Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
Division I moves closer to new structure
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #41
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 12:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The last stipend was head count only. FCS football is an equivalency sport.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Maybe I'm dense but what does that mean?

Does that mean that a school can designate any number of stipends in any sport so long as they don't violate Title IX?
07-19-2014 09:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppManDG Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,125
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 308
I Root For: App State
Location: Gastonia, NC
Post: #42
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
I am having a hard time believing schools can get away with paying a stipend to football and basketball athletes but no one else. It looks like one huge impending lawsuit.
07-19-2014 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #43
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-18-2014 11:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(07-18-2014 04:32 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  It doesn't say that the old rule of non-football school would
not be able to vote on football matters. If they are changing
this it's probably to get a block of schools that could have their
votes.

37.5 percent for the FCS and Division I (no football) conferences
Additionally will be interesting to see the % and structure between
those two type schools: FCS and non football playing schools.

You're going to have to trust me on this. You've been overly negative about this from the start, but the reality is the only people who honestly think the G5 get screwed out of this are media who need to sensationalize, NoDak, and the Big Sky Commissioner.
Yes I have been very critical. Do not feel overly by any stretch of the imagination. Anytime you are dealing with a bunch of conferences that for decades have only been out for themselves it is only prudent to look at any additional powers to them with skeptical eyes.
07-19-2014 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 10:37 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Yes I have been very critical. Do not feel overly by any stretch of the imagination. Anytime you are dealing with a bunch of conferences that for decades have only been out for themselves it is only prudent to look at any additional powers to them with skeptical eyes.

They could have put together a package to deal with the immediate legal issues and player issues and then threatened to leave/breakaway if it wasn't passed.

Instead, they demanded autonomy now and forever and threatened to leave/breakaway if it wasn't passed.

Sort of like, my house is on fire I demand you help me put it out versus my house is on fire I demand you do whatever I say for the rest of your life.
07-19-2014 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EigenEagle Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,218
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 643
I Root For: Ga Southern
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
I would think any FCS league that votes itself stipends is either going to have to come up with its own football postseason or see its teams sit at home Thanksgiving weekend. There is no way they will want to compete against programs with stipends.
07-19-2014 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #46
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 11:04 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I would think any FCS league that votes itself stipends is either going to have to come up with its own football postseason or see its teams sit at home Thanksgiving weekend. There is no way they will want to compete against programs with stipends.

This is why I'm focusing on the stipend rules. How these rules are implemented by the NCAA and the conferences is going to have a potentially massive impact.

Not really on FBS. Virtually every team in FBS will pay the stipend in football.

Here's the way this could work.

Scenario 1 - No restriction on who can provide a stipend and no mandate that a stipend will have to be produced in every sport. Title IX considerations will still apply. Result - all FBS teams move to the same stipend for football and men's basketball as well as for any number of women's sports. A-10, Big East, WCC, MVC follow for basketball. CAA moves for basketball only. Impact - D1 basketball becomes defacto bifrucated. No conference will allow some members to stipend while others don't.

Scenario 2 - Institutions using stipends must do them in all sports at the same level. Impact - disaster for the basketball programs at FCS programs.

Its possible that the NCAA will remove the requirement that a FCS team wishing to move up be sponsored by an existing conference. But that will likely have little consequence to the existing FBS conferences, as there's no way that most of the schools in the MVFC, CAA, or Big Sky will choose to move to stipend for football (look at their stadiums). At most, you'd see Liberty move to independence. And with the CAA tossing out members that do anything to move their programs, it looks like JMU might get trapped. And that's even if the NCAA allows these programs to 'move up' without a sponsor.

JMU might seriously regret not joining. Not only could their football program get seriously compromised (imagine competing with any stipend school for recruits) but it could kill their basketball program depending upon how the stipend rules are implemented.

I'm glad my two teams are both in conferences that will go 'stipend' no matter what.

You know, if the MVC doesn't (or can't) go stipend because the NCAA will require stipends in all scholarship sports if offered in any, we could snag some basketball schools desparate to find a 'stipend' home for their basketball programs. Like Wichita State for example.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2014 11:39 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
07-19-2014 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #47
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 11:00 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  
(07-19-2014 10:37 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Yes I have been very critical. Do not feel overly by any stretch of the imagination. Anytime you are dealing with a bunch of conferences that for decades have only been out for themselves it is only prudent to look at any additional powers to them with skeptical eyes.

They could have put together a package to deal with the immediate legal issues and player issues and then threatened to leave/breakaway if it wasn't passed.

Instead, they demanded autonomy now and forever and threatened to leave/breakaway if it wasn't passed.

Sort of like, my house is on fire I demand you help me put it out versus my house is on fire I demand you do whatever I say for the rest of your life.
And if you look at it a different way, the P5 conferences have literally made hundreds of millions of dollars, yes billions, over the past decades at the mostly exclusion of the rest of the NCAA. Forming an exclusive mafia like group. Acting almighty, building huge stadiums, spending money like they could print all they want and looking down their noses at the rest of the NCAA. Now that a few lawsuits have been filed they want to avoid them, or mitigate their effects, instead of taking the money out of their fat wallets, by literally changing college athletics forever to their own benefit even more. We and the rest of the NCAA are supposed to fall in line like sheep because they are playing the tunes.
07-19-2014 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Volkmar Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,359
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 467
I Root For: U.T.S.A.
Location: Richmond, Texas
Post: #48
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-18-2014 02:30 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Essentially Here is what happened

65 P5 schools originally controlled 20 percent of the voting power of D1 They now have 37 percent

60 G5 schools controlled 18 percent of the power. They maintain that 18 percent

210 FCS and Non Football school controlled 62 percent of the power. They now control 37 percent.


So, which group got screwed in that scenario? We kept the same voting power, and P5 basically stole half of FCS's power. Sure, I guess its possible that the FCS schools could combine with the P5 and decide to screw us over. But how exactly can they do that? FCS schools cant afford to implement half of what G5 wants to implement. Unless literally there was a massive conspiracy between P5 and FCS (Where is NoDak anyway) to ultimately screw the G5 back to FCS, then the reality is we gained out of the proposal. If the P5 and G5 want to implement a rule, we can now implement that rule and FCS cant do anything about it.

37 and 18 and 37 add up to 92%. Am I missing something here or shouldn't the aggregate total 100%? There's a missing 8% in what you wrote and I'm surprised no one else has addressed that yet. Just trying to get clarification because you're doing a great job of explaining all this but lost me on that.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2014 12:42 PM by Volkmar.)
07-19-2014 12:41 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eaglewraith Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,512
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 236
I Root For: GA Southern
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 12:41 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  
(07-18-2014 02:30 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Essentially Here is what happened

65 P5 schools originally controlled 20 percent of the voting power of D1 They now have 37 percent

60 G5 schools controlled 18 percent of the power. They maintain that 18 percent

210 FCS and Non Football school controlled 62 percent of the power. They now control 37 percent.


So, which group got screwed in that scenario? We kept the same voting power, and P5 basically stole half of FCS's power. Sure, I guess its possible that the FCS schools could combine with the P5 and decide to screw us over. But how exactly can they do that? FCS schools cant afford to implement half of what G5 wants to implement. Unless literally there was a massive conspiracy between P5 and FCS (Where is NoDak anyway) to ultimately screw the G5 back to FCS, then the reality is we gained out of the proposal. If the P5 and G5 want to implement a rule, we can now implement that rule and FCS cant do anything about it.

37 and 18 and 37 add up to 92%. Am I missing something here or shouldn't the aggregate total 100%? There's a missing 8% in what you wrote and I'm surprised no one else has addressed that yet. Just trying to get clarification because you're doing a great job of explaining all this but lost me on that.

37.5 percent for the five major conferences
18.8 percent for the five remaining FBS conferences
37.5 percent for the FCS and Division I (no football) conferences
3.1 percent for the student-athletes
3.1 percent for the designated faculty athletics representatives
07-19-2014 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Volkmar Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,359
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 467
I Root For: U.T.S.A.
Location: Richmond, Texas
Post: #50
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 01:01 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  
(07-19-2014 12:41 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  
(07-18-2014 02:30 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Essentially Here is what happened

65 P5 schools originally controlled 20 percent of the voting power of D1 They now have 37 percent

60 G5 schools controlled 18 percent of the power. They maintain that 18 percent

210 FCS and Non Football school controlled 62 percent of the power. They now control 37 percent.


So, which group got screwed in that scenario? We kept the same voting power, and P5 basically stole half of FCS's power. Sure, I guess its possible that the FCS schools could combine with the P5 and decide to screw us over. But how exactly can they do that? FCS schools cant afford to implement half of what G5 wants to implement. Unless literally there was a massive conspiracy between P5 and FCS (Where is NoDak anyway) to ultimately screw the G5 back to FCS, then the reality is we gained out of the proposal. If the P5 and G5 want to implement a rule, we can now implement that rule and FCS cant do anything about it.

37 and 18 and 37 add up to 92%. Am I missing something here or shouldn't the aggregate total 100%? There's a missing 8% in what you wrote and I'm surprised no one else has addressed that yet. Just trying to get clarification because you're doing a great job of explaining all this but lost me on that.

37.5 percent for the five major conferences
18.8 percent for the five remaining FBS conferences
37.5 percent for the FCS and Division I (no football) conferences
3.1 percent for the student-athletes
3.1 percent for the designated faculty athletics representatives

Gracias, and that actually puts us at close to 19, so even better in that respect.
07-19-2014 01:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagle22 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 812
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 57
I Root For: GA Southern
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 11:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(07-19-2014 11:04 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I would think any FCS league that votes itself stipends is either going to have to come up with its own football postseason or see its teams sit at home Thanksgiving weekend. There is no way they will want to compete against programs with stipends.

This is why I'm focusing on the stipend rules. How these rules are implemented by the NCAA and the conferences is going to have a potentially massive impact.

Not really on FBS. Virtually every team in FBS will pay the stipend in football.

Here's the way this could work.

Scenario 1 - No restriction on who can provide a stipend and no mandate that a stipend will have to be produced in every sport. Title IX considerations will still apply. Result - all FBS teams move to the same stipend for football and men's basketball as well as for any number of women's sports. A-10, Big East, WCC, MVC follow for basketball. CAA moves for basketball only. Impact - D1 basketball becomes defacto bifrucated. No conference will allow some members to stipend while others don't.

Scenario 2 - Institutions using stipends must do them in all sports at the same level. Impact - disaster for the basketball programs at FCS programs.

Its possible that the NCAA will remove the requirement that a FCS team wishing to move up be sponsored by an existing conference. But that will likely have little consequence to the existing FBS conferences, as there's no way that most of the schools in the MVFC, CAA, or Big Sky will choose to move to stipend for football (look at their stadiums). At most, you'd see Liberty move to independence. And with the CAA tossing out members that do anything to move their programs, it looks like JMU might get trapped. And that's even if the NCAA allows these programs to 'move up' without a sponsor.

JMU might seriously regret not joining. Not only could their football program get seriously compromised (imagine competing with any stipend school for recruits) but it could kill their basketball program depending upon how the stipend rules are implemented.

I'm glad my two teams are both in conferences that will go 'stipend' no matter what.

You know, if the MVC doesn't (or can't) go stipend because the NCAA will require stipends in all scholarship sports if offered in any, we could snag some basketball schools desparate to find a 'stipend' home for their basketball programs. Like Wichita State for example.

Don't disagree with anything you said, though under your Scenario 2 I do think a few FCS schools would kill their football program and chose instead to fortify their basketball ... if stipends were implemented.
07-19-2014 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #52
Division I moves closer to new structure
(07-19-2014 09:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(07-19-2014 12:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The last stipend was head count only. FCS football is an equivalency sport.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Maybe I'm dense but what does that mean?

Does that mean that a school can designate any number of stipends in any sport so long as they don't violate Title IX?

In football, men's and women's hoops, women's volleyball, and women's gymnastics any aid counts as a full ride against the scholarship limit. In other words count the heads of anyone getting aid to determine if you are within the limit. In all other sports a scholarship can be split and you count up the pieces of scholarships to determine compliance with aid limits. If a sport has a 4 scholarship limit and 11 athletes get one-third aid you've awarded the equivalent of 3 2/3rds of a scholarship and can award another 1/3rd.

FCS can split its football aid between more than 63 players FBS only 85 players can get aid.

The last proposal only allowed stipends to players in head count sports.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
07-20-2014 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crump1 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,747
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 107
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Division I moves closer to new structure
It will be interesting to see if it is limited to headcount sports. Would make it cheaper for us and stop FBS to FCS transfers for the most part.
07-21-2014 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.