Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox

Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5

Avatar

Posted: 8/7/2014 11:05 AM

Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Scott Slant 080614

Today is the first day of the rest of the mid-majors' lives, as the NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 conferences will be held today—and is expected to be approved. And it is just the first day. Changes in how the money leagues can compensate athletes won't be implemented overnight. Any new legislation is unlikely to become effective before the 2015-16 academic year. If 125 of Division I's 351 member schools vote to override the new autonomous structure, it would be scrapped. But that would simply mean the Power 5 would carry through with their threat to break away and form a "Division IV."
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/7/2014 4:08 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Done Deal!

I think you'll see those issues be acted on very aggressively, right away," NCAA president Mark Emmert said.

Other new rules the biggest conferences could enact include loosened restrictions involving contact between players and agents, letting players pursue outside paid career opportunities, and covering expenses for players' families to attend postseason games. Areas that will not fall under the autonomy umbrella include postseason tournaments, transfer policies, scholarship limits, signing day and rules governing on-field play.

Leagues outside the Power Five can opt to adopt the same rules. Of course, many schools won't be able to afford measures like cost-of-attendance. That could create an even larger competitive imbalance between schools in the power conferences and those in leagues like the Sun Belt, MAC or even in the FCS.

TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/7/2014 4:10 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


It will be a very sad day when the P5 schools stop playing the G5 schools in footballdisbeliefdisbeliefdisbeliefdisbeliefdisbeliefdisbeliefdisbeliefdisbelief
I would miss playing Oregon/Oregon State/Washington and Washington STate.
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/7/2014 9:23 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


I like College Football MUCH less than I did 24 hours ago...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/7/2014 10:19 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 



 Seems like several major lawsuits in the making.

 College sports have NEVER been split into divisions before where a school was given no choice to play at the highest level if they commit to spend the necessary resources. This would essentially do that. Boise State out, Colorado in. Winning and skill level don't matter if you aren't invited. 
https://twitter.com/eldermars
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/8/2014 9:49 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 



FresnoFansince79 wrote: I like College Football MUCH less than I did 24 hours ago...
Used to be  a sport....now it is a business.

Athletic Luxury Dorms are coming back.
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/8/2014 10:19 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Our AD says that the new "full cost of attendance" will add $6,000 to every scholarship.  For us, the total increase will be $1.4 million.  While SJSU can and will do that, it begs the question as to how far we mid-majors can go in trying to match the Power 5 conference members in this financial war.  It is clear that the P5 want to create a huge gap between themselves and the G5.  How far will they raise their support for their version of college athletics until the mid-majors simply cannot compete?  They will be the NFL's minor league and get all the exposure and TV money while the rest of us risk being viewed on the level of club sports.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/8/2014 2:38 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


I can see most G5 schools dropping down to the minimum required sports for D1.
I do not see wrestling surviving at Boise State.
How about your school?
Any sports you can cut?
SpartaRick wrote: Our AD says that the new "full cost of attendance" will add $6,000 to every scholarship.  For us, the total increase will be $1.4 million.  While SJSU can and will do that, it begs the question as to how far we mid-majors can go in trying to match the Power 5 conference members in this financial war.  It is clear that the P5 want to create a huge gap between themselves and the G5.  How far will they raise their support for their version of college athletics until the mid-majors simply cannot compete?  They will be the NFL's minor league and get all the exposure and TV money while the rest of us risk being viewed on the level of club sports.
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/8/2014 4:39 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Even if D4 is formed, I don't see a complete end to G5 and FCS opponents.

1. Notre Dame vs. Navy is a deal in perpetuity. I cannot see the break away group banning it
2. Colorado legislature demands the Colorado vs. Colorado State game, which again I cannot see being banned.

Both of these require taking on major American institutions, and that is not in the cards.

A further problem is the desire to have at least 6 home games and either a neutral site or home 7th game. Oklahoma and Texas like their neutral site game and they still want 6 home games. Add to that Alabama and Notre Dame and Syracuse and others who regularly play neutral site games. The only way that works in a P5 only schedule is for some schools (probably 9 or 10) to play only 6 home games. And there is no way that is happening. For many P5 schools a home game brings in over $5m in net revenue. That is too much for AD's to give up.

What I can see with a break away is a rule similar to the current rule where FBS schools are allowed to play one FCS school, where instead D4 schools are allowed to play 1 or 2 G5 schools only.

I didn't even cover schedule date issues. Getting the 65 schools to only play each other would require a central scheduler, like the NFL, as it's almost impossible for the dates to line up, and the contracts to line so that every has 12 P5 opponents. With this many schools, and the autonomy to schedule as each sees fit, the nedd to sometimes cancel or make late shifts, there has to be the ability to play a non-P5 school available to make all 65 schedules work.

There is no way schools will give complete control of their schedules to a governing body - this revolt is about just that. Sorry Todd Graham, you are not an AD balancing the budget. As Bill Snyder of K State pointed out, his school needs 7 home games for the revenue.

Anyway there is a mechanism in place that works on good market principles. The playoff system values weak P5 opponents over even the strongest G5. That alone is impacting future schedules, as the 2014 schedule sees 189 non-p5 Opponents, and the 2016 schedule sees that fall to about 160, or a 12% drop in just two years.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/8/2014 6:43 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


For several years, San Jose was at the minimum required number of sports-- 16.  My understanding is that the NCAA requires a total minimum of 16 with at least six being on the men's side and at least eight being on the women's side.  We recently upped the number of sports we offer to 19 (13 women. 6 men).  We can, presumably, dial back to 16 but the reason we added three women's sports was to bring us into compliance with the Cal/NOW court stipulation that modified Title IX for the three California CSU schools.  Dropping the three adds would cause us a Title IX issue-- unless we reduced the number of football scholarships.  We don't intend to do the latter.
BroncoBob wrote: I can see most G5 schools dropping down to the minimum required sports for D1.
I do not see wrestling surviving at Boise State.
How about your school?
Any sports you can cut?
SpartaRick wrote: Our AD says that the new "full cost of attendance" will add $6,000 to every scholarship.  For us, the total increase will be $1.4 million.  While SJSU can and will do that, it begs the question as to how far we mid-majors can go in trying to match the Power 5 conference members in this financial war.  It is clear that the P5 want to create a huge gap between themselves and the G5.  How far will they raise their support for their version of college athletics until the mid-majors simply cannot compete?  They will be the NFL's minor league and get all the exposure and TV money while the rest of us risk being viewed on the level of club sports.

Last edited 8/8/2014 6:43 PM by SpartaRick

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/8/2014 8:37 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 



 So...

 What happens when Boise State wants to spend $$$ on their athletes, and Nevada doesn't?? 
https://twitter.com/eldermars
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/9/2014 4:03 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


That is a hypothetical wrapped in a false premise. Dr. Kustra has made it very clear Boise State will not pay athletes. There does not appear to be a single MWC school that will, accepting Air Force.

The AAC however says it will as much as anything because they make a political show to claim they should be P5.  They have Navy who already pays, Connecticut and Cincinnati who have legitimate P5 ambitions so will pay, plus four schools with strong endowments in SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Houston, meaning they have the resources to fund it. Memphis might be temped because of how important Basketball is to them. (Temple is problematic, as they just dropped 5 sports, down from 24 to 19 this summer, to keep things afloat even without stipends; I know South Florida and Central Florida have tight budgets and have done cutting behind the scenes, so they may have trouble following through without cutting some sports and UCF has no sports to cut being at the minimum 16)

This is a more realistic scenario where many of the AAC schools decides to pay and nobody else in G5 does.


eldermars wrote:
 So...

 What happens when Boise State wants to spend $$$ on their athletes, and Nevada doesn't?? 
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/9/2014 10:22 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


So.........................P5 will still play G5, but..........only home games for the P5???
For fans of the G5 schools, a home game versus a P5 is a pretty big deal and drives season ticket sales.
I would really hate to see them disappear.  Currently Boise State has Washington, Washington State, Michigan State and Florida State scheduled as home games.  It would really suck for those games to be cancelled.
sgwau96 wrote: Even if D4 is formed, I don't see a complete end to G5 and FCS opponents.

1. Notre Dame vs. Navy is a deal in perpetuity. I cannot see the break away group banning it
2. Colorado legislature demands the Colorado vs. Colorado State game, which again I cannot see being banned.

Both of these require taking on major American institutions, and that is not in the cards.

A further problem is the desire to have at least 6 home games and either a neutral site or home 7th game. Oklahoma and Texas like their neutral site game and they still want 6 home games. Add to that Alabama and Notre Dame and Syracuse and others who regularly play neutral site games. The only way that works in a P5 only schedule is for some schools (probably 9 or 10) to play only 6 home games. And there is no way that is happening. For many P5 schools a home game brings in over $5m in net revenue. That is too much for AD's to give up.

What I can see with a break away is a rule similar to the current rule where FBS schools are allowed to play one FCS school, where instead D4 schools are allowed to play 1 or 2 G5 schools only.

I didn't even cover schedule date issues. Getting the 65 schools to only play each other would require a central scheduler, like the NFL, as it's almost impossible for the dates to line up, and the contracts to line so that every has 12 P5 opponents. With this many schools, and the autonomy to schedule as each sees fit, the nedd to sometimes cancel or make late shifts, there has to be the ability to play a non-P5 school available to make all 65 schedules work.

There is no way schools will give complete control of their schedules to a governing body - this revolt is about just that. Sorry Todd Graham, you are not an AD balancing the budget. As Bill Snyder of K State pointed out, his school needs 7 home games for the revenue.

Anyway there is a mechanism in place that works on good market principles. The playoff system values weak P5 opponents over even the strongest G5. That alone is impacting future schedules, as the 2014 schedule sees 189 non-p5 Opponents, and the 2016 schedule sees that fall to about 160, or a 12% drop in just two years.
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/9/2014 10:45 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


I believe that most of the MWC WILL Pay a stipend.  Just a matter of how much.....$1,000 to $5,000 per student?
Recently Boise State sold their naming rights to Bronco Stadium.  It is now Albertsons Stadium.  One of the reasons given for doing this was to generate annual dollars to subsidize monetary stipends for their student athletes.   The big question is how the Conference handles it.  Will they put a cap on the amount or let each school set their own.
sgwau96 wrote: That is a hypothetical wrapped in a false premise. Dr. Kustra has made it very clear Boise State will not pay athletes. There does not appear to be a single MWC school that will, accepting Air Force.

The AAC however says it will as much as anything because they make a political show to claim they should be P5.  They have Navy who already pays, Connecticut and Cincinnati who have legitimate P5 ambitions so will pay, plus four schools with strong endowments in SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Houston, meaning they have the resources to fund it. Memphis might be temped because of how important Basketball is to them. (Temple is problematic, as they just dropped 5 sports, down from 24 to 19 this summer, to keep things afloat even without stipends; I know South Florida and Central Florida have tight budgets and have done cutting behind the scenes, so they may have trouble following through without cutting some sports and UCF has no sports to cut being at the minimum 16)

This is a more realistic scenario where many of the AAC schools decides to pay and nobody else in G5 does.


eldermars wrote:
 So...

 What happens when Boise State wants to spend $$$ on their athletes, and Nevada doesn't?? 
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/9/2014 12:24 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


When push comes to shove I'd bet kustra pays players as much as needed. While whining to the press all the way, most likely.


---------------------------------------------
--- sgwau96 wrote:

That is a hypothetical wrapped in a false premise. Dr. Kustra has made it very clear Boise State will not pay athletes. There does not appear to be a single MWC school that will, accepting Air Force.

The AAC however says it will as much as anything because they make a political show to claim they should be P5.  They have Navy who already pays, Connecticut and Cincinnati who have legitimate P5 ambitions so will pay, plus four schools with strong endowments in SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Houston, meaning they have the resources to fund it. Memphis might be temped because of how important Basketball is to them. (Temple is problematic, as they just dropped 5 sports, down from 24 to 19 this summer, to keep things afloat even without stipends; I know South Florida and Central Florida have tight budgets and have done cutting behind the scenes, so they may have trouble following through without cutting some sports and UCF has no sports to cut being at the minimum 16)

This is a more realistic scenario where many of the AAC schools decides to pay and nobody else in G5 does.


eldermars wrote:
 So...

 What happens when Boise State wants to spend $$$ on their athletes, and Nevada doesn't?? 


---------------------------------------------
 
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/11/2014 10:14 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Our AD estimates that the increased costs for us will be $6,000 per student/athlete.  That comes out to an increase in our AD budget of c. $1.4 million.  I keep reading estimates that the increase will be held to between $1 to 5k per student but that is at variance with our department's estimate.  If the past is prologue, the actual costs will go above the estimates.
BroncoBob wrote: I believe that most of the MWC WILL Pay a stipend.  Just a matter of how much.....$1,000 to $5,000 per student?
Recently Boise State sold their naming rights to Bronco Stadium.  It is now Albertsons Stadium.  One of the reasons given for doing this was to generate annual dollars to subsidize monetary stipends for their student athletes.   The big question is how the Conference handles it.  Will they put a cap on the amount or let each school set their own.
sgwau96 wrote: That is a hypothetical wrapped in a false premise. Dr. Kustra has made it very clear Boise State will not pay athletes. There does not appear to be a single MWC school that will, accepting Air Force.

The AAC however says it will as much as anything because they make a political show to claim they should be P5.  They have Navy who already pays, Connecticut and Cincinnati who have legitimate P5 ambitions so will pay, plus four schools with strong endowments in SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Houston, meaning they have the resources to fund it. Memphis might be temped because of how important Basketball is to them. (Temple is problematic, as they just dropped 5 sports, down from 24 to 19 this summer, to keep things afloat even without stipends; I know South Florida and Central Florida have tight budgets and have done cutting behind the scenes, so they may have trouble following through without cutting some sports and UCF has no sports to cut being at the minimum 16)

This is a more realistic scenario where many of the AAC schools decides to pay and nobody else in G5 does.


eldermars wrote:
 So...

 What happens when Boise State wants to spend $$$ on their athletes, and Nevada doesn't?? 
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/11/2014 1:37 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 



MrPacTen wrote: When push comes to shove I'd bet kustra pays players as much as needed. While whining to the press all the way, most likely.
 Just like the Big Ten will (see: O'Bannon Trial). 
https://twitter.com/eldermars
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/11/2014 3:36 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


The difference is the B!G schools have about $50m more in revenue to play with, and excepting two or three schools they are in the black financially. Kustra is still running a $10m deficit on only a $43m budget. While that is fantastic for a G5 school it means $1m has to found somewhere.

Note, the stadium rights merely pays for about half the lost revenue for the conference shuffling Kustra undertook. It's be 20 years before that is balanced in the books.

I am skeptical of the MWC paying stipends. The CSU schools are not in good financial shape, and neither is Hawaii nor Nevada. UNLV burns $50m a year in public education funds on athletics (which is amazing, the largest shortfall in revenue against expenses of any program). So I don't see the pressure on Boise State to do so, or be any hurry to do so.

The questions that has to be asked is, 'will it make a difference in the athletes I get?' And secondarily, 'do my competitors have an advantage on me?' The truth is the MWC does not get 4 and 5 star recruits so is not really competing with the Pac-12 or any other P5 schools, except at the margins. Even 3 star players tend to be transfers who left a P5 program to be closer to home or to be a starter on a D1 program. Would a stipend make a difference in either case? And finally, 'does my school have a realistic chance to make the jump to P5 in the next decade?' Unless the school is named Connecticut, Cincinnati, and some think maybe BYU, the answer is probably no. (Rice could make the jump if they ever got serious about athletics - they have the Duke, Stanford, Northwestern pedigree, but have Chicago U and Harvard mentality for sports).

The key for the MWC will be the decision of UNLV. The old guard schools tend to follow their lead, in much the same way the new ex-WAC schools (all financially strapped) tend to follow Kustra.

Now where stipends may actually make a difference outside the P5 is Basketball. Schools like Memphis, UNLV, New Mexico, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston, and with the hiring of Larry Brown maybe SMU, the competitiveness of the school depends at least as much on hoops as football, and many cases more.  On top of these G5 schools you have the A10 and Big East who live on Basketball. How these schools go will make a difference.

Pay attention to UNLV for the MWC and to the Big East for the Basketball schools. How they move on this will be telling.

The AD's who pull the trigger have to be ready to cut $1m from their programs somewhere. So there has to be a competitive benefit. Will San Jose State, which hasn't landed a non transfer 4 star in over a decade,  pay stipends? Does it make any competitive difference?


eldermars wrote:
MrPacTen wrote: When push comes to shove I'd bet kustra pays players as much as needed. While whining to the press all the way, most likely.
 Just like the Big Ten will (see: O'Bannon Trial). 

Last edited 8/12/2014 12:33 AM by sgwau96

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/11/2014 6:53 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


 Will San Jose State, which hasn't landed a non transfer 3 star in over a decade,  pay stipends?


What??  Pay attention.  In recent years, including this upcoming one, San Jose State has landed a boatload of 3 star recruits.  Until that statement, i was with you, overall.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/12/2014 12:32 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Oops, I meant 4 star, not 3 star

SpartaRick wrote:  Will San Jose State, which hasn't landed a non transfer 3 star in over a decade,  pay stipends?


What??  Pay attention.  In recent years, including this upcoming one, San Jose State has landed a boatload of 3 star recruits.  Until that statement, i was with you, overall.

Last edited 8/12/2014 12:33 AM by sgwau96

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/12/2014 1:41 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Umm, Boise State has landed 3- 4* recruits in last year's recruiting class and this year's. And along with our 4* qb (Brett Rypien) for this coming year, I think 99% of the commits so far are 3*.

Boise State sold the stadium naming rights to pay for the stipend. Whatever the stipend is, Boise State will pay it. Period. We've invested too much at this point. And I'm pretty sure we'll be one of the few, if not the only, Mtn West school at this point to do so.
sgwau96 wrote: The difference is the B!G schools have about $50m more in revenue to play with, and excepting two or three schools they are in the black financially. Kustra is still running a $10m deficit on only a $43m budget. While that is fantastic for a G5 school it means $1m has to found somewhere.

Note, the stadium rights merely pays for about half the lost revenue for the conference shuffling Kustra undertook. It's be 20 years before that is balanced in the books.

I am skeptical of the MWC paying stipends. The CSU schools are not in good financial shape, and neither is Hawaii nor Nevada. UNLV burns $50m a year in public education funds on athletics (which is amazing, the largest shortfall in revenue against expenses of any program). So I don't see the pressure on Boise State to do so, or be any hurry to do so.

The questions that has to be asked is, 'will it make a difference in the athletes I get?' And secondarily, 'do my competitors have an advantage on me?' The truth is the MWC does not get 4 and 5 star recruits so is not really competing with the Pac-12 or any other P5 schools, except at the margins. Even 3 star players tend to be transfers who left a P5 program to be closer to home or to be a starter on a D1 program. Would a stipend make a difference in either case? And finally, 'does my school have a realistic chance to make the jump to P5 in the next decade?' Unless the school is named Connecticut, Cincinnati, and some think maybe BYU, the answer is probably no. (Rice could make the jump if they ever got serious about athletics - they have the Duke, Stanford, Northwestern pedigree, but have Chicago U and Harvard mentality for sports).

The key for the MWC will be the decision of UNLV. The old guard schools tend to follow their lead, in much the same way the new ex-WAC schools (all financially strapped) tend to follow Kustra.

Now where stipends may actually make a difference outside the P5 is Basketball. Schools like Memphis, UNLV, New Mexico, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston, and with the hiring of Larry Brown maybe SMU, the competitiveness of the school depends at least as much on hoops as football, and many cases more.  On top of these G5 schools you have the A10 and Big East who live on Basketball. How these schools go will make a difference.

Pay attention to UNLV for the MWC and to the Big East for the Basketball schools. How they move on this will be telling.

The AD's who pull the trigger have to be ready to cut $1m from their programs somewhere. So there has to be a competitive benefit. Will San Jose State, which hasn't landed a non transfer 4 star in over a decade,  pay stipends? Does it make any competitive difference?


eldermars wrote:
MrPacTen wrote: When push comes to shove I'd bet kustra pays players as much as needed. While whining to the press all the way, most likely.
 Just like the Big Ten will (see: O'Bannon Trial). 







"I've just got them listed as butt kickers and let them go from there." -Coach Drink
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/13/2014 1:09 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


We will see. I don't think it's going to be a quick leap by everyone, but more like dipping toes in the wading pool.

Here is an article from back in May where Wyoming's AD speculates that some MWC schools will and some cannot:

"If we get these resources we’re talking about and grow our self-generated revenue and we get in that neighborhood of $36 million [athletics budget], we’re going to have the resources to do some of this stuff and some of the other schools in our league will not," Wyoming athletics director Tom Burman said.

"Now, CSU will. Boise State will. San Diego State probably will. We have to be with those guys. We can’t just flounder along. If we want to be good, we have to be in position to play with the good players in our league.

"We’ve got an opportunity, but we have to capitalize in the next 12-24 months. We have to capitalize.”

...

I would say we can probably handle some of it without any incremental dollars. But if we were to do it right, we can’t," Burman said. "If they were to do full cost of attendance, that’s roughly $3,300 dollars per full scholarship at UW. That’s high. You take $3,300 times the number of kids that are on full scholarship, and it’s like $700,000. Could we do some of it? Yeah. Could we do all of it [without state support]? It would be difficult.

What is interesting is the article mentions that the athletic department is asking the school to transfer another $5m a year from educational funds to stay competitive, and this is part of that. He is basically saying the money is not there from athletic revenue to support it, but he plans to do it anyway and ask the tax payers, via the Wyoming board for higher education, to bail him out. Maybe that will work in pro-fracking Wyoming (i.e., more revenue). (I give Burman credit for hedging on SDSU, telling me he is at least somewhat aware of the budget crisis in California which everyone outside the State is aware, but which seems unknown to the residents of California.

The situation in the Cal State system is very bad. This can be seen concerning SJSU in this audit by Howard Bunsis (Accounting Professor from EMU hired to do the audit). CSU system is getting dramatically less support each year from the State (hey we have a bullet train to nowhere to pay for - which comes with a technology already antiquated!). The same pressures are on Fresno State, and to a lesser extend San Diego State - which at least generates more revenue from sports, although they still run a large deficit.

Anyway back to the subject. The situation seems to be that some G5 schools plan to try and get permission to pay the stipends, and others simply don't have the financial support to do so. I can see this eventually leading to a realignment within the G5 based on resources. (Eventually, not the next few years, like a decade or so out)
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/13/2014 9:58 AM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


Interesting Take!!!
I am pretty happy with the current MWC membership.
Would hate to see any schools dropping down to the Big Sky............wink

Eventually, I think there will be a revolt by taxpayers about subsidizing athletic departments at Universities.
Football at a lot of schools brings in the bucks to subsidize some olympic sports, but some schools actually lose money on their football programs.  I think we are looking at more than realignment in the G5.....I think we are looking at dropping football at some schools!!!banghead
sgwau96 wrote: We will see. I don't think it's going to be a quick leap by everyone, but more like dipping toes in the wading pool.

Here is an article from back in May where Wyoming's AD speculates that some MWC schools will and some cannot:

"If we get these resources we’re talking about and grow our self-generated revenue and we get in that neighborhood of $36 million [athletics budget], we’re going to have the resources to do some of this stuff and some of the other schools in our league will not," Wyoming athletics director Tom Burman said.

"Now, CSU will. Boise State will. San Diego State probably will. We have to be with those guys. We can’t just flounder along. If we want to be good, we have to be in position to play with the good players in our league.

"We’ve got an opportunity, but we have to capitalize in the next 12-24 months. We have to capitalize.”

...

I would say we can probably handle some of it without any incremental dollars. But if we were to do it right, we can’t," Burman said. "If they were to do full cost of attendance, that’s roughly $3,300 dollars per full scholarship at UW. That’s high. You take $3,300 times the number of kids that are on full scholarship, and it’s like $700,000. Could we do some of it? Yeah. Could we do all of it [without state support]? It would be difficult.

What is interesting is the article mentions that the athletic department is asking the school to transfer another $5m a year from educational funds to stay competitive, and this is part of that. He is basically saying the money is not there from athletic revenue to support it, but he plans to do it anyway and ask the tax payers, via the Wyoming board for higher education, to bail him out. Maybe that will work in pro-fracking Wyoming (i.e., more revenue). (I give Burman credit for hedging on SDSU, telling me he is at least somewhat aware of the budget crisis in California which everyone outside the State is aware, but which seems unknown to the residents of California.

The situation in the Cal State system is very bad. This can be seen concerning SJSU in this audit by Howard Bunsis (Accounting Professor from EMU hired to do the audit). CSU system is getting dramatically less support each year from the State (hey we have a bullet train to nowhere to pay for - which comes with a technology already antiquated!). The same pressures are on Fresno State, and to a lesser extend San Diego State - which at least generates more revenue from sports, although they still run a large deficit.

Anyway back to the subject. The situation seems to be that some G5 schools plan to try and get permission to pay the stipends, and others simply don't have the financial support to do so. I can see this eventually leading to a realignment within the G5 based on resources. (Eventually, not the next few years, like a decade or so out)
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/14/2014 7:05 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


I know that if the CSU system was reformed and maybe split into two or three systems, where the charters were allowed to specialize rather than be one size fits all, schools like San Jose State, Cal State Long Beach, San Diego State, and possibly one or two others would simply take off given the massive private enterprise resources t their doorsteps. If allowed to raise tuition halfway between the CSU system and the UC system, while making admission selective, and placing an emphasis on STEM and local business co-op (Silicon Valley obviously give SJSU an unfair advantage) these schools could quickly rise to be on par with Cal Poly, with similar graduation rates up near 65% and selective enough to only take the top 15% or 20% of students (UC says 8% but they have not been able to accommodate them all, especially in STEM fields).

If that were allowed to happen then Athletics would not be in any danger at SJSU and SDSU would be even more secure. I am less rosy on the long term chances of Fresno State, which has been overtaken by dozens of schools in funding levels and is in the economically depressed San Joaquin Valley.  But without reform I think SJSU Athletics may be doomed - the trend line is not good there.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/15/2014 2:04 PM

Re: Scott Slant 080614 NCAA vote on autonomy for the Power 5 


The demise of the San Jose State Athletics have been predicted for a long time, but they are still there.  And now they have Magic Gene.
sgwau96 wrote: I know that if the CSU system was reformed and maybe split into two or three systems, where the charters were allowed to specialize rather than be one size fits all, schools like San Jose State, Cal State Long Beach, San Diego State, and possibly one or two others would simply take off given the massive private enterprise resources t their doorsteps. If allowed to raise tuition halfway between the CSU system and the UC system, while making admission selective, and placing an emphasis on STEM and local business co-op (Silicon Valley obviously give SJSU an unfair advantage) these schools could quickly rise to be on par with Cal Poly, with similar graduation rates up near 65% and selective enough to only take the top 15% or 20% of students (UC says 8% but they have not been able to accommodate them all, especially in STEM fields).

If that were allowed to happen then Athletics would not be in any danger at SJSU and SDSU would be even more secure. I am less rosy on the long term chances of Fresno State, which has been overtaken by dozens of schools in funding levels and is in the economically depressed San Joaquin Valley.  But without reform I think SJSU Athletics may be doomed - the trend line is not good there.
TRADITION DOESN'T GRADUATE!  COACHES COME, COACHES GO, TRADITION LIVES ON

Don't get confused between my personality and my attitude!  My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are!

#ATF

Reply | Quote