(03-18-2013 07:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  "This is the Borg. Resistance is futile."

What a uniform,conformist, non-diverse, boring college football landscape would emerge if this "vision" of an "NFL Lite" breakaway structure comes to pass.

I am not just talking about ND. I am talking about a "one size fits all" structure. I think it would seriously blow.

College football is a good product because it is different than the NFL. It has (or had) different traditions, rivalries and structure.

In the future, it would look like Triple A baseball does regarding major league baseball.

Essentially, a minor league farm system that mirrors the "real thing".

I liked college football a lot more before the BCS. I liked the SEC champ going to the Sugar Bowl against the best available independent. I liked the Rose Bowl being played by the Big TEN and PAC champs. I liked the Orange Bowl being tied to the Big 8. I liked the Fiesta Bowl putting together top indy match ups.

I really didn't care if it didn't result in a "clear" national champion because there was no national champion anyway without a real playoff.

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).

(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 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?

In other words, if you're going through all the trouble, politics and upheaval of cutting out the Missouri Valley schools, you might as well cut out the Mountain West at the same time and for the same reasons.

And if part of that process cuts out 5 or 10 possible big-boy schools, too bad.

(03-19-2013 10:32 AM)johnbragg 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?

In other words, if you're going through all the trouble, politics and upheaval of cutting out the Missouri Valley schools, you might as well cut out the Mountain West at the same time and for the same reasons.

And if part of that process cuts out 5 or 10 possible big-boy schools, too bad.

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. 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.

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.

On the plus side, TV money will go bonkers as the product could be sold as "top quality, no filler" - which is EXACTLY how they sell the NFL.

(03-19-2013 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  In other words, if you're going through all the trouble, politics and upheaval of cutting out the Missouri Valley schools, you might as well cut out the Mountain West at the same time and for the same reasons.

And if part of that process cuts out 5 or 10 possible big-boy schools, too bad.

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.

(03-19-2013 10:46 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  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.

On the plus side, TV money will go bonkers as the product could be sold as "top quality, no filler" - which is EXACTLY how they sell the NFL.

But the NFL doesn't have a bunch of 100,000 seat stadiums that need to be filled by winners. NFL mostly is building 65-70k seat stadiums.
There will be fewer teams to beat, meaning its harder to sell tickets.

(03-19-2013 10:50 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  In other words, if you're going through all the trouble, politics and upheaval of cutting out the Missouri Valley schools, you might as well cut out the Mountain West at the same time and for the same reasons.

And if part of that process cuts out 5 or 10 possible big-boy schools, too bad.

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.

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

(03-19-2013 10:50 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  In other words, if you're going through all the trouble, politics and upheaval of cutting out the Missouri Valley schools, you might as well cut out the Mountain West at the same time and for the same reasons.

And if part of that process cuts out 5 or 10 possible big-boy schools, too bad.

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.

(03-19-2013 10:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:46 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  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.

On the plus side, TV money will go bonkers as the product could be sold as "top quality, no filler" - which is EXACTLY how they sell the NFL.

But the NFL doesn't have a bunch of 100,000 seat stadiums that need to be filled by winners. NFL mostly is building 65-70k seat stadiums.
There will be fewer teams to beat, meaning its harder to sell tickets.

The standards will change once things move to a more "top heavy" model. 7-5 will be considered a rock-solid finish in a football division consisting of nothing but the "haves". 10-2 will be considered amazing - and might just get you a playoff spot.

Furthermore, I don't see attendance dipping that much since the "new bottom" matchups in football will be Kansas vs. Purdue (or something similar). Those games will still see decent attendance (in my opinion).

(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:  

(03-19-2013 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  In other words, if you're going through all the trouble, politics and upheaval of cutting out the Missouri Valley schools, you might as well cut out the Mountain West at the same time and for the same reasons.

And if part of that process cuts out 5 or 10 possible big-boy schools, too bad.

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.

(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:  

(03-19-2013 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  In other words, if you're going through all the trouble, politics and upheaval of cutting out the Missouri Valley schools, you might as well cut out the Mountain West at the same time and for the same reasons.

And if part of that process cuts out 5 or 10 possible big-boy schools, too bad.

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.

ND would "join" this breakaway, or just take advantage of it?

(03-19-2013 12:55 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:46 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  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.

On the plus side, TV money will go bonkers as the product could be sold as "top quality, no filler" - which is EXACTLY how they sell the NFL.

But the NFL doesn't have a bunch of 100,000 seat stadiums that need to be filled by winners. NFL mostly is building 65-70k seat stadiums.
There will be fewer teams to beat, meaning its harder to sell tickets.

The standards will change once things move to a more "top heavy" model. 7-5 will be considered a rock-solid finish in a football division consisting of nothing but the "haves". 10-2 will be considered amazing - and might just get you a playoff spot.

Furthermore, I don't see attendance dipping that much since the "new bottom" matchups in football will be Kansas vs. Purdue (or something similar). Those games will still see decent attendance (in my opinion).

You'll lose some of the viewing audience, as fans of the have-not teams lose interest in following college football, since they're excluded. I think it's short-sighted.

(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  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?

I'm not sure who actually made the statement in red, but here is my response.

I know UConn has spent a ton of money. I think they are getting screwed. They built a stadium based on being included in the BCS when the Big East was "safe" and nobody was talking about realignment. Their situation is a complete screw job, and it's wrong.

Now, as a U of L fan, I'm obviously going to say better them than us, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the situation for what it is.

As for the NFL, the NFL is a syndicate of privately owned businesses that are in the business of making money. The athletic programs of PUBLICLY OWNED AND FUNDED universities are supposed to be about education. A lot of these athletic departments are partially funded by student "activity fees" which are a complete joke considering the money they bring in. The system shouldn't be so bottom-line driven.

(03-19-2013 04:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  You'll lose some of the viewing audience, as fans of the have-not teams lose interest in following college football, since they're excluded. I think it's short-sighted.

That is definitely what stops them from pairing down too far. The collection of major college athletic programs has to stay big enough to maintain the interest of the entire country. If they exclude too many people from being involved, then they'd balkanize the entire market. That Ohio State vs. Texas championship game that they artificially constructed could be very unappealing of a majority of the fans out in the world believed their teams weren't even part of the process, much less didn't have a fair shot.

It almost becomes a different sport. You'd see highly competitive alternatives form. Almost like the AFL when the NFL was too small due to artificial constraints the league placed on expansion back in the 1960s.

Quote:

Quote: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?

I'm not sure who actually made the statement in red,

I did.

Quote:but here is my response.

I know UConn has spent a ton of money. I think they are getting screwed. They built a stadium based on being included in the BCS when the Big East was "safe" and nobody was talking about realignment. Their situation is a complete screw job, and it's wrong.

Now, as a U of L fan, I'm obviously going to say better them than us, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the situation for what it is.

As for the NFL, the NFL is a syndicate of privately owned businesses that are in the business of making money. The athletic programs of PUBLICLY OWNED AND FUNDED universities are supposed to be about education. A lot of these athletic departments are partially funded by student "activity fees" which are a complete joke considering the money they bring in. The system shouldn't be so bottom-line driven.

You say that what's happening to UConn is a screw job. You say that university athletics are "supposed to be" about education. And you say that "The system shouldn't be so bottom-line driven."

I think I'll just say again:

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

I don't think there will be a breakaway, because I think that the small fish will make some concessions, and the big fish will shrink from making radical changes because change is scary and gets administrators fired if it doesn't work, without delivering huge piles of cash and cocaine to the CEO's if it works.

But arguing that such and such will or won't happen because it is or isn't "fair"?

(03-19-2013 06:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 04:22 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  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?

I'm not sure who actually made the statement in red,

I did.

Quote:but here is my response.

I know UConn has spent a ton of money. I think they are getting screwed. They built a stadium based on being included in the BCS when the Big East was "safe" and nobody was talking about realignment. Their situation is a complete screw job, and it's wrong.

Now, as a U of L fan, I'm obviously going to say better them than us, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the situation for what it is.

As for the NFL, the NFL is a syndicate of privately owned businesses that are in the business of making money. The athletic programs of PUBLICLY OWNED AND FUNDED universities are supposed to be about education. A lot of these athletic departments are partially funded by student "activity fees" which are a complete joke considering the money they bring in. The system shouldn't be so bottom-line driven.

You say that what's happening to UConn is a screw job. You say that university athletics are "supposed to be" about education. And you say that "The system shouldn't be so bottom-line driven."

I think I'll just say again:

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

I don't think there will be a breakaway, because I think that the small fish will make some concessions, and the big fish will shrink from making radical changes because change is scary and gets administrators fired if it doesn't work, without delivering huge piles of cash and cocaine to the CEO's if it works.

But arguing that such and such will or won't happen because it is or isn't "fair"?

John if you are going to use my name for someone else's quote then please at least edit it yourself instead of using Terry D's butchered version. I don't think any of my words are in either of those highlighted boxes. JRsec*

P.S. That should have been obvious. Have I ever been concerned about the NFL or UConn?

(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.

CVIVS TESTICVLOS HABEAS CARDIA ET CEREBELLUM...
Translation: Once You Have Their Full Attention, Their Hearts and Minds Will Follow (or words to that effect)...
- Terry Pratchett