What if the Big Ten expanded and grabbed up all the AAU schools in FBS + former AAU schools in Syracuse and Nebraska. The Big Ten could be a league of its own and play a sport schedule similar to professional leagues. This conference would also lead the way in academic research and could share billions of grant money and athletic money creating a true force to go against the NCAA. Here is what that conference might look like:

(04-07-2015 11:06 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  What if the Big Ten expanded and grabbed up all the AAU schools in FBS + former AAU schools in Syracuse and Nebraska. The Big Ten could be a league of its own and play a sport schedule similar to professional leagues. This conference would also lead the way in academic research and could share billions of grant money and athletic money creating a true force to go against the NCAA. Here is what that conference might look like:

I like the ACC better. Although, I would like to be in a conference with UMD and PSU. After that, I don't really care about any of the B1G schools (or the other random assorted schools that would be picked up in the process).

(04-07-2015 11:06 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  What if the Big Ten expanded and grabbed up all the AAU schools in FBS + former AAU schools in Syracuse and Nebraska. The Big Ten could be a league of its own and play a sport schedule similar to professional leagues. This conference would also lead the way in academic research and could share billions of grant money and athletic money creating a true force to go against the NCAA. Here is what that conference might look like:

Why would they share grant money?

Just put the top 64 football schools under one umbrella and call it the National Collegiate Football Conference. Let the networks compete against each other for a share of the pie. All of the other sports can remain under the current status quo.

(04-07-2015 12:37 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Just put the top 64 football schools under one umbrella and call it the National Collegiate Football Conference. Let the networks compete against each other for a share of the pie. All of the other sports can remain under the current status quo.

Something like this is bound to happen one day, in a sense. It's the only way to completely maximize media revenue, like the NFL does.

The conferences might try to maintain some autonomy from each other, to maintain the conference tradition.

(04-07-2015 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  Why would they share grant money?

there is no "grant money" to share

the CIC has no funding and no money to share the CIC is merely a means to COOPERATE to try and obtain outside grants.....something that ALL universities are capable of and do often the CIC just makes the accounting of that process easier

so they would not be "sharing" anything because there is nothing to "share" and in fact if more schools were in that system it would most likely be slightly even easier

but again schools in different conferences and schools in and out of the CIC cooperate all the time like on the GMT and the 30m Telescopes (two competing proposals that have universities in the same conference on different proposals as well as schools in many different conferences in the same proposal)

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 12:37 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Just put the top 64 football schools under one umbrella and call it the National Collegiate Football Conference. Let the networks compete against each other for a share of the pie. All of the other sports can remain under the current status quo.

Something like this is bound to happen one day, in a sense. It's the only way to completely maximize media revenue, like the NFL does.

The conferences might try to maintain some autonomy from each other, to maintain the conference tradition.

it already has happened it was called the CFA and Georgia and OU sued to get out of it and to gain back control of their media rights because they were not being shown on TV very often and too many other schools that were investing nothing in their programs were getting equal money for bringing nothing to the table

it was the breakup of the CFA that brought the big money and the sports networks that exist today

(04-07-2015 02:44 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  Why would they share grant money?

there is no "grant money" to share

the CIC has no funding and no money to share the CIC is merely a means to COOPERATE to try and obtain outside grants.....something that ALL universities are capable of and do often the CIC just makes the accounting of that process easier

so they would not be "sharing" anything because there is nothing to "share" and in fact if more schools were in that system it would most likely be slightly even easier

but again schools in different conferences and schools in and out of the CIC cooperate all the time like on the GMT and the 30m Telescopes (two competing proposals that have universities in the same conference on different proposals as well as schools in many different conferences in the same proposal)

If you look at what the CIC does, it has very little, if anything, to do with grants. It's mostly about sharing IT and library resources, and combining purchasing power. To say it's a factor in athletic affiliations makes no sense.

(04-07-2015 02:46 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it already has happened it was called the CFA and Georgia and OU sued to get out of it and to gain back control of their media rights because they were not being shown on TV very often and too many other schools that were investing nothing in their programs were getting equal money for bringing nothing to the table

it was the breakup of the CFA that brought the big money and the sports networks that exist today

That's fine.

But they're leaving money on the table negotiating five separate media deals. Simple fact of the matter.

They'll want that money bad enough, one day.

(04-07-2015 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you look at what the CIC does, it has very little, if anything, to do with grants. It's mostly about sharing IT and library resources, and combining purchasing power. To say it's a factor in athletic affiliations makes no sense.

The "Academic Big Ten" is an extremely desirable affiliation to hold.

Just because Cincy is on the outside of that affiliation does not mean you can dismiss it.

(04-07-2015 12:37 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Just put the top 64 football schools under one umbrella and call it the National Collegiate Football Conference. Let the networks compete against each other for a share of the pie. All of the other sports can remain under the current status quo.

That's what I have been hinting at for a while now. Although I would call it the National Collegiate Athletic League, since they won't want to use Association.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-07-2015 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:46 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it already has happened it was called the CFA and Georgia and OU sued to get out of it and to gain back control of their media rights because they were not being shown on TV very often and too many other schools that were investing nothing in their programs were getting equal money for bringing nothing to the table

it was the breakup of the CFA that brought the big money and the sports networks that exist today

That's fine.

But they're leaving money on the table negotiating five separate media deals. Simple fact of the matter.

They'll want that money bad enough, one day.

this is just your simple opinion and really easy to disprove

with a single contract for all 65 teams you have one provider that will bid for that

there are only so many hours in the day to show football you can show about 5 games a day max per channel and that is starting early in the AM and going late into the might

with 65 teams (say 66 with BYU) you have 33 games that could be contested at any one time if all teams were going to play that day

you would need 6+ channels to show all of that content and no single bidder is going to bid a massive bid based on the concept that they will need 6+ channels all competing with each other for viewers and advertisers ect......that simply makes no sense at all and would not happen

media companies use live sports to promote upcoming shows as well and to launch new shows immediately after live sports content in the hopes that viewers tune in and do not change the channel......this is seen with the super bowl, baseball playoffs, NBA playoffs and on and on

when you have a single media company especially one like ESPN that is mainly sports content with not much other programming and that single company is trying to run 6+ channels to show all the content you claim they would pay huge money for you have pretty much flushed down the toilet many opportunities for cross promotion of other network shows and for hoping that viewers tune in to a show after "the big game"

all the more when you are showing football from dawn to dusk and well beyond dusk to get all the games in that day.....no one is tuning in for a "big new network show" at 2am eastern

the NFL is 32 teams in the MAJOR USA markets that is at most 16 games a day and the NFL can show many more of their games in a regional basis and still draw a large number of fans because those teams are the "home town team" that does not work when you have major cities with more than one and sometimes several universities in the same city all with different fan bases

the NFL is a much more even league as far as team parity especially in modern times and with the salary cap.....not so for the NCAA and D1-A P5 sports

so providers want some premium games as their "big game" for over the air and they want some other regional games that will sell in that region

they do not want 33 games that they have to find a way to show when and where and how on how many networks how many hours a day all with a single rights holder that bid huge to then compete with itself for viewers and basically take the cross promotional and lead in opportunities of live sports to ZERO

you can hold YOUR OPINION all you wish, but 65+ athletics directors that do this for a living and that have been in the business since the CFA was broken and that have seen the massive rise in TV money 100% disagree with you

(04-07-2015 03:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you look at what the CIC does, it has very little, if anything, to do with grants. It's mostly about sharing IT and library resources, and combining purchasing power. To say it's a factor in athletic affiliations makes no sense.

The "Academic Big Ten" is an extremely desirable affiliation to hold.

Just because Cincy is on the outside of that affiliation does not mean you can dismiss it.

while it certainly does not hurt, it is hardly the major thing that people make it out to be and universities across the country in all types of conferences and even those with few if any sports programs cooperate on grants, purchasing and the like and they do not need an athletic conference to do so

and really if you look at the numbers NU has declined in grant funding and especially federal funding by a significant amount since they left the Big 12 and joined the Big 10 and while correlation does not equal causation it is pretty clear that the CIC is not some big huge major thing that all others wish they could be a part of because of grant money (they have none) or purchasing power or the like....there are plenty of other ways to do the same thing and that happens across academia

(04-07-2015 03:32 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:46 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it already has happened it was called the CFA and Georgia and OU sued to get out of it and to gain back control of their media rights because they were not being shown on TV very often and too many other schools that were investing nothing in their programs were getting equal money for bringing nothing to the table

it was the breakup of the CFA that brought the big money and the sports networks that exist today

That's fine.

But they're leaving money on the table negotiating five separate media deals. Simple fact of the matter.

They'll want that money bad enough, one day.

this is just your simple opinion and really easy to disprove

with a single contract for all 65 teams you have one provider that will bid for that

I stopped reading at this point.

Nowhere did MplsBison say a single contract or one provider. You internalized that, and did so incorrectly, imho. Does the NFL have a single contract and one provider? The NBA? MLB?

What was being said was that they could negotiate from a better position of power as one unit instead of 5. Not to mention having a national network developed that will be able to show sports from August through June, unlike any other major sports network out there.

Cheers,
Neil

I heard an interesting theory on the radio the other day. It was a reputable sports personality / writer but I can't think of who it was to save my life right now.
Here's the gist of what he thought was going to happen. There will be 3 governing bodies for what is currently Division 1 sports.

1 - for FBS football
1 - for division 1 Basketball
1 - for everything else

I think this is the best idea I've heard in a while. If I can find the interview I'll post it.

again college sports are not the pros

the pros have set schedules years in advance with divisions and then intra-divisional play known years in advance

with college sports the media companies have no idea what games are coming outside of conference games until a brief period of time (in terms of media rights and content) when OOC games are schedules

media companies are not going to bid against each other AND with each other for for portions of contracts and for the rights to games when they have no idea how those games will be laid out and what those games (outside of conference play) will be

with pro sports media companies can bid with much more confidence about the level of games they are going to have the rights to because of the parity of pro sports and because it is known well in advance what divisions will be facing each other and what the matchups will be even if you do not know how good those teams will be in that matchup

with college sports you are bidding on a much less known commodity hen you agree to take "second pick" or "third pick" of the weekly games

the way that media companies overcome that is they bid on the conferences they want based on mainly the value they hope for of the conference games and the OOC games are just tossed into the mix and if there is a second tier partner they still have a general idea of what type of content they will be picking from

trying to have 66 teams that are very dissimilar and schedules that have 25% to 33% of them unknown in terms of matchups and quality of both opponents in upcoming years is not going to have people tossing huge money on that large quantity of unknown

if anyone wants to too their lot in together and take advantage of "all that content and media power" I suggest the G5 conferences give it a try and when it fails they can just be that much further behind

(04-07-2015 03:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you look at what the CIC does, it has very little, if anything, to do with grants. It's mostly about sharing IT and library resources, and combining purchasing power. To say it's a factor in athletic affiliations makes no sense.

The "Academic Big Ten" is an extremely desirable affiliation to hold.

Just because Cincy is on the outside of that affiliation does not mean you can dismiss it.

Cincy? What do they have to do with anything?

(04-07-2015 03:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you look at what the CIC does, it has very little, if anything, to do with grants. It's mostly about sharing IT and library resources, and combining purchasing power. To say it's a factor in athletic affiliations makes no sense.

The "Academic Big Ten" is an extremely desirable affiliation to hold.

Just because Cincy is on the outside of that affiliation does not mean you can dismiss it.

while it certainly does not hurt, it is hardly the major thing that people make it out to be and universities across the country in all types of conferences and even those with few if any sports programs cooperate on grants, purchasing and the like and they do not need an athletic conference to do so

and really if you look at the numbers NU has declined in grant funding and especially federal funding by a significant amount since they left the Big 12 and joined the Big 10 and while correlation does not equal causation it is pretty clear that the CIC is not some big huge major thing that all others wish they could be a part of because of grant money (they have none) or purchasing power or the like....there are plenty of other ways to do the same thing and that happens across academia

It isn't a huge end all be all thing. I agree there. Its pretty much a means to share/integrate IT resources, share/integrate library resources, increase purchasing power and its also a means to share distance learning and study abroad opportunities amongst all 15 members.

(04-07-2015 04:03 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  again college sports are not the pros

the pros have set schedules years in advance with divisions and then intra-divisional play known years in advance

with college sports the media companies have no idea what games are coming outside of conference games until a brief period of time (in terms of media rights and content) when OOC games are schedules

You're still thinking in restrictive terms of "conferences". Start thinking divisions and the same pro set ups of divisional games and cross-divisional games can be done in college athletics.

Quote:with college sports you are bidding on a much less known commodity hen you agree to take "second pick" or "third pick" of the weekly games

Why? We already have games competing against each other in the same time slots over three major networks in college football, sometimes 4 with NBC and the ND game and multiple national and local networks in terms of college basketball.

Quote:if anyone wants to too their lot in together and take advantage of "all that content and media power" I suggest the G5 conferences give it a try and when it fails they can just be that much further behind

Right. Just like the WAC proved going beyond 12 teams was not worth it and the mtn proved college conference networks would never work?

Cheers,
Neil