+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Missouri AD on D-4 (/thread-643948.html)
Missouri AD on D-4 - domer1978 - 08-13-2013 10:13 AM
Quote:It's no different than asking, "Should we take a look at an additional division within Division I?" I happen to think that you should. I think that there are 60-70 schools that are different than everybody else in Division I. Different than anybody else and I think the time has probably come where we need to recognize that, that what goes on Michigan State is different than what they have to deal with at Eastern Michigan. It just is. What happens at Illinois is different than what they deal with at Illinois State. So let's recognize it, let's admit it, and let's just say, "OK, let's find the commonalities of those 60-70 schools and let them deal with some of the issues they need to deal with" while at the same time there are other common denominators that all of us have to deal with — whether it's amateurism or whether it has to do with minimum hours toward graduation or standardized test scores, whatever that may be. All of us should have to deal with that. But I do think the time has come for us to look and to admit that there are 60 schools to 70 schools that are different than everybody else.
15 years ago I was the athletic director at Texas State, an FCS, I-AA football program. Their aspirations always were to be Division I — Division I-A. Now, I was there. I'm living this. Texas is right down the road. I'm living in a stadium of 95,000 people at that time. Now it's over 100,000. I'm thinking, "It is so much different at Texas than it is at Texas State. Why should we even imagine that we should be Division I-A?" The answer generally that you'll see is that we want to associate with I-A so we can look like them. We can get the afterglow effect, the ability to be able to be touched by it. So when you saw that happen and when you saw Louisiana-Monroe saying, "This is what we need to do," when you saw Arkansas State saying, "This is what we need to do" and you saw UT-San Antonio. And again, that's not to offend them. That's just the reality of that.
There couldn't be anything more different than night and day between Texas State and the University of Texas. There's nothing.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/sports/mu/q-a-with-mu-athletic-director-mike-alden/article_9c32752e-023d-11e3-8171-10604b9f6eda.html
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - Hokie4Skins - 08-13-2013 10:17 AM
The cutoff point will be fascinating to watch.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - Native Georgian - 08-13-2013 10:18 AM
Interesting comments.
What Mike Alden (or others who agree with him) need to do next is to identify the neutral criteria by which membership in the new classification will be determined.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - georgia_tech_swagger - 08-13-2013 10:19 AM
I think they are foolish if:
1) They keep the NCAA
2) They only carry over 60-70 schools
If they want to do it properly they will leave the NCAA entirely, bring all of FBS with them, and bring along the best of FCS (SoCon, CAA, Big Sky). If you're worried about too many votes to "lesser" members give non-AQ schools a half vote.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - arkstfan - 08-13-2013 10:20 AM
Bizarre considering he signed a home/home football contract with Arkansas State.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - 10thMountain - 08-13-2013 10:21 AM
easy: invitation only
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - bigblueblindness - 08-13-2013 10:23 AM
Very interesting read. Another nugget:
Q: In your opinion, should that full cost of attendance be reserved for athletes in the revenue-producing sports or across the board?
A: No, all student-athletes. I think you cannot differentiate between that. I think it's only fair that if you have the ability within those X amount of schools to do that, then you ought to be doing it for soccer just like you're doing it for football just like you should do it with softball just like you should do it with men's basketball. All your kids should benefit from that.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - OldGoldnBlue - 08-13-2013 10:24 AM
I fully expect a "Mike Aldan is an ass" thread to be started by angry Eastern Michigan fans. Don't let me down.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - arkstfan - 08-13-2013 10:26 AM
(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote: easy: invitation only
That doesn't work well in anti-trust litigation.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - 10thMountain - 08-13-2013 10:27 AM
then why hasn't FCS sued FBS?
membership in FBS is now invitation only
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - b0ndsj0ns - 08-13-2013 10:27 AM
(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote: easy: invitation only
Don't think it will be that simple to create a new division of the NCAA by invitation only. Now if the P5 were willing to form their own new organization then that's absolutely how it would go down.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - Frank the Tank - 08-13-2013 10:29 AM
My feeling is that it's all or nothing for the non-power conferences: either all of them get into the new Division 4 or none of them get in. Alden's refrain of "60 to 70 schools" (which is essentially only the power conferences plus Notre Dame) reflects that. I have serious doubts that the power conferences are going through serious talks amongst themselves for a massive restructuring where the net effect is to only leave behind 3 non-power FBS conferences (assuming that the AAC and MWC are the 2 non-power leagues that could be brought along). The purpose seems to be either (a) a broad football-based restructuring to allow for FBS schools to vote on their own rules and regulations, in which case all FBS conferences are brought along or (b) make a clear separation between the power conferences and non-power conferences. It doesn't make sense that it would be in between.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - bigblueblindness - 08-13-2013 10:29 AM
Assuming the Alden is a general representation of the SEC, which he made it clear from his statements that they are his opinion based on SEC membership, not a reflection of Mizzou's president, repeatedly saying that 60-70 schools are different than all the others is pretty significant. You don't come up with a range that small unless there is some basis. Also, him stating that all athletes should receive the full const of attendance stipend is significant. Again, this likely represents the SEC in general. Alden is too experienced to throw things of this nature against the wall to see what sticks.
Concerning that 60-70 school mention without reading the tea leaves too much: If there was no doubt that everyone in a P5 conference was on board, he surely would have said the range is 65 to whatever. Limiting it to 70 schools suggests that their will not be any tag along conferences as currently constituted. If there was any conversation still taking place, you would think his language would be much more generic, like "less than 100 schools" or something similar.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - bigblueblindness - 08-13-2013 10:32 AM
(08-13-2013 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote: easy: invitation only
Don't think it will be that simple to create a new division of the NCAA by invitation only. Now if the P5 were willing to form their own new organization then that's absolutely how it would go down.
That would be absolutely riveting TV. Hold a Selection Show on TV. No one knows how many members will be invited. They are read off one at a time in order of invitation (Texas first, Ohio State second, etc.). It could be 48 schools, it could be 96 schools; no one knows. It would easily beat LeBron James' "The Decision" in the all time hate meter.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - Native Georgian - 08-13-2013 10:32 AM
(08-13-2013 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: My feeling is that it's all or nothing for the non-power conferences: either all of them get into the new Division 4 or none of them get in. Alden's refrain of "60 to 70 schools" (which is essentially only the power conferences plus Notre Dame) reflects that. I have serious doubts that the power conferences are going through serious talks amongst themselves for a massive restructuring where the net effect is to only leave behind 3 non-power FBS conferences (assuming that the AAC and MWC are the 2 non-power leagues that could be brought along). The purpose seems to be either (a) a broad football-based restructuring allow for FBS schools to vote on their own rules and regulations, in which case all FBS conferences are brought along or (b) make a clear separation between the power conferences and non-power conferences. It doesn't make sense that it would be in between.Perhaps so.
But Alden's comment strike me as being more in the spirit of an "opening bid" that is subject to future negotiation. He is initiating the discussion by putting forth his absolute maximum-ideal scenario. Time will tell if he is able to get it in the final settlement.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - Native Georgian - 08-13-2013 10:35 AM
(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote: easy: invitation onlyThat may turn out to be what happens. But that is not (of course) a "neutral criteria".
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - blunderbuss - 08-13-2013 10:35 AM
(08-13-2013 10:32 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:(08-13-2013 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote: easy: invitation only
Don't think it will be that simple to create a new division of the NCAA by invitation only. Now if the P5 were willing to form their own new organization then that's absolutely how it would go down.
That would be absolutely riveting TV. Hold a Selection Show on TV. No one knows how many members will be invited. They are read off one at a time in order of invitation (Texas first, Ohio State second, etc.). It could be 48 schools, it could be 96 schools; no one knows. It would easily beat LeBron James' "The Decision" in the all time hate meter.
It could be like the race draft on the Chapelle Show. The Asian people selecting Wu Tang Clan, now THAT was great TV.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - bigblueblindness - 08-13-2013 10:37 AM
(08-13-2013 10:35 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:(08-13-2013 10:32 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:(08-13-2013 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote: easy: invitation only
Don't think it will be that simple to create a new division of the NCAA by invitation only. Now if the P5 were willing to form their own new organization then that's absolutely how it would go down.
That would be absolutely riveting TV. Hold a Selection Show on TV. No one knows how many members will be invited. They are read off one at a time in order of invitation (Texas first, Ohio State second, etc.). It could be 48 schools, it could be 96 schools; no one knows. It would easily beat LeBron James' "The Decision" in the all time hate meter.
It could be like the race draft on the Chapelle Show. Big upsets, the Asian people selecting Wu Tang Clan.
YES!!!! I'm all in. Miko can host.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - b0ndsj0ns - 08-13-2013 10:37 AM
(08-13-2013 10:35 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote: easy: invitation onlyThat may turn out to be what happens. But that is not (of course) a "neutral criteria".
Well of course not, and I don't think anyone realistically believes there is going to be a "neutral criteria" used if there is a new subdivision. The only thing neutral about it will be how much can they get away with and not have nasty lawsuits that they might lose. Now if they can get away with saying we are forming a new subdivision of just the P5 and ND and that's it and they are on firm legal ground they will. I tend to believe that's a tough road and there's no way that doesn't end ugly.
RE: Missouri AD on D-4 - brista21 - 08-13-2013 10:37 AM
(08-13-2013 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: My feeling is that it's all or nothing for the non-power conferences: either all of them get into the new Division 4 or none of them get in. Alden's refrain of "60 to 70 schools" (which is essentially only the power conferences plus Notre Dame) reflects that. I have serious doubts that the power conferences are going through serious talks amongst themselves for a massive restructuring where the net effect is to only leave behind 3 non-power FBS conferences (assuming that the AAC and MWC are the 2 non-power leagues that could be brought along). The purpose seems to be either (a) a broad football-based restructuring to allow for FBS schools to vote on their own rules and regulations, in which case all FBS conferences are brought along or (b) make a clear separation between the power conferences and non-power conferences. It doesn't make sense that it would be in between.
I agree completely. That being said I think if we see a full blown breakaway from the NCAA all of FBS plus we may see 2 or 3 non-FB conferences start the new organization. I'm thinking Big East, West Coast Conference and maybe the Missouri Valley Conference but they have an FCS Football problem there.