Prediction: Where NCAA is Going

by **Stallion** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:20 pm

You got this NCAA President and the SEC speaking about all the major probations at BCS schools and the resulting need for fundamental change in the operation of NCAA athletics. I predict that the fundamental change will be a significant financial stipend to athletes that only BCS programs will have the finacial resources to pay. Then they will have an objectively reasonably standard upon which to draw standards for Division 1A programs to meet if they want to compete at the Division 1A level. Just like the NAIA, NCAA-FCS and NCAA-FBS have standards of competition. Then the Haves and Have-Nots are going to get separated and then the Haves suddenly and magically endorse national championship playoffs among the Haves only which by the way will be separated into 4 cleanly drafted 16 teams conferences making it all so easy to pit Champions against Champions. If you pay attention you can see the end of the Tunnel.

by **ponyboy** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:24 pm

Money talks. Always has and always will. As the board optimist, however, I will always hope that someone out there in a position of power and responsibility will remember what college athletics is supposed to be all about.

by **Comet** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:25 pm

This seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy right about now. Most people keep insisting about this scenario that could have a chance of not even happening. If it were to happen I would be for it. I just sincerely hope we can claw our way back to the "Haves" in time. The clock is definitely ticking, but at least we're trying.

by **ponyte** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:50 pm

This sounds nice and easy but goodness knows that there would be some political interest in who was a have and who was a have not. And that interest might be sufficient to prohibit a super conference with paid players.

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:21 pm

my prediction: in the toilet

by **PoconoPony** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:14 pm

Comet wrote:This seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy right about now. Most people keep insisting about this scenario that could have a chance of not even happening. If it were to happen I would be for it. I just sincerely hope we can claw our way back to the "Haves" in time. The clock is definitely ticking, but at least we're trying.

BCS already has their quota plus a few. Where do we get in???

by **Dwan** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:23 pm

That certainly is one theory. Although after this summer and now with the Miami info and trust me, the Cam Newton story and his recruitment to Auburn will break in the next 6 months, the NCAA is going to have to re-evaluate how they enforce rules or what the rules are. Pre Miami, I would agree, give the players a stipend felt like the band aid on the gunshot would solution that would make everybody feel good. But the problems and the issues go much deeper than these players are making millions of dollars but cant afford to take a girl out.

by **GiddyUp** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:46 pm

How many major violators is that this last couple of years? I lost track. Major reform needs to happen. Very difficult situation and nobody has any good solutions.

by **lwjr** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:47 pm

Where is NCAA going?
Straight into the toilet!

by **EastStang** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:24 am

I saw a panel on ESPN going over college football panels and the idea being floated is a stipend for "true cost of education" which would be a floating number in a range depending on the school. For example at SMU it might be $6,000. At Oklahoma State it might be $2,000. But do the math. Add in Title IX which will require the same stipends for women and even if you limit it to football and basketball numbers 105 total men. That would mean 105 total women. So, say $6,000 x 210 = $1.26M on top of scholarship, room and board costs. That's not chump change. Nick Saban said something like "I know this will hurt the smaller schools, but its gotta be done." The Chancellor Tennessee said, "it will take some tweaking, I mean, we might only be allowed a $3,000 stipend while Vanderbilt gets a $6,000 stipend. Kids will follow the money". And you know that number will only increase over time. If that happens, I suspect the non-BCS schools at some point have to say, "no mas" which is what the BCS wants. Thus CUSA schools, MWC schools, the Academies (although they pay players already since they are already enlisted), SBC and WAC all either drop down or try and get by without paying these stipends. This is the dagger that the BCS has worked toward and I suspect that all of this pay for play stuff was just the window dressing to allow for a discussion on paying players.

by **Mitch McConnell** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:49 am

Stallion wrote:You got this NCAA President and the SEC speaking about all the major probations at BCS schools and the resulting need for fundamental change in the operation of NCAA athletics. I predict that the fundamental change will be a significant financial stipend to athletes that only BCS programs will have the finacial resources to pay. Then they will have an objectively reasonably standard upon which to draw standards for Division 1A programs to meet if they want to compete at the Division 1A level. Just like the NAIA, NCAA-FCS and NCAA-FBS have standards of competition. Then the Haves and Have-Nots are going to get separated and then the Haves suddenly and magically endorse national championship playoffs among the Haves only which by the way will be separated into 4 cleanly drafted 16 teams conferences making it all so easy to pit Champions against Champions. If you pay attention you can see the end of the Tunnel.

I just don't how understand how you can continue to swallow the bull that they are throwing at you day after day. They are the most worthless governing body.

They just admitted they don't even know what the hell is in their own rule book. It's like the IRS tax code. To acknowledge their power and being anything close to ironclad is just nutty.

by **RednBlue11** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:03 am

it's okay, Stallion has been bathed in the NCAA for his entire lifetime. seeing them go doesn't compute for him, he doesnt really understand their illegitimacy in the eyes of most people these days.

by **Charleston Pony** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:27 pm

I agree that is where this is headed and will ultimately flesh out the 64 programs willing/able to compete as part of the "super conferences"

schools currently recruit/offer top students full rides supplemented by monthly stipends...why not for athletes? I expect they may still try to regulate and limit monthly stipends to say...$500-$1000? Bottom line could become another million dollars to the annual football budget in order to compete at the highest level.

I still think football can develop a playoff system much like hoops' March Madness, allowing conference champions from the smaller budget programs an auto bid...to a 1st sound play-in game against the lower seeds from the 16 teams that might advance from the power 64

I'm hopeful we someday play in a re-born SWC along with Baylor, TCU, Houston, Rice and other regional schools. Might even finally lead to SMU playing in same conference as UNT. If I was making the rules, I would say you need to be champion of a conference with at least 12 members to qualify for an auto bid. Ultimately "divisions" will be established according to football budgets/allocations

Just not sure what happens to "all sports" relationships. I don't see Duke, Wake, Vandy and the likes continuing to play football at the highest level, but have to work out a plan to keep the DUke/UNC tradition alive. NO reason they couldn't continue to play each other in all sports. Reality is that nobody in the current SEC group sees Vandy as their "rival", but nothing to say Tennessee couldn't still schedule them (in Knoxville) as a "breather" game.

by **PoconoPony** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:01 pm

If I were a public service union member and a public university started paying a "stipend" to football and basketball players, I would want them to join the public employee union to recieve this "pay". That means a challenge to have them pay union dues, deduct Social Security from the stipend, contribute to the pension plan from the stipend, make available the state health plan to the players, afford the players certain benefits against loss of their scholarships, impose union regulations of the work out hours for practice, a grievance procedure against the coaching staff....etc. This situation would obviously give the public universities a huge competitive advantage because the private universities would not be required to unionize the players as they would not be subject to public employee union requirements and the benefits derived therefrom. I think you can make some wild legal arguments challenging every aspect of a stipend that the whole mess would be in court for years and a total disaster. A stipend could be considered pay at the taxpayers expense and challenged by state budget constraints and a huge political debate. Just a thought.

by **Garret** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:42 pm

Going to the "true cost of attendance" that they are proposing isn't going to bankrupt many schools. For example, at Hawaii all scholarship athletes receive a $1000/month stipend. Under the proposed increased stipend, scholarship athletes will get a $1500/month stipend. Considering all 241.25 scholarships Hawaii gives, that comes out to an extra $1.5 mil/year, about 4% of the Athletic Budget.

UNT would pay an extra $900k with the proposed increase. I'm not sure what how much more SMU would have to pay, but a good estimate is between $1 mil and $1.5 mil. Kansas would only have their expenses increased $297k/year.

So, I seriously doubt that going to the "true cost of attendance" formula is going to result in D-IA splitting in two. If they wanted to do that, they would have to increase the stipends more than this.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-07-29-athletic-departments-cost-of-attendance_n.htm