Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

User avatar
asu66
Posts: 26935
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 1:21 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 2031 times

Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by asu66 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:39 am

The P5 conferences are going to get their way whether they remain in the NCAA or not; and either way, ASU and most other non-P5 institutions will be negatively impacted. Just think of Delaney as the "fat lady" singin' her heart out. That's actually not a hard concept to visualize. ;-)

The P5 folks want their cake and all the crumbs and to he** with all the perceived "little" guys. They may throw a crumb or two to the Mtn West, the new AAC and a few other cronies, but it's going down this spring.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/delany-say ... --spt.html

ROSEMONT, Ill. (AP) -- Giving the power conferences more autonomy in a restructured NCAA could help address the ''existential threats'' that plague college sports at their highest level, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said.

The five conferences - the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and ACC - don't want to leave the NCAA or even form their own division, Delany said Thursday. But they need the power to make decisions that directly affect the financial and educational well-being of their athletes.

''We're not talking about pay for play,'' Delany said, speaking at the Big Ten's basketball media day. ''We are talking about the cost of education, kind of scholarship. We're talking about a long-term educational commitment, perhaps beyond the time they're student-athletes. We're talking about managing the at-risk student. We're talking about the time demands.

''We have to be able to do what we need to do in order to address those issues, and we need the authority to do it.''

The NCAA has been battered by a series of scandals over the last year, most centering around money. The long and messy investigation at Miami, sparked by a booster, finally wrapped up last week. Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel was suspended for the first half of Texas A&M's season opener for an ''inadvertent'' violation of NCAA rules involving signing autographs. A Yahoo report last month said a runner for agents provided improper benefits to football players at Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi State.

And despite support from the NCAA's board, the full membership has twice rejected a rules change that would have allowed schools to give athletes money for expenses not covered by their scholarships - clothes, travel, meals out with their friends. Houston Texans running back Arian Foster said in a documentary that he accepted money his senior year at Tennessee, in part to pay rent and buy food.

''There are a variety of threats. We don't have control over a lot of it,'' Delany said. ''But what you do have control over you should try to grapple with, and I think restructuring gives us the chance to manage the policies that we still have some control over.''

NCAA leaders appear to agree. After getting input on restructuring from nine groups, including the conference commissioners, the NCAA board said Wednesday that while it believes presidents should still be in charge, some schools should have greater leeway in making decisions affecting their athletes, particularly when it comes to finances and scholarships. The board also said it should focus more on overall strategy and vision and less on day-to-day operational activities.

A steering committee, led by NCAA board chair Nathan Hatch, will now craft proposals for restructuring. Those will be presented at the NCAA convention in January, and Hatch hopes a final plan will be ready by the spring.

''We don't want to draw lines and put certain people in and certain people out. We don't want anybody else's money. We don't want to change one of the great events in the world,'' Delany said, referring to the NCAA basketball tournament.

''But right now, the level playing field philosophy is so powerful and the differences among the 351 schools and 32 conferences is something we can't really deal with,'' Delany said. ''We're going to have to get the change.''

The power conferences are looking for autonomy in some areas, a super majority in others and a simple majority in still others. And if other conferences - say, the American Athletic Conference or Mountain West- are of a similar mindset, the decisions could cover them, too.

''I think the changes would be, in many areas, permissive. So If you have the resources, do it,'' Delany said

Asked how different that would make Division I look, Delany said he doubted anyone would notice. The makeup of the championship tournaments, including the NCAA basketball tournament, would remain the same. Schools still would be held to the same academic standards. The lengths of seasons would remain uniform, as would rules for recruiting.

''It would appear, from a competitive perspective and branding perspective, identical to what it is,'' Delany said. ''What you would have is the five conferences have more authority to address the things that they can, consistent with the resources we have.

''Things are stuck in 1975 for the student-athlete. We'd like to get to the 21st century,'' he added. ''And we think connecting the structuring to the needs of the 21st century, consistent with the resources we have, is the right thing to do.''
Proud triple-degree App grad--Classes of '66, '70 and '81.
If it happens to the Apps, it happens to me!

User avatar
WVAPPeer
Posts: 12426
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
School: Other
Location: Born: Almost Heaven
Has thanked: 4911 times
Been thanked: 2634 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by WVAPPeer » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:30 am

YEP - they will get what they want - way too much money involved for anything else to happen ---
"Montani Semper Liberi"

The Dude Abides!!!

AppSt94
Posts: 11547
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:39 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Huntersville, NC
Has thanked: 7840 times
Been thanked: 4966 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by AppSt94 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:35 am

The way I read this is that they recognize that there are problems with the athletic programs, but instead of addressing the problems they want to make them legal. I sympathize with these athletes, I really do, but I have a problem with taking a scholarship that you can't afford. What I mean by that is that if your family cannot provide a surplus to help offset cost not covered by your scholarship then you shouldn't take it.

GoAppsGo92
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:53 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by GoAppsGo92 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:20 am

[quote="asu66"]The P5 conferences are going to get their way whether they remain in the NCAA or not; and either way, ASU and most other non-P5 institutions will be negatively impacted. Just think of Delaney as the "fat lady" singin' her heart out. That's actually not a hard concept to visualize. ;-)

The P5 folks want their cake and all the crumbs and to he** with all the perceived "little" guys. They may throw a crumb or two to the Mtn West, the new AAC and a few other cronies, but it's going down this spring.


Chuck, you know the money has already been divided and the governance format includes ALL FBS conferences, right?

The playoff format divided the money with each G5 conference getting 12 million, and the P5 getting the rest. That agreement lasts at least a decade, and provides for a ranking system of the G5 conferences to get extra incentive money for performance and access to a spot in the new playoff format.

Several NCAA governance committees have been working for MONTHS on the format for FBS, and they have already presented their findings to the NCAA. Their proposal includes ALL 10 FBS conferences to form, and to sit on, a "security council" that has the ability to veto rules the general body (consisting of all divisions) passes that FBS does not want to adopt. In addition, FBS may make its own rules that apply to FBS only. The Sun Belt and Appalachian State will have a seat at the big-boy table... that's what our move to FBS was about as much as anything else...

Will the Big Boys get to drive the bus? Well, don't they always? The difference is, we are now on the bus and lower divisions will be left waiting at the bus stop.

User avatar
Maddog1956
Posts: 1047
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:03 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by Maddog1956 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:41 am

So this will be the "arena football" semi-pro football leaque? If you can't be competitive with other schools without paying your students it's pretty sad.

Why don't they just remove the student part as well? Then they won't have to worry about schools that have problems with the players going to class? Even better just do away with eligibility as well and let them "hire" anyone you want.

Personally, I'm kind of glad we're not going to be forced into that situation.
Image

GoAppsGo92
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:53 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by GoAppsGo92 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:54 am

Maddog1956 wrote:So this will be the "arena football" semi-pro football leaque? If you can't be competitive with other schools without paying your students it's pretty sad.

Why don't they just remove the student part as well? Then they won't have to worry about schools that have problems with the players going to class? Even better just do away with eligibility as well and let them "hire" anyone you want.

Personally, I'm kind of glad we're not going to be forced into that situation.
You must have totally skipped my post. ALL of FBS will be included in the new governance format. All 10 leagues. If FBS decides to pay players a stipend (which I have doubts will happen) then we will have to as well. Well, I guess we could refuse, but it would put us at a distinct disadvantage. The "pay for play" issue is NOT what these changes are about. Even the P5 is not in total agreement about that issue. The REAL issue is FCS, D2, D3 outnumbering FBS and passing (or preventing the passing) of rules that FBS is forced to deal with. They want an FBS "clearing house" that has the ability to say: "nice idea, but we want no part of that".

User avatar
WVAPPeer
Posts: 12426
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
School: Other
Location: Born: Almost Heaven
Has thanked: 4911 times
Been thanked: 2634 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by WVAPPeer » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:13 am

AppSt94 wrote:The way I read this is that they recognize that there are problems with the athletic programs, but instead of addressing the problems they want to make them legal. I sympathize with these athletes, I really do, but I have a problem with taking a scholarship that you can't afford. What I mean by that is that if your family cannot provide a surplus to help offset cost not covered by your scholarship then you shouldn't take it.
I'm sorry 94 but to me this comment makes no sense - do you realize how many GOOD kids accept scholarships that can' t "be afforded" and actually make it through - get a degree - get life experiences and DO NOT TAKE ILLEGAL HANDOUTS?

Look at Johnny Manziel - comes from ultra wealthy family and was taking money for his autograph - Not sure it is a family financial question as it is a family question of right or wrong ---
"Montani Semper Liberi"

The Dude Abides!!!

moehler
Posts: 1378
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:01 am
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by moehler » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:40 am

power grab by Delaney, the elite conferences want more control over important decisions that effect the entire NCAA. Delaney is basically saying, give us control or we will leave. What is scary is the NCAA is willing to atleast listen. What they have to realize that once they start down this road, he will just keep asking for more, and more, and more, Delaney will not quit until they have absolute control over the decision making process of the NCAA. Whats scary is what happens to the mid majors if he gains total control, I have heard him in the past, without any remorse, say he is paid to make as much money as possible for the Big Ten, and has implied that its not his job to worry about the health of the midmajors. He gives me the impression he doesn't give a dam about doing whats right or fair, that if given a choice about making more money or doing the right thing, he is going to take the money. I believe that if he gains total control, he will try and change the criteria for getting into the NCAA basketball tourniment, making it much harder for midmajors, and easier for BCS schools.

asufan87

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by asufan87 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:41 am

''I think the changes would be, in many areas, permissive. So If you have the resources, do it,'' Delany said
This to me is the major takeaway. With existing legislation it's an "all in" or "nothing" proposition. Those schools that don't have the resources to fund full cost of attendance for a student athlete have the voting power to kill any such proposals for programs that do have the resources. The P-5 wants a more like-minded constituency voting on such matters with the idea that schools can be permitted (not required) to fund full cost of attendance scholarships. Does this create a separation between the "haves" and "have nots"? Sure it does. But always been a separation between those at the higher and lower ends of the food chain.

User avatar
appst89
Site Admin
Posts: 10116
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 3:26 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 2570 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by appst89 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:53 am

asufan87 wrote:
''I think the changes would be, in many areas, permissive. So If you have the resources, do it,'' Delany said
This to me is the major takeaway. With existing legislation it's an "all in" or "nothing" proposition. Those schools that don't have the resources to fund full cost of attendance for a student athlete have the voting power to kill any such proposals for programs that do have the resources. The P-5 wants a more like-minded constituency voting on such matters with the idea that schools can be permitted (not required) to fund full cost of attendance scholarships. Does this create a separation between the "haves" and "have nots"? Sure it does. But always been a separation between those at the higher and lower ends of the food chain.
This. They are going to downplay the significance of the split they are trying to create so that they can try to make it happen without having to threaten leaving. Once they get the power, all bets are off. The G5 conferences are not going to be at the same table when decisions are made. The ones that can afford to implement some, or all, of what the P5 is doing will be allowed to do so, but the others will be left out. The P5 will let a little money trickle down to try to fend off lawsuits, but the G5 is going to have to pretty much fend for itself for revenue streams.

User avatar
Maddog1956
Posts: 1047
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:03 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by Maddog1956 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:55 am

GoAppsGo92 wrote: You must have totally skipped my post. ALL of FBS will be included in the new governance format. All 10 leagues. If FBS decides to pay players a stipend (which I have doubts will happen) then we will have to as well. Well, I guess we could refuse, but it would put us at a distinct disadvantage. The "pay for play" issue is NOT what these changes are about. Even the P5 is not in total agreement about that issue. The REAL issue is FCS, D2, D3 outnumbering FBS and passing (or preventing the passing) of rules that FBS is forced to deal with. They want an FBS "clearing house" that has the ability to say: "nice idea, but we want no part of that".


To me here is the important statement "some schools should have greater leeway in making decisions affecting their athletes, particularly when it comes to finances and scholarships. The board also said it should focus more on overall strategy and vision and less on day-to-day operational activities."

That could be a board, clearing house with membership to be decided or just the P5. In any case however, its purpose is to allow P5 teams to increase players compensation. Bottomline! That could be for all the FBS (which I think is unlikely) or just the p5.

What concerns me is the statement you made yourself "If FBS decides to pay players a stipend (which I have doubts will happen) then we will have to as well. Well, I guess we could refuse, but it would put us at a distinct disadvantage." We just disagree on how likely this is to happen, to me it's a done deal and the purpose of the whole restructuring (if not what's the other "big" issue driving the restructuring) and it still puts us at a "distinct disadvantage"

And if we're forced to pay (I feel) we lose (ie. we can compete with WF and Duke now, but if they can "hire" players using their resources, is that a thing of the past?), if it's only part of the FBS (that pays) then I think it hurts the competition (between all of the FBS), which I also think is bad. College sports (unlike other sports) has very little "leveling agents" built into it . We don't have a draft, engine spec's, etc. To me (and I admit I don't spend a lot of time on it) that's why college basketball playoff (which is naturally more competitive) get better ratings than the NBA while the college football championship is is a joke compared to the Superbowl.

I'm not sure what they are going to do for sure (and maybe you are) but to me it just seems like a way to keep the p5 in the NCAA while letting them pay players and create a semi-pro league. If that happens I don't think it better for us or the FBS (or college football in general).

I still like sitting in the FBS in any case, but I'd rather college football move in the direction of "level-er" instead of "level-less".
Image

GoAppsGo92
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:53 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by GoAppsGo92 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:45 am

Again, the stipend issue is only one of many issues that FBS feels the tail is wagging the dog on... it's fun to talk about because its the most controversial. Don't conflate the issues because they are separate and distinct.

There have been many rules passed that the majority (FCS, D3, D2) had forced on the minority (FBS) in the name of "fairness" and cost containment. The real bottom line: the lower divisions are preventing the discussion of issues that would separate them further from their big brothers in the NCAA because they cannot, or will not, spend the money needed to comply. FBS should not be held back because schools choosing to play in lower divisions want it that way. Will the potential stipend for ALL FBS conference athletes (people seem to forget gender equity in this argument) or the proposed training table rules widen the gap between FCS and FBS? You bet. Will it add value to a scholarship offer from AppState vs. The Citadel or NDSU? Of course! That's why the lower divisions don't want it.

I have my doubts about the stipend because it opens a Pandora's Box, and would have to include all sports for both genders, but the issue is but an example of the rules that will change when the separation begins... and again, I'd rather be on the bus than off.

GoAppsGo92
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:53 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by GoAppsGo92 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:59 am

appst89 wrote:
asufan87 wrote:
''I think the changes would be, in many areas, permissive. So If you have the resources, do it,'' Delany said
This to me is the major takeaway. With existing legislation it's an "all in" or "nothing" proposition. Those schools that don't have the resources to fund full cost of attendance for a student athlete have the voting power to kill any such proposals for programs that do have the resources. The P-5 wants a more like-minded constituency voting on such matters with the idea that schools can be permitted (not required) to fund full cost of attendance scholarships. Does this create a separation between the "haves" and "have nots"? Sure it does. But always been a separation between those at the higher and lower ends of the food chain.
This. They are going to downplay the significance of the split they are trying to create so that they can try to make it happen without having to threaten leaving. Once they get the power, all bets are off. The G5 conferences are not going to be at the same table when decisions are made. The ones that can afford to implement some, or all, of what the P5 is doing will be allowed to do so, but the others will be left out. The P5 will let a little money trickle down to try to fend off lawsuits, but the G5 is going to have to pretty much fend for itself for revenue streams.
Every single proposal I have seen refutes your claim that the G5 will not have a seat at the table. They will. Everyone seems to think the stipend issues is a done deal. Its not. There are many P5 schools that take issue with it, and there are a lot of additional considerations beyond whether to have a stipend and if so, how much. The G5 and P5 need each other otherwise P5 become even more of a minority within the NCAA and the last thing P5 schools want is to have to form their own league. There will be sanity in the process and keeping the NCAA together through the measures that have already been proposed is proof of that.

User avatar
luvyosef
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 2:33 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by luvyosef » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:47 pm

P-5 schools are like the 1% aka lobbyists, banking cartels and the military industrial complex.You better believe that. Just give me a conference with App, Marshall, ECU, ETSU, WCU, middle ten and EKU and I'd be happy.
Appalachian State University (Excellence since 1899)

User avatar
Maddog1956
Posts: 1047
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:03 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by Maddog1956 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:04 pm

luvyosef wrote:P-5 schools are like the 1% aka lobbyists, banking cartels and the military industrial complex.You better believe that. Just give me a conference with App, Marshall, ECU, ETSU, WCU, middle ten and EKU and I'd be happy.

And every person "at the table" that sells their vote to a P5 gets an automatic new job at a P5 school. Kind of like when a congress person sells their vote to a lobbyist and gets a new job upon leaving congress.

Hopefully that won't be the case, but if it's not more division between the FBS why do they need a clearing house etc? It seems like all they would have to do is have the FBS set rules for the FBS, FCS set rules for the FCS, D2 set rules for D2, etc. I thought that was one of the reasons for having divisions.
Image

User avatar
appst89
Site Admin
Posts: 10116
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 3:26 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 2570 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by appst89 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:06 pm

GoAppsGo92 wrote:
appst89 wrote:
asufan87 wrote:
''I think the changes would be, in many areas, permissive. So If you have the resources, do it,'' Delany said
This to me is the major takeaway. With existing legislation it's an "all in" or "nothing" proposition. Those schools that don't have the resources to fund full cost of attendance for a student athlete have the voting power to kill any such proposals for programs that do have the resources. The P-5 wants a more like-minded constituency voting on such matters with the idea that schools can be permitted (not required) to fund full cost of attendance scholarships. Does this create a separation between the "haves" and "have nots"? Sure it does. But always been a separation between those at the higher and lower ends of the food chain.
This. They are going to downplay the significance of the split they are trying to create so that they can try to make it happen without having to threaten leaving. Once they get the power, all bets are off. The G5 conferences are not going to be at the same table when decisions are made. The ones that can afford to implement some, or all, of what the P5 is doing will be allowed to do so, but the others will be left out. The P5 will let a little money trickle down to try to fend off lawsuits, but the G5 is going to have to pretty much fend for itself for revenue streams.
Every single proposal I have seen refutes your claim that the G5 will not have a seat at the table. They will. Everyone seems to think the stipend issues is a done deal. Its not. There are many P5 schools that take issue with it, and there are a lot of additional considerations beyond whether to have a stipend and if so, how much. The G5 and P5 need each other otherwise P5 become even more of a minority within the NCAA and the last thing P5 schools want is to have to form their own league. There will be sanity in the process and keeping the NCAA together through the measures that have already been proposed is proof of that.
And every single interview I have heard with every single P5 administrator tells me that what they say and what they'll ultimately do may not be the same thing. Not one of them is referring to payment as a stipend, but everyone of them is talking about extending the scholarship to include "full cost of attendance". And that is all but a done deal. It's the major issue discussed by them in every interview. You tell me the difference.

I also believe the P5 needs the G5, but only to the extent that it is helpful to the P5. They need someone to play, otherwise the Indianas and Kansases of the world will ultimately tire of 2-10 seasons, but a good number of the people from the power teams in the P5 want to restrict scheduling to where there would only be one non-conference game against a non-P5 team. I don't think they can ram that through, but don't believe for a second that the sentiment is not out there.

The P5 will never be a minority in the NCAA because they control the bulk of the money. They will do what they need to do to maintain that control. If it benefits them to throw some crumbs to the G5 then they will do so; if it doesn't then they won't. I do believe that they do not want to destroy the basketball tournament. They will make some minor concessions to keep that from happening, but calling it sanity is a huge stretch.

I think the difference in our positions is that you trust them to do what they say they will do and I don't. We'll see soon enough.

User avatar
MtnDevil95
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:50 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Out there somewhere
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by MtnDevil95 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:22 pm

There is an interesting division of money making between the member institutions, conferences and the NCAA. For the institutions and conferences, football is hands down the largest money maker. However for the NCAA itself, basketball makes more money because of the TV rights to the tournament. I'm not saying the NCAA would settle for a split to protect March Madness revenue, but basketall and the tournament will be a big part of any decisions making process for the NCAA. Match that to data that supports even BCS Bowls are money losers for the participating teams, and football interests will need to come to the table with a stronger position.
“When you take that field today, you've got to lay that heart on the line, men. From the souls of your feet, with every ounce of blood you've got in your body, lay it on the line until the final whistle blows.”

AppSt94
Posts: 11547
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:39 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Huntersville, NC
Has thanked: 7840 times
Been thanked: 4966 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by AppSt94 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:57 pm

WVAPPeer wrote:
AppSt94 wrote:The way I read this is that they recognize that there are problems with the athletic programs, but instead of addressing the problems they want to make them legal. I sympathize with these athletes, I really do, but I have a problem with taking a scholarship that you can't afford. What I mean by that is that if your family cannot provide a surplus to help offset cost not covered by your scholarship then you shouldn't take it.
I'm sorry 94 but to me this comment makes no sense - do you realize how many GOOD kids accept scholarships that can' t "be afforded" and actually make it through - get a degree - get life experiences and DO NOT TAKE ILLEGAL HANDOUTS?

Look at Johnny Manziel - comes from ultra wealthy family and was taking money for his autograph - Not sure it is a family financial question as it is a family question of right or wrong ---
Without stating it, I was singling out the players who do take money. It wasn't my intention to paint a broad stroke across every kid. I'm sure there are more kids like a Sammy Watkins at Clemson than there are kids like Arian Foster and Johnny Manziel that have a family that finds a way to make it work. In Arian Foster's case he took $20 for tacos from his coach. If his parents can't send him money for food then maybe he needs to find another way to get through school. You are correct that it is more of a right vs wrong question. But here is how I look at. My daughter is a Freshman in High School. Her wish list of colleges include Notre Dame, Northwestern, Columbia, and Syracuse. Now if my wife and I are able to pay for it then I have no problem with her going, but if it's not fiscally doable, with scholarships and us footing the balance and providing for her needs away from home then it isn't happening,

GoAppsGo92
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:53 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by GoAppsGo92 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:12 pm

The P5 will never be a minority in the NCAA because they control the bulk of the money. They will do what they need to do to maintain that control. If it benefits them to throw some crumbs to the G5 then they will do so; if it doesn't then they won't. I do believe that they do not want to destroy the basketball tournament. They will make some minor concessions to keep that from happening, but calling it sanity is a huge stretch.

I think the difference in our positions is that you trust them to do what they say they will do and I don't. We'll see soon enough

To a certain extent, yes, I trust them to do what they say, but only because I have read the governance proposal in detail and it follows through on the promise to the G5. All FBS conferences will be represented, and all will vote on issues affecting FBS... both to clear rules proposed by the lower divisions, and to approve new rules that apply only to FBS. There will be both athletic and academic representation on the FBS council as well. The proposal requires a vote, but the proposal has been widely accepted by the G5 and P5.

Stipends or "full cost of attendance" is an entirely separate issue that would be the type of proposal the new FBS council would consider... first they have to get governance in place. Stipends only happen if they are limited in scope AND offered for all sports teams, but even then... there is a lot more disagreement within the G5 and P5 than you are suggesting on this issue. Its sexy to talk about this in the same conversation as FBS governance but the two are not linked.

I go back to your comment about trust as the primary difference between us on this issue... The P5 have nothing to fear whatsoever. Their product guarantees that the revenue streams will continue to flow... not to mention they have arranged the income distribution from the playoffs for the next decade. This issue is about not having the tail wag the dog... the issues FBS faces are different than the lower divisions, yet the lower divisions make the rules and expect a cut of the $$$ the top tier generates. If the NCAA wants the $$$, they are going to have to allow some self-determination by the revenue producers, plain and simple.

JCline0429
Posts: 2180
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Delaney: P5 institutions wish to stay in D-I, but...

Unread post by JCline0429 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:24 pm

AppSt94 wrote:
WVAPPeer wrote:
AppSt94 wrote:The way I read this is that they recognize that there are problems with the athletic programs, but instead of addressing the problems they want to make them legal. I sympathize with these athletes, I really do, but I have a problem with taking a scholarship that you can't afford. What I mean by that is that if your family cannot provide a surplus to help offset cost not covered by your scholarship then you shouldn't take it.
I'm sorry 94 but to me this comment makes no sense - do you realize how many GOOD kids accept scholarships that can' t "be afforded" and actually make it through - get a degree - get life experiences and DO NOT TAKE ILLEGAL HANDOUTS?

Look at Johnny Manziel - comes from ultra wealthy family and was taking money for his autograph - Not sure it is a family financial question as it is a family question of right or wrong ---
Without stating it, I was singling out the players who do take money. It wasn't my intention to paint a broad stroke across every kid. I'm sure there are more kids like a Sammy Watkins at Clemson than there are kids like Arian Foster and Johnny Manziel that have a family that finds a way to make it work. In Arian Foster's case he took $20 for tacos from his coach. If his parents can't send him money for food then maybe he needs to find another way to get through school. You are correct that it is more of a right vs wrong question. But here is how I look at. My daughter is a Freshman in High School. Her wish list of colleges include Notre Dame, Northwestern, Columbia, and Syracuse. Now if my wife and I are able to pay for it then I have no problem with her going, but if it's not fiscally doable, with scholarships and us footing the balance and providing for her needs away from home then it isn't happening,

The ones whose parents can not afford to help with expenses, under certain circumstances, can qualify to get Pell Grants and student loans.
a.k.a JC0429

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Appalachian General Discussion”