(09-24-2013 09:11 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:07 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 08:56 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 08:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 08:49 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I don't think you are automatically deserving of a spot because you beat out 8 or 9 of the worst teams in basketball...even if you call that group of 8 or 9 teams your conference.

I think those schools though are what has made March Madness what it is today.

What did they make it? They are always gone after the first day.

You get one FGCU every now and then coming from that group of the worst 10 leagues. They'd still have their shot. You'd just make their first round of games more evenly matched.

What I think is going to happen is you're going to see instead of the first 4 games being 2 with at larges and 2 with 16's, being 4 with 16's. That would take 2 of the 15's from last year and move them down to 16's. So FGCU may still have been a 15 last year. What that would do is make the 5/12 games and maybe even the 4/13 games even tougher. And even looking at it last year- Harvard would have become a 15 seed.

TV is what made it what it currently is. Nobody would watch all 16 seeds. TV needs those name programs in those game to get viewers.

The 1st 4 games don't get huge ratings anyways- last year was a 1.5 I believe. It wouldn't hurt the tourney much at all. But it would get better 2/15 and 3/14 games even. I mean last year, Harvard would become a 15 seed, South Dakota St a 14 seed, and Middle Tennessee would have been a 13 seed. Akron(the team that got murdered by VCU in a 5/12) would have dropped to a 13 seed, meaning VCU would have played say Bucknell. Much tougher game.

Get ready for a ton of lawsuits if too many conferences are dropped from the upper level..

Sounds kind of like I expected (at least as one of the more likely outcomes). A new governance structure at the top, but for practical purposes for the season (games, tournaments) there won't be a formal break.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but a combined division 1/FBS tournament sounds to me like the current NCAA Tournament would still continue with all current conferences. The difference would be that the top level would be playing on different recruiting rules and the like.

Most people following casually really aren't going to see a difference between the current set-up and this.

(09-24-2013 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think the big east might be regretting telling the AAC schools to stick it very badly now.

Or it could be that such a split may have forced the C7 to split off anyway. It will be interesting to see how schools like BYU, Navy, Idaho, NMSU, and Army deal with this, as none of those schools have their other sports in an FBS conference. If the rules dictate that to play FBS football, you have to have all of your sports up to the other FBS minimums, but if those minimums are greater than the rest of D1's maximums, then those schools will have to make some serious decisions about their future.

(09-24-2013 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think the big east might be regretting telling the AAC schools to stick it very badly now.

(09-24-2013 09:33 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think the big east might be regretting telling the AAC schools to stick it very badly now.

Or it could be that such a split may have forced the C7 to split off anyway. It will be interesting to see how schools like BYU, Navy, Idaho, NMSU, and Army deal with this, as none of those schools have their other sports in an FBS conference. If the rules dictate that to play FBS football, you have to have all of your sports up to the other FBS minimums, but if those minimums are greater than the rest of D1's maximums, then those schools will have to make some serious decisions about their future.

if troy & georgia state are getting in then theres no reason they are not

My understanding is that there will be combined championships between D1 and Division FBS so the NCAA tournament is safe for now. The bigger concern is that the Big East and A-10 get lumped into the rest of the division one. This could put them at a disadvantage in terms of rules structure not to mention perception. Its hard to be considered anything but a mid-major when you don't play major college football. I wish things were the way they used to be but we live in a football dominated sports culture.

(09-24-2013 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think the big east might be regretting telling the AAC schools to stick it very badly now.

???

The NCAA Tournament isn't changing, and as long as that's the case, Division 4 will have minimal impact on non-football schools.

The fact that the Big East is getting paid more TV money for just basketball than the AAC is receiving for *both* football and basketball makes Division 4 almost irrelevant. Why on Earth would the Big East want to stick around with schools that they don't want to play, be subject to neverending conference realignment instability AND get paid less TV money just so that they have the "privilege" of paying an extra stipend for recruiting purposes that's almost entirely geared toward a sport (football) that they don't play? That makes no sense.

The group that Division 4 really matters to are the non-power Group of Five conferences. They HAVE to be in Division 4 at the end of the day or else they're DOA. So, they better hope that the faculty proposal linked here has some influence (as the commissioners and university presidents might have different ideas). This is a life-or-death matter for the G5 conferences, whereas it's a mild hindrance to the Big East and the other non-football Division I conferences.

(09-24-2013 09:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:33 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think the big east might be regretting telling the AAC schools to stick it very badly now.

Or it could be that such a split may have forced the C7 to split off anyway. It will be interesting to see how schools like BYU, Navy, Idaho, NMSU, and Army deal with this, as none of those schools have their other sports in an FBS conference. If the rules dictate that to play FBS football, you have to have all of your sports up to the other FBS minimums, but if those minimums are greater than the rest of D1's maximums, then those schools will have to make some serious decisions about their future.

if troy & georgia state are getting in then theres no reason they are not

At least Troy and Georgia State have all their sports in an FBS conference. But Georgia State has to worry that they won't qualify for FBS first. They literally had only 300 people at their game this past weekend. That's...horrible.

(09-24-2013 09:30 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Sounds kind of like I expected (at least as one of the more likely outcomes). A new governance structure at the top, but for practical purposes for the season (games, tournaments) there won't be a formal break.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but a combined division 1/FBS tournament sounds to me like the current NCAA Tournament would still continue with all current conferences. The difference would be that the top level would be playing on different recruiting rules and the like.

Most people following casually really aren't going to see a difference between the current set-up and this.

That's the way I read it. For the average sports viewer, its no change (the NCAA tournament for instance would look the same and the bowls/playoff would be unchanged). It would allow the FBS schools the ability to do some things that Div-1 schools cannot do (stipends, more contact with recruits, more relaxed recruiting rules, additional staff for recruiting, etc). But when the viewer turns on the set, all the old events would have the same schools and participants---but there would be some behind the scenes differences that are not obvious when watching the events.

(09-24-2013 01:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  - It clearly states there is no desire for just the Big 5 to breakaway as there wouldnt be enough teams to compete.

Anyone else think this is BS? It's basically saying "We still want our cupcake games at home" instead of actually having to play a hard OCC road game once in awhile.

If the NBA and NFL can do it with more games and less than half the teams I think the Big 5 could do it easily.

(09-24-2013 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ???

The NCAA Tournament isn't changing, and as long as that's the case, Division 4 will have minimal impact on non-football schools.

The fact that the Big East is getting paid more TV money for just basketball than the AAC is receiving for *both* football and basketball makes Division 4 almost irrelevant. Why on Earth would the Big East want to stick around with schools that they don't want to play, be subject to neverending conference realignment instability AND get paid less TV money just so that they have the "privilege" of paying an extra stipend for recruiting purposes that's almost entirely geared toward a sport (football) that they don't play? That makes no sense.

The group that Division 4 really matters to are the non-power Group of Five conferences. They HAVE to be in Division 4 at the end of the day or else they're DOA. So, they better hope that the faculty proposal linked here has some influence (as the commissioners and university presidents might have different ideas). This is a life-or-death matter for the G5 conferences, whereas it's a mild hindrance to the Big East and the other non-football Division I conferences.

Couldn't disagree more. They lose almost all influence they currently have and quite possibly are more restricted for recruiting players than any of the D4 schools (this document doesn't really get into possible stipends and what sports would be eligible, but the P5 talking heads have said they'd like it for all sports, and specifically football and basketball). If the NCAA doesn't change the rules for D1, then the Big East, A10, etc., would be playing with their hands tied behind their back.

We shall see what happens with this proposal... this could be either really good or really bad for the non-FBS schools.

(09-24-2013 01:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  - Most, if not all, basketball-only conferences will NOT be part however their was some wording that a select couple like the Big East could be.

Where is this language? I missed it.

(09-24-2013 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The group that Division 4 really matters to are the non-power Group of Five conferences. They HAVE to be in Division 4 at the end of the day or else they're DOA. So, they better hope that the faculty proposal linked here has some influence (as the commissioners and university presidents might have different ideas). This is a life-or-death matter for the G5 conferences, whereas it's a mild hindrance to the Big East and the other non-football Division I conferences.

The American will be fine. We won't go from possibly having a weighted vote to being excluded. Further, the other leagues need a feeder league for future expansion, and we have a lot of expansion targets.

(09-24-2013 01:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  This is the document from the ESPN story.

This makes it very clear that the new "FBS Division" will include all FBS conferences. That's their recommendation. That's not the final arrangement. To be fair.

Few observations:

- All 10 FBS conferences are splitting off from the rest of Division 1 and will make their own rules.

- The Big 5 will have weighted votes (similar to today already) It would be a joke if the AAC had larger voting power than other conferences, unless they split it into 3 tiers: top 5/middle 2/bottom 3).

- Most, if not all, basketball-only conferences will NOT be part however their was some wording that a select couple like the Big East could be.It sounds like they're proposing they aren't part of the "new" organizational structure but will still compete in all postseason play (outside of football) with the "new" division. Doesn't sound like they're being left behind at all to me. D4 will have their own rules. The rest of the current D-I will have their own rules. Both will meet in postseason play, however.

- It clearly states there is no desire for just the Big 5 to breakaway as there wouldnt be enough teams to compete. No it doesn't. It says they aren't sure the current FBS (all 10 conferences) is enough to hold its own postseason play.

- The basketball tournament will not change and the non-FBS Division teams will still be invited, however it the document "recognizes" there will be additional competitive stress placed on them (they wont be offering stipends and will make recruiting harder)If the new division's governance structure includes the MAC, SBC and C-USA, it should also include the A-10, WCC and MVC.

(09-24-2013 01:59 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I wish they could find a way to allow more deserving teams into the tournament and less auto qualifiers. Turn the "first four" into the "first eight" and make them all the bottom 16 conference champs.

I hate that idea. I'd much rather have the First [Blank] be the last at-large teams to make it in.

(09-24-2013 09:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Get ready for a ton of lawsuits if too many conferences are dropped from the upper level..

What are you even talking about? I don't think you even read it.

(09-24-2013 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:30 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Sounds kind of like I expected (at least as one of the more likely outcomes). A new governance structure at the top, but for practical purposes for the season (games, tournaments) there won't be a formal break.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but a combined division 1/FBS tournament sounds to me like the current NCAA Tournament would still continue with all current conferences. The difference would be that the top level would be playing on different recruiting rules and the like.

Most people following casually really aren't going to see a difference between the current set-up and this.

That's the way I read it. For the average sports viewer, its no change (the NCAA tournament for instance would look the same and the bowls/playoff would be unchanged). It would allow the FBS schools the ability to do some things that Div-1 schools cannot do (stipends, more contact with recruits, more relaxed recruiting rules, additional staff for recruiting, etc). But when the viewer turns on the set, all the old events would have the same schools and participants---but there would be some behind the scenes differences that are not obvious when watching the events.

Ditto. Everything will be the same. The only difference is the behind the scenes stuff and which conferences/schools are making those decisions.

(09-24-2013 10:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  Couldn't disagree more. They lose almost all influence they currently have and quite possibly are more restricted for recruiting players than any of the D4 schools (this document doesn't really get into possible stipends and what sports would be eligible, but the P5 talking heads have said they'd like it for all sports, and specifically football and basketball). If the NCAA doesn't change the rules for D1, then the Big East, A10, etc., would be playing with their hands tied behind their back.

That's the issue for Gonzaga, Georgetown, and the other basketball powers at no-football schools. They have to have the option to pay stipends, hire additional assistant coaches, etc., whatever the "big boys" are going to be doing, so that they can recruit on a level playing field if they choose to. They can't let their hands be tied by the "Division I in name only" schools that play hoops in front of 75 fans in 500-seat gyms.

(09-24-2013 10:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 01:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  - Most, if not all, basketball-only conferences will NOT be part however their was some wording that a select couple like the Big East could be.

Where is this language? I missed it.

It's a bit of an assumption on Miami's part.

The proposed D4, from that document, says it will be made up of the current FBS conferences/teams. It then goes on to say that they are aware there will be "downstream" consequences that they would have to look into that and that they also expect "much discussion concerning the precise contours of what should be the institutions and conferences included within the division."

(09-24-2013 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  That's the issue for Gonzaga, Georgetown, and the other basketball powers at no-football schools. They have to have the option to pay stipends, hire additional assistant coaches, etc., whatever the "big boys" are going to be doing, so that they can recruit on a level playing field if they choose to. They can't let their hands be tied by the "Division I in name only" schools that play hoops in front of 75 fans in 500-seat gyms.

That is my point... it doesn't add up. I think that either all of D1 changes rules for basketball or those basketball schools and their conferences has to move into D4. You can't compete with your hands tied behind your back, which is what has been stated here.

(09-24-2013 11:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  That's the issue for Gonzaga, Georgetown, and the other basketball powers at no-football schools. They have to have the option to pay stipends, hire additional assistant coaches, etc., whatever the "big boys" are going to be doing, so that they can recruit on a level playing field if they choose to. They can't let their hands be tied by the "Division I in name only" schools that play hoops in front of 75 fans in 500-seat gyms.

That is my point... it doesn't add up. I think that either all of D1 changes rules for basketball or those basketball schools and their conferences has to move into D4. You can't compete with your hands tied behind your back, which is what has been stated here.

Its that or the big schools would just carry out their threat to split from the NCAA. I suspect the bottom of D-1 would prefer to compete against the top of D-1 with a recruiting disadvantage than to be completely relegated to a new division without the top schools. Besides, a Florida Gulf Coast type school wasn't stealing recruits from Oklahoma and Texas anyway. The only thing this would do is give the bottom of FBS a slight advantage over the top of the rest of D-1. But realistically, a Florida Gulf Coast would typically lose a bunch of recruiting battles against local lower level FBS schools anyway--so its not really that different. Besides, D-1 could always pass the exact same rules if they wanted to. The only thing stopping that would be the schools in D-1. If they cant get it passed, who's fault is that? In fact, it D-1 wanted, they could simply establish their very own playoff---run with the rules they want.