Yahoo Sports: AD's Lobbying NCAA For More Control of College Athletics

[goldendomer]

Interesting...

Division I athletic directors made a presentation Tuesday in Indianapolis to the NCAA's Board of Directors that laid out a new governance system that would return much of the influence over the day-to-day operation of college sports back to ADs, Yahoo Sports has learned.

The plan would even call for athletic directors to be placed on the Board of Directors itself. That group is currently made up solely of university presidents.

The athletic directors, who believe they are on the front lines of the issues confronting college sports, are hoping to take a more hands-on approach and leave university presidents, who currently hold almost all power, to "broad policies, approving budgets, examining external trends" and other global issues, according to a document outlining the plan obtained by Yahoo Sports.

Morgan Burke and Mike Alden, athletic directors at Purdue and Missouri respectively, made the presentation on behalf of the Division IA Athletic Directors Association and the National Association of College Directors of Athletics.

[Related: See the athletic directors' proposal right here]

The board of directors is set to discuss the merits of the proposal Wednesday. The board, as part of an ongoing open conversation over the future of college athletics spurred by president Mark Emmert, invited various groups to come to Indianapolis and make a presentation.

That included groups representing coaches, conference commissioners, athletes, compliance directors, faculty groups, the Knight Commission and others.

More at link

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/athleti...024802663.html

[Freddyburg Hokie]

Interesting...


More at link

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/athleti...024802663.html

Interesting quote from the article:

a. We do not believe in a separate division for NCAA Division 1, but rather support Division 1 as currently constituted within the NCAA;
b. We recognize that with 351 institutions, there are unique demands, pressures and circumstances;
c. We support shared governance, in general, and recognize the need for autonomy on some issues with regard to a limited number of conferences;
...

This sounds like a move away from the super-division concept, but still allowing a small subset of Division 1 conferences to have different rules. If what they're talking about is full cost of attendance scholarships, this could have significant effects. Not all schools in the Big 5 conferences may be willing or able to provide the additional funding.

Interesting in concept, though. And the comment about Presidents potentially being willing to cede some control back to the ADs is spot on, IMnsHO. They know they've made some missteps recently (recently recanted rules revisions), and I'm sure they recognize the needs to have the experts in the decision-making process.

[Stech]

There are many that want the new division to exist under the current NCAA. The Presidents and Commissioners want this worded and presented so that the academic folks don't get to upset about the new tier.

Interesting quote from the article:


This sounds like a move away from the super-division concept, but still allowing a small subset of Division 1 conferences to have different rules. If what they're talking about is full cost of attendance scholarships, this could have significant effects. Not all schools in the Big 5 conferences may be willing or able to provide the additional funding.

Interesting in concept, though. And the comment about Presidents potentially being willing to cede some control back to the ADs is spot on, IMnsHO. They know they've made some missteps recently (recently recanted rules revisions), and I'm sure they recognize the needs to have the experts in the decision-making process.

[VTHokie2000]

There are many that want the new division to exist under the current NCAA. The Presidents and Commissioners want this worded and presented so that the academic folks don't get to upset about the new tier.

So you believe there will be a brand new division (i.e. DIV) or will the NCAA remain with 3 divisions and allow schools more flexibility to benefit from the "perks" that would have been associated with the 4th division level?

[Stech]

I think it will be something similar to what happened in 1978 when they created 1A and 1AA, but what verbiage they come up with to describe it will be political in nature so that the least are offended. However, like in 1978 there will be a clear difference between the big 5 schools and the others.

So you believe there will be a brand new division (i.e. DIV) or will the NCAA remain with 3 divisions and allow schools more flexibility to benefit from the "perks" that would have been associated with the 4th division level?

[33laszlo99]

Interesting quote from the article:


This sounds like a move away from the super-division concept, but still allowing a small subset of Division 1 conferences to have different rules. If what they're talking about is full cost of attendance scholarships, this could have significant effects. Not all schools in the Big 5 conferences may be willing or able to provide the additional funding.

Interesting in concept, though. And the comment about Presidents potentially being willing to cede some control back to the ADs is spot on, IMnsHO. They know they've made some missteps recently (recently recanted rules revisions), and I'm sure they recognize the needs to have the experts in the decision-making process.

They are saying the appropriate things, collegiality, understanding, etc. but pure $$$ will prevail when the P5 add it up.
NCAA will take every reasonable step to keep the P5 schools. But it may not ever be enough.
They are funded, almost entirely, by proceeds from March Madness. That money goes to the administration of athletics for 1096 schools, 18,561 teams, and 453,347 stuent-athletes. (2011-12 numbers)
The P5 could co-opt a big chunk of that money by producing their own "Spring Fever" tournament, to fund their own regulatory body.
The new "NCAA clone" could include all of its members in the tournament. March Madness could still exist, but stature and money would diminish.
The new group might include as few as 60 schools, leaving the NCAA to care for the more than 1000 remaining.

[Perfesser]

They are saying the appropriate things, collegiality, understanding, etc. but pure $$$ will prevail when the P5 add it up.
NCAA will take every reasonable step to keep the P5 schools. But it may not ever be enough.
They are funded, almost entirely, by proceeds from March Madness. That money goes to the administration of athletics for 1096 schools, 18,561 teams, and 453,347 stuent-athletes. (2011-12 numbers)
The P5 could co-opt a big chunk of that money by producing their own "Spring Fever" tournament, to fund their own regulatory body.
The new "NCAA clone" could include all of its members in the tournament. March Madness could still exist, but stature and money would diminish.
The new group might include as few as 60 schools, leaving the NCAA to care for the more than 1000 remaining.

And that would kill off all collegiate athletics save for the "P5". Nobody will tune in to March Madness if UK, KU, UNC, Duke, et al. aren't playing. Much of the draw is David taking on Goliath.

And it won't happen. The writing is already on the wall with the NCAA Leadership Council and he Faculty Athletic Representatives saying no to a breakaway. In the grand scheme of things, some extra athletic revenue (and a relatively small amount at that, compared to research, tuition, and subsidy revenues) isn't worth alienating most of the higher ed stakeholders in the US. Remember, there are more people affiliated with non-P5 schools in Virginia than with P5 schools. And that's the case in just about every state outside of some SEC states.

[Femoyer Hokie]

And that would kill off all collegiate athletics save for the "P5". Nobody will tune in to March Madness if UK, KU, UNC, Duke, et al. aren't playing. Much of the draw is David taking on Goliath.

And it won't happen. The writing is already on the wall with the NCAA Leadership Council and he Faculty Athletic Representatives saying no to a breakaway. In the grand scheme of things, some extra athletic revenue (and a relatively small amount at that, compared to research, tuition, and subsidy revenues) isn't worth alienating most of the higher ed stakeholders in the US. Remember, there are more people affiliated with non-P5 schools in Virginia than with P5 schools. And that's the case in just about every state outside of some SEC states.

While the P5 are primarily football conferences first, this has a lot to do with basketball money. The P5 hate "sharing" the BB tourney money with the hundreds of non-P5 schools. Sure, total revenue from a new BB tourney may be down for the P5 but when you divide it between FAR fewer schools they will come out way ahead.

[Perfesser]

While the P5 are primarily football conferences first, this has a lot to do with basketball money. The P5 hate "sharing" the BB tourney money with the hundreds of non-P5 schools. Sure, total revenue from a new BB tourney may be down for the P5 but when you divide it between FAR fewer schools they will come out way ahead.

You miss my point. That sharing is what keeps collegiate athletics alive. Say 72 P5 schools leave -- that still leaves over 1200 schools to share the much-diminished revenue of March Madness. Thee are 1281 NCAA members and about 90% of them don't compete in the FBS, let alone in the P5. That tourney money is what keeps almost every NCAA program afloat. If the P5 leave, they kill off collegiate athletics everywhere else. The shoestring operations that define the NAIA is what most colleges will put up -- even schools like UAB and ODU.

Politicians won't let that happen if only because there are more stakeholders outside of the P5 than within it.

[Stech]

First of all football will drive this not basketball...just like it has for the past few decades. You have had BCS automatic qualifier schools for over a decade. They now control the new playoff. They throw the others a bone every now and then, but there is no doubt who is in control and who will be in control in the future. Now do I think the Power 5 schools will break away from the NCAA and form their own association? Probably not, but the NCAA is already saying they know the need for another division in football. They are saying that because they don't want the Power 5 schools to leave for all the reasons that you have stated. However, the Power 5 schools are tired of the schools that don't invest in football like they do telling them how to run their programs and the writing is on the wall like it was in 1978 that a new division probably just for football will be created. The only question is when will it happen?

You miss my point. That sharing is what keeps collegiate athletics alive. Say 72 P5 schools leave -- that still leaves over 1200 schools to share the much-diminished revenue of March Madness. Thee are 1281 NCAA members and about 90% of them don't compete in the FBS, let alone in the P5. That tourney money is what keeps almost every NCAA program afloat. If the P5 leave, they kill off collegiate athletics everywhere else. The shoestring operations that define the NAIA is what most colleges will put up -- even schools like UAB and ODU.

Politicians won't let that happen if only because there are more stakeholders outside of the P5 than within it.