The Big Five Conferences are going to break away

[John Greene]

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.

They are not "non profit" entities they are" tax exempt" entities. That could change but don't hold your breath until the congressional delegations of CA, TX, FL, IL,MN,PA, GA, NC,WA, MD, etc. agree to start taxing the sports arms of their public universities.

 

[noeynox]

What grants them tax exempt status?

 

[John Greene]

What grants them tax exempt status?

Some of the lawyers here could be of more help than me but I think it is because they are arms of entities that reinvest any "surplus" they make into activities that are deemed to have a charitable or academic purpose. Now congress could decide that big time college sports no longer qualify, but as I said don't hold your breath. The states represented in the P5 have a lot more congressional clout. I can't think of any state with a large delegation except for NY and MA that does not have THE state school in the P5.

 

[BCINGYA]

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

Wishful thinking on your part, (funny how you had to slip B.C. in there LOL) a true hater. B.C. has an endowment that rivals any of the largest programs. Matter of fact they are opening the checkbook early this fall when they unveil their master plan for Athletics. Including building new facilities, and updating existing facilities, over a wide spectrum of sports. Its war chest is full and they are ready to spend. You might say we are in it for the LONG HAUL. Enjoy.

 

[Fishy]

In the case of the Dukes, Wake Forests and the like, they're grouped in the 'born lucky' camp.

They'll be pulled along by the interests of the very big fish - Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, etc. This is about those schools controlling their own destiny and their own bank accounts. Maybe there's 15 to 20 schools of that heft.

They can't ditch everyone because, simply, they have to play someone.

The artificial divide comes into view when you look at the vast majority of those "power conference" schools and the schools outside of that structure that are essentially their equals in revenue and expenses. (There will be gaps going forward - before the current explosion in rights fees, UConn and, say, Georgia Tech and West Virginia were basically even...that can't be the case given the AAC television contract.)

 

[John Greene]

Wishful thinking on your part, (funny how you had to slip B.C. in there LOL) a true hater. B.C. has an endowment that rivals any of the largest programs. Matter of fact they are opening the checkbook early this fall when they unveil their master plan for Athletics. Including building new facilities, and updating existing facilities, over a wide spectrum of sports. Its war chest is full and they are ready to spend. You might say we are in it for the LONG HAUL. Enjoy.

Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas is a Bone Yard thread that does not at some point have BC or BCU in it.

Your friend, John

 

[frankthetank]

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.

No one is going to get "forced down". The most likely scenario is that a new division will be created and the conferences that have all of its members qualify will be "brought up" to Super FBS (just as the Division I-A and I-AA split occurred).

 

[Fishy]

If they set a qualification, so to speak, that disqualifies schools from the AAC and MWC, then those schools are indeed being forced down.

 

[Dooley]

If this does go doen the P5 need to seriously reassess their own conferences. Do you need to bring Iowa St, Vandy, Wake, etc to the big leagues or do you boot them and fill with teams that bring more to the table in all or many sports. Let's be honest, there's a lot of dead weight in the P5 that could be swapped out with other schools. I find it /$#ing insane that these schools who bring nothing, athletically or market wise, get a free pass. Am I biased in thinking UConn brings more than Wake or Iowa St, hell yeah. But am I really off in thinking this??

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I've often thought along the same lines. There should be a NCAA draft. If one takes place, you can bet on UCONN being drafted over 1/3 of the current members of the Power 5.

 

[larryredbull]

If they set a qualification, so to speak, that disqualifies schools from the AAC and MWC, then those schools are indeed being forced down.

The same could be said of any school in the fcs and there is no lawsuit. Any fcs team is free to move up at any time. Now there will be another division which teams will be able to move up to provided they meet the qualifications. The qualifications will just cost more money now

 

[larryredbull]

Wishful thinking on your part, (funny how you had to slip B.C. in there LOL) a true hater. B.C. has an endowment that rivals any of the largest programs. Matter of fact they are opening the checkbook early this fall when they unveil their master plan for Athletics. Including building new facilities, and updating existing facilities, over a wide spectrum of sports. Its war chest is full and they are ready to spend. You might say we are in it for the LONG HAUL. Enjoy.

Endowments are usually used for academic purposes. Otherwise. , Harvard would be a major power in athletics. You guys may get people to donate money to build some facilities. Hell the Conte forum is waaaaay past it's prime so it's warranted. Your still going to need people to show up which you haven't been able to do well in the past.

 

[woomba]

If they set a qualification, so to speak, that disqualifies schools from the AAC and MWC, then those schools are indeed being forced down.

I don't think a reasonable metric can be crafted that includes the likes of Wake Forest, Iowa State, etc. without having the top 3-4 schools in the AAC & MWC meeting those criteria.

If something like this happens (where a criteria is set and conferences where all members qualify are bumped up) I think there are two possibilities :

• Another round of expansion where the fringe schools would be willing to take a 'junior member' role in the short term order for them palatable to a P5 conference and redo the contract terms later -
• The top member schools in the AAC / MWC / Ind. that meets the criteria merge to create a new conference.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

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.

You may find this interesting with respect to ‘for-profit’ college sports

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130722/grand-canyon-university-pac-12-protest/?sct=hp_t13_a3&eref=sihp

 

[DarthGrumpy]

One question, would the NCAA losing the O’Bannon lawsuit hamper or accelerate the P5 plus split from the NCAA?

 

[The Funster]

The best thing for UConn is if this new super division requires certain levels of financial commitment in order to be considered for membership. If that is the case and UConn (or any other school) meets those levels and is subsequently excluded then those schools could and would likely an antitrust lawsuit.

I'm sure the P5 schools know this and this is why the number 75 was bandied about. Does anyone think the new playoff system was not in response to the Utah AG's lawsuit and subsequent letter from the DOJ to the NCAA?

I think anyone who thinks a Power 5 super division would be safe from antitrust scrutiny is whistling past the graveyard.

 

[jbdphi]

The best thing for UConn is if this new super division requires certain levels of financial commitment in order to be considered for membership. If that is the case and UConn (or any other school) meets those levels and is subsequently excluded then those schools could and would likely an antitrust lawsuit.

I'm sure the P5 schools know this and this is why the number 75 was bandied about. Does anyone think the new playoff system was not in response to the Utah AG's lawsuit and subsequent letter from the DOJ to the NCAA?

I think anyone who thinks a Power 5 super division would be safe from antitrust scrutiny is whistling past the graveyard.

But how do you preserve the conference systems and TV contracts while still including certain schools from other conferences with your "independent" criteria? Unless a new conference is formed between the cream of the crop in the MWC and AAC (which was previously attempted and failed), I just don't see how it could possibly work? Even then, I'm not sure you can find 10 teams who would qualify for that group and it certainly wouldn't merit much more TV interest than what we're getting now.

I'm just confused as to the mechanics of it all.

 

[sportsart]

The day college football becomes a paid to play sport there will be more SMU programs than you can count.

Donors will take it as a free for all and if the governing body is less watch dogish than the NCAA God help us all.

The Big 5 Commissioners are like crack addicts with an unlimited supply right now.

But like virtually all addicts they crash and take many others with them.

In 15 years college football will be nothing like it is today. Sad....

 

[UConnJim]

I think people are underestimating the political issues associated with a breakaway. If schools start paying players and continue paying coaches millions, somebody in Washington is going to start talking about taxing athletic departments. It is inevitable.

People have brought up the first split in the 70s as an analogy. When the first split happened in the 70s, the Ivies didn't want to compete and voluntarily moved down. That is not the case today. Many Public schools want to be included.

Think about this. There are 15 states without a P5 school. That is 30 senators. Throw in the liberal states without a public school in the P5: Massachusetts and New York. And, how do you exlude the military academies? Also, you need to look at states that could have large publics excluded that want to be included which includes Florida (UCF, USF, FIU, FAU), Texas ( Houston, UTEP, UTSA), Ohio (Cincinnati), California (SD St., Fresno St.), ... And you have a large number of politicians who don't won't to upset a large number of alums.

Plus, if you start paying 85 men, then you have to start paying 85 women, which means women's sports at every university outside of the P5 will not be competitive for playes with the P5 schools. That impacts a large number of schools in many different sports.

 

[woomba]

Plus, if you start paying 85 men, then you have to start paying 85 women, which means women's sports at every university outside of the P5 will not be competitive for playes with the P5 schools. That impacts a large number of schools in many different sports.

I believe all versions of the stipend rule change has included all scholarship athletes across all sports - it's actually better to be inclusive as possible to cut more off schools off.

 

[The Funster]

But how do you preserve the conference systems and TV contracts while still including certain schools from other conferences with your "independent" criteria? Unless a new conference is formed between the cream of the crop in the MWC and AAC (which was previously attempted and failed), I just don't see how it could possibly work? Even then, I'm not sure you can find 10 teams who would qualify for that group and it certainly wouldn't merit much more TV interest than what we're getting now.

I'm just confused as to the mechanics of it all.

The P5 conferences are going to have to figure that out, aren't they?

What if a P5 school has difficulty or fails to meet the financial requirements? If Arizona State doesn't get enough help from the AZ legislature and it fails to meet the minimum requirements does it get booted from the new super division and the Pac 12?

I think this plan has its share of landmines and these schools better have their ducks in a row.

 

[noeynox]

You may find this interesting with respect to ‘for-profit’ college sports

[ Thanks.

 

[The Funster]

The day college football becomes a paid to play sport there will be more SMU programs than you can count.

Donors will take it as a free for all and if the governing body is less watch dogish than the NCAA God help us all.

The Big 5 Commissioners are like crack addicts with an unlimited supply right now.

But like virtually all addicts they crash and take many others with them.

In 15 years college football will be nothing like it is today. Sad....

And isn't ironic that a school like Grand Canyon University is close to being blackballed from D1 because it is a "for profit" school. Once again a major college conferences hide behind the academics argument (as if a "for profit" school can't be good academically) while they would freely look away from a commuter school's academics if their football was good enough.

 

[John Greene]

I think people are underestimating the political issues associated with a breakaway. If schools start paying players and continue paying coaches millions, somebody in Washington is going to start talking about taxing athletic departments. It is inevitable.

People have brought up the first split in the 70s as an analogy. When the first split happened in the 70s, the Ivies didn't want to compete and voluntarily moved down. That is not the case today. Many Public schools want to be included.

Think about this. There are 15 states without a P5 school. That is 30 senators. Throw in the liberal states without a public school in the P5: Massachusetts and New York. And, how do you exlude the military academies? Also, you need to look at states that could have large publics excluded that want to be included which includes Florida (UCF, USF, FIU, FAU), Texas ( Houston, UTEP, UTSA), Ohio (Cincinnati), California (SD St., Fresno St.), ... And you have a large number of politicians who don't won't to upset a large number of alums.

Plus, if you start paying 85 men, then you have to start paying 85 women, which means women's sports at every university outside of the P5 will not be competitive for playes with the P5 schools. That impacts a large number of schools in many different sports.

Talk about reaching for straws! 30 senators from states with no P5 schools. Lets see that only leaves 70 on the other side. FL politicians care for UF & FSU a few UM, the rest don't register on the meter. TX cares about UT & A&M, OH about OSU. CA cares about CAL & UCLA. Even in MA you probably have more pol's with connections to BU, BC and NU than Umass.

 

[huskymedic]

I had not seen this actual quote yet today... "Relative to the legislative process, we are very much at a point now where we can't get anything that's transformative through the system," Bowlsby said. "I think that's particularly felt by seven or eight conferences and the five major conferences in particular. It is just very difficult to do anything that would benefit our student athletes or our institutions that doesn't get voted down by the larger majority."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130722/big-12-bob-bowlsby-ncaa/#ixzz2ZpZdSaIq

Followed further down by this comment from SI Andy Staples: "At issue is Division IV, or, probably more realistically, a new subdivision within Division I containing the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC and possibly the American Athletic Conference and Conference USA."

No more a WAG than other talking/writing heads I guess...

 

[whaler11]

Talk about reaching for straws! 30 senators from states with no P5 schools. Lets see that only leaves 70 on the other side. FL politicians care for UF & FSU a few UM, the rest don't register on the meter. TX cares about UT & A&M, OH about OSU. CA cares about CAL & UCLA. Even in MA you probably have more pol's with connections to BU, BC and NU than Umass.

Here is your senator count on the Non P5 side:

Connecticut 2
Hawaii 2
Idaho 2