Bear Down Wildcats

surprised no one has mentioned this. today the ncaa voted to allow the pac 12, sec, acc, big 10 and big 12 a much larger say in their own governance. they (starting as soon as october, probably later though) will now not necessarily need the approval of any of the other 20+ division I conferences to make decisions on how to govern themselves when it comes to player benefits, pay, health care, game rulebooks, recruiting rules, all of that. argument for it is that with all their piles of cash, the power 5 want to be able to do with it what they want and not be constrained by the votes of meaningless teams in the sun belt or southern or MAAC or southland conferences.

not sure that this will really affect the game that we actually watch on the field anytime soon, but it could lead to changes in everything off the field for athletes and the sport very soon.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... onferences

The NCAA’s proposal outlines 10 areas in which the Power 5 can use their resources to “enhance the well-being of student-athletes.” They are: financial aid, health and wellness, meals and nutrition, expenses and benefits, career pursuits, insurance and career transitions, time demands, academic support, recruiting and personnel.

sounds good to me but we will see what the side effects are

Other possibilities previously mentioned by commissioners and ADs include loosening the rules regarding contact between athletes and prospective agents (career transition), allowing schools to pay for athletes’ families to attend postseason games (expenses and benefits), limiting football support staff sizes (personnel), instituting dead periods in which coaches can’t mandate “voluntary” workouts (time demands) and lifting silly rules that prevent a wrestler who’s an aspiring musician from making money off his songs (career pursuits).

Any thoughts on whether it will affect the requirement for transferring players to sit out a year?

The NCAA and amateur sports just parted ways....

Oliver Luck and Ivan Maisel discuss the split and general issues on this podcast.

BBQ wildcat wrote:Any thoughts on whether it will affect the requirement for transferring players to sit out a year?

Transfer eligibility rules, enforcement and scholarships limits not directly impacted by autonomy vote. That still governed by "NCAA" (new council) and not just the Power 5 conferences.

Will still take time to get through override period, form the board and take legislation suggestions to vote on. Votes now only in April instead of twice a year. Believe 1st vote to approve changes April 2016. Timely as the increase in conference $$$ from new Playoff system will begin rolling in.

Most writers I've seen expect that to focus on Full cost of Attendance (stipend $2k to $5k), insurance benefits increases, Covering costs for parents Bowls etc. Also many expect the Conference Championship games to be deregulated quickly that forces min 12 teams, two divisions. Deregulation wants to get rid of that requirement and allow two best teams in conference to qualify for Cham game regardless of division

pc in NM wrote:The NCAA and amateur sports just parted ways....

Exactly.

Enjoy it while it lasts. This is going to go the way of the NBA and the NFL and kill the game as we know it.

not sure why the board chops off the right side of that picture...

The autonomy actions are not set in stone just yet. All 351 Division I schools have the opportunity to submit a veto on the proposal over the next 60 days. If 125 schools veto the proposal, legislation would be dead. If 75 schools veto, then the proposal will go back under review.

pc in NM wrote:The NCAA and amateur sports just parted ways....

You sure that didn't happen when the NCAA sold tourney TV rights for over a billion?

Here's the NCAA's "Corporate Champions" page:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 6100,d.cGU

A federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA's limits on what major college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

Dkenner wrote:A federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA's limits on what major college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

I'm excited. This is long overdue.

So Title IX is tossed out then? No AD in the US can offer to support women's programs and non-revenue men's programs if FB and BB players receive fair market value.

I can't tell if that is a serious question.

Interesting article on how if athletes get paid eventually by their schools how taxation would work (hint..it's bad news for the Pac 12)

http://www.taxaball.com/blog/the-taxati ... e-athletes

What will Jay Bilas talk about now?