NCAA D1 Board to Vote on the "Autonomy Model" Thursday

Submitted by sadeto on August 5th, 2014 at 11:19 PM

Informative article in the NY Times about the upcoming vote and the potential impact. Even if it passes, a vote by all D1 institutions could still derail it. 




I dumped the Dope

August 6th, 2014 at 5:38 AM ^

Paid to the parents or primary guardian of the D1 player.  That would prevent "loose useage" so to speak as the parents pretty well know their kids and could decide how much access the particular player would have.

Assuming the parents banked it up, for 5 years of eligibility, it could be a $10k egg to have upon graduation.  That might also up the number of RS-FR unintentionally.

Also I'm in favor of a zero-tolerance system, whereby a player is found with bagman money or the like, its all over.  Not sure exactly how it would be policed but driving an expensive car would be a red flag.

Mr Miggle

August 6th, 2014 at 7:53 AM ^

as long as you believe there's is no difference between accepting a free meal and an SUV. The extra $2000 is meant to cover the actual cost of attending school. It amounts to $40 a week. Do college students, mostly in their 20s and sometimes with children of their own, really need their parents to decide if they can handle that size allowance? I have a hard time imagining them not being insulted.


August 6th, 2014 at 8:43 AM ^

Many of these kids have parents that would not "decide how much access the particular play would have."

Remember, many of these kids don't come from Royal Oak.  In many instances, giving the money to the parents would be more irresponsible than giving it to the kids themselves.


August 6th, 2014 at 9:21 AM ^

They're not kids. This seems to be something that's forgotten. Except in very rare instances, every person playing college athletics is a legal adult, and preemptively docking their pay is quite frankly, insulting. 


The NCAA does not act in loco parentis. That's not their job. That's not our job. These young men and women deserve to be treated like adults, full stop, because they are adults, full stop.


August 6th, 2014 at 7:02 AM ^

Here's the proposed model and the vote distribution between conferences as linked in the article, as well as the two ways a given proposal could be approved:

Apologies for the size, but the original slide is huge. It's interesting really - 15 students, three per conference, plus 65 votes distributed somewhat (not totally) evenly. I wonder if reason for the numbers is population-based or some other factor. 

This rather follows up a discussion had yesterday too - one of the things the Big 5 would like to do is liberalize the rules regarding borrowing against potential future earnings to get disability insurance, so that was a timely thread really. 

Thanks for sharing this one, OP. 


August 6th, 2014 at 8:04 AM ^

Lovely. If the powerhouses finally start compensating players in some fashion (long overdue IMO) don't be shocked when Brandon/Hoke/the Board of Regents refuse to follow suit "cuz this is Michigan!" or some other stupid fucking arrogant reasoning.


August 6th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^

I think you are wrong, but I hope you are right.

That's assuming total deregulation and a free market for the free agent athletes. If the plan is to just add a cost-of-attendance stipend (as the article suggests), then I'm ok with the continuing existence of Michigan's football program.

Mr. Yost

August 6th, 2014 at 9:07 AM ^

The small conferences have already voted collectively to have each member institution vote it down. It's definitely going to go under review, my guess is that it's going to get enough votes to be shot down altogether.


August 6th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^

How about this: offer every athlete free disability insurance, cut down on weekly practice time or offer it later in the day after classes are finished, and let the athlete make money off of their image, i.e. signing things for cash, compensating a player for using his image in promotional material, percentage of jersey sales, etc...

It makes no sense for the NCAA to say that they can make money off of the athletes but the athletes themselves cannot, and if they really care about their players, the NCAA would provide them with better health care/insurance and cut back/reschedule practice time for the benefit of their supposedly priceless education.


August 6th, 2014 at 3:35 PM ^

Most of the execs from smaller schools are savvy enough to understand that they have two choices here:

1.  Vote it in, let the Big 5 have autonomy and still share some of the money they make.

2. Vote against it, watch the Big 5 say "bye-bye" and not get any of the money.

Since it's all about the money, the choice is pretty clear.