(10-07-2022 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 02:35 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They won't force anyone out. They'll simply wait until they can't afford to compete.

those who are quietly for a breakaway will hope for it to occur organically rather than by defection. As long as that looks likely they will slow play it. When basketball is monetized, the division will be complete.

it is happening now, and the catalyst resides in demographic changes which are converging for a paradigm shift.

But hey, your sources aren't going to touch that. The zeitgeist is to downplay discussion about anything else which will cause major changes.

So are we getting drastic changes, or aren't we?

Are we talking about the proposed changes rolling out in the next few months or are we talking about changes you predict will happen over the next 30 years?

I think many of the changes will happen in the next 5 years. Some may take a bit longer. When to fully monetize hoops is a bit hazier. But the money goes into effect with the new contracts.

As to drastic change you've already had a dose! NIL was a massive change and a certain move away from amateurism. The moves of Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, and U.C.L.A. are also massive. If you want an asteroid impact as a sign and wonder, you probably won't see that.

You will (likely in the next five years) see further consolidation and a definite separation of the Big 10 and SEC from everyone else. Will a third conference form, or will we have 2 P conferences (ACC / Big 12) remain? I think we'll know that long before 2035. The demographic changes are converging around 2035 with the youngest Boomers being 74 and the oldest surviving ones 90. This is the last well vested generation from the middle class.

Over the past 20 years the upper 5% gained 12% in revenue with almost all of it coming from the middle class. This changes donation and ticket priority money which has been a standard since WWII, and which reached a peak in the 70's and 80's. Corporate donors will eclipse these, but the level of personal attachment won't be the same.

The birthrate for the past 20 years has been in decline. Not only will college athletic conferences consolidate further to reduce overhead and gain leverage in bargaining, but schools and the functions of schools within systems will change. The major flagships have all been in a frantic building campaign as they seek to increase undergraduate enrollment from a shrinking pool of applicants which means in state students will be funneled into the large state schools and smaller state schools will specialize and 2-year schools may vanish as surely as the appeared to cover the swell of enrollment following WWII and through the Boom. So, in part these moves are also about maintaining status in a drawback.

The downward moves you see in equities are in preparation for Boomer retirement funds being liquidated. 401kK, 403b, pensions, IRA's, Roth IRA's are all being cashed in and that will crescendo in the next 5-10 years. And remember the Boom is a global phenomenon which means all countries are facing the same need to decelerate economies so that they can apply brakes to the process before the economy runs off of the demographic cliff ~ 2035. The next 10 years will not be pleasant economically but if managed properly some solid things for young people will come out of it. Housing should actually drop while interest is high and when Boomers are gone there will be a nice supply of solid homes with a smaller number of buyers. This means some real bargains and a lower cost of life as far as housing. Alternative energy will have to accelerate, or the cost of fuel will offset the housing savings. It hasn't been formerly acknowledged but we are past peak oil according to some insiders in O&G. This means demand will not be met. It is also crucial that we set aside a portion of it for fertilizer. The population of the earth stayed around 3.5 billion until the 1880's when oil was used as fertilizer increasing yields 20 fold which allowed the population to explode to 5 billion and since WWII to over 8 billion.

A better and affordable nonpetroleum based fertilizer has yet to emerge. Therefore, food may continue to go up even as population levels off for a few decades between 2035-2065. Why is government always disingenuous? Because food and fuel aren't counted in the core inflation rate. Oops!

Jobs and wages should be plentiful and more lucrative. Less competition, especially in STEM and skilled occupations.

Now why did I explain all of this? Because all of it is playing a part in realignment, though few will talk about something which would cause concern. Actually, I'm relieved they are starting on the issues 14 years ahead of time. This means there's a good chance it doesn't get too ugly.

Downsizing in higher ed means consolidation as a business model. Consolidation for sports is about brand maintenance and money which seems to equate to enrollment.

This is why I am confident that changes will occur before 2035. Nobody looking at the event horizon on these issues will want to wait on changes which secure their capacity to survive and thrive and the economic pressures to move will extend to matters well beyond athletics.

This is why the myopic who only look backwards at why moves happened are missing the moves which are occurring. When they look backwards, they only look at what happened when all things external were stable. They are no longer stable. What made schools move in the past simply doesn't translate into what is currently happening.

I posted on this board that Texas and Oklahoma don't move for mere money. Giants look to the horizon when planning and when they see a storm on that horizon that scares them, then they move. Texas and Oklahoma and Southern Cal and U.C.L.A. knew where we were headed and sought a safer harbor for the next few decades. I don't believe in 100-year moves. That's fan talk.

The panorama says more change relatively soon, as 2035 passes to the rearview mirror then if football is still a thing beloved by the new generation, I'm sure some old conventions and saws for realignment will return. But we aren't in those times, and the adjustments we face now will be daunting and safe harbors for big brand athletics will be the SEC and Big 10. Jack Swarbrick can talk about orbits because that isn't threatening or alarming. He would never say there are only 2 safe harbors to weather the coming storm. First the public who is always behind the curve would say, "What the hell did he just say? That's crazy!" and second when reality sinks in it might preempt ticket sales.

And you think this committee, meeting right now, with some proposals likely being released in the coming months is going to make drastic changes because of all the big picture stuff you outlined here?


I disagree, but I guess we'll see if things are drastically different or not in the next few months. I certainly don't think you're going to see a "top-level college football breakaway group" based on attendance.

(10-07-2022 04:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 02:35 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They won't force anyone out. They'll simply wait until they can't afford to compete.

those who are quietly for a breakaway will hope for it to occur organically rather than by defection. As long as that looks likely they will slow play it. When basketball is monetized, the division will be complete.

it is happening now, and the catalyst resides in demographic changes which are converging for a paradigm shift.

But hey, your sources aren't going to touch that. The zeitgeist is to downplay discussion about anything else which will cause major changes.

So are we getting drastic changes, or aren't we?

Are we talking about the proposed changes rolling out in the next few months or are we talking about changes you predict will happen over the next 30 years?

I think many of the changes will happen in the next 5 years. Some may take a bit longer. When to fully monetize hoops is a bit hazier. But the money goes into effect with the new contracts.

As to drastic change you've already had a dose! NIL was a massive change and a certain move away from amateurism. The moves of Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, and U.C.L.A. are also massive. If you want an asteroid impact as a sign and wonder, you probably won't see that.

You will (likely in the next five years) see further consolidation and a definite separation of the Big 10 and SEC from everyone else. Will a third conference form, or will we have 2 P conferences (ACC / Big 12) remain? I think we'll know that long before 2035. The demographic changes are converging around 2035 with the youngest Boomers being 74 and the oldest surviving ones 90. This is the last well vested generation from the middle class.

Over the past 20 years the upper 5% gained 12% in revenue with almost all of it coming from the middle class. This changes donation and ticket priority money which has been a standard since WWII, and which reached a peak in the 70's and 80's. Corporate donors will eclipse these, but the level of personal attachment won't be the same.

The birthrate for the past 20 years has been in decline. Not only will college athletic conferences consolidate further to reduce overhead and gain leverage in bargaining, but schools and the functions of schools within systems will change. The major flagships have all been in a frantic building campaign as they seek to increase undergraduate enrollment from a shrinking pool of applicants which means in state students will be funneled into the large state schools and smaller state schools will specialize and 2-year schools may vanish as surely as the appeared to cover the swell of enrollment following WWII and through the Boom. So, in part these moves are also about maintaining status in a drawback.

The downward moves you see in equities are in preparation for Boomer retirement funds being liquidated. 401kK, 403b, pensions, IRA's, Roth IRA's are all being cashed in and that will crescendo in the next 5-10 years. And remember the Boom is a global phenomenon which means all countries are facing the same need to decelerate economies so that they can apply brakes to the process before the economy runs off of the demographic cliff ~ 2035. The next 10 years will not be pleasant economically but if managed properly some solid things for young people will come out of it. Housing should actually drop while interest is high and when Boomers are gone there will be a nice supply of solid homes with a smaller number of buyers. This means some real bargains and a lower cost of life as far as housing. Alternative energy will have to accelerate, or the cost of fuel will offset the housing savings. It hasn't been formerly acknowledged but we are past peak oil according to some insiders in O&G. This means demand will not be met. It is also crucial that we set aside a portion of it for fertilizer. The population of the earth stayed around 3.5 billion until the 1880's when oil was used as fertilizer increasing yields 20 fold which allowed the population to explode to 5 billion and since WWII to over 8 billion.

A better and affordable nonpetroleum based fertilizer has yet to emerge. Therefore, food may continue to go up even as population levels off for a few decades between 2035-2065. Why is government always disingenuous? Because food and fuel aren't counted in the core inflation rate. Oops!

Jobs and wages should be plentiful and more lucrative. Less competition, especially in STEM and skilled occupations.

Now why did I explain all of this? Because all of it is playing a part in realignment, though few will talk about something which would cause concern. Actually, I'm relieved they are starting on the issues 14 years ahead of time. This means there's a good chance it doesn't get too ugly.

Downsizing in higher ed means consolidation as a business model. Consolidation for sports is about brand maintenance and money which seems to equate to enrollment.

This is why I am confident that changes will occur before 2035. Nobody looking at the event horizon on these issues will want to wait on changes which secure their capacity to survive and thrive and the economic pressures to move will extend to matters well beyond athletics.

This is why the myopic who only look backwards at why moves happened are missing the moves which are occurring. When they look backwards, they only look at what happened when all things external were stable. They are no longer stable. What made schools move in the past simply doesn't translate into what is currently happening.

I posted on this board that Texas and Oklahoma don't move for mere money. Giants look to the horizon when planning and when they see a storm on that horizon that scares them, then they move. Texas and Oklahoma and Southern Cal and U.C.L.A. knew where we were headed and sought a safer harbor for the next few decades. I don't believe in 100-year moves. That's fan talk.

The panorama says more change relatively soon, as 2035 passes to the rearview mirror then if football is still a thing beloved by the new generation, I'm sure some old conventions and saws for realignment will return. But we aren't in those times, and the adjustments we face now will be daunting and safe harbors for big brand athletics will be the SEC and Big 10. Jack Swarbrick can talk about orbits because that isn't threatening or alarming. He would never say there are only 2 safe harbors to weather the coming storm. First the public who is always behind the curve would say, "What the hell did he just say? That's crazy!" and second when reality sinks in it might preempt ticket sales.

And you think this committee, meeting right now, with some proposals likely being released in the coming months is going to make drastic changes because of all the big picture stuff you outlined here?


I disagree, but I guess we'll see if things are drastically different or not in the next few months. I certainly don't think you're going to see a "top-level college football breakaway group" based on attendance.

That's not what I said. I said attendance was a metric important to school revenue and one which networks liked on the tube. I said revenue was, is, and will be the line of demarcation.

Now, what does "organic" mean? It means natural. If monetary gaps create a de facto upper tier, and limits those who can compete in it, that is an organic breakaway which I also said wouldn't be complete until basketball was fully monetized (no longer under the NCAA auspices). Failing an organic breakaway, one will happen anyway, just a bit later than what new media payouts will bring with the start of contracts.

So don't put words in my mouth to set up a false position to criticize.

This committee meeting will be a dog and pony show designed to make salve what has changed without addressing what will change. I can't see the P5 being happy with an expanded D1, or even happy with the one they have. But I doubt they will change much since events will bring change anyway. The important one is the expanded playoff, likely with initial inclusion beyond the upper tier, because there is too much money left on the table by all not to do so and being inclusive now gets it done quicker.

I've lived long enough to see many such committees stall until natural factors decided the issue. It is a time-honored approach to decision making, especially when the decisions aren't necessarily popular.

The Big Picture stuff will ultimately make the changes for them, and they likely know that. So why tick off someone today when tomorrow will make their conformity a necessity?

These committees do many things when they meet, and I don't mean what's on the agenda. They wait for the press to highlight their issues and wait for feedback. They precondition people to change through other press releases which the talking heads then kick around and call inevitable. They love trial balloons if the committee itself seems to be in agreement. And most importantly they can formalize an idea which has been circulated, amended, and brought to consensus or at least a majority. And all of that is subject to later change.

These people know how to play the political games. They know how to front something and look in favor even when they are not on board with it long term.

But let's be clear. The OP was what kinds of limits distinguishes the upper tier. I listed them. That's factual, not official, but data points where distinctions exist. We were not speaking of committees. But should anything go to a committee, and they make a decision, that decision will be subject to the demographic changes I described, not the other way around. The world events will shape sports decisions, and institutional ones as well.

Mostly I expect little officially to be decided, and my point was it doesn't need to be formally decided when the numbers do the separation already.

(10-07-2022 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All data indicates that hitting these marks would be required: 45,000 minimum attendances (60,000 preferred)

(10-07-2022 04:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's not what I said. I said attendance was a metric important to school revenue and one which networks liked on the tube. I said revenue was, is, and will be the line of demarcation.



So don't put words in my mouth to set up a false position to criticize.

Sure. How could I ever have mistaken your point? Silly me.


The title of the thread is "any stabs at what the minimum requirements for Division I membership will be?"

I think most people are thinking along the time-frame of when/if they next change the requirements for membership, like in the near future. It's fine to want to think about what college sports might look like in 10 or 20 or 30 years if you're into that kind of thing, but I didn't see that as the context for this thread. Could be me. Message board threads go where they go. But if we're talking about two different things, we're going to get two pretty different sets of answers to the original question.

(10-07-2022 04:47 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All data indicates that hitting these marks would be required: 45,000 minimum attendances (60,000 preferred)

(10-07-2022 04:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's not what I said. I said attendance was a metric important to school revenue and one which networks liked on the tube. I said revenue was, is, and will be the line of demarcation.



So don't put words in my mouth to set up a false position to criticize.

Sure. How could I ever have mistaken your point? Silly me.


The title of the thread is "any stabs at what the minimum requirements for Division I membership will be?"

I think most people are thinking along the time-frame of when/if they next change the requirements for membership, like in the near future. It's fine to want to think about what college sports might look like in 10 or 20 or 30 years if you're into that kind of thing, but I didn't see that as the context for this thread. Could be me. Message board threads go where they go. But if we're talking about two different things, we're going to get two pretty different sets of answers to the original question.

I referred to attendance in that context as a line of demarcation between the P5 and the rest of D1. Total Revenue is what distinguishes between the tiers and within the tiers be they P5 or G5 or other.

Money as the de facto division line is the organic breakaway formalized in 1984 with the Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA verdict which was in favor of the schools. When the same applies to basketball the breakaway from the NCAA will essentially be completed.

My point, clear or not, is that the lines are established by data points which are not a formal distinction, but which serve as clear lines of demarcation whether a committee acknowledges them or not.

Total Revenue illustrates strata within the distinct larger groups as well as the lines of division between the larger groups. Demographics will only formalize these whether a committee does or not.

This committee won't change much, but they won't have to. The distinctions exist already and only await basketball's freeing from the NCAA. When that happens, the breakaway will be formalized because the money will go with them into whatever future construct they choose.

What it's about, is not always what it is about.

(10-07-2022 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 04:47 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All data indicates that hitting these marks would be required: 45,000 minimum attendances (60,000 preferred)

(10-07-2022 04:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's not what I said. I said attendance was a metric important to school revenue and one which networks liked on the tube. I said revenue was, is, and will be the line of demarcation.



So don't put words in my mouth to set up a false position to criticize.

Sure. How could I ever have mistaken your point? Silly me.


The title of the thread is "any stabs at what the minimum requirements for Division I membership will be?"

I think most people are thinking along the time-frame of when/if they next change the requirements for membership, like in the near future. It's fine to want to think about what college sports might look like in 10 or 20 or 30 years if you're into that kind of thing, but I didn't see that as the context for this thread. Could be me. Message board threads go where they go. But if we're talking about two different things, we're going to get two pretty different sets of answers to the original question.

I referred to attendance in that context as a line of demarcation between the P5 and the rest of D1. Total Revenue is what distinguishes between the tiers and within the tiers be they P5 or G5 or other.

Money as the de facto division line is the organic breakaway formalized in 1984 with the Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA verdict which was in favor of the schools. When the same applies to basketball the breakaway from the NCAA will essentially be completed.

My point, clear or not, is that the lines are established by data points which are not a formal distinction, but which serve as clear lines of demarcation whether a committee acknowledges them or not.

Total Revenue illustrates strata within the distinct larger groups as well as the lines of division between the larger groups. Demographics will only formalize these whether a committee does or not.

This committee won't change much, but they won't have to. The distinctions exist already and only await basketball's freeing from the NCAA. When that happens, the breakaway will be formalized because the money will go with them into whatever future construct they choose.

What it's about, is not always what it is about.

Why would you find the need to do that in a thread dedicated to discuss minimum requirements for D1 as a whole, as opposed to the "line of demarcation between the P5 and the rest of D1" there?

Just pointing out why you were getting the responses you were at first. Your point most certainly was not a clear one because it was answering a different question than the one the thread was asking (and the one you were answering wasn't posed anywhere in the thread). Unless you actually were suggesting that only those above the line of demarcation would be Division I at that point, in which case that would be an official breakaway.

(10-07-2022 05:45 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 04:47 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All data indicates that hitting these marks would be required: 45,000 minimum attendances (60,000 preferred)

(10-07-2022 04:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's not what I said. I said attendance was a metric important to school revenue and one which networks liked on the tube. I said revenue was, is, and will be the line of demarcation.



So don't put words in my mouth to set up a false position to criticize.

Sure. How could I ever have mistaken your point? Silly me.


The title of the thread is "any stabs at what the minimum requirements for Division I membership will be?"

I think most people are thinking along the time-frame of when/if they next change the requirements for membership, like in the near future. It's fine to want to think about what college sports might look like in 10 or 20 or 30 years if you're into that kind of thing, but I didn't see that as the context for this thread. Could be me. Message board threads go where they go. But if we're talking about two different things, we're going to get two pretty different sets of answers to the original question.

I referred to attendance in that context as a line of demarcation between the P5 and the rest of D1. Total Revenue is what distinguishes between the tiers and within the tiers be they P5 or G5 or other.

Money as the de facto division line is the organic breakaway formalized in 1984 with the Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA verdict which was in favor of the schools. When the same applies to basketball the breakaway from the NCAA will essentially be completed.

My point, clear or not, is that the lines are established by data points which are not a formal distinction, but which serve as clear lines of demarcation whether a committee acknowledges them or not.

Total Revenue illustrates strata within the distinct larger groups as well as the lines of division between the larger groups. Demographics will only formalize these whether a committee does or not.

This committee won't change much, but they won't have to. The distinctions exist already and only await basketball's freeing from the NCAA. When that happens, the breakaway will be formalized because the money will go with them into whatever future construct they choose.

What it's about, is not always what it is about.

Why would you find the need to do that in a thread dedicated to discuss minimum requirements for D1 as a whole, as opposed to the "line of demarcation between the P5 and the rest of D1" there?

Just pointing out why you were getting the responses you were at first. Your point most certainly was not a clear one because it was answering a different question than the one the thread was asking (and the one you were answering wasn't posed anywhere in the thread). Unless you actually were suggesting that only those above the line of demarcation would be Division I at that point, in which case that would be an official breakaway.

Yes. Because the question was about clear division points. They exist, are quantifiable, and really do function as the dividing line between the top 70-72 schools thereabouts, and the rest. Total revenue and lack of subsidy, plus attendance (mostly due to revenue generation) basically forms the lines of demarcation.

I agree that the committee won't change much, but these things are what really divides groups, and I might add there are other data breaks which define the upper and lower tier G5.

These are only about to be exacerbated. E-parade these are the reality, not the committee.

The last hour on Finebaum today had Larry Templeton interviewed. Templeton has served in many capacities at Mississippi State including AD for about 18 years and now as assistant Commissioner of the SEC where he has served under Kramer as an AD, under Slive as Asst Comm., and now under Sankey. The final minutes of his interview were very sobering with regard to what the SEC is thinking and what that means to a breakaway. It should be required listening for all of the doubters. Templeton doesn't just beat his gums. And behind the scenes he's a much bigger deal than people might think.

The problem here, on this board, and with OP's like this one, is that the event is a show event and not necessarily reflective of reality. But unless a talking head raises a question nobody here does. There's a lot of group think going on.

Consider it an Energizer Bunny moment. It doesn't matter what criteria the Committee sets, the real separation points are financial mostly and already exist: Total revenue and lack of subsidy.

And no matter what the committee does, which isn't likely to be much, it isn't changing the burgeoning chasm in revenue, the behind the scenes serious talk over a legitimate breakaway, nor does it deal with the de facto breakaway which exists with regard to football and the A5.

Why did I post? Reality. The subject wasn't going to lead to anything which will be substantive. It is a can kicking event. Revenue gaps, massive demographic changes, and behind the scenes maneuvers are headed where they are headed regardless of what the committee does or doesn't do. And sadly, this is reflected in many other matters besides sports. We have what we are told, and we have what really happens, and the two frequently aren't the same, and the public seldom hears the latter.

I have a councilman who is a friend. There is an informal meeting of 4 of the 7 councilmen before the real meeting takes place. Decisions are made informally, and lines of discussion covered. The council meeting is then a dog and pony show designed to placate the citizens who attend, and which makes the other 3 councilmen's positions look uninformed and contrary. The difference is the 4 who meet informally are very wealthy and deny meeting, although I have confirmed with other sources it is done in the guise of their local business and is true. It's not going to change.

Neither is the NCAA or any of its meetings. It's stuck in the past and can't move out of its rut.

I've known for some time that plans were out there to bypass the obstacle. Templeton echoed it today in the interview.

After following realignment since 1990, and having close associations involved in it, what is published and what actually happens is again 2 different things.

Nothing new under the sun! I just get ticked watching good people run in circles over nonstory stories and calculated mis-directions.

Fair question of you to ask though!

(10-07-2022 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I just get ticked watching good people run in circles over nonstory stories and calculated mis-directions.

See, your problem us that you're thinking too small

What will the FBS conferences look like in 2322, that's what really matters.

Why bother with the actual changes that might happen in the next year or two (as in the calculated mis-direction topic of the thread) or something measley like your 10-20 (?) year predictions. Go big or go home. How does college football change when the University of Mars really gets going?

(10-07-2022 06:51 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I just get ticked watching good people run in circles over nonstory stories and calculated mis-directions.

See, your problem us that you're thinking too small

What will the FBS conferences look like in 2322, that's what really matters.

Why bother with the actual changes that might happen in the next year or two (as in the calculated mis-direction topic of the thread) or something measley like your 10-20 (?) year predictions. Go big or go home. How does college football change when the University of Mars really gets going?

Care to bet on the substantive nature or lack thereof of those changes? As to the University of Mars you should ask Otis Sistrunk, as he is alleged to have gone there.

And I am home, retired, and working on some renovations. I'm hardly going anywhere.

As to the predictions, we'll see. My track record on "we'll see" is pretty solid with regard to realignment, and to the economy, and has been for 10 years plus now on this board. Best get prepared! In 2006 I sold out my equities and invested in commodities. I lost 5% of my retirement while my buds, some in brokerage, lost 30%. This past year I divested commodities and moved to cash and am still out of equities. The time to get back in will come, but we have a long way to go yet. My home is paid for, I have no debt, and I am positioned to help my kids. The secret to investing is to be looking ahead, not behind. If you see what is coming you have a chance. Studying demographic trends is your best predictor. People drive the economy.

The NCAA hasn't made substantive changes since 1984 and then they were forced upon them. NIL has happened and they still haven't adjusted. I'll believe it when I see it. Meanwhile new contracts have been signed, the monetary gap in D1 is exploding, and that is what will bring more change.

(10-07-2022 06:51 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I just get ticked watching good people run in circles over nonstory stories and calculated mis-directions.

See, your problem us that you're thinking too small

What will the FBS conferences look like in 2322, that's what really matters.

Why bother with the actual changes that might happen in the next year or two (as in the calculated mis-direction topic of the thread) or something measley like your 10-20 (?) year predictions. Go big or go home. How does college football change when the University of Mars really gets going?

"Isn't That A Nice Assignment? Hmm."

https://www.cbr.com/looney-tunes-marvin-...st-quotes/

"There Is A Growing Tendency To Think Of Man As A Rational Thinking Being, Which Is Absurd."

(10-07-2022 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All data indicates that hitting these marks would be required: 20 Sports offered (the SEC will likely add sports), 100 million annual revenues (including what you gain in a P conference move under the new contracts), and 45,000 minimum attendances (60,000 preferred), and less than a 5% subsidy for athletics (0% preferred).

All metrics say if you don't meet these benchmarks, you would be shaky and near the bottom of an upper tier.

For those currently in the upper tier these may be added objectives:

Increased sports offerings (mentioned above)

Full scholarships for all sports and each athlete in them.

Added coaches, trainers, and health care personnel.

Sounds credible. Also demanding.

Effective categories codify structures that are already there. They aren't arbitrary, as you point out.

(10-07-2022 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I still think you're discounting the institutional inertia within academia greatly here. Everything that you've stated might make perfect sense in Silicon Valley or any other "normal" business setting. However, academia simply isn't a "normal" business no matter how much you appear to believe that it should be, even when they're participating in revenue generating activities like big-time sports. The number of stakeholders involved in just a single public university is vast. When you multiply that by 300-plus public universities in Division I or even just the 60-plus in the P5 conferences, it's a much more complex web than even the largest corporations out there. Just dealing with the vast array of state and local politicians and politically-appointed boards (all of whom are dealing with the emotionally charged issue of what happens to the sports teams that their constituents will call, scream, or donate or withhold donating money to them for) is something that you don't find in any other industry.

True, that. It's why I talk so often of universities as 'communities.' They are—enormously complex sorts, with the chancellor/president as mayor.

Quote:You could almost see the faces of the university presidents and athletic directors that learned about how much liability that the NCAA has been taking on to shield its members a few weeks ago in all of their quotes during those transformation committee meetings - they were essentially, "Oh crap! Did I say that we might want to separate from the NCAA a few months ago? Never mind! Strike that from the record forever!" The NCAA can pool that risk for liabilities in a way that individual conferences can't
....

Liabilities are indeed a daily, ongoing concern. Yes, universities watch this very closely. An established athletic program can be a great moneymaker, but intercollegiate sport brings with it a perfect storm of liability risk: physical hazard, travel hazard, multiple business contracts, and regular contact by university personnel with crowds, crazies, and corruption.

Any new breakaway league, to be effective as successor to the NCAA, has to be much more than a big 'conference' as presently defined. Some individuals (not to mention any names, but Sankey) seem to be campaigning for the 'commissioner' role in The Next Big Thing, but university presidents will insist on seeing all the homework before a jump. A great many assurances have to be made, then credibly provided for in founding documents.

(10-08-2022 04:52 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I still think you're discounting the institutional inertia within academia greatly here. Everything that you've stated might make perfect sense in Silicon Valley or any other "normal" business setting. However, academia simply isn't a "normal" business no matter how much you appear to believe that it should be, even when they're participating in revenue generating activities like big-time sports. The number of stakeholders involved in just a single public university is vast. When you multiply that by 300-plus public universities in Division I or even just the 60-plus in the P5 conferences, it's a much more complex web than even the largest corporations out there. Just dealing with the vast array of state and local politicians and politically-appointed boards (all of whom are dealing with the emotionally charged issue of what happens to the sports teams that their constituents will call, scream, or donate or withhold donating money to them for) is something that you don't find in any other industry.

True, that. It's why I talk so often of universities as 'communities.' They are—enormously complex sorts, with the chancellor/president as mayor.

Quote:You could almost see the faces of the university presidents and athletic directors that learned about how much liability that the NCAA has been taking on to shield its members a few weeks ago in all of their quotes during those transformation committee meetings - they were essentially, "Oh crap! Did I say that we might want to separate from the NCAA a few months ago? Never mind! Strike that from the record forever!" The NCAA can pool that risk for liabilities in a way that individual conferences can't
....

Liabilities are indeed a daily, ongoing concern. Yes, universities watch this very closely. An established athletic program can be a great moneymaker, but intercollegiate sport brings with it a perfect storm of liability risk: physical hazard, travel hazard, multiple business contracts, and regular contact by university personnel with crowds, crazies, and corruption.

Any new breakaway league, to be effective as successor to the NCAA, has to be much more than a big 'conference' as presently defined. Some individuals (not to mention any names, but Sankey) seem to be campaigning for the 'commissioner' role in The Next Big Thing, but university presidents will insist on seeing all the homework before a jump. A great many assurances have to be made, then credibly provided for in founding documents.

So basically create an NCPAA -National College Professional Athletic Association - which completely duplicates the NCAA, except that the athletes are paid and are from whatever schools or sports that decided to break away and create this duplicative organization.

(10-07-2022 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You've talked to "people", thought you had the truth, and have been surprised before. Talking to the people privately and hearing what they say publicly, which is what you represent, are two different things, especially when ideas which involve significant change are in the study or formational stage. So, spare the talk down, some of us know people too, and have known then before you were even born!

I mean, there's no need to put quotes in here. I talk to individuals on the Transformation Committee. I talk to ADs, conference commissioners, media executives, industry consultants, coaches, etc on a regular basis. That's the job. Does that make them, or me, an all-seeing font of pure knowledge? No, of course not. I'm wrong sometimes and so are the folks I talk to. But that's not a bit or anything...those folks are directly quoted in my stories and I'm on camera with them. The internet can see it and everything.

To peel back the curtain a bit here, just so folks can better understand how the sausage gets made, I think it's worth mentioning that I don't only talk to folks on camera or when the cell phone is recording. I talk informally, completely off-the-record *all the time*. Because I spent my entire professional life tracking stuff like NIL, or what's going on in D-II realignment, or statehouse bills...I sometimes know more about specific topics than the source. {and Lord knows there's plenty of stuff they know more than I do.} They have an incentive to shoot the breeze with me because that's how information gets traded, and that's how I know what to ask when the cameras are rolling.

FWIW here, judging by your responses later in this thread, I think we're talking about two different things. I'm only talking about the NCAA Transformation Committee, which I believe is what the actual OP was talking about. That's the group that is going to issue recommendations in the next few weeks.

Could there be a much more transformational change in a few years, in a post-amateurism world, one where D-I is broken into completely different entities? Yes, I would agree, I think that is possible. After hearing how much such a change would *cost* in terms of additional legal liability and enforcement mechanisms at LEAD1 a few weeks ago, I don't think leaders are as excited about that possibility as they were earlier this summer, but I agree, it is possible. And FWIW, it's something the people I talk to bring up a lot as well...but because there are SO many uncertain variables, it isn't something I can easily write about.

I'm talking about the actual committee. That group doesn't care about attendance, and it isn't about hurling 45 rich schools out of the NCAA.

(10-07-2022 11:41 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  * Conference membership

* Dramatically increased spending requirements on athletic trainers, academic support, mental health and nutrition.

* Increased push to *more* fully fund scholarship requirements.

Becoming less certain that sport sponsorship requirements are going up in a big way

How many schools realistically do you think this will weed out?

Do you think Sankey is doing this to weed out schools or set a standard?

(10-09-2022 09:44 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-07-2022 11:41 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  * Conference membership

* Dramatically increased spending requirements on athletic trainers, academic support, mental health and nutrition.

* Increased push to *more* fully fund scholarship requirements.

Becoming less certain that sport sponsorship requirements are going up in a big way

How many schools realistically do you think this will weed out?

Do you think Sankey is doing this to weed out schools or set a standard?

I wonder if they would require schools to sponsor three team sports for each sex, and eliminate the double counting of football, and maybe eliminate the requirement for conference sponsorship beyond basketball (still counting football for governance purposes).

On the NCAA taking liability on behalf of the schools, there’s a wrongful death suit where a former USC player was posthumously diagnosed with CTE going to trial this week. The potential damages to the NCAA from this single case could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars… and that’s just one case:

https://frontofficesports.com/gee-ncaa-lawsuit/

This is a prime example of how meaningful the NCAA liability shield is to the schools and conferences. None of the schools and conferences want anything to do with having direct liability with what will likely be many more similar CTE cases in the future.

(10-09-2022 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  On the NCAA taking liability on behalf of the schools, there’s a wrongful death suit where a former USC player was posthumously diagnosed with CTE going to trial this week. The potential damages to the NCAA from this single case could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars… and that’s just one case:

https://frontofficesports.com/gee-ncaa-lawsuit/

This is a prime example of how meaningful the NCAA liability shield is to the schools and conferences. None of the schools and conferences want anything to do with having direct liability with what will likely be many more similar CTE cases in the future.

What each school will need moving forward is their own liability insurance package, a signed contract for players in which the risks are enumerated for each sport, many of which will include CTEs as a risk, long term disability, and annual screenings for current and former athletes.

The NCAA, if anything, may take a huge hit leading to these changes and furthering the professionalization of college sports.

You may have the cart before the horse on this analysis Frank. Colleges sports will have to be treated like any hazardous industry, and each school as employer makes for a much better shield in that responsibility rests upon the employer. In any event, a contract relationship is implied.

If they drop attendance requirements will they have capacity requirements? Came here after reading that Kennesaw St thread where it was mentioned their football stadium holds 8,000. Doesn’t sound like that should be in the same league as the team from Athens.

How 'bout everyone has to sponsor men's soccer? That'd be a good start

(10-09-2022 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  On the NCAA taking liability on behalf of the schools, there’s a wrongful death suit where a former USC player was posthumously diagnosed with CTE going to trial this week. The potential damages to the NCAA from this single case could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars… and that’s just one case:

https://frontofficesports.com/gee-ncaa-lawsuit/

This is a prime example of how meaningful the NCAA liability shield is to the schools and conferences. None of the schools and conferences want anything to do with having direct liability with what will likely be many more similar CTE cases in the future.

After reading this article, I have come to the conclusion that college football might be a thing of the past sooner than we thought. I personally think the NCAA will win this case as it is but a governing body. However, I could see Gee then suing USC, which could make things very interesting.

If USC (and their medical staff by proxy) are sued and lose in court, that could start an avalanche of schools dropping the sport to avoid facing lawsuits that could result in the payments in area of tens to hundreds of millions.