That's a little unsettling. No article yet. Just intresting tweets from Dennis Dodd coming from power conference commissioners at a symposium. Hopefully, he follows up with an article on their comments.

Dennis Dodd ‏@dennisdoddcbs 23m
Jim Delany says a separate division for BCS leagues "is not off the table" #img

Dennis Dodd ‏@dennisdoddcbs 19m
Just wish 65 BCS presidents would tell us what they want. Get that we need streamlined NCAA and stipend but that's almost non-controversial

Dennis Dodd ‏@dennisdoddcbs 7m
Bowlsby: if we proceed down the path of employee-employer relationship .. We will forever have lost our way. #img

EDIT--12/12/2013

A follow up article with much more detail was finally posted by Dennis Dodd. Some of the details would not be good news for the G5.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-the-table

Just playing hardball to get concessions.

Now that the playoff is here, a split is inevitable so that it can be expanded within the P5 to 5 autobids for their champs and then 3 wild cards for their other teams.

(12-11-2013 11:53 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Now that the playoff is here, a split is inevitable so that it can be expanded within the P5 to 5 autobids for their champs and then 3 wild cards for their other teams.

10th, I think we will be looking at 66 to 72 teams in either 5 or 4 conferences forming a new division. So roughly 16 to 18 members if 4 conferences, and 14 if we have 5 conferences. As I've said many times the cutoffs on level of investment into sports are at positions 60, a much smaller one around 64, and then a bigger one at 71. I think there could be some shuffling within conferences once new requirements on the number of sports, the amount of the stipends, and the minimum level of investment are set. But the bigger schools are going to want all of that playoff pie, if not now, soon.

Not sure how well this will format. But I think AACK! gets in. This chart shows the conference, # of schools, # of schools ranked Carnegie Very High Research, # ranked High Research, # ranked Doctoral Research University and others (note, Army, Navy and Air Force are "other") as well as the # of schools ranked in the ARWU (500 ranked world universities) and the World University Rankings (separate one ranking 400 universities). Future CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt don't fit. MWC is somewhere in between because of schools like Fresno, San Jose, Boise.

They want to be with similar universities and don't want to compete with schools with significantly different missions and academic standards.

Carnegie Designation Ranked
# VH H DRU O ARWU WU
ACC 14 10 4 0 0 13 92.9% 9 64.3%
Big 10 14 14 0 0 0 14 100.0% 14 100.0%
Big 12 10 4 5 1 0 6 60.0% 5 50.0%
Pac 12 12 12 0 0 0 12 100.0% 11 91.7%
SEC 14 11 3 0 0 11 78.6% 6 42.9%
AAC 12 6 3 2 1 8 66.7% 6 50.0%
CUSA 14 2 8 2 2 2 14.3% 2 14.3%
MAC 13 2 9 1 1 3 23.1% 2 15.4%
MWC 12 3 5 0 4 6 50.0% 3 25.0%
Sun Belt 11 1 4 1 5 1 9.1% 0 0.0%
Independent 3 1 1 0 1 2 66.7% 1 33.3%

129 66 42 7 14 78 59

In case you are curious, TCU is the only school in the P5 not ranked Very High or High research. Rice, UAB, Buffalo, UMass, Notre Dame, Colorado St., San Diego St. and Wyoming are the only non P5 schools ranked in the World University rankings.

(formats beautifully in preview, but a little hard to read as it shows up in the forum).

And if you look at average attendance over the last 4 years(2009-12) based on 2014 lineups, there are 4 tiers:
SEC 75,349
B1G 67,112
Big 12 57,697
Pac 12 52,659
ACC 50,045

AAC 30,810

MWC 25,292

CUSA 21,902
SB 17,485 (doesn't include GaSouthern or App. St.)
MAC 15,319

interesting only 7 schools not affilliated are ranked

Dodd is clueless. "Just wish 65 BCS presidents would tell us what they want." He thinks it's that simple. As if the 65 presidents think in lockstep? There might be 65 different agendas. More than 65, because some of the commissioners have agendas of their own.

(12-11-2013 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 11:53 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Now that the playoff is here, a split is inevitable so that it can be expanded within the P5 to 5 autobids for their champs and then 3 wild cards for their other teams.

10th, I think we will be looking at 66 to 72 teams in either 5 or 4 conferences forming a new division. So roughly 16 to 18 members if 4 conferences, and 14 if we have 5 conferences. As I've said many times the cutoffs on level of investment into sports are at positions 60, a much smaller one around 64, and then a bigger one at 71. I think there could be some shuffling within conferences once new requirements on the number of sports, the amount of the stipends, and the minimum level of investment are set. But the bigger schools are going to want all of that playoff pie, if not now, soon.

My guess is more limited change as opposed to radical change. Essentially, 2 or 4 more schools get added to the Big 12 and that's it - the power conferences still don't place the value of Division 4 over taking members that they really don't want.

I also don't think either the AAC or MWC end up getting invited to the party if it comes to a full split - the handful of top assets will get taken in by the Big 12 from those leagues and that will be it. There will inevitably tons of litigation if the power conferences truly split off into a new division, so if you're going to make that decision, you're going to go all of the way. They're not going through all of this hassle when the only end result is to relegate the Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC. A new division is about institutionalizing the power structure that, for all practical purposes, is already in place.

(12-11-2013 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  Rice, UAB, Buffalo, UMass, Notre Dame, Colorado St., San Diego St. and Wyoming are the only non P5 schools ranked in the World University rankings.

Did you mean "only non P5/AAC schools ranked..." ?

In a world with a separate division (for football only?) will we still see the big schools schedule teams from D1-AA and the newly relegated conferences?

(12-11-2013 01:00 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  In a world with a separate division (for football only?) will we still see the big schools schedule teams from D1-AA and the newly relegated conferences?

Sure, I don't see why that would be prevented. I doubt that the lower division is going to refuse to take the power schools' paychecks.

(12-11-2013 01:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 01:00 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  In a world with a separate division (for football only?) will we still see the big schools schedule teams from D1-AA and the newly relegated conferences?

Sure, I don't see why that would be prevented. I doubt that the lower division is going to refuse to take the power schools' paychecks.

The current system provides a disincentive to scheduling too many D1-AA cupcakes by allowing teams to only count one win against them toward bowl eligibility.

What kind of limits do you foresee the new D4 schools agreeing to? One D1-AA plus one relegated team? Two from either of those categories? No limits at all?

(12-11-2013 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not sure how well this will format. But I think AACK! gets in. This chart shows the conference, # of schools, # of schools ranked Carnegie Very High Research, # ranked High Research, # ranked Doctoral Research University and others (note, Army, Navy and Air Force are "other") as well as the # of schools ranked in the ARWU (500 ranked world universities) and the World University Rankings (separate one ranking 400 universities).

Thoroughly irrelevant.

The P5 aren't that unified. What Texas wants is different than what Wake Forest wants. What UCLA wants is different than what Purdue wants.

The G5 are even more chaotic than the P5 to boot - so I don't think that a subset of G5 schools will work, either.

Here's an example: ECU and Tulane just played a close game this year in football - and both will be heading to the AAC. However, both schools have their own ideas about how they plan to go about growing in the long term. The AAC is a loose conduit that connects the institutions - but they aren't going to be in lockstep over everything and probably shouldn't be as the two universities are quite different from each other.

If I'm a P5 commissioner, I would come up with a tough set of requirements and put it in public for all to view. I'd set it to a point where only about 65-70 would make it - and if schools #71-90 want to play, then they can put their own skin in the game and meet the cutoff. Such a policy would be fair AND achieve the original objectives behind the creation of a D4.

The majority of the MWC and AAC as they stand now should NOT be in D4 - but they should be given a chance to join if they improve to meet the "new standard".

(12-11-2013 12:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 11:53 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Now that the playoff is here, a split is inevitable so that it can be expanded within the P5 to 5 autobids for their champs and then 3 wild cards for their other teams.

10th, I think we will be looking at 66 to 72 teams in either 5 or 4 conferences forming a new division. So roughly 16 to 18 members if 4 conferences, and 14 if we have 5 conferences. As I've said many times the cutoffs on level of investment into sports are at positions 60, a much smaller one around 64, and then a bigger one at 71. I think there could be some shuffling within conferences once new requirements on the number of sports, the amount of the stipends, and the minimum level of investment are set. But the bigger schools are going to want all of that playoff pie, if not now, soon.

My guess is more limited change as opposed to radical change. Essentially, 2 or 4 more schools get added to the Big 12 and that's it - the power conferences still don't place the value of Division 4 over taking members that they really don't want.

I also don't think either the AAC or MWC end up getting invited to the party if it comes to a full split - the handful of top assets will get taken in by the Big 12 from those leagues and that will be it. There will inevitably tons of litigation if the power conferences truly split off into a new division, so if you're going to make that decision, you're going to go all of the way. They're not going through all of this hassle when the only end result is to relegate the Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC. A new division is about institutionalizing the power structure that, for all practical purposes, is already in place.

A full split will have to include all FBS conferences due to the recent playoff contract signed for 12 years. Now, if schools within those conferences aren't liking the new division rules then, they are free to drop to the FCS/D1 division.

(12-11-2013 12:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 11:53 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Now that the playoff is here, a split is inevitable so that it can be expanded within the P5 to 5 autobids for their champs and then 3 wild cards for their other teams.

10th, I think we will be looking at 66 to 72 teams in either 5 or 4 conferences forming a new division. So roughly 16 to 18 members if 4 conferences, and 14 if we have 5 conferences. As I've said many times the cutoffs on level of investment into sports are at positions 60, a much smaller one around 64, and then a bigger one at 71. I think there could be some shuffling within conferences once new requirements on the number of sports, the amount of the stipends, and the minimum level of investment are set. But the bigger schools are going to want all of that playoff pie, if not now, soon.

My guess is more limited change as opposed to radical change. Essentially, 2 or 4 more schools get added to the Big 12 and that's it - the power conferences still don't place the value of Division 4 over taking members that they really don't want.

I also don't think either the AAC or MWC end up getting invited to the party if it comes to a full split - the handful of top assets will get taken in by the Big 12 from those leagues and that will be it. There will inevitably tons of litigation if the power conferences truly split off into a new division, so if you're going to make that decision, you're going to go all of the way. They're not going through all of this hassle when the only end result is to relegate the Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC. A new division is about institutionalizing the power structure that, for all practical purposes, is already in place.

I could see this too in more normal times. I think your assessment of what humans do to avoid stressful consequences is very accurate. But, where I differ is I think that the sitz im leben is very unique right now, there is so much change and uncertainty on many levels that it may dictate more radical measures in the end.

What I'm saying Frank is that this is about much more than just football, or sports in general. These new associations are, as Bullet is indicating through his last couple of posts in this thread, much more about forming associations designed to facilitate the academic missions of the conference both by strengthening those associations through mutual endeavor, and by forming a bastion against the eventual trends in downsizing the scope of higher education. I know you know this from a Big 10 perspective because that has long been part of the driving vision there, but it is by necessity being adopted by the other conferences now to the extent they can attain it. So a cut off line is going to be established whether in 4 or 5 conferences. Alvarez, Gee, and Saban have been on record referring to a number between 60 and 70 schools. I would stretch that by 2 and Bullet is implying that it could be stretched to about the same number.

You've been reasonable and pretty much on target about many things in this process, but I would encourage you to take a second look at investment levels in sports as held in juxtaposition to research endeavors. I think you will see the impetus to go to around 72 and to have a defined boundary. When you add in new criteria like amounts of stipends, minimum levels of investment, facilities, and number of sports required, you could see that number of 72 diminish back a bit, but I think that is the ballpark and has been since the beginning.

How would you differentiate between Division P5 and Division G5 schools? How do you avoid competing National Championship claims?

(12-11-2013 12:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 11:53 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Now that the playoff is here, a split is inevitable so that it can be expanded within the P5 to 5 autobids for their champs and then 3 wild cards for their other teams.

10th, I think we will be looking at 66 to 72 teams in either 5 or 4 conferences forming a new division. So roughly 16 to 18 members if 4 conferences, and 14 if we have 5 conferences. As I've said many times the cutoffs on level of investment into sports are at positions 60, a much smaller one around 64, and then a bigger one at 71. I think there could be some shuffling within conferences once new requirements on the number of sports, the amount of the stipends, and the minimum level of investment are set. But the bigger schools are going to want all of that playoff pie, if not now, soon.

My guess is more limited change as opposed to radical change. Essentially, 2 or 4 more schools get added to the Big 12 and that's it - the power conferences still don't place the value of Division 4 over taking members that they really don't want.

I also don't think either the AAC or MWC end up getting invited to the party if it comes to a full split - the handful of top assets will get taken in by the Big 12 from those leagues and that will be it. There will inevitably tons of litigation if the power conferences truly split off into a new division, so if you're going to make that decision, you're going to go all of the way. They're not going through all of this hassle when the only end result is to relegate the Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC. A new division is about institutionalizing the power structure that, for all practical purposes, is already in place.

Well its back to the past. Many of those schools were in the CFA. MAC and Sun Belt weren't. Only 1 full Sun Belt team was even in I-A when the CFA was formed in the 80s. Only 4 CUSA teams. And only 2 teams from CUSA and none from the MAC or Sun Belt were in the university division back in 1960. Most of the MWC, AAC and all the P5 were.

While you may be right they would decide it wouldn't be worth the trouble, it would be re-instituting the club. They can't and won't force the Big 12 to make less money by taking schools that lower their payout. That's thinking like a fan, not a university president.

And there are political considerations in leaving out the AAC and MWC. They may not want to make senators in Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Hawaii and Connecticut enemies. While leaving out the other 3 conferences with something like an attendance requirement or a spending requirement they couldn't handle wouldn't have the same negative political impact.

It also leaves someone else at the bottom of your division to look down on.

The argument for leaving all (other than the difficulty of kicking a group out or setting up your own structure) is that it creates more separation from the P5 by lumping UConn, Houston, et.al. with Georgia Southern and Appalachian St., schools that are brand new to the top division. Also hurts their recruiting by creating more competition for the recruits the P5 isn't interested in.

(12-11-2013 01:20 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The P5 aren't that unified. What Texas wants is different than what Wake Forest wants. What UCLA wants is different than what Purdue wants.

The G5 are even more chaotic than the P5 to boot - so I don't think that a subset of G5 schools will work, either.

Here's an example: ECU and Tulane just played a close game this year in football - and both will be heading to the AAC. However, both schools have their own ideas about how they plan to go about growing in the long term. The AAC is a loose conduit that connects the institutions - but they aren't going to be in lockstep over everything and probably shouldn't be as the two universities are quite different from each other.

If I'm a P5 commissioner, I would come up with a tough set of requirements and put it in public for all to view. I'd set it to a point where only about 65-70 would make it - and if schools #71-90 want to play, then they can put their own skin in the game and meet the cutoff. Such a policy would be fair AND achieve the original objectives behind the creation of a D4.

The majority of the MWC and AAC as they stand now should NOT be in D4 - but they should be given a chance to join if they improve to meet the "new standard".

I understand the sentiment, as I believe there are some schools such as UConn, Cincinnati and BYU that are already at that standard. The issue, though, is that the NCAA divisional structure is still driven by conferences. The power conferences aren't going to force themselves to take any of those schools as members. So, I guess if a school like UConn is willing to go independent to be part of Division 4 (BYU is obviously already there), then that's possible, but the reality is that no one in the G5 should expect any power conference to make any room for them.