NAPLES, Fla. — Inside the Ritz-Carlton resort along Florida’s southwest coast, college sports leaders gathered in a second-floor conference room to discuss details of the future of the industry.
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 28 other Division I commissioners milling around the first floor of the complex wondering where the other four were.
“I didn’t even know they were meeting,” one said.
“Of course,” murmured another, “they exclude us. »
Minutes later, the five men rushed into the main stairwell to begin what was the final chapter of four days of administrative meetings here: Baker appearing before the 32 commissioners for an in-depth discussion on the future of the first division of the NCAA.
As their separate meeting shows, NCAA Division I has never been more fractured, fragile and frustrated. In fact, the divide between the haves and have-nots in college sports is becoming more real than ever.
Unveiled at this week’s conference commissioners’ meetings was a new governance model for Division I. Stemming from the NCAA’s landmark antitrust settlement, the model further separates the four powerful leagues from the 28 well-resourced conferences. less in a more formal break.
Although still under development, the governance framework can simply be summed up in five words, says one FCS league commissioner: “Let the big dogs eat.”
Although many details remain unclear, the new governance structure clearly draws a line between revenue-generating soccer giants that compete in a primarily commercial professional enterprise and more basketball-centric institutions that participate in a landscape more amateurish.
Historically significant, the governance model separates the more than 350 Division I schools, creating what some describe as a separate subdivision for the power schools — similar to a proposal Baker unveiled publicly last December. Power conferences should hold the power to create and even enforce their own rules, many of which relate to antitrust settlement and the new athlete revenue sharing model coming to college sports.
Power schools are preparing to share up to $22 million a year with their athletes.
But what does this mean for everyone? The other 28 Division I leagues include more than 60 Group of Five football programs, more than 120 FCS schools and nearly 100 additional basketball-only universities.
Several commissioners from the “other 28” told Yahoo Sports this week that they don’t expect many of their schools to opt for the concept of sharing revenue with athletes. Financially, they cannot support this, they say. After all, most schools participating in these conferences rely heavily on institutional support and tuition to keep their sports teams afloat, most of which either make no profit or generate very little revenue.
That’s fine and understandable, as Jeffrey Kessler, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in the settlement, noted in April.
“Here’s what people need to understand: Power Five schools are not like everyone else,” he said. “The reason we’re linked is because we’re confusing schools that have developed these gigantic independent business ventures with schools that are still just educational institutions with extracurricular activities.”
Many members of the Power Conferences generate millions from their football and men’s basketball programs. The average Power Conference sports budget is approximately $130 million to $150 million. The budgets of the last 28 Division I conferences are only a tenth of that figure.
This dynamic – the yawning chasm of resources between the two groups – is at the center of a years-long tug-of-war between administrators of the two groups: the smaller, resource-constrained programs that want to retain much of the model amateurism and have fought to enforce cost containment measures in the face of footballing powers who are slowly moving towards a more professional remuneration structure and wish to free themselves from any spending constraints.
This simmering battle came to a boiling point this summer with the terms of the House rules. The other 28 are responsible for 35 percent of the $2.77 billion in back damages that will be paid to former college athletes over a 10-year period. That figure, about $970 million, has drawn strong public criticism from their commissioners, who say they were not involved in settlement negotiations and believe the amount puts them at a disadvantage. One school, Houston Christian University, even filed a legal challenge in court Thursday over 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 percent of the $2.77 billion in back pay is earmarked for distribution to Power Conference athletes.
“I’m considering a 10 percent reduction in the operating budget 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 really, really well. Good for them. Some have difficulty. »
Aside from disputes over back pay, in meetings this week, commissioners from the other 28 expressed agreement to grant major conferences rule-making powers, such as creating their own power committees reserved for conferences.
The handcuffs, it seems, are no longer there. But the demands of the big players do not stop at governance. It extends to (1) access and (2) income. As owners of the most valuable brands and teams loaded with talent, Power Conference leaders have made no secret of their desire for more access to the NCAA postseason championships and that they wanted to keep more of the money from these post-season championships.
This is what worries many of the other 28, who feel like their already slim slice of the pie is shrinking. We fear that eventually this will disappear completely.
The primary concern is the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, which is the primary source of revenue for the association and the Other 28 and the only event that truly binds all Division I institutions together. While money football keeps the powerful leagues afloat, March Madness is the financial lifeblood of the other 28 as well as their national importance.
Already, access is in the crosshairs. The tournament will soon expand, either to four or eight at-large teams, depending on the NCAA model — a move championed by power conferences to open a path to the tournament for more of their schools.
And now ? What’s next in the transformation of NCAA Division I?
The new governance structure, as well as models for NCAA tournament expansion, are expected to be explored in more detail this week by members of the Division I Council, one of the NCAA’s most powerful decision-making boards that includes representatives from each DI league – a group that, perhaps, is poised to experience a sea change under the new governance system.
Imagine a Power Conference Council made up solely of members from the SEC, Big 12, ACC and Big Ten, for example.
The four leagues are already working in tandem on the details of the regulations. 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 that is part of the new model.
No decisions have been made, but they have moved closer to a football roster limit that will likely be higher than 85 but lower than the traditional 120 players teams currently have.
Of course, the other 28 were not present at this meeting.
While there is much uncertainty about the future of college sports, one thing is clear: A more official and permanent split from NCAA Division I is here.