One of the issues that non Power Conferences are really responding to are grounds as to why they as "FBS" programs also fall under the same umbrella of the Power 5.
From the responses of commissioners from non Power 5 Conferences, there seems to be an inclusive argument as to why they are different from "FCS" programs.
The main reason seems to be that these non Power 5 Conferences are scheduled to
"LOSE" their governing seats on the board, which will make decisions ($$$) concerning "FBS" participating programs.
This leads me to believe that there must be some form of argument from the Power 5 that is in some way trying suggest that non Power Conferences programs are similar in fashion/structure to those of the "FCS" System and should not have seats on board concerning "FBS" (Power 5) programs.
Here is a link to the communications.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...df&chrome=true
The Mountain West response suggest some very valid points pertaining to all "10" Conferences and not just the Power 5.
1) Newly signed 12 yr Playoff agreement with ESPN signed by all "10" Conferences.
2) Competitiveness issue with Power 5 having separate "Transfer" rules to play by.
3) How initial Autonomy foundation was about addressing "Student-Athlete Welfare Issues".
Mountain West also argues that verbage needs to be considered/added dealing with Tranfers so that non Power 5 Conferences are not used as a "Farm" system that allow them to recruit/take away these Conferences best athletes post-high school.
The Big East utilizes the argument their Conference incorporates programs that place "Academics" as the first priority for Student Athletes and not Sports.
Seems like a good argument as to why they should not have their seat stripped away under the new governance structure.
After all, how could the Power 5 argue against the Academic standard of the Big East Conference?
Some could argue that many schools outside of the Power 5 Conferences are on par and/or excel at a higher level than most programs in the Power 5 Conferences.
To not include the Big East would mean major issues dealing with NCAA Basketball.
I could see the Big East utilizing the same premise against the Power 5, but from a Basketball argument as most of the programs in the Power 5 Conferences competitive roles in basketball are reversed (ie they are not the top tier schools that drive basketball revenues).
In essence, Big East and other non Power 5 Conferences could argue for a Basketball governing board that excludes seats from the Power 5.
(ie you exclude us from Football, we'll do the same with Basketball)
That's a lot of $$$ money on that could be lost.
Funny thing is that the NCAA seems to have been set at the "kids" table as each Conference argues for their piece of the pie.
Then there are Conferences like the Ivy League, which have no football argument, but like the Big East, do participate in the realm of Basketball.
Last time I checked, many influential positions are in some way associated with Ivy League schools.
Schools that are preparing the next group of lawyers and politicians.
Just reading their response, It seems like this little premise is thrown into the discussion on the side.
After all, many of our student-athletes do move on to positions of influence (my personal take from their response).
Do the Power 5 really want to take a chance on "P______" off these type of programs through exclusion of a voting voice?