When conferences first formed, they were based around geography and similarity. For instance, see the Missouri Valley Conference. It doesn't take a genius to see that the MVC was based out of the Missouri Valley.

As conferences expanded, something very strange happened. Football -and to a lesser extent basketball- became huge moneymakers. That meant that teams no longer had to be within bus range to be worthwhile members, as in many cases the extra distances and costs were negated by an increase in revenue.

However, many sports don't make money for the school. They are largely financed by the more successful basketball and football programs, and the simply aren't worth the extra travel expenses. These non-revenue sports hamper realignment and force schools like Gonzaga into playing in an overmatched conference like the WCC. A football comparison would be Hawaii, which only plays football with the MWC because it costs to much to play other sports.

So, here's the question. Why do we have to have the same conferences for all sports? Why can't we put our football, basketball, and non-revenue sports in different conferences? Why shouldn't schools try to find the best fitting conference for each sport? If football would be better off in a different conference than basketball, why should they be forced into the same conference? Additionally, why should basketball have to share its conference with women's lacrosse, men's tennis, and track and field?

Each conference establishes its own rules. Most say if you play football, it must be in our conference. The NCAA allowed FBS to establish its own subdivision by requiring these FBS conferences to maintain a certain number of men's and women's sports as a minimum to conform to Title IX.

Basically, you'd have to change both the NCAA rules and each conference's rules to get what you're asking.

(03-04-2013 05:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Each conference establishes its own rules. Most say if you play football, it must be in our conference. The NCAA allowed FBS to establish its own subdivision by requiring these FBS conferences to maintain a certain number of men's and women's sports as a minimum to conform to Title IX.

Basically, you'd have to change both the NCAA rules and each conference's rules to get what you're asking.

And doing so would be in the benefit of the schools. What you are saying that the status quo is the status quo simply because it is too hard to change.

Is this a serious question?

(03-04-2013 05:21 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 05:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Each conference establishes its own rules. Most say if you play football, it must be in our conference. The NCAA allowed FBS to establish its own subdivision by requiring these FBS conferences to maintain a certain number of men's and women's sports as a minimum to conform to Title IX.

Basically, you'd have to change both the NCAA rules and each conference's rules to get what you're asking.

And doing so would be in the benefit of the schools. What you are saying that the status quo is the status quo simply because it is too hard to change.

Well no. I'm saying that it would not be a benefit to the conferences. The conferences would not want that at all. The status quo is the status quo because the conferences want it that way. The conferences are what run the NCAA, not the schools.

But maybe the paradigm is shifting. The conferences also run the BCS - specifically the power 5. If they want to change the system, they will. It appears more and more like football will be the wedge that drives the power 5 away from the NCAA. But in any new governance, the schools and conferences are subject to Title IX scrutiny. I think for expediency's sake, the conferences simply control the sports to help each school maintain their title IX equality.

(03-04-2013 05:22 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Is this a serious question?

Yes. For instance, why should Gonzaga's basketball team be stuck in the WCC just because it's non-revenue sports would cost too much money to go to the C7?

Why couldn't the Big East football schools simply take their football programs to other conferences and leave behind the best basketball conference in the land?

Why couldn't Missouri have moved its football to the SEC and kept their basketball rivalry with KU?

&c.

Generally the schools with better football/basketball teams tend to be better at non-revenue sports. If they're seeking worthy competition, they may as well play schools that have similar football prowess.

I don't know how other schools work, but our OOC schedules in non-revenue sports are all local anyways. Check out some of our schedules:
Cross Country: Dayton, All-Ohio Conference, Vanderbilt, and we're hosting a meet.
Baseball: FAU (early in the season), invitational in South Carolina, NY Tech (body bag game), EMU, WMU, UK, Purdue, NKU, Wright State, Ohio, Toledo, Ohio State, Miami (OH), Xavier, Butler
Volleyball: Xavier, Dayton, Miami (OH), Illinois, Purdue, UCF, WKU, and tournaments hosted by Tennessee and Texas

Nearly all of our trips are within 4 hours.

Good points... I have asked the question why football is not in a seperate conference.

Everyone needs someone to look down on. Big 12 schools "know" they are better than CUSA schools who "know" they are better than Southland schools. They don't want to give the impression that they are equals to some of these 'lesser' schools. This allows them certain teams to acquire the region's top talent.

Continuity and familiarity I'd say to start. Cost would be another. Why have 5 or 6 different conference logos, rules agendsa etc? Usually sschools like to associate with those of like mind. Having great volleyball teams doesn't mean those schools have more in common. Less confusion from fans nd recruits etc etc

If you look at NIU, we lost a lot of really fun, locally important rivalries when we left the MCC for the MAC. We still see these local schools in non-revenue OOC play, but not twice a year like the old days.

Consistently having NIU vs schools like Loyola, UIC and UWM probably does a bit more to increase fan support, and certainly brings more visiting fans, as opposed to NIU vs Buffalo, Ohio and Bowling Green.

(03-04-2013 05:31 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 05:22 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Is this a serious question?

Yes. For instance, why should Gonzaga's basketball team be stuck in the WCC just because it's non-revenue sports would cost too much money to go to the C7?

Why couldn't the Big East football schools simply take their football programs to other conferences and leave behind the best basketball conference in the land?

Why couldn't Missouri have moved its football to the SEC and kept their basketball rivalry with KU?

&c.

1. No team is 'stuck' in a conference. They are free to leave and try with another regional brand. All they have to do is find someone who is willing to take their other sports. The WAC took Sac State and Dallas Baptist's baseball programs. However, good luck keeping up with multiple team rules, dues, logos, meetings

2. don't have an answer

3. See Kim Mulkey's quote about Texas A&M, "If a man wants to divorce me and says our relationship has no value to him, and then he asks me if he can sleep with me, the answer is, 'No!' "

Why can't one school be in two conferences, one for athletics and one for academics? If they could the Big 10 wouldn't have to worry about it's CIC and could invite North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Texas to be part of their academic conference and they could invite Cincinnati, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma or whomever to be part of their athletic conference. Separating the two would be a win, win for all conferences and would allow the nations academic leaders to more freely associate without alienating their athletic teams from regional support and traditional rivalries.

(03-05-2013 09:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Why can't one school be in two conferences, one for athletics and one for academics? If they could the Big 10 wouldn't have to worry about it's CIC and could invite North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Texas to be part of their academic conference and they could invite Cincinnati, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma or whomever to be part of their athletic conference. Separating the two would be a win, win for all conferences and would allow the nations academic leaders to more freely associate without alienating their athletic teams from regional support and traditional rivalries.

That already exists, it's called the AAU.

(03-04-2013 05:58 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 05:31 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 05:22 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Is this a serious question?

Yes. For instance, why should Gonzaga's basketball team be stuck in the WCC just because it's non-revenue sports would cost too much money to go to the C7?

Why couldn't the Big East football schools simply take their football programs to other conferences and leave behind the best basketball conference in the land?

Why couldn't Missouri have moved its football to the SEC and kept their basketball rivalry with KU?

&c.

1. No team is 'stuck' in a conference. They are free to leave and try with another regional brand. All they have to do is find someone who is willing to take their other sports. The WAC took Sac State and Dallas Baptist's baseball programs. However, good luck keeping up with multiple team rules, dues, logos, meetings

2. don't have an answer

3. See Kim Mulkey's quote about Texas A&M, "If a man wants to divorce me and says our relationship has no value to him, and then he asks me if he can sleep with me, the answer is, 'No!' "

The answer to #2 is because the conference that took their football would also want their basketball. If it's the best in the land, then it is valuable. Failure to demand the bball program in return for taking the football program would create a free riding problem.

(03-05-2013 09:23 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 09:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Why can't one school be in two conferences, one for athletics and one for academics? If they could the Big 10 wouldn't have to worry about it's CIC and could invite North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Texas to be part of their academic conference and they could invite Cincinnati, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma or whomever to be part of their athletic conference. Separating the two would be a win, win for all conferences and would allow the nations academic leaders to more freely associate without alienating their athletic teams from regional support and traditional rivalries.

That already exists, it's called the AAU.

Oh my, gee whiz! It doesn't work that way and you know it. Separating the two allows for academic conferences who may then coordinate research grants between member institutions. We utilize the antiquated early 20th century model to gain political leverage for regional benefits. By truly separating athletics and academics we could have the best of both worlds without each of them limiting the other.

(03-05-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Oh my, gee whiz! It doesn't work that way and you know it. Separating the two allows for academic conferences who may then coordinate research grants between member institutions. We utilize the antiquated early 20th century model to gain political leverage for regional benefits. By truly separating athletics and academics we could have the best of both worlds without each of them limiting the other.

I don't see how he's wrong. What's an "academic conference"? It's a group of schools who get together to do something that's strictly academic. Like the AAU. It's completely separate from athletics like you want. How is the AAU not an academic conference in your view?

(03-05-2013 01:57 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Oh my, gee whiz! It doesn't work that way and you know it. Separating the two allows for academic conferences who may then coordinate research grants between member institutions. We utilize the antiquated early 20th century model to gain political leverage for regional benefits. By truly separating athletics and academics we could have the best of both worlds without each of them limiting the other.

I don't see how he's wrong. What's an "academic conference"? It's a group of schools who get together to do something that's strictly academic. Like the AAU. It's completely separate from athletics like you want. How is the AAU not an academic conference in your view?

I'm with you. He basically described the AAU. Maybe he was thinking of a smaller 10-20 institution "academic conference" instead of a 60+ university behemoth

(03-05-2013 02:07 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 01:57 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Oh my, gee whiz! It doesn't work that way and you know it. Separating the two allows for academic conferences who may then coordinate research grants between member institutions. We utilize the antiquated early 20th century model to gain political leverage for regional benefits. By truly separating athletics and academics we could have the best of both worlds without each of them limiting the other.

I don't see how he's wrong. What's an "academic conference"? It's a group of schools who get together to do something that's strictly academic. Like the AAU. It's completely separate from athletics like you want. How is the AAU not an academic conference in your view?

I'm with you. He basically described the AAU. Maybe he was thinking of a smaller 10-20 institution "academic conference" instead of a 60+ university behemoth

Nope. But I do think we are talking around the same issue but from two entirely different perspectives. Yes you are correct that if the AAU could serve as the CIC, and the ACC's version of it, and the SEC's version of it, etc, it could free up the conferences to be more regionally based, include schools which may, or may not, match up academically with others in the region but which do have outstanding althlectic programs, so that the conferences didn't have to exclude such schools simply on academic grounds (like the Big 10 would with Cincinnati, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, etc.).

If that were the case that and the AAU served as a distributor, a broker of aspects of grants, and a facilitator of partnerships on programs for all of the AAU schools in the way that the CIC does for the Big 10 then the Big 10 and other conferences wouldn't have to invite teams or exclude teams purely on academics. Academic associations would be wholly other and extraneous to the Athletic Conference.

Florida could partner with U.C.L.A., Michigan, and North Carolina without fear that being in the SEC would hamper it's ability to lobby for grant revenue. The Big 10 wouldn't have to seek just AAU schools when wanting to add a state to its market footprint. Taking an Oklahoma or Kansas State would not affect the academically inclined schools of the conference and the athletic association would have no bearing upon a collective conference academic rating because the academically inclined schools within the conference would be in separate academic leagues for the sole purpose of research. Now whether that is simply the AAU, or a smaller collection of schools working on similar kinds of research, doesn't really matter. Schools in any athletic conference ought not be bound by, or excluded upon any principle but common athletic goals, the ability to compete, and similar expenditures.

I apologize if I misread your comment. I hope this post clears up what I was trying to convey.

FCS has a couple football only conferences: MVFC and Pioneer.