Proposal for Division 4 (Football)

[Muskie]

Link (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22847993/life-to-the-bcs-look-for-division-4-to-revolutionize-college-athletics)

Get ready, then, for Division 4, where those BCS schools (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, SEC) are going to set their own rules.
• Theoretically they not only will be able to pay players, but pay them as much as they want -- $5,000, $10,000 per year? Why not? In the new governance structure, there'd be no MAC schools to vote it down.
• Forget a four-team playoff. How soon could Division 4 officials institute an eight-teamer? As soon as they damn well please.
• Might as well forget "Division 4" as a formal label too. Couldn't the schools sell naming rights since the NCAA that now will only nominally oversee big-time football won't have much of a say?
Think of the new subdivision as the NFL -- Nike Football League – if the shoe giant wins the contract.
• There would be fewer chances for legal liability. Instead of the NCAA fighting the O'Bannon lawsuit, Division 4 could openly negotiate with video game manufacturers, use players likenesses, numbers, names and faces -- and distribute the revenue back to the players.
Once again, what could the NCAA do? Bowlsby's statements suggest the association has lost leverage.
• Division 4 could set its own scholarship limitations, make its own enforcement rules. Bowlsby specifically expressed frustration at NCAA enforcement which has not distinguished itself lately -- or at all. Think of Division 4 setting its own recruiting rules.
Part-time students playing football? Why not? Remember, its Division 4's game, money and future.

_____________

Article is also posted in Conference Carousel thread but I thought this deserved its own thread. To me, this would be the death of college sports as we know it.

[GoMuskies]

This proposal makes perfect sense to anyone who doesn't understand why people care about college sports in the first place.

[Muskie]

This proposal makes perfect sense to anyone who doesn't understand why people care about college sports in the first place.

Exactly. I watch paid players on Sunday. You know, the one's that play primarily for themselves? It's nice to see a little passion for an institution on Saturday. It's still there, no matter how much people want to discount it.

[LA Muskie]

Exactly. I watch paid players on Sunday. You know, the one's that play primarily for themselves? It's nice to see a little passion for an institution on Saturday. It's still there, no matter how much people want to discount it.

I agree. It will be a sad day when this eventually comes to fruition. (And it will.)

[xudash]

Obviously, we can't control what happens with collegiate football, but we clearly care how their moves impact the rest of the NCAA, most notably college hoops.

The article notes that they have no intention of pulling out of the NCAA for other sports, mentioning the NCAA Tournament, in particular. I truly believe they get it, as far as that's concerned; they would only hurt themselves were they to pull stakes from it. He later mentioned that they would only leave the NCAA as a "last resort."

I believe that. I believe it's ALWAYS been about football. It's about football now for them and it will be about football for them until they settle into something that makes sense to the BCS schools. More to the point, something that makes sense to the power players within the BCS club. They'll "fix" their football issues and gladly continue to participate with everyone else for all the other sports.

Frankly, looking at this through a long lens, I don't see too much impact on the collegiate game. The true NFL talent will leave early, as it does now. Collegiate players will otherwise serve out their four years on scholarship, with a stipend, and with a degree - - hopefully, in most cases. Tailgating will continue. The stadiums will fill-up. The bands will play on. Pride will remain. Scandals may become less frequent. These payments may become competitive within the collegiate community - read as unbalanced - but they will continue to be meant as stipends so that players who have little money will not have to resort to shady transactions.

Otherwise, the old adage "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it" may come into play for the less fortunate among the BCS club. Imagine Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, Florida, etc. with the financial wherewithal to bury the Indiana's and NC State's of the world in this new environment.

[BMoreX]

But dash, what happens when those BCS schools want to pay their basketball teams too?

[LA Muskie]

Obviously, we can't control what happens with collegiate football, but we clearly care how their moves impact the rest of the NCAA, most notably college hoops.

The article notes that they have no intention of pulling out of the NCAA for other sports, mentioning the NCAA Tournament, in particular. I truly believe they get it, as far as that's concerned; they would only hurt themselves were they to pull stakes from it. He later mentioned that they would only leave the NCAA as a "last resort."

I believe that. I believe it's ALWAYS been about football. It's about football now for them and it will be about football for them until they settle into something that makes sense to the BCS schools. More to the point, something that makes sense to the power players within the BCS club. They'll "fix" their football issues and gladly continue to participate with everyone else for all the other sports.

Frankly, looking at this through a long lens, I don't see too much impact on the collegiate game. The true NFL talent will leave early, as it does now. Collegiate players will otherwise serve out their four years on scholarship, with a stipend, and with a degree - - hopefully, in most cases. Tailgating will continue. The stadiums will fill-up. The bands will play on. Pride will remain. Scandals may become less frequent. These payments may become competitive within the collegiate community - read as unbalanced - but they will continue to be meant as stipends so that players who have little money will not have to resort to shady transactions.

Otherwise, the old adage "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it" may come into play for the less fortunate among the BCS club. Imagine Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, Florida, etc. with the financial wherewithal to bury the Indiana's and NC State's of the world in this new environment.
Dash, I very much believe it starts with football but it ends at basketball. Those schools want separation and competitive advantage (as I mentioned earlier) and it will give them both. The NCAA needs them more than they need the NCAA at this point. They will get what they want. Which means "Div. 4" and Div. 1 will play in the same basketball tournament, despite an even more grossly uneven playing field.

Like I said before, I think this all sucks. But it is a fait accompli. So I just hope we get invited to the "Div.4" party on the basketball side, as Go surmises will be the case.

[xudash]

But dash, what happens when those BCS schools want to pay their basketball teams too?

Fair point. We'll see if that's even possible, given that most of even the BCS schools operate at or near a loss now.

Without question, were they able to pay hoops players, we most likely would be at a very big competitive disadvantage. Agree with that, notwithstanding the fact that we must wait to see what that may mean financially.

[xudash]

Dash, I very much believe it starts with football but it ends at basketball. Those schools want separation and competitive advantage (as I mentioned earlier) and it will give them both. The NCAA needs them more than they need the NCAA at this point. They will get what they want. Which means "Div. 4" and Div. 1 will play in the same basketball tournament, despite an even more grossly uneven playing field.

Like I said before, I think this all sucks. But it is a fait accompli. So I just hope we get invited to the "Div.4" party on the basketball side, as Go surmises will be the case.

Interesting.

So does Div 1 get redefined as well? In other words, if they're to lop off the MAC and Mountain for football, as two examples, do the true bottom feeder basketball conferences get knocked out?

Shades of gray and many of them here fellas: the appeal of the existing NCAA Tournament is in its inclusiveness and its David v. Goliath drama, especially in the first weekend. All of that is priced to some degree - AND TO WHAT EXTENT LIES THE $60K QUESTION - into the existing CBS contract.

If they break off and do not include the likes of us, that contract will go down. If they include the likes of us, they'll do it in a way where minimal contract value is lost, which may lead to more money for fewer participants, spread around unevenly, of course.

[LA Muskie]

Interesting.

So does Div 1 get redefined as well? In other words, if they're to lop off the MAC and Mountain for football, as two examples, do the true bottom feeder basketball conferences get knocked out?

Shades of gray and many of them here fellas: the appeal of the existing NCAA Tournament is in its inclusiveness and its David v. Goliath drama, especially in the first weekend. All of that is priced to some degree - AND TO WHAT EXTENT LIES THE $60K QUESTION - into the existing CBS contract.

If they break off and do not include the likes of us, that contract will go down. If they include the likes of us, they'll do it in a way where minimal contract value is lost, which may lead to more money for fewer participants, spread around unevenly, of course.
I think you will see what amounts to a Div. 1A+ division formed by the BCS conferences. Initially they will want the freedom to pay their football players "full cost of attendance stipends." (Which is to say that everyone will have to do it if they want to compete.) Gradually that will morph into a thinly-veiled paycheck. Eventually they will decide that it would help them recruit basketball as well, and since they make money on basketball (albeit not as much) they decide to pay those players too.

The NCAA, which supports itself through the basketball tourney, will have little (really, no) choice but to let the Div. 1A+ schools compete in the NCAA basketball tournament.

That doesn't mean that other basketball schools will be allowed to pay stipends to their basketball players. That won't be allowed at the "standard" Div. 1 level; only at the Div. 1A+ level, which will hold all the cards.

Will we (i.e., the Big East) get special admission into the Div. 1A+ club for basketball purposes? Honestly, I tend to doubt it. The BCS schools have shown a strong desire to close ranks and limit the number of schools entitled to a piece of the pie. And we would be their biggest competition.

[Caveat]

This is all fun and games until the O'Bannon case gets decided, really.

[LA Muskie]

This is all fun and games until the O'Bannon case gets decided, really.
I think the case has a lot to do with why the BCS wants to pay players -- less so with respect to the case itself and moreso because of what what it signifies. In exchange for a small piece of the marketing pie, the schools will include a laundry-list license for all of the players' various publicity and intellectual property rights in their "scholarship agreements."

[Xavier]

What I never understood with paying players is most of the schools lose money on athletics (only a handful actually break even/make money). I feel like the schools wouldn't want to pay players because of that. All it would do is add to the losses already seen in Athletics.

*Granted, I am sure athletics can and does help with admissions. Hard to really put a $ amount on the affect of what a good sports program can do to admissions.

[xubrew]

Dennis Dodd's article consists mostly of wild and unlikely suppositions.

I do think there will be, and should be, a third subdivision in div1 football. This isn't about paying the players. They don't want to pay the players. The NCAA, and Mark Emmert in particular, has fought hard to pass legislation to allow scholarship athletes to receive stipends, and it keeps getting voted down. The majority of the BCS schools vote against it. This is about not having to share college football playoff revenue with the non-major FBS conferences.

Another thing that's happening that will drastically change college athletics is that I think div2 will disappear as we know it. It's membership continues to shrink because those that want to offer full scholarships see no reason to not move up to div1, and those that only want to offer partial scholarships realize that it isn't practical to do so, so they move down to div3. With more and more NAIA teams jumping to the NCAA, I think you're going to see a drastic restructuring that will look something like this...

div1 - Full, 13 scholarships in a headcount format

div2 - six or seven scholarships in an equivalency format

div3 - no scholarships.


For football, I think you'll see three subdivisions in div1

1A (for lack of a better term) - which is basically the five major conferences plus a few stragglers who will play in the four team (and probably one day eight team) pilayoff format. One of the conditions of being at this level will likely be that football is not allowed to be supplemented by the university. It must be self sustaining. If it isn't that specific bylaw, then it will be something that the CUSAs and MACs of the world will not be able to easily meet.

1AA - the non major FBS programs with 85 scholarships (generally speaking)

1AAA - the current FCS programs with 52 scholarships (generally speaking)

div2 - equivalency scholarships

div3 - no scholarships

I don't see a problem with that scenario, or one that is similar. I don't think it hurts college football or college athletics. We already have subdivisions in football, and society has not collapsed. The BCS was a virtual subdivision anyway. This will merely make it an actual subdivision.

[xubrew]

What I never understood with paying players is most of the schools lose money on athletics (only a handful actually break even/make money). I feel like the schools wouldn't want to pay players because of that. All it would do is add to the losses already seen in Athletics.

*Granted, I am sure athletics can and does help with admissions. Hard to really put a $ amount on the affect of what a good sports program can do to admissions.

Have you looked at the coaching salaries lately??


Exactly. I watch paid players on Sunday. You know, the one's that play primarily for themselves? It's nice to see a little passion for an institution on Saturday. It's still there, no matter how much people want to discount it.

If you value amateurism, then how do you feel about the idea of millionaire assistant coaches and multi-millionaire head coaches??

Again, this isn't about paying the players. They don't want to pay the players. The players already play for nothing other than a scholarship (that isn't nothing, but still...), so why pay them any more than that if you don't have to?? They keep voting it down for a reason. They don't want to pay them.

People that champion the idea of "amateur" athletics and not paying these guys a stipend don't seem to think anything at all about paying themselves six and seven figure salaries to work in "amateur" athletics. The NCAA, under the desire of its membership, currently limits the amount a player can receive at zero. The second someone tried to pass legislation that would limit how much coaches could make to say...$350,000 (which is still a lot more money than most of the people reading this board probably make), you'd see these "champions of amateurism" squealing like stuck pigs. If that were done, there would be plenty of money to pay all scholarship athletes (not just football and basketball, but ALL scholarship athletes) the $2000 stipend a year that was proposed.

They don't want to pay the players. That's not what this is about. Paying the players means less for them, and they don't want to do that. They simply do not want to share playoff revenue with the non-major conferences. It's no coincidence that this is coming up now.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Do you guys really think that teams like OSU, Michigan, and especially every freaking SEC team doesn't already pay their guys?

[xubrew]

Do you guys really think that teams like OSU, Michigan, and especially every freaking SEC team doesn't already pay their guys?

I think boosters do. I don't think the schools do. They may look to ease up on that a little bit. But, to answer your question, no I don't think the schools are giving any of their money directly to the players. In fact, if anything Ohio State's compliance office is a little overkill.

[xubrew]

Interesting article here....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/07/25/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-major-change-on-the-way/2588099/


Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Wednesday he wants lifetime scholarships for athletes to finish their educations and a non-athletic year for "at-risk" students followed by four years of eligibility.

For the most part, this already exists. Not sure what he's complaining about. Delany cracks me up, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

[Xavier]

Have you looked at the coaching salaries lately??




They don't want to pay the players. That's not what this is about. Paying the players means less for them, and they don't want to do that. They simply do not want to share playoff revenue with the non-major conferences. It's no coincidence that this is coming up now.

I said why would they want to pay players while they are already losing money. You replied asking if I have seen coaching salaries (implying they don't mind paying high money?) and finished by saaying paying players means less for them. I feel like we agree, paying the players is something they don't want to do since it means making less/losing more money. Just not sure why you would throw the coaching salaries out there? I feel like that would be an argument to the universities not caring about the money on athletics and thats why they would pay players?

[GuyFawkes38]

Rush the Court expresses the concern that this could wreck havoc on the basketball side:
http://rushthecourt.net/2013/07/24/division-4-has-potential-to-permanently-change-college-basketball

It is a frightening prospect. But IMHO, it would be irrational for "Division 4" to exlude such programs as Georgetown, Butler, X, Gonzaga, Nova, etc... when they bring a lot of cash to the table.

Since it would predominantly affect Catholic, maybe there could also be a lawsuit.

[xubrew]

I said why would they want to pay players while they are already losing money. You replied asking if I have seen coaching salaries (implying they don't mind paying high money?) and finished by saaying paying players means less for them. I feel like we agree, paying the players is something they don't want to do since it means making less/losing more money. Just not sure why you would throw the coaching salaries out there? I feel like that would be an argument to the universities not caring about the money on athletics and thats why they would pay players?

We do agree. I don't think they want to pay the players. I probably shouldn't have quoted you because my point wasn't really countering anything you were saying.

They don't want to pay the players, but they have no problems paying themselves waaaayyy more than what the average working person makes.

[xubrew]

Rush the Court expresses the concern that this could wreck havoc on the basketball side:
http://rushthecourt.net/2013/07/24/division-4-has-potential-to-permanently-change-college-basketball

It is a frightening prospect. But IMHO, it would be irrational for "Division 4" to exlude such programs as Georgetown, Butler, X, Gonzaga, Nova, etc... when they bring a lot of cash to the table.

Since it would predominantly affect Catholic, maybe there could also be a lawsuit.

Many of the people who are freaking out are not making the proper distinction between a division, and a subdivision.

The proposal is for there to be an additional subdivision in div1 football. Essentially, you'd have the Power Five, the FBS and the FCS. For basketball, and for all other schools, it would still be the same bloated subdivisionless division of 32 conferences and 348 teams.

We already have subdivisions in football, and society has not collapsed. Even though the BCS was not technically a separate subdivision, it practically was. There was a definite distinction between Ohio U and Ohio State. So, I really don't think this changes anything all that much.

There are 348 div1 members. Of those 348, there are about fifty where football drives the bus. They're different from the other 290+ schools where basketball drives the bus. So, an additional subdivision within the sport of football makes a lot of sense to me. I get how they would not want schools where football is not the priority having the same voting power that they do, and I also get not wanting to share the revenue from the playoff with the likes of the Sun Belt.

I don't think they have any intention at all to leave the NCAAs. I don't think they have any intention at all of forming a subdivision in any other sport other than football. They just know that there are fifty schools where football is the priority, and 290+ where it is not, so they want their own subdivision. Makes sense to me.

[LA Muskie]

Many of the people who are freaking out are not making the proper distinction between a division, and a subdivision.

The proposal is for there to be an additional subdivision in div1 football. Essentially, you'd have the Power Five, the FBS and the FCS. For basketball, and for all other schools, it would still be the same bloated subdivisionless division of 32 conferences and 348 teams.

We already have subdivisions in football, and society has not collapsed. Even though the BCS was not technically a separate subdivision, it practically was. There was a definite distinction between Ohio U and Ohio State. So, I really don't think this changes anything all that much.

There are 348 div1 members. Of those 348, there are about fifty where football drives the bus. They're different from the other 290+ schools where basketball drives the bus. So, an additional subdivision within the sport of football makes a lot of sense to me. I get how they would not want schools where football is not the priority having the same voting power that they do, and I also get not wanting to share the revenue from the playoff with the likes of the Sun Belt.

I don't think they have any intention at all to leave the NCAAs. I don't think they have any intention at all of forming a subdivision in any other sport other than football. They just know that there are fifty schools where football is the priority, and 290+ where it is not, so they want their own subdivision. Makes sense to me.
While I don't think you are necessarily referring to me, I do understand the distinction. To be clear about my concern, I think it will start as a football subdivision. And I think it almost certainly will happen. My concern is in the slippery slope: first it's football, but I think there is a realistic chance (the odds, I just don't know) that they will get drunk on the competitive advantage and look to expand it to other revenue-generating sports. About the only thing I can think of that would stem that tide is Title IX, but they seemingly will find a way to cross that bridge with football. With 13 scholarship players, basketball just wouldn't have a material affect on the Title IX side.

[xubrew]

While I don't think you are necessarily referring to me, I do understand the distinction. To be clear about my concern, I think it will start as a football subdivision. And I think it almost certainly will happen. My concern is in the slippery slope: first it's football, but I think there is a realistic chance (the odds, I just don't know) that they will get drunk on the competitive advantage and look to expand it to other revenue-generating sports. About the only thing I can think of that would stem that tide is Title IX, but they seemingly will find a way to cross that bridge with football. With 13 scholarship players, basketball just wouldn't have a material affect on the Title IX side.

I understand that concern. I guess I'm at a point now where I just don't think it's going to happen in basketball, or any other sport. The reason is that since the formation of the bowl coalition, which was before the BCS, it seems like at least once a month someone writes a story filled with wild suppositions that the major programs will leave the NCAA. It used to bother me, but after twelve years, I've come to realize that there has been almost no evidence from the actual programs themselves that they have any intention of leaving, and that the wild suppositions are just that.

There are several FBS programs that are putting more resources than they can afford into football simply so they can remain at the FBS level. The majority of your CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt programs take a major financial hit because they want to be in the top classification. They also rely on being on the losing end of buy games, which are rarely competitive, as a means to pay for it. You have programs like Charlotte, Old Dominion and Georgia State, that just started football and have spent a fortune on it and are now on the FBS level.

I do think it was ridiculous that the BCS programs fought so hard from having an NCAA championship playoff like they do at literally every other division of college football. Their reason?? They didn't want the NCAA to be in charge of distributing the revenue. That's idiotic. The playoffs would have made probably $100 million more than the bowl system, and everyone would have gotten more money, but they preferred a system where they made less and didn't have to share it to one where they would have made much more, but had to share it. Ultimately, I think that's what this is about. They simply do not want to share their football revenue with the MACs and SBCs of the world. They don't want to share football revenue with schools that aren't serious about football the way that they are.

For schools that are not in the "Power Five" reclassifying to the top subdivision will likely be no easy feat. Some bylaws I would expect is that they have minimum attendance and facilities standards (that they will actually enforce), that the university is NOT allowed to subsidize football (it must pay for itself). And, that they have a minimum budget in which to operate. You can probably count on one hand the number of schools outside the "Power Five" that could meet those requirements and actually be able to reclassify. Requiring a minimum budget that cannot be subsidized would probably eliminated well over 95% of the programs right off the bat. Add facilities and attendance requirements, and virtually no one would be able to reclassify outside of maybe BYU and Boise. Everyone else will remain in the second subdivision, or FBS, or 1AA, or whatever they're going to call it. I don't see that as a bad thing. They won't have to drain all their resources on football anymore simply to remain in the top subdivision.

Basketball, like you said, is a much smaller roster size. Whatever requirements there would be for basketball would be much easier to meet because it isn't the resource drain that football is. That's why I don't think there is a need or desire for subdivisions on anyone's part, including the major programs.

[GuyFawkes38]

Yes, the big players are sick of the NCAA and want a bigger piece of the pie and more power. But that can be done without a new division or leaving the NCAA (the nuclear options), but to get there, they might very well use those as threats (they are already kind of doing that).

[GuyFawkes38]

An article about division 4 and the Big East.

Ackerman, Big East set priorities for future (http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2650279)

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2650279

[xudash]

The power players of the BCS don't want to break away in all other sports, but they will break away if things aren't managed well from here.

It is believed that they will break away for football, whatever "breaking away" comes to mean. The Ohio State's and Alabama's of the world have no continuing interest in being in a position where the Bowling Green's of the world can vote on matters affecting what the power players can and cannot do. It will most likely happen, but the when for that isn't clear at this point.

Time is on our side. We have a little over a decade; we have the length of the balance of the CBS/Turner agreement to position ourselves, along with our Big East colleagues, as a program/conference that would join the BCS group were they to make a full break. The BCS group does not want to make an absolute break for all sports. However, should it come to that, they'll want some select, strong other participants to keep the NCAA Tournament "interesting" and to maintain inventory for other Olympic Sports.

Fox is dead serious about making FoxSports1 a total success. They did pay-up for the Big East rights, but they're also fully committed to making the channel and its coverage of the Big East a success. The contract is the contract. Both parties are firmly married and locked in for the duration of the agreement. In this one regard alone, along with the Georgetown's of the world, Xavier could not have found itself in a more right place at a more right time.

One more thing. Keep in mind that we are, in fact, stepping into significantly more television money, but that we had to walk away from a rather handsome NCAA Unit revenue stream. We must continue to achieve as we've achieved in the past, which is to note that we must win at a rate that garners us access to the NCAA Tournament to reinvigorate that revenue stream. We certainly fully expect to do that, but not in the same dominant manner as was achieved in the A10. All of this will take money. We truly have arrived, but arriving on Boardwalk and Park Place means the stakes go up significantly.

This is strategic for Xavier, in every sense of that term. The planning that is taking place now in the Athletic Department is extraordinary and it coincides with the planning at the University level. All of it is about firmly establishing a strong national profile that serves as a platform for selective global reach. This is flat out about intelligent branding.

If you thought - rightly so - that Xavier has changed dramatically since 2000, wait until you have the opportunity to contemplate the place in from 7 to 10 years from now. I know I've written about this a little before, but my expectations for the University's trajectory have been calibrated upward based upon what I've learned this summer (in Cincinnati teaching at X again). This isn't about surviving material changes in demographics, regional population shifts and changes in higher education. It's about stepping Xavier into a stronger, more visible position. If any group can do that, the leadership group and the BoT that are in place are absolutely the ones to drive all this forward.

When it comes time to contemplate the effects of the BCS schools breaking away, those effects will be deemed to be positive for X.

[X-band '01]

It is believed that they will break away for football, whatever "breaking away" comes to mean. The Ohio State's and Alabama's of the world have no continuing interest in being in a position where the Bowling Green's of the world can vote on matters affecting what the power players can and cannot do. It will most likely happen, but the when for that isn't clear at this point.


Yet said schools have no trouble buying wins from Bowling Green and Troy State every year. So why shouldn't the little guys have their say?

[xudash]

Yet said schools have no trouble buying wins from Bowling Green and Troy State every year. So why shouldn't the little guys have their say?

Not for me to argue your point, but one reason they don't have a say from that is because they take big checks from those BCS programs.

No one said life was fair. Xavier is simply in the process of making it more fair for Xavier.

[usfldan]

I wonder if the spate of stories lately - Oklahoma St., the five SEC players (DJ Fluker and such), and now Arian Foster - may have some connection to a push to make this Division 4 idea a reality. Probably just a conspiracy theory...

[xutag77]

It will be interesting as the calculation of basketball payouts is (or at least was) partially determined by the number of athletic scholarships provided by the schools. This rule was part of the "not having one game determine the payout" change that killed the MCC. Will the "football" scholarships still count to the total?