(06-12-2013 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:22 AM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:34 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  If the Power 5 do breakaway from the other conferences the Mountain West and AAC need to come with them. We should not be stuck in the same breath as the Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. We have much more in common with the P5 conferences than the 3 conferences listed above. Discuss.

What a short memory. The whole realignment/mini playoff began because the SEC and others were angry over the fact that the Big East, whom they did not consider an equal, had a seat at the big boy table. What makes you think that they have changed their mind just because 3 of the former BE teams and the former CUSA (the AAC), along with some semi successful (Boise excluded) former WAC schools say that they belong. Living in SEC country, I can tell you that none of their fans consider there to be any difference among the non-P5 conferences. I am sure that in B1G, Big XII, ACC and Pac12 country it is the same.

The networks think there is a difference. Last time I looked they pay the freight and they are making the decisions.

Yes they do, and they pay the P5 10 to 18 Million per team and the AAC 1.8 which is waaaaay closer to the 1 to 1.2 of the CUSA than it is to the P5 and is what many would say is insignificant.

By the way, the ratings drive the price from the networks and they know that those "fans' perceptions" make them tune in when the P5 are on and not so much when the G5 are on.

(06-12-2013 11:30 AM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:22 AM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:34 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  If the Power 5 do breakaway from the other conferences the Mountain West and AAC need to come with them. We should not be stuck in the same breath as the Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. We have much more in common with the P5 conferences than the 3 conferences listed above. Discuss.

What a short memory. The whole realignment/mini playoff began because the SEC and others were angry over the fact that the Big East, whom they did not consider an equal, had a seat at the big boy table. What makes you think that they have changed their mind just because 3 of the former BE teams and the former CUSA (the AAC), along with some semi successful (Boise excluded) former WAC schools say that they belong. Living in SEC country, I can tell you that none of their fans consider there to be any difference among the non-P5 conferences. I am sure that in B1G, Big XII, ACC and Pac12 country it is the same.

The networks think there is a difference. Last time I looked they pay the freight and they are making the decisions.

Yes they do, and they pay the P5 10 to 18 Million per team and the AAC 1.8 which is waaaaay closer to the 1 to 1.2 of the CUSA than it is to the P5 and is what many would say is insignificant.

By the way, the ratings drive the price from the networks and they know that those "fans' perceptions" make them tune in when the P5 are on and not so much when the G5 are on.

The AAC gets around 2 million a team and CUSA gets 1 million a team (for now). Essentially, the networks pay the AAC double what they pay CUSA. The MAC and Sunbelt get less than half what CUSA gets. Sorry--the networks apparantly see a difference.

I might also mention that the networks will be nationally televising 58 out of 66 AAC games. CUSA will only have a handful of thier games on national TV. So, yes, the networks apparantly believe there is a differnece.

Frankly, Im not sure what your beef is. My argument here has been that it doesnt make ecomnomic sense to cut the G5 loose because the G-5 only takes 10% of the money. They do not appear to be taking any larger share of revenue than they actually bring to the table. However, if you want to get technical--only the MW and the AAC make about 10% of what the P-5 do. So, I guess you could make the argument that those 2 conferneces should be included with the P-5 break away and split 10% of the the money. It could be argued that the rest of the G5 not making 10% of what the P5 make are degrading P-5 earnings.

To me, theres a better reason to include all 5 G5 conferneces even though they may not quite pull thier weight in football earnings. I'd include all the G5 so that all of FBS can split away and still have a group large enough to create a good 64 team NCAA basketball field--but a group thats still small enough that the per confernece revenue jump is massive.

(06-12-2013 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:30 AM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:22 AM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:34 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  If the Power 5 do breakaway from the other conferences the Mountain West and AAC need to come with them. We should not be stuck in the same breath as the Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. We have much more in common with the P5 conferences than the 3 conferences listed above. Discuss.

What a short memory. The whole realignment/mini playoff began because the SEC and others were angry over the fact that the Big East, whom they did not consider an equal, had a seat at the big boy table. What makes you think that they have changed their mind just because 3 of the former BE teams and the former CUSA (the AAC), along with some semi successful (Boise excluded) former WAC schools say that they belong. Living in SEC country, I can tell you that none of their fans consider there to be any difference among the non-P5 conferences. I am sure that in B1G, Big XII, ACC and Pac12 country it is the same.

The networks think there is a difference. Last time I looked they pay the freight and they are making the decisions.

Yes they do, and they pay the P5 10 to 18 Million per team and the AAC 1.8 which is waaaaay closer to the 1 to 1.2 of the CUSA than it is to the P5 and is what many would say is insignificant.

By the way, the ratings drive the price from the networks and they know that those "fans' perceptions" make them tune in when the P5 are on and not so much when the G5 are on.

The AAC gets around 2 million a team and CUSA gets 1 million a team (for now). Essentially, the networks pay the AAC double what they pay CUSA. The MAC and Sunbelt get less than half what CUSA gets. Sorry--the networks apparantly see a difference.

If you were to put together a graph and placed every FBS conferences TV payout onto it, the P5 conference numbers would all be in 1 tier 20-25 million way above the G5 all clustered around 0-2 million dollars.

2 million per school or 1 million per school is still a tiny amount either way you look at it and hardly worth jumping a conference for. Any CUSA, SBC or MAC school would jump to the AAC not for TV money but for overall SOS and academics. MWC schools would do the same if there wasn't such a geographic barrier.

(06-12-2013 10:39 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  ... and you used what criteria in putting together this list? Of course, I am insulted: how in the name of God can you put USF and UCF on the list of "belongs" and not ECU? Colorado State? Really????

argument #1
I thought it was pretty obvious where ECU stood in the pecking order. The Big East chose Uconn, Cincy, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Temple, Navy, and Tulane all before ECU. Tulsa is the only one in AAC below ECU in the pecking order.

Argument #2
If states like Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Oregon, Oklahoma all get 2 P5 schools, then Colorado deserves a 2nd school and Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho and hawaii all deserve at least 1. North Carolina deserves to have 3 teams at best in the P5. Those 3 schools are North Carolina, NC-State and Duke. Wake Forest does not belong either.

If budget size is an issues to NCAA presidents, could a new super division make a requirement that all schools need at least a 40 million dollar athletic budget?

That total would be low enough that the Iowa State's and Miss State's of the world are covered but would also allow entrance of many G5 schools like those in the AAC and BYU + Boise State.

There are some others that may try to see if they can make the cut like Marshall, ODU, Ohio, Buffalo, UMass, Rice but most of the CUSA/SBC/MAC would buckle at the 40 million dollar requirement.

The top level of college football would then be down to 90 schools plus under new governance.

It would be interesting if they did all this based on which schools were actually good at the sport.

(06-12-2013 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I didnt claim either of those (though I think both could happen). Im actually claiming that the economics dont suport cutting the G5 loose. Yes they dont bring a huge economic impact, but they also dont likley cost anymore than they bring to the table (10% of the money--heck, they probably actually contribute a more than that if we look at televison ratings). Bottom line---because the revenue sharing is so slanted in the P-5 favor, the G5 are not "taking" anything from the P5--they probably actually contribute a little to the P5.

On the other hand, the 225 FCS/non-football playing Div-I schools are getting about half the NCAA basketball money. That pool of money is actually as large or larger than the new college playoff money pool. Thats where a split could make the P-5 some money. The P-5 doesnt enjoy thier huge oversized share in basketball like they do in football. Basically, breaking off the existing FBS division from Div-I could make alot of sense. There would be a slight increase in money from breaking away from FCS---but there would be a nearly doubleing of the basketball money coming in to the P-5. Yet, with 126 schools, there would still be enough quality teams to create a credible 64 team field for a national D1 NCAA championship tournament.

And what would be the result of the P-5 money grab you outlined. Without the revenue, sports programs would be cut across FBS. Some sports would stop being sponsored by the NCAA because they would fall below the minimum.

Meanwhile P5 football would continue to consume more expenses without any increase in participation levels as Football players will have every increasing personal multimedia centers over their lockers and spray painted uniforms with real gold to match their teeth.

And you wonder why there is a backlash brewing regarding college football. The moment this do this someone will file suit challenging their status as a non-profit entity.

(06-12-2013 12:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If budget size is an issues to NCAA presidents, could a new super division make a requirement that all schools need at least a 40 million dollar athletic budget?

That total would be low enough that the Iowa State's and Miss State's of the world are covered but would also allow entrance of many G5 schools like those in the AAC and BYU + Boise State.

There are some others that may try to see if they can make the cut like Marshall, ODU, Ohio, Buffalo, UMass, Rice but most of the CUSA/SBC/MAC would buckle at the 40 million dollar requirement.

The top level of college football would then be down to 90 schools plus under new governance.

Here is who would make the 40 million cutoff among the G5:

West
Boise State
Hawaii
BYU
San Diego St
New Mexico
UNLV
Air Force
Colorado State (maybe)
Wyoming (maybe)
Fresno State (maybe)

East
Memphis
Houston
East Carolina
Army
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Central Florida
Connecticut
Cincinnati
Tulsa (maybe)
Tulane (maybe)
Massachusetts (maybe)
Buffalo (maybe)
Ohio (maybe)
Miami (maybe)
Marshall (maybe)
Old Dominion (maybe)
Delaware (maybe)
James Madison (maybe)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

(06-11-2013 04:34 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  If the Power 5 do breakaway from the other conferences the Mountain West and AAC need to come with them. We should not be stuck in the same breath as the Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. We have much more in common with the P5 conferences than the 3 conferences listed above. Discuss.

Let's see:

Hockey

Miami(OH) 08 & 09 Frozen Four Appearances: Hockey isn't a MAC sport but Miami is in the MAC for all other sports

MWC programs: No appearances

Soccer: Akron 2010 National Men's Soccer Champion

MWC: 0 Men's Soccer National Titles in recent memory

Baseball: 2012 Kent State makes the CWS

Any MWC teams make the CWS in the last 5 years, I don't believe so.

Football: 2012 NIU earns BCS Orange Bow bid
MWC: None since Utah & TCU left the conference

Hoops: Ohio reached the Sweet 16 in 2012, took UNC to OT.
Both conferences have 2 current members who reached the Sweet 16 since 2000. UNLV & SD ST for MWC, Miami & Kent for the MAC. Utah reached in 05, but no longer a MWC member. So really more of a wash than you would expect. BGSU reached in 99.

So which conference by success on the field(ice,court) is more worthy of being an AQ conference? If the MWC had been able to hold onto Utah & TCU it's not close but with them gone the MAC has the upper hand.

(06-11-2013 05:15 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 05:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:58 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You can do this same breakdown for schools already in P5 conferences too.

ok, but to keep it short, I will only list the P5 schools that don't belong

Don't Belong
Wake Forest
Wash State
Vanderbilt

Schools that used to never belong but have earned their way in recently
Northwestern
Baylor
Iowa State
TCU
Utah
Rutgers
Louisville

How the heck has Northwestern earned their way in?

Vandy has done much more in recent years.

NU won 10 games and beat 2 SEC bowl teams this year, Women's Lacrosse has won multiple national titles. NU football won or shared B10 conference titles in 95, 96 & 2000. What more do you need?

I like the 40 million dollar budget cutoff idea a lot because either you're program has a significant revenue source (e.g. Memphis basketball) or you're a institution capable of putting forward a huge subsidy.

It weeds out the true tweener schools like Boise State and Memphis from the Louisiana Monroe's of the world.

There are 10 P5 schools in the 40-60 million dollar range and 10 G5 schools so 40 million sounds like a reasonable cutoff point.

A new division of mid atlantic schools who are serious about athletics could form the 9th super division conference.

Massachusetts
Buffalo
Army
Delaware
Miami Oh
Ohio
Marshall
James Madison
Old Dominion

Then once the new super division is formed after that its invite only from there on out....

(06-12-2013 01:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If budget size is an issues to NCAA presidents, could a new super division make a requirement that all schools need at least a 40 million dollar athletic budget?

That total would be low enough that the Iowa State's and Miss State's of the world are covered but would also allow entrance of many G5 schools like those in the AAC and BYU + Boise State.

There are some others that may try to see if they can make the cut like Marshall, ODU, Ohio, Buffalo, UMass, Rice but most of the CUSA/SBC/MAC would buckle at the 40 million dollar requirement.

The top level of college football would then be down to 90 schools plus under new governance.

Here is who would make the 40 million cutoff among the G5:

West
Boise State
Hawaii
BYU
San Diego St
New Mexico
UNLV
Air Force
Colorado State (maybe)
Wyoming (maybe)
Fresno State (maybe)

East
Memphis
Houston
East Carolina
Army
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Central Florida
Connecticut
Cincinnati
Tulsa (maybe)
Tulane (maybe)
Massachusetts (maybe)
Buffalo (maybe)
Ohio (maybe)
Miami (maybe)
Marshall (maybe)
Old Dominion (maybe)
Delaware (maybe)
James Madison (maybe)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Who cares what the budget is? Some schools do more with less. In any case, some areas are lower cost so their budgets go farther than others.

I would like to see a conference with only schools with 4 letter names-

Ohio
Iowa
Utah
UCLA
UNLV
Pitt
Bama
Army
Navy
Duke

or better yet, how about someone slicing the pie and NOT including their own school? seems impossible.

How about only schools with directions in them?

(06-12-2013 01:31 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Meanwhile P5 football would continue to consume more expenses without any increase in participation levels as Football players will have every increasing personal multimedia centers over their lockers and spray painted uniforms with real gold to match their teeth.

And you wonder why there is a backlash brewing regarding college football. The moment this do this someone will file suit challenging their status as a non-profit entity.

To be fair, it's not just football.

This job came up in a search on higheredjobs. Heh.

(06-12-2013 12:25 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 10:39 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  ... and you used what criteria in putting together this list? Of course, I am insulted: how in the name of God can you put USF and UCF on the list of "belongs" and not ECU? Colorado State? Really????

argument #1
I thought it was pretty obvious where ECU stood in the pecking order. The Big East chose Uconn, Cincy, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Temple, Navy, and Tulane all before ECU. Tulsa is the only one in AAC below ECU in the pecking order.

Argument #2
If states like Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Oregon, Oklahoma all get 2 P5 schools, then Colorado deserves a 2nd school and Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho and hawaii all deserve at least 1. North Carolina deserves to have 3 teams at best in the P5. Those 3 schools are North Carolina, NC-State and Duke. Wake Forest does not belong either.

Argument B - If the P5 conferences had been formed within the last 10 years without consideration of the past or who was a founding member of those P5 conferences, you are correct. Many, many schools would not be included. There would be less inclusion, not more. Based on the numbers, there is a drop off at about team #48 in terms of revenue. That hits at about $70 million revenue (Kansas State, Purdue territory). It then drops down pretty quickly to $45 million about team 70 (Ole Miss, Wake Forest territory). Under this scenario, we are probably looking at a 48 to 60 team P5, not the current amount with arguments about adding more.

Speaking of, would that appease the Go5 crowd? What if schools like Washington State, Oregon State, Iowa State, Miss. St., and Wake Forest were part of the AAC or MWC, realizing that some of your schools who just joined the AAC or MWC would have then possibly not receive the invite up?

(06-12-2013 12:25 PM)goofus Wrote:  Argument #2
If states like Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Oregon, Oklahoma all get 2 P5 schools, then Colorado deserves a 2nd school and Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho and hawaii all deserve at least 1. North Carolina deserves to have 3 teams at best in the P5. Those 3 schools are North Carolina, NC-State and Duke. Wake Forest does not belong either.

The sad part about this is Ohio is the 7th most populous state and there is only one major school. The monopoly that Columbus has over Ohio's Department of Education is sickening...here is the University of Cincinnati's president Santa Ono on the matter following Gordon Gee's comments.

Quote: Strategic investment in NC State as well as UNC was pivotal to the success of the Research Triangle Park economic engine for the state of North Carolina.

North Carolina could have focused funding on Chapel Hill alone, but it reasoned that this would not benefit the state as a profoundly as investment in both UNC and NC State. It is an excellent example of how strategic investment in multiple campuses has a more profound impact on the state than the antiquated flagship model.

The third anchor for North Carolina is of course Duke University.

All three universities (UNC, NC State and Duke), compete in the ACC. The intrastate rivalry within the conference is fabulous for the state. And as much as each school wants to win when they face each other on the athletic field, they would not think of a scenario where they would not be in the same conference. They all know how valuable that in state, intraconference rivalry is for the state and for each school.

We have taken baby steps toward a triangle model in Ohio with OSU, UC and Case as anchors. It would serve us well if this concept would be fully embraced.

Ohio State is actively trying to maintain complete control over the entire state of Ohio despite the negative economic repercussions of such monopoly.

(06-12-2013 01:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If budget size is an issues to NCAA presidents, could a new super division make a requirement that all schools need at least a 40 million dollar athletic budget?

That total would be low enough that the Iowa State's and Miss State's of the world are covered but would also allow entrance of many G5 schools like those in the AAC and BYU + Boise State.

There are some others that may try to see if they can make the cut like Marshall, ODU, Ohio, Buffalo, UMass, Rice but most of the CUSA/SBC/MAC would buckle at the 40 million dollar requirement.

The top level of college football would then be down to 90 schools plus under new governance.

Here is who would make the 40 million cutoff among the G5:

West
Boise State
Hawaii
BYU
San Diego St
New Mexico
UNLV
Air Force
Colorado State (maybe)
Wyoming (maybe)
Fresno State (maybe)

East
Memphis
Houston
East Carolina
Army
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Central Florida
Connecticut
Cincinnati
Tulsa (maybe)
Tulane (maybe)
Massachusetts (maybe)
Buffalo (maybe)
Ohio (maybe)
Miami (maybe)
Marshall (maybe)
Old Dominion (maybe)
Delaware (maybe)
James Madison (maybe)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Who cares what the budget is? Some schools do more with less. In any case, some areas are lower cost so their budgets go farther than others.

Keep in mind that a Super Division is VERY hypothetical at this point because the first CFP contract runs until 2019-20 and NCAA men's basketball goes to 2023-24.

It will be until 2020 until anything happens but the days of stadium size and attendance being used are over. Its all going to come down to a budget number of 40 or 50 million as a cut off point.

There is recognition in the P5 that there are some G5 programs with money and would add value to a super division. They will allow G5 programs that want to step up to that number to continue on.

By 2020 the odds are the following:

Status Quo (75% chance)
Super Division 40 mil budgets (12.5% chance)
Super Division all FBS (12.5% chance)

Judging from the budgets of the Big East in the 14-30 million dollar range they may have some work to do if they want to be included in the Super Division, IMO.

(06-12-2013 02:55 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Ohio State is actively trying to maintain complete control over the entire state of Ohio despite the negative economic repercussions of such monopoly.

One of the disadvantages of having THE state university in the state capital...

(06-11-2013 11:53 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  This is a repost here but the push to breakaway is completely driven by voting. Voting now is completely out of balance.

NCAA voting #'s
B12 (3 votes)
B1G (3 votes)
CUSA (3 votes)
ACC (3 votes)
PAC (3 votes)
SEC (3 votes)
BE (3 votes)
WAC (1.5 votes)
MWC (1.5 votes)
MAC (1.5 votes)
SBC (1.5 votes)
Everyone Else (21 conferences, 1 vote a piece)

It was designed to give the majority voting power to the FBS conferences so they follow lock in step over any of the football issues. This format was forced upon D1 in 1997 when the power conferences last threatened to leave the NCAA.

The issue is the Big East and WAC no longer sponsor football yet they retain the votes. Further CUSA retains 3 votes like a power conference yet is comprised mostly of former SBC schools. At the time the votes were given to CUSA they were much closer in strength to being a power conference, especially in basketball where it was a 4-5 bid league.

Before the votes were 27-20 in favor of the football conferences but now the votes are 22.5-25.5 against FBS and if you are looking at P5 vs. everyone else on controversial matters such as the the player stipend the voting is even more lopsided, 15-33 against the P5.

There is no way to rebalance the votes....they became balanced toward the FBS conferences before under threat of breakaway. Now the NCAA has another 75-80 D1 schools to work with and the Big East and CUSA on its side which wasn't the case before.

I believe the AAC retains the 3 votes that are listed under the BE, for selling the name.