Jump to content

Huge advantage for the Huskers.


Huskerpapa

Recommended Posts

"...What you can assume is that it’s coming, and so are some challenging days ahead for non-Power Five A.D.s like Rasmussen..."

 

This article from the OWH provides a sneek peek an advantage that will likely soon be coming our way.  I am not sure what the final outcome will be, but for those who have not followed this storyline, it may be an eye opener.  GBR.

 

http://www.omaha.com/sports/shatel-power-five-look-like-potent-headache-for-creighton-uno/article_97988be5-0e46-5a78-86e2-7b302ab940ea.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say if it's going to end up being a huge advantage or not.  Schools in those mid-tier basketball only leagues like the Big East, A-10 and West Coast Conference don't have the huge AD revenues of the Power 5 schools, but they also don't have to fund nearly as big of a budget either.

 

What's going to be most interesting to me is to see what happens to programs in the MWC, WAC, Sun Belt, etc.  Will they eventually de-emphasize football or drop to D-II?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was poor journalism today by Shatel. The premise of the article is that CU and other schools in the BE don't get fb revenue = not enough $$$ to stay relevant in terms of recruiting against the 'power five'. Someone who is more educated on the financial side of this equation would have to do some number crunching but I do not think CU or most members of the Big East (as well as the AAC or MWC, BYU/ Zaga) will have trouble keeping up with the money being thrown around by the 'power five' basketball schools. The only scenario where I see us possibly running into trouble is if there's not a hard cap on how much can be spent on a player per year - and that won't happen, because at that point there's no real difference between the NCAA and the NFL/NBA other than average skill level of player

 

This development has a much, much larger impact on football recruiting, imo. That's where there's a ton of money involved - 85 players to field an entire roster. Scholarship offers are often thrown around in football like free candy, but now each offer will hold a lot of value for both player and university. It makes me worry about colleges where football is favored by tradition/culture/boosters, but basketball is still relevant I.E. Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan in the B1G. FSU, Florida also come to mind. How much budget will be 'leftover' after football is taken care of for these schools to keep bringing in top talents for basketball? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passed by a 16-2 vote.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24651709/ncaa-adopts-new-division-i-model-giving-power-5-autonomy

 

Q: What about NCAA issues that don't fall under autonomy?

Some issues, such as transfer eligibility rules, enforcement and scholarships limits, remain governed by both the Power 5 and the rest of Division I. For those issues, there's weighted voting by a new body called the Council, which becomes the primary legislative arm and largely includes athletic directors, who felt left out of the old system.

The weighted voting breakdown: 37.5 percent for the Power 5 conferences; 18.8 percent for the five remaining FBS conferences; 37.5 percent for the FCS and non-Division I football conferences; 3.1 percent for college athletes; and 3.1 percent for faculty athletic representatives. Some Division I members were upset there's weighted voting on issues deemed to be of equal concern to all NCAA schools, but they didn't have much leverage in these negotiations. It's the first time athletes have a vote.

 

Q: Will new rules create further separation between the haves and have-nots?

It's quite possible. The Power 5 schools will be able to offer benefits to recruits that other schools may feel like they can't afford. But even many of the so-called have-nots acknowledge there's already a significant competitive gap and the best recruits tend to choose those schools anyway. Some critics of the model have complained the Power 5 schools were the ones who led the NCAA down this path by commercializing college sports for so many years.

 

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11321551/ncaa-board-votes-allow-autonomy-five-power-conferences

 

Areas that will not fall under the autonomy umbrella include postseason tournaments, transfer policies, scholarship limits, signing day and rules governing on-field play.

 

If 75 schools from outside the Power Five vote to override the autonomy legislation in the next 60 days, the measures would be sent back to the board of directors for further consideration. But NCAA officials don't expect that to happen. Power Five commissioners have made veiled threats about breaking off to form their own division if autonomy fails.

 

http://btn.com/2014/08/07/autonomy-for-power-5-is-here-so-whats-next/

 

Is this good for college sports overall? That’s debatable. But, this move for autonomy by the NCAA heavies probably had to happen. If autonomy didn’t happen, there was some thought that the Power Five leagues would perhaps break away from the NCAA. Imagine an NCAA hoops tourney without schools from the Power Five conferences. Not pretty. Other undesirable consequences likely would ensue, as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was poor journalism today by Shatel. The premise of the article is that CU and other schools in the BE don't get fb revenue = not enough $$$ to stay relevant in terms of recruiting against the 'power five'. Someone who is more educated on the financial side of this equation would have to do some number crunching but I do not think CU or most members of the Big East (as well as the AAC or MWC, BYU/ Zaga) will have trouble keeping up with the money being thrown around by the 'power five' basketball schools. The only scenario where I see us possibly running into trouble is if there's not a hard cap on how much can be spent on a player per year - and that won't happen, because at that point there's no real difference between the NCAA and the NFL/NBA other than average skill level of player

 

This development has a much, much larger impact on football recruiting, imo. That's where there's a ton of money involved - 85 players to field an entire roster. Scholarship offers are often thrown around in football like free candy, but now each offer will hold a lot of value for both player and university. It makes me worry about colleges where football is favored by tradition/culture/boosters, but basketball is still relevant I.E. Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan in the B1G. FSU, Florida also come to mind. How much budget will be 'leftover' after football is taken care of for these schools to keep bringing in top talents for basketball? 

It's going to impact everything significantly, from the top down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was poor journalism today by Shatel. The premise of the article is that CU and other schools in the BE don't get fb revenue = not enough $$$ to stay relevant in terms of recruiting against the 'power five'. Someone who is more educated on the financial side of this equation would have to do some number crunching but I do not think CU or most members of the Big East (as well as the AAC or MWC, BYU/ Zaga) will have trouble keeping up with the money being thrown around by the 'power five' basketball schools. The only scenario where I see us possibly running into trouble is if there's not a hard cap on how much can be spent on a player per year - and that won't happen, because at that point there's no real difference between the NCAA and the NFL/NBA other than average skill level of player

This development has a much, much larger impact on football recruiting, imo. That's where there's a ton of money involved - 85 players to field an entire roster. Scholarship offers are often thrown around in football like free candy, but now each offer will hold a lot of value for both player and university. It makes me worry about colleges where football is favored by tradition/culture/boosters, but basketball is still relevant I.E. Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan in the B1G. FSU, Florida also come to mind. How much budget will be 'leftover' after football is taken care of for these schools to keep bringing in top talents for basketball?

Denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with bluejay on this topic.  Schools like Creighton and most, if not all, Big East schools will ensure that they will be able to offer the same benefits to players that Big Five schools do.  Now, where it may come into effect is with regards to facilities and other ancillary aspects of the program.  The schools that lack football revenue may have to cut back in certain areas to compensate for the higher expenses that will now be realized due to the ruling.

 

I honestly have no idea if it will affect Creighton.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO.  The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

 

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

 

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO.  The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

 

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

 

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

And when the new TV deals + NU's full B1G share kicks in around 2017, our budget will be in the $120M to $130M range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO. The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

I think people are wearing blinders if they think these power 5 conferences will stop at the relatively minor changes that have been speculated, such as the additional $5,000ish stipend.

From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money.

It may not happen right away, but this January will be the 1st step. Even if the transition takes 5-10 years...it will happen eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO. The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money.

 

The NCAA has the right to intervene if they feel the Power 5 has crossed a line. AND the guidelines that the Power 5 creates are still going to have to be voted on by all Div 1 schools. I'm sorry but I disagree that big football schools are going to take over. You said that schools w/out fb revenue wouldn't be able to 'keep up'. Assuming that the cap on spending per recruit was so high that only schools with large, profitable football programs could max out their recruiting needs each year in both major sports without a significant financial burden... that is a TON of cash you're talking about. It would be a ridiculous amount and there's no way the NCAA lets that fly. There's also no way the mid-tier BCS schools (Kstate, Oregon St, Wash St, Gtech types) would let that type of legislation through as well. That would be a system where maybe 15 schools basically become pro factories with athletes living in mansions off campus. Congress would most likely get involved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO. The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money.

 

The NCAA has the right to intervene if they feel the Power 5 has crossed a line. AND the guidelines that the Power 5 creates are still going to have to be voted on by all Div 1 schools. I'm sorry but I disagree that big football schools are going to take over. You said that schools w/out fb revenue wouldn't be able to 'keep up'. Assuming that the cap on spending per recruit was so high that only schools with large, profitable football programs could max out their recruiting needs each year in both major sports without a significant financial burden... that is a TON of cash you're talking about. It would be a ridiculous amount and there's no way the NCAA lets that fly. There's also no way the mid-tier BCS schools (Kstate, Oregon St, Wash St, Gtech types) would let that type of legislation through as well. That would be a system where maybe 15 schools basically become pro factories with athletes living in mansions off campus. Congress would most likely get involved

 

 

Who would've thought Sam Keller, the hated one for so much, could help ruin schools and budgets outside the power 5 conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO. The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money.

The NCAA has the right to intervene if they feel the Power 5 has crossed a line. AND the guidelines that the Power 5 creates are still going to have to be voted on by all Div 1 schools. I'm sorry but I disagree that big football schools are going to take over. You said that schools w/out fb revenue wouldn't be able to 'keep up'. Assuming that the cap on spending per recruit was so high that only schools with large, profitable football programs could max out their recruiting needs each year in both major sports without a significant financial burden... that is a TON of cash you're talking about. It would be a ridiculous amount and there's no way the NCAA lets that fly. There's also no way the mid-tier BCS schools (Kstate, Oregon St, Wash St, Gtech types) would let that type of legislation through as well. That would be a system where maybe 15 schools basically become pro factories with athletes living in mansions off campus. Congress would most likely get involved
You're failing to take into account that one of the main reasons that this passed is because the power 5 conferences said that if they weren't given the right to make their own rules, then they were going to break away from the NCAA and/or form their own Division 4 league. The NCAA may, in theory, have some legislation power here, but, in reality, their power is now far less than you believe it to be. You are also failing to consider that the new TV contracts, which will soon be negotiated...there is about to be another substantial boost in revenue in 2016 for the power 5 conferences which are football revenue schools...these schools have to spend the money on "expenses" for tax purposes.

Also, as far as the bottom-tier teams in the power 5 conferences not being able to keep up...there are 2 possibilities:

1.) Conference-wide revenue sharing, which would help the bottom tier teams

Or

2.) There will be another split inside the Power 5 conferences down the road because the bottom of the Power 5 won't be able to support the changes. (Gerry DiNardo's theory)

Also, if congress were to get involved...I highly doubt it would be to handcuff these schools, so all of the mid-midmajor programs without football revenue can keep up...it would more likely be to challenge their nonprofit status.

Again, Denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NEW YORK -- The NCAA Board of Governors' vote to grant autonomy Thursday to the five biggest revenue-producing FBS conferences and Notre Dame should be remembered as a historic day in intercollegiate athletics. On this day, the NCAA voted that the strong shall inherit the earth.

Autonomy is a deftly chosen word. It means self-rule, and if you hear it and think of the downtrodden rising to smite their oppressors, then the spin of the Mike Slives of the world has achieved its goal. In fact, this is the haves saying to the have-nots, "Enough already."

The formal approval of autonomy might have taken place Thursday, but the big schools achieved autonomy the minute they asked for it. As Slive, the Southeastern Conference commissioner, said last month, "If we do not achieve a positive outcome under the existing big tent of Division I, we will need to consider the establishment of a venue with similar conferences and institutions where we can enact the desired changes in the best interests of our student-athletes."

In other words, if you don't grant us autonomy, we will establish autonomy.

It is entirely possible that the rest of Division I could override the vote of the board, but that would be a gesture of pride, not brains.

In so many ways, the 65 newly autonomous schools have for decades done things that their thinner-walleted Division I colleagues cannot. They expanded their stadiums with luxury boxes and erected battleship-sized video screens. They built practice facilities that would put NFL teams to shame. They agreed to pay coaches salaries that should put the universities to shame. None of these expenditures came under the expansive reach of the NCAA Manual.

But benefits for the student-athletes have always been the subject of legislation. Michigan may be able to fill the Big House, but it could only fill the pockets or the stomachs of its players only as much as Eastern Michigan could afford. The NCAA considered that to be competitive equity, legislating in the meeting room what could not be equalized in the world outside it.

And NCAA refers not to the hired bureaucrats but to the collective membership that passed the rules. There are more than 300 schools in Division I, and perhaps a quarter of them have the money to increase benefits. So the big schools remained constrained by the small -- a majority vote in the name of competitive equity.

"That sort of equity is largely a mirage," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Wednesday in New York. He spoke as a panelist in a two-hour discussion, sponsored by the conference, of the state of intercollegiate athletics. "There's always been some separation. This may contribute to some additional separation, although the rules and any changes that might be made are intended to be permissive. But they're also intended to take into account that those 65 schools are largely the face of what most people know as college athletics."

And that's how we got to this vote. As the schools brought in more and more money -- Kansas State will earn $26 million in television revenue this year -- and could not spend more on student-athletes, the schools attracted lawsuits. They also began to get hammered in the court of public opinion.

"I think we got to the place," Bowlsby said, "where we just believe there was a need for us to be perhaps a little less egalitarian, a little less magnanimous about the 350 schools and spend a little time worrying about the most severe issues that are troubling our programs among the 65."

With autonomy, the 65 schools say they intend to provide more benefits to the student-athlete: more aid per year, more years on a scholarship and health insurance that will extend beyond an athlete's time on campus. Fifteen student-athletes -- three from each of the five conferences -- will be voting members of the new board.

"I am cautiously optimistic," Baylor University president and chancellor Ken Starr said Wednesday. "There are so many ramifications, and there is also this abiding concern of unintended consequences."

Administrators are trying to figure out how to implement the changes. Should the athletic departments use the "full cost of attendance" figure determined by a federal formula? That amount is different at every school. Should they put a cap on the amount so that the student-athlete living at Washington State in little Pullman gets the same amount as the Washington Husky living in metropolitan Seattle?

"I believe, as does Bob [bowlsby], that competitive equity is really hard to legislate, not just in athletics but in life in general," West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck said. "We can all be created equal, but the moment we come out of the womb, you have a different set of opportunities than I may have. Even with autonomy, there will be programs at the top of the heap."

Autonomy will come with its own set of issues. Because the wealthiest schools are free to act upon their own interests, the rich will likely get richer. But it's also a good bet that student-athletes will receive more benefits. That, at the end of the day, is the point.

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=11321434&src=desktop&rand=ref~%257B%2522ref%2522%253A%2522https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F%2522%257D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO. The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money.
The NCAA has the right to intervene if they feel the Power 5 has crossed a line. AND the guidelines that the Power 5 creates are still going to have to be voted on by all Div 1 schools. I'm sorry but I disagree that big football schools are going to take over. You said that schools w/out fb revenue wouldn't be able to 'keep up'. Assuming that the cap on spending per recruit was so high that only schools with large, profitable football programs could max out their recruiting needs each year in both major sports without a significant financial burden... that is a TON of cash you're talking about. It would be a ridiculous amount and there's no way the NCAA lets that fly. There's also no way the mid-tier BCS schools (Kstate, Oregon St, Wash St, Gtech types) would let that type of legislation through as well. That would be a system where maybe 15 schools basically become pro factories with athletes living in mansions off campus. Congress would most likely get involved
You're failing to take into account that one of the main reasons that this passed is because the power 5 conferences said that if they weren't given the right to make their own rules, then they were going to break away from the NCAA and/or form their own Division 4 league. The NCAA may, in theory, have some legislation power here, but, in reality, their power is now far less than you believe it to be. You are also failing to consider that the new TV contracts, which will soon be negotiated...there is about to be another substantial boost in revenue in 2016 for the power 5 conferences which are football revenue schools...these schools have to spend the money on "expenses" for tax purposes.

Also, as far as the bottom-tier teams in the power 5 conferences not being able to keep up...there are 2 possibilities:

1.) Conference-wide revenue sharing, which would help the bottom tier teams

Or

2.) There will be another split inside the Power 5 conferences down the road because the bottom of the Power 5 won't be able to support the changes. (Gerry DiNardo's theory)

Also, if congress were to get involved...I highly doubt it would be to handcuff these schools, so all of the mid-midmajor programs without football revenue can keep up...it would more likely be to challenge their nonprofit status.

Again, Denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

 

Alright, so assuming the Power Five acts with absolutely no restraint regarding spending limits to benefit only the top schools in each conference (a move which would be a huge PR blow and, imo, cause significant public backlash), what spending is going to increase? The giant programs can already spend as much as they want on new facilities, head coach salaries etc. The ONLY additional cost to schools that these changes bring are stipends given to athletes per year. And you're saying that one singular cost increase is going to be so large that no schools without massive fb revenue will remain relevant. That is what you are saying? Please clarify because, if that's what you're actually trying to say, then I wholeheartedly disagree with you because that's just way too much money. Way too much. Most experts are putting the stipend limit around 5k per year. Those stipends would easily be 5 digits annually. State government would get involved with public schools. They wouldn't allow that sort of thing to happen at a public institution of higher education

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't effect any but the lowest of low budget AD's, IMO. The additional cost of the stipend should be negligible to just about any athletic department.

We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, which is really minor for any school with a budget over about $10 million.

NU's budget is ~$90 million.

From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money.
The NCAA has the right to intervene if they feel the Power 5 has crossed a line. AND the guidelines that the Power 5 creates are still going to have to be voted on by all Div 1 schools. I'm sorry but I disagree that big football schools are going to take over. You said that schools w/out fb revenue wouldn't be able to 'keep up'. Assuming that the cap on spending per recruit was so high that only schools with large, profitable football programs could max out their recruiting needs each year in both major sports without a significant financial burden... that is a TON of cash you're talking about. It would be a ridiculous amount and there's no way the NCAA lets that fly. There's also no way the mid-tier BCS schools (Kstate, Oregon St, Wash St, Gtech types) would let that type of legislation through as well. That would be a system where maybe 15 schools basically become pro factories with athletes living in mansions off campus. Congress would most likely get involved
You're failing to take into account that one of the main reasons that this passed is because the power 5 conferences said that if they weren't given the right to make their own rules, then they were going to break away from the NCAA and/or form their own Division 4 league. The NCAA may, in theory, have some legislation power here, but, in reality, their power is now far less than you believe it to be. You are also failing to consider that the new TV contracts, which will soon be negotiated...there is about to be another substantial boost in revenue in 2016 for the power 5 conferences which are football revenue schools...these schools have to spend the money on "expenses" for tax purposes.

Also, as far as the bottom-tier teams in the power 5 conferences not being able to keep up...there are 2 possibilities:

1.) Conference-wide revenue sharing, which would help the bottom tier teams

Or

2.) There will be another split inside the Power 5 conferences down the road because the bottom of the Power 5 won't be able to support the changes. (Gerry DiNardo's theory)

Also, if congress were to get involved...I highly doubt it would be to handcuff these schools, so all of the mid-midmajor programs without football revenue can keep up...it would more likely be to challenge their nonprofit status.

Again, Denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

Alright, so assuming the Power Five acts with absolutely no restraint regarding spending limits to benefit only the top schools in each conference (a move which would be a huge PR blow and, imo, cause significant public backlash), what spending is going to increase? The giant programs can already spend as much as they want on new facilities, head coach salaries etc. The ONLY additional cost to schools that these changes bring are stipends given to athletes per year. And you're saying that one singular cost increase is going to be so large that no schools without massive fb revenue will remain relevant. That is what you are saying? Please clarify because, if that's what you're actually trying to say, then I wholeheartedly disagree with you because that's just way too much money. Way too much. Most experts are putting the stipend limit around 5k per year. Those stipends would easily be 5 digits annually. State government would get involved with public schools. They wouldn't allow that sort of thing to happen at a public institution of higher education
PR blow? Are you kidding? Keep reaching.

I would think that consistantly cheating would be a "PR" blow, but the $EC is content to deal with that and content to deal with the consistent slap on the wrist, because they care about winning and increasing revenue.

Also, you are absolutely crazy if you think this is going to stop at the initial $5,000 stipend. There have also been "experts" that have speculated that things like future medical care after college, trusts, paying for parents and other family members of players to fly to campus for games, paying for parents and other family members to fly to campus for official recruiting visits, etc...(among many other things) will be provided.

There has also been much discussion of these power 5 conferences teaming up and only scheduling other power 5 conference opponents for the nonconference schedules...

You tell me, how do you think that will effect the TV deals of the mid-major conference schools if instead of playing games vs power 5 conference opponents, they are playing games vs Evansville, Western Michigan, Ohio, etc? Not exactly a sexy slate of games for these mid-major conferences to take to TV networks when renegotiating future TV contracts.. And with those matchups, good luck getting your games on TV in prime time...and good luck to these mid-major schools getting high level recruits, when these recruits can't see them on TV, but rather constantly see matchups between power 5 conference schools...

As far as "State government would get involved with public schools. They wouldn't allow that sort of thing to happen at a public institution of higher education"

Haha. Is this the same state government that hasn't stepped in when these schools started paying football coaches $2 Million, $3 Million, $4 Million, $5 Million, $6 Million, $7 Million, $8 Million, etc...(which in many cases makes a football coach one of the highest paid state employees)...While these power 5 conference schools spend hundreds of millions of dollars on athletic facilities?

Again, theoretically, the state government could step in, but these institutions generate a ton of money for these states and a ton of jobs for these states. The state governments aren't going to jeopardize that as readily as you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SEC doesn't deal with bad PR surrounding the reputation that a few of its schools carry. Journalists occasionally make the offhanded comment in their football articles but that's about all the attention it receives. You don't think that the entirety of Div 1 being singlehandedly screwed over by the top 10 schools in BCS would create more of a public outcry? Really? Alright, I guess if I can't convince you of that then you'll just have to know that you're right and wait to see what happens. I'm willing to bet money that what you're predicting does not happen in anyway, shape or form. It actually seems to me like you're in denial that this change isn't going to affect the Big East that much... but I won't say it out loud because that's rude and unbecoming of friendly discussion

 

edit:

 

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2014/08/09/ed-obannon-ncaa-claudia-wilken-appeal-name-image-likeness-rights

 

Claudia Wilken ruled that athletes can only be compensated 5k a year for their NIL's, and that's it. A lot of schools will not have trouble keeping up with that spending

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SEC doesn't deal with bad PR surrounding the reputation that a few of its schools carry. Journalists occasionally make the offhanded comment in their football articles but that's about all the attention it receives. You don't think that the entirety of Div 1 being singlehandedly screwed over by the top 10 schools in BCS would create more of a public outcry? Really? Alright, I guess if I can't convince you of that then you'll just have to know that you're right and wait to see what happens. I'm willing to bet money that what you're predicting does not happen in anyway, shape or form. It actually seems to me like you're in denial that this change isn't going to affect the Big East that much... but I won't say it out loud because that's rude and unbecoming of friendly discussion

Or...maybe you can just keep your bluejay/BigLeast/mid-major koolaid drinking sentiment on your Creighton board, rather than going out of your way to create an account and bring those delusions to a Nebraska/BigTen/Power5Conference board...

There was a reason for the ESPN documentary "Requiem For The Big East" and it's not because the future of the league is bright. Like I said, your denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The SEC doesn't deal with bad PR surrounding the reputation that a few of its schools carry. Journalists occasionally make the offhanded comment in their football articles but that's about all the attention it receives. You don't think that the entirety of Div 1 being singlehandedly screwed over by the top 10 schools in BCS would create more of a public outcry? Really? Alright, I guess if I can't convince you of that then you'll just have to know that you're right and wait to see what happens. I'm willing to bet money that what you're predicting does not happen in anyway, shape or form. It actually seems to me like you're in denial that this change isn't going to affect the Big East that much... but I won't say it out loud because that's rude and unbecoming of friendly discussion

Or...maybe you can just keep your bluejay/BigLeast/mid-major koolaid drinking sentiment on your Creighton board, rather than going out of your way to create an account and bring those delusions to a Nebraska/BigTen/Power5Conference board...

There was a reason for the ESPN documentary "Requiem For The Big East" and it's not because the future of the league is bright. Like I said, your denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

 

Are you incapable of addressing the points that I've brought up? I feel as if I've been objective and reasonable in what I've said in this thread. I do not wish to foster an inferiority complex between CU and NU. If you want to that's fine but keep me out of it. All I'm asking you is to respond to my criticisms of the main premise of your article - that is, stipends for athletic players will be so high that only schools with football revenue will remain competitive. Please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SEC doesn't deal with bad PR surrounding the reputation that a few of its schools carry. Journalists occasionally make the offhanded comment in their football articles but that's about all the attention it receives. You don't think that the entirety of Div 1 being singlehandedly screwed over by the top 10 schools in BCS would create more of a public outcry? Really? Alright, I guess if I can't convince you of that then you'll just have to know that you're right and wait to see what happens. I'm willing to bet money that what you're predicting does not happen in anyway, shape or form. It actually seems to me like you're in denial that this change isn't going to affect the Big East that much... but I won't say it out loud because that's rude and unbecoming of friendly discussion

Or...maybe you can just keep your bluejay/BigLeast/mid-major koolaid drinking sentiment on your Creighton board, rather than going out of your way to create an account and bring those delusions to a Nebraska/BigTen/Power5Conference board...

There was a reason for the ESPN documentary "Requiem For The Big East" and it's not because the future of the league is bright. Like I said, your denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

Are you incapable of addressing the points that I've brought up? I feel as if I've been objective and reasonable in what I've said in this thread. I do not wish to foster an inferiority complex between CU and NU. If you want to that's fine but keep me out of it. All I'm asking you is to respond to my criticisms of the main premise of your article - that is, stipends for athletic players will be so high that only schools with football revenue will remain competitive. Please

I have addressed your points, but the bluejay blinders on your eyes have kept you from realizing that. The issue is not whether or not mid-major schools like Creighton will be able to afford the additional $5,000 initial stipend. I believe they could afford $5,000. That's obvious.

It is a waste of my time to continue this, because you naively believe that this is going to stop with the initial $5,000 stipend. I do not believe that will be the case. My belief is based on everything that I have witnessed in reguards to these power 5 conferences and their unwillingness to do anything other than to push the limit and continue to keep gaining a competitive advantage, because that will help to increase revenue.

I believe, based on many comments made by "experts", that in the future this will then extend to a stipend larger that $5,000, future medical care after college, trusts, paying for parents and other family members of players to fly to campus for games, paying for parents and other family members to fly to campus for official recruiting visits, will all be pushed for by the power 5 conferences.

There has also been much discussion of the power 5 conferences teaming up and only scheduling other power 5 conference opponents for their nonconference schedules...

These additional benefits (beyond the initial $5,000 stipend), among many other benefits, are what I believe will be the downfall for the athletic teams of mid-major schools like Creighton.

As far as your argument that the NCAA, or other Division I schools would keep this from happening...it doesn't hold water. Again, the whole reason for this vote was that the power 5 conferences basically said "agree give us what we want and let us govern ourselves, or we will leave and we will take what we want"...so the NCAA and these other schools set the precedent of giving these power 5 institutions what they want. If the NCAA or other schools try to stop the power 5 conference schools, then they will just break away from the NCAA or start their own Division 4 league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you incapable of addressing the points that I've brought up? I feel as if I've been objective and reasonable in what I've said in this thread. I do not wish to foster an inferiority complex between CU and NU. If you want to that's fine but keep me out of it. All I'm asking you is to respond to my criticisms of the main premise of your article - that is, stipends for athletic players will be so high that only schools with football revenue will remain competitive. Please

 

Slow your roll, Bottomtooth...this is a Husker basketball message board not a ¨give your pro-Creighton argument repeatedly to anything that happens to mention the Jays.¨  This isn't the BU...we don't need this type of traffic.  Figure out how to occasionally get your point across without being a nuisance or you'll be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...