Will non P5 schools be on a level playing field?

[uconNYC]

In this column by Dennis Dodd it seems that the NCAA will give the P5 conferences some autonomy to develop their own rules and give additional benefits to student athletes based on the fact that they have greater resources. Will non P5 schools with P5 type resources such as BYU, UConn, Cincy also be able to offer extra benefits or will they have to adhere to the "non-P5" rules?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...fined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for-change-this-week

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Seems like it'll be up to our discretion but financially I don't see how it's feasible for non P5 conferences to keep up.

It really makes me question our future competing at the FBS level. I think we could afford to do this with just basketball but if it's athletic dept wide? I just don't know.

 

[upstater]

This kills non-P5 schools. There is now a division in which the non-P5 conferences are beholden to the vote of 27 different other conferences.

What right do the P5 have to create such arbitrary divisions between P5 and G5? The G5s, when it comes to "actionable" rules, have to heed a bunch of schools and conferences that are practically D2. Not only that, but the new transfer rules for the P5 will give them an advantage.

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[dayooper]

This kills non-P5 schools. There is now a division in which the non-P5 conferences are beholden to the vote of 27 different other conferences.

What right do the P5 have to create such arbitrary divisions between P5 and G5? The G5s are behold "under "actionable" rules to a bunch of schools and conferences that are practically D2. Not only that, but the new transfer rules for the P5 will give them an advantage.

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Nah, each school will have the choice whether they want to follow the "P5" rules. They can't lock out the others. I bet there will be current P5 schools that will not partake in the rules. Certain private schools like Vandy, Wake, and NW even some smaller publics like KSU and ISU may not participate. Schools like UConn and Cinci would participate and hope to get into a more lucrative conference arrangement.

 

[uchusky32]

Don't see how this will be acceptable to those who want to be in P5 and would spend the money. There will either have to be more CR or another conference added. As Upstater said lawsuit waiting to happen coming from those left out.

 

[The Funster]

I don't like the way that it refers to the 5 conferences and their 65 members. It makes it sound as if 65 is permanent.

 

[upstater]

Seems like it'll be up to our discretion but financially I don't see how it's feasible for non P5 conferences to keep up.

It really makes me question our future competing at the FBS level. I think we could afford to do this with just basketball but if it's athletic dept wide? I just don't know.

It's not up to UConn. The G5 27 conferences get to vote on whether UConn can adopt some of the P5 policies. I can't see how this could possibly be defensible. If anything, this whole initiative might shake things up and cause the P5 to reconsider several G5 schools.

 

[upstater]

Nah, each school will have the choice whether they want to follow the "P5" rules. They can't lock out the others. I bet there will be current P5 schools that will not partake in the rules. Certain private schools like Vandy, Wake, and NW even some smaller publics like KSU and ISU may not participate. Schools like UConn and Cinci would participate and hope to get into a more lucrative conference arrangement.

It specifically says that anyone NOT in a P5 conference is beholden to the 27 G5 conferences as to whether they will be allowed to adopt the actionable changes.

This specifically means that it is not up to individual G5 schools and/or conferences to make these changes.

 

[UCFBfan]

Is Notre Dame considered a P5 school? If not, and they will be lumped into the mess that is every school non-P5, they will be joining a conference ASAP. Same goes for BYU. As for UConn and Cincy....we're f^%ked

 

[ConnHuskBask]

It specifically says that anyone NOT in a P5 conference is beholden to the 27 G5 conferences as to whether they will be allowed to adopt the actionable changes.

This specifically means that it is not up to individual G5 schools and/or conferences to make these changes.

Under this proposed governance model, permissive legislation that is developed and adopted among these institutions and conferences may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution's respective discretion, or as determined by its conference.

Seems vague. Up to the institution or as determined by its conference?

 

[upstater]

Under this proposed governance model, permissive legislation that is developed and adopted among these institutions and conferences may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution's respective discretion, or as determined by its conference.

Seems vague. Up to the institution or as determined by its conference?

Actionable items: Personnel limits, time demands on athletes, transfer rules, financial aid cancellation, recruiting contact, and pre-enrollment support for prospects.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I do not understand how a cartel that comprises about 90+% of the market as defined by revenues,, can officially define themselves as a separate class of market competitors (i.e. cartel) and not expose themselves to antitrust prosecution. Big Oil may operate in n anti-competitive manner, but they are not stupid enough to issue a press release describing how they are doing it. This appears to be what the P5 have done.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Who would bring about the lawsuit? The schools, or the affected states?

Seems to me that UConn is left in the unenviable position of being one the only flagship FBS schools left in the cold.

Off the top of my head: UConn, New Mexico, Idaho/Boise St, UNLV/Nevada?

If the schools want a lawsuit I'd imagine they'd need state support - I have a tough time imagining say Florida arguing for UCF/USF's as it could hurt Florida/FSU.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Aresco is on record saying the American will follow the P5 model.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Who would bring about the lawsuit? The schools, or the affected states?

Seems to me that UConn is left in the unenviable position of being one the only flagship FBS schools left in the cold.

Off the top of my head: UConn, New Mexico, Idaho/Boise St, UNLV/Nevada?

If the schools want a lawsuit I'd imagine they'd need state support - I have a tough time imagining say Florida arguing for UCF/USF's as it could hurt Florida/FSU.

The P5 membership by state really makes no sense.
North Carolina has 4 schools,Ohio has one, Kansas, Iowa ,Kansas have 2, Texas has five, California 4, Florida three ,New York has one.
I think enough states are interested in this type of distribution of power to raise a few eyebrows.

 

[huskymedic]

It specifically says that anyone NOT in a P5 conference is beholden to the 27 G5 conferences as to whether they will be allowed to adopt the actionable changes.

This specifically means that it is not up to individual G5 schools and/or conferences to make these changes.

Under this proposed governance model, permissive legislation that is developed and adopted among these institutions and conferences may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution's respective discretion, or as determined by its conference.

Seems vague. Up to the institution or as determined by its conference?

Actionable items: Personnel limits, time demands on athletes, transfer rules, financial aid cancellation, recruiting contact, and pre-enrollment support for prospects.

• Actionable legislation -- Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions to modify specified rules in a manner that enhances the student-athlete experience, or decreases athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes. These legislative changes that address student-athlete interests or experience will apply only to the five conferences and their 65-member institutions, although Division I members generally would be free to address the same or similar issues through legislation considered by the new Council ...

Not convinced. The door does not appear to be locked for those who want act like a P5 Conference member. The ability to sustain that behavior for a prolonged period of time is another argument.

 

[itgoeslike]

Level playing field? The P5 is to the G5 the same way an Investment Bank is to a Retail Investor.

 

[Fishy]

The idea is to wipe out anything under that arbitrary 65-team cutoff.

 

[Point6]

What is incredible is that no one in the press sees a problem. These 65 have agreed among themselves that, because of their agreements (as opposed to objective measures), only they will be in a higher tier with the ability to offer more benefits to potential recruits. The press applauds it.

 

[upstater]

Under this proposed governance model, permissive legislation that is developed and adopted among these institutions and conferences may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution's respective discretion, or as determined by its conference.

Seems vague. Up to the institution or as determined by its conference?

There are permissive changes and actionable changes. Two different things.

 

[upstater]

Aresco is on record saying the American will follow the P5 model.

But again, it's not up to Aresco and the AAC schools whether they can follow all the P5 changes.

• Actionable legislation -- Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions to modify specified rules in a manner that enhances the student-athlete experience, or decreases athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes. These legislative changes that address student-athlete interests or experience will apply only to the five conferences and their 65-member institutions, although Division I members generally would be free to address the same or similar issues through legislation considered by the new Council ...

Not convinced. The door does not appear to be locked for those who want act like a P5 Conference member. The ability to sustain that behavior for a prolonged period of time is another argument.

If you want to adopt the same actionable policies, it must be approved by the representatives of 27 other conferences. Read what you highlighted again in green. "Free to address the same issues through legislation considered by the new Council." This is exactly what I am saying. If the AAC wants to adopt actionable policies, it must get approval from 27 other conferences.

 

[djct1999]

Not sure if this was ever asked, but does the P5 breaking away do anything to their non-profit, tax exempt status?

 

[Marty Jackson]

Is Notre Dame considered a P5 school? If not, and they will be lumped into the mess that is every school non-P5, they will be joining a conference ASAP. Same goes for BYU. As for UConn and Cincy....we're f^%ked

every time they mention the P5, they mention the 65 members which by math would include ND.
amazing how fluid things appear after the fact. ND, staunch in it's independance, leaves the Big East for the ACC. In less than two years, this comes out and now ND falls under this umbrella because of it's loose affiliation with the ACC. And we're to believe that through sheer luck, ND football will somehow be included as well even though they are very specifically not included in the P5 conferences. how is it that things always seem to fall into place for the P5 so nicely?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Marty Jackson]

this is too screwed up... the FCS leagues actually have twice the voting power as the G5 when it comes to D1:

Weighted Voting System for Shared Governance.
The Steering Committee recommends a 4-2-1 voting model, whereby five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big
12, Pac-12 and SEC) votes would be weighted at four each and the other five FBS conferences (AAC,
C-USA, MAC, MWC and Sun Belt) would be weighted at two each and the remaining 22 FCS/DI
conferences and the student-athletes would be valued at one each. The four commissioner votes
would be weighted according to the subgroup they represent. The 4-2-1 model breaks down as follows
regarding voting percentages:
NCAA Division I Steering Committee on Governance Report to Division I Board April 2014 p.36

• Five conferences (5x4) + one commissioner seat (1x4) = 24 = 38.7 percent.
• Middle five conferences (5x2) +one commissioner seat (1x2) = 12 = 19.4 percent.
• DI/FCS - 22 conferences (22x1) + two commissioner seats (2x1) = 24 = 38.7 percent.
• Two student-athletes (2x1) =2 = 3.2 percent.

 

[Marty Jackson]

wonder how this effects hockey and hockey east. they are D1 athletes as well.
does this mean that BC with it's ACC affiliation gets advantages not afforded fellow conference mates like Uconn, BU, and Maine.