Jump to content

UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

Major changes coming to DI football?

Recommended Posts


Slive visited the University of Massachusetts last week as the executive-in-residence for the Mark H. McCormack Department of Sport Management. In a keynote address, Slive laid out seven goals for the new subdivision of Division I that will house the following conferences: SEC, Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12.


• providing the full cost of attendance to grant-in-aid recipients


• fulfilling the health, safety and nutrition needs of student-athletes


• allowing student-athletes who have exhausted their eligibility to complete their undergraduate degree without cost


• ending the cold war against agents and advisers so that players testing the professional waters can receive better information


• harnessing the demands of sports so that student-athletes get more balance in their lives -- i.e., another crack at the "20-hour rule"


• more and better assistance for academically at-risk student-athletes


• giving student-athletes a role and a vote in NCAA governance that affects them

Edited by danefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was the head of SEC at UMass? It's not like UMass is part of the Big 5.


One poster on AGS thought it was possible the CAA could be one of the FCS conferences allowed to upgrade as a group to the 5 left behinds.

Edited by SoCal_Dane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

executive-in-residence for the Mark H. McCormack Department of Sport Management., , , I think he was there for this reason, this department and exec-in-residence speech, and not really to indicate that UMass is going to be one of the big bullies . . .er, the Big 5 BCS types . . . affected by all this. Lots of questions about what all this will mean for all those D-1 conferences not included . . . and, I guess, for us, too, in some ways. (I don't know what those "ways" would be, I'm just assuming...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a nuclear option for college football, as much as some FCS posters hope it is. It's merely the proposed structure of governance. When you skim the draft document the FBS and FCS conferences are mentioned, as well as the proposed change in voting structure where the 'Big 5', non-BCS AQ leagues, and the rest of D-1 remain...the same separate weight of voting that existed last season: http://www.cbssports...oard-agenda.pdf


Dennis Dodd's piece explains the proposals much more clearly, with nothing there about a dreamed-up FBS split:




"Permissive" is a key code word here. NCAA officials have chosen it instead of "optional." If Idaho can't afford the full cost of attendance, then that's fine. A lot of this legislation will be optional. The thinking being, that if Idaho (just an example) can't afford a $6,000 cost of attendance bump like Ohio State, that's OK. That doesn't affect how they compete on the field.


This is exactly how the leaders of the former non-AQ leagues, members of the BCS who know more about FBS changes than a hack like Doug Fullerton, saw things unraveling last fall: http://www.nytimes.c...plit.html?_r=2


How about we look at past proposals to change governance, such as who voted for and against the 2011 proposals for the $2000 stipend and enacting multiyear grant-in-aid for student athletes. Only 2 MAC schools voted against the stipend. Rutgers and Wake Forest were the only AQ schools. Buffalo and Stony Brook voted for both changes, while BU and UAlbany were among the 109 who tipped the scales to override the stipend, and against the second proposal:



Edited by UBBulls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight...you're saying that thenBig 5 would be able to pay their players more, give them access to agents, give athletes a vote, and let them finish their college in 6 years and play for 5? And basically whatever else they want, but still maintaining their NCAA moniker?


How does that not effectively separate themselves even if it's not official? They're still going to be playing the old FBS teams, sure but the gap is going to be huge. Just wait until they say we're going back to a 100 scholarship limit.


Maybe I'm reading this wrong?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The NCAA vote was held today and the Big 5 conferences seem to have what they wanted - http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24626578/power-5-conferences-get-lower-voting-threshold-in-ncaa-proposal


June Jones, SMU's head coach, thinks the non-Big 5 conferences (American, CUSA, MAC, Mountain West and Sun Belt) should start playing football in the spring so they don't compete with the Big-5.

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.

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...