Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

NCAA Votes to Restructure!!

Posted on 4/24/14 at 2:37 pm
Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 2:37 pm
quote:

@JamesCrepea: RT @InsidetheNCAA: DI Board of Directors endorses more flexible governance plan: LINK

quote:

Under the proposal, the division would still be led by a Board of Directors composed primarily of university presidents. However, new voices would be added: the chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee; the chair of a new group tentatively called the Council; and the most senior Division I member of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association’s executive committee. The council chair would always be an athletics director, giving that constituency an automatic spot on the board.

The Board would focus chiefly on oversight and strategic issues, while leaving much of the day-to-day policy and legislative responsibility to the council.

The council, composed of at least 60 percent athletics directors, would have 38 members: one from each conference plus two voting student-athletes and four commissioners (one from the Football Bowl Subdivision, one from the Football Championship Subdivision and two from the remaining conferences). The council would be the final voice on shared-governance rule-making decisions.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 2:41 pm
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37605 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 2:40 pm to
Here is the official release from the NCAA.

Reads pretty good IMHO.

Lots of good changes here - but I am not sure I like the Power Five conferences only getting 38% of the vote, which appears to be unmentioned in the wording.

At any rate, these are good changes for the most part - long past due.

quote:


The Division I Board of Directors is one step closer to approving a new governance system in August.

The board endorsed the restructuring process, which is aimed at allowing the division to be more nimble, streamlined and responsive to needs – particularly the needs of student-athletes – during its meeting Thursday in Indianapolis. The Steering Committee on Governance, made up of university presidents, drafted the restructuring plan.

“The model we sent to the membership today is not a final product,” said Wake Forest President Nathan Hatch, chair of the board and the steering committee. “Some aspects of the model remain under discussion, and we hope the membership will provide us further input.”

Under the proposal, the division would still be led by a Board of Directors composed primarily of university presidents. However, new voices would be added: the chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee; the chair of a new group tentatively called the Council; and the most senior Division I member of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association’s executive committee. The council chair would always be an athletics director, giving that constituency an automatic spot on the board.

The Board would focus chiefly on oversight and strategic issues, while leaving much of the day-to-day policy and legislative responsibility to the council.

The council, composed of at least 60 percent athletics directors, would have 38 members: one from each conference plus two voting student-athletes and four commissioners (one from the Football Bowl Subdivision, one from the Football Championship Subdivision and two from the remaining conferences). The council would be the final voice on shared-governance rule-making decisions.

The steering committee suggests creating three bodies that would assist the council in its work and comprise the “working level” of Division I: an academics-focused group, a championships-focused group and a legislative group. Council members would determine implementation details, including what other groups are needed, how the groups will be populated and reporting lines. The steering committee also emphasized the need for a nomination process that is competency-based and diverse.

In order to allow the five highest-resource conferences (the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Pac-12 Conference and Southeastern Conference) to address their unique challenges, the model would grant them autonomy to make rules on specific matters affecting the interests of student-athletes.

The university presidents who serve on the steering committee continue to seek more clarity and specificity about these proposed areas of autonomy. While retaining the concepts that were included in the “actionable” category, the board decided that the process it had identified as “actionable” - requiring the conferences other than the highest-profile five to take a separate vote – would not be included in the proposal.

The steering committee is seeking more feedback on the how the remaining 27 conferences would want to apply decisions made by the 65 schools in the five highest-profile conferences.

Areas in which the membership generally agrees on autonomy for the five conferences include:

- financial aid, including full cost of attendance and scholarship guarantees;
insurance, including policies that protect future earnings;
- academic support, particularly for at-risk student-athletes; and
other support, such as travel for families, free tickets to athletics events, and expenses associated with practice and competition (such as parking).

The steering committee continues to discuss other areas that could be included in the areas of autonomy, including the creation of mandatory time away from athletics for student-athletes; eliminating rules that prohibit student-athletes from pursuing careers outside of athletics while still competing (for example, making music and art or writing a book); recruiting; transfer issues; and athletics department personnel.

The board will seek feedback on some questions raised by members of governance bodies in recent days, including: the process by which items decided by the full division could become part of the list of autonomous areas; the voting, interpretation and enforcement processes within the five highest-profile conferences; and the core structure that separates not only the five highest-profile conferences into their own group but also continues a separation of the next five conferences (the American Athletic Conference, Conference-USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference) from the remaining 22.


This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 2:46 pm
Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 2:42 pm to
I'm still reading, I know they were discussing giving the Power 5 more autonomy but this is somewhat of a shock right?
Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 2:45 pm to
quote:

In other business, the board adopted a change to waiver policy for transfer student-athletes, which was recommended last week by the Leadership Council. Qualifying student-athletes who cannot transfer and play immediately without a waiver will be allowed a sixth year to complete their four years of eligibility.

The change primarily impacts student-athletes who play baseball, basketball, bowl subdivision football and men’s ice hockey, as well as those in other sports who already transferred once. These student-athletes would no longer be able to seek a waiver to transfer and compete immediately.

Also, at the close of Thursday’s meeting, all new rules adopted by the Legislative Council, including a rule lifting restrictions on feeding student-athletes, became final.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37605 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 2:53 pm to
quote:

I'm still reading, I know they were discussing giving the Power 5 more autonomy but this is somewhat of a shock right?


Not IMHO. I think the NCAA knew they either had to give the five power conferences more autonomy or risk losing them to their own governing organization.

Or, at least that was the implied thread from the five power conferences.
Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 2:59 pm to
Adding student athlete representation was the biggest surprise. I guess it's just a shock to see the NCAA finally due something not dumb

That being said I think eliminating the hardship waiver is bs even with 6th year added on the back end. Coaches don't have to sit out a year when they change schools and neither should players
Posted by GoBigOrange86
Meine sich're Zuflucht
Member since Jun 2008
14486 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 3:00 pm to
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, I see.
Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 3:07 pm to
quote:

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, I see.

That's another way to look at it
Posted by RT1941
Member since May 2007
30201 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 3:45 pm to
quote:

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, I see.
Looks like their adding some luxury seats for the "Big 5" right next to the railing. Trying to make 'em comfortable enough not to want to take a jump.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37605 posts
Posted on 4/24/14 at 4:04 pm to
Well ... listen. IMHO, and I've been watching the NCAA screw-up for the better part of the past five decades, no one wants to totally break-away from the NCAA. Groups have to have rules and the rules have to be enforced by a governing body, that's the way we do business in the United States. Someone has to enforce the laws.

With that said, the problem has been inconsistent enforcement policies and corrupt governing practices. All of that before we ever get into the issue of NCAA greed.

Has it been an institutional problem or a governing body problem? Probably a lot of both.

The Big 4, plus the attachment that is the ACC, have all the power. But, we have to remember that University Presidents and even ADs, to a lesser extent, are political beings by nature. And we also have to accept the fact that University Presidents, are by nature of their positions, someone socialist leaning.

So University Presidents are going to believe in big government, total control and, at least to some extent, sharing and redistributing the wealth. It's how socialists think and nothing is going to change that fact of their collective mindsets, pardon the pun.

The Big 5 conferences, and their Presidents, do not want to come-across as greedy, so they are not going to completely leave-out, or omit, taking care of the lesser conferences for fear of being seen as elitists who care nothing about the middle and lower class conferences. Do they desire more autonomy? Sure they do, that's all part of their power play, but they are doing it in such a way as to remain part of the overall "academics first, sports second" mentality that is SUPPOSED TO BE what the NCAA is all about.

IMHO, the most interesting aspect of all of this is going to be watching to see what teeth, if any, are given to the Big 5 conferences to enforce the rules when the laws are broken. And if these enforcement policies are doled-out with any consistency.

Someone will always break the laws.

The little gimme stuff, the meals and the other stuff ... that's all just a smoke screen for what is really taking place here.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter