advertisement

Power college football conferences feeling hampered by smaller leagues

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 | 9:48 p.m. CDT; updated 11:49 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive talks with reporters during the 2013 SEC football Media Days July 16 in Hoover, Ala.

NEW YORK — The five power conferences are trying to redefine what it takes to operate a Division I college athletic program, with their commissioners calling out the NCAA at media days around the country.

Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby and fellow commissioners Mike Slive of the Southeastern Conference and John Swofford of the Atlantic Coast Conference have taken turns critiquing the NCAA over the last week, and it's likely Jim Delany of the Big Ten and Larry Scott of the Pac-12 will follow suit in the coming days.

The schools in the most powerful and wealthy leagues want more freedom to be able to run their programs the way they want, without the less powerful schools standing in the way.

Does this mean the end of the NCAA as we know it is near? Or will there be a new division of college football — Division 4 as Bowlsby calls it? Not necessarily.

Former Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe says he thinks Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference can get the power to govern themselves without cutting off all ties to schools from the less powerful and wealthy FBS conferences.

And NCAA expert John Infante, who writes the ByLaw Blog at athleticscholarship.com, says the best solution for the schools in those conferences is not leaving Division I, but reshaping it in a way where some smaller schools choose to leave.

The lightning rod issue at the heart of this debate has been the proposed stipend to college athletes that would add about $2,000 to an athletic scholarship to cover the full cost of attendance. All the commissioners from the major conferences have pushed for it, but it could not be passed because smaller schools said they couldn't afford it.

So, a possible solution for the powerful, wealthy schools is to set up a level of football at which all the participating schools gave players stipends — and let the smaller schools play each other.

The programs that would be most affected by the big five isolating itself from the rest of college sports would be from the lesser leagues in college football's top tier: the Mountain West, the American Athletic Conference (formerly the Big East), Conference USA, the Sun Belt and the Mid-American Conference — aka the group of five.

Those schools still want to compete against the big five on the field, cash in on the monster pay days that usually come with playing those games and capitalize on the attention that comes when they occasionally win one.

The FBS conferences will share, though not equally, the $5.6 billion ESPN is set to pay over 12 years for broadcast rights to College Football Playoff. The big five conferences will take 75 percent of that money, but the 25 percent left over for the other five to split still represents a big raise from what they were making under the BCS.

Presumably, the power conferences would make even more breaking away. But it might not be that easy.

"What happens when these 70 schools break away and form Division 4? Might happen. I don't think it's going to happen," Mountain West Conference Commissioner Craig Thompson told reporters at his league's football media day in Las Vegas.

MAC Commissioner John Steinbrecher said at media day in Detroit: "The question is, can we come to agreement on a set of rules that allows us to co-exist amicably? I tend to believe we can."

Beebe thinks so, too. He said the big five will ultimately be allowed to allocate their enormous resources toward providing more money for student-athletes and they will be able to increase academic standards the way they see fit.

"It's going to be done but the competition is going to go on on the court and field," said Beebe, who now heads a sports consulting firm called the Dan Beebe Group.

Infante said if the big five gets its way, it could lead to a culling of Division I, which currently includes 349 schools, with some of the 125 FBS schools dropping down to FCS, major college football's second tier.

Infante added the big five creating a new division of college athletics might not be so well-received by the lower-revenue members of their own leagues, schools such as Iowa State and Mississippi State that would become the new have-nots of major college football.

Also, the potential backlash from FBS schools in the group of five who were no longer considered major college football schools could be also blunt movement toward the big five separating from the rest of Division I.

"You're going to have governors and attorneys general in states that are going to be ticked off," he said. "Not sure (the big five conferences) are going to want to invite more antitrust lawsuits."


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ellis Smith July 24, 2013 | 9:08 a.m.

It's always humorous when well-paid prostitutes discuss the virtues of chastity.

How many times in the above article does the word "education" appear? Sorry, I forgot: education has no connection with what's being discussed. It never does.

The academic divisions of these "top" footall schools provide "cover" for their football programs, demonstrating that even prostitution can be made to appear both respectable and wholesome. :)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 24, 2013 | 10:38 a.m.

Ellis:

Agree.

Personally, I favor the so-called "lesser" sports, especially track and field. Did you know that MU T&F student/athletes are REALLY student/athletes, usually ranking near the top scholastically year after year? I know that only a few short years ago, MU had something like 30+ percent of ALL D-1 track/field NCAA academic all-americans. Truman state routinely ranks similarly among D-II schools.

Of course, the real track/field powerhouses usually had only none/1/2 academic all-americans in the group; I've seen enough to believe that the more powerful the program, the more students tend towards athlete/students rather than student/athletes. I'm sure the data is out there for some enterprising reporter just waiting to be discovered. Heck, he/she could prolly even do a regression line on it.

Unfortunately, any reporting on the issue would be DOA. No one cares...we want WINNERS, not losers in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. I believe my lyin' eyes, not my lied-to ears; powerhouse "education" is more directed at "how can we win, make our fans happy, and make more money" rather than "how can we help students learn in the classroom"?

There's a lot of people who can name MU's starting B-ball and football lineups. How many can name even ONE med student, engineering student, business student, or JUST ONE TOP-NOTCH PROFESSOR at the University?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 24, 2013 | 2:15 p.m.

Michael:

My preference has always been for sports reqiring considerable body contact: football, ice hockey, and sex, but I never had any talent for football and ice hockey. :)

PS: All NCAA Division III players, male or female, and regardless of which sport, are student athletes. There are no athletic scholarships. Division III schools include University of Chicago, M.I.T. and California Institute of Technology, as well as the nation's oldest technology university, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 24, 2013 | 6:04 p.m.

Ellis: Speaking of contact sports, football is currently under fire for frequent injuries due to chronic impacts. There are many "solutions" being explored.

I've never heard discussion on the growing physique of the players and its impact on the sport. I've started to wonder what would happen to injuries if the sport simply placed weight limits on the various positions in addition to the other prohibitions proposed such as head-to-head contact. What if linebackers were limited to only 240 lb and running backs to 200?

I dunno....but I've wondered about it......

Might change the anabolic steroid issue, too.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements