- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 10,892
- Reaction Score
- 13,292
Saban on 5 power conference break away
- Thread starter B1GEast
- Start date
- Status
jbdphi
Aussie Aussie Aussie!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction Score
- 2,954
He also referenced 70 teams. That would imply more teams currently on the outside have a chance of getting inside. Also, it seems that the writer is saying this means break-away but Saban doesn't seem to say that explicitly. He just seems to say it for scheduling.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 36,083
- Reaction Score
- 33,817
Does he think I'd ever give him a nickel? I'd drop anything that paid any conferences at the cost of my team.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,373
- Reaction Score
- 16,570
Honestly ... this could be the Lever that opens the Books for UConn to be brought in. You just eliminated a large swath of States with this 5 conference thing. We should be able to push legislatively/anti-trust arguments then. I just don't believe that 4 in North Carolina and 5 in Texas ... and then all these podunk states with 2 should take the bulk of money from College Sports. Particularly when we are WINNING National Championships.
TRest
Horrible
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 7,886
- Reaction Score
- 22,480
Apparently the Power 5 don't see it your way. This won't work because 3/4 of the schools will never be able to compete if only playing each other.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 36,083
- Reaction Score
- 33,817
And the top 25% don't care.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 92,483
- Reaction Score
- 356,991
Agreed - There are 64 teams in the Power Five. Notre Dame, a partial member of the ACC, makes it 65. The battle will be btwn Boise, BYU, UConn, Cincy, Service Academies (but really?), USF/UCF, old/new Conf USA contingent and ???
We've been on the radars of 3 of those 5 conferences and still are known to be on the radars of 2 of them. You have to think of UConn as an expansion franchise. Or as said before, it's as if we're taking Yale's place. We did compete with Yale for recruits in the past, as the athletic department grew.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,041
- Reaction Score
- 4,190
Just worried about Blumenthal getting involved.
He should take it up the rear end for us.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 10,576
- Reaction Score
- 3,008
Just worried about getting more than 25,000 per game.
sammydabiz
I sport NewBalance sneakers to avoid a narrow path
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,689
- Reaction Score
- 3,410
Since the inception of UConn becoming D-1A member, Air Force has been as good or better, don't on the service academies (well, maybe Army)
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 92,483
- Reaction Score
- 356,991
No disrespect intended... Since 2004 - Navy is 75-40, UConn is 60-51, Air Force is 60-52 and Army is 32-75.
My point was you have 5 spots left, do 2 or 3 get taken by Army, Navy, Air Force for inclusion in the new super conferences?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2012
- Messages
- 8,771
- Reaction Score
- 25,975
SEC expansion is on the way?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,578
- Reaction Score
- 16,671
Right on the nose. This whole BCS and conference realignment coupled with media deals stinks to the rafters. Most of these schools are also funded by the US taxpayer in one way or another through large grants. There is no legitimate or lawful reason that allows conferences to agree to exclusive scheduling when the sole purpose and effect is to restrain competition and commerce. The goal is simple. They want to lock up and control media dollars at the expense of other schools. The proof is already in the pudding with the great disparity in media revenues flowing to "power conferences". What happened to the Big East was unlawful in many ways. UConn lacks the political will to fight this because they are afraid to alienate potential conferences that would invite them. This is exactly why is must be done.
IMind
Wildly Inaccurate
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,868
- Reaction Score
- 2,616
I think the breaking away from the NCAA is a pipedream and a way to hold the NCAA hostage and also a bit of a smoke screen. The NCAA already does pretty much whatever the 'power conferences' want. UNC and Ohio State are proof enough of that. I think the main reason that UConn got hit by sanctions and the timing of the sactions is exactly because we aren't in the old boys club.
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,646
- Reaction Score
- 34,643
It is possible that the Big 5 might break off, but I don't think they will because:
1) A break would shrink the market. You don't increase your fan base by cutting franchises.
2) It would destroy the NCAA Tournament, with little to no corresponding benefit to football. The upsets are why people watch the first weekend. This, together with #1 above, would destroy the NCAA Tournament and cut its viewership by 1/3 or more.
3) Paying players. When you start to act like a business, you have to pay the help. If the major programs keep making moves to maximize profitability, eventually they will look too much like a business to avoid paying the help.
4) IRS. The tax exempt status of Division 1 athletics is pretty fragile anyway, and making another profit maximization move would eventually reach a tipping point with the IRS.
5) Anti-trust. This is the biggest one. If it wasn't for anti-trust issues, the Top 40 schools would have broken off 20 years ago. The problem is that if they try, they will get sued and they will lose. Notice that every time the small conferences rattle their sabres about litigation, the BCS pays them more money. The BCS knows it will lose in court, just as almost every sports league has before them.
1) A break would shrink the market. You don't increase your fan base by cutting franchises.
2) It would destroy the NCAA Tournament, with little to no corresponding benefit to football. The upsets are why people watch the first weekend. This, together with #1 above, would destroy the NCAA Tournament and cut its viewership by 1/3 or more.
3) Paying players. When you start to act like a business, you have to pay the help. If the major programs keep making moves to maximize profitability, eventually they will look too much like a business to avoid paying the help.
4) IRS. The tax exempt status of Division 1 athletics is pretty fragile anyway, and making another profit maximization move would eventually reach a tipping point with the IRS.
5) Anti-trust. This is the biggest one. If it wasn't for anti-trust issues, the Top 40 schools would have broken off 20 years ago. The problem is that if they try, they will get sued and they will lose. Notice that every time the small conferences rattle their sabres about litigation, the BCS pays them more money. The BCS knows it will lose in court, just as almost every sports league has before them.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 92,483
- Reaction Score
- 356,991
Some thoughts from tOSU AD Gene Smith on the subject... need to scroll through the questions - the interview jumps around.
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/05/05/0505-ohio-state-gene-smith-interview.html
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: 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.
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/05/05/0505-ohio-state-gene-smith-interview.html
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: 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.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction Score
- 2,472
So to Smith, the fact that there haven't been a lot of Cinderellas in the Final four in the Past ten years, (though I count 6 of those years with at least 1 mid major, ie C-USA or lower, and 2 teams in 2011) there shouldn't be the chance for any Cinderella in Football ever?
Can the IRS spend some of the time the spent going after Tea-Partiers and use it to go after these top-end schools instead? Non Profit my ass
Can the IRS spend some of the time the spent going after Tea-Partiers and use it to go after these top-end schools instead? Non Profit my ass
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 22,817
- Reaction Score
- 9,456
This kind of stuff is all about the college football POST season revenue streams. It always has been. it's only been in the past 15-20 years, that regular season television revenues have become a part of the equation that creates the divide. The old guard of schools, the college football association members, don't want any new comers and want to continue the cartel and control of the post season money in college football.
Here's an article from 1996. The same groups of schools, wanted the same changes then, that they do now. THe constant shifting in the intercollegiate athletic leagues since the Oklahoma regenst supreme court case, was about a 15 year window of time, as the REGULAR season scheduling arrangements, - around television - were destablilized, aand then re-stabilize, for these same kinds of talks to show up again.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/01/sports/college-football-its-power-eroding-cfa-will-disband.html
Here's an article from 1996. The same groups of schools, wanted the same changes then, that they do now. THe constant shifting in the intercollegiate athletic leagues since the Oklahoma regenst supreme court case, was about a 15 year window of time, as the REGULAR season scheduling arrangements, - around television - were destablilized, aand then re-stabilize, for these same kinds of talks to show up again.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/01/sports/college-football-its-power-eroding-cfa-will-disband.html
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 22,817
- Reaction Score
- 9,456
As for the Ohio State University athletic director's comments - the concept of creating a different division of football, for "competitive" purposes, has already been done and explored in depth.
What this guy really is saying, is that the schools (from this article in 1981 - that wanted the same changes he talks about......32 years ago.....)...what he's really saying, is that he wants the schools that have raised themselves up in the past 30 years, to go back down.
Oh man, I want to build a top notch football program, and start kicking some ass.
Read it: then go read the stuff about what's happening in 2013 with college football. Know your history and learn from it.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124798/index.htm
What this guy really is saying, is that the schools (from this article in 1981 - that wanted the same changes he talks about......32 years ago.....)...what he's really saying, is that he wants the schools that have raised themselves up in the past 30 years, to go back down.
Oh man, I want to build a top notch football program, and start kicking some ass.
Read it: then go read the stuff about what's happening in 2013 with college football. Know your history and learn from it.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124798/index.htm
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 92,483
- Reaction Score
- 356,991
They (a subset of the "power 5") also want the $2k stipend (towards cost of attendance) legislation to pass and this is their vehicle to put the pressure on to do it.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 22,817
- Reaction Score
- 9,456
All of this stuff, is this generations of football coaches and athletic directors and university regents and presidents version of what happened in 1978. We've got to learn from our lessons. Creating 1-AA football in 1978 was a disaster that the NCAA is still trying to recover from, and 1-AA has managed to survive IMNSHO for one reason only - they have a true playoff every year for a national champ - that gives all membership the same road to the title.
THe same groups of undefinied 70 or so school, have been fighting for control for 4 decades. We dont' need to divide it all up again. What we need, is the one thing that doesn't exist in top level college football, adn that's a true playoff for all members of the division, to have the same path to a title.
That won't happen, as long as Notre Dame can have their independence. The fugging ACC giving them the same deal they got from the Big East 17 years ago, well it makes me mad.
PEople might not realize it, but when the Big East conference was formed in 1979 - the Ivy league was still playing division 1A football, and continued to play 1A football, and it was the Ivy league amendment to the NCAA by laws - that was the biggest problem in the early 1980s, for the same discussion that's happening now.
Nick Saban did not invent the wheel.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1978/10/27/ncaa-fun-n-games-pii-doubt/
- Status