Power five NCAA autonomy will not lead to 'rich getting richer'

Published Add your comment

Football News

The NCAA’s top five conferences – that’s the ACC, Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 – have finally been given what everyone expected they would: autonomy to exclusively decide how they will be governed and what rules they will subscribe to.

That’s after a 16-2 vote by the NCAA Division I board of directors gave the conferences that right, pending a two-month deliberation period which is unlikely to cause fuss.

The response on the blogosphere, respected media outlets and laymen alike, was instant.

It led to ESPN heading off its story with the assertion that the nation’s top schools “just got more powerful – maybe a lot so.” The Big Ten Network said it meant the “richest and most powerful 65 schools” will be able to “enact rules that are pertinent to the high level they function at.”

Finally, the New York Times came in and cried wolf, saying the rules would “further widen the gulf between [the Power 5 schools] and other universities.”

NBC Sports thought the rich got richer. So did Sports News International. What about the Hartford Courant? Oh, they thought so too. Michigan State’s 247Sports site. The Deseret News – do I sound like a repeating record yet?

This is the mythology of college sports’ hierarchy: that somehow the richest conferences have gotten “even richer” from this decision.

Related Articles

- Alabama gives second chance to NFL flop
- Almost 25% of college football players smoke weed
- Georgia star suffers serious knee injury

The rich are dominating profits

The reality though is that these titans among NCAA’s Division I schools have already been as dominant as they could imaginably be.

They dominate the headlines. They make more money, invest more in facilities, draw the largest fan-bases, sign lucrative TV contracts and build their own TV networks around their brand.

Only 23 of 228 athletic departments at NCAA Division 1 public schools made a profit in 2012, according to a USA Today analysis last year. The top of that profitable group included the expected suspects: Texas ($165 million), Wisconsin ($149m), Alabama ($116m) and Michigan ($131m).

The Crimson Tide's total expenses, at $116 million, surpassed the total revenues of all but eight of the teams.

Yes, on the surface level, granting the schools rights to decide on rules such as an increased stipend for players and guaranteed four-year scholarships is an increase in power.

But are these schools at a greater competitive advantage over non-Power 5 schools than they were before?

Not really.

The recruiting gap is insurmountable

If money greases the wheels, then college football is a landscape of a few high-powered locomotives racing against a few tricycles.

That's especially true because money has a huge impact on whether colleges can recruit players effectively.

The top programs re-invest millions of dollars into their facilities every year, from Oklahoma's $370 million stadium expansion to Texas A&M's $450m renovation to one day house 102,500 fans.

Now look at which teams consistently have the top-rated recruiting classes.

Only three teams that aren't in a power-five conference, according to, finished with a top-50 recruiting class in the last five years. That analysis comes from Bleacher Report, which said BYU (2010), Cincinnati (2011) and South Florida (2014) were the only ones to accomplish the feat.

The top players will attend Power 5 universities. The secondary players, who still want to play football in Division I, will trickle down to the lower programs.

The power structure has not changed.

Do YOU want to write for GiveMeSport? Get started today by signing-up and submitting an article HERE:

College Football Playoff

Article Comments

Read more

Report author of article

Please let us know if you believe this article is in violation of our editorial policy, please only report articles for one of the following reasons.

Report author


This article has been written by a member of the GiveMeSport Writing Academy and does not represent the views of or SportsNewMedia. The views and opinions expressed are solely that of the author credited at the top of this article. and SportsNewMedia do not take any responsibility for the content of its contributors.

Want more content like this?

Like our GiveMeSport Facebook Page and you will get this directly to you.

Already Subscribed to Facebook, don't ask me again

Follow GiveMeSport on Twitter and you will get this directly to you.

Already Following, don't ask me again

Like our GiveMeSport Page and you will get this directly to you.

Already Subscribed to G+, don't ask me again