And "like-minded institutions" means football + basketball and the break away will be for both sports.

No more supporting the rest of Division One, Two and Three with basketball units.

No more getting to concentrate on just basketball because you do not have a football team or barely fund one.

No one gets left behind who is willing to play by these rules.

No FBS football team = No Dance.

Everyone is afraid the Big 5 are going to leave the rest of the NCAA. I do not think so. I think the schools in the top 5 conferences are going to take the G5 schools and every basketball centric school who can produce a quality football team to a new tier. This new tier will house about 160 schools, which is the equivalent of eight twenty team conferences.

Most of the football money will be made by the Big 5 conferences and basketball revenue is spread over much fewer schools based largely on tournament success, like today.

Once the B1G and SEC go to 20 there will be plenty of conference shake-ups to allow FCS schools that can migrate up to do so. Everyone will not necessarily go to 20, of course.

I don't think they will kill the golden goose of the ncaa tourney where its open to lots of different types of school's, see Flordia Gulf coast this year or Princeton in the 90's. As for football, my guess is that will be a closed shop for about 60-70 programs being the pool.

As soon as that is attempted, a group of feminist lawyers will get together and say



Title IX is always going to be a deterrent to any move to break away. All of the "like-minded institutions" would have to pony up some serious dollars in womens' programs. And before we go citing rules that would allow these schools to avoid putting more money into women's programs, ask yourself if women athletes are going to stand idly while the elite football programs rake in all of this new found cash.

(04-21-2013 08:28 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I don't think they will kill the golden goose of the ncaa tourney where its open to lots of different types of school's, see Flordia Gulf coast this year or Princeton in the 90's. As for football, my guess is that will be a closed shop for about 60-70 programs being the pool.

There have been a number of options circulated over the years.

New Division. While there has been discussion of going as small as 60-80 the option most seriously discussed has been all of FBS. A small breakaway creates more problems than it solves. There have been other options to allow some of the bigger FCS and non-football schools to tag along.

New Association. Create a replacement for the NCAA or move to the NAIA. With the FBS schools forming their own group or NAIA division. Much debate over whether anyone else gets to go along.

BLOW THE MOTHER UP. Well they don't call it that. They call deregulation or diversified regulation. Instead of a central body governing all of college athletics each sport would have its own governing body. Some schools might opt to join the NAIA or AAU to have a central body for all their sports or just some. Basketball might be governed by the AAU (some favor that so they can force AAU to better regulate the AAU youth programs) or by USA Basketball. Golf you would join USGA and they would be responsible for the championship events.

It would be a real compliance mess because the recruiting rules would vary wildly by sport. For example USGA might not have a signing day, instead allowing players to sign when they turn 18 or when they start their senior year. USA Football might keep the signing day and have limits on contact. USA Soccer might forego letters of intent and signing day and instead a player isn't locked into a school until they enroll.

Without a unifying national body a school might play some sports in the highest group, some in a mid-tier group and some at a non-scholarship level. Schools that currently have some club sports that are non-scholarship and operate independent of the athletic department because the play sports the NCAA doesn't sponsor would move under the athletic department and be counted as athletic opportunities.

The lack of a unifying national body might result in changes to scholarship levels.

(04-21-2013 08:28 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I don't think they will kill the golden goose of the ncaa tourney where its open to lots of different types of school's, see Flordia Gulf coast this year or Princeton in the 90's. As for football, my guess is that will be a closed shop for about 60-70 programs being the pool.

The bottom 160 don't add any value to the tournament. They rarely win one game.

I don't really expect any breakaway, but they are going to stop the migration to Division I in some way in order to prevent a breakaway.

And I predict Congress would go nuts with Senators from states being left out would raise all sorts of hell.

(04-21-2013 10:53 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  And I predict Congress would go nuts with Senators from states being left out would raise all sorts of hell.

Not many states will be left out. More likely to be action in the House.

I don't see this happening at all.

As long as the America East and North Dakota/St. and South Dakota/St. were allowed to come along, there wouldn't be a state missing among the most viable college basketball programs. I'm sure Alaska or Ala-Anchorage would be allowed to come along if they wanted to step up to the highest level.

A new governing body would bring out the possibility that international (particularly Canadian) schools would get in. Can you say Toronto Varsity Blues against the Louisville Cardinals? I wonder whose rules they'd play by?

don't see them opening pandora box for quite awhile yet.

Really doubt they touch the BB tourney

The NCAA isn't just some governing body...it is the schools you speak of themselves. It's the presidents of those schools that make up the NCAA. They would be breaking away from themselves in order to create the exact same thing

(04-21-2013 09:35 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  As soon as that is attempted, a group of feminist lawyers will get together and say



Title IX is always going to be a deterrent to any move to break away. All of the "like-minded institutions" would have to pony up some serious dollars in womens' programs. And before we go citing rules that would allow these schools to avoid putting more money into women's programs, ask yourself if women athletes are going to stand idly while the elite football programs rake in all of this new found cash.

Every teams is already meeting it's Title IX obligations. If anything a break away organization would have more money to fund more women's sports.

(04-21-2013 08:21 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  And "like-minded institutions" means football + basketball and the break away will be for both sports.

No more supporting the rest of Division One, Two and Three with basketball units.

No more getting to concentrate on just basketball because you do not have a football team or barely fund one.

No one gets left behind who is willing to play by these rules.

No FBS football team = No Dance.

Everyone is afraid the Big 5 are going to leave the rest of the NCAA. I do not think so. I think the schools in the top 5 conferences are going to take the G5 schools and every basketball centric school who can produce a quality football team to a new tier. This new tier will house about 160 schools, which is the equivalent of eight twenty team conferences.

Most of the football money will be made by the Big 5 conferences and basketball revenue is spread over much fewer schools based largely on tournament success, like today.

Once the B1G and SEC go to 20 there will be plenty of conference shake-ups to allow FCS schools that can migrate up to do so. Everyone will not necessarily go to 20, of course.

Don't #uck with it, if ain't broken!

(04-22-2013 06:07 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-21-2013 09:35 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  As soon as that is attempted, a group of feminist lawyers will get together and say



Title IX is always going to be a deterrent to any move to break away. All of the "like-minded institutions" would have to pony up some serious dollars in womens' programs. And before we go citing rules that would allow these schools to avoid putting more money into women's programs, ask yourself if women athletes are going to stand idly while the elite football programs rake in all of this new found cash.

Every teams is already meeting it's Title IX obligations. If anything a break away organization would have more money to fund more women's sports.

Or pay higher salaries to AD's and football coaches.

(04-22-2013 06:31 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(04-21-2013 08:21 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  And "like-minded institutions" means football + basketball and the break away will be for both sports.

No more supporting the rest of Division One, Two and Three with basketball units.

No more getting to concentrate on just basketball because you do not have a football team or barely fund one.

No one gets left behind who is willing to play by these rules.

No FBS football team = No Dance.

Everyone is afraid the Big 5 are going to leave the rest of the NCAA. I do not think so. I think the schools in the top 5 conferences are going to take the G5 schools and every basketball centric school who can produce a quality football team to a new tier. This new tier will house about 160 schools, which is the equivalent of eight twenty team conferences.

Most of the football money will be made by the Big 5 conferences and basketball revenue is spread over much fewer schools based largely on tournament success, like today.

Once the B1G and SEC go to 20 there will be plenty of conference shake-ups to allow FCS schools that can migrate up to do so. Everyone will not necessarily go to 20, of course.

Don't #uck with it, if ain't broken!

It's not broken?

The NCAA requires 40% of all NCAA revenue for overhead. Compare their operating budget per school to the NAIA who performs the same functions.

The last set of reforms was over-ridden by a large vote from non-football and FCS schools. The recruiting deregulation looks headed to the same fate (but has the Big 10 on that bandwagon after losing the fight on the FBS controlled Board of Directors).

The NCAA has admitted to cheating in trying to nail Miami and there is substantial evidence that suggests they cheated in getting USC.

Atletic expenses are rising at many times the inflation rate because athletic departments are more flush with cash than ever and they are plowing virtually all of it back into athletics at a time when the university operating budgets are being reduced.

(04-22-2013 05:21 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The NCAA isn't just some governing body...it is the schools you speak of themselves. It's the presidents of those schools that make up the NCAA. They would be breaking away from themselves in order to create the exact same thing

This is what people don't understand. The NCAA isn't some governing body disconnected from the schools making these arbitrary rules. These rules are created by the member presidents themselves. Those who say the smaller schools are just out opting the power schools also are either unaware of how it's run or are being disengenuous. The power schools chair almost every committee and if they don't support a rule that rule doesn't pass.

Also, anyone who thinks that San Jose st or Georgia Southern is more if a legit or respectable athletic program because they sponsor football and Georgetown or Marquette isn't because they don't, are fools. Just seen that sentiment a few times on these boards.

(04-22-2013 08:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 05:21 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The NCAA isn't just some governing body...it is the schools you speak of themselves. It's the presidents of those schools that make up the NCAA. They would be breaking away from themselves in order to create the exact same thing

This is what people don't understand. The NCAA isn't some governing body disconnected from the schools making these arbitrary rules. These rules are created by the member presidents themselves. Those who say the smaller schools are just out opting the power schools also are either unaware of how it's run or are being disengenuous. The power schools chair almost every committee and if they don't support a rule that rule doesn't pass.

Also, anyone who thinks that San Jose st or Georgia Southern is more if a legit or respectable athletic program because they sponsor football and Georgetown or Marquette isn't because they don't, are fools. Just seen that sentiment a few times on these boards.

Non-FBS schools out number FBS schools by a 2 to 1 margin. Nothing the non-FBS schools don't want to pass can pass. Simple as that. By the way, it's not a given that every FBS school would even be included in a break away. It is a given that every school included will play FBS football. The up side is that there will still be plenty of basketball first programs left in the NCAA and there will still be a solid NCAA tournament field. It just wont make near as much money.

(04-22-2013 08:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 05:21 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The NCAA isn't just some governing body...it is the schools you speak of themselves. It's the presidents of those schools that make up the NCAA. They would be breaking away from themselves in order to create the exact same thing

This is what people don't understand. The NCAA isn't some governing body disconnected from the schools making these arbitrary rules. These rules are created by the member presidents themselves. Those who say the smaller schools are just out opting the power schools also are either unaware of how it's run or are being disengenuous. The power schools chair almost every committee and if they don't support a rule that rule doesn't pass.

Also, anyone who thinks that San Jose st or Georgia Southern is more if a legit or respectable athletic program because they sponsor football and Georgetown or Marquette isn't because they don't, are fools. Just seen that sentiment a few times on these boards.

Here's the thing.

The NCAA is disconnected.

Most decisions in Division I are made by an 18 member board of university presidents. 11 are from FBS the other 7 come from the rest of the Division. But the decisions they make can be over-ridden by the cumbersome over-ride process of all schools. The board has a reputation for pushing things through quickly before the people charged with actually living under those rules (AD's, compliance officials, coaches) have time to review and comment.

Used to be the FAR's (Faculty Athletic Reps) ran the show. Their primary job is teaching but they typically have tenure so they are they normally at their school and involved with the athletic department longer than the presidents, AD's, or coaches. They got pushed aside as AD's and commissioners took more of the power, that went so poorly that the presidents were put in charge. Thirty years ago the FAR and AD both reported to the president and had roughly equal power except the FAR usually had tenure so could call out anyone without fear.

The business has changed dramatically. While it has always been rare for a president to have any significant athletic program background the desired skill set for AD's and commissioners is such that fewer and fewer of them have any background in intercollegiate athletics.

I think its time to seriously consider handing the reins back to the FAR's.

(04-21-2013 09:35 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  As soon as that is attempted, a group of feminist lawyers will get together and say

Title IX gets funded out of football. Actually, if you want to go there, Football funs most schools entire athletic department so that would be mens and womens sports. Basketball, while a revenue sport, doesn not turn the money like football.

(04-22-2013 08:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 05:21 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The NCAA isn't just some governing body...it is the schools you speak of themselves. It's the presidents of those schools that make up the NCAA. They would be breaking away from themselves in order to create the exact same thing

This is what people don't understand. The NCAA isn't some governing body disconnected from the schools making these arbitrary rules. These rules are created by the member presidents themselves. Those who say the smaller schools are just out opting the power schools also are either unaware of how it's run or are being disengenuous. The power schools chair almost every committee and if they don't support a rule that rule doesn't pass.

Also, anyone who thinks that San Jose st or Georgia Southern is more if a legit or respectable athletic program because they sponsor football and Georgetown or Marquette isn't because they don't, are fools. Just seen that sentiment a few times on these boards.

Non-FBS schools out number FBS schools by a 2 to 1 margin. Nothing the non-FBS schools don't want to pass can pass. Simple as that. By the way, it's not a given that every FBS school would even be included in a break away. It is a given that every school included will play FBS football. The up side is that there will still be plenty of basketball first programs left in the NCAA and there will still be a solid NCAA tournament field. It just wont make near as much money.

Same goes for a tournament that's made up just if power 5 schools. You leave out the MWC, AAC and big east and you're just asking for most people to not count your champ as legit. A tournament half the size with a bunch if scrubs will never get the attention the tournament gets now.