The Big Five Conferences are going to break away | Page 7 | The Boneyard

The Big Five Conferences are going to break away

Status
Not open for further replies.
We got it Waylon. You think Northwestern and Duke will drop out. They won't and everyone knows it - but these posts give you something to deny in the future.
 
Athletics can't harm a school's academic reputation. If they could the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill might act differently.

Schools with reputations can do anything with no harm. Schools without reputations are buried over the slightest academic misstep. Conventional wisdom dominates. No one thinks the basketball players at Kentucky go to class and no one thinks Tar Heel athletes reflect on the student body at large.

In 2013 no schools in the P5 are leaving. No matter how many times Waylon says they are.
 
Alums at Northwestern or Duke vanderbilt or wherever can look down their noses at state schools till the cows come home, the presidents are still driving the bus and they're not going to turn down truckloads of free money.
 
.-.
junglehusky said:
Alums at Northwestern or Duke vanderbilt or wherever can look down their noses at state schools till the cows come home, the presidents are still driving the bus and they're not going to turn down truckloads of free money.
Expand ...

It is not truckloads of free money by their standards, and these schools have alternatives. I am not sure what they will do, but I know that neither the schools nor the alumni like where schools like Alabama and LSU are taking college athletics.

The Ivy's do not regret their decision to back away from the table at all. Harvard, Princeton, Yale and UChicago, ranked 1-4 in USNWR, all were considered football powers at some point in the last 80 years. They seemed to have done OK in going a different direction.
 
whaler11 said:
Their realistic best case is that they are invited to join a power conference at some point in time.
Expand ...

How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?
 
After rereading the original article the P5 conferences really can't break away from the NCAA. They know this.
What they want essentially is autonomy within the current structure to run football by their rules and make it impossible for any school to infringe on their divine right to rule college football. At the samemaintaining all other benifits of membership.
Pretty good gig if you could get it. They are using the media and their financial advantages to bully the NCAA into submission.
Notice the anti NCAA articles spewing from Mt ESPN
They also know if they go on their own they are screwed
They risk becoming a minor league NFL once the facade of actually being educational institutions are lifted.


They still need opponents to fill a schedule from the undercaste.
They cannot have a viable BB tournament without another 60 schools.
Some sports important to select member schools will not be viable at all.

B1G and BC hockey cant exist outside of the NCAA
I suppose they can play the Johnstown Jets.
I think the NCAA non P5 schools have a lot more power than everyone gives them credit for.
The P5 know this but are the NCAA and the hundreds of nonP5 schools smart enough to realize this.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
nelsonmuntz said:
How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?
Expand ...

If you don't think it is more realistic than not that UConn, in 10 years, is in a major conference then you should just stop posting.

Things that we know will happen in the next 10 years:
  • + 8,000 undergrads
  • A significantly larger endowment
  • Significant new educational infrastructure and research capability
  • New hockey arena/program
  • New basketball practice facility
Things that are likely to happen in the next 10 years:
  • A new/upgraded bball facility (either in conjunction with the required hockey arena, or as a result of HCC upgrades/rebuild
  • Addition to Rentschler (we have a recognition of its short-comings up through the AD)
  • AAU
  • Potentially more undergraduates (I saw a plan a number of years that called for 40-50k undergrads ultimately)
 
WestHartHusk said:
If you don't think it is more realistic than not that UConn, in 10 years, is in a major conference then you should just stop posting.

Things that we know will happen in the next 10 years:

  • [ ]+ 8,000 undergrads
    [ ]A significantly larger endowment
    [ ]Significant new educational infrastructure and research capability
    [ ]New hockey arena/program
    [ ]New basketball practice facility
Things that are likely to happen in the next 10 years:

  • [ ]A new/upgraded bball facility (either in conjunction with the required hockey arena, or as a result of HCC upgrades/rebuild
    [ ]Addition to Rentschler (we have a recognition of its short-comings up through the AD)
    [ ]AAU
    [ ]Potentially more undergraduates (I saw a plan a number of years that called for 40-50k undergrads ultimately)
Expand ...

We all know the resume. How is it going to happen? Why are things going to be different in 5 or 10 years? I gave a handful of credible avenues for this to happen. I think the top tier academic schools will either prevent a break or leave the P5 if a break happens. I think the P5 could not be more dead from an anti-trust perspective if they try to break free. The tax exempt thing cuts both ways. It could hold the P5 in place, but could also reduce the benefit of a school like UConn to continue to invest in their program.
 
.-.
frankthetank said:
You're asking the wrong question. The people hopeful for government intervention keep couching it in terms of equality among respective in-state schools when that hasn't ever been a concern of politicians at all (including the way most states explicitly fund their flagships at a much higher level than commuter and directional public universities).

There's also something much more basic that's the real question: what Senator in his or her right mind is every going to actually vote for a law that would take money AWAY from their home state universities (who they are otherwise constantly trying to win government pork for) and send that money to Washington? Taking money away from state entities (which public universities are) and sending it to Washington is already an automatic loser for every Republican, regardless of whether he or she represents a BCS state. Heck - that concept isn't even popular with most Democrats right now.

Once again - does anyone think that these politicians that keep fighting for federal research funds to send back to their public universities on the one hand are actually going to suddenly vote to take away money from them on the basis of extremely popular sports teams on the other hand? That's essentially what the pro-government interventionists are saying and it makes no sense when you take a step back from it and look at it from the perspective of anyone that isn't specifically aggrieved by this. Yes, I'd expect UConn and Boise supporters to be pissed (for good reason), but I'm not seeing how that translates into broad support for a measure that, at the end of the day, is a transfer of state money to Washington (which is simply a deal killer for most politicians regardless of personal school allegiances).
Expand ...

The other point you miss is that average fans don't root for the P5 to destroy the rest of the athletic programs. A Michigan fan might want to see tOSU's athletic program burned to the ground, but that same Michigan fan knows people that went to EMU, CMU and WMU, and may have gone to one of those schools himself. He doesn't want to see them hurt, or he is at the least indifferent. He is certainly not rooting for their demise, as you seem to think.

So Senators are not going to line up to destroy their second tier programs just because Alabama wants it to happen. Frankly, most of them would prefer more schools in the mix than less.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
We all know the resume. How is it going to happen? Why are things going to be different in 5 or 10 years? I gave a handful of credible avenues for this to happen. I think the top tier academic schools will either prevent a break or leave the P5 if a break happens. I think the P5 could not be more dead from an anti-trust perspective if they try to break free. The tax exempt thing cuts both ways. It could hold the P5 in place, but could also reduce the benefit of a school like UConn to continue to invest in their program.
Expand ...

Things will be different in 5-10 years because nothing has been static in college sports for 5-10 years. Whether those changes are driven by law, politics, technology, greed, competition, or collusion I think we are positioning ourselves to get into the club. Can I gurantee, no. But any way you slice it we are a university that deserves to be in the top tier of universities and I choose to hold out hope that we will make it. And let's not forget that for right now we have a $25M advantage on all but two of the "have-nots" of college sports, and we have state support unlike most others.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?
Expand ...

The easiest route I see is that the Big 10 network doesn't win the cable battle in NYC with just Rutgers.

I'm not claiming it's going to happened. You asked for the best case scenario. How is there any other answer to that question.

I take stands all the time BTW, for example I told you Florida State was not joining the Big 12 even though you railed on it for weeks.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The other point you miss is that average fans don't root for the P5 to destroy the rest of the athletic programs. A Michigan fan might want to see tOSU's athletic program burned to the ground, but that same Michigan fan knows people that went to EMU, CMU and WMU, and may have gone to one of those schools himself. He doesn't want to see them hurt, or he is at the least indifferent. He is certainly not rooting for their demise, as you seem to think.

So Senators are not going to line up to destroy their second tier programs just because Alabama wants it to happen. Frankly, most of them would prefer more schools in the mix than less.
Expand ...

We'll have to agree to disagree about this. You're phrasing it as "rooting for the demise" of non-power schools, but what I see is indifference. Believe me: the average sports fan in the State of Michigan will absolutely let EMU/CMU/WMU wallow in obscurity if it means more national championships for Michigan in football and Michigan State in basketball. They already know that the MAC schools won't ever compete with the Big Ten schools (and people in the South know that C-USA will never compete with the SEC and ACC schools), so it's doubtful that they'd see any purpose of taxing their own home public universities where that money is going to be spent in Washington as opposed to Ann Arbor or East Lansing.

This leads to the other point: it's not as if though taxing the Alabamas of the world suddenly means that money gets shifted from Bama to UAB. If that were the case, then there *might* be some populist support for government taxation of university athletic departments, but that is clearly NOT what would happen. Instead, that money is getting shifted from Bama to those "evil tax and spend liberals that keep infringing upon states' rights" in Washington, DC. Outside of the Northeast (which generally doesn't care about college sports except for certain pockets), I'm not seeing any viable political support for that position. I think you greatly overestimating politicians' aptitude to allow for a single penny of taxes assessed upon state institutions so that it can get transferred out of their own home states to Washington, regardless of whether we're talking about public university sports or, even better, university-run medical centers that actually generate way more revenue than even the largest athletic departments. (Take a step back and think about that one - how many universities are going to be willing to open *that* Pandora's box regarding medical center revenue? The UABs of the world that don't have big athletic departments but take in hundreds of millions of dollars in medical center revenue that generate immense paper profits aren't exactly going to be in a rush to start distinguishing what are "for profit" ventures at non-profit universities for tax purposes.) At the same time, I think that you're greatly underestimating just how much more popular the power schools are within their home states in every region outside of the Northeast - there's just no comparison. Taking money away from SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 schools to send it to Washington would certainly be political suicide for any politician from those states.

We're not even getting into the logistical fact that this Congress can't get even widely popular bills passed these days due to partisanship and special interests. Good luck trying to find a filibuster-proof majority (as getting 50% plus 1 vote means nothing in Washington since those types of bills don't get to floor no matter which party is in charge) to support a measure that's going to be inherently unpopular with a group with a LOT more power, influence and passion (the power conferences and their respective home states) versus a group that have a lot fewer supporters with a lot less passion by comparison (the non-power schools in general). The NRA leverages a lot smaller group based on passion alone to shoot down what are otherwise widely popular bills (as the problem is that the popularity is with people that are a lot less passionate about the issue and they don't have any centralized lobbying power... unlike, say, hmmm... the Association of American Universities that the Big Ten kind of thinks is important and a majority of its members are power conference members).

Trying to argue that power conference schools should be taxed is an even worse false hope for non-power schools than the misguided wish for an antitrust lawsuit. Anyone in the non-power realm right now should only concentrate on rising up to meet the new standards that are going to get put into place. If the last two decades of the Bowl Alliance and BCS should have taught anyone anything, it's that outside help isn't coming (and anyone that waits around for outside help is going to get steamrolled into irrelevance).
 
nelsonmuntz said:
How?

You attack everyone else, but never take a position yourself. How is UConn going to end up in a different league? What is going to change between now and 10 years from now to make a major conference add the Huskies?
Expand ...

Oh stop it. What changed between 4 years ago and now that caused all the movement?

1. The way people consume entertainment changes month to month. The fact that conferences didn't offer UConn eight months ago, presumably because they decided it wasn't in their interests to do so, doesn't mean it won't be in their interests four months from now, let alone four years.

2. Basketball hasn't counted to date because the big money is in the NCAA tournament, and that isn't totally dominated by the power conferences. One day, they will want to grab more money from basketball, and that will change UConn's status.

3. The SEC and Big Ten are not going to sit back forever and watch the Big XII's champion on equal footing with their champion when the Big XII has less teams competing for championships.

Lots of things can happen over the next few years that aren't obvious today. Just like it wasn't obvious three years ago that the ACC would listen to BC's whining and take Pitt over UConn, and just like it wasn't obvious that the Big Ten would determine that the best they could do would be Maryland and Rutgers, and just like no one in their right mind would have thought twelve months ago that the ACC would have decided that it was better off with Louisville than UConn.

So quit whining that the streets of New York will be totally covered with horse manure by 1930, root for the team to win games and see what changes next.
 
.-.
Frank, leaving aside the US Senate for a second, I'm sure you'll write a post about this but... where do you see the dividing line if these bigwigs get their new subdivision? Will it be all-or-nothing for conferences - i.e. the entire AAC or the entire MWC gets in or it doesn't... or would there need to be a reshuffling (perhaps like the coast-to-coast version of the Big East that didn't happen) in order for non-power five schools to make a case they belong? If the C-USA, sunbelt, WAC are seen as unable to compete on the perceived level, what about the teams at the bottom of the AAC & MWC in terms of budget?
 
Jim Delany has now weighed in on the topic as well. It is starting to sound like the P5 commisioners had a private meeting to discuss this topic. They have all made the topic of NCAA reform an important point at the conference meetings. Also, it is interesting to note that they have all said very, very similar things and have even used the same key words when describing the topic of NCAA reform and gave a similar time frame for implementing the new NCAA reform. A second interesting point is that they have not given any indication as to which conferences or schools will be included, or what guidelines will be used to create a new division. I think it will be very interesting to see the the AAC has to say about this topic during conference meetings next week and hopefully we will have a better understanding of the changes to come.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mmisioner-jim-delany-pitches-ncaa-reform-plan
 
UPitt said:
Jim Delany has now weighed in on the topic as well. It is starting to sound like the P5 commisioners had a private meeting to discuss this topic. They have all made the topic of NCAA reform an important point at the conference meetings. Also, it is interesting to note that they have all said very, very similar things and have even used the same key words when describing the topic of NCAA reform and gave a similar time frame for implementing the new NCAA reform. A second interesting point is that they have not given any indication as to which conferences or schools will be included, or what guidelines will be used to create a new division. I think it will be very interesting to see the the AAC has to say about this topic during conference meetings next week and hopefully we will have a better understanding of the changes to come.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mmisioner-jim-delany-pitches-ncaa-reform-plan
Expand ...

Thank you for your interest in UConn football.
 
frankthetank said:
We'll have to agree to disagree about this. You're phrasing it as "rooting for the demise" of non-power schools, but what I see is indifference. Believe me: the average sports fan in the State of Michigan will absolutely let EMU/CMU/WMU wallow in obscurity if it means more national championships for Michigan in football and Michigan State in basketball. They already know that the MAC schools won't ever compete with the Big Ten schools (and people in the South know that C-USA will never compete with the SEC and ACC schools), so it's doubtful that they'd see any purpose of taxing their own home public universities where that money is going to be spent in Washington as opposed to Ann Arbor or East Lansing.

This leads to the other point: it's not as if though taxing the Alabamas of the world suddenly means that money gets shifted from Bama to UAB. If that were the case, then there *might* be some populist support for government taxation of university athletic departments, but that is clearly NOT what would happen. Instead, that money is getting shifted from Bama to those "evil tax and spend liberals that keep infringing upon states' rights" in Washington, DC. Outside of the Northeast (which generally doesn't care about college sports except for certain pockets), I'm not seeing any viable political support for that position. I think you greatly overestimating politicians' aptitude to allow for a single penny of taxes assessed upon state institutions so that it can get transferred out of their own home states to Washington, regardless of whether we're talking about public university sports or, even better, university-run medical centers that actually generate way more revenue than even the largest athletic departments. (Take a step back and think about that one - how many universities are going to be willing to open *that* Pandora's box regarding medical center revenue? The UABs of the world that don't have big athletic departments but take in hundreds of millions of dollars in medical center revenue that generate immense paper profits aren't exactly going to be in a rush to start distinguishing what are "for profit" ventures at non-profit universities for tax purposes.) At the same time, I think that you're greatly underestimating just how much more popular the power schools are within their home states in every region outside of the Northeast - there's just no comparison. Taking money away from SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 schools to send it to Washington would certainly be political suicide for any politician from those states.

We're not even getting into the logistical fact that this Congress can't get even widely popular bills passed these days due to partisanship and special interests. Good luck trying to find a filibuster-proof majority (as getting 50% plus 1 vote means nothing in Washington since those types of bills don't get to floor no matter which party is in charge) to support a measure that's going to be inherently unpopular with a group with a LOT more power, influence and passion (the power conferences and their respective home states) versus a group that have a lot fewer supporters with a lot less passion by comparison (the non-power schools in general). The NRA leverages a lot smaller group based on passion alone to shoot down what are otherwise widely popular bills (as the problem is that the popularity is with people that are a lot less passionate about the issue and they don't have any centralized lobbying power... unlike, say, hmmm... the Association of American Universities that the Big Ten kind of thinks is important and a majority of its members are power conference members).

Trying to argue that power conference schools should be taxed is an even worse false hope for non-power schools than the misguided wish for an antitrust lawsuit. Anyone in the non-power realm right now should only concentrate on rising up to meet the new standards that are going to get put into place. If the last two decades of the Bowl Alliance and BCS should have taught anyone anything, it's that outside help isn't coming (and anyone that waits around for outside help is going to get steamrolled into irrelevance).
Expand ...

This is a concern troll anthem right here.

You claim to be a lawyer, but I can't imagine what area you studied. The tax exemption is not something anyone has to vote on. It is already a law, and the P5 are way over the line on it. I am surprised the IRS has not moved yet. I don't think it helps UConn any, but it is going to happen eventually. I have no idea what point you are making about UAB. It has nothing to do with this situation, since tax exempt status won't impact UAB because its athletic department likely loses money hand over fist.

If you think the senate is going to crush an anti-trust action or lawsuit against the P5, you really have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, the action would most likely be a civil suit, so unless you think the Senate is going to retroactively revoke the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and every other related law and regulatory rule related to it over the last 100 years because of college football, I don't see a way for Congress to even intervene in this situation. I welcome BLawyer to chime in, but I believe either a private entity or the Department of Justice can bring an action under Anti Trust law. If it is a private entity, then it just becomes a judge and jury's interpretation of the law, which is pretty clear cut against the P5. There is a reason sports leagues lose so much in court.

As for your last paragraph, let me say this as clearly as possible:

WE ALL GET THAT UCONN IS SCREWED. YOU DO NOT NEED TO KEEP TELLING US!!!!!!!!

We don't need another 2000 word essay on how we are screwed, unless you have something really original to say, which you don't.
 
Sea Goat said:
I'm O.K. with an Eagle that gets it. Unless B.C. is in a region that develops some worthwhile football competition it will become marginalized in the ACC. It already has been in many respects. Other than hockey, B.C. has been uniformly not competitive in sports. Unfortunately, the ACC doesn't have a hockey conference let alone care one iota about it.

The real and only issue for P-5 consideration is football --- it drives the financial bus of inter-collegiate sports. Let's face it the northeast is going to struggle against the south and the southwest for football notoriety as it is. We don't need to be divisive among ourselves, but let's be real about the current P-5 members from the northeast for a moment. Do you think that B.C. will ever consistently thrive in the ACC competing against FSU, Clemson, VT etc. in the long term, if it remains an isolated outpost of D-1 football in New England? What are the chances that B.C.'s position will be enhanced by the presence of Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers in the northeast? You'll see that Syracuse brings good hoops to the ACC (they were second to UConn in the BE for years.) In football - not so much, heck the upstart Huskies beat them 5 straight years (2007-2011) by average score of 35-15! Pitt? A genuine national champion in football --- 37 years ago! And not much of anything since. Rutgers --- well, enough said!

The biggest problem the northeast D-1 schools are going to have in the future is maintaining relevance in the national conversation about football. BB will be fine and the ACC will be the best hoops conference in the country (until the B1G takes UConn), but I don't think hoops matters a lot. If it did, UConn would have been the first one poached from the old BE. It's football, football, football! Until the schools in the northeast, as a group, become more competitive then northeast football will languish. (I don't care what conference you're in.) For that purpose all D-1 schools from the northeast should support the development of region-wide competence in football. Only then will recruiting become easier and the schools will be more attractive to kids from the football rich south and southwest. The recruiting numbers don't lie. In all of New England, approx. 15,000,000 people, there were 21 D-1 scholarship kids. 10 from CT and MA each and 1 from RI. That's it! Add NY, PA, and NJ (population of approx. 41,000,000) you add 146 for a total of 167 D-1 players from the northeast (56,000,000 population base). Compare that to the numbers from TX, Fla, GA -=- 346, 332 and 184 respectively - total of 862 D-1 players from a population of roughly the same - 56,000,000.

You say enough with numbers. However, you can see that you have to convince kids from the south to come to school in the north to have any shot of developing northeast football at an elite level. The only way to do that is to have a thriving, competitive regional presence and an exciting brand of football. This will help create a national buzz about the sport in the northeast and that will attract athletes. Daunting task? You bet it is! But how the hell did Nebraska do it? A state that loves football, but works off a population base of 1,500,000 with only 5 D-1 recruits state-wide this year. It gets players from other football rich regions.

It will take awhile, but I think it can be done. The only question is whether the effete northeast fan base can embrace college football like it has been elsewhere. It did before --- this is where college football got its start.
Expand ...
I would like to see all three New England programs grow and thrive, as well as North Eastern football in general. Your right it has been done, and it can be done again. That was a very insightful, well thought out piece of writing! Hats off to you. We had our chance in the early days of the BIG EAST, if it would have been a YEA instead of a NEY to Penn St., and then went after Maryland, just imagine ....the Great North East Conf.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
WE ALL GET THAT UCONN IS SCREWED. YOU DO NOT NEED TO KEEP TELLING US!!!!!!!!

We don't need another 2000 word essay on how we are screwed, unless you have something really original to say, which you don't.
Expand ...
Out of all the people on the boneyard, Mr. "UConn should jettison football to the MAC and suck up to Providence and Seton Hall to play basketball in the Catholic league instead of being the big fish in the AAC" is the one to post this????? Muhammed and Buddha. Right now we have a non-zero chance of joining Division 4 / Super FBS but if Herbst decided to take waylon's advice we'd have absolute zero.
 
.-.
This really is a bad long term idea. It generates no new fans, alienates the 10-15% of fans who are loyal to the Gang of Five, and will turn off a population that dislikes the idea of paying players.

They are only going to play each other? Are Wake, Wazzu and Iowa State going to play 12 road games? How can dozens of schools sustain 8 game home slates?

Fans of schools that win 9-10 games like clockwork are going to be fun to watch adjusting to 6-7 wins.

The dregs who go 5-7 beating FCS and MAC teams are going to be real popular with 2 and 3 win seasons.

Most of our old Big East friends will die in that world: Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College... They would be lucky to get bowl eligible 1 year out of 3 if they only play within the Big 5.
 
whaler11 said:
This really is a bad long term idea. It generates no new fans, alienates the 10-15% of fans who are loyal to the Gang of Five, and will turn off a population that dislikes the idea of paying players.

They are only going to play each other? Are Wake, Wazzu and Iowa State going to play 12 road games? How can dozens of schools sustain 8 game home slates?

Fans of schools that win 9-10 games like clockwork are going to be fun to watch adjusting to 6-7 wins.

The dregs who go 5-7 beating FCS and MAC teams are going to be real popular with 2 and 3 win seasons.

Most of our old Big East friends will die in that world: Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College... They would be lucky to get bowl eligible 1 year out of 3 if they only play within the Big 5.
Expand ...
Well at least they'll die rich. I'd love for UConn to be able to wipe its tears with 20 million a year.
 
whaler11 said:
This really is a bad long term idea. It generates no new fans, alienates the 10-15% of fans who are loyal to the Gang of Five, and will turn off a population that dislikes the idea of paying players.

They are only going to play each other? Are Wake, Wazzu and Iowa State going to play 12 road games? How can dozens of schools sustain 8 game home slates?

Fans of schools that win 9-10 games like clockwork are going to be fun to watch adjusting to 6-7 wins.

The dregs who go 5-7 beating FCS and MAC teams are going to be real popular with 2 and 3 win seasons.

Most of our old Big East friends will die in that world: Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College... They would be lucky to get bowl eligible 1 year out of 3 if they only play within the Big 5.
Expand ...
I think the idea is to create a separate division so that only power 5 schools can compete in the postseason playoff/bowls and don't have to split revenue with the mid major conferences. The current mid major conferences will either stay where they are and form their own playoff/bowl structure or drop down to FCS or drop football completely. Teams will still schedule non power teams out of conference similar to how current FBS schools schedule FCS schools, and there will probably be rules on how many of those teams each power 5 team can schedule per season.

The current powers that be absolutely hate seeing teams like Northern Illinois and Hawaii and even Boise State getting into BCS games because they generally don't bring as many fans and don't attract as many casual viewers as a highly ranked power 5 school would. If the Orange Bowl last year featured FSU vs. Oklahoma or Florida the ratings would've been substantially higher than FSU vs. NIU. The only solution is completely shutting out these teams from making the big bowls.
 
UPitt said:
Jim Delany has now weighed in on the topic as well. It is starting to sound like the P5 commisioners had a private meeting to discuss this topic. They have all made the topic of NCAA reform an important point at the conference meetings. Also, it is interesting to note that they have all said very, very similar things and have even used the same key words when describing the topic of NCAA reform and gave a similar time frame for implementing the new NCAA reform. A second interesting point is that they have not given any indication as to which conferences or schools will be included, or what guidelines will be used to create a new division. I think it will be very interesting to see the the AAC has to say about this topic during conference meetings next week and hopefully we will have a better understanding of the changes to come.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mmisioner-jim-delany-pitches-ncaa-reform-plan
Expand ...
Aresco has made it clear that he is not a party to these conversations and would like to be BFF's with Delaney and Slive.
 
junglehusky said:
Well at least they'll die rich. I'd love for UConn to be able to wipe its tears with 20 million a year.
Expand ...

They are all locked into television contracts. So they can generate money selling an 8 game playoff? It's like sitting in meetings at a Fortune 100 company watching decisions get made for the next quarter's earnings versus long term viability.

If you turn College Football into NFL lite you lose the differentiation.

The regular season games are way less interesting once you are taking 2 and maybe 3 loss teams to a playoff.

The NCAA destroyed the college basketball regular season. This is a big step towards destroying the college football regular season.
 
cardsfan123 said:
I think the idea is to create a separate division so that only power 5 schools can compete in the postseason playoff/bowls and don't have to split revenue with the mid major conferences. The current mid major conferences will either stay where they are and form their own playoff/bowl structure or drop down to FCS or drop football completely. Teams will still schedule non power teams out of conference similar to how current FBS schools schedule FCS schools, and there will probably be rules on how many of those teams each power 5 team can schedule per season.

The current powers that be absolutely hate seeing teams like Northern Illinois and Hawaii and even Boise State getting into BCS games because they generally don't bring as many fans and don't attract as many casual viewers as a highly ranked power 5 school would. If the Orange Bowl last year featured FSU vs. Oklahoma or Florida the ratings would've been substantially higher than FSU vs. NIU. The only solution is completely shutting out these teams from making the big bowls.
Expand ...

According to Dodd's article playing amongst only themselves is on the table.

And yes I understand that OU and FSU outrates NIU and FSU, but if 15-20% of the fans walk away because you pay the players and castrated 60 schools without creating any new fans you lose in the long run.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,331
Messages
4,564,767
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom