NAPLES, Fla. — Inside the beachside Ritz-Carlton resort on Florida’s southwest coast, leaders of college athletics gathered in a second-floor conference room to discuss details about the industry’s future.
Those in the room were limited to five men: NCAA President Charlie Baker and the commissioners of the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten.
Not in the room: the other 28 Division I commissioners who wandered around the first floor of the complex wondering about the whereabouts of the other four.
“I didn’t even know they were getting together,” one said.
“Of course,” whispered another, “they’re excluding us from this.”
Minutes later, the five men hurried down the main staircase to begin what was the final chapter of four days of administrative meetings here: Baker appeared before all 32 commissioners for a robust discussion about the future of the NCAA’s top division.
As evident from their separate meeting, NCAA Division I has never been more fractured, fragile and frustrated. In fact, the divide between the haves and have-nots in college athletics is becoming more real than ever.
Nothing less than a new governance model for Division I was unveiled during this week’s conference commissioner meetings. Building on the NCAA’s historic antitrust settlement, the model further separates the four powerhouse leagues from the 28 lower resource conferences in a more formal break.
Although still in development, the governance framework can be summed up simply in five words, says one FCS league commissioner: “Let the big dogs eat.”
While many details remain unclear, the new governance structure clearly draws a line between the revenue-generating football giants that compete in a professional, mostly commercialized enterprise, and the more basketball-focused institutions that participate. in a more amateur panorama.
Historically significant, the governance model segregates the more than 350 Division I schools, creating what some describe as a separate subdivision for power schools, similar to a proposal Baker unveiled publicly last December. Power conferences are expected to have the authority to create and even enforce their own rules, many of them related to the antitrust settlement and the new athlete revenue-sharing model coming to college athletics.
Energy schools are preparing to share up to $22 million a year with their athletes.
But what does that mean for everyone else? The other 28 Division I leagues consist of more than 60 Group of Five football programs, more than 120 FCS schools and nearly 100 additional basketball-only colleges.
Several “Other 28” commissioners told Yahoo Sports this week that they don’t expect many of their schools to opt into the revenue-sharing concept with athletes. Economically they cannot support it, they say. After all, most schools in those conferences rely heavily on institutional support and student fees to keep their sports teams afloat, most of which make no profit or generate very little revenue.
That’s fine and understandable, as Jeffrey Kessler, one of the settlement’s lead plaintiff attorneys, pointed out in April.
“This is what people have to keep in mind: Power Five schools are not like all the others,” he said. “The reason we get tangled up is because we combine the schools that have developed these giant independent commercial businesses with the schools that are still just educational institutions with extracurricular activities.”
Many of those in power conferences generate millions from their football and men’s basketball programs. The average power conference sports budget is around $130-150 million. The budgets of the bottom 28 Division I conferences are just one-tenth of that figure.
That dynamic — the yawning gulf in resources between the two groups — is at the center of a years-long tug-of-war between the administrators of both groups: the smaller, lower-resource programs that want to retain much of the amateur model and have They fought to maintain cost containment measures in the face of football powerhouses that are slowly moving towards a more professional compensation structure and wish to free themselves from any spending restrictions.
This simmering battle has come to a boiling point this summer with the terms of the House deal. The Other 28 are responsible for 35% of the $2.77 billion in damages that will be paid to former college athletes over a 10-year period. That figure, about $970 million, has drawn harsh public criticism from its commissioners, who say they were not involved in the deal negotiations and believe the amount puts them at a disadvantage. One school, Houston Christian University, even filed a legal challenge in court Thursday over the back pay distribution amounts.
Power conferences pay about 23%, while the NCAA national office foots 42% of the bill. What’s confusing, many commissioners say, is that about 95% of the $2.77 billion in back pay is intended to be distributed among athletes in power conferences.
“I’m considering a 10% operating budget cut so the money can go to their former student-athletes,” said Tom Wistrcill, commissioner of the Big Sky Conference. “In the system we’ve created, some schools and conferences are doing very, very well. Good for them. Some are struggling.”
Putting aside the fight over back pay, in meetings this week, Other 28 commissioners expressed agreement on giving major conferences regulatory powers, such as creating their own conference-only power committees.
The handcuffs, it seems, are off. But the requests of those in the big leagues are not limited to governance. It extends to (1) access and (2) income. As owners of the most valuable brands and teams loaded with talent, the leaders of the power conferences have made no secret that they want more access to the NCAA postseason championships and they want to keep a bigger share of the money from those championships. postseason.
That’s what worries many of the Other 28, who feel their already small slice of the pie is shrinking. It is feared that, over time, it will disappear completely.
The main concern is the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, which is the main source of income for the association and 28 Others and the only event that truly unites all Division I institutions. While football money keeps Powerhouse leagues afloat, March Madness is the financial lifeblood of the Other 28, as well as its national relevance.
Access is already in the spotlight. He The tournament will soon expand, with either four or eight at-large teams, depending on the NCAA model. – a move advocated by power conferences to pave the way to the tournament for more of their schools.
And now that? What is the next step in the transformation of NCAA Division I?
This week members of the Division I Council, one of the NCAA’s most powerful decision-making boards, are expected to further explore the new governance structure as well as the NCAA’s tournament expansion models. which includes representatives from each DI league, a group that, perhaps, is on track to undergo dramatic change under the new governance system.
Imagine a Power Conference Council made up solely of members of the SEC, Big 12, ACC and Big Ten, for example.
The four leagues are already working together on the details of the agreement. While in Naples, commissioners Tony Petitti (Big Ten), Jim Phillips (ACC), Brett Yormark (Big 12) and Greg Sankey (SEC) met to begin the process of finalizing new roster limits, a hot topic which is part of the new model.
No decisions were made, but they got a little closer to a football roster limit that will likely be more than 85 but less than the traditional 120 players teams now have.
At that meeting, of course, the Other 28 were not there.
Although there is much uncertainty about the future of college sports, one thing is clear: a more official and permanent division of NCAA Division I has arrived.
