New NCAA plan for power conferences

Submitted by massblue on

The new NCAA plan, which is a proposal at this point but likely to be adopted, will give power conferences more say in their affairs.  This could include offering more generous scholarships. I think this is going to start an arm race among the power conferences and a complete recruiting dominance over other conferences.  It is not clear if a conference can decide to pay its players.

 

Link

Bryan

April 24th, 2014 at 9:14 PM ^

They would be able to do what they want and those such as the Sunbelt would be NCAA restricted?



You make it worse for those who already can't compete.

pearlw

April 24th, 2014 at 9:26 PM ^

Because if Michigan, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, and Clemson agree that athletes should be provided a scholarship equal to the FULL cost of attendance (so more than just tuition, room, and board) then they shouldnt be held back by the fact that Eastern Michigan and Illinois St. cant afford the extra bump in the scholarship value.

PurpleStuff

April 24th, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^

I don't even know that this would change things at most programs.  The real impact would be at schools in urban areas, and it wouldn't really provide an extra advantage.  Putting a cap on rent, etc. that doesn't reflect real world prices at schools like USC, Stanford, and UCLA just means kids are forced to live in shithole apartments, commute from far away, or stay on campus with multiple roommates.  Or get mom and dad to help out (which still ended up causing trouble at SC when Dwayne Jarrett was rooming with Matt Leinart in a place Leinart's folks were subsidizing while charging Jarrett just the amount he was able to get with his scholarship). 

We may benefit slightly since Ann Arbor rents are probably higher than say, Tallahassee's, but I don't see this as a big issue for more than a handful of schools.

Zone Left

April 24th, 2014 at 10:34 PM ^

That's why Full Cost of Attendance is a great idea. It has to be published and takes into account local rent, food, and basically nothing else--essentially everything you need to survive and go to school--with nothing else included. It's difficult to fake, because you'd have to fake it for the whole school.

vablue

April 24th, 2014 at 11:14 PM ^

Maybe I am wrong, but I think you missed his point.  He was asking why shouldn't Eastern Michigan also be able to pay players if they want too.  Why leave other conferences under the old rules and essentially take us back to the 50s where all the top recruits end up at a few schools regardless of playing time availability.

MichiganG

April 25th, 2014 at 9:08 AM ^

Wait, all the top players don't end up in the power conferences?  By my count there are 4 players in the ESPN 300 this year who are not going to one of the 5 power conferences.

And the point isn't that they shouldn't be allowed, it's that these schools are the ones who have held back the power conferences from being able to do so.  The NCAA has attempted votes in the past to allow this for everyone and the non-power conference schools have blocked the attempts (and they have way more of the votes than the power conferences do.)

MHNet

April 24th, 2014 at 9:28 PM ^

In 2011, when asked about a potential BCS playoff format, Carr said:

"I was in New York a month ago for the College Football Hall of Fame and I talked to some important people that said in the next 10 years or so, there could be a group of prominent schools with large budgets and stadiums that could break away from the NCAA and play their own schedule. There could be anywhere from 60-65 teams that would break away and play their own schedule and then have a playoff."

LSAClassOf2000

April 24th, 2014 at 9:35 PM ^

This SBNation article touches a little on what the changes would entail - HERE

Most notably, the power conferences would be able to approve rules that only apply to them, but there would also be "pemissible legislation" and "actionable legislation". Permissible legislation would mean that the "Big 5" conferences could adopt a rule that other schools or conferences may or may not adopt based on their own sensibilities. Actionable legislation would be of the variety that still needs to be voted into existence, but this is apparently the more controverisal action item. 

mgoviking5

April 24th, 2014 at 9:45 PM ^

I wish M could just play 10 Big Ten games and if they win the league, play in the Rose Bowl. I can't always get what I want.                                                          

hisurfernmi

April 24th, 2014 at 9:51 PM ^

Am I right? Arms race? The spoils already go to the richest. This isn't news. Does Alabama lose anyone they want to a NON-power conference? Does Michigan lose to them? Nope. Do guys pick the MAC over the BIG 10? Nope. Same guys would be going to the same type of places. The battles will heat up between members of the power conferences, but to say this really changes things for the bottom is ignoring the fact that they are already at the bottom.

weasel3216

April 24th, 2014 at 10:28 PM ^

Would this new plan create a new bottom though? Just thinking that the new big 5 would still have separation within and I am wondering if the current separation would widen. You might get more kids that would be willing to give up earlier playing time at a MAC school and pick to run the possibility to sit the bench for 3 years at a B1G school just for the possibility to get into the playoff. Basically saying some B1G teams would become MAC schools.

DrewGOBLUE

April 25th, 2014 at 12:30 AM ^

Kids could also see it with the perspective that if they commit to a MAC type of school, they have a better shot at getting significant playing time prior to becoming upperclassmen. The higher energy level felt during games is probably a key factor in getting the best out of some players. So in rare instances, some players might actually maximize their pro chances by putting themselves in position for earlier playing time.

hisurfernmi

April 25th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^

Is there someone at a MAC school right now that choose the MAC over the BIG 10 because they had a choice due to playing time? You will have a hard time providing that evidence. If I'm still limited to an 85 man roster I'm not recruiting any differently with or without money. I still go after the same needs. There will still be the same number of athletes looking for a team... They will go somewhere. This big drop off in talent already exists, I'm not sure where this argument of bad teams suddenly getting worse fits into this discussion.

phork

April 24th, 2014 at 11:11 PM ^

What this is going to do is create the final four conferences of 16 teams that has been the ideal since all this alignment crap started.  4 Power Conferences.  64 teams, the rest are have-nots and will be cut out of the picture.

vablue

April 24th, 2014 at 11:23 PM ^

After reading a few articles on this, you can really see how this has the potential to really shake up basketball.  I see this idea as being great for football, but wow could it change basketball.  There are some rather powerful basketball schools that fall on the outside of those 5 power conferences.  This could be interesting.  Also, I wonder where Notre Dame falls?  Do they just consider them part of the ACC now?

UofM626

April 25th, 2014 at 1:48 AM ^

If they do this. The beginning if the end of college sports IMO. At the end of the day people are still forgetting the value of that scholarship that is being giving out and are only seeing a certain athlete bitch about not being paid more. At the end of the day if he couldn't throw a football, sunk a basketball, run a 4.2 40, Hit a ball 400 ft then most of them wouldn't even be given a chance at these universities, I'm sick of these kids thinking there getting screwed all the time. For every Johnny Manziel's there are 1000 Kelly Baraka types who either flunk out, get in trouble, or just never play. They need to take that scholarship seriously. These Athletes in college get TONS of advantages that regular students do not get. And don't give me the crap about being able to work, ask any student and they would switch with the athlete in a minute. Separate dorms, separate weight rooms, first dibs on all classes, no waiting for those said classes, unlimited support, free clothes, free books, free tutoring, wink wink for grades, I'm sick of them thinking they get nothing! It's getting annoying. Give them a $500 a month sty pen and lets move on. Just like society, stop giving in to all these demands. That's why the country is turning to shit these days, to many people getting there feelings hurt.

GoBlueInNYC

April 25th, 2014 at 6:49 AM ^

The thing is, college football already has changed college athletics. The demands on the players, the level of competition, the amount of money have all already changed the landscape of college football and, by extension, college athletics. These proposals, union talk, etc are all born of an already changing landscape, not the other way around.

I think this every time the union stuff starts getting debated. The changes we're seeing develop, good or bad for the future of the sport, were blatantly inevitable. If anything, it's kind of amazing seeing the institution as it exists today hold on for so long.

Will all of this be good for the sport or will it kill it? None of us can know. But the fact is, it's already changed, and ultimately something has to give.

French West Indian

April 25th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^

It's been changing for slowly for years now which is why I've slowly been losing interest for year now too.

Still, it appears that some bigger changes are ahead, possibly drastic ones that might really destroy what we used to love.

It's probably a bit early to write a post mortem on college football but it appears to be that the fatal flaw was letting the big money of corporate television get in.  I know that it sounds a bit naive but I've argued before that college football should have been broadcast for free (without advertisements) on public broadcasting networks supported by taxpayers.  Most of these are public schools and it's clear that the games are often of significant interest to the general public.

That might have kept much of the really big money out.  Instead, we've had corporate suits from the likes of ESPN ramping things up everywhere (more games, more bowls,  Tuesday nights, etc) and flooding the game with a windfall of money that is now threatening to tear it apart.