I like college football, but being from North Carolina, my favorite sport is college basketball. I know that football and tv ratings are driving the conference madness, but I was thinking about how basketball could help to quicken the rush to 4 superconferences. CBS and Turner recently paid 11 Billion dollars to the NCAA to show the tournatment. They beat out ESPN. Now, if their becomes 4 superconferences that are put together because of football, they could very well leave the NCAA. Now those conferences will also have the biggest basketball programs. How long before ESPN starts their own tournament. At first, I could see it being held prior to NCAA tournament and incorporating conference tourneys leading to the four winners playing in a tourney that ends on selection Sunday. Sound nuts but the NIT used to be the big tourney and teams played in both until NCAA overtook it. I could see this happening for a few years until the 4 conferences say we are starting expanding our touney and not playing in the NCAA tounament. By that time, ESPN coul pay around a billion a year to show this tounament with a large amount going to the 4 conferences. You are looking at 10 mil a school at least. The tourney now is the second best advertising opportunity behind only the super bowl. I think that money that is out there could speed up the 4 superconference process.
I think that consolidating the participants would actually hurt the money that would be available for a postseason tournament. One reason that the tournament generates so much money is that there are a lot more people watching the games than during the regular season, and I think a lot of the appeal for casual fans is the prospect of lesser-known teams beating traditional powers - the whole "David v Goliath"/"Cinderella"/<Your metaphor here> thing.
To use a couple of painful examples from recent memory, there are a lot of people who like to see an underdog such as UNI or VCU beat a traditional power like Kansas, because they like rooting for the underdog. If there are only "big dogs" in the fight to begin with, that's something that would be lost.
(10-12-2011 08:54 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]I think that consolidating the participants would actually hurt the money that would be available for a postseason tournament. One reason that the tournament generates so much money is that there are a lot more people watching the games than during the regular season, and I think a lot of the appeal for casual fans is the prospect of lesser-known teams beating traditional powers - the whole "David v Goliath"/"Cinderella"/<Your metaphor here> thing.
To use a couple of painful examples from recent memory, there are a lot of people who like to see an underdog such as UNI or VCU beat a traditional power like Kansas, because they like rooting for the underdog. If there are only "big dogs" in the fight to begin with, that's something that would be lost.
Very good point. But I think if the big schools said we are playing in our own tournament and any other schools can be invited, I think it would replace the NCAA. The tourney is the sole revenue source for the NCAA without any TV rights that now go to conferences. I could see the 4 superconferences along with ESPN replacing the NCAA and running the tourney. And keeping the money.
Any way you do it, there will be big dogs left out of the fight.
If they go to 4-16, that will probably leave out at least some of the BE powers such as UConn, UC, UL, and WVU. It would definitely leave out genuine powers Memphis, Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, Villanova, Marquette, and Georgetown, as well as other teams that have won national titles such as UTEP and San Francisco and recent Final Four teams GMU and VCU.
Look at it this way: it has been SEVEN YEARS since we've had a Final Four that's made up of all D-1a football schools in BCS conferences. You just can't have a legitimate tournament without including most of the A-10, CAA, WCC, and BE Catholic schools, and the top MVC and C-USA schools as well.
(10-12-2011 09:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]Any way you do it, there will be big dogs left out of the fight.
If they go to 4-16, that will probably leave out at least some of the BE powers such as UConn, UC, UL, and WVU. It would definitely leave out genuine powers Memphis, Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, Villanova, and Georgetown, as well as other teams that have won national titles such as UTEP and San Francisco.
Look at it this way: it has been SEVEN YEARS since we've had a Final Four that's made up of all D-1a football schools in BCS conferences. You just can't have a legitimate tournament without including the A-10, CAA, WCC, and BE Catholic schools.
I am not saying they leave those guys out. I am saying they eventually say we are starting our own 64 team touney open to all Div I schools. The schools in the 4 superconferences will no longer participate in the NCAA tounament. All the schools will want to play with the Big conference schools and the NCAA touney will eventually go the way of the NIT.
(10-12-2011 08:59 AM)samandrea Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 08:54 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]I think that consolidating the participants would actually hurt the money that would be available for a postseason tournament. One reason that the tournament generates so much money is that there are a lot more people watching the games than during the regular season, and I think a lot of the appeal for casual fans is the prospect of lesser-known teams beating traditional powers - the whole "David v Goliath"/"Cinderella"/<Your metaphor here> thing.
To use a couple of painful examples from recent memory, there are a lot of people who like to see an underdog such as UNI or VCU beat a traditional power like Kansas, because they like rooting for the underdog. If there are only "big dogs" in the fight to begin with, that's something that would be lost.
Very good point. But I think if the big schools said we are playing in our own tournament and any other schools can be invited, I think it would replace the NCAA. The tourney is the sole revenue source for the NCAA without any TV rights that now go to conferences. I could see the 4 superconferences along with ESPN replacing the NCAA and running the tourney. And keeping the money.
To play outside of the NCAA, wouldn't "other" schools you invited for the tournament also have to leave the NCAA governance? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
(10-12-2011 09:24 AM)99Tiger Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 08:59 AM)samandrea Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 08:54 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]I think that consolidating the participants would actually hurt the money that would be available for a postseason tournament. One reason that the tournament generates so much money is that there are a lot more people watching the games than during the regular season, and I think a lot of the appeal for casual fans is the prospect of lesser-known teams beating traditional powers - the whole "David v Goliath"/"Cinderella"/<Your metaphor here> thing.
To use a couple of painful examples from recent memory, there are a lot of people who like to see an underdog such as UNI or VCU beat a traditional power like Kansas, because they like rooting for the underdog. If there are only "big dogs" in the fight to begin with, that's something that would be lost.
Very good point. But I think if the big schools said we are playing in our own tournament and any other schools can be invited, I think it would replace the NCAA. The tourney is the sole revenue source for the NCAA without any TV rights that now go to conferences. I could see the 4 superconferences along with ESPN replacing the NCAA and running the tourney. And keeping the money.
To play outside of the NCAA, wouldn't "other" schools you invited for the tournament also have to leave the NCAA governance? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Not sure how those rules work. But schools that were members of the NCAA played in the NIT and it was run outside of the NCAA until recently. It would be like BCS now. NCAA has no say or gets no money from these bowls, but non-BCS schools can play in it. Even if NCAA said schools could only play in NCAA tournament, how long would that last without big conference schools?
I like the way it's set up now with 68 teams in the big dance, and those that get snubbed get an NIT bid. I would hate to see this happen.
(10-12-2011 09:34 AM)samandrea Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure how those rules work. But schools that were members of the NCAA played in the NIT and it was run outside of the NCAA until recently. It would be like BCS now. NCAA has no say or gets no money from these bowls, but non-BCS schools can play in it. Even if NCAA said schools could only play in NCAA tournament, how long would that last without big conference schools?
Yes, but you're talking about 4 super conferences breaking away from the NCAA...not an auxiliary tournament within the confines of NCAA rules. The NIT/NCAA situation really isn't applicable. I believe the NIT postseason tournament still operated (and operates) within the structure of the NCAA rules.
What you're proposing would be akin to the AFC separating from the NFL, but still expecting NFC teams to temporarily leave the NFL to play in it's new playoffs.
(10-12-2011 08:38 AM)samandrea Wrote: [ -> ]I like college football, but being from North Carolina, my favorite sport is college basketball. I know that football and tv ratings are driving the conference madness, but I was thinking about how basketball could help to quicken the rush to 4 superconferences. CBS and Turner recently paid 11 Billion dollars to the NCAA to show the tournatment. They beat out ESPN. Now, if their becomes 4 superconferences that are put together because of football, they could very well leave the NCAA. Now those conferences will also have the biggest basketball programs. How long before ESPN starts their own tournament. At first, I could see it being held prior to NCAA tournament and incorporating conference tourneys leading to the four winners playing in a tourney that ends on selection Sunday. Sound nuts but the NIT used to be the big tourney and teams played in both until NCAA overtook it. I could see this happening for a few years until the 4 conferences say we are starting expanding our touney and not playing in the NCAA tounament. By that time, ESPN coul pay around a billion a year to show this tounament with a large amount going to the 4 conferences. You are looking at 10 mil a school at least. The tourney now is the second best advertising opportunity behind only the super bowl. I think that money that is out there could speed up the 4 superconference process.
FYI...the NCAA (and its collective members, aka the Univ they represent) signed a 14 year TV deal back in 2010 for the NCAA Basketball Tourn...so irregardless what the Football Conferences do or their bowl games (not run by the NCAA), the Div I Basketball programs/conferences are locked into the NCAA Tourn till at least 2024.
(10-12-2011 09:49 AM)99Tiger Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 09:34 AM)samandrea Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure how those rules work. But schools that were members of the NCAA played in the NIT and it was run outside of the NCAA until recently. It would be like BCS now. NCAA has no say or gets no money from these bowls, but non-BCS schools can play in it. Even if NCAA said schools could only play in NCAA tournament, how long would that last without big conference schools?
Yes, but you're talking about 4 super conferences breaking away from the NCAA...not an auxiliary tournament within the confines of NCAA rules. The NIT/NCAA situation really isn't applicable. I believe the NIT postseason tournament still operated (and operates) within the structure of the NCAA rules.
What you're proposing would be akin to the AFC separating from the NFL, but still expecting NFC teams to temporarily leave the NFL to play in it's new playoffs.
It could be, but what would other teams do if the big schools left? Would the NCAA still make billions on a tournament without these teams? Without March MAdness, the NCAA would be hard pressed to operate. If they were given a piece of the pie, the new tourney would suddenly be within the structure of NCAA rules.
Would the power conferences want to do this? YES!
Would the power conference actually do this? More and more, I don't think so. The moves by the power conferences over the past decade have been to grant more access (i.e. bids for non-AQ schools in BCS) as opposed to less access, albeit in a way that makes no one happy (the power conferences think it's too much and the non-AQ conferences think it's too little). Overall, the power conferences want to retain control, but it's doubtful that they could just split off entirely. The BCS system CAN pass antitrust scrutiny (which is why lawsuits have been threatened for years yet no lawsuit has EVER been actually filed). A complete splitting off from the NCAA, though, probably wouldn't.