(07-14-2016 04:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 01:24 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  My solution to that problem - and it is a real problem - is to stop funding the NCAA through the NCAAT. With the minimal dues required to be in D-I, there might as well be none at all. If there were sizable dues, commensurate with the actual cost of funding D-I activities (probably at least $1 million) then I think the question of who "belongs" in D-I will sort itself out.

As long as there is "free money" available to schools, many will take it, even if it means competing at a level way above their heads. Turn off that spigot and see how many schools drop down in class.

That would work. But the NCAA would fight to the death to keep it from happening. The power of the NCAA officers and bureaucrats derives from their control over the March Madness money, how much they distribute to the schools, which schools get it, how much the NCAA keeps for itself, how easy it is for the NCAA to inflate its own budgets and salaries because the overhead isn't coming directly from the schools' own pockets... all of that is the NCAA's lifeblood.

If the NCAA became pay-as-you-go for each school, the NCAA headquarters would have a lot less power and would face far greater scrutiny from the members. Emmert & Co. won't let that happen unless the P5 is on the very brink of leaving and this becomes the only way for the NCAA to survive at all.

I think we creep closer to that every day.

I don't think thats the case at all. Most of the complaining about the NCAA is from coaches who would still have the similar rules in place if the P5 ran themselves.

The coaches might be the ones publicly complaining but trust me when I say that there is no love loss between AD's and school administration and the NCAA. They are the ones who have to deal with the ever-growing NCAA bureaucracy directly, not the coaches.The reason the coaches are the ones doing it in public is because they have the bully pulpit at most schools.

Call it the NCAA or something else, there is always going to be a bureaucracy running college sports. Some group has to be disconnected from the schools if they want their rules enforced.

(07-13-2016 05:48 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 05:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I voted Most of D-I simply because it's the closest to solving what the real problem is.


The real problem that most of the upper half of D-I (including G5 schools and the better basketball conferences) is not a football/basketball divide or a P5/G5 divide......it's the fact that there's a significant number of schools who have no business in D-I who made the move to cash in on March Madness money. These D-I in name only schools haven't invested in their programs and are happy just to cash their NCAA check every year.

There's at least 100 programs currently in D-I that have absolutely no business being there. That's where the problem is.

In your opinion, what constitutes an athletic department with no business being in DI?

Length of time in DI? Facilities? Operating at bare minimum?

All of the above?

What criteria would you use to sort out the bottom one-hundred?

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

This list is of course only the state schools reporting, but I'd say the bottom 30 or so on this list plus the private schools in the same expense range would probably be a reasonable marker for lobbing off the very bottom.

Per the poll results so far, it's good to see we're all on the same page.

(07-14-2016 10:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 05:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I voted Most of D-I simply because it's the closest to solving what the real problem is.


The real problem that most of the upper half of D-I (including G5 schools and the better basketball conferences) is not a football/basketball divide or a P5/G5 divide......it's the fact that there's a significant number of schools who have no business in D-I who made the move to cash in on March Madness money. These D-I in name only schools haven't invested in their programs and are happy just to cash their NCAA check every year.

There's at least 100 programs currently in D-I that have absolutely no business being there. That's where the problem is.

My solution to that problem - and it is a real problem - is to stop funding the NCAA through the NCAAT. With the minimal dues required to be in D-I, there might as well be none at all. If there were sizable dues, commensurate with the actual cost of funding D-I activities (probably at least $1 million) then I think the question of who "belongs" in D-I will sort itself out.

As long as there is "free money" available to schools, many will take it, even if it means competing at a level way above their heads. Turn off that spigot and see how many schools drop down in class.

Not a bad idea at all.

I had a similar thought but I was thinking the buy-in should be $5 million/year.

I'm not sure what to do about bowl games and NCAAT revenue.

(07-14-2016 04:37 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 04:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 01:24 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That would work. But the NCAA would fight to the death to keep it from happening. The power of the NCAA officers and bureaucrats derives from their control over the March Madness money, how much they distribute to the schools, which schools get it, how much the NCAA keeps for itself, how easy it is for the NCAA to inflate its own budgets and salaries because the overhead isn't coming directly from the schools' own pockets... all of that is the NCAA's lifeblood.

If the NCAA became pay-as-you-go for each school, the NCAA headquarters would have a lot less power and would face far greater scrutiny from the members. Emmert & Co. won't let that happen unless the P5 is on the very brink of leaving and this becomes the only way for the NCAA to survive at all.

I think we creep closer to that every day.

I don't think thats the case at all. Most of the complaining about the NCAA is from coaches who would still have the similar rules in place if the P5 ran themselves.

The coaches might be the ones publicly complaining but trust me when I say that there is no love loss between AD's and school administration and the NCAA. They are the ones who have to deal with the ever-growing NCAA bureaucracy directly, not the coaches.The reason the coaches are the ones doing it in public is because they have the bully pulpit at most schools.

Call it the NCAA or something else, there is always going to be a bureaucracy running college sports. Some group has to be disconnected from the schools if they want their rules enforced.

I doubt that anybody concerned believes that there will not be an independent sanctioning body, it's just that the schools themselves are getting tired of the ever-expanding NCAA bureaucracy that somehow has the ability to exceed it's authority (Penn State) ignore it (UNC) and incompetence (Miami) all at the same time. They are tired of the inconsistency that constantly comes out of Indianapolis in regards to rules interpretation and enforcement.

I think the P5 schools do eventually want to form their own division, but a problem currently hinders that, and I think it's something that a lot of fans forget, except for one , possibly two conference commissioner who does get it as well as the presidents of the schools in his conference. That problem, believe it or not is March Madness. True, P5 schools do make millions off of the event , but still I have to think that the P5 schools that excell in basketball can't help but wonder what if March Madness was restricted to P5 schools, and the conferences and schools that excell in football know that for the most part, football-only conferences don't exist anymore. But an immediate shrinking of Div I or the creation of a D4 consisting only of P5's or dare I say P4's would bring way too much outcry from Div I as March Madness would no longer be as we have come to know it to be, so the conference commissioners and presidents decide on a stealthier, but potentially risky option: pare down Div I to the current FBS schools and the major conferences in basketball, like the Big East, A10, etc. for now, and then pare the rest later

(07-14-2016 08:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I doubt that anybody concerned believes that there will not be an independent sanctioning body, it's just that the schools themselves are getting tired of the ever-expanding NCAA bureaucracy that somehow has the ability to exceed it's authority (Penn State) ignore it (UNC) and incompetence (Miami) all at the same time. They are tired of the inconsistency that constantly comes out of Indianapolis in regards to rules interpretation and enforcement.

Wow, never seen it put so bluntly yet so true.

There definitely seems to be a conflict. The NCAA doesn't seem to be truly independent when they are dependent on revenue from the member schools - in particular the largest / wealthiest schools. They obviously lack power as seen in how the CFP is setup. Perhaps the NCAA can become more of the independent body if the championships are removed from their control.

Another option, could the regional accrediting bodies (like SACS) do more on the academic side of things? Take more responsibility for the oversight of the academic side of athletics?

So, which big schools are out in the open publicly complaining about how the NCAA needs to reduce the size of DI, or else they're considering leaving the NCAA??

Don't think it's out there. Sounds like message board chatter.

(07-15-2016 08:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So, which big schools are out in the open publicly complaining about how the NCAA needs to reduce the size of DI, or else they're considering leaving the NCAA??

Don't think it's out there. Sounds like message board chatter.

Bowlsby and the Memphis president aren't message board posters. And it has been mentioned by various media members quite often.

BTW, John Calipari brought it up a couple of years ago, and was quoted in the media as saying it should/would be about 72 schools, more or less. Plenty of other examples if my memory was better.

The P5 schools want all the pie. But they also want to play all their games at home...and want to play OOC schools that can guarantee them a 6-win season and bowl eligibility. They also want travel eased for Olympic sports and regional midweek baseball opponents.

You can't have all of it.

P5 football fans just want an NFL-lite so they can feel exclusive and special club members. Whether or not it makes any actual sense overall.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I think the attraction of March Madness for a lot of non-serious basketball people is about brackets. The format of 64 teams and three weekends is perfect for that. Any shrinking of D1 should keep it at least big enough to where a 64 team tournament is reasonable. That means 128 teams at an absolute minimum - and that would be a ridiculous 50% of the teams in the field. Somewhere around 192-256 teams is reasonable (25-33%).

(07-15-2016 03:24 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I think the P5 schools do eventually want to form their own division, but a problem currently hinders that, and I think it's something that a lot of fans forget, except for one , possibly two conference commissioner who does get it as well as the presidents of the schools in his conference. That problem, believe it or not is March Madness. True, P5 schools do make millions off of the event , but still I have to think that the P5 schools that excell in basketball can't help but wonder what if March Madness was restricted to P5 schools, and the conferences and schools that excell in football know that for the most part, football-only conferences don't exist anymore. But an immediate shrinking of Div I or the creation of a D4 consisting only of P5's or dare I say P4's would bring way too much outcry from Div I as March Madness would no longer be as we have come to know it to be, so the conference commissioners and presidents decide on a stealthier, but potentially risky option: pare down Div I to the current FBS schools and the major conferences in basketball, like the Big East, A10, etc. for now, and then pare the rest later

A basketball tournament that has less schools or a lot of schools with losing records in it will not be worth nearly as much to the TV partners. Look whats happening with the CFP. The P5 wanted these games on NYE. It was a ratings disaster and now they are moving away from that. Having a P5/P4 only tournament will be a ratings disaster. The TV partners want a large tournament of many conferences. They will always get what they want.

The following conferences have a total of 168 members among them:

A10
AAC
ACC
Big Ten
Big 12
Big East
Conf USA
MAC
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
PAC 12
SEC
Sunbelt
West Coast

This includes the entire FBS except Army, New Mexico State and UMass. I could live with any 64 team bracket that would produce.

(07-15-2016 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  The following conferences have a total of 168 members among them:

A10
AAC
ACC
Big Ten
Big 12
Big East
Conf USA
MAC
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
PAC 12
SEC
Sunbelt
West Coast

This includes the entire FBS except Army, New Mexico State and UMass. I could live with any 64 team bracket that would produce.

There are many conferences that have better overall athletic programs (number of sports sponsor, revenue, expenses) than both the MVC and the Sun Belt.

CAA, Ivy and Patriot are far ahead of both. America East and Big West are slightly ahead. Big Sky is slightly behind the two.

Add those 5 conferences you bring the total to 223. This also gives representation from all states except Alaska and South Dakota. Adding the other Dakota schools in solves that.

(07-15-2016 10:27 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  The P5 schools want all the pie. But they also want to play all their games at home...and want to play OOC schools that can guarantee them a 6-win season and bowl eligibility. They also want travel eased for Olympic sports and regional midweek baseball opponents.

You can't have all of it.

P5 football fans just want an NFL-lite so they can feel exclusive and special club members. Whether or not it makes any actual sense overall.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Great post and you are probably right.

Cheers!

I think my suspicions could be correct, and the Big West ADs might be onto something. There are rumors now floating out there that Gonzaga could be adding football to put themselves in position for a split. St. Mary's and Pacific should do the same, and those three along with BYU could leave the other schools behind. Not every school in WCC would be welcome since they are not there in sports.

(07-15-2016 02:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  The following conferences have a total of 168 members among them:

A10
AAC
ACC
Big Ten
Big 12
Big East
Conf USA
MAC
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
PAC 12
SEC
Sunbelt
West Coast

This includes the entire FBS except Army, New Mexico State and UMass. I could live with any 64 team bracket that would produce.

There are many conferences that have better overall athletic programs (number of sports sponsor, revenue, expenses) than both the MVC and the Sun Belt.

CAA, Ivy and Patriot are far ahead of both. America East and Big West are slightly ahead. Big Sky is slightly behind the two.

Add those 5 conferences you bring the total to 223. This also gives representation from all states except Alaska and South Dakota. Adding the other Dakota schools in solves that.

Keep in mind that, if there were to be a split in which schools choose to leave the NCAA, it won't be conferences that leave or stay. It will be individual schools, each of which will have to weigh the cost of entry into the new organization, which will be much higher than it is for them currently.

So, when I include the Atlantic 10, for example, I'm not going to assume that all 14 current members would choose to leave. And there are some individual schools not in any of the conferences we named that might opt to move. If a split occurs, you start with a clean slate, conference-wise, especially outside the current FBS. There is likely to be a lot of horse trading, with some schools electing to drop football rather than compete way above their weight class.

A split would be very complex for a lot of schools, and there would be hard decisions to be made. And the current P5 would dictate the terms everyone else would have to agree to. I doubt, when all is said and done, that there would be significantly more than 150 schools that would leave the NCAA.

(07-16-2016 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 02:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  The following conferences have a total of 168 members among them:

A10
AAC
ACC
Big Ten
Big 12
Big East
Conf USA
MAC
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
PAC 12
SEC
Sunbelt
West Coast

This includes the entire FBS except Army, New Mexico State and UMass. I could live with any 64 team bracket that would produce.

There are many conferences that have better overall athletic programs (number of sports sponsor, revenue, expenses) than both the MVC and the Sun Belt.

CAA, Ivy and Patriot are far ahead of both. America East and Big West are slightly ahead. Big Sky is slightly behind the two.

Add those 5 conferences you bring the total to 223. This also gives representation from all states except Alaska and South Dakota. Adding the other Dakota schools in solves that.

Keep in mind that, if there were to be a split in which schools choose to leave the NCAA, it won't be conferences that leave or stay. It will be individual schools, each of which will have to weigh the cost of entry into the new organization, which will be much higher than it is for them currently.

So, when I include the Atlantic 10, for example, I'm not going to assume that all 14 current members would choose to leave. And there are some individual schools not in any of the conferences we named that might opt to move. If a split occurs, you start with a clean slate, conference-wise, especially outside the current FBS. There is likely to be a lot of horse trading, with some schools electing to drop football rather than compete way above their weight class.

A split would be very complex for a lot of schools, and there would be hard decisions to be made. And the current P5 would dictate the terms everyone else would have to agree to. I doubt, when all is said and done, that there would be significantly more than 150 schools that would leave the NCAA.

Both, you have to take into fact that schools not in the P5 are affiliates of the P5. Not everybody in the P5 conferences have wrestling and all that. When it would be said and done, there could be 5 regions.

PAC 12: West Coast schools
Big 12: Central Plains
Big 10:Midwest
ACC:Atlantic Coast
SEC: Southeast

Air Force: Big 12 affiliate
North Dakota State: Big 12
Old Dominion: Big 12
South Dakota State: Big 12
Wyoming: Big 12
Johns Hopkins: Big 10
U. of Chicago D3 former founding member of the Big 10
Boise State: PAC 12
Cal. Poly, SLO: PAC 12
San Diego State:PAC 12
Cal.-Davis:PAC 12
Fresno State: PAC 12
Portland State: PAC 12
San Jose State:PAC 12
Utah State: PAC 12
Tulane:former founding member of SEC

So, ACC and MWC will all be taken.
La. Tech, Marshall, Middle Tennessee State, Charlotte, Rice, S. Miss., UTEP, Western Kentucky and UTSA would go as well. UAB would be blocked by Alabama from joining.
Army is going. I think the Patriot League might go.
UMass. would be accepted.
MAC except for Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Ball State and a couple more that might not get accepted.
Sun Belt:Arkansas State, Texas State, La.-Lafayette, La.-Monroe, Georgia Southern, South alabama, Appalachian State and maybe Coastal Carolina would go.
Some of the Big Sky, some from CAA, Liberty, a couple from MEAC, MVFC except for Western Illinois, Central Conn. State, Jacksonville State, Tennessee State, Eastern Kentucky, a couple of Pioneer teams if they decide to go scholarships for football like Dayton, Butler and those, several Southland schools, Southern Conference, a couple from SWAC, plus several D2 schools that have sports that the P5 needs them to join them like the hockey, baseball, soccer and LAX.

TripleA,

Bowlsby was just trying to deflect question about Big 12 expansion. So he threw out a grenade, knowing it would take the heat off expansion for a while from the rabid (online) journalist desperate for a quote to throw in their click-bait Big 12 expansion pieces.

No idea what you're talking about with Memphis prez. But since Memphis isn't in the Big 12, but desperately wants to be, I doubt what he says has any weight.

"Various media members" --> ie "stirring people up for attention, click-bait".

(07-16-2016 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  TripleA,

Bowlsby was just trying to deflect question about Big 12 expansion. So he threw out a grenade, knowing it would take the heat off expansion for a while from the rabid (online) journalist desperate for a quote to throw in their click-bait Big 12 expansion pieces.

No idea what you're talking about with Memphis prez. But since Memphis isn't in the Big 12, but desperately wants to be, I doubt what he says has any weight.

"Various media members" --> ie "stirring people up for attention, click-bait".

I don't see Memphis getting the call because of their profile.

Cincinnati and Houston appear to be much safer choices.

Memphis
Undergrad Main Campus 17,222
Graduate Students 4,258
Endowment $218 million

Cincinnati
Undergrad Main Campus 25,706
Graduate Students 10,673
Endowment $1.2 billion

Houston
Undergrad Main Campus 36,830
Graduate Students 7,874
Endowment $716 million