Just finished reading the story in the KNS regarding the LEAD1 study that will be considered at the NCAA convention that begins this week. According to the article, LEAD1 is “an association representing all 130 FBS athletics directors in petitioning the NCAA Division 1 Board of Directors to change it’s approach to infractions”. The way Tennessee has handled their current investigation is more in line with the proposed changes than the way other high level schools have historically handled these types of investigations. 75 of the 130 FBS athletic directors signed in support of the final report and recommendations.
Reworking how schools self-police and self-govern with consistency, integrity and transparency is going to be critical with the transfer situation and NIL becoming dominant factors in schools success. The current setup does not support that, IMO. I believe there will need to be a division with separate governing bodies and rules for P5 and G5 and lower levels of schools.
A few questions came to mind:
- What concerns are there that, even though LEAD1 was representing all 130 schools, 55 of the 130 AD’s chose not to sign and support the recommendations?
- Are those that abstained from signing weighted more from the P5 level, Group of 5 level or from certain conferences?
- Is the money currently flowing so great that most AD’s will be afraid of taking bold action before things get completely off the rails? Or is it more a situation where AD’s from certain conferences are paranoid to the point they are afraid proposed any changes will give greater advantage to their competitors so they just oppose everything?
Thoughts??
@Brent_Hubbs @Austin_Price @Rob Lewis @briancrice
Reworking how schools self-police and self-govern with consistency, integrity and transparency is going to be critical with the transfer situation and NIL becoming dominant factors in schools success. The current setup does not support that, IMO. I believe there will need to be a division with separate governing bodies and rules for P5 and G5 and lower levels of schools.
A few questions came to mind:
- What concerns are there that, even though LEAD1 was representing all 130 schools, 55 of the 130 AD’s chose not to sign and support the recommendations?
- Are those that abstained from signing weighted more from the P5 level, Group of 5 level or from certain conferences?
- Is the money currently flowing so great that most AD’s will be afraid of taking bold action before things get completely off the rails? Or is it more a situation where AD’s from certain conferences are paranoid to the point they are afraid proposed any changes will give greater advantage to their competitors so they just oppose everything?
Thoughts??
@Brent_Hubbs @Austin_Price @Rob Lewis @briancrice
