Any guesses as to how the new "power 5" conference rules will impact ISU?

[Newell]

They clearly gain an advantage over non-power 5 conference schools which will help. Regarding other power 5 schools, my theory has been a lot of this stuff was already taking place at a lot of the traditional powerhouse schools off the books. If that is the case it should level the playing field for a school like ISU.

But at the very least this should get ISU some serious attention from any recruit considering a non-power 5 conference school and there are some outstanding players at those schools. It would be a smart move for the coaching staff to focus on 3 star recruits leaning toward the MAC, Conference USA, Mountain West, etc. because ISU just gained a big advantage over those schools.

 

[ArgentCy]

I completely agree with you. This will broaden the gap between the P5 (thank your deity of choice ISU is in) and the lower levels. However, as long as the new "rules" are somewhat level towards the entire P5 then I think those teams will all be in good positions. I also believe that they will form these rules to be somewhat even because they don't want a free agent type system for no other reason than it will severely cut into their profits. Most of the time when you outlaw something it just pushes it underground and the less moral have no problem skirting the rules (I'm looking at you ESECPN).

 

[alarson]

Positives- it will widen the gap between us and non power 5 schools.

Negatives- rules that would often negatively impact ISU would have had less traction before because the non power 5 schools would vote them down. Now ISU might be on the losing side of those debates, widening the gaps within the power 5.

 

[jdoggivjc]

With the Power 5 conferences making the rules now, this may force the Big 12 to add 2 teams it ordinarily wouldn't have - if the other 4 conferences overrule the Big 12 requiring a championship game and at least 12 teams to have that championship game. This would be a big disadvantage to the Big 12 until the next TV contract, but if it comes to pass it's one of those things the entire conference will just have to suck up.

 

[Judoka]

I won't get too excited until I see the actual rules, but as others have said there is a strong potential for them to benefit us greatly. Right now we compete with schools like Houston, Rice, Tulsa, USF, UCF, and so on for recruits much more than we recruit with schools like Texas or Alabama. If we're able to offer an enhanced scholarship and other opportunities to those mid level recruits we're much more likely to get them than we are currently. It isn't going to help us get more superstars, but it has the potential to give us much more depth and consistency.

 

[Newell]

I won't get too excited until I see the actual rules, but as others have said there is a strong potential for them to benefit us greatly. Right now we compete with schools like Houston, Rice, Tulsa, USF, UCF, and so on for recruits much more than we recruit with schools like Texas or Alabama. If we're able to offer an enhanced scholarship and other opportunities to those mid level recruits we're much more likely to get them than we are currently. It isn't going to help us get more superstars, but it has the potential to give us much more depth and consistency.

That's exactly my point. If I'm a coach in Ames I can get on the phone with a recruit considering any of those schools and point out the $x,xxx dollar stipend etc which he won't get at Boise State, Louisville, UCF, etc. At a minimum that should get a recruit interested in taking a visit. After that the facilities which are better than most of the non-power 5 schools further impress.

Once the smoke clears and this is clarified the athletic department should revise their recruiting brochure to market this advantage. Iowa State, Power 5 member.

This could be a game changer assuming he coaching staff and AD market it to maximum potential.

 

[A-town Cy]

I think it's going to effect basketball more than football. A lot more above average programs outside the power 5 than in football. You're a bball stud recruit and you can go play at Butler or Georgia...you may have more a reason to go to Georgia now

 

[SCarolinaCy]

That's exactly my point. If I'm a coach in Ames I can get on the phone with a recruit considering any of those schools and point out the $x,xxx dollar stipend etc which he won't get at Boise State, Louisville, UCF, etc. At a minimum that should get a recruit interested in taking a visit. After that the facilities which are better than most of the non-power 5 schools further impress.

Once the smoke clears and this is clarified the athletic department should revise their recruiting brochure to market this advantage. Iowa State, Power 5 member.

This could be a game changer assuming he coaching staff and AD market it to maximum potential.

My concern is that the guy on the phone from Texas has more of these $x,xxx dollar stipend etc to give out than does ISU.

 

[00clone]

My concern is that the guy on the phone from Texas has more of these $x,xxx dollar stipend etc to give out than does ISU.

Or, like housing allowances, now, apparently (comment from Farniok, I think at media days), ISU has $x,xxx stipend, and Texas has $xx,xxx stipend.

 

[aeroclone]

I think the big question here is basically a salary cap. As long as the maximum stipends are something that every power 5 school can pay, this would be a huge plus to ISU. We would have a major leg up on recruiting against the top mid-majors, and we wouldn't be stuck in a position where the bigger budget power 5 schools can use that to further separate themselves from the pack.

I really don't see how this helps the traditional powers all that much. Schools like UT, OU, Ohio State, Bama, etc. sign classes full of top tier players already. There really isn't any room for them to be able to raise their recruiting by using this. Hell, even in a worst case scenario where they are allowed to pay a lot more than we can afford, they are really fighting among themselves for recruits, they aren't going up against us.

 

[Judoka]

I think the big question here is basically a salary cap. As long as the maximum stipends are something that every power 5 school can pay, this would be a huge plus to ISU. We would have a major leg up on recruiting against the top mid-majors, and we wouldn't be stuck in a position where the bigger budget power 5 schools can use that to further separate themselves from the pack.

I really don't see how this helps the traditional powers all that much. Schools like UT, OU, Ohio State, Bama, etc. sign classes full of top tier players already. There really isn't any room for them to be able to raise their recruiting by using this. Hell, even in a worst case scenario where they are allowed to pay a lot more than we can afford, they are really fighting among themselves for recruits, they aren't going up against us.

I think you're correct. I'm still hoping the stipend is just a flat amount that is agreeable to all the Big 5 schools. Though I'm still interested in finding out how it might work in non-revenue and non-headcount sports.

 

[00clone]

I think the big question here is basically a salary cap. As long as the maximum stipends are something that every power 5 school can pay, this would be a huge plus to ISU. We would have a major leg up on recruiting against the top mid-majors, and we wouldn't be stuck in a position where the bigger budget power 5 schools can use that to further separate themselves from the pack.

I really don't see how this helps the traditional powers all that much. Schools like UT, OU, Ohio State, Bama, etc. sign classes full of top tier players already. There really isn't any room for them to be able to raise their recruiting by using this. Hell, even in a worst case scenario where they are allowed to pay a lot more than we can afford, they are really fighting among themselves for recruits, they aren't going up against us.

The other thing I hadn't thought of, but you give a young kid some money, he will probably do stupid things with it. You give him more money, he'll do more stupid things. The big boys may have more problems with kids getting in trouble if they're paying more.

 

[CycloneErik]

It likely won't do anything that benefits ISU, as we'd be one of the lower performers financially. We'll be voted into submission one way or the other, whether it's facilities that we can't afford, stipends we can't afford, or something else.

The stakes will be higher, and we'll have fewer and fewer opportunities to accomplish anything on our limited budget.

 

[JohnnyFive]

When everyone in a Power 5 conference makes $20 mill + from TV deals, every school should be able to devote the same amount of stipends for their athletes. They may not want to, but they're fully capable.

 

[jbhtexas]

I think the big question here is basically a salary cap. As long as the maximum stipends are something that every power 5 school can pay, this would be a huge plus to ISU. We would have a major leg up on recruiting against the top mid-majors, and we wouldn't be stuck in a position where the bigger budget power 5 schools can use that to further separate themselves from the pack.

I really don't see how this helps the traditional powers all that much. Schools like UT, OU, Ohio State, Bama, etc. sign classes full of top tier players already. There really isn't any room for them to be able to raise their recruiting by using this. Hell, even in a worst case scenario where they are allowed to pay a lot more than we can afford, they are really fighting among themselves for recruits, they aren't going up against us.

The Big Boys don't always score awesome classes. Take a look at UT and OU from the link below for 2014. The significant majority of those classes are 3-star and less, so there is plenty of room for them to upgrade to 4-star and 5-star. If there is no "salary cap", or a very high cap, it will ensure that the few rich schools are always loaded, and will make dethroning them almost impossible. As we've seen in the Big 12, under the present system it is quite possible to knock UT and OU (the richest schools) from conference championships.

If there is a stpiend cap low enough that ISU can afford to pay it, I think it will help ISU. If there is no cap, or a high cap such that ISU cannot afford to pay the full amount, it will not help ISU. In the latter case, the talent level at ISU may improve, but the talent level at richer schools relative to ISU (which will be most of the schools in the Power 5) will improve more, and it will become difficult to jump up in the conference. In essence, a caste system will develop.

http://sports.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/teamrank/2014/all/all

I haven't really heard what the big schools are pushing for, but my fear is that it be would no cap or a very high cap.

 

[aeroclone]

College football today is already a system made up of haves and have nots. We have been stuck at the bottom of the B12 heap for pretty much the entirety of the conference's existence. Nowhere to go from here but up. OU and UT have done just fine in the league (even though a good case could be made that UT underperforms). OU won 7 of the 15 B12 title games, and UT won 3. In the 3 years without a title game, OU has one championship.

Based on these recruiting rankings, OU and UT are pulling in the best talent in the league today. I don't see that changing tomorrow, even if they can pay more than ISU can. There just isn't that much room for them to improve at the top. All the schools listed above them here are also big money, big tradition schools. That is going to make it very difficult for them to grow the gap with ISU, even if they are able to pay more money than us. Once you get into the 40-70 range where ISU typically is, a lot of mid majors show up. With those schools not paying, that is where the opportunity lies for a school like ISU.

 

[Daserop]

whatever happen, it won't be in isu's favor.

 

[klamath632]

With the Power 5 conferences making the rules now, this may force the Big 12 to add 2 teams it ordinarily wouldn't have - if the other 4 conferences overrule the Big 12 requiring a championship game and at least 12 teams to have that championship game. This would be a big disadvantage to the Big 12 until the next TV contract, but if it comes to pass it's one of those things the entire conference will just have to suck up.

If they do that, they can pony up the schools too. We aren't taking **** schools like Boise just because we have to get to 12.

 

[Mr Janny]

Here's an interesting take on the Power 5 schools getting autonomy.

http://deadspin.com/ncaa-deadenders-are-running-out-of-arguments-1618290766

or basically:

NCAA to Players: It's not fair that the sports that make the most money should follow a different set of rules from all of the other athletes.
NCAA to Conferences: It's entirely fair that the conferences that make the most money should follow a different set of rules from all of the other conferences.

 

[jbhtexas]

Based on these recruiting rankings, OU and UT are pulling in the best talent in the league today. I don't see that changing tomorrow, even if they can pay more than ISU can. There just isn't that much room for them to improve at the top. All the schools listed above them here are also big money, big tradition schools. That is going to make it very difficult for them to grow the gap with ISU, even if they are able to pay more money than us. Once you get into the 40-70 range where ISU typically is, a lot of mid majors show up. With those schools not paying, that is where the opportunity lies for a school like ISU.

It seems clear to me from those recruiting rankings that there is ample room for both UT and OU to improve their recruiting. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. If you check out various OU and UT message boards, you'll see that there is angst amongst the fans about the quality of the recent recruiting classes (not that it matters what the fans think). Both schools want national championships, and they know that national championships are not likely to happen with #20 recruiting classes.

Even though UT and OU have won a majority of the Big 12 titles, they haven't won all of them; other teams have been able to jump in occasionally. That's because the sometimes OU and UT end up with lower ranked recruiting classes which makes them somewhat vulnerable down the road.

There is another potential issue...UT's AD income is $40,000,000 more than OU's. If we end up with some kind of uncapped system, UT will be able to offer significantly higher stipends than OU (and most everyone else in the Power 5). If this allows UT to cut off Stoop's Texas recruiting pipeline and perpetually gives UT markedly better recruiting classes, you can be assured that OU is going to be looking toward the SEC or PAC-12 (again) where the disparities to the top aren't so large.

I really hope wiser minds will prevail and the stipends will be capped at a value that is in reach of all the Power 5 schools.