Arkstfan

There are some problems that the NCAA is not well equipped to fix. Bogus classes and degree programs is a perfect example. The accreditation associations are better positioned to deal with those issues. Auburn was placed on probation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools because one group of trustees had so much political and financial clout they effectively wrested control of the board from the majority, they had meetings that did not comply with state public information laws, and had conflicts of interest not addressed because they did substantial business with the school. One trustee had effectively taken control of the athletic department usurping the president and his oversight. The accreditation bodies are much better equipped to identify and punish schools for bogus academic programs and lack of academic integrity in how athletes are dealt with (ie. grade changes, no show classes, improper academic assistance). They are also better equipped to deal with cases where a school may divert so many resources to athletics that it compromises the academic mission. They can also handle issues of whether proper oversight is being maintained. They hold the nuclear bomb. Clean up your act or lose accreditation and if they drop the bomb, you lose access to Federal aid and membership in the NCAA.

Frankly I fully understand the university position. AState charges less than three other schools in the state and likes the fact that only UArk among the state's Division I schools collects less. It provides nice political cover. There is a real conversation to be had about how much reliance there is on students to fund an activity they mostly don't care about and is primarily driven for reasons unrelated to their primary concerns. But I notice that among CUSA's publics only USM uses a smaller university subsidy than UNT.

And more importantly... the bulk of the transition as been football only memberships. As far back as I've been able to go, the average football only membership last just under four years and only two have ever gone 8 or more years. Football only is inherently unstable because one or both parties prefer it that way. Equity membership is more stable people don't just grab change for change's sake.

We are reaching the tail end of an enrollment boom. Raising fees may not be a great decision as competition for students is going to become more fierce though the smaller privates and small publics face the greater risk. Also a good time to be cautious about incurring debt with the changes in enrollment coming. I suspect most publics over 7500 students will be OK but less selective but debt service may be coming issue.

Don't need to be top 15. Just above the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, and AAC champs.

Why would you want to go to the HOD Bowl?????? If you beat Texas run the table in CUSA you need to set your vision a bit higher and go to the Access Bowl and face a name team. Post-season wins carry far greater value than September wins because there is less noise around them.

There are 65 P5 schools. NBA, NHL, MLB have 30 teams, NFL has 32. Many of the P5 schools are simply along for the ride thanks to good luck and good decisions made 50-80 years ago. Would the net payments to the P5 drop if the number of schools fell to 48? Probably not. The P5 may grow thanks to some bargain hunting but long-term if there is not a change to the economic model there is more to gain reducing the number of power schools than increasing it.

Unfortunately the media sets the narrative and the narrative is the schools are screwing the players over because the players make the system great. Now we know that's bunk. If you have a Mean Green player you like enough to buy their jersey and he transfers to SMU, you aren't going to buy his SMU jersey. The colors, logo and team name on those jersey sales have higher value than the number and name. The narrative doesn't recognize that but good luck changing it.

No because of the context. I don't consider AState's TAMU win to a be signature win because we staggered down the stretch and dropped two games with two score leads at the start of the fourth to finish 6-6. You have to win AND have a season to match to provide some context other than "they were overlooking them" or "it was just a fluke".

Which shouldn't be that big of an issue.

Which is why Wake Forest voted to over-ride. There are a maximum of 98 stipend eligible men's players and only 39 for women (if you have basketball, volleyball and gymnastics).

Intercollegiate athletics has historically functioned without the top level schools offering the same stuff. Until 1973 with the creation of Division I there was no limit on the number of scholarships at the NCAA level. Conferences often imposed limits on their members but there was variance between each league. The so-called University Division wasn't about how many scholies you awarded but rather who you scheduled and how many sports you offered, except College Division II which was no scholarship. You could have a school in College Division I that offered more scholarships than a so-called major college in University Division. The I, II, III model was in large part a reaction to Title IX as well as growing tension over the everyone votes governance system. Not until 1992 did every I-A (FBS) conference have the same scholarship cap in football. Even now, grandfathered in Ivy League awards no aid based on athletic ability. The Patriot for years capped the amount of scholarship in athletics based on a formula of financial need. A kid from a poor family might have received a full ride, a kid from an upper middle class family might have received the cost of books. The everyone is identical model is very new in athletics. Most likely the UNT squad that beat Tennessee took the field with fewer scholarship players. If you know your college football history, there were a number of schools who entered and then left the Missouri Valley (UNT among them) and one of the reasons for leaving was the Valley had a lower scholarship limit. Many forget that NIU left the MAC for a number of years and one of the reasons for that was the MAC scholarship limit, NIU wanted to offer the full NCAA limit. So differences within the division are actually normal.

The great unknown story. Old heads may remember that about 12-14 years ago the Management Council (step one for legislation before the Board of Directors finally voted) gave first passage to an attendance requirement that would require 17,000 actual attendance with audited numbers every year. I spotted this on the NCAA website and called the associate AD at AState who said I had to be wrong we would have heard about it. They dig further and what had happened was, the Sun Belt at the point hadn't been added as a I-A member of the Management Council and the AD representing us left when they moved on to football business so he didn't know about it. The matter would go back to the Management Council for final approval to send to the Board. Because we were not a I-A conference yet, we couldn't vote but we could submit a number of questions. The associate AD calls me and tells me what is happening procedurally. So I draft a list of about 20 questions, asking what data or studies had been relied on to get the number, asking about procedural issues, etc., all designed to create one impression, these a-holes are getting ready to sue. The list was cut down to around ten and I was told most of the ten were my questions. The list of questions was presented. They were reviewed, there was a motion to table and it was never heard from again. A couple years later under intense lobbying from the Southland and Big Sky, another proposal came about (part of the same package that eventually led to FCS and FBS rather than I-AA and I-A). The Management Council fired it straight through but when it got to the Board of Directors (all presidents, Management was AD's and commissioners), there was behind the scenes lobbying underway by Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, MWC, WAC, and the Board broke their own rules which said anything from Management had to be an up/down vote, no amending. They amended the rules to make it far easier to remain I-A. There was a procedural objection so the Board made the changes and sent to Management directing them to approve the changes and send it to them for approval and that's exactly what happened. The presidents are the safety valve in the system. They are very likely to create rules that are hard to meet but also to include provisions that grandfather in members, and rules that are hard to meet for entry but not for staying (see the new rule requiring an invite from an existing league). Remember when the rules for Division I requiring minimum support levels were adopted, the first thing they did was carve out a grandfather clause to save the Ivy League from being relegated to Division III. When limits on aid were adopted they carved out exceptions for the academies.

If not for the screwed up revenue distribution plan that the G5 crafted to deal with the CFP money, ideally there would be a G4 rather than G5 because greater concentration of members would provide greater TV revenue. Unfortunately the CFP distribution is so large that the cap discourages G5 leagues from growing past 12. Consider AAC just on TV and CFP money. AAC is guaranteed at least $39.4 million or so and it should be larger. To go to 14 and keep everyone whole, two new members to AAC would have produce about $6.6 million in new TV money to be worth adding. But for the artifical cap, two new members would need produce only $4.4 million. A 16 team or 18 team AAC taking the right schools would have significantly more leverage with television and might well be able to produce that extra money. Remember when MWC signed with CSTV (now CBSS)? The WAC suddenly got a jolt in TV rights fees. Why? Because it was ESPN's only avenue to offer non-Pac-10 content to the West. It was the only way to get schools who could start games later in the evening. A 9pm central start in football isn't very practical for UNT, it is desirable for Fresno because that's 7pm local. Look across a map of AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt. There is redundancy all in the system. Across the Gulf Coast outside of Texas you have AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt. North Louisiana, CUSA and Sun Belt. Mid-south region Sun Belt, CUSA and AAC. Florida AAC and CUSA. North Carolina CUSA and Sun Belt. Just look at the old Fox SW footprint: AAC (Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane), CUSA (UNT, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, LaTech), Sun Belt (AState, Texas State, ULL, ULM, NMSU), no one can bottle up Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Southern New Mexico) by signing one conference and if you lose one (in ESPN's case CUSA) you have alternatives that are roughly as appealing. If not for the CFP distribution plan you would likely see the southeast and southwest reformulating into two conferences rather than three simply to gain leverage but the question now is does that leverage outweigh the loss of CFP money?

No I-AAA and FCS created the problem autonomy is designed to fix. G5 supports autonomy as currently presented (ie. we can do anything they do without permission from anyone but our conference, and we combined with P5 will be able to run the division).

Why would you not support spending $600,000 for a stipend? CUSA's 14 members will receive a minimum of $13 million from the CFP which grossly over-states CUSA's value to the CFP (honestly they don't need any of the G5 to get the money that is coming in) that will easily cover the costs of the stipend with money left over. If the Mo Valley doesn't follow and adopt stipend (or isn't allowed to under the new autonomy plan, some questions remain whether it would require a division wide vote for I-AA and FCS) your coach visits the kid who could be a star at Wichita State and says we will give you a full ride same as Wichita but we will also put $2k in your pocket.

Some great comments and questions, and when things are slow enough to give time to visit, I enjoy y'alls company. A bit back there was a media led panic that the P5 were going to split and autonomy was the vehicle. But no one took the time to ask why it was being done. This all came about because of the O'Bannon lawsuit and similar cases. The NCAA was the defendant but the discovery was aimed at the P5 leagues, in other words potential future defendants. The media was hounding the NCAA and those schools about their exploitation of athletes, most notably the NY Times. NCAA president Brand put together an emergency summit and the result was stipend, optional four year rides, recruiting de-regulation, etc. It passes easily. Then the FCS and non-football schools (I-AAA) started complaining that they couldn't afford it and it created an unfair advantage. Because it was ramrodded there was no time given to let people really figure it out. UNT was looking at 125 athletes eligible for stipend. UTA 30. And the unfair advantage argument, pure silliness. Texas wasn't going to out-recruit Sam Houston because of stipend, they were going to out-recruit them because they are frickin' Texas. So the vote gets over-ridden. From a P5 perspective the whole episode is baffling. No one was being mandated to follow their lead, the legislation specifically said each conference would determine if they would follow. Yeah some schools would be a recruiting disadvantage but mostly to schools that were going to out-recruit them without a stipend. The P5 and to a lesser degree the G5 schools were the ones getting the bad PR. Lot of stories about Kentucky making a bazillion dollars in basketball and denying the athletes some of the gravy, not many stories about Wichita State or Florida Gulf Coast raising their profile by "exploiting" athletes. The P5 and again to a lesser degree the G5 are the ones facing being sued (and such a suit naming all 10 FBS conferences as defendants was filed in the past two weeks). The FCS and I-AAA schools in their quest to make Division I something they can fully afford, voted down legislation designed to protect the top schools. The solution is autonomy. Never again can SFA band together with the 200+ schools in roughly the same boat and tell UT and TAMU, we don't care about your problems because we don't like your solution. If all the proposals pass as proposed, the P5 will have a vote that counts more than anyone else, the G5 will a vote each that counts more than anyone but the P5. As proposed, the ten FBS conferences were they to be in complete agreement, will be able to pass division-wide legislation simply by all saying "yes" even if every other Division I conference says "no". Basically the payback for not allowing FBS schools, specifically the P5, do what they think is essential, is potentially stripping the FCS and I-AAA a voice in the governance of Division I. The reality is the 5 power leagues rarely are in complete agreement and the G5 rarely vote as a bloc, but when stipend came up all the FBS leagues supported it and lost the battle. They are merely reprogramming the system so that if all of FBS agrees, they will win.

Georgia Southern has at least demonstrated the ability to win games and sell tickets. They are a good addition. Charlotte and Georgia State... not so much.

We've not seen this hypothetical stipend. What we can figure out using knowledge of the system and some applied logic is this: 1. The stipend will not exceed actualy cost of attendance as determined by Federal Student Aid guidelines, that triggers tax and employment issues. 2. The stipend will likely be less than "calculated full cost of attendance" and be a flat national amount simply because Clemson won't want Georgia Tech paying more than they do because cost of living in Atlanta is higher, Iowa won't want Maryland, Northwestern, and Rutgers paying more cash. Washington State won't want USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford paying more. Iowa State won't want Texas and TCU paying more. Even though differing amounts would in theory have the same buying power, no one trusts 17 year olds to understand that and go with the school offering the greater cash. 3. The last stipend was head count sports only, that may change because there are far more head count spots in men's sports than women's (men FBS football and men's basketball, women its women's hoops, volleyball, gymnastics). If stipend comes to equivalency sports there will be a fierce battle over whether it is stipend per full ride or per athlete. 4. If it is head count only that will drastically contain costs, Sam Houston for example wouldn't be able to offer a football stipend because FCS football is equivalency. 5. I think the insurance issue may not be that significant. Most student athletes should now be insured under ACA, at most you are looking at some form of supplemental plan, but I suspect unless controlling state law is not favorable, most schools self-insure so you are probably looking at something that picks up co-pays and deductibles. 6. The unanswered question for ACA is this. If a school is providing treatment (physical therapy, medications, etc.) at the direction of a physician, is the institution a provider that can bill Medicaid or private insurance. 7. Forget 5 and 6, neither applies that much to UNT because Texas isn't participating in Medicaid expansion.

Here is the recent poll, can't find the earlier one online. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/05/clintons-still-strong-in-arkansas.html

The mistake the G5 was in how the $60 million is allocated. They intentionally or uninentionally created an artificial constraint on conference size. Assuming the Sun Belt eventually adds a 12th football member, there is a pot $60 million tied to 62 schools and CUSA at 14 gets the smaller per team share. The G5 leagues lack the leverage to extract significant revenues from the networks. MWC by measuring markets is a terrible pick for the networks but they offer all but one potential Pacific time zone late start (Idaho) and the Sun Belt will curfew them from offering a 7pm Pacific start. MWC offers all but two Mountain start times (UTEP/NMSU) and it is unlikely SBC or CUSA will be friendly toward an 8pm Mountain start. MWC offers something novel and some good brands, Boise produces very good TV ratings. MAC offers the only rust belt access and there are TV viewers there. NIU with their success is in the club with Boise, Houston, UCF, USF, and to a lesser degree Cincy producing good TV viewership, but Toledo and BGSU produce audiences of 3/4ths a million. Across the Sun Belt, CUSA, AAC footprint, if a network doesn't offer one of the leagues they have a reasonable substitute. Can't get Houston, OK use Rice, can't get SMU OK use UNT. Can't get USM and UAB, use USA and Troy. Can't get UCF/USF, use FIU/FAU, can't get ECU? Use Charlotte or App. The flaw of AAC, CUSA, SBC footprints is lack of critical mass to create a situation where there is no substitute for a product offered. An 18 team CUSA where football members play 8 games within division and don't care much if they play the other division has greater television leverage but the CFP money cap creates a barrier to entry for a league to go beyond 12. If championship deregulation passes you can even go to 20 assigning everyone 3 permanent rivals and let the AD's work out their own league schedules based on their needs and just pit the top 2 rated teams for the title. The G5 would better served being the G4 to improve leverage with television but without solid TV numbers showing it offsets the CFP growth penalty who takes that risk, and after the fiasco of AAC projecting TV money who does it based on a market analysis?

AAC used flawed reasoning in expansion, even though Houston produces good TV numbers, their market first approach failed to account for the fact that in the carriage economy they needed teams that have devoted fan bases. They would have been better off at the get-go taking ECU over SMU. Houston is the only school they added (and kept) west of Cincinnati that has a large for G5 fan base that also produces good TV audiences. Northern Illinois would have been more valuable than say Tulane who produces worse TV audience numbers than SMU. Two of the least watched games last year that were covered by the national rankings were Memphis-Temple and FIU-FAU. Ok, no one adds Memphis and Temple expecting a big football audience, you add them for hoops and hoops does matter (See Big East drawing double the TV money of AAC) but FIU-FAU don't offer that offset. The Florida twins simply face two significant issues. One, they are young programs without a strongly established base yet, they are a nice future bet but won't deliver today. The other is the Miami market is a tough nut to crack. Miami couldn't regularly sell out as top 5 football program, they are one of two markets to fail in Major League Soccer and baseball, basketball, hockey have never lived up to the projections of support except when they are among the top 3 or 4 teams in their league and support falls right back soon as they leave the elite, they have been unable to develop a large hardcore fan base. AAC probably would have been better off staying within the eastern time zone raiding the other leagues.

Yet you have a scientific poll just released, and one done a couple years ago that produced similar (but larger) numbers for AState in Arkansas. So if anything trying to account for self-selection of a motivated fan base he actually understated.

The better question is what could MWC offer that CUSA doesn't? Most MWC bowls aren't readily accessible to UNT fans, no current MWC team is easily reachable for fans wanting to follow the team. We already know that if you want NCAA basketball respect, you have to pile up decent non-conference wins as MTSU did the season before last in the Sun Belt, that a uniform patch won't give you a free pass (C-USA hoops this year). We've not seen the CFP selection for the access bowl in action but we know from the BCS period that the system is likely to favor teams that win more games than the teams they are up against and SOS won't save an 11-2 AAC from being passed by 13-0 MAC. MWC offers about a million more in TV money but honestly that's nothing when you haul teams all over the known universe to compete in MWC. In general, the G5 schools aren't going to fill anyone's stadium on the star power of their name, it comes down to regional relevance and whether the home team is a product people want to see. MWC's brand just doesn't mean that much unless you are NMSU or Idaho stuck in MWC country and not in MWC.

Interesting you mention being a blip. Poll released yesterday says Hog fans outnumber AState fans 4 to 1 with AState having about 385,000 self-identifying fans in a poll of registered voters in the state. Nate Silver did a national per team estimate in the early parts of 2011 season relying on multiple data sources but this was before the Freeze effect. He projected 312,058 fans for AState. Interesting growth considering that we have one TV station that literally covers nothing but the Hogs in the sportscast. No NFL, NBA, MLB at all. The entire segment is Hogs but the other Little Rock stations are actually covering us more and merchandise is easier to find than ever.