The Big Five Conferences are going to break away

[larryredbull]

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

Yes it will be football only. Just like in 1978 when it was football only. Basketball is little different. For one, the NCAA actually controls the post season tournament for BB unlike FB where the conferences control the tournament. Second, the inclusion of lesser teams in the NCAAT actually helps ratings (Cinderella teams) and provides more inventory (games) for the TV contract.

 

[Marty Jackson]

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.

Can you name a school in NCAA history that has met every criteria for competing at a certain level and getting forced down to a lower level against their will. I just don't see how Uconn is forced to a lower level without MAJOR pushback from Congress, Uconn, The State of CT, or the taxpayers of CT.

I get the requirements angle. But, you do realize Uconn is in the top 35-40 programs at roughly $70M annually. There will be very few requirements uconn doesn't meet that others from the other 'Power' conferences meet.

I'm not suggesting the split won't happen. I am saying that there are about 5-10 schools (uconn, Boise, cincy, USF, and maybe Navy) that will be included in the big boy league along with ND and BYU.

 

[itgoeslike]

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.

That's why UCONN will most likely benefit if the split is under the umbrella of the NCAA. The NCAA will have to establish a set of criteria to separate the divisions as they have in the past. While UCONN may not be a top 20 program, it has the resources, metrics and budgets that surpass schools currently in the P5 conferences.

 

[Marty Jackson]

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.

exactly... the Ivy league 'decided' not to provide scholarships to its athletes. different from uconn's position where it could be forced down to a lower level.

 

[Pudge]

frank .... is arguing that NOTHING has impeded the P5 to this point.

Simply not true. And, he protests too much about Anti-trust legislation. Fact is ... we have ONE really Big impediment that can play out outside the court system. It has been impacted already by Utah senators. And, you can expect that where this is going is NOT simple. It is the argument Blumenthal made (with others back in 2003). You simply cannot exclude a class of smaller states ... and leave no capacity to "join the club" as your University grows (look at UCF and USF going beyond 50,000) ... and leave no ability to rise to compete. I think the Bully Pulpit is there for an argument for an Open system. And the P5 don't want it. Old Dominion can pass Wake in a heartbeat with one ... Bobby Petrino or a Peterson.

What are the P5 doing as well? Trying to NOT be inclusive in the Playoff. We know the Playoff will be 8. A few good Boise teams ... or more ACC defeats proves that the P5 is a paper Tiger. That, in this sport, you can lock out 65 programs ... and guarantee their losses will not sit well with lots of state legislators ... and then on a National level. It ain't about anti-trust and courts.

 

[freescooter]

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).

that's not really true. I think there is a huge difference in the optics of the situation if you move too far away from being a college team. it isn't the same as it is now. it isn't the same as what SMU did in 1980. That was cheating, not everyone knew about it and the team was successful. the nature of the beast changes dramatically when you come right out and pay players who may or may not bother going to class. Because, let's face it, that is a big part of this, too.

 

[larryredbull]

frank .... is arguing that NOTHING has impeded the P5 to this point.

Simply not true. And, he protests too much about Anti-trust legislation. Fact is ... we have ONE really Big impediment that can play out outside the court system. It has been impacted already by Utah senators. And, you can expect that where this is going is NOT simple. It is the argument Blumenthal made (with others back in 2003). You simply cannot exclude a class of smaller states ... and leave no capacity to "join the club" as your University grows (look at UCF and USF going beyond 50,000) ... and leave no ability to rise to compete. I think the Bully Pulpit is there for an argument for an Open system. And the P5 don't want it. Old Dominion can pass Wake in a heartbeat with one ... Bobby Petrino or a Peterson.

What are the P5 doing as well? Trying to NOT be inclusive in the Playoff. We know the Playoff will be 8. A few good Boise teams ... or more ACC defeats proves that the P5 is a paper Tiger. That, in this sport, you can lock out 65 programs ... and guarantee their losses will not sit well with lots of state legislators ... and then on a National level. It ain't about anti-trust and courts.

The new division will close that loophole. Teams wont be barred from joining the new division but the financial requirements will be so large that basically the P5 and some additional teams will be the only ones that have the finances to join the new division.
The playoff structure currently allows any team in the FBS to compete for the championship (including the G5) if they meet certain criteria. This will be the case in the new division as well except in your example ODU wouldn't be in the new division to compete because they likely wouldn't have the finances to be in the new division.

The free market tenets will be there in the new division. Anyone can join, anyone can compete for the championship. The cost of entry will be so high that only a select group will actually be able to do that though.

 

[Husky25]

frank .... is arguing that NOTHING has impeded the P5 to this point.

Simply not true. And, he protests too much about Anti-trust legislation. Fact is ... we have ONE really Big impediment that can play out outside the court system. It has been impacted already by Utah senators. And, you can expect that where this is going is NOT simple. It is the argument Blumenthal made (with others back in 2003). You simply cannot exclude a class of smaller states ... and leave no capacity to "join the club" as your University grows (look at UCF and USF going beyond 50,000) ... and leave no ability to rise to compete. I think the Bully Pulpit is there for an argument for an Open system. And the P5 don't want it. Old Dominion can pass Wake in a heartbeat with one ... Bobby Petrino or a Peterson.

What are the P5 doing as well? Trying to NOT be inclusive in the Playoff. We know the Playoff will be 8. A few good Boise teams ... or more ACC defeats proves that the P5 is a paper Tiger. That, in this sport, you can lock out 65 programs ... and guarantee their losses will not sit well with lots of state legislators ... and then on a National level. It ain't about anti-trust and courts.

I would say they are Trying to NOT be inclusive, while appearing inclusive.

There's an underlying factor here as well. If a (public) school is forced down against their will, it will most assuredly have a negative effect on enrollment. Once that occurs and schools lose out on funding they would have otherwise received, that's when you'll really see legislators act. Heaven help you if you get on the wrong side of Congress. If they can force change in Major League Baseball (that has and anti-trust exemption), there's no telling what they would do to some of these large and fragile egos in the P5 + Notre Dame.

Athletics should always provide for the benefit of academics. These ADs and some presidents think it is the other way around.

 

[larryredbull]

that's not really true. I think there is a huge difference in the optics of the situation if you move too far away from being a college team. it isn't the same as it is now. it isn't the same as what SMU did in 1980. That was cheating, not everyone knew about it and the team was successful. the nature of the beast changes dramatically when you come right out and pay players who may or may not bother going to class. Because, let's face it, that is a big part of this, too.

So if UCONN started playing players and was still successful, you wouldn't watch it or care? COME ON!

NOTHING will change if they start playing players. People will still show up to watch games, people will still donate money to the booster clubs, and people will still care alot if their team wins or loses.

 

[btstimpy]

Would they allow ND into their precious club if they weren't in a conference? I think I already know the answer but if some folks already don't like that they get special privilege, this might be their way of forcing them into a conference. Not sure....

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Notre Dame would go where the ACC goes. John Swofford announced yesterday that part of Notre Dame's contract with the ACC in playing the 5 games per year is that if Notre Dame ever chooses to join a football conference before 2026-2027, it will be the ACC.

 

[freescooter]

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.

yeah, but you're not in the majority or even close. When the NFL started running Thursday nigh football not only did their ratings blow away the competition (the lowest rated Thursday game did a 4.1, which exceeded the combined ratings of ESPN college game and the NBA on TBS) but the average ratings for college football on Thursday night fell 35%. And that was against the NFL network which was not on the "free" tier initially on several networks. And actually you make my point to some extent, I think. When football begins severing its ties with universities that sponsor it, it also loosens its ties with Alumni and Students which over time can lead to a loss of fans. If the Ohio State Buckeyes are simply a semi-pro minor league team that plays in Columbus, they will see a gradual erosion of the very bond you describe. And in 2030, they'll look up and find that the fan base has shrunk, attendance has shrunk and ratings are closer to the USFL than the old Big Ten. A similar thing has been occurring in college basketball where ratings are way off and ratings have been slowly slipping for several years. A contributor has been the 1 and done syndrome.

 

[freescooter]

So if UCONN started playing players and was still successful, you wouldn't watch it or care? COME ON!

NOTHING will change if they start playing players. People will still show up to watch games, people will still donate money to the booster clubs, and people will still care alot if their team wins or loses.

It is more than "just" paying players. And I'm already "in the system." I'm talking about long term changes where future generations of alumni begin to lose interest because the programs are no longer "part of the university." the question isn't whether I will care, it is whether my kids will.

 

[Pudge]

Slippery slope.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think college sports will suddenly become relegated to minor league fandom if players get paid.

One minor difference between the two, just ever so tiny.

Big state schools have hundreds of thousands of living alumni and represent states for Christ sake.

But yeah, I'm sure all of a sudden UConn would become as popular as the new Britain rock cats.

Then again we have people on here saying they won't go to games because off the helmets, so who knows.

 

[Husky25]

The new division will close that loophole. Teams wont be barred from joining the new division but the financial requirements will be so large that basically the P5 and some additional teams will be the only ones that have the finances to join the new division.
The playoff structure currently allows any team in the FBS to compete for the championship (including the G5) if they meet certain criteria. This will be the case in the new division as well except in your example ODU wouldn't be in the new division to compete because they likely wouldn't have the finances to be in the new division.

The free market tenets will be there in the new division. Anyone can join, anyone can compete for the championship. The cost of entry will be so high that only a select group will actually be able to do that though.

Unless the requirements are deemed a penalty.

Upon what are the requirements based? Endowment? Average attendance? If they want to only include the P5 + ND, I think the inclusion formula has the potential to be so convoluted that that it would be seen as far too subjective, thereby raising anti-trust issues again.

 

[larryredbull]

yeah, but you're not in the majority or even close. When the NFL started running Thursday nigh football not only did their ratings blow away the competition (the lowest rated Thursday game did a 4.1, which exceeded the combined ratings of ESPN college game and the NBA on TBS) but the average ratings for college football on Thursday night fell 35%. And that was against the NFL network which was not on the "free" tier initially on several networks. And actually you make my point to some extent, I think. When football begins severing its ties with universities that sponsor it, it also loosens its ties with Alumni and Students which over time can lead to a loss of fans. If the Ohio State Buckeyes are simply a semi-pro minor league team that plays in Columbus, they will see a gradual erosion of the very bond you describe. And in 2030, they'll look up and find that the fan base has shrunk, attendance has shrunk and ratings are closer to the USFL than the old Big Ten. A similar thing has been occurring in college basketball where ratings are way off and ratings have been slowly slipping for several years. A contributor has been the 1 and done syndrome.

Your describing a break from the university itself which isnt going to happen. As long as OSU keeps playing at their football stadium on the OSU campus then they will be seen as the OSU buckeyes just like they are now. Alumni will still come back to see games and still follow their team like before.

 

[Husky25]

You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think college sports will suddenly become relegated to minor league fandom if players get paid.

One minor difference between the two, just ever so tiny.

Big state schools have hundreds of thousands of living alumni and represent states for Christ sake.

But yeah, I'm sure all of a sudden UConn would become as popular as the new Britain rock cats.

Then again we have people on here saying they won't go to games because off the helmets, so who knows.

For some, it would be a sudden phenomenon. For others, it will be a gradual decline.

Speaking personally...No I would not care about UConn football as much as I do now. I would care to the point that I care about the Pawtucket Red Sox or the New Britain Rock Cats. Strictly entertainment and fun if I have the time, but not appointment viewing and probably won't carry the same passion. I probably would not renew my season tickets and the donation to the athletic dept. as required currently by my 3 year agreement, would go to the Accounting Dept.

 

[larryredbull]

Unless the requirements are deemed a penalty.

Upon what are the requirements based? Endowment? Average attendance? If they want to only include the P5 + ND, I think the inclusion formula has the potential to be so convoluted that that it would be seen as far too subjective, thereby raising anti-trust issues again.

It will be on scholarships (current FCS is 63, FBS is 85). The difference will be the additional stipend to players (@ at 4,000 per player per year thats another 680,000 per year (85 mens, 85 womens)), average attendance, an other items that raise expenditures). Not a lot of money but I would bet it will continue to rise. For a conference outside of the P5 not getting a huge TV contract, the additional money for stipends, the ever rising cost of competition (coaching salaries, facilities, etc) may make it a losing proposition to join the new division.

Another thing to consider is the fact that most lower level teams lose money on their football programs because they all have dreams of making it big, and its thought of as a "front door" for the university. In these cases the University is heavily subsidizing the football team through student fees and University money. Right now , there is a slim chance that those universities could get to a big game and provide the university with all the recognition they have dreamed of. In the future with the new division, they would have to pony up even more money that they already don't have. I expect most won't choose to spend more money to fund a pipe dream.

 

[Husky25]

It will be on scholarships (current FCS is 63, FBS is 85). The difference will be the additional stipend to players (@ at 4,000 per player per year thats another 680,000 per year (85 mens, 85 womens)), average attendance, an other items that raise expenditures). Not a lot of money but I would bet it will continue to rise. For a conference outside of the P5 not getting a huge TV contract, the additional money for stipends, the ever rising cost of competition (coaching salaries, facilities, etc) may make it a losing proposition to join the new division.

It's already a losing proposition for many schools, including some of the haves.

 

[UCFBfan]

It will be on scholarships (current FCS is 63, FBS is 85). The difference will be the additional stipend to players (@ at 4,000 per player per year thats another 680,000 per year (85 mens, 85 womens)), average attendance, an other items that raise expenditures). Not a lot of money but I would bet it will continue to rise. For a conference outside of the P5 not getting a huge TV contract, the additional money for stipends, the ever rising cost of competition (coaching salaries, facilities, etc) may make it a losing proposition to join the new division.

Another thing to consider is the fact that most lower level teams lose money on their football programs because they all have dreams of making it big, and its thought of as a "front door" for the university. In these cases the University is heavily subsidizing the football team through student fees and University money. Right now , there is a slim chance that those universities could get to a big game and provide the university with all the recognition they have dreamed of. In the future with the new division, they would have to pony up even more money that they already don't have. I expect most won't choose to spend more money to fund a pipe dream.

Ok so what happens to the schools who are moving to new conferences but not getting enough cash up front. Saw today ACC will give full shares to Pitt and Cuse but WVU/TCU not getting full share for 3 more years and RU and MD not for 7 yrs. Where they gonna get the money to meet requirements?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[larryredbull]

It's already a losing proposition for many schools, including some of the haves.

Yes I amended my original response. I would also expect some of the haves to drop out as well (like Tulane did in the SEC) . Schools like Wake Forest, Washington State, Utah, Colorado, Iowa State, and Boston College might decide that the costs just aren't providing a return any longer.
Schools like UCF, ECU, Houston, UNLV, and USF get more of their revenue from Student Fees, and the university funds than anywhere else. Are they going to pony up even more to pay athletes, especially since governments are continuing to cut university contributions. I dont think they will

 

[John Greene]

I skimmed most of the posts here and it seems that many are placing undue faith in legal or political protections for non P5 schools.

Just because someone (many on this board) believes something is "unjust or biased" does not make it illegal.

Public schools may have some political pull but have you noticed that the states included in the P5 footprint are every large population state not in the northeast?

All they have to do is tell the NCAA they want a "super division" for football. Heck they even have a name CFA (College Football Association). I'm sure many of you old timers remember that name from the past.

 

[huskymedic]

I skimmed most of the posts here and it seems that many are placing undue faith in legal or political protections for non P5 schools.

Just because someone (many on this board) believes something is "unjust or biased" does not make it illegal.

Public schools may have some political pull but have you noticed that the states included in the P5 footprint are every large population state not in the northeast?

All they have to do is tell the NCAA they want a "super division" for football. Heck they even have a name CFA (College Football Association). I'm sure many of you old timers remember that name from the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma

Still think they may be an "anti-competitive" angle to this Division 4 but...

 

[larryredbull]

Ok so what happens to the schools who are moving to new conferences but not getting enough cash up front. Saw today ACC will give full shares to Pitt and Cuse but WVU/TCU not getting full share for 3 more years and RU and MD not for 7 yrs. Where they gonna get the money to meet requirements?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Good question, see my next post, I think you could see some move down eventually (not immediately) All of the ones you mentioned I would expect to stay. They will find the money to stay.

 

[noeynox]

Haveng read every post in this thread, but college sports is headed to a very bad place. Rivalries be damned, a lot of good ones have been terminated over this mad dash for the dollars. I wonder how long these large athletic departments can continue the cbarade of being non profit entities.