UConn moved up from 1-AA to "save" basketball. It wouldn't have done so if there wasn't guaranteed access to a BCS conference. I'm astonished by all the FCS programs still looking to move up, there is nothing left to be gained other than additional expenses.

(04-01-2013 11:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 12:23 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Nobody is going to split off. The Power conferences already get everything they need to maintain power and then some via the NCAA. There's a million other reasons it doesn't make sense to rock the boat to that degree. It sure makes for good message-board fodder though.

Well when the NCAA president talks about it being a possibility, its more than just message board fodder. Like you, I don't think they will leave, but unlike you, I think its "fluid" and could go a lot of ways.

Link?

That makes no sense since the NCAA is made up of the member schools. Its like making a hamburger then complaining that you have to eat a hamburger. You CHOSE to make a hamburger, how can you get mad when you have to eat it?

The presidents of the schools write and agree to all of these rules that they are supposedly angry about the NCAA enforcing. Even if they did break away they would put most of these rules back into place.

no they shouldn't. Some of these universities are facing a money crunch. Why start up football when it will likely only sink the schools even further into debt?

(03-30-2013 10:23 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Or in the case of Butler, add scholarships and go FBS?

It seems like it may be in the best interest of these programs if they don't want to be left behind by the big football schools potentially splitting off to form their own division/organization?

Even without that going down, it'd at least put them on more conferences radars. For example, Wichita and Gonzaga would have a solid shot at going to the MWC now if they had football because of their basketball.

I know Wichtia football was a mess when the program ended in the mid-80's but having it would be advantageous at a time like this.

Tough call. I think Villanova should have done so, a long time ago, but with Georgetown it's a completely different story. They really don't have the $$'s to add the required women's sports and due to them being a small, private school, that's not likely to change. Then you got teams like UALR (Arkansas-Little Rock) out there in the SunBelt who are public, but can't really afford to field football, and there wouldn't be much of a chance that people would really take notice anyway. Each school has to make the decision that's best for them given how their finances stack up.

(04-03-2013 06:50 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 10:23 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Or in the case of Butler, add scholarships and go FBS?

It seems like it may be in the best interest of these programs if they don't want to be left behind by the big football schools potentially splitting off to form their own division/organization?

Even without that going down, it'd at least put them on more conferences radars. For example, Wichita and Gonzaga would have a solid shot at going to the MWC now if they had football because of their basketball.

I know Wichtia football was a mess when the program ended in the mid-80's but having it would be advantageous at a time like this.

Tough call. I think Villanova should have done so, a long time ago, but with Georgetown it's a completely different story. They really don't have the $$'s to add the required women's sports and due to them being a small, private school, that's not likely to change. Then you got teams like UALR (Arkansas-Little Rock) out there in the SunBelt who are public, but can't really afford to field football, and there wouldn't be much of a chance that people would really take notice anyway. Each school has to make the decision that's best for them given how their finances stack up.

It might have been better that nova didn't move up. I'm sure some at UConn are wishing they didn't.

(04-04-2013 01:46 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 06:50 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 10:23 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Or in the case of Butler, add scholarships and go FBS?

It seems like it may be in the best interest of these programs if they don't want to be left behind by the big football schools potentially splitting off to form their own division/organization?

Even without that going down, it'd at least put them on more conferences radars. For example, Wichita and Gonzaga would have a solid shot at going to the MWC now if they had football because of their basketball.

I know Wichtia football was a mess when the program ended in the mid-80's but having it would be advantageous at a time like this.

Tough call. I think Villanova should have done so, a long time ago, but with Georgetown it's a completely different story. They really don't have the $$'s to add the required women's sports and due to them being a small, private school, that's not likely to change. Then you got teams like UALR (Arkansas-Little Rock) out there in the SunBelt who are public, but can't really afford to field football, and there wouldn't be much of a chance that people would really take notice anyway. Each school has to make the decision that's best for them given how their finances stack up.

It might have been better that nova didn't move up. I'm sure some at UConn are wishing they didn't.

you can add uta to that list. we had a football team for generations until it was dropped on the mid 80's. at the time they cited lost revenue as the reason..also dropped our top 25 caliber swimming program..with 34,000 students now and a large percentage of them living on or near campus, there is talk of restarting the program as part of the university's drive to tier one status. I remember back when they cancelled football that some people pointed out that many schools were losing money on football but that no self respecting school would go with out it..case in point was smu and tcu both struggling money wise at the time but it would have been heresy at either one to bring up the notion of dropping football...to schools like them, just a cost of doing business.

For Villanova, it's about whether it realistically believed it would have had a shot at the ACC if it had added football. If the answer is yes, then adding football might have been worth it. If the answer is no, then they made the right call by not becoming a private school version of Temple in the AAC. It's a zero sum game in the case of Villanova because their basketball program can provide TV revenue that's better than what any Gang of Five league can provide. The *only* thing that would make it worth it for Villanova now is if they get an automatic entry into the ACC if they move up to FBS. Remember that this school didn't want to move up to an AQ Big East that still had Miami, BC, VT, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt and WVU, so it certainly wants nothing to do with the new AAC configuration.

(03-30-2013 10:23 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Or in the case of Butler, add scholarships and go FBS?

It seems like it may be in the best interest of these programs if they don't want to be left behind by the big football schools potentially splitting off to form their own division/organization?

Even without that going down, it'd at least put them on more conferences radars. For example, Wichita and Gonzaga would have a solid shot at going to the MWC now if they had football because of their basketball.

I know Wichtia football was a mess when the program ended in the mid-80's but having it would be advantageous at a time like this.

Frankly, I can think of only one private that might be able to make the jump to FBS and that is Liberty. Other than that NO private could afford to make the investment to go to the bigs in football. Nova had the backing of the then BE to move up, and still couldn't come up with a viable plan to finance the move. So the short answer is NO. Privates like Butler & Gonzaga would be best severed by getting into really good basketball conferences.
A school like VCU could easily roll its basketball success as momentum to start up football. It is a large, southern, urban, public. So the road map is well marked for them. VCU could follow the GaSt/ODU/Charlotte plan to start football and move up to FBS in a little as five years.
WSU is another story. I really don't know enough about its circumstances to give a strong answer. However, considering the number of quality JuCos coming out of Kansas, recent moves made by Tx schools and the rumors about MizSt, it may be possible for it to make a quick move and work on getting a SBC invite?

(04-04-2013 07:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For Villanova, it's about whether it realistically believed it would have had a shot at the ACC if it had added football. If the answer is yes, then adding football might have been worth it. If the answer is no, then they made the right call by not becoming a private school version of Temple in the AAC. It's a zero sum game in the case of Villanova because their basketball program can provide TV revenue that's better than what any Gang of Five league can provide. The *only* thing that would make it worth it for Villanova now is if they get an automatic entry into the ACC if they move up to FBS. Remember that this school didn't want to move up to an AQ Big East that still had Miami, BC, VT, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt and WVU, so it certainly wants nothing to do with the new AAC configuration.

Frank, here's another thing I think 'Nova has to consider, ACC membership or not:

If the BCS AQ conference decide to split from the GoF in football, what's to keep them from doing that in basketball?? Look at who Louisville defeated in the Final Four. Look at other teams from similar GoF conferences who have knocked off BCS AQ teams in the tourny over the years. Don't you ever wonder if a lot of those BCS AQ presidents aren't mulling over the potential dollars lost by losing to mid-major and GoF teams in the tourny? You may not think it's possible, but previously, one wouldn't think it was possible to have a group of conferences leave the NCAA for even football, IMO. Once football is taken care of, I'm thinking the BCS AQ will turn their attention to basketball, and the whittling process will begin again.

(04-07-2013 01:12 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 07:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For Villanova, it's about whether it realistically believed it would have had a shot at the ACC if it had added football. If the answer is yes, then adding football might have been worth it. If the answer is no, then they made the right call by not becoming a private school version of Temple in the AAC. It's a zero sum game in the case of Villanova because their basketball program can provide TV revenue that's better than what any Gang of Five league can provide. The *only* thing that would make it worth it for Villanova now is if they get an automatic entry into the ACC if they move up to FBS. Remember that this school didn't want to move up to an AQ Big East that still had Miami, BC, VT, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt and WVU, so it certainly wants nothing to do with the new AAC configuration.

Frank, here's another thing I think 'Nova has to consider, ACC membership or not:

If the BCS AQ conference decide to split from the GoF in football, what's to keep them from doing that in basketball?? Look at who Louisville defeated in the Final Four. Look at other teams from similar GoF conferences who have knocked off BCS AQ teams in the tourny over the years. Don't you ever wonder if a lot of those BCS AQ presidents aren't mulling over the potential dollars lost by losing to mid-major and GoF teams in the tourny? You may not think it's possible, but previously, one wouldn't think it was possible to have a group of conferences leave the NCAA for even football, IMO. Once football is taken care of, I'm thinking the BCS AQ will turn their attention to basketball, and the whittling process will begin again.

I don't follow you. Are you saying that the BCS would split off from the NCAA to leave behind the smaller teams who beat them in the tournament?

If the BCS does break off it wont be because they lose some games to the lower teams. If you notice the big teams win every tournament. They know that the little guys help make the tournament as much fun and profitable as it is today. Thats why they keep on expanding the field.

Also if the BCS did break off from the NCAA there is a good chance that the Big East gets asked to come along to help their BBall tournament. They wouldn't take any of their precious FB money and would help increase the money made from the new BBall tournament.

(04-07-2013 04:08 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 01:12 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 07:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For Villanova, it's about whether it realistically believed it would have had a shot at the ACC if it had added football. If the answer is yes, then adding football might have been worth it. If the answer is no, then they made the right call by not becoming a private school version of Temple in the AAC. It's a zero sum game in the case of Villanova because their basketball program can provide TV revenue that's better than what any Gang of Five league can provide. The *only* thing that would make it worth it for Villanova now is if they get an automatic entry into the ACC if they move up to FBS. Remember that this school didn't want to move up to an AQ Big East that still had Miami, BC, VT, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt and WVU, so it certainly wants nothing to do with the new AAC configuration.

Frank, here's another thing I think 'Nova has to consider, ACC membership or not:

If the BCS AQ conference decide to split from the GoF in football, what's to keep them from doing that in basketball?? Look at who Louisville defeated in the Final Four. Look at other teams from similar GoF conferences who have knocked off BCS AQ teams in the tourny over the years. Don't you ever wonder if a lot of those BCS AQ presidents aren't mulling over the potential dollars lost by losing to mid-major and GoF teams in the tourny? You may not think it's possible, but previously, one wouldn't think it was possible to have a group of conferences leave the NCAA for even football, IMO. Once football is taken care of, I'm thinking the BCS AQ will turn their attention to basketball, and the whittling process will begin again.

I don't follow you. Are you saying that the BCS would split off from the NCAA to leave behind the smaller teams who beat them in the tournament?

If the BCS does break off it wont be because they lose some games to the lower teams. If you notice the big teams win every tournament. They know that the little guys help make the tournament as much fun and profitable as it is today. Thats why they keep on expanding the field.

Also if the BCS did break off from the NCAA there is a good chance that the Big East gets asked to come along to help their BBall tournament. They wouldn't take any of their precious FB money and would help increase the money made from the new BBall tournament.

That's precisely what I'm saying. For now, the BCS is content to let the little guys make the tournament fun and profitable. But I do see that changing because I'm thinking the BCS AQ really wants to lock the little guys out. Is there a chance the BE would be asked to come along and help with a BCS AQ tourny? Yes, but there's also a chance that it would not, and the teams from the BE that the BCS AQ would be interested in would be absorbed into a BCS AQ conference, thus leaving the rest out. I don't think St. John's or G'town has anything to worry about. Rather, IMO, it's 'Nova, Seton Hall, Providence, etc. that need to do the worrying!!!

(04-07-2013 05:04 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 04:08 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I don't follow you. Are you saying that the BCS would split off from the NCAA to leave behind the smaller teams who beat them in the tournament?

If the BCS does break off it wont be because they lose some games to the lower teams. If you notice the big teams win every tournament. They know that the little guys help make the tournament as much fun and profitable as it is today. Thats why they keep on expanding the field.

Also if the BCS did break off from the NCAA there is a good chance that the Big East gets asked to come along to help their BBall tournament. They wouldn't take any of their precious FB money and would help increase the money made from the new BBall tournament.

That's precisely what I'm saying. For now, the BCS is content to let the little guys make the tournament fun and profitable. But I do see that changing because I'm thinking the BCS AQ really wants to lock the little guys out. Is there a chance the BE would be asked to come along and help with a BCS AQ tourny? Yes, but there's also a chance that it would not, and the teams from the BE that the BCS AQ would be interested in would be absorbed into a BCS AQ conference, thus leaving the rest out. I don't think St. John's or G'town has anything to worry about. Rather, IMO, it's 'Nova, Seton Hall, Providence, etc. that need to do the worrying!!!

The BCS cares more about the FB money than the BBall money. BBall actually makes MORE for everyone with more teams in. Thats why they keep expanding the field. If the power conferences didn't want more little guys they wouldn't keep voting to expand the field.

Also the Big East teams aren't looking to join BCS leagues. They have their own power league where they call the shots. Also the BCS isn't expanding with BBall members.

If the BCS breaks off from the NCAA it will be because of FB not BBall. They might actually want to have more of the BBall schools involved because more games means more money for TV partners and the contract goes up. A 16-24 team tournament isn't that impressive since the BCS only has 65 teams.

No. Only BCS football matters, either competitively or financially. We have seen the MWC and AAC get media deals that give the entire conference less money than a single BCS football team gets per year. Meanwhile, the conference that decided not to sponsor football got a deal worth 2-3 times as much without having to worry about football expenses.

There are only two non-BCS schools that probably have a shot of making it into a BCS conference: UConn, and Cincinnati. I don't think any other AAC team has a shot, and I certainly don't think you'll see MWC, C-USA, WAC, or MAC teams moving up. I think you'll see that these "football conferences" are going to lose a LOT of money in the near future, as people continue to view non-BCS schools like they do FCS or DII schools (which also struggle to make money). Being lower-end BCS is no longer profitable.

However, teams like Butler, Wichita State, and VCU have made it to the highest level of basketball. They spend more than some power conference teams, make millions of dollars, and don't have high overheads because they don't have to maintain FBS-level football facilities, provide scholarships (and Title IX matching scholarships for women), or pay for FBS coaching staffs. I think they are in a MUCH better position without football.

(03-30-2013 11:52 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  The point is that Gonzaga risks being virtually forgotten about in a generation if the basketball program goes into a coma. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago Southern Illinois was making the Dance each year and getting top-4 seeds. Now who thinks of them? New fans to college basketball in the last few years don't even know who they are.

I think you're overstating the success of Southern Illinois. They had their most success with Bruce Webber and just after he left (when his recruits were still around). The school was once a 4-seed. Its made a grand total of 3 Sweet Sixteens, only two of which were after the field expanded to 64 (or more). They did make the tourney 6 straight years in the 2000s. They are not a bad program. But evey program that goes through a modicum of success cannot always sustain it. History is littered with schools like this. And the rise and fall of these schools seems really irrelvant to the presence of football.

Valparaiso was on a pretty good run themselves from 1996-2004. Not Southern Illinois good, but they made the tourney most of those years and even made a Sweet Sixteen.

(04-08-2013 10:59 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  No. Only BCS football matters, either competitively or financially. We have seen the MWC and AAC get media deals that give the entire conference less money than a single BCS football team gets per year. Meanwhile, the conference that decided not to sponsor football got a deal worth 2-3 times as much without having to worry about football expenses.

There are only two non-BCS schools that probably have a shot of making it into a BCS conference: UConn, and Cincinnati. I don't think any other AAC team has a shot, and I certainly don't think you'll see MWC, C-USA, WAC, or MAC teams moving up. I think you'll see that these "football conferences" are going to lose a LOT of money in the near future, as people continue to view non-BCS schools like they do FCS or DII schools (which also struggle to make money). Being lower-end BCS is no longer profitable.

However, teams like Butler, Wichita State, and VCU have made it to the highest level of basketball. They spend more than some power conference teams, make millions of dollars, and don't have high overheads because they don't have to maintain FBS-level football facilities, provide scholarships (and Title IX matching scholarships for women), or pay for FBS coaching staffs. I think they are in a MUCH better position without football.

I'd throw Temple in there too in case the ACC loses 4 teams. They have a good market, bball team and fit in their geographic foot print.

(04-07-2013 05:54 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 05:04 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 04:08 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I don't follow you. Are you saying that the BCS would split off from the NCAA to leave behind the smaller teams who beat them in the tournament?

If the BCS does break off it wont be because they lose some games to the lower teams. If you notice the big teams win every tournament. They know that the little guys help make the tournament as much fun and profitable as it is today. Thats why they keep on expanding the field.

Also if the BCS did break off from the NCAA there is a good chance that the Big East gets asked to come along to help their BBall tournament. They wouldn't take any of their precious FB money and would help increase the money made from the new BBall tournament.

That's precisely what I'm saying. For now, the BCS is content to let the little guys make the tournament fun and profitable. But I do see that changing because I'm thinking the BCS AQ really wants to lock the little guys out. Is there a chance the BE would be asked to come along and help with a BCS AQ tourny? Yes, but there's also a chance that it would not, and the teams from the BE that the BCS AQ would be interested in would be absorbed into a BCS AQ conference, thus leaving the rest out. I don't think St. John's or G'town has anything to worry about. Rather, IMO, it's 'Nova, Seton Hall, Providence, etc. that need to do the worrying!!!

The BCS cares more about the FB money than the BBall money. BBall actually makes MORE for everyone with more teams in. Thats why they keep expanding the field. If the power conferences didn't want more little guys they wouldn't keep voting to expand the field.

Also the Big East teams aren't looking to join BCS leagues. They have their own power league where they call the shots. Also the BCS isn't expanding with BBall members.

If the BCS breaks off from the NCAA it will be because of FB not BBall. They might actually want to have more of the BBall schools involved because more games means more money for TV partners and the contract goes up. A 16-24 team tournament isn't that impressive since the BCS only has 65 teams.

We'll have to agree to disagree, NJRedMan. :)