC (if for no other reason than to get a leg up on the PAC). I think the ACC, MAC, and most of the AAC schools would stick with the Big 10/Pac-12. The Sun Belt and C-USA seems to be full of schools determined to compete at the highest level no matter the cost, so I bet most of them back pay-for play, too.
In other words, I think it will be a pretty even split.
Interesting exercise. Maybe even useful if O'Bannon gets a full victory.
My knee jerk reaction of where schools would fall.
No-Pay / De-emphasis (need based or academic aid only, withdraw from the current TV model into a PBS model or free web stream model)
Big 10
Pac-12
Pay / Emphasis (ability based aid up to full cost of attendance, a revenue distribution model that compensates for use of likeness)
SEC
Big XII
The rest. I'd guess that this more than anything else could split the ACC. I would think Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech sharing states with SEC schools would feel a lot of alumni fan pressure to join the Pay/Emphasis group. Va.Tech would likely consider that sort of move as well, much of the remainder of the membership would line up with Big10 and Pac-12 on the issue. On the flip side, Texas sees the Big 10 and Pac-12 as being their peers, there would be strong internal pressure there to join the No-Pay group, TAMU being in the pay group would be the counter-weight.
New Big East would cast their lot with the non-pay group.
AAC would be strongly divided with Tulane and Navy probably locks to join no-pay and Tulsa probably leaning that direction. SMU would probably go that direction on principle after their legacy. The remainder probably go Pay, and East Carolina likely issues their release of intention to go Pay a few minutes before Houston sends their version of that release out.
MAC would quickly affiliate with the no-pay.
CUSA would go with the pay group though Rice might balk. Sun Belt would go with the pay group as well.
I disagree that MWC would be a lock to go to the pay group. You make your decisions based on who you want to affiliate with. Most everyone in MWC has at the back of their head that someday Pac-12 will be Pac-14 or Pac-16 and if they cast their lot with the Pay group they've sealed their fate and will not be considered. Any and every MWC with any hopes of joining Pac-12 goes with the No-Pay group.