What Does This Mean for Big East and Marquette

[MulliganMusings]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...ce-subdivision

Not sure if anyone saw the account of Mike Slive's (former CUSA Commissioner while MU was a member and current SEC Commissioner) speech where he outlined a new NCAA Subdivision to be comprised of the 5 largest football playing conferences. I really don't have a big problem with this if it is confined to football but my concern is that it's only a matter of time before it is expanded to basketball since it's the only other major revenue generating sport. If that takes place does Marquette step up to play with the large public universities? Clearly MU has shown, through its spending, a commitment to fielding an excellent Division I hoops squad but once again, as it did in destroying was was the Big East, I have to wonder if football will destroy college basketball.

[Phantom Warrior]

If I read this correctly, Slive is not talking only about football players. He kept referring to "student-athletes."

If schools in the five conferences can increase the amount of financial support they provide to athletes in all sports, this will significantly tilt the so-called "playing field" heavily in favor of those conferences.

If a basketball player can receive X amount of financial support from schools in this self-regulating new sub-division but only Y amount of financial support from all other schools, and X is significantly higher than Y, then it will be game over for basketball, soccer, volleyball, and all other sports at schools in the Big East, AAC, MVC, etc. They simply will not be able to compete...unless they have the option through the NCAA of voluntarily matching what the "equity conference" - how ironic is that term! - can provide.

The NCAA will have to permit schools in other conferences to offer the same level of benefits as the "equity schools" do, or other schools will not be able to recruit the caliber of athlete necessary to compete.

[Nukem2]

I would take it that the 5 conferences would have to agree to the "minimums" he speaks to. Would guess that those outside the Big 5 would have the option to follow suit if they wished. Hopefully......................

[Goose85]

I really can't stand this whole 5 conference thing. So within the last few years tv deals have increased to the point that they now need to pay players and try to keep the money all for themselves. Really, Duke, Kentucky, Indiana, Washington State, Syracuse, Kansas, etc need to pay their football players?

What if the MAC, Mountain West, AAC or CUSA says, ok we will pay the same amount as the big boys, do they get to join the new subdivision?

If not, then I hope the other 5 FBS conference schools and the FCS conferences all decide to not play the 5 big boys in football for a few years. That would end up costing each of the big 5 one home game per year, and those 'buy' games every year now become home and home with the other big 5 boys. Less bowl elligible teams too.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

I honestly don't care how it affects football, I don't watch college football, but with that being said what happens to basketball? There is likely a ton to be worked out, but I guarantee that the Big East, A10, AAC, and MW have no voice in this whole gig. Will they be given the option to pay player like the Big 5 later? If not you might as well start hosting games at the AL because Marquette will become a D2 school essentially. If they do allow payment I see it being a non issue because Marquette will be able to keep up with the others for Basketball, however some of these other schools will drop down real quickly as they won't want to invest or won't be able to keep up.

One of my biggest concerns in there is opening the doors to agents, that could get ugly really quickly. I have a feeling coaches are going to hate that more than anything, suddenly these kids have agents and are making all sorts of demands... I think you will see some of the top tier coaches look at the NBA if available because they won't want to deal with it.

[TheSultan]

If I read this correctly, Slive is not talking only about football players. He kept referring to "student-athletes."

If schools in the five conferences can increase the amount of financial support they provide to athletes in all sports, this will significantly tilt the so-called "playing field" heavily in favor of those conferences.

If a basketball player can receive X amount of financial support from schools in this self-regulating new sub-division but only Y amount of financial support from all other schools, and X is significantly higher than Y, then it will be game over for basketball, soccer, volleyball, and all other sports at schools in the Big East, AAC, MVC, etc. They simply will not be able to compete...unless they have the option through the NCAA of voluntarily matching what the "equity conference" - how ironic is that term! - can provide.

The NCAA will have to permit schools in other conferences to offer the same level of benefits as the "equity schools" do, or other schools will not be able to recruit the caliber of athlete necessary to compete.

I would guess that the Big 5 are leading this push, but that if other conferences are open to meeting their standards that they would be welcome to join. I think this is a very good thing. More support, more guidance, etc. to help student athletes is a good thing. Programs that can't afford to be at that level simply shouldn't be.

[Phantom Warrior]

Would it be a school by school decision or a conference decision (say majority rules)?

If all 10 BE schools had the option to follow suit, and it was a school-by-school decision, how many would? If it's a conference decision, would there be enough schools on board to make it happen?

Just think of all the scholarship athletes, male and female, in all the sports. How many are there at MU, for example. Plus, many athletes have partial scholarship, half, third, fourth, fifth, and so on. How would they be affected?

This could get very, very interesting, not to mention very, very, very expensive. There are more than 350 D-1 basketball programs. How many non-equity schools could afford to match what the schools in the five power conferences can do? My guess is not very many.

[Nukem2]

Would it be a school by school decision or a conference decision (say majority rules)?

If all 10 BE schools had the option to follow suit, and it was a school-by-school decision, how many would? If it's a conference decision, would there be enough schools on board to make it happen?

Just think of all the scholarship athletes, male and female, in all the sports. How many are there at MU, for example. Plus, many athletes have partial scholarship, half, third, fourth, fifth, and so on. How would they be affected?

This could get very, very interesting, not to mention very, very, very expensive. There are more than 350 D-1 basketball programs. How many non-equity schools could afford to match what the schools in the five power conferences can do? My guess is not very many.

Could be very interesting. I would agree that it would almost have to be on a conference basis with may the BE A10,AAC, Mtn. West, CUSA as possible conferences that might "sign up".... Still, the $$$$ across a spectrum of sports.

[Goose85]

Is the assumption that all athletic departments in the Big 5 conferences make money, or should I say are on the plus side every year?

What happens to tv contracts if viewership or revenue begins to drop (are there renegotiation points in the contracts)?
What happens if attendance drops for football?
What about those schools that can't charge a high seat license, or can't charge a lot for tickets?

We know football drives the bus, but what about schools that don't put 70,000 or more in the stands each Saturday. Here are a few that drew less than 45K per game last year from the Big 5 (could be others, it was a quick check). Are all of these athletic departments making money? They might be, I don't know.

Duke 26K per game
Wake 28
Wash St 29
BC 33
VAndy 35
Kansas 37
Syracuse 38
Colorado 38
Northwestern 39
Maryland 41
Oregon St 42
Illinois 43
Indiana 44

[IWB]

And how many of those teams would be averaging that many if it weren't for the visiting teams? (Northwestern)