New subdivision for NCAA Division I Football

by **Big12Mustang** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:55 pm

Game over for the AAC? :cry:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... ubdivision

by **Dooby** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:26 pm

The purpose of this at this time is try and convince the Northwestern football players to vote against a union because it is "unnecessary."

A new subdivision will not fly. U can't do for football players without doing for basketball players. U can't create a subdivision that creates special rights for some participants and expect others to compete. This will require approval of majority of division 1 schools, not just FBS schools. No non-FBS school should go along with this. It won't pass.

by **couch 'em** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:44 pm

Been in the works for a long time.

by **B1GPonyFan** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:10 pm

Dooby wrote:The purpose of this at this time is try and convince the Northwestern football players to vote against a union because it is "unnecessary."

A new subdivision will not fly. U can't do for football players without doing for basketball players. U can't create a subdivision that creates special rights for some participants and expect others to compete. This will require approval of majority of division 1 schools, not just FBS schools. No non-FBS school should go along with this. It won't pass.

If they break off from the NCAA like they can, then they can do whatever they want. And the NCAA knows that. The Big 5 conference have been tired of the likes of MAC and Sun Belt schools standing in the way of what they're trying to accomplish. We're no longer in a world of one school one vote. These schools want to leave the smaller conferences behind. I can't say I blame them.

SMU likely will be in a new reality in the Division I world. Not saying that's a bad thing. But that is the thing.

by **SMU1523** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:20 pm

Well, it seems to me if that happens. SMU will do whatever it takes to be included in this new level of D1. May not be right away, but eventually. I can't say the same for other schools.

by **jpe747** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:35 pm

If this happens it is time to rethink alums paying players. Someone started this view (paying players) a few weeks ago and I took it as a joke. However, if this is the plan for college football why not give the players what they want and schools compete on level ground?

by **SMU 86** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:41 pm

Dooby wrote:The purpose of this at this time is try and convince the Northwestern football players to vote against a union because it is "unnecessary."

A new subdivision will not fly. U can't do for football players without doing for basketball players. U can't create a subdivision that creates special rights for some participants and expect others to compete. This will require approval of majority of division 1 schools, not just FBS schools. No non-FBS school should go along with this. It won't pass.

They will increase benefits for both football and basketball players with no problem. Just like the food rations were increased recently for both football and basketball.

by **NY Pony** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:03 pm

Aresco already stated that the AAC intends to keep pace with the power 5 conferences with respect to cost of attendance, etc. AAC will be a challenger conference that will offer similar financial incentives to players under this system. It will be interesting to see what the other 4, less wealthy, small conferences do.

by **Big12Mustang** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:39 pm

NY Pony wrote:Aresco already stated that the AAC intends to keep pace with the power 5 conferences with respect to cost of attendance, etc. AAC will be a challenger conference that will offer similar financial incentives to players under this system. It will be interesting to see what the other 4, less wealthy, small conferences do.

Hopefully that is the direction the conference takes. Although I did read that SEC commish wasn't planning on expanding membership from the 5...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by **NY Pony** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:45 pm

Big12Mustang wrote:
NY Pony wrote:Aresco already stated that the AAC intends to keep pace with the power 5 conferences with respect to cost of attendance, etc. AAC will be a challenger conference that will offer similar financial incentives to players under this system. It will be interesting to see what the other 4, less wealthy, small conferences do.

Hopefully that is the direction the conference takes. Although I did read that SEC commish wasn't planning on expanding membership from the 5...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's very nuanced, but the way I understand it, the 5 conferences have a larger number of votes and can use this larger voice to steer policy. There will also be some committee where the 5 have are the only members. There was a really good explanation of it all from cbs, found here: http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/ ... -this-week

by **East Coast Mustang** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:57 am

I don't think the AAC will "go away"

People like underdogs and underdog matchups- see the Boise-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl, TCU-Wisconsin Rose Bowl, etc. These games get ratings. Also I don't think the P5 teams want to play all P5 teams OOC unless they're going to have 4-8 and 5-7 teams in their 40 bowl games

by **EastStang** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:09 am

The NCAA has a club and that is that these schools would have to break off in all sports. That means non-participation in the hoops tournament. That will give schools like Louisville, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Wake Forest, and Stanford some real gas. How do you have a National Championship tournament when the defending National Champion is playing in another tournament in both Men's and Women's hoops. Add in other sports and you have some real problems for them. No structure and then there is Title IX. Do they really think that they can pay football players and not softball players? I can see that one coming down the pike as soon as they start paying anyone. The next few years will be very interesting.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:12 am

And like I've said all along, if you think the Title IX fascists are going to let football players get paid and not the equestrian riders/softball players/women's bowlers, you've got another thing coming. Those people are as aggressively stupid as they come

by **smusportspage** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:24 am

Not a title IX facist here but you might want to include Men's soccer, Men's swimming and Men's tennis to your agressively stupid comment. Don't start with the accusations that I must support Title IX either. I thinkTitle IX has caused some damage along the way.

by **SMUfrat** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:38 am

This is honestly terrifying and I will not be happy (all SMU fans for that matter) with any less than the highest competition.