Here is an excerpt from an interview with OSU AD Gene Smith that ran on the Dispatch's website in May.
Smith tips the hand of the power 5 in it. He also is lying when he says there is no timetable--it will happen this year...
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/05/0...
Q: There’s been some speculation that the NCAA could become obsolete, that the power conferences could essentially supersede the NCAA. Do you share that opinion?
A: Not really. That’s the wrong conversation. The NCAA is going through change. But I do believe we need to pause and look at our structure. I do believe we need to think of a different structure for certain schools like Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska and Alabama and so on. There are probably 60-70 schools that are different than everybody else. We need to think about a different division for them, within the NCAA structure, not outside of it, a division that allows those schools to have its own legislation. The best example I can use is the $2,000 stipend (toward) the cost of attendance. There are schools that can afford it and there are schools that can’t. As far as the recruiting rules, our recruiting rules should be different than it is at Middle Tennessee State. They’re Division I and they’re voting on our legislation or the legislation we believe is applicable to our level. I think we need to pause. I think we need to have a conversation about, ‘Should there be a different division within the NCAA structure that allows X number of schools to be legislated differently, but within the structure?’
Q: You’ve given it some thought, obviously.
A: Oh yeah. A lot.
Q: Are you a leader in that movement?
A: There’s a lot of conversation right now. Yeah, I’m having conversations with a lot of my colleagues. We don’t know what that would take, but the conversation has started.
Q: Is there a time frame?
A: We’re not even on that. We’re just having the conversation about what’s the answer to the challenges that we have with our current structure. There are other ideas out there. My idea is not the only one. You’ll probably read and hear the ideas of other ADs and commissioners. The conversation has started about, ‘How do we address our challenges?’
Q: What do you think is different for the Middle Tennessee States than it is for the Ohio States?
A: We’ve created this monster, first of all. The membership has. Everyone says the NCAA like it’s some people sitting in Indianapolis in the back of a smoke-filled room. We voted all this stuff in and it’s flawed, a lot of it. One of the flaws that we used to have was so many pieces of our legislation that tried to take into consideration competitive balance and competitive equality, and that makes no sense. Really it doesn’t. You can’t take the Ohio State University and create legislation that allows a Middle Tennessee State to be as competitive as we are. It doesn’t happen. You can have all these rules where we’re operating under the same rules, but we still have an engine that they don’t have.
That’s no disrespect to them. When I was at Eastern Michigan University, I had a track coach come to me and talk about the things that Michigan and Michigan State had that we didn’t have. I said, ‘You’re awesome. You’re really good. If that’s where you want to be, go apply for a job at Michigan or Michigan State. I want to beat Toledo. I want to beat Bowling Green. I want to beat Central Michigan.’ I remember those times. I know what it’s like at that level. Eastern Michigan is not Michigan. In basketball, if they play 10 times, Eastern Michigan might get them one time. We’ve tried to legislate a level playing field when there’s no level playing field. What I’m proposing – and there are other models you’ll see surface – is to have a division inside the NCAA that says, ‘These schools can afford to pay a stipend. Let them do it.’ You can’t afford to do it. That’s fine. But don’t inhibit their ability to create opportunities for their young people.
Q: You’re talking about the five super conferences?
A: That’s really what it comes down to.
Q: The devil’s advocate argument is probably that you’ll make the difference between the haves and have-nots even greater.
A: Your point? Your point? See, that’s the argument, that we’ve always said, ‘We shouldn’t do that.’ I say, “Why? Isn’t that divide huge anyway? Do you think they’re going to be in the (football) playoff.’ When you look at the last 10 Final Fours, how many Cinderellas did you really have?
That’s why I say you stay within the NCAA structure because basketball is a different beast than football. You be a part of the NCAA basketball tournament that generates so much revenue that it helps those schools, because you can have some equalizers there periodically. So don’t break away from that. Do not do that because that hurts those opportunities at those schools that we contribute to. That’s just one example. You stay in the structure and you create ways where we’re beneficial to the structure to help those schools, but we’re not limited. All I’m talking about is legislation. I’m not talking about anything else.