Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

NCAA board voting today on P5 "autonomy"

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
The 65 teams in the Power 5 conferences will be looking to have some different rules than the rest of NCAA D1.

The P5 conferences would be able to make rules outside of the NCAA to govern the following:


  • provide scholarships that would cover the full cost of attendance, as well as avenues for continuing education and medical care
  • loosening of the agent contact rules
  • ability to pay expenses for family members on trips (including recruiting visits and to games and other events once the athlete is enrolled)
  • ability to limit or decrease "athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes."

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]If approved, as expected, the final vote will happen no later than August. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]It seems like that media pressure and litigations over how "amateur" college athletes really are get directed at P5 schools. That's the impetus for allowing these schools to use their resources to address some of these questions. Really, though, it's about money and all the other NCAA institutions worrying that the P5 will leave the NCAA for football if they aren't given this. At the end of the day, it's going to make a scholarship to a Washington State much more valuable than one to Boise State. I suspect that played into why Petersen chose to make the change this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...irectors-meeting-governance-proposal/8065533/
[/FONT]
 
If this happens I don't know how CSU will make it. This could be a death blow to a lot of programs.
 
dply said:
If this happens I don't know how CSU will make it. This could be a death blow to a lot of programs.
Click to expand...

Heard a Dr. David Ridpath on the radio yesterday, who's a professor in sports administration at U of Ohio, and he was talking about this vote.

He's been a proponent of this move for a while apparently, and he's also a CSU grad. He said something to the effect of, "...you know when I think of schools like my alma mater Colorado State, schools like that shouldn't be playing in the same sandbox as the power 5 schools. It just won't work."
 
TDbuff said:
Heard a Dr. David Ridpath on the radio yesterday, who's a professor in sports administration at U of Ohio, and he was talking about this vote.

He's been a proponent of this move for a while apparently, and he's also a CSU grad. He said something to the effect of, "...you know when I think of schools like my alma mater Colorado State, schools like that shouldn't be playing in the same sandbox as the power 5 schools. It just won't work."
Click to expand...

I think that's the elephant in the room. So many of the NCAA policies over the past decades have been to drive parity (scholarship limits, cost containment on benefits such as training table, revenue sharing). It has driven a lot of 1-AA schools to jump up to 1-A since the money was so much better. So now we have the schools like Troy on the same level as Alabama and it simply doesn't make sense. A program like CSU has a lot more in common with programs like Eastern Washington and North Dakota State than it does with a P5 program. I do think the Rams have a good argument that if they were simply invited to join a P5 conference that they would quickly be on par with the bottom 20% of the P5, but what they don't seem to get is that no one in the P5 is looking to expand the bottom 20%.
 
I do not like the prospect of our cash strapped AD trying to keep up with cash flush ADs from other schools.

Some other schools coach "We can fly you parents and siblings out to all of our games."

CU "We can fly your parents out to one game on Spirit Airlines. No carry on bags."
 
J.R. Ewing said:
I do not like the prospect of our cash strapped AD trying to keep up with cash flush ADs from other schools.

Some other schools coach "We can fly you parents and siblings out to all of our games."

CU "We can fly your parents out to one game on Spirit Airlines. No carry on bags."
Click to expand...
We can say hey, we'll fly y'all out and get you high as a kite lol.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
I do not like the prospect of our cash strapped AD trying to keep up with cash flush ADs from other schools.

Some other schools coach "We can fly you parents and siblings out to all of our games."

CU "We can fly your parents out to one game on Spirit Airlines. No carry on bags."
Click to expand...

And that's a big reason why the facilities are being enhanced and the CU Foundation is being revamped. CU has to increase its revenues. The Pac-12 Network deal helps a lot in this regard, too. We'll be just fine in terms of being able to offer what other major programs offer their student athletes.

The biggest drain with this is that CU recruits nationally, so a higher percentage of its players will have parents flying in from out of town as compared to a program like Miami.
 
Buffnik said:
I think that's the elephant in the room. So many of the NCAA policies over the past decades have been to drive parity (scholarship limits, cost containment on benefits such as training table, revenue sharing). It has driven a lot of 1-AA schools to jump up to 1-A since the money was so much better. So now we have the schools like Troy on the same level as Alabama and it simply doesn't make sense. A program like CSU has a lot more in common with programs like Eastern Washington and North Dakota State than it does with a P5 program. I do think the Rams have a good argument that if they were simply invited to join a P5 conference that they would quickly be on par with the bottom 20% of the P5, but what they don't seem to get is that no one in the P5 is looking to expand the bottom 20%.
Click to expand...

In what alternative universe does a school like CSU with over 31,000 students, an endowment of nearly $400 Million, and a real opportunity for AAU designation in the next 5 years have in common with Eastern Washington or NDSU? As institutions these two aren't even in the same hemisphere. Further, if you are trying to compare the athletic departments, look no further than the budgets of EWU and NDSU which combined are roughly $3-4 Million less than CSU's overall budget. There is no comparison. Seriously, the view of some on here of what CSU actually is borders on the absurd.

If you are being honest about it, CSU is basically a what draftniks would call a tweener school. That is, as an institution, tweener schools are peer-institutions with many universities in the P5. In CSU's case and using the PAC as an example, CSU would be considered a peer-institution with Arizona, ASU, Washington State, Oregon State and Utah.

Athletically, obviously the calculation changes, either because of facilities, fan support, budgets, etc. There are a number of these tweener type schools that reside outside of the P5 right now for one reason or another. Most of these schools exist in the AAC and MWC, but they are in no way similar to a directional school like Eastern Washington. All of these schools, including CSU, are making their own calculations on what they need to do over the next decade to take the next step based on the changing landscape. For example, in Houston's and soon to be CSU's case, they are making major facility upgrades via their stadiums. In Boise State's case, it is making efforts to improve its standing as an academic institution - which is severely lacking. No one university fits a P5 profile perfectly and that's the point. Realignment/expansion is not done and there is another "arms race" that will be taking place outside the P5 over the next 5-10 years to fix obvious profile flaws to be included.
 
Last edited:
CsquaredCC said:
In what alternative universe does a school like CSU with over 31,000 students, an endowment of nearly $400 Million, and a real opportunity for AAU designation in the next 5 years have in common with Eastern Washington or NDSU? As institutions these two aren't even in the same hemisphere. Further, if you are trying to compare the athletic departments, look no further than the budgets of EWU and NDSU which combined are roughly $3-4 Million less than CSU's overall budget. There is no comparison. Seriously, the view of some on here of what CSU actually is borders on the absurd.

If you are being honest about it, CSU is basically a what draftniks would call a tweener school. That is, as an institution tweener schools are peer-institutions with many universities in the P5. In CSU's case and using the PAC as an example, CSU would be considered a peer-institution with Arizona, ASU, Washington State, Oregon State and Utah.

Athletically, obviously the calculation changes, either because of facilities, fan support, budgets, etc. There are a number of these tweener type schools that reside outside of the P5 right now for one reason or another. Most of these schools exist in the AAC and MWC, but they are in no way similar to a directional school like Eastern Washington. All of these schools, including CSU, are making their own calculations on what they need to do over the next decade to take the next step based on the changing landscape. In Houston's and soon to be CSU's case, they are making major facility upgrades via their stadiums. In Boise State's case, it is making efforts to improve its standing as an academic institution - which is severely lacking. No one university fits a P5 profile perfectly and that's the point. Realignment/expansion is not done and there is another "arms race" that will be taking place outside the P5 over the next 5-10 years to fix obvious profile flaws to be included.
Click to expand...

I said the programs have more in common. The schools, I agree, are not that comparable. CSU is a lot bigger and has graduate programs. But we can look at a lot of large colleges that aren't fielding anywhere near P5 caliber football programs. University of Delaware, UMass, VCU (club team only), FIU, Texas State, etc.

CSU's football program has budgets and historical performance that are on the low end of D1A. That's why I compared it with some of the top 1AA programs.

The cold, hard truth is that there is a laundry list of colleges that are more desirable to a P5 conference than CSU based upon performance, resources and media market. Maybe Denver and the state will hit another population and economic boom that will change things. But right now, CSU is simply not that attractive to a major conference.
 
Buffnik said:
I said the programs have more in common. The schools, I agree, are not that comparable. CSU is a lot bigger and has graduate programs. But we can look at a lot of large colleges that aren't fielding anywhere near P5 caliber football programs. University of Delaware, UMass, VCU (club team only), FIU, Texas State, etc.

CSU's football program has budgets and historical performance that are on the low end of D1A. That's why I compared it with some of the top 1AA programs.

The cold, hard truth is that there is a laundry list of colleges that are more desirable to a P5 conference than CSU based upon performance, resources and media market. Maybe Denver and the state will hit another population and economic boom that will change things. But right now, CSU is simply not that attractive to a major conference.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't disagree with you that CSU is not as attractive right now to a P5 conference as some of the others on the outside. However, they are one of what I think are really only a handful of schools that actually have an opportunity to improve their overall profile in a way that makes them attractive to a P5 conference. A new stadium and growing the athletic budget to over $50 million would certainly go a long way if Graham is able to get it done.
 
If the AAU admits State in the next 5 years, I'm going to be especially curious about how their standards are interpreted.
CsquaredCC said:
In what alternative universe does a school like CSU with over 31,000 students, an endowment of nearly $400 Million, and a real opportunity for AAU designation in the next 5 years have in common with Eastern Washington or NDSU? As institutions these two aren't even in the same hemisphere. Further, if you are trying to compare the athletic departments, look no further than the budgets of EWU and NDSU which combined are roughly $3-4 Million less than CSU's overall budget. There is no comparison. Seriously, the view of some on here of what CSU actually is borders on the absurd.

If you are being honest about it, CSU is basically a what draftniks would call a tweener school. That is, as an institution, tweener schools are peer-institutions with many universities in the P5. In CSU's case and using the PAC as an example, CSU would be considered a peer-institution with Arizona, ASU, Washington State, Oregon State and Utah.

Athletically, obviously the calculation changes, either because of facilities, fan support, budgets, etc. There are a number of these tweener type schools that reside outside of the P5 right now for one reason or another. Most of these schools exist in the AAC and MWC, but they are in no way similar to a directional school like Eastern Washington. All of these schools, including CSU, are making their own calculations on what they need to do over the next decade to take the next step based on the changing landscape. For example, in Houston's and soon to be CSU's case, they are making major facility upgrades via their stadiums. In Boise State's case, it is making efforts to improve its standing as an academic institution - which is severely lacking. No one university fits a P5 profile perfectly and that's the point. Realignment/expansion is not done and there is another "arms race" that will be taking place outside the P5 over the next 5-10 years to fix obvious profile flaws to be included.
Click to expand...
 
I think this sucks. It gets us further away from college sports being amateur. The players deserve more for sure, but I would prefer to see this solved another way. Frankly I would like to see hoops and football adjusted to the same model as college baseball and hockey. There should be viable professional avenues for these kids to chose versus college when coming out of high school (for football and basketball). I understand this would fundamentally change both collegiate sports, but I think it solves a lot of issues (including paying players and actually enrolling kids interested in academics). The NCAA as an amateur institution as it relates to football and basketball is a joke. These kids are exploited to a ridiculous level. /soapbox

Back to reality since the above will never happen due to $. I don't want to see the non P5 schools shut out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
This has the feel of being one of the lucky schmucks who made it onto a life raft when the Titanic sunk. You're happy to be alive, but kind of guilt ridden, too.
 
CsquaredCC said:
In what alternative universe does a school like CSU with over 31,000 students, an endowment of nearly $400 Million, and a real opportunity for AAU designation in the next 5 years have in common with Eastern Washington or NDSU? As institutions these two aren't even in the same hemisphere. Further, if you are trying to compare the athletic departments, look no further than the budgets of EWU and NDSU which combined are roughly $3-4 Million less than CSU's overall budget. There is no comparison. Seriously, the view of some on here of what CSU actually is borders on the absurd.

If you are being honest about it, CSU is basically a what draftniks would call a tweener school. That is, as an institution, tweener schools are peer-institutions with many universities in the P5. In CSU's case and using the PAC as an example, CSU would be considered a peer-institution with Arizona, ASU, Washington State, Oregon State and Utah.

Athletically, obviously the calculation changes, either because of facilities, fan support, budgets, etc. There are a number of these tweener type schools that reside outside of the P5 right now for one reason or another. Most of these schools exist in the AAC and MWC, but they are in no way similar to a directional school like Eastern Washington. All of these schools, including CSU, are making their own calculations on what they need to do over the next decade to take the next step based on the changing landscape. For example, in Houston's and soon to be CSU's case, they are making major facility upgrades via their stadiums. In Boise State's case, it is making efforts to improve its standing as an academic institution - which is severely lacking. No one university fits a P5 profile perfectly and that's the point. Realignment/expansion is not done and there is another "arms race" that will be taking place outside the P5 over the next 5-10 years to fix obvious profile flaws to be included.
Click to expand...

I think we found the CSU spy.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
So how will this ever pass the NCAA?

Wouldn't these types of votes require a 2/3 majority to pass the NCAA?
Click to expand...

I imagine the bargaining will go like this: Hey little guys, that's a nice little basketball tournament you've got there, and that's a nice little share of some bowl game revenues, gosh it would be a shame if anything were to happen to them.
 
skibum said:
I imagine the bargaining will go like this: Hey little guys, that's a nice little basketball tournament you've got there, and that's a nice little share of some bowl game revenues, gosh it would be a shame if anything were to happen to them.
Click to expand...


It still takes 2/3 vote to make such a major change to the rules - that applies to NCAA basketball, as well.
 
The NCAA may not have much of a choice. It'll probably be something like "This is the way we're going to do things. If you don't like it, tough." The NCAA exists because of the schools. No schools = no NCAA. The P5 can just set up it's own regulatory agency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top