PonyFans.com

"A new NCAA governance structure favoring the Division I power institutions has been distributed to membership in advance of next week's NCAA convention.

At its core, the proposed structure would give "legislative autonomy" to the five BCS or power conferences that consider themselves the main stakeholders of big-time college sports: the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... onferences

Water Pony wrote:"A new NCAA governance structure favoring the Division I power institutions has been distributed to membership in advance of next week's NCAA convention.

At its core, the proposed structure would give "legislative autonomy" to the five BCS or power conferences that consider themselves the main stakeholders of big-time college sports: the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... onferences

Welcome to the have nots, SMU.

In other words - we're done. LOL!

Basketball school?

Hope not but who knows today anymore.

You can bet one thing for sure! The 'have-nots' will not speak up one little bit. WIMPS!

And they'll continue to ask all their alums to keep throwing $$$ into their athletic losses. I wish I could do that in my business!!! LOL!!!

this has always been my concern. Why would the BCS schools need 80-85 schools (which might include SMU) when they have majority control of NCAA governing power with 65 schools. 65 schools/125 schools in Division 1A is majority control. That's why I've always thought that eventually the 4 x 16 model with 8 subdivisions would eventually prevail. SMU never had a shot with 64 or 65 scfhools.

Stallion wrote:this has always been my concern. Why would the BCS schools need 80-85 schools (which might include SMU) when they have majority control of NCAA governing power with 65 schools. 65 schools/125 schools in Division 1A is majority control. That's why I've always thought that eventually the 4 x 16 model with 8 subdivisions would eventually prevail. SMU never had a shot with 64 or 65 scfhools.

Because with 64 schools, if you have 2 defectors, you do not have a majority vote. 62 of 125 is not a majority. You need 80 to 85 schools, so if a few schools defect on a vote, you still have the majority. THIS IS OUR ONLY HOPE!!!

Annnnnnnnddddddddddddddd..... We're boned.

What does this mean down the line when a lot of state schools, getting a lot of public money, start getting the shaft big time and members of Congress start making noise? Isn't it still an issue at 65 schools?

I foresee this becoming like the UN security council where 5 conferences have permanent votes while the other smaller ones will rotate in and out as it pleases the big boys.

We'll see what happens. I am thinking that the non-power 5 schools will try to block this unless it can be showed how it is in their favor. Division I isn't only the football schools (125), but all of Division I schools (300+ schools). They get a vote on how Division I is run. For example, what does St. Bonaventure have in common with the University of Texas? Answer: Nothing, except they both have Division I legislative votes

I think some deal will get cut this spring. I don't think it will be an immediate turning over of all power to the P-5. I think we will suffer the death of 1,000 paper cuts before we are totally fried. So we have some time - not much, but some time.

Look how much time it has taken the P-5 to get the power to where we are now. The BCS systems put all of the football money in their hands. It has taken 16+ years for them to actually get this discussion moving forward. They will win some concessions from the rest of Division I.

My gut call on what is going to happen: Division I will split into two groups. Division I football Schools (FBS) will get their own legislative authority and all other Division I schools (basketball, FCS, other sports...etc.) will get their own legislative authority. Once that happens, the power 5 conferences will have 51% of the vote. Everyday and every legislative decision will slowly kill us. The major question will be if this deal becomes football only or all sports. If it is all sports, then college sports are only about the P-5 - we might as well try to become the University of Chicago. If it is football only... then major college football will be 64 teams and everyone else might as well become FCS.

I think a boycott of SMU Football could really help our chances

Stallion wrote:I think a boycott of SMU Football could really help our chances

Say what? Not following...

stc9 wrote:

Stallion wrote:I think a boycott of SMU Football could really help our chances

Say what? Not following...

He's saying that all the people saying they will boycot SMU FB because of June will only make our dire situation worse.

I still think the only thing turner understands is money, so......

This reminds me of politics ... let's shrink the tent, so we can win (?) elections.

Water Pony wrote:This reminds me of politics ... let's shrink the tent, so we can win (?) elections.

I think that is exactly what it is. As it stands now most of the money in college sports is directed at 64 institutions. If they gain political power in equal share to their financial power than they can squeeze the rest of the players out of the market and take all of the money, a true oligarchy. This is no different than John Rockefeller with Standard Oil or Andrew Carnegie of US Steel. With their $ and political influence (bought with their $s) they created and operated monopolies (and people said my history minor wouldn't come in handy). The problem for every other school in the nation is that the oligarchy will have the political clout in Washington, as primarily state institutions, to prevent trust busting.

But will the have-nots fight it? Unfortunately, they most likely, WON'T.

If this transpires, I guess we become a basketball school???

By the way, SMU better get baseball up & running, as well, & make it a money-maker! In other words, make it a winner & a big winner at that!