The Big Five Conferences are going to break away

[itgoeslike]

If the Super Conference is formed and administered under the "umbrella" of the NCAA, it probably improves UCONN chances to be included. There's no guarantee, but I suspect the NCAA will be required to adopt some set of criteria that UCONN will be able to conform to.

 

[UConnJim]

Yes, they would be allowed in. Every single move that was supposed to "force" ND to join a conference over the past 20 years has ended up providing them with an explicit exception to keep ND happy. Every. Single. One.

CFP playoff? Top 4 playoff without any conference championship requirement AND Notre Dame gets a contract with the Orange Bowl. Heck, the power conference commissioners chose ND's AD to actually announce the details of the playoff.

Pac-12 rule on not playing non-conference games after the Pac-12 season has started? An exception was quickly put into place that effectively ONLY applied to Pac-12 games with Notre Dame.

The Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance that ultimately didn't work? The Big Ten and Pac-12 kept all of those talks completely secret... except for keeping ND's AD fully informed so that he wouldn't get worried about scheduling arrangements.

The Big 12/SEC alliance in the Champions Bowl? Much like the Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance, the Big 12 and SEC kept those talks quiet... except for keeping ND's AD fully informed so that he would have a full understanding of bowl access.

The ACC, of course, is directly in bed with Notre Dame at this point.

Fans from other conferences might hate Notre Dame. Coaches from other conferences might hate Notre Dame. University presidents and ADs, however, love Notre Dame because they still make money for the power system. As long as they are a money maker instead of a money taker, they're going to be welcomed with open arms with the only people that matter (AKA the rational people that deal with money off-the-field instead of the hothead coaches on-the-field).

The home run move for the ACC is for ND to join as a full member. (As Swofford said, if ND has to join a football conference before 2027, the are, by contract, committed to the ACC.) This would increase revenues for the conference, add another power football team to the conference, it would pacify everyone in the ACC that wants only full members, and it would strengthen the ACC. Thus, I think it is in the ACC's best interest for ND to join and I doubt the ACC would fight too hard for the status quo.

 

[frankthetank]

I assume ND would be included, which nullifies the 'Power 5 Conferences' argument. Does BYU get left out?
then you have Boise, Uconn, Cincy, and USF as legit programs with major investments left empty handed.

We're talking about public funds for many of these schools.

Well, that's part of the dilemma of the split. Let's put it this way: I don't think that the power conferences are going to do a split where the AAC and/or MWC tag along. That almost defeats the purpose of the split - that's a lot of work if only the Sun Belt, MAC and C-USA end up getting effectively relegated. This is completely about structurally institutionalizing a separate division of 5 power conferences and a handful of chosen others (where that division has already existed in practicality).

BYU is an interesting case because they have a lot more political power than the average school. They (along with the service academies, who effectively have full cost of attendance, anyway) would probably end up in the Super FBS division as long as they're independent. Where it gets tricky is if any of them are in Group of Five conferences (as Air Force is and Navy will be). Conferences mean quite a bit in being able to go from division to division in college sports - you can't move up to FBS from FCS unless an FBS conference has a spot for you and I'd assume that would be the same case in trying to move from "normal" FBS to Super FBS. Just because a FCS school meets the requirements of being an FBS school doesn't mean that it can automatically move up - that school still needs a conference home. There hasn't ever been any legal challenge to that format and it's doubtful a viable argument against it exists. Likewise, UConn, Boise State and others that might be able to cover the full cost of attendance aren't necessarily going to find refuge unless a power conference is willing to take them.

So, it makes it very critical to be in the Super FBS from day one because there will likely be requirements beyond just the full cost of attendance (such as revenue requirements in lieu of attendance requirements that would effectively make it impossible for any school to move from FBS to Super FBS unless you're at least a BYU-type, if not a Notre Dame-type).

The upshot: expect the power conferences to put rules into place that will ensure that only they and a very small handful that can survive as independents get in. For UConn's sake, you should hope that Bob Bowlsby is only blowing smoke about the Big 12 wanting to only stay at 10 members.

 

[Husky25]

That is, they mistakenly believe that American antitrust law is set up to preserve competition in and of itself, but the reality is that American antitrust law is to preserve the free market. They are not one and the same, as the free market often ends up with winners and losers that pretty explicitly kill off competition and often end up with oligopolies (think Wal-Mart and Target) with a handful of power players.

I feel that the reason anti-trust suits didn't gather much steam over the last 20 years or so with regard to the BCS is that non-BCS conference schools, while not considered on par with The BCS conferences, had at least an avenue to compete for a spot in the BCS. No one really thinks that a 13 seed from the OVC has a legitimate shot at winning 6 basketball games over a 3 week period in late March/Early April, but those teams are still afforded their rightful opportunity.

Boise State has proven they can compete in football. To leave schools such as Boise State out is infringing on the free market. To leave schools with adequate resources out (BYU, UConn, Cinci, USF, UCF; Gonzaga, Butler, VCU in basketball), while including those schools that have skated along on the achievements of others (ISU, Vandy, Kentucky, Duke in football; Penn State, NWU in basketball) infringes on the free market.

Also, if this were to go come to pass. the Power 5 conference schools (Including UConn, if they are deemed worthy) would have to justify increased tuition costs for the rest of the student body, in order to support a super conference sponsorship. Tuitions are already pricing kids out. Tuitions at these 65 or so schools is liable to increase that much more. It's not a far leap for perception to become focused on the cost of these sports. That is why I say Institutions will have a hard time associating with them at this level. Once that happens: Hello professional feeder system.

 

[CTMike]

I think this crap gets floated for recruiting purposes, they want to scare recruits away from anyone not in the top 5. This is recruiting hardball.

If there is a split (again I think its BS) there will be one more major round of expansion first and UCONN will be included. We are the obvious team to be next in line.

What is most annoying is the number of Boneyard posters who seem to get their kicks off of any negative talk that would be damaging to school they pretend to root for.

-Slive and Swofford are explicitly stating that these are their intentions.
-We are currently on the outside looking in.

It's pretty goshdarn bleak right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Thirdelement]

Question for Frank or anyone in the know. Are the P5 interested in creating a new division/association for all sports, or just football?

 

[OkaForPrez]

Jim Calhoun in 2010:

"As far as the NCAA, I think the NCAA does work, to some degree, but I think it's just 356 schools all having too diverse ideas. My own personal opinion would be the fact that you're gonna see the top 125, 130 schools break away. Our goals and our mission, in many, many ways athletically and many times academically, is much different from the other schools. For example, there would only be about 110-20 schools that would vote for two more scholarships. The other 250 schools wouldn't vote that way because they can't afford it. That's not the situation at Connecticut, Duke, all the other schools, obviously. My point being simply is that you see it coming. The Big East is talking about it and it's eventually going to happen where you see possibly a separation there. … You're heading towards where I'd like to be heading toward, a simple set of mandates. I'm not backing out of anything or shirking responsibility. I am captain of the UConn ship, basketball-wise, and I accept full responsibility, but I can't be responsible when I rely upon my university, the NCAA and all of the Big East if things happen beyond my control. And quite frankly, the thing that happened with us, honestly, is a national epidemic. And that's quite frankly runners and agents. That's the thing that's inching its way into virtually every program."

 

[frankthetank]

Question for Frank or anyone in the know. Are the P5 interested in creating a new division/association for all sports, or just football?

The power 5 would likely threaten to split for all sports, but my guess is that it would just be for football. Essentially, there would be "Super FBS" (with the power leagues), FBS and FCS for football, which would all be Division I schools for basketball and other sports. So, I don't think the Georgetowns and Gonzagas of the world will be affected that much since they aren't playing FBS football - I believe basketball (and other sports) will remain largely intact. Football is really where the divide will be.

 

[larryredbull]

This split is being caused by the same reasons that caused the divisional split in 1978. Too many low level teams jumping into FBS football. There are way too many teams that want "big time" football (UNC Charlotte starting a team, App State moving from FCS to FBS, South Alabama moving to FBC, etc) that there is a huge disparity again between the Texas and OSU schools making over $100mil a year in athletics and the other schools losing money on athletics. Its time again to separate the schools that can pay their own way and those leaching off the system and pretending to be a big time program when there is no way they will ever be.

The P5 will likely end up getting a separate division in the NCAA that will allow them greater autonomy to be a "semi-professional" league (Stipends for players, lower likelihood of penalties, etc) and stop sharing the big revenues with the App states and South Alabama's of the world. They won't bar teams/conferences from joining them but the cost of entry will be much higher than most of the lower levels will be able to pay effectively keeping them out.

It might work to UCONN's favor as there will likely be enough schools outside of the P5 that will have the resources to fit into the new division. It likely wont be all of the AAC members (Tulane?) so I could see another conference forming that would consist of the G5 members that decide they want to move to the new division.

 

[SubbaBub]

Will actual game attendance matter? Stadium size? Does anyone in the P5 leave voluntarily or get kicked out?

Will it be big state publics only?...plus ND. Does Miami finally get what's coming to them.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Husky25]

The power 5 would likely threaten to split for all sports, but my guess is that it would just be for football. Essentially, there would be "Super FBS" (with the power leagues), FBS and FCS for football, which would all be Division I schools for basketball and other sports. So, I don't think the Georgetowns and Gonzagas of the world will be affected that much since they aren't playing FBS football - I believe basketball (and other sports) will remain largely intact. Football is really where the divide will be.

That would essentially shut down the FBS, bowls would cease to exist, and teams in the Other 5 would be forced (infringing on the free market), to drop back down to FCS where a "national championship" would mean exactly nothing.

Everything that you have proposed affects the free market. Worthy schools are excluded just because, and unworthy schools are taken along for the ride because...well...they always had been. It is the very definition that you laid out earlier for the basis for an anti-trust law suit. If a school can't or chooses not to achieve certain criteria (as with the split of D1A and D1AA), that's one thing, but the criteria should not be a moving target for one and not others.

 

[Fishy]

I think this crap gets floated for recruiting purposes, they want to scare recruits away from anyone not in the top 5. This is recruiting hardball.

You're delusional.

Do you really think the five power conferences are concocting this as a way to beat the outsiders for recruits?

Seriously?

Since they'll probably get just about every five-star recruit and all but a handful of four-star recruits, it seems a tad...far-fetched.

 

[larryredbull]

That would essentially shut down the FBS, bowls would cease to exist, and teams in the Other 5 would be forced (infringing on the free market), to drop back down to FCS where a "national championship" would mean exactly nothing.

Everything that you have proposed affects the free market. Worthy schools are excluded just because, and unworthy schools are taken along for the ride because...well...they always had been. It is the very definition that you laid out earlier for the basis for an anti-trust law suit. If a school can't or chooses not to achieve certain criteria (as with the split of D1A and D1AA, that's one thing, but the criteria not be a moving target for one and not others.

It happened in 1978 and it can/will happen again. Its likely that the rules wont be written to exclude other member as I described in my earlier post. They will be written so that the money that is required to compete will be so high that the schools themselves will elect not to compete. If the cost for competing in FB goes from $10 million now to $20 million in the future, a lot of low level schools will decide that they simply can't afford to play in that division anymore. Therefore, it will be free market.
The ones that decide they can will join however if bowls don't sign them (bowls sign up with individual conferences, and they don't get TV contracts (again conferences sign these) the disparity will still be there even if they are in the "super" division.

 

[djct1999]

I am not a lawyer, but isnt this a form of anti-trust, particularly for public universities that fit the criteria. There is no way that UConn will be excluded. Lets not overreact to such lunacy.

 

[frankthetank]

It happened in 1978 and it can/will happen again. Its likely that the rules wont be written to exclude other member as I described in my earlier post. They will be written so that the money that is required to compete will be so high that the schools themselves will elect not to compete. If the cost for competing in FB goes from $10 million now to $20 million in the future, a lot of low level schools will decide that they simply can't afford to play in that division anymore. Therefore, it will be free market.
The ones that decide they can will join however if bowls don't sign them (bowls sign up with individual conferences, and they don't get TV contracts (again conferences sign these) the disparity will still be there even if they are in the "super" division.

Exactly. The split has occurred once before (and the biggest league affected at that time was arguably the Ivy League, which certainly doesn't have a shortage of legal experts). Whether one is "worthy" or "unworthy" is likely going to be determined by additional revenue and expense factors, which isn't any more unreasonable than the scholarship and attendance requirements between FBS and FCS today.

 

[djct1999]

It happened in 1978 and it can/will happen again. Its likely that the rules wont be written to exclude other member as I described in my earlier post. They will be written so that the money that is required to compete will be so high that the schools themselves will elect not to compete. If the cost for competing in FB goes from $10 million now to $20 million in the future, a lot of low level schools will decide that they simply can't afford to play in that division anymore. Therefore, it will be free market.
The ones that decide they can will join however if bowls don't sign them (bowls sign up with individual conferences, and they don't get TV contracts (again conferences sign these) the disparity will still be there even if they are in the "super" division.

I don't see how this will be a negative for UConn. In fact, if the break includes all sports, this makes UConn more attractive than ever!

 

[freescooter]

The power 5 would likely threaten to split for all sports, but my guess is that it would just be for football. Essentially, there would be "Super FBS" (with the power leagues), FBS and FCS for football, which would all be Division I schools for basketball and other sports. So, I don't think the Georgetowns and Gonzagas of the world will be affected that much since they aren't playing FBS football - I believe basketball (and other sports) will remain largely intact. Football is really where the divide will be.

frank,
I believe you are wrong about basketball, and maybe baseball too. It might start out as "football only" but I really can't believe that there won't be pressure for the same thing in those other sports, possibly the odd other sport that send guys to the pros such as mens hockey, too. They face much the same pressures and much the same issues really. so the question becomes how do you not provide full cost of attendance scholarships for those sports, too, and once you do that, how do non-Super conference teams compete. maybe a Georgetown or a Marquette or somebody goes along and also pays its players, but Providence and Seton Hall are barely hanging in there as it is. They can't go along with this. Not only that, but as we've seem in basketball already, the BCS leagues already pretty much dominate the sport. Last non-football school to win a national championship was UConn in 1999, who actually started its upgrade the following year. These schools have almost no chance as it is. In the new world order they'll have none what so ever.

I do think they are missing 2 things, though. first is the Title IX implications. Just because a sport isn't in the NCAA doesn't mean that it isn't covered by title IX.If those schools think they can get away by giving 85 football players stipends and not providing a comparable number to female athletes I think they will find they badly misunderestimated, as a former president might have put it. The second thing is that if they push this too far and become associated with the schools rather than part of the schools involved, I do think over time they run the risk of turning themselves into minor leagues. And quesry whether 100,000 folks will come to see a minor league football team, even if its called the Michigan Wolverines. Maybe at first, but over time there is a real risk that if the programs become too disengaged with their universities, they will lose the source of fans that made them. the final issue I think, is that at some point, the Presidents might need to weigh in on this. hell, Swofford practically taunted them with his comments about leaving athletics to the people who know this stuff. Bowlesby made similar comments. At some point, it wouldn't shock me to see at least a few of these guys decide that these ADs and Conference commissioners have forgotten for whom they are working and pull them up short.

 

[Husky25]

frank,
I believe you are wrong about basketball, and maybe baseball too. It might start out as "football only" but I really can't believe that there won't be pressure for the same thing in those other sports, possibly the odd other sport that send guys to the pros such as mens hockey, too. They face much the same pressures and much the same issues really. so the question becomes how do you not provide full cost of attendance scholarships for those sports, too, and once you do that, how do non-Super conference teams compete. maybe a Georgetown or a Marquette or somebody goes along and also pays its players, but Providence and Seton Hall are barely hanging in there as it is. They can't go along with this. Not only that, but as we've seem in basketball already, the BCS leagues already pretty much dominate the sport. Last non-football school to win a national championship was UConn in 1999, who actually started its upgrade the following year. These schools have almost no chance as it is. In the new world order they'll have none what so ever.

I do think they are missing 2 things, though. first is the Title IX implications. Just because a sport isn't in the NCAA doesn't mean that it isn't covered by title IX.If those schools think they can get away by giving 85 football players stipends and not providing a comparable number to female athletes I think they will find they badly misunderestimated, as a former president might have put it. The second thing is that if they push this too far and become associated with the schools rather than part of the schools involved, I do think over time they run the risk of turning themselves into minor leagues. And quesry whether 100,000 folks will come to see a minor league football team, even if its called the Michigan Wolverines. Maybe at first, but over time there is a real risk that if the programs become too disengaged with their universities, they will lose the source of fans that made them. the final issue I think, is that at some point, the Presidents might need to weigh in on this. hell, Swofford practically taunted them with his comments about leaving athletics to the people who know this stuff. Bowlesby made similar comments. At some point, it wouldn't shock me to see at least a few of these guys decide that these ADs and Conference commissioners have forgotten for whom they are working and pull them up short.

I gave you a like because we can't like our own posts and your 2nd graph say almost exactly what I did a page or so earlier.

 

[SubbaBub]

It will be FB only. It is the inevitable migration in power FB thinking from Why should we share with lesser conferences to Why should we share with lesser teams in our own conferences.

For certain it won't be a neat and tidy evolution.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[uconndogs]

This split is being caused by the same reasons that caused the divisional split in 1978. Too many low level teams jumping into FBS football. There are way too many teams that want "big time" football (UNC Charlotte starting a team, App State moving from FCS to FBS, South Alabama moving to FBC, etc) that there is a huge disparity again between the Texas and OSU schools making over $100mil a year in athletics and the other schools losing money on athletics. Its time again to separate the schools that can pay their own way and those leaching off the system and pretending to be a big time program when there is no way they will ever be.

The P5 will likely end up getting a separate division in the NCAA that will allow them greater autonomy to be a "semi-professional" league (Stipends for players, lower likelihood of penalties, etc) and stop sharing the big revenues with the App states and South Alabama's of the world. They won't bar teams/conferences from joining them but the cost of entry will be much higher than most of the lower levels will be able to pay effectively keeping them out.

It might work to UCONN's favor as there will likely be enough schools outside of the P5 that will have the resources to fit into the new division. It likely wont be all of the AAC members (Tulane?) so I could see another conference forming that would consist of the G5 members that decide they want to move to the new division.

Good post. And I have only one question as a big fan of college football and basketball. If this is a move to "semi-pro" football, why would I bother watching on Saturdays when I could watch the real thing on Sundays? I really do think college football and basketball run the risk of being NFL and NBA light and losing the differentiation that has made it such a compelling draw.

 

[Husky25]

frank,
I believe you are wrong about basketball, and maybe baseball too. It might start out as "football only" but I really can't believe that there won't be pressure for the same thing in those other sports, possibly the odd other sport that send guys to the pros such as mens hockey, too. They face much the same pressures and much the same issues really ...

Not exactly. Pro hockey and baseball systems can draft directly from the high school levels. There are restrictions on who can be drafted for basketball (1 year removed from graduation) and football (3 years). Plus, baseball and hockey are not revenue generators on the same level as bb and fb.

 

[Husky25]

Good post. And I have only one question as a big fan of college football and basketball. If this is a move to "semi-pro" football, why would I bother watching on Saturdays when I could watch the real thing on Sundays? I really do think college football and basketball run the risk of being NFL and NBA light and losing the differentiation that has made it such a compelling draw.

Do you watch the NBDL? Did you watch the UFL? The answer is you wouldn't bother with college sports.

 

[Excalibur]

There's always this assumption from laypeople that there could be an antitrust lawsuit in college football (whether it's with respect to the playoff system or a split of the conferences), but they're making a wrong assumption about American antitrust law. That is, they mistakenly believe that American antitrust law is set up to preserve competition in and of itself, but the reality is that American antitrust law is to preserve the free market.

Not that it affects your argument about the difficulty of establishing an antitrust case (which I agree would be difficult but for reasons relating to the definition of the market and proof of anti-competitive effect), but this is simply not a true statement. U.S. Antitrust laws are entirely about preserving competition -- namely by correcting anomalies in the free market that limit competition.

 

[larryredbull]

Good post. And I have only one question as a big fan of college football and basketball. If this is a move to "semi-pro" football, why would I bother watching on Saturdays when I could watch the real thing on Sundays? I really do think college football and basketball run the risk of being NFL and NBA light and losing the differentiation that has made it such a compelling draw.

College already is semi pro, they just don't get paid for it. Changing up the rules to allow payments wont change that fact.

My other response is, people will still be watching on Thursdays, Saturdays or any other day because of one overriding factor. A lot of college sports fans have a attachment to their team that a pro team doesn't have, they went to the university/college and their success is a point of pride. I will always be happier with my university's success than any pro team simply because I am a part of that university. There are millions of alumni who feel the same way and give lots of money to support their teams winning. Giving money to players wont change that. That alone will continue to drive the popularity of college sport whether they are amateur or semi pro.

 

[frankthetank]

Good post. And I have only one question as a big fan of college football and basketball. If this is a move to "semi-pro" football, why would I bother watching on Saturdays when I could watch the real thing on Sundays? I really do think college football and basketball run the risk of being NFL and NBA light and losing the differentiation that has made it such a compelling draw.

If people were concerned about the veil of college amateurism getting pierced, then they would have stopped watching college sports a looooong time ago. SMU certainly didn't invent the pro-type infusion of money into college sports and that scandal occurred 30 years ago.

So, I don't think that there's a general public problem with the "semi-pro" model of college football and basketball. That atmosphere has existed for a long time yet that hasn't dampened interest. It's more a micro-problem for each school's fan base: if your school isn't part of that power group, are you still going to watch your school with the same fervor? Remember that most people in America don't have a college degree and most people that have college degrees didn't attend a Division I school (and a further smaller percentage attended a power conference school). The general viewing audience only wants/has time to pay attention to a smaller subset of college football teams each week (much like the NFL) and that's who the TV networks care about (as that's a much larger base to draw from than people that actually attended these schools).