Back around 2003 or 2004 the NCAA changed the definition of an FBS conference.

At that time a FBS conference was simply a conference that had at least six members playing football that were FBS and it did not matter if any of them were in the conference for any other sports.

Now an FBS league is one where there are 8 full members who are FBS and play football in the league. You can have football only or non-football members as long as you have the 8 core FBS full members.

What if the NCAA in its push to "deregulation" allowed leagues to be deemed FBS simply by having 8 FBS members and might or might not sponsor any other sports and allowed a league that played ONLY basketball to earn an auto bid as long as it had the required number of Division I members.

I think outside the P5 you could see some conferences of convenience. Giant footprint football leagues spread over a huge geographic range, big footprint basketball leagues spread over a big geographic range and then compact regional leagues for the rest of the Olympic sports.

Interesting

Title 9 would have taken a massive dump on that.

(01-10-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Back around 2003 or 2004 the NCAA changed the definition of an FBS conference.

At that time a FBS conference was simply a conference that had at least six members playing football that were FBS and it did not matter if any of them were in the conference for any other sports.

Now an FBS league is one where there are 8 full members who are FBS and play football in the league. You can have football only or non-football members as long as you have the 8 core FBS full members.

What if the NCAA in its push to "deregulation" allowed leagues to be deemed FBS simply by having 8 FBS members and might or might not sponsor any other sports and allowed a league that played ONLY basketball to earn an auto bid as long as it had the required number of Division I members.

I think outside the P5 you could see some conferences of convenience. Giant footprint football leagues spread over a huge geographic range, big footprint basketball leagues spread over a big geographic range and then compact regional leagues for the rest of the Olympic sports.

Id like to see the antiquated rules that govern divisional play revised to reflect the realities of larger conferences. If the rules were revised to allow the use of pods for conferences of 16 or more (maybe even allowing for internal playoffs)--a lot of possibilities would erupt from those changes. Large nationwide conferences---with enough members to form viable regional pods are possible. If internal playoffs are allowed, there is additional income to be derived from such moves. I think that's the future for the G5.

(01-10-2014 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Back around 2003 or 2004 the NCAA changed the definition of an FBS conference.

At that time a FBS conference was simply a conference that had at least six members playing football that were FBS and it did not matter if any of them were in the conference for any other sports.

Now an FBS league is one where there are 8 full members who are FBS and play football in the league. You can have football only or non-football members as long as you have the 8 core FBS full members.

What if the NCAA in its push to "deregulation" allowed leagues to be deemed FBS simply by having 8 FBS members and might or might not sponsor any other sports and allowed a league that played ONLY basketball to earn an auto bid as long as it had the required number of Division I members.

I think outside the P5 you could see some conferences of convenience. Giant footprint football leagues spread over a huge geographic range, big footprint basketball leagues spread over a big geographic range and then compact regional leagues for the rest of the Olympic sports.

Id like to see the antiquated rules that govern divisional play revised to reflect the realities of larger conferences. If the rules were revised to allow the use of pods for conferences of 16 or more (maybe even allowing for internal playoffs)--a lot of possibilities would erupt from those changes. Large nationwide conferences---with enough members to form viable regional pods are possible. If internal playoffs are allowed, there is additional income to be derived from such moves. I think that's the future for the G5.

I'm not sure if a conference past 16-18 is going to work well for bowl games simply because nobody wants to play the same conference more than twice.

I still feel that a 16 team AAC with BYU, AFA, Army and NIU is a better alternative than going true coast to coast. Keep the basketball conference at 12 to maximize revenue while having 4 non-FB schools very attractive to bowls (BYU, AFA, Army, Navy).

With those schools that, could land the AAC a few more bowls with P5 schools, maybe even something like the Sun Bowl for its Champion which is what the conference really needs to assert that its a step ahead of the other non-power conferences.

There have been those who have said that the best solution to the NCAA mess is to just destory it and not replace it. That is not have a single body that governs ALL of intercollegiate athletics.

For example USA Football would govern football, the United States Soccer Federation would govern soccer, basketball could be under USA Basketball or the schools might opt to be governed by the AAU so they could squeeze the AAU to better regulate AAU youth basketball.

If a school wants to offer high level hockey or baseball and non-scholarship or low-scholarship in other sports it would be easy to do as long as they stay in Title IX compliance, schools would pick and choose. We sort of had that for a time with women's athletics with the AIAW.

In the long run that sort of deregulation would be fantastic. There are sports out there that schools like and sponsor either through athletics or the student association because there is interest but the NCAA won't sponsor such as men's rugby, cricket, curling, sailing, the martial arts, weightlifting, rodeo, etc.

There are sports that schools are sponsoring over ones that would have greater interest locally because they aren't NCAA sports. Get the NCAA out of the business of determining what sports are significant enough to be sponsored and let schools make their own decisions. Remember any new sport in the NCAA faces some opposition because schools without the sport or interest in the sport sees that new sport as another leech increasing the overhead of the NCAA.

(01-10-2014 11:58 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Back around 2003 or 2004 the NCAA changed the definition of an FBS conference.

At that time a FBS conference was simply a conference that had at least six members playing football that were FBS and it did not matter if any of them were in the conference for any other sports.

Now an FBS league is one where there are 8 full members who are FBS and play football in the league. You can have football only or non-football members as long as you have the 8 core FBS full members.

What if the NCAA in its push to "deregulation" allowed leagues to be deemed FBS simply by having 8 FBS members and might or might not sponsor any other sports and allowed a league that played ONLY basketball to earn an auto bid as long as it had the required number of Division I members.

I think outside the P5 you could see some conferences of convenience. Giant footprint football leagues spread over a huge geographic range, big footprint basketball leagues spread over a big geographic range and then compact regional leagues for the rest of the Olympic sports.

Id like to see the antiquated rules that govern divisional play revised to reflect the realities of larger conferences. If the rules were revised to allow the use of pods for conferences of 16 or more (maybe even allowing for internal playoffs)--a lot of possibilities would erupt from those changes. Large nationwide conferences---with enough members to form viable regional pods are possible. If internal playoffs are allowed, there is additional income to be derived from such moves. I think that's the future for the G5.

I'm not sure if a conference past 16-18 is going to work well for bowl games simply because nobody wants to play the same conference more than twice.

I still feel that a 16 team AAC with BYU, AFA, Army and NIU is a better alternative than going true coast to coast. Keep the basketball conference at 12 to maximize revenue while having 4 non-FB schools very attractive to bowls (BYU, AFA, Army, Navy).

With those schools that, could land the AAC a few more bowls with P5 schools, maybe even something like the Sun Bowl for its Champion which is what the conference really needs to assert that its a step ahead of the other non-power conferences.

Except BYU isn't going to give up their TV deal to join AAC, they like the money and the control they have. AFA is unlikely as well, they like their front range rivalries.

(01-10-2014 12:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:58 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Back around 2003 or 2004 the NCAA changed the definition of an FBS conference.

At that time a FBS conference was simply a conference that had at least six members playing football that were FBS and it did not matter if any of them were in the conference for any other sports.

Now an FBS league is one where there are 8 full members who are FBS and play football in the league. You can have football only or non-football members as long as you have the 8 core FBS full members.

What if the NCAA in its push to "deregulation" allowed leagues to be deemed FBS simply by having 8 FBS members and might or might not sponsor any other sports and allowed a league that played ONLY basketball to earn an auto bid as long as it had the required number of Division I members.

I think outside the P5 you could see some conferences of convenience. Giant footprint football leagues spread over a huge geographic range, big footprint basketball leagues spread over a big geographic range and then compact regional leagues for the rest of the Olympic sports.

Id like to see the antiquated rules that govern divisional play revised to reflect the realities of larger conferences. If the rules were revised to allow the use of pods for conferences of 16 or more (maybe even allowing for internal playoffs)--a lot of possibilities would erupt from those changes. Large nationwide conferences---with enough members to form viable regional pods are possible. If internal playoffs are allowed, there is additional income to be derived from such moves. I think that's the future for the G5.

I'm not sure if a conference past 16-18 is going to work well for bowl games simply because nobody wants to play the same conference more than twice.

I still feel that a 16 team AAC with BYU, AFA, Army and NIU is a better alternative than going true coast to coast. Keep the basketball conference at 12 to maximize revenue while having 4 non-FB schools very attractive to bowls (BYU, AFA, Army, Navy).

With those schools that, could land the AAC a few more bowls with P5 schools, maybe even something like the Sun Bowl for its Champion which is what the conference really needs to assert that its a step ahead of the other non-power conferences.

Except BYU isn't going to give up their TV deal to join AAC, they like the money and the control they have. AFA is unlikely as well, they like their front range rivalries.

That's where I think pods would come in handy. Being in a 6 team western pod that is part of a national conference might be attractive to those teams. BYU? My gut reaction is that they would not join. That said, BYU might be interested in a large 24 team national conference. Being part of a nationwide nationally televised conference would certainly be aligned with the ultimate goals of the LDS Church leadership---but one never knows how BYU will look at things.

(01-10-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  What if the NCAA in its push to "deregulation" allowed leagues to be deemed FBS simply by having 8 FBS members and might or might not sponsor any other sports and allowed a league that played ONLY basketball to earn an auto bid as long as it had the required number of Division I members.

I think outside the P5 you could see some conferences of convenience. Giant footprint football leagues spread over a huge geographic range, big footprint basketball leagues spread over a big geographic range and then compact regional leagues for the rest of the Olympic sports.

That would be chaos. Imagine creating a nice basketball-only conference by cherry-picking the three or four best hoops programs each out of the American and A-10, and maybe a couple from the MVC. It would eviscerate those leagues' influence in hoops. The conferences would probably tell the departing members to go pound sand if they asked to keep their other sports in the league.

(01-10-2014 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There have been those who have said that the best solution to the NCAA mess is to just destory it and not replace it. That is not have a single body that governs ALL of intercollegiate athletics.

For example USA Football would govern football, the United States Soccer Federation would govern soccer, basketball could be under USA Basketball or the schools might opt to be governed by the AAU so they could squeeze the AAU to better regulate AAU youth basketball.

If a school wants to offer high level hockey or baseball and non-scholarship or low-scholarship in other sports it would be easy to do as long as they stay in Title IX compliance, schools would pick and choose. We sort of had that for a time with women's athletics with the AIAW.

In the long run that sort of deregulation would be fantastic. There are sports out there that schools like and sponsor either through athletics or the student association because there is interest but the NCAA won't sponsor such as men's rugby, cricket, curling, sailing, the martial arts, weightlifting, rodeo, etc.

There are sports that schools are sponsoring over ones that would have greater interest locally because they aren't NCAA sports. Get the NCAA out of the business of determining what sports are significant enough to be sponsored and let schools make their own decisions. Remember any new sport in the NCAA faces some opposition because schools without the sport or interest in the sport sees that new sport as another leech increasing the overhead of the NCAA.

There's one small problem with your proposal, if you end up abolishing the NCAA, the P5 will regroup and form their own association, putting everything back at square one. Also, you'd have a lot of D-II and D-III schools(and even some non-FBS(and non-FCS for that matter) schools could go to the NAIA or NCCAA and compete there.

(01-10-2014 12:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:58 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Back around 2003 or 2004 the NCAA changed the definition of an FBS conference.

At that time a FBS conference was simply a conference that had at least six members playing football that were FBS and it did not matter if any of them were in the conference for any other sports.

Now an FBS league is one where there are 8 full members who are FBS and play football in the league. You can have football only or non-football members as long as you have the 8 core FBS full members.

What if the NCAA in its push to "deregulation" allowed leagues to be deemed FBS simply by having 8 FBS members and might or might not sponsor any other sports and allowed a league that played ONLY basketball to earn an auto bid as long as it had the required number of Division I members.

I think outside the P5 you could see some conferences of convenience. Giant footprint football leagues spread over a huge geographic range, big footprint basketball leagues spread over a big geographic range and then compact regional leagues for the rest of the Olympic sports.

Id like to see the antiquated rules that govern divisional play revised to reflect the realities of larger conferences. If the rules were revised to allow the use of pods for conferences of 16 or more (maybe even allowing for internal playoffs)--a lot of possibilities would erupt from those changes. Large nationwide conferences---with enough members to form viable regional pods are possible. If internal playoffs are allowed, there is additional income to be derived from such moves. I think that's the future for the G5.

I'm not sure if a conference past 16-18 is going to work well for bowl games simply because nobody wants to play the same conference more than twice.

I still feel that a 16 team AAC with BYU, AFA, Army and NIU is a better alternative than going true coast to coast. Keep the basketball conference at 12 to maximize revenue while having 4 non-FB schools very attractive to bowls (BYU, AFA, Army, Navy).

With those schools that, could land the AAC a few more bowls with P5 schools, maybe even something like the Sun Bowl for its Champion which is what the conference really needs to assert that its a step ahead of the other non-power conferences.

Except BYU isn't going to give up their TV deal to join AAC, they like the money and the control they have. AFA is unlikely as well, they like their front range rivalries.

Yes. That is the current line of thinking.

My thoughts are more for when BYU's TV is up an in advance of the 2020-25 bowl cycle. The desire to stay with the front range opponents by Air Force would be met if both Army and Navy were part of the conference schedule. Colorado State becomes a non conference game for AFA.

For other sports AFA could go into the WCC with Denver. That would be a better fit for those two schools to be among the privates. They can still play New Mexico, Colorado St, Wyoming in the non conference schedule if they want to.

My hunch is that the multi-sport rules will eventually become more strict. This keeps the riffraff out of Division I. There is also value in keeping conferences at a reasonable size - it limits supply to keep prices (rights fees from TV networks) up, but not drive them up so much that TV balks altogether.

Cable TV has also ensured us that schools wouldn't rush to drop sports even if they could. Even the big-time football an basketball schools are finding they can make money off of hockey, baseball, etc. There is also the importance of keeping alumni connected to the school in as many ways as possible.