Clay_Allison
Old Bastard
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 5,488
It practically goes back to the beginning of time, but the current leadership is part of the current problems.
2014 College Football Chatter...
- Thread starter Cotton
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 19,628
and Hance hasnt helped.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 27,181
Just noticed today that back in March the NCAA tweaked that silly targeting rule loophole.
Remember how last year if they flagged a guy for an illegal hit he was automatically ejected and the play was automatically reviewed by the refs and after review if the refs found the hit to be clean/legal the player ejection was overturned but the 15 yard penalty was still enforced.
Well it turns out they're now picking up the flag on the 15 yard penalty as well. So no more of those free 15 yard gifts.
I'm pretty sure all of our teams were burned by that silly rule last year. Glad they decided to start using a little common sense.
Remember how last year if they flagged a guy for an illegal hit he was automatically ejected and the play was automatically reviewed by the refs and after review if the refs found the hit to be clean/legal the player ejection was overturned but the 15 yard penalty was still enforced.
Well it turns out they're now picking up the flag on the 15 yard penalty as well. So no more of those free 15 yard gifts.
I'm pretty sure all of our teams were burned by that silly rule last year. Glad they decided to start using a little common sense.
D
Deuce
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,237
It was a stupid setup from the beginning. Why the hell could you call the player not in violation and still penalize in yardage. It was dumb. Glad it was repealed.
Clay_Allison
Old Bastard
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 5,488
Those plays should be reviewable in the NFL as well.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
Many of the Power Five conference coaches in college football told ESPN that they favor a schedule consisting of only Power Five opponents.
Of the 65 Power Five coaches from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and Notre Dame, 46 percent (30 coaches) favored playing exclusively Power Five opponents while 35 percent (23 coaches) were opposed. About 18.5 percent (12 coaches) were undecided.
The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.
The coaches, who were in Bristol, Connecticut, last month, were asked whether they would favor all Power Five conferences playing their respective conference schedules and then scheduling all nonconference games against other Power Five teams. Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.
The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.
Alabama coach Nick Saban said "fans want" Power Five teams playing exclusively Power Five opponents.
"We need to be more concerned about the people who support the programs and the university and come and see the games," Saban said. "Those are the most important. But we never think about that."
Voting results
ACC
YES: Clemson's Dabo Swinney, Miami's Al Golden, Pitt's Paul Chryst, Virginia Tech's Frank Beamer
NO: Duke's David Cutcliffe, Florida State's Jimbo Fisher, Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson, North Carolina's Larry Fedora, NC State's Dave Doeren, Wake Forest's Dave Clawson
Undecided: Boston College's Steve Addazio, Louisville's Bobby Petrino, Syracuse's Scott Shafer, Virginia's Mike London
Big Ten
YES: Maryland's Randy Edsall, Michigan's Brady Hoke, Michigan State's Mark Dantonio, Nebraska's Bo Pelini, Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald, Purdue's Darrell Hazell
NO: Illinois' Tim Beckman, Indiana's Kevin Wilson, Iowa's Kirk Ferentz, Ohio State's Urban Meyer, Rutgers' Kyle Flood, Wisconsin's Gary Andersen
Undecided: Minnesota's Jerry Kill, Penn State's James Franklin
Big 12
YES: Baylor's Art Briles, Kansas' Charlie Weis, Iowa State's Paul Rhoads, Oklahoma's Bob Stoops, Oklahoma State's Mike Gundy, West Virginia's Dana Holgorsen
NO: Kansas State's Bill Snyder, Texas' Charlie Strong, TCU's Gary Patterson, Texas Tech's Kliff Kingsbury
Independent
NO: Notre Dame's Brian Kelly
Pac-12
YES: Arizona State's Todd Graham, Oregon's Mark Helfrich, Oregon State's Mike Riley, Stanford's David Shaw, UCLA's Jim Mora, Washington's Chris Petersen, USC's Steve Sarkisian
NO: Arizona's Rich Rodriguez
Undecided: Cal's Sonny Dykes, Colorado's Mike MacIntyre, Utah's Kyle Whittingham, Washington State's Mike Leach
SEC
YES: Alabama's Nick Saban, Florida's Will Muschamp, Kentucky's Mark Stoops, LSU's Les Miles, Mississippi State's Dan Mullen, Ole Miss' Hugh Freeze, Tennessee's Butch Jones
NO: Arkansas' Bret Bielema, Georgia's Mark Richt, Missouri's Gary Pinkel, South Carolina's Steve Spurrier, Vanderbilt's Derek Mason
Undecided: Auburn's Gus Malzahn, Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin
Coaches from the Pac-12, whose schools already play nine league games, were the biggest proponents of a Power Five-exclusive schedule: seven in favor, one against and four undecided.
The Pac-12 coaches, such as Stanford's David Shaw, prefer the Power Five-only schedule model because they want each conference to play the same type of schedule. The Pac-12 is the only league that plays nine conference games and has a league title game.
Arizona's Rich Rodriguez, the lone dissenting Pac-12 coach, said "some of those [non-Power Five teams] are better than the so-called 'haves' [Power Five teams]."
The non-Power Five FBS conferences are the American, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West and Sun Belt.
A couple of coaches in favor of Power Five-only opponents suggested having future nonconference opponents determined by how each team finished in its conference the previous season, similar to the NFL's scheduling model.
Arizona State's Todd Graham, who was in favor, echoed Saban's comments that fans prefer the Power Five teams playing one another.
"Fans want to see those games," Graham said. "Players want to play in them, and coaches want to coach in them."
Big 12 coaches favored it by a 6-4 margin, but Kansas State's Bill Snyder was against it. Snyder's reasoning was that the Wildcats annually need seven home games because of the amount of money brought into the Manhattan, Kansas, community. By playing only Power Five opponents, Snyder said K-State would not be able to schedule seven home games each season.
Texas' Charlie Strong also was against it because he said the Longhorns are committed to playing an annual home game against a non-Power Five school from Texas. The Longhorns have played a smaller in-state school in three of the past five seasons and open this year against North Texas.
Big Ten coaches were split on the matter.
"The Power Five conferences is a different world," said Maryland's Randy Edsall, who was in favor of it. "The scheduling would be more well-rounded and would show who deserves to be in the [four-team] playoff."
Nebraska's Bo Pelini, who was in favor, was one of several coaches that said Power Five schools playing exclusively Power Five schools would make the job of ranking the teams by the College Football Playoff's selection committee simpler.
"Everyone would be on the same playing field," Pelini said. "It would be easier for the selection committee to rank the teams with the schools having more common opponents."
Pelini was among several coaches who think the four-team playoff will quickly expand to eight teams.
"There's five power leagues and only four of those will make it, so someone is going to get pissed off," Pelini said. "That's why we'll eventually have an eight-team playoff."
Michigan State's Mark Dantonio said playing only Power Five opponents would make it easier "to find a true champion. If teams don't play similar opponents, it gets skewed."
Miami's Al Golden and Saban also said that playing exclusively Power Five opponents would help the selection committee pick the best four teams.
In the current setup, when all conferences play different opponents (Power Five, non-Power Five and FCS opponents), Saban said a team can be eliminated from the four-team playoff with one regular-season loss. By playing exclusively Power Five opponents, it would be harder for teams to go undefeated and teams wouldn't be penalized for one loss, Saban said.
"I don't like the pressure if you might lose one game and you're out [of the playoff]," Saban said. "It's difficult to play 12 good games, but if not everyone is in that situation, it might be easier for them to go undefeated.
"I think some fundamental changes have to be made before anybody would be interested in [a Power Five-only schedule]."
Indiana's Kevin Wilson was against it. He said he wasn't sure fans could adjust to the bigger schools' no longer scheduling nonconference games against smaller schools. And he wondered whether fans would accept an NFL-like setup where half of the Power Five teams would win and lose.
"Can everyone handle .500 football every week?" Wilson said
Wisconsin's Gary Andersen, Missouri's Gary Pinkel and Iowa's Kirk Ferentz also were against it.
Andersen, the former Utah State coach, and Pinkel, formerly at Toledo, wondered how the smaller schools could survive without playing the Power Five schools. Some smaller schools receive more than $1 million to play at a Power Five opponent.
"Where do teams like Utah State go to get a big game?" Andersen said.
Ferentz even predicted the Big Ten would play 10 conference games "in the near future." The league currently has eight league games but is moving to nine in 2016 and will eventually eliminate games against FCS teams.
LSU's Les Miles, one of seven SEC coaches who were in favor, believes that "we're headed that way" to Power Five-only schedules.
Mississippi State's Dan Mullen, who also favored it, said that if the schools played only Power Five opponents, they would need more scholarship players and expanded eligibility.
Even though Notre Dame has never played an FCS team and plays almost exclusively Power Five opponents already, Irish coach Brian Kelly said he would be against it if it meant no longer playing Navy.
Kelly said removing Navy from Notre Dame's schedule would be "a deal-breaker." Even with teams playing tougher schedules, Kelly said he doesn't favor teams with losing records playing in bowls.
North Carolina's Larry Fedora was against the idea because he said the non-Power Five league teams "can't survive without us. It would not be good for college football."
Of the 65 Power Five coaches from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and Notre Dame, 46 percent (30 coaches) favored playing exclusively Power Five opponents while 35 percent (23 coaches) were opposed. About 18.5 percent (12 coaches) were undecided.
The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.
The coaches, who were in Bristol, Connecticut, last month, were asked whether they would favor all Power Five conferences playing their respective conference schedules and then scheduling all nonconference games against other Power Five teams. Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.
The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.
Alabama coach Nick Saban said "fans want" Power Five teams playing exclusively Power Five opponents.
"We need to be more concerned about the people who support the programs and the university and come and see the games," Saban said. "Those are the most important. But we never think about that."
Voting results
ACC
YES: Clemson's Dabo Swinney, Miami's Al Golden, Pitt's Paul Chryst, Virginia Tech's Frank Beamer
NO: Duke's David Cutcliffe, Florida State's Jimbo Fisher, Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson, North Carolina's Larry Fedora, NC State's Dave Doeren, Wake Forest's Dave Clawson
Undecided: Boston College's Steve Addazio, Louisville's Bobby Petrino, Syracuse's Scott Shafer, Virginia's Mike London
Big Ten
YES: Maryland's Randy Edsall, Michigan's Brady Hoke, Michigan State's Mark Dantonio, Nebraska's Bo Pelini, Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald, Purdue's Darrell Hazell
NO: Illinois' Tim Beckman, Indiana's Kevin Wilson, Iowa's Kirk Ferentz, Ohio State's Urban Meyer, Rutgers' Kyle Flood, Wisconsin's Gary Andersen
Undecided: Minnesota's Jerry Kill, Penn State's James Franklin
Big 12
YES: Baylor's Art Briles, Kansas' Charlie Weis, Iowa State's Paul Rhoads, Oklahoma's Bob Stoops, Oklahoma State's Mike Gundy, West Virginia's Dana Holgorsen
NO: Kansas State's Bill Snyder, Texas' Charlie Strong, TCU's Gary Patterson, Texas Tech's Kliff Kingsbury
Independent
NO: Notre Dame's Brian Kelly
Pac-12
YES: Arizona State's Todd Graham, Oregon's Mark Helfrich, Oregon State's Mike Riley, Stanford's David Shaw, UCLA's Jim Mora, Washington's Chris Petersen, USC's Steve Sarkisian
NO: Arizona's Rich Rodriguez
Undecided: Cal's Sonny Dykes, Colorado's Mike MacIntyre, Utah's Kyle Whittingham, Washington State's Mike Leach
SEC
YES: Alabama's Nick Saban, Florida's Will Muschamp, Kentucky's Mark Stoops, LSU's Les Miles, Mississippi State's Dan Mullen, Ole Miss' Hugh Freeze, Tennessee's Butch Jones
NO: Arkansas' Bret Bielema, Georgia's Mark Richt, Missouri's Gary Pinkel, South Carolina's Steve Spurrier, Vanderbilt's Derek Mason
Undecided: Auburn's Gus Malzahn, Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin
Coaches from the Pac-12, whose schools already play nine league games, were the biggest proponents of a Power Five-exclusive schedule: seven in favor, one against and four undecided.
The Pac-12 coaches, such as Stanford's David Shaw, prefer the Power Five-only schedule model because they want each conference to play the same type of schedule. The Pac-12 is the only league that plays nine conference games and has a league title game.
Arizona's Rich Rodriguez, the lone dissenting Pac-12 coach, said "some of those [non-Power Five teams] are better than the so-called 'haves' [Power Five teams]."
The non-Power Five FBS conferences are the American, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West and Sun Belt.
A couple of coaches in favor of Power Five-only opponents suggested having future nonconference opponents determined by how each team finished in its conference the previous season, similar to the NFL's scheduling model.
Arizona State's Todd Graham, who was in favor, echoed Saban's comments that fans prefer the Power Five teams playing one another.
"Fans want to see those games," Graham said. "Players want to play in them, and coaches want to coach in them."
Big 12 coaches favored it by a 6-4 margin, but Kansas State's Bill Snyder was against it. Snyder's reasoning was that the Wildcats annually need seven home games because of the amount of money brought into the Manhattan, Kansas, community. By playing only Power Five opponents, Snyder said K-State would not be able to schedule seven home games each season.
Texas' Charlie Strong also was against it because he said the Longhorns are committed to playing an annual home game against a non-Power Five school from Texas. The Longhorns have played a smaller in-state school in three of the past five seasons and open this year against North Texas.
Big Ten coaches were split on the matter.
"The Power Five conferences is a different world," said Maryland's Randy Edsall, who was in favor of it. "The scheduling would be more well-rounded and would show who deserves to be in the [four-team] playoff."
Nebraska's Bo Pelini, who was in favor, was one of several coaches that said Power Five schools playing exclusively Power Five schools would make the job of ranking the teams by the College Football Playoff's selection committee simpler.
"Everyone would be on the same playing field," Pelini said. "It would be easier for the selection committee to rank the teams with the schools having more common opponents."
Pelini was among several coaches who think the four-team playoff will quickly expand to eight teams.
"There's five power leagues and only four of those will make it, so someone is going to get pissed off," Pelini said. "That's why we'll eventually have an eight-team playoff."
Michigan State's Mark Dantonio said playing only Power Five opponents would make it easier "to find a true champion. If teams don't play similar opponents, it gets skewed."
Miami's Al Golden and Saban also said that playing exclusively Power Five opponents would help the selection committee pick the best four teams.
In the current setup, when all conferences play different opponents (Power Five, non-Power Five and FCS opponents), Saban said a team can be eliminated from the four-team playoff with one regular-season loss. By playing exclusively Power Five opponents, it would be harder for teams to go undefeated and teams wouldn't be penalized for one loss, Saban said.
"I don't like the pressure if you might lose one game and you're out [of the playoff]," Saban said. "It's difficult to play 12 good games, but if not everyone is in that situation, it might be easier for them to go undefeated.
"I think some fundamental changes have to be made before anybody would be interested in [a Power Five-only schedule]."
Indiana's Kevin Wilson was against it. He said he wasn't sure fans could adjust to the bigger schools' no longer scheduling nonconference games against smaller schools. And he wondered whether fans would accept an NFL-like setup where half of the Power Five teams would win and lose.
"Can everyone handle .500 football every week?" Wilson said
Wisconsin's Gary Andersen, Missouri's Gary Pinkel and Iowa's Kirk Ferentz also were against it.
Andersen, the former Utah State coach, and Pinkel, formerly at Toledo, wondered how the smaller schools could survive without playing the Power Five schools. Some smaller schools receive more than $1 million to play at a Power Five opponent.
"Where do teams like Utah State go to get a big game?" Andersen said.
Ferentz even predicted the Big Ten would play 10 conference games "in the near future." The league currently has eight league games but is moving to nine in 2016 and will eventually eliminate games against FCS teams.
LSU's Les Miles, one of seven SEC coaches who were in favor, believes that "we're headed that way" to Power Five-only schedules.
Mississippi State's Dan Mullen, who also favored it, said that if the schools played only Power Five opponents, they would need more scholarship players and expanded eligibility.
Even though Notre Dame has never played an FCS team and plays almost exclusively Power Five opponents already, Irish coach Brian Kelly said he would be against it if it meant no longer playing Navy.
Kelly said removing Navy from Notre Dame's schedule would be "a deal-breaker." Even with teams playing tougher schedules, Kelly said he doesn't favor teams with losing records playing in bowls.
North Carolina's Larry Fedora was against the idea because he said the non-Power Five league teams "can't survive without us. It would not be good for college football."
D
Deuce
Guest
The end of college football as we know it. Congrats, you greedy bunch of pricks.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 27,181
I honestly don't get why some coaches would be in favor of excluding other legit DI programs. Some of the teams in conferences like the MAC conference are better than the mid to lower tier teams in the so called Power 5 conferences.
Bowling Green vs. Tennessee.....that's a legit toss up.
I could see if the disdain for playing D-II teams because those games are usually end up being 60 point blowouts. I'm actually on the fence on that topic since a number of these D-II teams need those games against Power 5 schools. The huge pay days they receive for taking that 60 point beating are instrumental in keeping their athletic programs afloat.
Bowling Green vs. Tennessee.....that's a legit toss up.
I could see if the disdain for playing D-II teams because those games are usually end up being 60 point blowouts. I'm actually on the fence on that topic since a number of these D-II teams need those games against Power 5 schools. The huge pay days they receive for taking that 60 point beating are instrumental in keeping their athletic programs afloat.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
I don't want to leave them behind but the power 5 is moving towards being a semi-pro league. We are about to start paying these kids soon. Mid-majors won't be able to keep up.
Honestly that is basically what happened a long time ago when D2 was formed. I wonder if deuce and the mid-majors are willing to join with D2 and share in their burdens like the power 5 does with them. Probably not. They probably don't want to be slowed down in their progress. I mean, after all, the good D2 teams can easily beat some bad mid-major teams. The best D2 teams can compete with alarmist every mid-major team, there's that.
Honestly that is basically what happened a long time ago when D2 was formed. I wonder if deuce and the mid-majors are willing to join with D2 and share in their burdens like the power 5 does with them. Probably not. They probably don't want to be slowed down in their progress. I mean, after all, the good D2 teams can easily beat some bad mid-major teams. The best D2 teams can compete with alarmist every mid-major team, there's that.
D
Deuce
Guest
You're full of it. NDSU isn't hanging with the best the non-P5 has to offer on a regular basis. They can probably play with the A-Sun regularly, but that doesn't mean shit.
And as for paying players, that shouldn't matter. A lot of teams that aren't P5 are ready to make that commitment as well. All this is are the big boys trying to increase their odds of being at the top longer by eliminating any pesky program coming up and ruining their little playoff. UCF won't get the ratings a USC would, so why let them in above the other? So, protect your assets...even if it means protecting a bunch of shit programs with those assets like Wake Forest, Purdue, etc.
D
Deuce
Guest
Also, what this might do is drastically cut a lot of football programs in half. Lots of the smaller teams rely on those bodybag games to fund their budget. Michigan is notorious for paying top dollar for teams to come in and (hopefully) get handed a loss. What happens when those teams can't schedule the better teams anymore because the P5 is only scheduling each other? Budgets cut, program cut. You can't tell me that's something that's "in the best interest of student athletes".
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
I never used the term "in the best interest of student athletes" ... Who are you quoting anyway? Not me. I don't want the players to get paid. Not at all. Paying players is going to destroy the game as we know it. The players don't need paid. They really have all that they need. Now that conferences are instituting letting the players eat as much and as many times as they want they don't need anything. The reason the game is so exciting is because you have a much higher percentage of players who are hungry. That is why the college game is better than the nfl. Buuuuut we are heading to a paid league. It can't and won't be stopped at this point. Everyone sees it coming from a mile away. I do agree with you though that it will probably screw the game up. It will take whatever purity that is has and flush it. This deal is going corporate.
Having said that, the mid-majors can't keep up. You can tell yourself that all day that they can but they can't. They don't have the TVs or the money. That is just the facts. Just because some teams feel they are ready doesn't mean that the majority is. They aren't. The P5 are getting 30-40 year just in TV contracts alone. That is not including all the money from other sources. To me it seems inevitable that major changes are coming.
D
Deuce
Guest
The quote is something that Emmert and other NCAA officials would use after they've made their retarded decisions over the years, now they're granting this to the schools.
As for mid-majors, yes most of the them can't handle this. But there's a fair amount who have already committed to it if it goes through despite what kind of financial burden it will put on them. If you think UCF and USF are going to simply slip away because of paying players after all the money they've both sunk into their facilities to get to this point, you're crazy. They'll just keep racking up debt to hang in there with the P5 schools. Other schools like ECU will as well, especially since they have such a following and they don't want to jeopardize that.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
TCU is lucky as all get out. Thanks to Texas, those greedy bastards, we have TCU screwing things up. It is absolutely unbelievable that Texas is allowed to have the longhorn network when the SEC has their own network and the PAC 12 has the same. Doesn't the Big 10 have one too? Texas essentially was allowed to block the conference from having one so they could have their crappy failure network. As a result of that and years of them bastards running things we lost ATM, Mizzu, Nebraska and Colorado. What did we gain? WV and TCU?! WV is a decent add but they are way the frick over there and not really a good fit. It does feel good to be TCU get raped in the Big 12 though. Hopefully that continues.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
The AP has crowned 78 national champions in college football. Fifteen programs account for 63 of those 78 championships. The sport hasn't had a first-time national champion since Florida won in 1996.
Parity in college football, at least when it comes to national champions, is a myth.
This a pretty interesting stat...
Parity in college football, at least when it comes to national champions, is a myth.
This a pretty interesting stat...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
INDIANAPOLIS -- The power conferences in major college sports just got more powerful -- maybe a lot more so.
The NCAA Division I board of directors on Thursday voted 16-2 to allow the schools in the top five conferences to write many of their own rules. The autonomy measures -- which the power conferences had all but demanded -- will permit those leagues to decide on things such as cost-of-attendance stipends and insurance benefits for players, staff sizes, recruiting rules and mandatory hours spent on individual sports.
"This keeps Division I together," board chairman and Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch said. "I'm thrilled that Division I and all its virtues can be maintained, and I think this is the pathway to do so."
The top 64 schools in the richest five leagues (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12) plus Notre Dame can submit their own legislation by Oct. 1 and have it enacted at the January 2015 NCAA convention in Washington, D.C. Several presidents said Thursday that the full cost-of-attendance stipends, which could be worth between $2,000 and $5,000 per player, likely would be the first item taken up. The NCAA approved those stipends three years ago, but legislation was halted when the full membership voted it down. Four-year scholarship guarantees are expected to be on the early agenda, as well.
"I think you'll see those issues be acted on very aggressively, right away," NCAA president Mark Emmert said.
Other new rules the biggest conferences could enact include loosened restrictions involving contact between players and agents, letting players pursue outside paid career opportunities and covering expenses for players' families to attend postseason games. Areas that will not fall under the autonomy umbrella include postseason tournaments, transfer policies, scholarship limits, signing day and rules governing on-field play.
Leagues outside the Power Five can opt to adopt the same rules. Of course, many schools won't be able to afford measures like cost-of-attendance stipends. That could create an even larger competitive imbalance between schools in the power conferences and those in leagues like the Sun Belt, MAC or even in the FCS.
"There is a risk the gap will grow; I think we ought to be candid about that," Rice president David W. Leebron said. "We're in a world of radically different resources. But those schools with more resources ... will have some ability to spend those resources in ways that are actually more rational, particularly with a priority on student-athlete welfare."
Hatch said there was "some conflict" and disagreement in the board's discussion about autonomy, which passed without a unanimous vote. Ultimately, though, even those schools that don't stand to benefit from the new structure did not want to lose their relationships with the power conferences and desired to protect competitions like the NCAA basketball tournament.
"We understand the level at which we compete and we understand the resources we must manage," Wright State president David Hopkins said. "From our point of view in the Horizon League, we think this is so important that we stay together in Division I."
If 75 schools from outside the Power Five vote to override the autonomy legislation in the next 60 days, the measures would be sent back to the board of directors for further consideration. But Hatch, who has spoken with nearly every conference and school leader throughout this process, said he was "very confident that it will not be overridden."
Some conference commissioners and others from the Power Five had made veiled threats about splitting off into a separate division if autonomy failed. This should quiet that talk.
"There was certainly some saber-rattling out there," Kansas State president Kirk Schulz said. "But I think this puts us in a good spot to make changes a lot of folks have been asking for."
It's no coincidence that several of the new rules being proposed under autonomy involve giving athletes more benefits. The NCAA faces attack from several quarters, including the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit, the Northwestern union movement and even Congressional investigations, all of which pose an existential threat to the way college sports are run.
"I think we have to look at why are those things coming up, and sometimes you have to go back to the root causes," Schulz said. "You look at some of the opportunities here to enhance student-athlete benefits and things like that, and I think it will help mitigate some of the legal [issues], but not all."
A new 80-member voting panel, which will include 15 current players, will determine autonomous policies for the five leagues. The power conferences will also carry more voting power on general NCAA matters. Athletic directors will have a much larger representation than before, when presidents mostly controlled the system. Rice's Leebron called the new governance structure a "shift of responsibility" and a "huge vote of confidence" in the athletic directors and players.
Major conferences will still have to agree on issues; to pass a rule requires either a 60 percent majority of the 80-member panel plus three of the five power conferences or a simple majority plus four of the five leagues.
South Carolina president Harris Pastides said he'd like to see new rules limiting contact in football practice and lessening practice hours in all sports. But he's not sure all his colleagues will always see eye-to-eye.
"I think that's where the rubber meets the road, quite frankly," he said. "I can't wait to be part of those deliberations. It won't be easy to reach agreement on everything."
But the most powerful schools in Division I now have a chance to figure things out for themselves and potentially give more back to their players. That's why Emmert called it "a big, important day."
"In the end, everyone recognized this was something very good for Division I," he said. "From my point of view, this is a wonderful development."
The NCAA Division I board of directors on Thursday voted 16-2 to allow the schools in the top five conferences to write many of their own rules. The autonomy measures -- which the power conferences had all but demanded -- will permit those leagues to decide on things such as cost-of-attendance stipends and insurance benefits for players, staff sizes, recruiting rules and mandatory hours spent on individual sports.
"This keeps Division I together," board chairman and Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch said. "I'm thrilled that Division I and all its virtues can be maintained, and I think this is the pathway to do so."
The top 64 schools in the richest five leagues (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12) plus Notre Dame can submit their own legislation by Oct. 1 and have it enacted at the January 2015 NCAA convention in Washington, D.C. Several presidents said Thursday that the full cost-of-attendance stipends, which could be worth between $2,000 and $5,000 per player, likely would be the first item taken up. The NCAA approved those stipends three years ago, but legislation was halted when the full membership voted it down. Four-year scholarship guarantees are expected to be on the early agenda, as well.
"I think you'll see those issues be acted on very aggressively, right away," NCAA president Mark Emmert said.
Other new rules the biggest conferences could enact include loosened restrictions involving contact between players and agents, letting players pursue outside paid career opportunities and covering expenses for players' families to attend postseason games. Areas that will not fall under the autonomy umbrella include postseason tournaments, transfer policies, scholarship limits, signing day and rules governing on-field play.
Leagues outside the Power Five can opt to adopt the same rules. Of course, many schools won't be able to afford measures like cost-of-attendance stipends. That could create an even larger competitive imbalance between schools in the power conferences and those in leagues like the Sun Belt, MAC or even in the FCS.
"There is a risk the gap will grow; I think we ought to be candid about that," Rice president David W. Leebron said. "We're in a world of radically different resources. But those schools with more resources ... will have some ability to spend those resources in ways that are actually more rational, particularly with a priority on student-athlete welfare."
Hatch said there was "some conflict" and disagreement in the board's discussion about autonomy, which passed without a unanimous vote. Ultimately, though, even those schools that don't stand to benefit from the new structure did not want to lose their relationships with the power conferences and desired to protect competitions like the NCAA basketball tournament.
"We understand the level at which we compete and we understand the resources we must manage," Wright State president David Hopkins said. "From our point of view in the Horizon League, we think this is so important that we stay together in Division I."
If 75 schools from outside the Power Five vote to override the autonomy legislation in the next 60 days, the measures would be sent back to the board of directors for further consideration. But Hatch, who has spoken with nearly every conference and school leader throughout this process, said he was "very confident that it will not be overridden."
Some conference commissioners and others from the Power Five had made veiled threats about splitting off into a separate division if autonomy failed. This should quiet that talk.
"There was certainly some saber-rattling out there," Kansas State president Kirk Schulz said. "But I think this puts us in a good spot to make changes a lot of folks have been asking for."
It's no coincidence that several of the new rules being proposed under autonomy involve giving athletes more benefits. The NCAA faces attack from several quarters, including the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit, the Northwestern union movement and even Congressional investigations, all of which pose an existential threat to the way college sports are run.
"I think we have to look at why are those things coming up, and sometimes you have to go back to the root causes," Schulz said. "You look at some of the opportunities here to enhance student-athlete benefits and things like that, and I think it will help mitigate some of the legal [issues], but not all."
A new 80-member voting panel, which will include 15 current players, will determine autonomous policies for the five leagues. The power conferences will also carry more voting power on general NCAA matters. Athletic directors will have a much larger representation than before, when presidents mostly controlled the system. Rice's Leebron called the new governance structure a "shift of responsibility" and a "huge vote of confidence" in the athletic directors and players.
Major conferences will still have to agree on issues; to pass a rule requires either a 60 percent majority of the 80-member panel plus three of the five power conferences or a simple majority plus four of the five leagues.
South Carolina president Harris Pastides said he'd like to see new rules limiting contact in football practice and lessening practice hours in all sports. But he's not sure all his colleagues will always see eye-to-eye.
"I think that's where the rubber meets the road, quite frankly," he said. "I can't wait to be part of those deliberations. It won't be easy to reach agreement on everything."
But the most powerful schools in Division I now have a chance to figure things out for themselves and potentially give more back to their players. That's why Emmert called it "a big, important day."
"In the end, everyone recognized this was something very good for Division I," he said. "From my point of view, this is a wonderful development."
- Status