Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    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?
    It is going to be tricky to create a third subdivision. One of the purposes of the 1978 split was to address the school's concern about complying with Title IX. As a byproduct was a clear distinction between the subdivisions (i.e. different postseason format, different scholarship levels, etc). Will the NCAA be allowed to create a third DI subdivision and allow 2 of the subdivisions to have the same maximum scholarship requirements? I thought there was something in the bylaws the defined what justifications could be used to subdivide a division and if there was any changes to those bylaws then it required the support of the other division levels.

  2. #12
    Edgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    49,228
    Could always add 5 scholarships to the new top division.

    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    It is going to be tricky to create a third subdivision. One of the purposes of the 1978 split was to address the school's concern about complying with Title IX. As a byproduct was a clear distinction between the subdivisions (i.e. different postseason format, different scholarship levels, etc). Will the NCAA be allowed to create a third DI subdivision and allow 2 of the subdivisions to have the same maximum scholarship requirements? I thought there was something in the bylaws the defined what justifications could be used to subdivide a division and if there was any changes to those bylaws then it required the support of the other division levels.
    "You start a conversation you can't even finish it
    You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything
    When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
    Say something once, why say it again?"
    - David Byrne

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Edgeman View Post
    Could always add 5 scholarships to the new top division.
    I don't think it matters how the NCAA does the difference as long as there is a difference. If the new top division wants to add 5 scholarships to football, then it would still have to comply with Title IX requirements which means either adding at least 5 scholarships to the women's program, cutting up to 5 scholarships from another men's program, or some sort of combination of the two. If the NCAA decided to reduce the number of football scholarships to then I do not believe the schools would necessarily have to cut those scholarships from the women's program or add them to another men's program. It is my understanding that Title IX prevents a school from having more scholarships for its men's program than its women's program, but doesn't prevent a school from having the reverse. I think there is a clause that allows a school to base its scholarship distribution based on student body gender percentages, but for this discussion that is probably complicating things too much.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I don't think it matters how the NCAA does the difference as long as there is a difference. If the new top division wants to add 5 scholarships to football, then it would still have to comply with Title IX requirements which means either adding at least 5 scholarships to the women's program, cutting up to 5 scholarships from another men's program, or some sort of combination of the two. If the NCAA decided to reduce the number of football scholarships to then I do not believe the schools would necessarily have to cut those scholarships from the women's program or add them to another men's program. It is my understanding that Title IX prevents a school from having more scholarships for its men's program than its women's program, but doesn't prevent a school from having the reverse. I think there is a clause that allows a school to base its scholarship distribution based on student body gender percentages, but for this discussion that is probably complicating things too much.
    I believe the proportion of men to women's schollies has to match the make up of the student body. It's not a straight 50-50 split. Look at GT. They field more men's sports then women's. So they basically can have a football team without having to counter balance it with extra women's teams
    Last edited by HokieDevil; Fri Nov 01 2013 at 07:50 AM.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieDevil View Post
    I believe the proportion of men to women's schollies has to match the make up of the student body. It's not a straight 50-50 split. Look at GT. They field more women's sports then men's. So they basically can have a football team without having to counter balance it with extra women's teams
    They can also do that because they have high male/female ratio. From their wiki page:
    Quote Originally Posted by Georgia Tech wiki page
    The student body at Georgia Tech is 68% male and 32% female.
    They only need one women's sport scholarship for just over every 2 men's sport scholarships.

    And like the girls say there, "The odds are good, but the goods are odd."
    No trees were harmed in the making of this post. However, billions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieDevil View Post
    I believe the proportion of men to women's schollies has to match the make up of the student body. It's not a straight 50-50 split. Look at GT. They field more women's sports then men's. So they basically can have a football team without having to counter balance it with extra women's teams
    I found this in an article which seems to clarify how Title IX has to be implemented by the universities.

    "Universities must demonstrate compliance with Title IX in at least one of three ways: by showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment, by demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women, or by proving that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of their female students."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/sp...anted=all&_r=0

    So using GT as an example with 68-32% (men-women), they don't necessarily need to ensure that 32% of the scholarships are going towards their women's program as long as they meet 1 of the remaining 2 requirements.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I found this in an article which seems to clarify how Title IX has to be implemented by the universities.

    "Universities must demonstrate compliance with Title IX in at least one of three ways: by showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment, by demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women, or by proving that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of their female students."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/sp...anted=all&_r=0

    So using GT as an example with 68-32% (men-women), they don't necessarily need to ensure that 32% of the scholarships are going towards their women's program as long as they meet 1 of the remaining 2 requirements.
    Here is another article I found which shows the challenges a university faces when trying to comply with Title IX.

    http://espn.go.com/espnw/title-ix/ar...emy-men-sports

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    August 07, 2013
    Posts
    91
    Delany: "We don't want to leave the NCAA, and we don't need a Division IV"

    "We've at least preliminarily concluded we don't want to leave the NCAA, and we don't need a Division IV," Delany said. "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent.

    "But the conditions for that are that we need the political autonomy and the political authority to address things we must address on behalf of our student-athletes, on behalf of our universities. We have the resources to do it, and we need the authority to do it. How that happens, we'll work that out over the next weeks and months. ...

    "We don't want to draw lines and put certain people in and certain people out."
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...hange/3328041/

    I read that as bit of a threat to the lower tier schools. Give us some more latitude otherwise we're outta of here. If you want to come along then come along for the ride otherwise shut-up.

    I believe the smaller schools will now just go along with what the P-5 want so they keep their basketball access and the split doesn't happen. Realignment is done for the foreseeable future(Minus the small conferences and the Big 12 maybe adding 2).
    Last edited by goldendomer; Thu Oct 31 2013 at 04:44 PM.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    February 16, 2001
    Posts
    14,845
    I read that as bit of a threat to the lower tier schools. Give us some more latitude otherwise we're outta of here. If you want to come along then come along for the ride otherwise shut-up.

    Bingo! That is exactly the message they were sending. The difference will be the cost of living scholarship that Swofford has been talking about. The non Power 5 will not want to pay that because they will not get the TV money that the Power 5 schools get from TV. Thus your new category in college football.

    PS The Big 12 schools will survive this, but what conference they will be in is still a question.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendomer View Post
    Delany: "We don't want to leave the NCAA, and we don't need a Division IV"



    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...hange/3328041/

    I read that as bit of a threat to the lower tier schools. Give us some more latitude otherwise we're outta of here. If you want to come along then come along for the ride otherwise shut-up.

    I believe the smaller schools will now just go along with what the P-5 want so they keep their basketball access and the split doesn't happen. Realignment is done for the foreseeable future(Minus the small conferences and the Big 12 maybe adding 2).

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Perfesser View Post
    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.
    The writing you see on the wall was inscribed by parties who represent the NCAA's interests. They don't want anyone to be left out of the dance.
    Just as in conference realignment, the big boys will act in their own interest, and if somebody gets hurt... "so sorry." They will declare their need for stipends, freer recruiting, maybe more scholarships, and who knows what.
    Little should change for DIV II and DIV III schools. DIV I schools who don't move with the P5 will need a new business model.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •