NAPLES, Fla. – Inside the Ritz-Carlton oceanfront resort along Florida’s southwest coast, college athletics leaders 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 commissioners from the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten.
Not in the room: the other 28 Division I commissioners who roamed the first floor of the resort wondering the whereabouts of the other four.
“I didn’t even know they were meeting,” one said.
“Of course,” whispered another, “they are isolating us from this.”
Minutes later, the five men hurried down the main staircase to begin what was the final chapter in four days of administrative meetings here: Baker appearing before all 32 commissioners for a robust discussion about the future of the NCAA’s premier division.
As evident from their separate meeting, NCAA Division I has never been more fractured, fragile and frustrated. The divide between the haves and have-nots in college athletics is becoming more real than ever, in fact.
Revealed during this week’s meetings of conference commissioners was nothing less than a new governance model for Division I. Stemming from the NCAA’s landmark antitrust settlement, the model further separates the four power leagues from the 28 least resourced conferences in a more formal break.
While still in the process of being developed, the governance framework can simply be summed up 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 mostly commercialized professional enterprise and the more basketball-centric institutions that participate in a more amateur setting.
Historically significant, the governance model segregates the more than 350 schools in Division I, creating what some describe as a separate subdivision for power schools — similar to a proposal Baker publicly unveiled 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.
Power schools are preparing to share up to $22 million a year with their athletes.
But what does this 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 universities.
Several commissioners from the “Other 28” told Yahoo Sports this week that they don’t expect many of their schools to opt into the revenue-sharing concept with athletes. Financially, they cannot sustain it, they say. After all, most schools in these conferences rely heavily on institutional support and student fees to keep their sports teams afloat, many of which make no profit or generate very little revenue.
That’s fine and understandable, as noted in April by Jeffrey Kessler, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys in the settlement.
“Here’s what people need to get into their heads: Power Five schools are not like everyone else,” he said. “The reason we get tied up is because we confuse schools that have developed these giant independent commercial businesses with 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 athletic budget is about $130-150 million. The budgets of those participating in the bottom 28 Division I conferences amount to a tenth of that amount.
This dynamic – the enormous gap in resources between the two groups – is at the center of a tug of war that has lasted for years between administrators from both groups: the smaller, resource-poor programs that want to maintain much of the amateurism model and have fought to defend cost containment measures against football powerhouses who are slowly moving towards a more professional pay structure and wish to free themselves from any spending shackles.
This simmering battle reached a boiling point this summer with the terms of the House agreement. The Other 28 are responsible for 35% of the $2.77 billion in back damages to be paid to former college athletes over a 10-year period. This amount, around 970 million dollars, incited harsh public criticism from its commissioners, who claim they were not involved in the negotiations of the agreement and believe that the amount puts them at a disadvantage. One school, Houston Christian University, even took legal action in court on Thursday over back pay distribution amounts.
Power conferences pay about 23%, while the NCAA national office foots 42% of the bill. The confusing part, many commissioners say, is that about 95% of the $2.77 billion in back pay is intended to be distributed to athletes from power conferences.
“I’m looking at a 10% cut in the operating budget so the money can go to their alumni athletes,” Big Sky Conference commissioner Tom Wistrcill said. “In the system we created, some schools and conferences are doing really, really well. Good for them. Some are struggling.”
Setting aside the fight over back payments, at this week’s meetings the commissioners of the Other 28 expressed agreement to grant major conferences rule-making powers, such as creating their own power conference-only committees.
The handcuffs, it seems, have been removed. 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 powerful conferences make no secret of the fact that they want more access to NCAA postseason championships and want to keep more money from those postseason championships.
That’s what worries many of the Other 28, who feel as if their already small slice of the pie is shrinking. There is fear that it will eventually disappear completely.
The main concern is the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, which is the association’s and the Other 28’s main source of revenue and the only event that truly unites all Division I institutions. While football money continues to float across the leagues powerful, March Madness is the vital financial force for the Other 28, as well as its national relevance.
Access is already in the cards. O the tournament will soon expand to either four or eight at-large teams, in line with the NCAA model — a move championed by the power conferences to pave the way for the tournament for more of their schools.
And now? What’s the next step in the NCAA’s Division I transformation?
The new governance structure, as well as the NCAA tournament expansion models, are expected to be further explored this week by members of the Division I Council, one of the NCAA’s most powerful decision-making councils that includes representatives from each DI league – a group that, perhaps, is about to undergo a dramatic change under the new governance system.
Imagine a Power Conference Council made up only of members from 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 controversial topic that is part of the new model.
No decisions have been made, but they have approached a football roster limit that will likely be higher than 85 but lower than the traditional 120 players teams now have.
At that meeting, of course, the Other 28 were not present.
While 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.
