In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 464
Online now 523 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Ed O'Bannon fallout: no more NCAA video games.
ND is the biggest name in the sport.
Stop acting dumb.
Good thing we left!
@QualkTalk: Mike Hogewood leaving ACC Network. In other news, I'll have to work on more impressions
I don't know, I kinda like that I now have pure hatred for the #340 team in D1 from a state I've never been to.
Subscribe to the ACCDN: http://tinyurl.com/cfpj3be Follow the ACCDN on Twitter: https://twitter.com/theaccdn Like us on Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/ac...
RT @theDudeofWV: My friend at ESPN has come thru with some solid info on why FSU signed the GoR. Trying to think of way to share info & save my hide.
RT @theDudeofWV: My ESPN friend is attending the ACC meetings.
RT @theDudeofWV: If 3 ACC schools decide not fund full cost schollys both the GoR & TV contract are voided.
What type of scholly is that referring to?
The word around the campfire is that the guy on the left is "ESPN friend."
I believe he's referring to the proposed plan that would give athletes (unsure whether it's only rev sports or all of them) money for books, food, plus a monthly stipend. The BCS conferences are all for it, mid majors are obviously against it.
This tweet helps with context....
The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV 19h
Wake, Duke & Pitt would drop down in class rather than pay a full cost of attendance scholly.
I doubt that happens, but what a cluster that would be for the ACC if their demise didn't come from UNC, FSU, Clemson, etc. leaving, but from Wake, Duke, and Pitt (although, assuming they don't replace those 3, they might be better off).
This post was edited by dexterstjacques 9 months ago
Well, I mean, that’s what it is. I doodoo and then listen to Katy Perry.
Bob Bowlsby is just blowing up Emmerich and the NCAA right now at the B12 meetings.
The former Stanford, Iowa and Northern Iowa athletic director fired a shot across the bow of the NCAA and the more than 200 schools that belong to Division I but don't rake in significant revenue from big-time football. Bowlsby said the schools that generate the bulk of the revenue want to govern themselves because they're tired of getting blocked every step of the way by less financially successful programs that want to maintain the illusion of parity. "Relative to the legislative process, we are very much at a point now where we can't get anything that's transformative through the system," Bowlsby said. "I think that's particularly felt by seven or eight conferences and the five major conferences in particular. It is just very difficult to do anything that would benefit our student athletes or our institutions that doesn't get voted down by the larger majority." Bowlsby, who has been on both sides of this equation, said he understands the have-nots' point of view, but it doesn't change the fact that the chasm between the classes has caused gridlock. "Northern Iowa and Texas aren't much alike," Bowlsby said.
At issue is Division IV, or, probably more realistically, a new subdivision within Division I containing the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC and possibly the American Athletic Conference and Conference USA. Currently, Division I is subdivided into the FBS and FCS in football. Let's call the proposed new subdivision the F$S. Bowlsby also suggested the creation of federations within the NCAA to make unique rules to govern each individual sport. This is intriguing but complex. The simpler solution is a new subdivision for football, which is where the greatest differences between haves and have-nots exist.
In the F$S, if leagues wanted to toss an extra $2,000-$4,000 into the athletic scholarship package to account for the full cost of attendance, they could. They can all afford it, after all. The money leagues have been trying to do this for two years, but they've been blocked by the have-nots, who correctly realize this would create an even greater recruiting advantage for the money schools. Last week, SEC commissioner Mike Slive made a veiled threat to the have-nots over this very issue. "Conferences and their member institutions must be allowed to meet the needs of their student athletes," Slive said. "In recent conversations with my commissioner colleagues, there appears to be a willingness to support a meaningful solution to this important change." But Slive, always careful with his words, did not rattle his sabre any more.
Bowlsby had no such issue Monday. He went after the programs that have jumped to Division I thinking the move will automatically raise the profile of their entire universities, soaking taxpayers and bilking students with high athletics fees in the process. Many of these schools have found the going in Division I quite difficult, and their interests are squarely at odds with the interests of the schools that have had successful athletic programs for decades. "I think we've permitted or even sometimes encouraged institutional social climbing by virtue of their athletics programs," Bowlsby said. "And I think the fact is we've made it too easy to get into Division I and too easy to stay there."
While Bowlsby's fellow big-money commissioners have not stated their goals so plainly, know that Slive, the ACC's John Swofford, the Big Ten's Jim Delany and the Pac-12's Larry Scott fundamentally agree with their Big 12 counterpart. Delany's Big Ten already has struck one blow, agreeing not to schedule FCS football opponents beyond games already scheduled. Such games represent huge paydays for lower-income athletic departments. Now imagine if all five money leagues threaten to make that same choice. Or, if less wealthy FBS schools want to keep fighting their wealthier counterparts, the big five could decide that they'll only play the big five in football. That would rip a lot of money from the coffers of some of the have-nots, who now command more than $1 million to travel to, say, Alabama, to get creamed. So the big five have leverage even if they don't threaten to leave the NCAA.
The other leverage is the NCAA men's basketball tournament. The public loves Cinderella, but the tournament, which under its current contract generates an average of $770 million a year in television rights fees, probably would draw almost as much if the money schools formed their own division and only played one another in their championship. We love when Florida Gulf Coast wins, but we tune in to see Kansas, Ohio State and Kentucky. The have-nots don't want to lose their access to that cash cow, which is why allowing the money leagues to form a separate football subdivision makes more sense.
That separate subdivision also makes more sense because it would allow the money schools to develop a better form of revenue distribution to athletes. If the NCAA loses the federal lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon -- and joined last week by six current college football players -- schools would likely be forced to share a big cut of television revenue with players. The leaders of the money leagues understand this. It's why they've been trying so hard for two years to give players more money. Cost-of-attendance stipends would cost significantly less than a court defeat. If the wealthy schools can govern themselves, they might be able to negotiate a settlement that would make the players happy and keep them from paying out significant damages in the event of a loss in court. But that will never happen if the bottom portion of Division I keeps blocking the top.
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby's candid comments could inspire fellow power commissioners, spark meaningful NCAA reform
One thing I see is that big time bball recruits would want the same full cost of attendance as fb players get...
This one of the main reasons I love the B10 move. I have faith in Delany to make the moves necessary to improve the standing of the conference. I have an equal and opposite lack of faith in Swofford to make the necessary moves to improve the standing of the ACC. Bottom line is ish is going to change. There's no way this is just the status quo from here on out. I'm happy to have my money riding on Delany at the poker table.
That almost certainly isn't true. Cost of attendance wouldn't be nearly enough money to dissuade Duke (just as one example) from dropping down in class and losing its high-profile basketball program as a result. It's hard to imagine Pittsburgh not going along with it when push comes to shove, either, and the same is true for Wake Forest (despite the apparent determination of its administration to position its hoops program for a move to the Big South).
Schools that have never made the NCAA Tournament — the 2014 edition http://wp.me/plDgR-1WQ
Delaney just added Rutgers and Maryland, significantly watering down the product, while Swoffie got Lousiville in exchange for MD, a significant improvement in all sports that matter.
Go back to the kids' table, ACC boy. Grown ups are talking here ...
Swofford does a pretty poor job of running the conference, but he does seem to have a knack for making good moves in the expansion shell game. Getting the ACC network from a youtube channel to something resembling the Big 10 Network is crucial for him though.
He is reactionary, all his moves are counter punches. If he started an ACC network when the ACC expanded the first time (he was reacting to the perceived need of a conference football championship game), we would all be sitting on a pile of money right now.
It hurts I know but the ACC is in far better shape now than its been in the last alldecade.
I was interested so last night I checked to see how the Big Ten compares to the ACC and other conferences in terms of Natties (football and basketball) during my lifetime. Sad sight.
This post was edited by Bmorechil 9 months ago
In 1997 when Michigan and Nebraska split the polls, did you give the B1G .5 for each of them, or 1 each?
I was counting actual Championships so the ACC doesn't get credit for Miami titles either. This search also led me to watching the last drive of the 5th down game which is hilarious.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports