(03-19-2013 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 08:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  I don't see why there is any need to shrink college football. The presidents don't really want a playoff. Now Division I basketball has gotten ridiculously large. There are 7 or 8 conferences that need to be culled.

The top schools have control of football. If they split it will be because of basketball and things like spending caps and scholarship stipends. The less profitable schools are trying to control the spending of the top schools so that they can compete. Schools can't even offer the same value of scholarship to a football player that they would on an academic scholarship. They can't offer money for miscellaneous necessary expenses. Some schools are opposing that proposal. Others are opposing it because it only offers money to those getting full scholarships (none for partial).

With all due respect Bullet, but for someone who doesn't see the need to shrink college football, you have named some of the most obvious reasons for a reduction to happen.

Quite simply the larger schools would like to make more from their non football sports and are tired of being outvoted by small schools who don't want to, or can't afford to spend what it takes to compete in a system from which they want a share of revenue that they really didn't help to generate and for which they contributed little to nothing by comparison. And then the larger schools are tired of seeing their gains syphoned off by a bureaucracy that maintains its control by buying the support of the nonproductive and keeping a lions share for themselves in the process. A bureaucracy that supposedly enforces bylaws but does nothing to the most egregious of offenders for fear of upsetting the very cash cows who could lead an attack against them.

So the NCAA buys the little guys vote and support through a type of sports welfare, and panders to the wealthy's advantages at the expense of everyone else for fear of angering those that contribute the most. Sound like a familiar M.O. to you? Perhaps one that is played out on the national scale every four years?

(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:18 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:50 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  That part in read is where the wheels come off for me. If you are spending the money, they need to make room. This isn't the NFL.

The central idea is, in Romneyish terms, that the Makers are tired of paying for the Takers. The big-money and biggest-money programs see themselves as the reason for the billion-dollar TV contracts. The CFB playoff doesn't need FCS or the nonfootball schools to make gobs of money, so why should the college basketball playoff (or the college basketball playoff revenue distribution) include those small fry schools?

That logic can be moved up the food chain--every time you cut out the bottom tier, some of the old middle is the new bottom all of a sudden.

Relative to Rider or Rice, Rutgers is a Maker. But relative to Michigan....?

Quote:If you are spending the money, they need to make room. This isn't the NFL.

First of all, UConn has spent plenty of money on their football program over the last 15 years. Did anyone make room for them?

You might say this is different. I say why? It's the same decision makers acting on the same set of incentives.

Second of all, who says this isn't the NFL?

Quote:Reducing top level athletics to the top 5 conferences would be a double-edged sword. If you're an alumni/fan of a little guy, then you're likely going to turn your back on this new setup. There are TONS of "little guy" alumni throughout the US population and business world - so you'd better be careful which little guys you decide to cut out.

Fans of "little guy" schools overestimate their (our) weight. I looked at the numbers a while ago, and in 2011, something like 50-60% of all attendance at college football games was for BCS-AQ schools. A little more than lower-FBS, FCS, Division II and III combined. Those schools have more alumni, but no t-shirt fans. You know, the old jokes about no high school diploma but an SEC school tattoo?

Quote:No John. The only thing that needs to be cut is the NCAA and after that establish divisions within the sport that actually make sense and are based upon quantifiable distinctions.

You think people are going to set up a system based on fairness rather than defend their own particular interests.

Second, the whole point of cutting out the NCAA is to share the money pot with fewer schools. The schools who don't make that initial cut are automatically going to have less revenue and not be able to ramp up to meet "quantifiable distinctions."

Quote:To suggest that any particular school that seeks to reinvest a reasonable portion of their revenue into athletics will be cut out is just trying to set up a sympathetic victim for a fictitious bogey man.

Ask BYU and UConn how that's going.

If there's a reduction from five power-conferences to four, and then a split from the NCAA, there's not going to be any sympathy or accommodation for the schools that don't make it. Whether it's KAnsas or Baylor or Wake Forest or Duke or Iowa State or BC, or even Purdue or Mississippi State if that's how the cookie crumbles.

Virtually all of those you listed will make it in one way or the other. And if large schools are going to continue to invest in basketball they need to be able to reap more of the benefits of their investments. But, you are right about one thing. I have no sympathy for schools that do not put forth the effort to field anything other than a 18 man basketball squad and want and expect to be fed by the athletic departments that spend to provide opportunities for athletes that in some cases comprise 2 to 3 dozen different types of sports.

It is not an uncommon Southern attitude that if you build and stock a pond that you don't want the whole neighborhood fishing out of it only to take from that to which they contributed little or nothing. But hey, as a middle classed taxpayer that is what I'm coming to expect from my neighbors anyway.

Shouldn't the top 30 "moneymakers" (Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, ND, etc..) then just break off from everyone else?

They make the most cash. Everyone else in their respective conferences (save ND) just feed off of the top money schools.

Jettison the dead weight in the next round (Purdue, Iowa State, Arizona, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc..---selected at random from each conference) and then....

....get down to a streamlined league of 30 of the top schools with the most fans, biggest stadiums and most TV draw.

Then, you will really have the ultimate version of "NFL Lite". That should be the ultimate result of this line of thinking.

Argumentum absurdum. Extend the circumstances or issues beyond belief in order to make ridiculous the original position in the minds of the listener. Come up with something real based on substance and quit using simple slight of hand theatrics. Notre Dame of all schools is about not sharing its profits. So I'll add hypocrisy to my charge of your defense of this position that small schools will suffer.

Logical extension of the thought process...down the road.

Why not? Why end at 64, 65 or 72?

Why not 30 later? It is the same theory, the same argument.

What is the difference? Separate the wheat from the chaff. Why is this above belief but anything else is believable?

I agree ND is not about sharing profits. I included them in The Thirty.

No hypocrisy here. I could care less about the smaller schools. I made no defense of them, no mention of their "suffering".

Where did you see that I did? I am just looking long term at this new line of thinking.

http://perfectcollegefootballworld.wordpress.com

Almost three years ago now I did a write-up on this. I think that it would be good for everybody, including the little guys. The leftover 60 or so FBS schools (plus another 30-50 who get pulled up from DII or DIII) could make their own little league and have a very, very entertaining tournament/playoff that could make them enough money. (Dare I say, they go to the USFL model and try to play in the spring when people are jonesing for football...how many of you would watch an East Carolina vs. Arkansas State first round playoff game tomorrow for the Old NCAA Playoff? Move that to November...and forget about it...I have too much work and other football to watch.)

There truly is a cut-off around team 60-70.

(03-19-2013 07:32 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 08:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  I don't see why there is any need to shrink college football. The presidents don't really want a playoff. Now Division I basketball has gotten ridiculously large. There are 7 or 8 conferences that need to be culled.

The top schools have control of football. If they split it will be because of basketball and things like spending caps and scholarship stipends. The less profitable schools are trying to control the spending of the top schools so that they can compete. Schools can't even offer the same value of scholarship to a football player that they would on an academic scholarship. They can't offer money for miscellaneous necessary expenses. Some schools are opposing that proposal. Others are opposing it because it only offers money to those getting full scholarships (none for partial).

With all due respect Bullet, but for someone who doesn't see the need to shrink college football, you have named some of the most obvious reasons for a reduction to happen.

Quite simply the larger schools would like to make more from their non football sports and are tired of being outvoted by small schools who don't want to, or can't afford to spend what it takes to compete in a system from which they want a share of revenue that they really didn't help to generate and for which they contributed little to nothing by comparison. And then the larger schools are tired of seeing their gains syphoned off by a bureaucracy that maintains its control by buying the support of the nonproductive and keeping a lions share for themselves in the process. A bureaucracy that supposedly enforces bylaws but does nothing to the most egregious of offenders for fear of upsetting the very cash cows who could lead an attack against them.

So the NCAA buys the little guys vote and support through a type of sports welfare, and panders to the wealthy's advantages at the expense of everyone else for fear of angering those that contribute the most. Sound like a familiar M.O. to you? Perhaps one that is played out on the national scale every four years?

(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:18 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The central idea is, in Romneyish terms, that the Makers are tired of paying for the Takers. The big-money and biggest-money programs see themselves as the reason for the billion-dollar TV contracts. The CFB playoff doesn't need FCS or the nonfootball schools to make gobs of money, so why should the college basketball playoff (or the college basketball playoff revenue distribution) include those small fry schools?

That logic can be moved up the food chain--every time you cut out the bottom tier, some of the old middle is the new bottom all of a sudden.

Relative to Rider or Rice, Rutgers is a Maker. But relative to Michigan....?


First of all, UConn has spent plenty of money on their football program over the last 15 years. Did anyone make room for them?

You might say this is different. I say why? It's the same decision makers acting on the same set of incentives.

Second of all, who says this isn't the NFL?


Fans of "little guy" schools overestimate their (our) weight. I looked at the numbers a while ago, and in 2011, something like 50-60% of all attendance at college football games was for BCS-AQ schools. A little more than lower-FBS, FCS, Division II and III combined. Those schools have more alumni, but no t-shirt fans. You know, the old jokes about no high school diploma but an SEC school tattoo?


You think people are going to set up a system based on fairness rather than defend their own particular interests.

Second, the whole point of cutting out the NCAA is to share the money pot with fewer schools. The schools who don't make that initial cut are automatically going to have less revenue and not be able to ramp up to meet "quantifiable distinctions."


Ask BYU and UConn how that's going.

If there's a reduction from five power-conferences to four, and then a split from the NCAA, there's not going to be any sympathy or accommodation for the schools that don't make it. Whether it's KAnsas or Baylor or Wake Forest or Duke or Iowa State or BC, or even Purdue or Mississippi State if that's how the cookie crumbles.

Virtually all of those you listed will make it in one way or the other. And if large schools are going to continue to invest in basketball they need to be able to reap more of the benefits of their investments. But, you are right about one thing. I have no sympathy for schools that do not put forth the effort to field anything other than a 18 man basketball squad and want and expect to be fed by the athletic departments that spend to provide opportunities for athletes that in some cases comprise 2 to 3 dozen different types of sports.

It is not an uncommon Southern attitude that if you build and stock a pond that you don't want the whole neighborhood fishing out of it only to take from that to which they contributed little or nothing. But hey, as a middle classed taxpayer that is what I'm coming to expect from my neighbors anyway.

Shouldn't the top 30 "moneymakers" (Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, ND, etc..) then just break off from everyone else?

They make the most cash. Everyone else in their respective conferences (save ND) just feed off of the top money schools.

Jettison the dead weight in the next round (Purdue, Iowa State, Arizona, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc..---selected at random from each conference) and then....

....get down to a streamlined league of 30 of the top schools with the most fans, biggest stadiums and most TV draw.

Then, you will really have the ultimate version of "NFL Lite". That should be the ultimate result of this line of thinking.

Argumentum absurdum. Extend the circumstances or issues beyond belief in order to make ridiculous the original position in the minds of the listener. Come up with something real based on substance and quit using simple slight of hand theatrics. Notre Dame of all schools is about not sharing its profits. So I'll add hypocrisy to my charge of your defense of this position that small schools will suffer.

Logical extension of the thought process...down the road.

Why not? Why end at 64, 65 or 72?

Why not 30 later? It is the same theory, the same argument.

What is the difference? Separate the wheat from the chaff. Why is this above belief but anything else is believable?

I agree ND is not about sharing profits. I included them in The Thirty.

No hypocrisy here. I could care less about the smaller schools. I made no defense of them, no mention of their "suffering".

Where did you see that I did? I am just looking long term at this new line of thinking.

Let's see Terry, the argument is "Why not fewer and fewer?" The absurdity is reduction into oblivion. I stand by my assessment.

Duke is considered one of the nation's elite athletic organizations only by Duke itself. I can tell you that spending time watching the Belk Bowl and Cincinnati vs Duke on 12/27/12, I was not impressed by the Duke athletic department. This is evident for the following reasons:

1- Duke sends a player back onto the field without a concussion evaluation only to hit his head again and require him to be removed from the game. He hit Travis Kelce in the first quarter. Was carried off the field and two players later hit him again. Both times helmet to helmet contact, no offical penality on the play, but the player was removed from the game on the second injury. There was virtually no media on the subject but I would love to know if this young man actually had a concussion. I'm certain he did. Big minus for the Duke medical staff.

2-On other Duke player injuries. At one point, a Duke player was down in front of the Cincinnati bench. The Cincinnati team doctor (who runs out onto the field with every Cincinnati player injury) ran out onto the field to check the Duke player. The orthopedic surgeon was shooed away by Duke trainers both of whom appeared to be 18-20 years old. I guess they didn't know that was Dr. Colisimo. Not one time did I see anyone other than the two trainers above run onto the field for Duke players.

3- Duke coach on national TV accuses Cincinnati of playing dirty by running a player onto the field prior to a field goal causing a penalty and re kick which Duke missed. Even the TV announcer for the game indicated that was a honest Cincinnati mistake because Cincinnati only had five coaches due to the coaching change. So a mad Duke coach makes an unsubstantiated claim that Cincinnati was playing dirty. Are you kidding coach???

4- Duke band. The band for Duke was the size of a high school band. I think at one point they indicated the band was 102 total. Cincinnati's band (not that top band for Big East) is well over 200 members. It was puzzeling to see a major confernece team with little to no emphisis on the band.

Not at all impressed with Duke athletics.

(03-20-2013 01:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 07:32 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 03:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  With all due respect Bullet, but for someone who doesn't see the need to shrink college football, you have named some of the most obvious reasons for a reduction to happen.

Quite simply the larger schools would like to make more from their non football sports and are tired of being outvoted by small schools who don't want to, or can't afford to spend what it takes to compete in a system from which they want a share of revenue that they really didn't help to generate and for which they contributed little to nothing by comparison. And then the larger schools are tired of seeing their gains syphoned off by a bureaucracy that maintains its control by buying the support of the nonproductive and keeping a lions share for themselves in the process. A bureaucracy that supposedly enforces bylaws but does nothing to the most egregious of offenders for fear of upsetting the very cash cows who could lead an attack against them.

So the NCAA buys the little guys vote and support through a type of sports welfare, and panders to the wealthy's advantages at the expense of everyone else for fear of angering those that contribute the most. Sound like a familiar M.O. to you? Perhaps one that is played out on the national scale every four years?

(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Virtually all of those you listed will make it in one way or the other. And if large schools are going to continue to invest in basketball they need to be able to reap more of the benefits of their investments. But, you are right about one thing. I have no sympathy for schools that do not put forth the effort to field anything other than a 18 man basketball squad and want and expect to be fed by the athletic departments that spend to provide opportunities for athletes that in some cases comprise 2 to 3 dozen different types of sports.

It is not an uncommon Southern attitude that if you build and stock a pond that you don't want the whole neighborhood fishing out of it only to take from that to which they contributed little or nothing. But hey, as a middle classed taxpayer that is what I'm coming to expect from my neighbors anyway.

Shouldn't the top 30 "moneymakers" (Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, ND, etc..) then just break off from everyone else?

They make the most cash. Everyone else in their respective conferences (save ND) just feed off of the top money schools.

Jettison the dead weight in the next round (Purdue, Iowa State, Arizona, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc..---selected at random from each conference) and then....

....get down to a streamlined league of 30 of the top schools with the most fans, biggest stadiums and most TV draw.

Then, you will really have the ultimate version of "NFL Lite". That should be the ultimate result of this line of thinking.

Argumentum absurdum. Extend the circumstances or issues beyond belief in order to make ridiculous the original position in the minds of the listener. Come up with something real based on substance and quit using simple slight of hand theatrics. Notre Dame of all schools is about not sharing its profits. So I'll add hypocrisy to my charge of your defense of this position that small schools will suffer.

Logical extension of the thought process...down the road.

Why not? Why end at 64, 65 or 72?

Why not 30 later? It is the same theory, the same argument.

What is the difference? Separate the wheat from the chaff. Why is this above belief but anything else is believable?

I agree ND is not about sharing profits. I included them in The Thirty.

No hypocrisy here. I could care less about the smaller schools. I made no defense of them, no mention of their "suffering".

Where did you see that I did? I am just looking long term at this new line of thinking.

Let's see Terry, the argument is "Why not fewer and fewer?" The absurdity is reduction into oblivion. I stand by my assessment.

Streamlined at thirty schools for maximum profit and exposure. I stand by mine.

This numbers thing has gotten too complicated to follow.
JR and TerryD can we agree to disagree and call a time-out?

(03-19-2013 06:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  But arguing that such and such will or won't happen because it is or isn't "fair"?

Just picking up where it left off. I'm really not arguing about fairness. I don't think I've used that word in the context of this discussion. I have enough sense to know that life isn't fair.

My point is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are operating as bottom-line driven business out in the world. But they are also trying to wrap themselves in this cloak of not-for-profit higher education where their actions are supposed to be for the greater good.

I just find it hypocritical as hell.