(10-25-2018 08:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 07:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 12:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Can't see it playing out that way.

Delany is predatory but he's also realistic enough to know that being on the second tier of college football and basketball is not going to generate even one-tenth as much money as the Big Ten generates now. And that's where they would be, on the second tier, if they stick with NCAA-style "amateurism" while another group of schools skims off the best available football and basketball players by paying them above the table.

There are Big Ten schools, and other P5 schools, that have bills to pay. They've invested in expensive athletic facilities and issued bonds that are supposed to be paid off with future revenue and/or donations that wealthy donors have pledged to make in the future. These universities are not going to voluntarily step into a situation where the revenue dries up but the bonds or loans still have to be paid off.

If the Big10 did stick to that though it would weaken the so called "top tier". If the PAC and ACC went along with them saying we'll do what we have to to stay amateur then the pay for play league would be dead in the water imo. If people want to watch the best players in the country play football and basketball then there's professional leagues for that already. People want to watch their schools or the schools they associate themselves with play those sports. You can't build a national brand for a league of college programs with large parts of the country's schools not going along.

Have not stopped pay for play in the past with some of these schools. You have to look at which schools got busted by the NCAA when they caught players getting gifts. Reggie Bush of USC is an example. Another one was the tattoo scandal under Tressell at Ohio State. If the Big 10 do that? You could see the schools like Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and others will stay because they now have excuse to give money as gifts to the players out in the open.

Well, I agree with Bruce that their intentions might not be wholly honorable. Pay for play would not be good for schools. They would like to avoid it.

(10-25-2018 10:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 08:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 07:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 12:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Can't see it playing out that way.

Delany is predatory but he's also realistic enough to know that being on the second tier of college football and basketball is not going to generate even one-tenth as much money as the Big Ten generates now. And that's where they would be, on the second tier, if they stick with NCAA-style "amateurism" while another group of schools skims off the best available football and basketball players by paying them above the table.

There are Big Ten schools, and other P5 schools, that have bills to pay. They've invested in expensive athletic facilities and issued bonds that are supposed to be paid off with future revenue and/or donations that wealthy donors have pledged to make in the future. These universities are not going to voluntarily step into a situation where the revenue dries up but the bonds or loans still have to be paid off.

If the Big10 did stick to that though it would weaken the so called "top tier". If the PAC and ACC went along with them saying we'll do what we have to to stay amateur then the pay for play league would be dead in the water imo. If people want to watch the best players in the country play football and basketball then there's professional leagues for that already. People want to watch their schools or the schools they associate themselves with play those sports. You can't build a national brand for a league of college programs with large parts of the country's schools not going along.

Have not stopped pay for play in the past with some of these schools. You have to look at which schools got busted by the NCAA when they caught players getting gifts. Reggie Bush of USC is an example. Another one was the tattoo scandal under Tressell at Ohio State. If the Big 10 do that? You could see the schools like Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and others will stay because they now have excuse to give money as gifts to the players out in the open.

Well, I agree with Bruce that their intentions might not be wholly honorable. Pay for play would not be good for schools. They would like to avoid it.

So I'm guessing that Liberty stays an independent, since even though they will pay whatever it takes to come to the party, no conference wants to invite them inside the door for obvious reasons.

If there was a B1G/PAC/Big 12 and SEC/Big 12/ACC merger, it could look something like this

East
Duke
Maryland
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
Virginia

Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan State
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

Pacific
Arizona
California
Oregon
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Washington

West
Colorado
Iowa
Iowa State
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Texas

B1G/PAC East/Midwest (Peach Bowl) and Pacific/West (Fiesta Bowl) winners would meet in Quarterfinals. Winners would meet at the Rose Bowl, with that winner going to National Championship game.

Atlantic
Kentucky
Louisville
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Pittsburgh
Virginia Tech
West Virginia

South
Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Tennessee

Southeast
Clemson
Florida
Florida State
Miami
Georgia
Georgia Tech
South Carolina

Southwest
Arizona State
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

South/Southwest (Cotton Bowl) and Atlantic/Southeast (Orange Bowl) winners would meet in Quarterfinals. Winners would meet at the Sugar Bowl, with that winner going to National Championship game.

Each team plays a 6-game division schedule, with two crossover games and one preseason exhibition game. National Championship Game would be bid on annually by host cities, ala the Super Bowl. For teams that do not make the playoff, they would get two additional games (home/away) against teams that finished in same place in other divisions, followed by a traditional bowl game for third game. Everyone gets twelve games.

(10-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

So the SEC plus Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, possibly two North Carolina schools, and one of Miami, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, or Kansas.

And the Big 10 plus the 4 Cali schools, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Notre Dame.

That's not wholly unlikely.

Would this be in line with your thinking for a top tier?

SEC:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

B1G/PAC
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Utah, Washington

A valid argument against this happening is the fact that in this tier there would be a lot of teams with a lot more losses every year than they (and their fans) are accustomed to. Let's say there were a 16 team championship tournament for this division. It's not hard to imagine a 3 loss national champion emerging.

(10-25-2018 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

So the SEC plus Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, possibly two North Carolina schools, and one of Miami, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, or Kansas.

And the Big 10 plus the 4 Cali schools, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Notre Dame.

That's not wholly unlikely.

Would this be in line with your thinking for a top tier?

SEC:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

B1G/PAC
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Utah, Washington

A valid argument against this happening is the fact that in this tier there would be a lot of teams with a lot more losses every year than they (and their fans) are accustomed to. Let's say there were a 16 team championship tournament for this division. It's not hard to imagine a 3 loss national champion emerging.

That's a nice 36, but I think that by the time state legislatures get involved and A.D.'s here the fears of their donors and alums, that what we wind up with with be closer to 40 or 48 schools still regionally grouped where they can play a relatively familiar schedule.

But two leagues roughly along the line of the 2 you've laid out would be indicate for a variety of reasons. You can't have 1 organization because that could be found more easily to be in violation of anti-trust laws. You want consolidation for the sake of collective bargaining and as leverage against the growing influence of the networks.

But the wild card here may be whether the California state schools go for pay to play?

So let's look at 10 team divisions with 4 rotating regionally grouped pods of 5 each:

Big 10/PAC

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal,

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

SEC/B12/ACC

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri

What about Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, N.C. State and Virginia? They aren't large market draws and in Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma limiting the number of top pay schools improves their chances.

And remember both Texas and Oklahoma since they are together can still play Tech and OSU as their OOC game.

Why Kansas? They just spent a boat load of money to begin enhancing football.

What about the rest? They can form a true tweener conference.

(10-25-2018 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

So the SEC plus Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, possibly two North Carolina schools, and one of Miami, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, or Kansas.

And the Big 10 plus the 4 Cali schools, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Notre Dame.

That's not wholly unlikely.

Would this be in line with your thinking for a top tier?

SEC:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

B1G/PAC
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Utah, Washington

A valid argument against this happening is the fact that in this tier there would be a lot of teams with a lot more losses every year than they (and their fans) are accustomed to. Let's say there were a 16 team championship tournament for this division. It's not hard to imagine a 3 loss national champion emerging.

That's a nice 36, but I think that by the time state legislatures get involved and A.D.'s here the fears of their donors and alums, that what we wind up with with be closer to 40 or 48 schools still regionally grouped where they can play a relatively familiar schedule.

But two leagues roughly along the line of the 2 you've laid out would be indicate for a variety of reasons. You can't have 1 organization because that could be found more easily to be in violation of anti-trust laws. You want consolidation for the sake of collective bargaining and as leverage against the growing influence of the networks.

But the wild card here may be whether the California state schools go for pay to play?

So let's look at 10 team divisions with 4 rotating regionally grouped pods of 5 each:

Big 10/PAC

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal,

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

SEC/B12/ACC

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri

What about Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, N.C. State and Virginia? They aren't large market draws and in Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma limiting the number of top pay schools improves their chances.

And remember both Texas and Oklahoma since they are together can still play Tech and OSU as their OOC game.

Why Kansas? They just spent a boat load of money to begin enhancing football.

What about the rest? They can form a true tweener conference.

The six schools you added were, in my analysis, OK on the resources (revenue) aspect. But on performance, I couldn't see any of them as "top tier". I can't speak to all of them, but I would guess that Kentucky and Carolina would want to be included just on the basis of ego.

When it comes to football prowess, UNC has a lot to be modest about. The biggest compliment you can pay their football team is that has been mediocre for a very long time. I wonder how many consecutive losing seasons their fans would tolerate just for the prestige of being beaten by truly elite teams. And I wonder how they would feel about always winning fewer games than NC State and Duke, who would be playing a level of competition more in line with their own ability.

I thought about not having a team in a state the size of North Carolina. But then I saw that my 36 teams were already located in 25 states with a combined total of 68% of the US population. I decided that since a sizable chunk of North Carolinians root for Va Tech, Clemson and Tennessee anyway that wasn't such a big deal. And when you watch them on TV you might think the fans who bought all those empty seats just decided to stay home and watch them from the comfort of their living room. But TBH, I doubt it. I don't think they're watching at all.

I guess at the end of the day, some schools are likely to make very bad decisions, and all the logic in the world won't keep that from happening.

(10-25-2018 09:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

So the SEC plus Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, possibly two North Carolina schools, and one of Miami, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, or Kansas.

And the Big 10 plus the 4 Cali schools, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Notre Dame.

That's not wholly unlikely.

Would this be in line with your thinking for a top tier?

SEC:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

B1G/PAC
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Utah, Washington

A valid argument against this happening is the fact that in this tier there would be a lot of teams with a lot more losses every year than they (and their fans) are accustomed to. Let's say there were a 16 team championship tournament for this division. It's not hard to imagine a 3 loss national champion emerging.

That's a nice 36, but I think that by the time state legislatures get involved and A.D.'s here the fears of their donors and alums, that what we wind up with with be closer to 40 or 48 schools still regionally grouped where they can play a relatively familiar schedule.

But two leagues roughly along the line of the 2 you've laid out would be indicate for a variety of reasons. You can't have 1 organization because that could be found more easily to be in violation of anti-trust laws. You want consolidation for the sake of collective bargaining and as leverage against the growing influence of the networks.

But the wild card here may be whether the California state schools go for pay to play?

So let's look at 10 team divisions with 4 rotating regionally grouped pods of 5 each:

Big 10/PAC

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal,

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

SEC/B12/ACC

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri

What about Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, N.C. State and Virginia? They aren't large market draws and in Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma limiting the number of top pay schools improves their chances.

And remember both Texas and Oklahoma since they are together can still play Tech and OSU as their OOC game.

Why Kansas? They just spent a boat load of money to begin enhancing football.

What about the rest? They can form a true tweener conference.

The six schools you added were, in my analysis, OK on the resources (revenue) aspect. But on performance, I couldn't see any of them as "top tier". I can't speak to all of them, but I would guess that Kentucky and Carolina would want to be included just on the basis of ego.

When it comes to football prowess, UNC has a lot to be modest about. The biggest compliment you can pay their football team is that has been mediocre for a very long time. I wonder how many consecutive losing seasons their fans would tolerate just for the prestige of being beaten by truly elite teams. And I wonder how they would feel about always winning fewer games than NC State and Duke, who would be playing a level of competition more in line with their own ability.

I thought about not having a team in a state the size of North Carolina. But then I saw that my 36 teams were already located in 25 states with a combined population of 68% of the total US population. I decided that since a sizable chunk of North Carolinians root for Va Tech, Clemson and Tennessee that wasn't such a big deal. And when you watch them on TV you might think the fans who bought all those empty seats just decided to stay home and watch them from the comfort of their living room. But TBH, I doubt it. I don't think they're watching at all.

I guess at the end of the day, some schools are likely to make very bad decisions, and all the logic in the world won't keep that from happening.

Yep. But they won't be alone. Bad decisions will be made by network execs, A.D.'s & Presidents, and by conferences too. Politics will be involved, and any state with more than 5 million in population will probably get 1 in.

Nothing ever goes as formulated, ever, unless you are a mathematician.

I could see only these 4 pay 4 play schools that are privates. USC, TCU, SMU and Liberty. Not sure if any other privates will do it. I think they would either join the Big East schools or play in the Pioneer League. You could lose several Blue Bloods. I will add Miami towards pay 4 play with the number of scandals they get into.

(10-25-2018 09:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

So the SEC plus Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, possibly two North Carolina schools, and one of Miami, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, or Kansas.

And the Big 10 plus the 4 Cali schools, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Notre Dame.

That's not wholly unlikely.

Would this be in line with your thinking for a top tier?

SEC:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

B1G/PAC
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Utah, Washington

A valid argument against this happening is the fact that in this tier there would be a lot of teams with a lot more losses every year than they (and their fans) are accustomed to. Let's say there were a 16 team championship tournament for this division. It's not hard to imagine a 3 loss national champion emerging.

That's a nice 36, but I think that by the time state legislatures get involved and A.D.'s here the fears of their donors and alums, that what we wind up with with be closer to 40 or 48 schools still regionally grouped where they can play a relatively familiar schedule.

But two leagues roughly along the line of the 2 you've laid out would be indicate for a variety of reasons. You can't have 1 organization because that could be found more easily to be in violation of anti-trust laws. You want consolidation for the sake of collective bargaining and as leverage against the growing influence of the networks.

But the wild card here may be whether the California state schools go for pay to play?

So let's look at 10 team divisions with 4 rotating regionally grouped pods of 5 each:

Big 10/PAC

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal,

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

SEC/B12/ACC

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri

What about Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, N.C. State and Virginia? They aren't large market draws and in Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma limiting the number of top pay schools improves their chances.

And remember both Texas and Oklahoma since they are together can still play Tech and OSU as their OOC game.

Why Kansas? They just spent a boat load of money to begin enhancing football.

What about the rest? They can form a true tweener conference.

The six schools you added were, in my analysis, OK on the resources (revenue) aspect. But on performance, I couldn't see any of them as "top tier". I can't speak to all of them, but I would guess that Kentucky and Carolina would want to be included just on the basis of ego.

When it comes to football prowess, UNC has a lot to be modest about. The biggest compliment you can pay their football team is that has been mediocre for a very long time. I wonder how many consecutive losing seasons their fans would tolerate just for the prestige of being beaten by truly elite teams. And I wonder how they would feel about always winning fewer games than NC State and Duke, who would be playing a level of competition more in line with their own ability.

I thought about not having a team in a state the size of North Carolina. But then I saw that my 36 teams were already located in 25 states with a combined population of 68% of the total US population. I decided that since a sizable chunk of North Carolinians root for Va Tech, Clemson and Tennessee that wasn't such a big deal. And when you watch them on TV you might think the fans who bought all those empty seats just decided to stay home and watch them from the comfort of their living room. But TBH, I doubt it. I don't think they're watching at all.

I guess at the end of the day, some schools are likely to make very bad decisions, and all the logic in the world won't keep that from happening.

There is a strong feeling with many football fans at Carolina that the administration has purposely throttled the football program in Chapel Hill.
After two mediocre hires post Mack Brown (the school wouldn't give Mack a competitive wage), the Rams Club hired Butch Davis. But after the John Blake improper benefits fiasco, the administration snatched the football program back from the Rams Club and is satisfied to just go through the motions.
Carolina would not be joining any upper echelon for football, the current administration would not allow it.

(10-25-2018 10:13 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 08:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 07:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 12:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Can't see it playing out that way.

Delany is predatory but he's also realistic enough to know that being on the second tier of college football and basketball is not going to generate even one-tenth as much money as the Big Ten generates now. And that's where they would be, on the second tier, if they stick with NCAA-style "amateurism" while another group of schools skims off the best available football and basketball players by paying them above the table.

There are Big Ten schools, and other P5 schools, that have bills to pay. They've invested in expensive athletic facilities and issued bonds that are supposed to be paid off with future revenue and/or donations that wealthy donors have pledged to make in the future. These universities are not going to voluntarily step into a situation where the revenue dries up but the bonds or loans still have to be paid off.

If the Big10 did stick to that though it would weaken the so called "top tier". If the PAC and ACC went along with them saying we'll do what we have to to stay amateur then the pay for play league would be dead in the water imo. If people want to watch the best players in the country play football and basketball then there's professional leagues for that already. People want to watch their schools or the schools they associate themselves with play those sports. You can't build a national brand for a league of college programs with large parts of the country's schools not going along.

Have not stopped pay for play in the past with some of these schools. You have to look at which schools got busted by the NCAA when they caught players getting gifts. Reggie Bush of USC is an example. Another one was the tattoo scandal under Tressell at Ohio State. If the Big 10 do that? You could see the schools like Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and others will stay because they now have excuse to give money as gifts to the players out in the open.

Well, I agree with Bruce that their intentions might not be wholly honorable. Pay for play would not be good for schools. They would like to avoid it.

So I'm guessing that Liberty stays an independent, since even though they will pay whatever it takes to come to the party, no conference wants to invite them inside the door for obvious reasons.

I think Liberty is probably pretty comfortable being independent for football regardless what happens. They've got plenty of funds to put together the schedule they want and it probably helps them establish their image as a Baptist BYU or ND, not that they are yet to that level but it's what they aspire to. I'm sure they would like to get their other sports into a better league than the A-Sun and would likely move football to if that's what was required. But that's a story for another day. With their funds though pay to play would probably benefit them as they could outspend most if not all of the G5 in that arena.

(10-26-2018 02:43 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I could see only these 4 pay 4 play schools that are privates. USC, TCU, SMU and Liberty. Not sure if any other privates will do it. I think they would either join the Big East schools or play in the Pioneer League. You could lose several Blue Bloods. I will add Miami towards pay 4 play with the number of scandals they get into.

Syracuse would be Pay 4 Play because they would want to keep basketball at a high level.

(10-26-2018 07:47 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:13 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 08:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 07:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  If the Big10 did stick to that though it would weaken the so called "top tier". If the PAC and ACC went along with them saying we'll do what we have to to stay amateur then the pay for play league would be dead in the water imo. If people want to watch the best players in the country play football and basketball then there's professional leagues for that already. People want to watch their schools or the schools they associate themselves with play those sports. You can't build a national brand for a league of college programs with large parts of the country's schools not going along.

Have not stopped pay for play in the past with some of these schools. You have to look at which schools got busted by the NCAA when they caught players getting gifts. Reggie Bush of USC is an example. Another one was the tattoo scandal under Tressell at Ohio State. If the Big 10 do that? You could see the schools like Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and others will stay because they now have excuse to give money as gifts to the players out in the open.

Well, I agree with Bruce that their intentions might not be wholly honorable. Pay for play would not be good for schools. They would like to avoid it.

So I'm guessing that Liberty stays an independent, since even though they will pay whatever it takes to come to the party, no conference wants to invite them inside the door for obvious reasons.

I think Liberty is probably pretty comfortable being independent for football regardless what happens. They've got plenty of funds to put together the schedule they want and it probably helps them establish their image as a Baptist BYU or ND, not that they are yet to that level but it's what they aspire to. I'm sure they would like to get their other sports into a better league than the A-Sun and would likely move football to if that's what was required. But that's a story for another day. With their funds though pay to play would probably benefit them as they could outspend most if not all of the G5 in that arena.

But where can you go to upgrade your other sports that is a non-FB conference? I doubt the CAA or A-10 wants them since they have had multiple chances to bring them in over the years.

(10-25-2018 10:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 09:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So the SEC plus Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, possibly two North Carolina schools, and one of Miami, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, or Kansas.

And the Big 10 plus the 4 Cali schools, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Notre Dame.

That's not wholly unlikely.

Would this be in line with your thinking for a top tier?

SEC:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

B1G/PAC
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Utah, Washington

A valid argument against this happening is the fact that in this tier there would be a lot of teams with a lot more losses every year than they (and their fans) are accustomed to. Let's say there were a 16 team championship tournament for this division. It's not hard to imagine a 3 loss national champion emerging.

That's a nice 36, but I think that by the time state legislatures get involved and A.D.'s here the fears of their donors and alums, that what we wind up with with be closer to 40 or 48 schools still regionally grouped where they can play a relatively familiar schedule.

But two leagues roughly along the line of the 2 you've laid out would be indicate for a variety of reasons. You can't have 1 organization because that could be found more easily to be in violation of anti-trust laws. You want consolidation for the sake of collective bargaining and as leverage against the growing influence of the networks.

But the wild card here may be whether the California state schools go for pay to play?

So let's look at 10 team divisions with 4 rotating regionally grouped pods of 5 each:

Big 10/PAC

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal,

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

SEC/B12/ACC

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri

What about Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, N.C. State and Virginia? They aren't large market draws and in Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma limiting the number of top pay schools improves their chances.

And remember both Texas and Oklahoma since they are together can still play Tech and OSU as their OOC game.

Why Kansas? They just spent a boat load of money to begin enhancing football.

What about the rest? They can form a true tweener conference.

The six schools you added were, in my analysis, OK on the resources (revenue) aspect. But on performance, I couldn't see any of them as "top tier". I can't speak to all of them, but I would guess that Kentucky and Carolina would want to be included just on the basis of ego.

When it comes to football prowess, UNC has a lot to be modest about. The biggest compliment you can pay their football team is that has been mediocre for a very long time. I wonder how many consecutive losing seasons their fans would tolerate just for the prestige of being beaten by truly elite teams. And I wonder how they would feel about always winning fewer games than NC State and Duke, who would be playing a level of competition more in line with their own ability.

I thought about not having a team in a state the size of North Carolina. But then I saw that my 36 teams were already located in 25 states with a combined population of 68% of the total US population. I decided that since a sizable chunk of North Carolinians root for Va Tech, Clemson and Tennessee that wasn't such a big deal. And when you watch them on TV you might think the fans who bought all those empty seats just decided to stay home and watch them from the comfort of their living room. But TBH, I doubt it. I don't think they're watching at all.

I guess at the end of the day, some schools are likely to make very bad decisions, and all the logic in the world won't keep that from happening.

Yep. But they won't be alone. Bad decisions will be made by network execs, A.D.'s & Presidents, and by conferences too. Politics will be involved, and any state with more than 5 million in population will probably get 1 in.

Nothing ever goes as formulated, ever, unless you are a mathematician.

Except for North Carolina and Minnesota, which you included but I did not, the only other states with a population over 5 million neither of us included were (along with the FBS schools in those states):

New York: Syracuse, Buffalo, Army

Illinois: Northwestern, Illinois

New Jersey: Rutgers

Massachusetts: Boston College, UMass

Maryland: Navy, Maryland


I'm just not feeling it.

(10-26-2018 08:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 09:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  Would this be in line with your thinking for a top tier?

SEC:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M

B1G/PAC
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Utah, Washington

A valid argument against this happening is the fact that in this tier there would be a lot of teams with a lot more losses every year than they (and their fans) are accustomed to. Let's say there were a 16 team championship tournament for this division. It's not hard to imagine a 3 loss national champion emerging.

That's a nice 36, but I think that by the time state legislatures get involved and A.D.'s here the fears of their donors and alums, that what we wind up with with be closer to 40 or 48 schools still regionally grouped where they can play a relatively familiar schedule.

But two leagues roughly along the line of the 2 you've laid out would be indicate for a variety of reasons. You can't have 1 organization because that could be found more easily to be in violation of anti-trust laws. You want consolidation for the sake of collective bargaining and as leverage against the growing influence of the networks.

But the wild card here may be whether the California state schools go for pay to play?

So let's look at 10 team divisions with 4 rotating regionally grouped pods of 5 each:

Big 10/PAC

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal,

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

SEC/B12/ACC

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri

What about Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, N.C. State and Virginia? They aren't large market draws and in Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma limiting the number of top pay schools improves their chances.

And remember both Texas and Oklahoma since they are together can still play Tech and OSU as their OOC game.

Why Kansas? They just spent a boat load of money to begin enhancing football.

What about the rest? They can form a true tweener conference.

The six schools you added were, in my analysis, OK on the resources (revenue) aspect. But on performance, I couldn't see any of them as "top tier". I can't speak to all of them, but I would guess that Kentucky and Carolina would want to be included just on the basis of ego.

When it comes to football prowess, UNC has a lot to be modest about. The biggest compliment you can pay their football team is that has been mediocre for a very long time. I wonder how many consecutive losing seasons their fans would tolerate just for the prestige of being beaten by truly elite teams. And I wonder how they would feel about always winning fewer games than NC State and Duke, who would be playing a level of competition more in line with their own ability.

I thought about not having a team in a state the size of North Carolina. But then I saw that my 36 teams were already located in 25 states with a combined population of 68% of the total US population. I decided that since a sizable chunk of North Carolinians root for Va Tech, Clemson and Tennessee that wasn't such a big deal. And when you watch them on TV you might think the fans who bought all those empty seats just decided to stay home and watch them from the comfort of their living room. But TBH, I doubt it. I don't think they're watching at all.

I guess at the end of the day, some schools are likely to make very bad decisions, and all the logic in the world won't keep that from happening.

Yep. But they won't be alone. Bad decisions will be made by network execs, A.D.'s & Presidents, and by conferences too. Politics will be involved, and any state with more than 5 million in population will probably get 1 in.

Nothing ever goes as formulated, ever, unless you are a mathematician.

Except for North Carolina and Minnesota, which you included but I did not, the only other states with a population over 5 million neither of us included were (along with the FBS schools in those states):

New York: Syracuse, Buffalo, Army

Illinois: Northwestern, Illinois

New Jersey: Rutgers

Massachusetts: Boston College, UMass

Maryland: Navy, Maryland


I'm just not feeling it.

Yeah, I should have stipulated except for the New York/New England/Beltway region.

Illinois is anomalous because they have so many of the Michigan/Ohio State alums that their schools don't have to be included to get the draw.

With tuition at an abundance of quality schools nearing or exceeding $50,000 per year; free tuition is darn good pay for that. Add room and board and other assets. It's certainly an investment as well. If that's not good enough, don't pursue this if it isn't valued. Utilizing mercenary atheletes because some schools can afford it doesn't make it a dandy road to head down.

(10-26-2018 01:29 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  With tuition at an abundance of quality schools nearing or exceeding $50,000 per year; free tuition is darn good pay for that. Add room and board and other assets. It's certainly an investment as well. If that's not good enough, don't pursue this if it isn't valued. Utilizing mercenary atheletes because some schools can afford it doesn't make it a dandy road to head down.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, everyone needs to be: deciding now if this is a road their institution can afford to head down, desires to head down, or is monetarily compelled to head down, and be developing contingency plans.

When I chase a rabbit like this one it is merely to try to think through the issue before it happens. The permutations of what the fallout will be cannot possibly be covered comprehensively. Instead, I think the task is to imagine the worst and the most dangerous effects of this kind of policy shift, and prepare ahead for those and hope that all other issues are truly minor in comparison.

Socially speaking the biggest impact issue I see is off the field. Do we really want non traditional students being more wealthy and powerful than the average students on campus? What kind of destabilizing influence does that bring to the microcosm of student life? I think that is the dangerous element here. Remember if the compensation is 6 figures that makes an athlete a higher paid employee of the university than most undergraduate professors. That's destabilizing!