(03-27-2018 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...dness-1985

Records since 1985. This includes those play-in games.

13 existing conferences from this list have less than a 20% winning %.
Atlantic Sun 6-31
Southern 6-32
Ohio Valley 6-33
Southland 5-31
MAAC 5-32
Patriot 3-24
MEAC 3-28
Big Sky 3-31
Summit 1-9
America East 1-20
Big South 1-20
SWAC 1-23
NEC 0-25

Over the last four years, 22 conferences have had only one bid per year, and combined they have won a total of 8 games against the other conferences. They win these games at roughly the same rate that FCS teams beat FBS teams in football. They really belong in a lower division.

(03-28-2018 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...dness-1985

Records since 1985. This includes those play-in games.

13 existing conferences from this list have less than a 20% winning %.
Atlantic Sun 6-31
Southern 6-32
Ohio Valley 6-33
Southland 5-31
MAAC 5-32
Patriot 3-24
MEAC 3-28
Big Sky 3-31
Summit 1-9
America East 1-20
Big South 1-20
SWAC 1-23
NEC 0-25

Over the last four years, 22 conferences have had only one bid per year, and combined they have won a total of 8 games against the other conferences. They win these games at roughly the same rate that FCS teams beat FBS teams in football. They really belong in a lower division.

Well yes. Now how do we make that happen?

(03-28-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...dness-1985

Records since 1985. This includes those play-in games.

13 existing conferences from this list have less than a 20% winning %.
Atlantic Sun 6-31
Southern 6-32
Ohio Valley 6-33
Southland 5-31
MAAC 5-32
Patriot 3-24
MEAC 3-28
Big Sky 3-31
Summit 1-9
America East 1-20
Big South 1-20
SWAC 1-23
NEC 0-25

Over the last four years, 22 conferences have had only one bid per year, and combined they have won a total of 8 games against the other conferences. They win these games at roughly the same rate that FCS teams beat FBS teams in football. They really belong in a lower division.

Well yes. Now how do we make that happen?

That court case may do it. The increasing costs may make the basketball tourney payday no longer worth it. Alternatively, it may finally drive schools out of the NCAA, leaving some of these behind. And they will set standards that make sure none of those schools can afford to join them.

IMO, the big football schools won't succeed in eliminating all the little guys. Some compromises will have to be made for the sake of political expediency. Same for the basketball schools. The fight to get all, instead of just most, of what they want would simply cost too much.

I propose a plan to add a third subdivision to DI. Membership in DI-A would require schools playing football to average 30K in attendance over 4 years, OR average 20K AND play in a conference that averages 30K. Schools that don't play football would have to be in a conference that averages 8K basketball attendance over 4 years.

These criteria would produce a subdivision with 86 football members and 11 non-football members. The AAC and MWC would make the cut (barely) by shedding and/or adding members. The AAC would lose Tulsa or Tulane, who average close to 20K but so close that they pull the conference average below 30K. Replacing them with Arkansas State puts them over the top and leaves them at 12 members for all sports.

The MWC has a bigger hill to climb. They need to lose Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming and San Jose State AND add BYU to get up to 30K. Adding Gonzaga would leave them with 9 members for both football and other sports.

The Big East is the only non-football conference that comes close to meeting the basketball attendance threshold (they average over 10K). Each of the 8 qualifying DI-A conferences would likely average at least 3 bids in a 48 team basketball tournament, and all of the 7 football conferences would likely produce at least one worthy representative in a 16 team playoff.

I haven't come up with criteria yet for DI-AA, but it would likely be similar in size to DI-A, leaving about 17 conferences (and about 170 schools) in DI-AAA. Each subdivision would make its own rules for # of games, bowl eligibilty and other post season play.

That's it. That's all I got.

Revenue is more important than attendance. Stanford is a good example, they have enough money to outspend most of the P5 no matter how many football tickets they sell. I suspect that's also true of Duke, and it's probably true of TCU given the generosity of their athletic donors.

Spending more than almost anyone else is no guarantee of success or consistent competitiveness, but spending far less than almost everyone else is pretty much a guarantee of lack of success.

(03-29-2018 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the big football schools won't succeed in eliminating all the little guys. Some compromises will have to be made for the sake of political expediency. Same for the basketball schools. The fight to get all, instead of just most, of what they want would simply cost too much.

I propose a plan to add a third subdivision to DI. Membership in DI-A would require schools playing football to average 30K in attendance over 4 years, OR average 20K AND play in a conference that averages 30K. Schools that don't play football would have to be in a conference that averages 8K basketball attendance over 4 years.

These criteria would produce a subdivision with 86 football members and 11 non-football members. The AAC and MWC would make the cut (barely) by shedding and/or adding members. The AAC would lose Tulsa or Tulane, who average close to 20K but so close that they pull the conference average below 30K. Replacing them with Arkansas State puts them over the top and leaves them at 12 members for all sports.

The MWC has a bigger hill to climb. They need to lose Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming and San Jose State AND add BYU to get up to 30K. Adding Gonzaga would leave them with 9 members for both football and other sports.

The Big East is the only non-football conference that comes close to meeting the basketball attendance threshold (they average over 10K). Each of the 8 qualifying DI-A conferences would likely average at least 3 bids in a 48 team basketball tournament, and all of the 7 football conferences would likely produce at least one worthy representative in a 16 team playoff.

I haven't come up with criteria yet for DI-AA, but it would likely be similar in size to DI-A, leaving about 17 conferences (and about 170 schools) in DI-AAA. Each subdivision would make its own rules for # of games, bowl eligibilty and other post season play.

That's it. That's all I got.

I thought we had covered the flaws of attendance requirements and had decided that gross total revenue and the size of an athletic endowment were better tools through which to segregate the schools.

I would propose an upper tier of schools that average 70 million in gross total athletic revenue, and a middle tier of those who average 35-69 million in gross total athletic revenue. If you don't average 35 million you go to a lower division. I'd set athletic endowment requirements as well.

Both upper tiers would pay stipends set at what ever the law permits.

This move would eliminate some of the weaker privates from the upper tier.

At 70 million in GTRevenue the basketball only schools could form their own conference for all other sports than football and play in the upper tier tournament with the football playing larger schools.

In this regard it would be more competitive, and not dissimilar to the A rating system of high schools sports (A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, etc.). A=DivIII, 2A=DivII, 3A=DivI(35-69), 4A=DivI(70+)

(03-29-2018 11:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Revenue is more important than attendance. Stanford is a good example, they have enough money to outspend most of the P5 no matter how many football tickets they sell. I suspect that's also true of Duke, and it's probably true of TCU given the generosity of their athletic donors.

Spending more than almost anyone else is no guarantee of success or consistent competitiveness, but spending far less than almost everyone else is pretty much a guarantee of lack of success.

Money makes it easier to correct your mistakes. A G5 is more likely to hold on to a struggling coach than a P5, and a G5 more likely to pull the trigger than an FCS or non-football school.

Lot of the thoughts here don't really align with the reality intercollegiate athletics.

When the first stipend proposal was passed it was schools in FCS and non-football schools who signed up to over-ride the vote.

G5 schools vote in an aspirational manner. They tend to support the same things as the P5 because they want to do the same things as soon as they have the money.

It is FCS and many of the "just here for the autobid" non-football schools who have been the issue in passing reforms that the power schools want.

Of the 351 (or so) schools that are Division I it is the 124 or so FCS and 95 or so "I-AAA" not offering football who are the primary issue in passing the things wanted and even then you still have some non-football schools and some FCS that aren't in the opposing groups of schools Villanova or Gonzaga aren't going to be campaigning against things designed to help the successful be more successful like say Bryant and SE Missouri would.

(03-29-2018 11:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the big football schools won't succeed in eliminating all the little guys. Some compromises will have to be made for the sake of political expediency. Same for the basketball schools. The fight to get all, instead of just most, of what they want would simply cost too much.

I propose a plan to add a third subdivision to DI. Membership in DI-A would require schools playing football to average 30K in attendance over 4 years, OR average 20K AND play in a conference that averages 30K. Schools that don't play football would have to be in a conference that averages 8K basketball attendance over 4 years.

These criteria would produce a subdivision with 86 football members and 11 non-football members. The AAC and MWC would make the cut (barely) by shedding and/or adding members. The AAC would lose Tulsa or Tulane, who average close to 20K but so close that they pull the conference average below 30K. Replacing them with Arkansas State puts them over the top and leaves them at 12 members for all sports.

The MWC has a bigger hill to climb. They need to lose Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming and San Jose State AND add BYU to get up to 30K. Adding Gonzaga would leave them with 9 members for both football and other sports.

The Big East is the only non-football conference that comes close to meeting the basketball attendance threshold (they average over 10K). Each of the 8 qualifying DI-A conferences would likely average at least 3 bids in a 48 team basketball tournament, and all of the 7 football conferences would likely produce at least one worthy representative in a 16 team playoff.

I haven't come up with criteria yet for DI-AA, but it would likely be similar in size to DI-A, leaving about 17 conferences (and about 170 schools) in DI-AAA. Each subdivision would make its own rules for # of games, bowl eligibilty and other post season play.

That's it. That's all I got.

I thought we had covered the flaws of attendance requirements and had decided that gross total revenue and the size of an athletic endowment were better tools through which to segregate the schools.

I would propose an upper tier of schools that average 70 million in gross total athletic revenue, and a middle tier of those who average 35-69 million in gross total athletic revenue. If you don't average 35 million you go to a lower division. I'd set athletic endowment requirements as well.

Both upper tiers would pay stipends set at what ever the law permits.

This move would eliminate some of the weaker privates from the upper tier.

At 70 million in GTRevenue the basketball only schools could form their own conference for all other sports than football and play in the upper tier tournament with the football playing larger schools.

In this regard it would be more competitive, and not dissimilar to the A rating system of high schools sports (A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, etc.). A=DivIII, 2A=DivII, 3A=DivI(35-69), 4A=DivI(70+)

I agree. I just don't think you can sell it. And I think only a few schools would have a goal of eliminating "weaker privates" from the upper tier (meaning the P5) while keeping the weaker publics.

It's going to be a hard sell to penalize a lot of schools just for not being in a conference with a fat TV contract (when many of the schools in those conferences contribute relatively little to the value of the contract other than to provide cannon fodder to pad the W-L records of the ones providing most of the value).

All of this still points to an outcome very much like the status quo.

(03-29-2018 02:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 11:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the big football schools won't succeed in eliminating all the little guys. Some compromises will have to be made for the sake of political expediency. Same for the basketball schools. The fight to get all, instead of just most, of what they want would simply cost too much.

I propose a plan to add a third subdivision to DI. Membership in DI-A would require schools playing football to average 30K in attendance over 4 years, OR average 20K AND play in a conference that averages 30K. Schools that don't play football would have to be in a conference that averages 8K basketball attendance over 4 years.

These criteria would produce a subdivision with 86 football members and 11 non-football members. The AAC and MWC would make the cut (barely) by shedding and/or adding members. The AAC would lose Tulsa or Tulane, who average close to 20K but so close that they pull the conference average below 30K. Replacing them with Arkansas State puts them over the top and leaves them at 12 members for all sports.

The MWC has a bigger hill to climb. They need to lose Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming and San Jose State AND add BYU to get up to 30K. Adding Gonzaga would leave them with 9 members for both football and other sports.

The Big East is the only non-football conference that comes close to meeting the basketball attendance threshold (they average over 10K). Each of the 8 qualifying DI-A conferences would likely average at least 3 bids in a 48 team basketball tournament, and all of the 7 football conferences would likely produce at least one worthy representative in a 16 team playoff.

I haven't come up with criteria yet for DI-AA, but it would likely be similar in size to DI-A, leaving about 17 conferences (and about 170 schools) in DI-AAA. Each subdivision would make its own rules for # of games, bowl eligibilty and other post season play.

That's it. That's all I got.

I thought we had covered the flaws of attendance requirements and had decided that gross total revenue and the size of an athletic endowment were better tools through which to segregate the schools.

I would propose an upper tier of schools that average 70 million in gross total athletic revenue, and a middle tier of those who average 35-69 million in gross total athletic revenue. If you don't average 35 million you go to a lower division. I'd set athletic endowment requirements as well.

Both upper tiers would pay stipends set at what ever the law permits.

This move would eliminate some of the weaker privates from the upper tier.

At 70 million in GTRevenue the basketball only schools could form their own conference for all other sports than football and play in the upper tier tournament with the football playing larger schools.

In this regard it would be more competitive, and not dissimilar to the A rating system of high schools sports (A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, etc.). A=DivIII, 2A=DivII, 3A=DivI(35-69), 4A=DivI(70+)

I agree. I just don't think you can sell it. And I think only a few schools would have a goal of eliminating "weaker privates" from the upper tier (meaning the P5) while keeping the weaker publics.

It's going to be a hard sell to penalize a lot of schools just for not being in a conference with a fat TV contract (when many of the schools in those conferences contribute relatively little to the value of the contract other than to provide cannon fodder to pad the W-L records of the ones providing most of the value).

All of this still points to an outcome very much like the status quo.

It depends on that court ruling over the amount of the stipends. We could easily see a raise in the stipends leading to some serious questions at some of the weaker privates. I'm not sure the schools will have to vote to do anything. I could easily see 2 to 4 current members stepping out over such a result.

If the SEC could pull off expansion to 24 schools, would they really care what association they belonged to? These would be my four 6 team divisions for such an SEC (new teams in bold type).

Florida, Florida State, South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and NC State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Alabama and Auburn

Ole Miss, Mississippi St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri

Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, TCU and Texas Tech



They could play a 10 game schedule among themselves: 5 in division, 3 in partner division, and 1 each from the other two divisions. In effect the partner divisions (the first two listed and the last two listed) would function as if they were separate conferences (SEC East and SEC West), but would share resources and administration, and would negotiate media contracts as a group for maximum leverage.

For all practical purposes, this would leave the FBS with a virtual P4, with the B1G and PAC in the group. The Big 12 would cease to exist, and the ACC would no longer be strong enough to merit inclusion.

If I am in charge of this new and improved SEC, I no longer give any media partner an exclusive deal. I sell parts of my product to all of them. And I insist that the new P4 make its own postseason rules. If the rest of the NCAA doesn't like it, let them expel us. They need us more than we need them.

BTW, I waited until today to post this so nobody would think it was just an April Fool's joke.

(04-02-2018 07:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the SEC could pull off expansion to 24 schools, would they really care what association they belonged to? These would be my four 6 team divisions for such an SEC (new teams in bold type).

Florida, Florida State, South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn

Ole Miss, Mississippi St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri

Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, TCU, Texas Tech

For all practical purposes, this would leave the FBS with a virtual P4, with the B1G and PAC in the group. The Big 12 would cease to exist, and the ACC would no longer be strong enough to merit inclusion.

Let's say that is the 24-school SEC. I can't imagine the other conferences stopping at 12, 14, or 16. It would be roughly 3 conferences of 24ish - SEC, B1G, ACC. I would rearrange the SEC divisions slightly along with Kansas rather than Kansas St.

SEC
West: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
South: TCU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
North: Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

B1G (somehow drop Maryland & Rutgers)
West: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah, Colorado
South: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
North: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

ACC
South: Baylor, Houston, Memphis, East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida
East: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Kansas St, Iowa St, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
North: Notre Dame, Boston College, Connecticut, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland

(04-02-2018 09:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 07:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the SEC could pull off expansion to 24 schools, would they really care what association they belonged to? These would be my four 6 team divisions for such an SEC (new teams in bold type).

Florida, Florida State, South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn

Ole Miss, Mississippi St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri

Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, TCU, Texas Tech

For all practical purposes, this would leave the FBS with a virtual P4, with the B1G and PAC in the group. The Big 12 would cease to exist, and the ACC would no longer be strong enough to merit inclusion.

Let's say that is the 24-school SEC. I can't imagine the other conferences stopping at 12, 14, or 16. It would be roughly 3 conferences of 24ish - SEC, B1G, ACC. I would rearrange the SEC divisions slightly along with Kansas rather than Kansas St.

SEC
West: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
South: TCU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
North: Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

B1G (somehow drop Maryland & Rutgers)
West: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah, Colorado
South: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
North: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

ACC
South: Baylor, Houston, Memphis, East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida
East: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Kansas St, Iowa St, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
North: Notre Dame, Boston College, Connecticut, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland

If the B1G could shed Maryland and Rutgers, there would be no need to have a third megaconference. The B1G could hold its conference championship (the culmination of an 8 team playoff) at the Rose Bowl and the SEC could do the same at the Sugar Bowl. The two champions would play each other the next week at Jerry World. A de facto 16 team playoff.

Using the last four year's average power rankings, those two conferences would have 22 of the top 25 teams and all of the top 16. Only Notre Dame (18), Louisville (22) and Miami (23) keep them from a clean sweep.

(04-02-2018 10:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 09:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 07:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the SEC could pull off expansion to 24 schools, would they really care what association they belonged to? These would be my four 6 team divisions for such an SEC (new teams in bold type).

Florida, Florida State, South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn

Ole Miss, Mississippi St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri

Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, TCU, Texas Tech

For all practical purposes, this would leave the FBS with a virtual P4, with the B1G and PAC in the group. The Big 12 would cease to exist, and the ACC would no longer be strong enough to merit inclusion.

Let's say that is the 24-school SEC. I can't imagine the other conferences stopping at 12, 14, or 16. It would be roughly 3 conferences of 24ish - SEC, B1G, ACC. I would rearrange the SEC divisions slightly along with Kansas rather than Kansas St.

SEC
West: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
South: TCU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
North: Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

B1G (somehow drop Maryland & Rutgers)
West: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah, Colorado
South: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
North: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

ACC
South: Baylor, Houston, Memphis, East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida
East: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Kansas St, Iowa St, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
North: Notre Dame, Boston College, Connecticut, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland

If the B1G could shed Maryland and Rutgers, there would be no need to have a third megaconference. The B1G could hold its conference championship (the culmination of an 8 team playoff) at the Rose Bowl and the SEC could do the same at the Sugar Bowl. The two champions would play each other the next week at Jerry World. A de facto 16 team playoff.

Using the last four year's average power rankings, those two conferences would have 22 of the top 25 teams and all of the top 16. Only Notre Dame (18), Louisville (22) and Miami (23) keep them from a clean sweep.

If for some crazy reason the SEC did get to 24 with most of the teams you mentioned, the ACC would end up being maybe a 12 team league perhaps with:
Vanderbilt
Miami
Georgia Tech
Carolina
Wake Forest
Duke
UVa
Maryland
Pitt
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Boston College


Although I would be shocked if Clemson didn't stay with this bunch, because of that likely situation I think we could safely move Vanderbilt (CTZ) back to the SEC.

You would see divisions of:

Clemson, Georgia Tech, UVa, Duke, Wake Forest and Carolina
Maryland, Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse, Miami, and Notre Dame.

(03-28-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...dness-1985

Records since 1985. This includes those play-in games.

13 existing conferences from this list have less than a 20% winning %.
Atlantic Sun 6-31
Southern 6-32
Ohio Valley 6-33
Southland 5-31
MAAC 5-32
Patriot 3-24
MEAC 3-28
Big Sky 3-31
Summit 1-9
America East 1-20
Big South 1-20
SWAC 1-23
NEC 0-25

Over the last four years, 22 conferences have had only one bid per year, and combined they have won a total of 8 games against the other conferences. They win these games at roughly the same rate that FCS teams beat FBS teams in football. They really belong in a lower division.

Well yes. Now how do we make that happen?

One simple criterion would solve this without doing any damage to the current power conferences.

Form a new association that requires a four year average attendance for basketball of 3,000 or more for membership. By my count, that's only about 145-150 schools. It includes every school in the P5 and every school in the Big East. It includes 10 schools in the A10 and most of the Missouri Valley Conference. It also includes all but 1 of last year's top 70 teams by Sagarin and Massey rankings, and more than 90 of the top 100.

A few of those 150 odd schools would likely opt to stay in the NCAA for one reason or another.

Allow schools to belong to a different conference for football than for other sports. Divide football into two divisions. The top division requires average attendance of 25K. Of the schools that would meet the basketball test, 78 would also meet this test, including all 65 P5 conference schools. Another 47 schools who play football would be in the lower division. Another 23 schools do not play football at all.

Shift much of the cost of compliance monitoring to the member schools by requiring a compliance audit by a national CPA firm selected by the association but paid for by the school. Empower those auditors by requiring that all scholarship athletes make their families' tax returns and bank records available for scrutiny. Audits would include attesting to the validity of uniform public reporting of admission records and GPA's for athletes compared with the school's general student population, as well as an accounting for revenues and expenses according to an association wide standard format that increases transparency.

The association provides, trains and supervises all officials for major team sports.

Let the government worry about Title IX.

What did I miss?

(05-19-2018 01:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...dness-1985

Records since 1985. This includes those play-in games.

13 existing conferences from this list have less than a 20% winning %.
Atlantic Sun 6-31
Southern 6-32
Ohio Valley 6-33
Southland 5-31
MAAC 5-32
Patriot 3-24
MEAC 3-28
Big Sky 3-31
Summit 1-9
America East 1-20
Big South 1-20
SWAC 1-23
NEC 0-25

Over the last four years, 22 conferences have had only one bid per year, and combined they have won a total of 8 games against the other conferences. They win these games at roughly the same rate that FCS teams beat FBS teams in football. They really belong in a lower division.

Well yes. Now how do we make that happen?

One simple criterion would solve this without doing any damage to the current power conferences.

Form a new association that requires a four year average attendance for basketball of 3,000 or more for membership. By my count, that's only about 145-150 schools. It includes every school in the P5 and every school in the Big East. It includes 10 schools in the A10 and most of the Missouri Valley Conference. It also includes all but 1 of last year's top 70 teams by Sagarin and Massey rankings, and more than 90 of the top 100.

A few of those 150 odd schools would likely opt to stay in the NCAA for one reason or another.

Allow schools to belong to a different conference for football than for other sports. Divide football into two divisions. The top division requires average attendance of 25K. Of the schools that would meet the basketball test, 78 would also meet this test, including all 65 P5 conference schools. Another 47 schools who play football would be in the lower division. Another 23 schools do not play football at all.

Shift much of the cost of compliance monitoring to the member schools by requiring a compliance audit by a national CPA firm selected by the association but paid for by the school. Empower those auditors by requiring that all scholarship athletes make their families' tax returns and bank records available for scrutiny. Audits would include attesting to the validity of uniform public reporting of admission records and GPA's for athletes compared with the school's general student population, as well as an accounting for revenues and expenses according to an association wide standard format that increases transparency.

The association provides, trains and supervises all officials for major team sports.

Let the government worry about Title IX.

What did I miss?

3000 is roughly the same ratio, as the ratio of top FBS attendance to minimum attendance.

One thing to note.

Right now there are probably another 100 or so schools that could meet the 3000 standard if they knew it was a standard.

Just looking at 2017 A&M-Corpus Christi to Bowling Green and Dayton to Fordham (ie. what easily appears on my screen without scrolling)

20 would meet.
Albany, Binghamton and Drake need less than 500 more per game.
Alabama A&M, Austin Peay, Delaware, and Eastern Kentucky would need more than 500 but less than 1000.
21 would need more than 1000 and less than 2000 including several FBS (Air Force, Army, Appalachian State, Bowling Green, FAU and Eastern Michigan)
5 would need more than 2000 including one FBS (FIU).

I would sort it out like this.
Take the school's football attendance as a percentage of the attendance minimum of 15,000. Then take their basketball attendance as a percentage of the attendance minimum of 3000. Add those together and if you get to 250% you are in.

If NE Tech wants to play football and averages 7500 per game (.5000) and averages 6000 per game in hoops (2.000) they make it and if SW State averages 30,000 in football (2.000) and 1500 in hoops (0.5000) they make it.

I'm sure that no matter what threshold you set, schools will chase that number, and will probably cheat in some manner to do it.

I was trying to be as inclusive as I could without opening the door too wide. If I had set the bar at 4,000 instead of 3,000 I would only have left out 23 schools (with the caveat that any school meeting the 25K football threshold would not have to meet a basketball minimum). Even 8 of those were near misses at 4K.

What that does, however, is make it difficult for schools not in the top football division to get the critical mass needed to form viable conferences. My personal preference would probably be to have fewer teams chasing the money rather than more, so maybe we should set the bar at 4K.

Assuming the 8 near misses can work their way up, that would allow for 10 in the Big East, 10 in the AAC, 12 in the MWC, 9 in the A10 and 8 in the Missouri Valley. Added to the P5, that's 127 schools. If I'm the P5 looking to break away, I'd rather have that than more than 200.

(05-19-2018 04:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm sure that no matter what threshold you set, schools will chase that number, and will probably cheat in some manner to do it.

I was trying to be as inclusive as I could without opening the door too wide. If I had set the bar at 4,000 instead of 3,000 I would only have left out 23 schools (with the caveat that any school meeting the 25K football threshold would not have to meet a basketball minimum. Even 8 of those were near misses at 4K.

What that does, however, is make it difficult for schools not in the top football division to get the critical mass needed to form viable conferences. My personal preference would probably be to have fewer teams chasing the money rather than more, so maybe we should set the bar at 4K.

Assuming the 8 near misses can work their way up, that would allow for 10 in the Big East, 10 in the AAC, 12 in the MWC, 9 in the A10 and 8 in the Missouri Valley. Added to the P5, that's 127 schools. If I'm the P5 looking to break away, I'd rather have that than more than 200.

About a year before the final BCS contract got nailed down the commissioners, the top bowl people and television people are in New York drinking bourbon and eating premium steaks. This is early 2009 or late 2008.

A very good friend is there and broaches the question. What does it look like if the AQ leave?

One commissioner's answer: "We don't leave but we create a new division."
Who is in the new division? "We take all of FBS and maybe 8 other conferences."

Another commissioner's answer: "We create a corporation. The AQ leagues own 75% or so of it, the rest of FBS owns 15% and we invite another four to six conferences who are serious and they own 10%"

One has since retired the other is still serving, but I found it interesting that the base criteria was the conference.

(05-19-2018 08:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 04:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm sure that no matter what threshold you set, schools will chase that number, and will probably cheat in some manner to do it.

I was trying to be as inclusive as I could without opening the door too wide. If I had set the bar at 4,000 instead of 3,000 I would only have left out 23 schools (with the caveat that any school meeting the 25K football threshold would not have to meet a basketball minimum. Even 8 of those were near misses at 4K.

What that does, however, is make it difficult for schools not in the top football division to get the critical mass needed to form viable conferences. My personal preference would probably be to have fewer teams chasing the money rather than more, so maybe we should set the bar at 4K.

Assuming the 8 near misses can work their way up, that would allow for 10 in the Big East, 10 in the AAC, 12 in the MWC, 9 in the A10 and 8 in the Missouri Valley. Added to the P5, that's 127 schools. If I'm the P5 looking to break away, I'd rather have that than more than 200.

About a year before the final BCS contract got nailed down the commissioners, the top bowl people and television people are in New York drinking bourbon and eating premium steaks. This is early 2009 or late 2008.

A very good friend is there and broaches the question. What does it look like if the AQ leave?

One commissioner's answer: "We don't leave but we create a new division."
Who is in the new division? "We take all of FBS and maybe 8 other conferences."

Another commissioner's answer: "We create a corporation. The AQ leagues own 75% or so of it, the rest of FBS owns 15% and we invite another four to six conferences who are serious and they own 10%"

One has since retired the other is still serving, but I found it interesting that the base criteria was the conference.

It wasn't always so, but in today's world, conference membership is critical. Only somebody like Notre Dame can really pull it off, and then only in football.

I realize using attendance as a criterion isn't perfect, but it sure is a lot simpler than revenues (especially when there is such a disparity in the amount of institutional support that can go into the revenue figures).

IMO, it is essential and inevitable that D-I become less inclusive. And as much as I dislike what the NCAA has become, I still think having it survive is a better alternative to a total breakaway by the high resource schools. Not just better for the less well-heeled, but also for the haves. They need to have some lesser opponents to flesh out their schedules.

I don't think schools should have to be in the same conference for football as they are for other sports, though it's OK by me if some are. I propose a top level (Division) for football that includes the P5 and one other conference, all of whom average at least 25K attendance over four years (with 25K in at least three of those four years).

That conference (let's call it the American) consists of three divisions:

East: Army, Navy, Cincinnati, Temple, UConn and Marshall
South: East Carolina, Memphis, UCF, Houston, USF and Southern Miss
West: BYU, San Diego St, Boise State, Fresno St, Air Force and Colorado State

Each of the six conference champions are guaranteed an NY6 bowl game. The Top Four (using an average of ranking services as I have described elsewhere) play for the D-I National Championship. The rest of the field of 12 teams includes the highest ranked teams not already guaranteed a berth.

After deducting expenses, including ample travel costs for all NY 6 participants, the CFP revenues would be divided equally among all 83 D-I football members.

************************************************************

In basketball, I would require four year average attendance of at least 3,500 AND acceptance into a conference of 8 teams or more.

In addition to the current P5, I came up with 6 other conferences (avg attendance in parentheses, schools in order of attendance):

Big East (9,783): Creighton, Marquette, Vavier, Villanova, Providence, Georgetown, St John's, Butler, Seton Hall and DePaul

Mountain West (7,785): BYU, San Diego St, New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada, Utah St, Weber St, Fresno St, UTEP, Gonzaga, Boise St, New Mexico St, Wyoming and Colorado St

American (6,850): Wichita, Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, SMU, Temple, UCF, Tulsa, Houston and East Carolina

Atlantic 10 (5,733): Dayton, VCU, Ohio, Richmond, St Louis, Rhode Island, George Mason, Davidson, St Joseph's, Toledo, St Bonaventure and Buffalo

Missouri Valley (4,566): Illinois St, Bradley, Northern Iowa, Southern illinois, Missouri St, Evansville, Indiana St and North Dakota St

C-USA (4,513): ODU, Middle Tennessee, Marshall, UNC-Wilmington, Charlotte, UAB, East Tennessee St, Western Kentucky, Chattanooga, Louisiana, College of Charleston and Arkansas St


That is a total of 131 members in 11 conferences, enough to fill out a 64 team championship bracket. It includes all but 2 of this year's top 64 teams, and 91 of the top 100. Only 17 were ranked above #150 this year.

There were current 73 D-I schools whose total (not average) basketball attendance fell below 18K. They probably should not even remain in the second division. Surprisingly, four of these are current FBS schools: FAU, FIU, Troy and UT San Antonio.

After deducting NCAA operating expenses, including independent audits of D-I schools as described earlier, costs to provide, train and supervise all D-I officials, costs of staging all national championships except D-I football, traveling expenses for all NCAAT participants, and a share of NCAAT revenues for D-II schools, I would share the remaining revenues equally among all D-I basketball members. As in football, part of the purpose of this is to not make an individual school's payout dependent on winning post season games.

(05-21-2018 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 08:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 04:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm sure that no matter what threshold you set, schools will chase that number, and will probably cheat in some manner to do it.

I was trying to be as inclusive as I could without opening the door too wide. If I had set the bar at 4,000 instead of 3,000 I would only have left out 23 schools (with the caveat that any school meeting the 25K football threshold would not have to meet a basketball minimum. Even 8 of those were near misses at 4K.

What that does, however, is make it difficult for schools not in the top football division to get the critical mass needed to form viable conferences. My personal preference would probably be to have fewer teams chasing the money rather than more, so maybe we should set the bar at 4K.

Assuming the 8 near misses can work their way up, that would allow for 10 in the Big East, 10 in the AAC, 12 in the MWC, 9 in the A10 and 8 in the Missouri Valley. Added to the P5, that's 127 schools. If I'm the P5 looking to break away, I'd rather have that than more than 200.

About a year before the final BCS contract got nailed down the commissioners, the top bowl people and television people are in New York drinking bourbon and eating premium steaks. This is early 2009 or late 2008.

A very good friend is there and broaches the question. What does it look like if the AQ leave?

One commissioner's answer: "We don't leave but we create a new division."
Who is in the new division? "We take all of FBS and maybe 8 other conferences."

Another commissioner's answer: "We create a corporation. The AQ leagues own 75% or so of it, the rest of FBS owns 15% and we invite another four to six conferences who are serious and they own 10%"

One has since retired the other is still serving, but I found it interesting that the base criteria was the conference.

It wasn't always so, but in today's world, conference membership is critical. Only somebody like Notre Dame can really pull it off, and then only in football.

I realize using attendance as a criterion isn't perfect, but it sure is a lot simpler than revenues (especially when there is such a disparity in the amount of institutional support that can go into the revenue figures).

IMO, it is essential and inevitable that D-I become less inclusive. And as much as I dislike what the NCAA has become, I still think having it survive is a better alternative to a total breakaway by the high resource schools. Not just better for the less well-heeled, but also for the haves. They need to have some lesser opponents to flesh out their schedules.

I don't think schools should have to be in the same conference for football as they are for other sports, though it's OK by me if some are. I propose a top level (Division) for football that includes the P5 and one other conference, all of whom average at least 25K attendance over four years (with 25K in at least three of those four years).

That conference (let's call it the American) consists of three divisions:

East: Army, Navy, Cincinnati, Temple, UConn and Marshall
South: East Carolina, Memphis, UCF, Houston, USF and Southern Miss
West: BYU, San Diego St, Boise State, Fresno St, Air Force and Colorado State

Each of the six conference champions are guaranteed an NY6 bowl game. The Top Four (using an average of ranking services as I have described elsewhere) play for the D-I National Championship. The rest of the field of 12 teams includes the highest ranked teams not already guaranteed a berth.

After deducting expenses, including ample travel costs for all NY 6 participants, the CFP revenues would be divided equally among all 83 D-I football members.

************************************************************

In basketball, I would require four year average attendance of at least 3,500 AND acceptance into a conference of 8 teams or more.

In addition to the current P5, I came up with 6 other conferences (avg attendance in parentheses, schools in order of attendance):

Big East (9,783): Creighton, Marquette, Vavier, Villanova, Providence, Georgetown, St John's, Butler, Seton Hall and DePaul

Mountain West (7,785): BYU, San Diego St, New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada, Utah St, Weber St, Fresno St, UTEP, Gonzaga, Boise St, New Mexico St, Wyoming and Colorado St

American (6,850): Wichita, Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, SMU, Temple, UCF, Tulsa, Houston and East Carolina

Atlantic 10 (5,733): Dayton, VCU, Ohio, Richmond, St Louis, Rhode Island, George Mason, Davidson, St Joseph's, Toledo, St Bonaventure and Buffalo

Missouri Valley (4,566): Illinois St, Bradley, Northern Iowa, Southern illinois, Missouri St, Evansville, Indiana St and North Dakota St

C-USA (4,513): ODU, Middle Tennessee, Marshall, UNC-Wilmington, Charlotte, UAB, East Tennessee St, Western Kentucky, Chattanooga, Louisiana, College of Charleston and Arkansas St


That is a total of 131 members in 11 conferences, enough to fill out a 64 team championship bracket. It includes all but 2 of this year's top 64 teams, and 91 of the top 100. Only 17 were ranked above #150 this year.

There were current 73 D-I schools whose total (not average) basketball attendance fell below 18K. They probably should not even remain in the second division. Surprisingly, four of these are current FBS schools: FAU, FIU, Troy and UT San Antonio.

After deducting NCAA operating expenses, including independent audits of D-I schools as described earlier, costs to provide, train and supervise all D-I officials, costs of staging all national championships except D-I football, traveling expenses for all NCAAT participants, and a share of NCAAT revenues for D-II schools, I would share the remaining revenues equally among all D-I basketball members. As in football, part of the purpose of this is to not make an individual school's payout dependent on winning post season games.

There are plenty of schools within the P5 that don't provide much of a challenge and perhaps that is why the Northwestern's, Duke's, Vanderbilt's and Oregon State's of the world stick around. Could the existing P5 become consolidated to a P4? Sure. Would that prevent the inclusion of some of the top G5 schools for the purposes of providing that competitive bell curve? No.

I see no reason why a P4 in the upper tier has to involve fewer than 65 schools unless the move is network driven to reduce overhead. Some of the top G5 schools would be terrific if academic snobbery could be dropped in favor of adding some solid niche markets for the surviving P4. A P4 of 72 to 80 schools would be possible and could easily provide a natural playoff structure for all sports. But it would need to be contained system for scheduling purposes and to be an entity unto itself.

72 has always been the sweet spot for me, but I could entertain 80 if good reasons for it were given.

If you review Gross Revenue totals and attendance totals you will notice breaks in Revenue around the 60th position, the 64th position and gain around the 72nd position. But I chaff at the idea of setting attendance requirements around 25,000. We can tolerate some privates who have historically been in P5 conferences, but not among state schools. What we could say here that makes more sense, is that if you have a total revenue of 70 million or exceed 40,000 in attendance then we can consider you for membership in the upper tier. Duke, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Northwestern and Connecticut would get in by virtue of revenue production. Baylor and T.C.U. still make it in on attendance.

The biggest issue is this continued absurdity over academic fit. Athletics have nothing to do with academics and with the exception of the Big 10 none of the other P5 conferences have any hard and firm academic standings that are enforced and with good reason. Academics have nothing to do with athletics.