Nebrasketballer

NEW YORK -- The NCAA Board of Governors' vote to grant autonomy Thursday to the five biggest revenue-producing FBS conferences and Notre Dame should be remembered as a historic day in intercollegiate athletics. On this day, the NCAA voted that the strong shall inherit the earth. Autonomy is a deftly chosen word. It means self-rule, and if you hear it and think of the downtrodden rising to smite their oppressors, then the spin of the Mike Slives of the world has achieved its goal. In fact, this is the haves saying to the have-nots, "Enough already." The formal approval of autonomy might have taken place Thursday, but the big schools achieved autonomy the minute they asked for it. As Slive, the Southeastern Conference commissioner, said last month, "If we do not achieve a positive outcome under the existing big tent of Division I, we will need to consider the establishment of a venue with similar conferences and institutions where we can enact the desired changes in the best interests of our student-athletes." In other words, if you don't grant us autonomy, we will establish autonomy. It is entirely possible that the rest of Division I could override the vote of the board, but that would be a gesture of pride, not brains. In so many ways, the 65 newly autonomous schools have for decades done things that their thinner-walleted Division I colleagues cannot. They expanded their stadiums with luxury boxes and erected battleship-sized video screens. They built practice facilities that would put NFL teams to shame. They agreed to pay coaches salaries that should put the universities to shame. None of these expenditures came under the expansive reach of the NCAA Manual. But benefits for the student-athletes have always been the subject of legislation. Michigan may be able to fill the Big House, but it could only fill the pockets or the stomachs of its players only as much as Eastern Michigan could afford. The NCAA considered that to be competitive equity, legislating in the meeting room what could not be equalized in the world outside it. And NCAA refers not to the hired bureaucrats but to the collective membership that passed the rules. There are more than 300 schools in Division I, and perhaps a quarter of them have the money to increase benefits. So the big schools remained constrained by the small -- a majority vote in the name of competitive equity. "That sort of equity is largely a mirage," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Wednesday in New York. He spoke as a panelist in a two-hour discussion, sponsored by the conference, of the state of intercollegiate athletics. "There's always been some separation. This may contribute to some additional separation, although the rules and any changes that might be made are intended to be permissive. But they're also intended to take into account that those 65 schools are largely the face of what most people know as college athletics." And that's how we got to this vote. As the schools brought in more and more money -- Kansas State will earn $26 million in television revenue this year -- and could not spend more on student-athletes, the schools attracted lawsuits. They also began to get hammered in the court of public opinion. "I think we got to the place," Bowlsby said, "where we just believe there was a need for us to be perhaps a little less egalitarian, a little less magnanimous about the 350 schools and spend a little time worrying about the most severe issues that are troubling our programs among the 65." With autonomy, the 65 schools say they intend to provide more benefits to the student-athlete: more aid per year, more years on a scholarship and health insurance that will extend beyond an athlete's time on campus. Fifteen student-athletes -- three from each of the five conferences -- will be voting members of the new board. "I am cautiously optimistic," Baylor University president and chancellor Ken Starr said Wednesday. "There are so many ramifications, and there is also this abiding concern of unintended consequences." Administrators are trying to figure out how to implement the changes. Should the athletic departments use the "full cost of attendance" figure determined by a federal formula? That amount is different at every school. Should they put a cap on the amount so that the student-athlete living at Washington State in little Pullman gets the same amount as the Washington Husky living in metropolitan Seattle? "I believe, as does Bob [bowlsby], that competitive equity is really hard to legislate, not just in athletics but in life in general," West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck said. "We can all be created equal, but the moment we come out of the womb, you have a different set of opportunities than I may have. Even with autonomy, there will be programs at the top of the heap." Autonomy will come with its own set of issues. Because the wealthiest schools are free to act upon their own interests, the rich will likely get richer. But it's also a good bet that student-athletes will receive more benefits. That, at the end of the day, is the point. http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=11321434&src=desktop&rand=ref~%257B%2522ref%2522%253A%2522https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F%2522%257D

From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money. The NCAA has the right to intervene if they feel the Power 5 has crossed a line. AND the guidelines that the Power 5 creates are still going to have to be voted on by all Div 1 schools. I'm sorry but I disagree that big football schools are going to take over. You said that schools w/out fb revenue wouldn't be able to 'keep up'. Assuming that the cap on spending per recruit was so high that only schools with large, profitable football programs could max out their recruiting needs each year in both major sports without a significant financial burden... that is a TON of cash you're talking about. It would be a ridiculous amount and there's no way the NCAA lets that fly. There's also no way the mid-tier BCS schools (Kstate, Oregon St, Wash St, Gtech types) would let that type of legislation through as well. That would be a system where maybe 15 schools basically become pro factories with athletes living in mansions off campus. Congress would most likely get involvedYou're failing to take into account that one of the main reasons that this passed is because the power 5 conferences said that if they weren't given the right to make their own rules, then they were going to break away from the NCAA and/or form their own Division 4 league. The NCAA may, in theory, have some legislation power here, but, in reality, their power is now far less than you believe it to be. You are also failing to consider that the new TV contracts, which will soon be negotiated...there is about to be another substantial boost in revenue in 2016 for the power 5 conferences which are football revenue schools...these schools have to spend the money on "expenses" for tax purposes.Also, as far as the bottom-tier teams in the power 5 conferences not being able to keep up...there are 2 possibilities: 1.) Conference-wide revenue sharing, which would help the bottom tier teams Or 2.) There will be another split inside the Power 5 conferences down the road because the bottom of the Power 5 won't be able to support the changes. (Gerry DiNardo's theory) Also, if congress were to get involved...I highly doubt it would be to handcuff these schools, so all of the mid-midmajor programs without football revenue can keep up...it would more likely be to challenge their nonprofit status. Again, Denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

I think people are wearing blinders if they think these power 5 conferences will stop at the relatively minor changes that have been speculated, such as the additional $5,000ish stipend. From a business standpoint, it would make very little sense for the power 5 conferences not to do everything within their power to give themselves the greatest advantage possible. This will be achieved by investing so much money into their programs/facilities/athletes/etc that the non-power 5 conferences have no chance of keeping up. Schools that do not have football revenue will not be able to keep up. Until now, the NCAA has stopped the power 5 conference schools from spending as much money as they can afford to spend...now those restrictions are lifted, so these schools will spend the money. It may not happen right away, but this January will be the 1st step. Even if the transition takes 5-10 years...it will happen eventually.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/sec/university-of-missouri/article1179868.html The Missouri men’s basketball team announced Friday that Torren Jones has been dismissed for an unspecified violation of team rules. Jones’ dismissal was announced in a release from the MU athletic department. “We have high standards at the University of Missouri and after consulting with (athletic director) Mike Alden, I have made the decision to dismiss Torren Jones from our program,” first-year coach Kim Anderson said. “I am disappointed in Torren’s actions and want to be very clear about the culture of accountability we are building within our program. It’s a privilege to wear the University of Missouri uniform and we will represent our University and our state with great integrity.” Jones, a 6-foot-8, 235-pound forward from Chandler, Ariz., appeared in 30 games as a freshman last season and averaged 2.1 points and 2.3 rebounds, including a team-best 11.4 rebounds per 40 minutes.

Denial is the 1st of 5 stages...

https://twitter.com/therecruitscoop/status/495718525806579712

https://twitter.com/therecruitscoop/status/495707926460641281

This really worries me about the current state of Nebraska's recruiting. I really thought they were in a much better place than they obviously are...

Not thrilled

That's what I was thinking...you have faster fingers than I do...

Even though Puryear and Morrow are both listed as PF, maybe Miles wants 1 of them to play the 3-Spot and the other to play the 4-Spot.

Hopefully this isn't a sign of where things currently stand between Nebraska and Ed Morrow...

https://twitter.com/therecruitscoop/status/492567000074309632

I wouldnt call Sehic, a guy that the Rivals national analyst said is possibly going to be a 4 star soon, a Plan B guy. I mean we've never signed a 4 star caliber player so to think he's a Plan B.......I would hope that he is a plan B guy...if Morrow doesn't sign with Nebraska, because regardless of whether or not he ends up being a 4-Star, in my opinion, he is nowhere near the same caliber as Morrow...Him being a "plan B" guy doesn't mean that he isn't good...it just means that Morrow is better...and I would assume him to be plan A. He wouldnt be a PF, he's a Center.Ok...then replace Morrow with Baptiste in that post... Like its been stated by others, not a chance in Hell NU gets Baptiste. Seriously might need to step away from the Kool-Aid. This program has struggled to sign 3 stars in the top 150 let alone some of THE BEST players in the country. Baby steps and realization of where the program is currently at will help soothe the truth. Maybe someday they can get a player of that caliber when they have proved themselves but its not happening this year for Baptiste and very likely for Morrow despite all the ties (I personally feel thats the only thing keeping NU in it). If I enter a contest in which the grand prize is a Ferrari and the consolation prize is a Porsche...The Ferrari is going to be my #1 choice...The Porsche is great and it's much much much better than any other vehicle that I have ever had, but it's still not the Ferrari, so it would be #2 choice... That doesn't mean that I don't like the Porsche, or that I wouldn't be happy with it...its an incredible car...it just means that the Ferrari better... When you put it like that its more understandable than before where your comments seemed more like its this guy or its a failure. Yeah, I was confused, because it seemed like I was trying to say kind've the same thing that you were saying in some of your posts...but one of my flaws is that sometimes what is in my head and what I am trying to say isn't always the way things come across when other people read what I post...