The interview is listed as 33 minutes. Templeton's remarks are 24 minutes in length.

The first 10 minutes are his early years at Mississippi State and his hiring of Sylvester Croom.

The second 10 minutes are his history as Miss State's AD, his early work for the SEC and the establishment of the SECN and his time with Mike Slive.

The final four minutes are his remarks about the future of College Football in which he uses litotes as well as anyone to foreshadow what has been talked about down South for some years now.

He prefers Sankey to avoid becoming the Tsar of the NCAA and sees the future of college sports at a crossroads and prefers Sankey's leadership there. To the uninitiated in reading Southern passive assertions and interpreting them correctly, Larry tells you there are two directions ahead. To Templeton (who is assistant Commissioner of the SEC / advisor to Slive and Sankey) crossroads means we aren't likely to have just 1 future direction, and Sankey needs to lead one of those, and likely the one which "seems" unfamiliar (meaning not the path upon which the NCAA treads) And when he says the "strength" of the SEC is in a hashed out, consensus of a direction, and that other conferences need to do the same, or get on board with us, he is painting the picture of competing visions. One vision is for what's best for the game as a whole, and the other vision is turf protecting and maintaining of old associations. Since the SEC has embraced and developed the changes tossed out by the courts, I'll leave the listener to make up their minds as to which camp is the future.

https://podcasts-apple.com/gb/podcast/ho...0581966478

My security system blocks the site listed above, which I played through a search window. If yours does the same, try this one:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/10-the-pa...102978466/

Would you be of the opinion that top tier collegiate athletics would be best served under a single entity, with the SEC, Big 10, and the best of the other 3 united under 1 banner.

(10-09-2022 03:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would you be of the opinion that top tier collegiate athletics would be best served under a single entity, with the SEC, Big 10, and the best of the other 3 united under 1 banner.

I think that is the hope Muskie, but I doubt it will be the reality.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...20footing.

This is what college football needs, a Wellington Mara. Are either Warren or Sankey gutsy enough to prop up the lesser conferences and schools? If not there's no chance that we don't end up with a complete breakaway because the network money is driving all of us towards that cliff with increasing speed.

(10-09-2022 08:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...20footing.

This is what college football needs, a Wellington Mara. Are either Warren or Sankey gutsy enough to prop up the lesser conferences and schools? If not there's no chance that we don't end up with a complete breakaway because the network money is driving all of us towards that cliff with increasing speed.

It's entirely possible that we could see a 10 conference breakaway with all or at least most of FBS. However, the money would have to make sense for the stronger conferences, just like it needs to for the CFP.

I'm just spitballing here, but something like:

30% SEC
30% B1G
30% Midmajors
10% g5

Ie, 2% per g5 conference, 10-15% per midmajor depending upon how many they end up with, and 30% for each P2 conference.

This looks really harsh, but 2%-10% of a whole lot is better than 100% of nothing. And the P2 do have a strong incentive to bring along as many schools as possible if the numbers can be worked out because it will be better for the overall health of the game.

(10-09-2022 08:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...20footing.

This is what college football needs, a Wellington Mara. Are either Warren or Sankey gutsy enough to prop up the lesser conferences and schools? If not there's no chance that we don't end up with a complete breakaway because the network money is driving all of us towards that cliff with increasing speed.

I do agree with you, SouthEastAlaska. A Wellington Mara is needed for college football. Someone who can get ESPN and FOX to quit squabbling and work together for the common good. Late Commissioner Slive was like that, as was Delaney, prior to his retirement.

If everyone could work together, FSU and Clemson could leave the ACC with no problems, and the ACC would still survive!!! But therein lies the problem: no one wants to work together.

(10-09-2022 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2022 03:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would you be of the opinion that top tier collegiate athletics would be best served under a single entity, with the SEC, Big 10, and the best of the other 3 united under 1 banner.

I think that is the hope Muskie, but I doubt it will be the reality.

Good find JR.

Is that your opinion because the "P" conferences are unable and/or unwilling to break free from their (much) lower-resource "G" counterparts?

Or do you think it's because the ACC, Big XII and Pac will exist in an ongoing "P-lite" status instead of a third superconference emerging as a junior partner to the SEC and B1G?

(12-01-2022 03:21 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(10-09-2022 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2022 03:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would you be of the opinion that top tier collegiate athletics would be best served under a single entity, with the SEC, Big 10, and the best of the other 3 united under 1 banner.

I think that is the hope Muskie, but I doubt it will be the reality.

Good find JR.

Is that your opinion because the "P" conferences are unable and/or unwilling to break free from their (much) lower-resource "G" counterparts?

Or do you think it's because the ACC, Big XII and Pac will exist in an ongoing "P-lite" status instead of a third superconference emerging as a junior partner to the SEC and B1G?

It's looking more and more like either a P2 where the differences between the SEC and Big 10 are pacified by having to separate structures, with a possible third amalgamation conference of somewhat lesser value but included. Or we could have two larger conferences (Big 10 and SEC and thinking 20 each) and a couple of 16 member each surviving P conferences at a lesser pay than the SEC and Big 12. And thirdly, maybe 2 leagues of 36 each.

The dichotomy that would prevent essentially one structure will be centered around the Big 10's refusal to see sports as a separate entity from the educational function of the school and the SEC's desire to keep it separate. So, the difference, while nebulous in the greater perspective, will allow each to operate by their own value system, but in the end, both will use NIL, both will likely both end up paying players, both will likely be taking caps off of the number of paid coaches, and both will likely support a new association to enforce rules and standards and a basketball tournament separate from the NCAA.

It would actually be the Big 10's best shot at attracting a Virginia or North Carolina as their model lines up with that. The biggest obstacle will remain regionality, travel expense, and mix of sports (thinking baseball and softball in addition to football).

Now the next questions shaping up here would be do we have the third amalgamation conference, or two 16 school conferences to offset 20 school Big 10 and SEC conferences? And subsequently, do those form larger alliances like a league? PAC/westerly Big12/Big 10 in one league and SEC/ACC/easterly Big12 in the other.

I can easily see to larger leagues with conferences becoming divisions within it. I can see two 20 team conferences in the SEC and Big 10 and two 16 team conferences (though much lesser paid) in the ACC and New Big 12, or I can see a 3 x 24.

Structure, internal priorities, and the networks willingness to pay for schools added to the SEC / Big 10 vs segregated by value will be some of the factors which can determine what we wind up with.

The fact that the new playoff is set for 2024 means we will now have an acceleration of whatever is in the works, IMO.

Money drives things. The big money out there is the NCAA basketball tournament. Separating football is easier, but I think a Division I breakoff is inevitable. There aren't 350 schools on the same level and the NCAA isn't willing to do anything serious about that. I think the P5 like the NCAA as a liability umbrella, but that may be the only thing holding it together. Maybe there is a Division 0 with the top 150-200 including all of FBS.

(12-04-2022 11:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  Money drives things. The big money out there is the NCAA basketball tournament. Separating football is easier, but I think a Division I breakoff is inevitable. There aren't 350 schools on the same level and the NCAA isn't willing to do anything serious about that. I think the P5 like the NCAA as a liability umbrella, but that may be the only thing holding it together. Maybe there is a Division 0 with the top 150-200 including all of FBS.

Look at the actual earned revenue. There is the top 72 which is not subsidized by more than 3% if at all for the top 50 or so schools, and the highest subsidy is around 17%. Then there are the G5 where every school is subsidized 25% or more just to offer sports, with the vast majority of them subsidized by 50% or more. And I'm not even calling what the NCAA gives them from the basketball tournament a subsidy, which it truly is in most cases.

If we have an upper tier, it will likely, based upon actual revenue, be inclusive to the 72nd position in earnings. Maybe a few more, or maybe a few less.

If the breakaway is 200 schools, it accomplishes little. But the coming demographic shift in enrollment coupled with the financial mess globally and in the States, both indicate necessity for the oldest and best funded schools to set themselves apart. Which, IMO, is a large part of the decision-making process for Texas and Oklahoma, and will be for North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Florida State, and many of the PAC schools. It's not just about sports, but rather about maintaining brand advantage, and should this perfect global population and financial storm hit, about survival.

(12-04-2022 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 11:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  Money drives things. The big money out there is the NCAA basketball tournament. Separating football is easier, but I think a Division I breakoff is inevitable. There aren't 350 schools on the same level and the NCAA isn't willing to do anything serious about that. I think the P5 like the NCAA as a liability umbrella, but that may be the only thing holding it together. Maybe there is a Division 0 with the top 150-200 including all of FBS.

Look at the actual earned revenue. There is the top 72 which is not subsidized by more than 3% if at all for the top 50 or so schools, and the highest subsidy is around 17%. Then there are the G5 where every school is subsidized 25% or more just to offer sports, with the vast majority of them subsidized by 50% or more. And I'm not even calling what the NCAA gives them from the basketball tournament a subsidy, which it truly is in most cases.

If we have an upper tier, it will likely, based upon actual revenue, be inclusive to the 72nd position in earnings. Maybe a few more, or maybe a few less.

If the breakaway is 200 schools, it accomplishes little. But the coming demographic shift in enrollment coupled with the financial mess globally and in the States, both indicate necessity for the oldest and best funded schools to set themselves apart. Which, IMO, is a large part of the decision-making process for Texas and Oklahoma, and will be for North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Florida State, and many of the PAC schools. It's not just about sports, but rather about maintaining brand advantage, and should this perfect global population and financial storm hit, about survival.

With 150-200 you have schools that can be competitive in basketball. But financially, yes, it is a much smaller number. I just have heard a lot more talk about including the G5 than excluding them. So I don't think the first step will be as radical.

(12-04-2022 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 11:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  Money drives things. The big money out there is the NCAA basketball tournament. Separating football is easier, but I think a Division I breakoff is inevitable. There aren't 350 schools on the same level and the NCAA isn't willing to do anything serious about that. I think the P5 like the NCAA as a liability umbrella, but that may be the only thing holding it together. Maybe there is a Division 0 with the top 150-200 including all of FBS.

Look at the actual earned revenue. There is the top 72 which is not subsidized by more than 3% if at all for the top 50 or so schools, and the highest subsidy is around 17%. Then there are the G5 where every school is subsidized 25% or more just to offer sports, with the vast majority of them subsidized by 50% or more. And I'm not even calling what the NCAA gives them from the basketball tournament a subsidy, which it truly is in most cases.

If we have an upper tier, it will likely, based upon actual revenue, be inclusive to the 72nd position in earnings. Maybe a few more, or maybe a few less.

If the breakaway is 200 schools, it accomplishes little. But the coming demographic shift in enrollment coupled with the financial mess globally and in the States, both indicate necessity for the oldest and best funded schools to set themselves apart. Which, IMO, is a large part of the decision-making process for Texas and Oklahoma, and will be for North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Florida State, and many of the PAC schools. It's not just about sports, but rather about maintaining brand advantage, and should this perfect global population and financial storm hit, about survival.

The bolded part, JRsec, could apply to the G5 as well. You are already seeing stratification in the G5, IMO, with the SunBelt, the AAC (new Metro), and the MWC. The MAC chose not to upgrade; that could cost them in the long run, IMO. C-USA is being held together by figurative duct tape right now, the duct tape being Liberty University, IMHO. When the SunBelt or the AAC decide to get over themselves, and invite Liberty, C-USA will disintegrate again, in all likelihood, IMO.

In addition, I am seeing the G5 schools actually beginning to be funded better. It's taking time, but it is happening, IMO. It's not all that way across the G5, but it's a lot better than it used to be.

If schools will have to treat athletes as employees, I could see a Division 0 across the board which includes schools paying players with full benefits.

The following I could see make the cut:

ACC
B1G
SEC
Big 12
Pac-12
Big East
MW
AAC
Navy
Army
A-10
Gonzaga (likely join the Big 12)
Liberty
Hawaii
Hockey schools paying hockey players

A few other potentially to round out the basketball field:
MAC
Sun Belt
MVC
WCC

The NCAA could keep a 64- team NCAA tournament, and split the money far fewer ways.

(12-19-2022 10:57 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  If schools will have to treat athletes as employees, I could see a Division 0 across the board which includes schools paying players with full benefits.

The following I could see make the cut:

ACC
B1G
SEC
Big 12
Pac-12
Big East
MW
AAC
Navy
Army
A-10
Gonzaga (likely join the Big 12)
Liberty
Hawaii
Hockey schools paying hockey players

A few other potentially to round out the basketball field:
MAC
Sun Belt
MVC
WCC

The NCAA could keep a 64- team NCAA tournament, and split the money far fewer ways.

I think all FBS conferences + the extras you mentioned would make the cut. A new Division I basically relegating everyone else to a new DII, DII, and DIV.