PonyFans.com

ESPN sports business reporter Kristi Dosh joined the Tim Brando Show to discuss the reason and logistics behind creating a Division 4 in college football.

http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/t ... division-4

this is such a complex and difficult issue. As much as the American, MWC, MAC, CUSA & SunBelt schools talk about wanting to compete at the highest level, if it ultimately comes down to size of athletic budget required to join, how many schools from the group of 5 will want to play?

there has been so much deterioration of the "traditional" conferences, I don't doubt that we could see a lot of changes if/when this comes down. On the plus side for us, schools like Texas and OU in our region will probably want schools like SMU so they can count on some "probable" wins so if we pay our way in, I think there's a chance for SMU to be included.

If the rules are changed at Division 4 to allow stipends of as much as $1,000/month to be paid to athletes...will everyone be willing to pay an extra $100,000/month for their football and basketball teams. Will there be "equality" legal battles to be fought and will stipends have to be paid to non-revenue sport athletes...or will it be left to schools to work within their budgets and award stipends as they do with the rest of the student body? I'm not sure if SMU does this, but I know one of my son's best friends was recruited by Clemson and got a full ride including a $300/month stipend to be part of a program they were trying to raise the profile of.

I see this thing coming down to the long talked about "super conferences" and the rest of the schools currently playing at Division I playing at the "next level" much like FCS today. Ultimately we are going to be looking at one more level of competition than what exists today with schools separated by budgets, number of scholarships or "no scholarships" (at least no scholarships labeled as athletic scholarships) like exists today.

That video initially made me feel good about our chances and then scared me to death with the whole "the rest of them can have their own champion" thing.

Paying football and basketball (men) is a very slippery slope that university presidents should thoughtfully consider.

With all the sabre rattling by the AD's what do the college presidents really think? Interesting the presidents of several Big 10 programs have actually made remarks about moving their conference programs the other direction entirely.

Obviously what about other sports? What about women's sports?

What is to stop the athletes to one day organize and make demands for more money or cancelling the season? Are they paid professionals or student athletes? The next step follows: star athletes making demands for greater monthly payments than those on the practice squad.

Maybe a better process would be to tax all TV, radio and non-stadium revenue related to football and basketball and have the NCAA setup a fund to supplement the Pell program for all athletes, men and women in all sports which would be based upon financial need, with the rest to take care of major injuries and supplemental income for those whose injury is related to their sport xo the have a form of disability insurance.

I wonder if taking care of those athletes that come from impoverished situations wilh a monthly supplement would be a cure? I wonder if some of the more vocal SEC AD's would be satisfied if their players in true need only, were taken care of--as well as all athletes in all NCAA school's?

I will say this - if there is a Div 4 and SMU is not included, I would NEVER watch a D4 game - Ever! Alabama and OSU can play each other for the D4 championship 100 times, and I wouldn't watch it once.

I know I am just one person, but multiply that sentiment by fans of every school that are upset because their program gets left out, and you have a pretty sizeable number of folks that would effectively boycott D4.

Also, think about this perspective for D4 -- 50% of the current P5 go from bowl-eligible to perpetual losers. You'd never see Duke make a bowl game ever again. Those bottom-level BCS programs would completely flame out, after they get beaten up on for years with nothing to show for it but a fat TV contract. Fan support would dwindle. You'd have the same 10-15 schools battling it out for the championship, but you would create amongst the P5 a new "loser class" that has no chance to ever make noise.

The following schools should not support a P5 Division, unless they wish to be relegated to complete obscurity:

Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Duke, Wake, Syracuse, BC, Kansas, Iowa St, Colorado, Wash St, Kentucky, Vandy.

I'd also historically say Pitt, Rutgers, Oregon St, Arizona as well.

Totally agree. These schools plus I suspect, the U and Stanford both private will have problems down the road. Add in Title IX wondering why women athletes don't get paid as well and suddenly the "haves" will have priced the "have nots" out of the market. Schools like SMU, TCU, U, Baylor, Vandy, WF, Duke, Stanford will have some gas about paying players on top of scholarships unless there is a permanent gang of 20 for each school to fund those payments.

I believe that if the SEC coaches and AD's were excluded, the other conferences would be split on the issue. I can't imagine that the California universities would be allowed to support it, nor would the majority of the Big Ten presidents. The Big 12 is a "wanna be" SEC, so they would go along with the flow. The ACC just wants to separate itself from the AAC--at any cost.