NCAA Board Approves Autonomy - Power 5 Conferences Get More Power

I like this simply because it's a big middle finger to the NZAA, but it's terrible for football. This will eventually mean that the top ranked teams financially will predominately the top teams in the polls. There are still plenty of have-nots in the power 5.

superbamashane2 said:

I like this simply because it's a big middle finger to the NZAA, but it's terrible for football. This will eventually mean that the top ranked teams financially will predominately the top teams in the polls. There are still plenty of have-nots in the power 5.

Click to expand...

I have a similar thought. What will become of the teams struggling financially in the power 5 to pay the benefits to players mandated by the governing body. Also, how long until the first lawsuit?

superbamashane2 said:

I like this simply because it's a big middle finger to the NZAA, but it's terrible for football. This will eventually mean that the top ranked teams financially will predominately the top teams in the polls. There are still plenty of have-nots in the power 5.

Click to expand...

This has already happened during the entire history of the game.

Nothing is going to change about what teams make up the general top 10/20/25. Over the century plus of the game, an Alabama or Texas falls off for a few years but they always come back. Usually any newcomer that gets into the top and stays there is a big money program that finally figured things out (Florida, for example).

crimsonaudio said:

Some good thoughts here, imo: http://cfn.scout.com/2/1431175.html

Click to expand...

There are a lot of points in that article I disagree with. I don't see how this ends unionization. Also, I do believe the ' Puny 6' is hosed. For instance, . A guy deciding between a Boise St, or Houston and a lower tier power 5 will now always choose the power 5 school . The reason obviously will be the player benefits afforded power 5 teams.
I do agree CFB as we now will be gone forever , but it will take some time to change.

I really think this is going to be like trying to ball a slinky up in your hand, after a while it'll come unraveled. I hope I'm wrong.

There's a few interesting takeaways from this, and really how recent changes impact college football and the SEC in particular.

For starters, I don't see this as being the key aspect to destroying college football as we know it. A lot of what this allows is to roll back the "equality" changes forced on college football. It doesn't change the scholarship limits, but little by little, they put tighter constraints on how many coaches a program can have, how much food a player could have, and they took away (that's right, took away) cost of living stipends. In theory, this is more a step back to what college football was than anything else.

I do agree with the notion that this might put college football closer to the "edge", but in my opinion the playoff and threat of unions are on the other side of that edge to begin with. The most interesting immediate implication, is what this can do with bottom tier SEC and power 5 schools. Alabama, for instance never really was recruiting outside of those schools anyway, and unless given greater individual autonomy, doesn't stand to gain much of an advantage. Miss. State though? They potentially gain serious leverage when it comes to recruiting against the likes of South Alabama, or Southern Miss. This should do a lot to create some distance between the top programs outside of the power 5, and the weaker power 5 schools.

This to me kind of connects to the SEC Network. I fear some of the estimates are exaggerated, due to the difference between it being available to X number of households, and being paid for in X number of households. This means, it still is not a given that Alabama see an increase in revenue, since they were already making a lot off of tier 3 rights. This seems likely in the long run, but the most immediate impact will be felt by the programs (like Miss. State) making practically nothing off of tier 3 rights to begin with. The SEC network will be an immediate financial windfall for programs like that.

This is when the combination of the two things becomes quite interesting to me. To continue with the theme, an article I read on a Miss. State site said that the non-football programs stand to gain the most from the SEC Network money. I suppose the reason is two-fold, first, you can only spend so much on football, and you have to try to spend an equivalent amount in women's sports when you do that. The second is the fact that the bulk of SEC Network programming will be something other than football. So, for certain programs, it seems like there could be a better return in investment by putting additional resources into other SEC sports. This will no doubt be magnified by things like a stipend. Now the schools have the additional money to pay for a stipend for all scholarship athletes, and in doing so gain a further advantage over non-power 5 schools, which is only further magnified by the SEC Network.

What this all means is that the biggest impact might actually be felt in basketball. Even Alabama gets a much stronger pitch in that regard. Come play basketball for us, get a stipend, and play on the SEC Network...

Careful what you wish for.

This is a haves and have not issue to me. Schools like UAB will probably have to give up football altogether. Some schools who are on the borderline like Boise, Tulsa, and Tulane will have to evaluate whether they can afford to continue to compete as well. What happens to all the directional Florida schools who are all bigger than most of the SEC schools?

Don't forget that it won't be just football players getting the additional benefits. It will be every student athlete on campus. If a school is spending more on each of their current athletes, there will be no incentive to add additional sports. (Alabama has added a rowing team this year with a brand new facility) There is also a club hockey team that should be added to our sports as well.

At some point, it will become hard for even the bigger schools to sell tickets with the continually increased ticket prices. Michigan is already having a problem selling their tickets. Since the SEC network is adding more coverage, why would a State, Mizzou, or Vandy fan go to the game when they can sit home and watch it on TV? It is imperitive for the health of the game for at least some ticket prices to be affordable IMHO.

crimsonaudio said:

I'm not sure if this is good or bad for CFB, but I am certain that some of the rules that have been inlace to 'level the playing filed' so that startups and small schools can compete should go away. So while there are certain to be unintended consequences from this, I think in the long run it has the potential to be better for the schools that wish to separate themselves from the rest of the pack.

Click to expand...

The most effective "level the playing field" rule is the 85 scholarship limit. I wonder if that will go away.

Rama Jama said:

This is a haves and have not issue to me. Schools like UAB will probably have to give up football altogether. Some schools who are on the borderline like Boise, Tulsa, and Tulane will have to evaluate whether they can afford to continue to compete as well. What happens to all the directional Florida schools who are all bigger than most of the SEC schools?

Don't forget that it won't be just football players getting the additional benefits. It will be every student athlete on campus. If a school is spending more on each of their current athletes, there will be no incentive to add additional sports. (Alabama has added a rowing team this year with a brand new facility) There is also a club hockey team that should be added to our sports as well.

At some point, it will become hard for even the bigger schools to sell tickets with the continually increased ticket prices. Michigan is already having a problem selling their tickets. Since the SEC network is adding more coverage, why would a State, Mizzou, or Vandy fan go to the game when they can sit home and watch it on TV? It is imperitive for the health of the game for at least some ticket prices to be affordable IMHO.

Click to expand...

I thought they already had...

Rama Jama said:

This is a haves and have not issue to me. Schools like UAB will probably have to give up football altogether. Some schools who are on the borderline like Boise, Tulsa, and Tulane will have to evaluate whether they can afford to continue to compete as well.

Click to expand...

Promise?

You name schools that in some cases wouldn't even have an FBS program if not for attempts to lower standards/level the playing field. Boise State was a junior college right? UAB entered the FBS around the time the last round of scholarship limits took place. They simply never belonged in the first place. Oh yeah, then there's the school stupid enough to leave the SEC...

All that football history, RIP UAB football, 1989-2014.

crimsonaudio said:

Probably not right away, but I suspect it will be increased at some point in the future.

Click to expand...

So will we start a sand volleyball or women's lacrosse team to balance out Title IX rules?

KrAzY3 said:

Promise?

You name schools that in some cases wouldn't even have an FBS program if not for attempts to lower standards/level the playing field. Boise State was a junior college right? UAB entered the FBS around the time the last round of scholarship limits took place. They simply never belonged in the first place. Oh yeah, then there's the school stupid enough to leave the SEC...

All that football history, RIP UAB football, 1989-2014.

Click to expand...

I don't think you'll see the UABs of the world dropping football. But I do think the non-Power 5 schools may drop down and join with the top level of the FCS to form a new division for football. The FCS has a gap much the way FBS does. There are some who fund the maximum 63 scholarships and some who do it on the cheap just to stay in Division I. I could see the new division offering 70-75 scholarships and the lower FCS schools could offer in the 50s.

Will this allow the return of athletic dorms?