CSNbbs

Make football and basketball only conference's.
Have the option to place non revenue Olympic sports in a local conference. Keep the number of teams and athletes the same for D1.

The MAC for example could stay the same for the two main sports. The three Michigan schools could compete against other D1 Michigan schools in track,volleyball and the rest of the non revenue sports.

Basketball and football is all that matters for rivalry purposes.
The P5 would not change at all but it would help the G5.
Geography becomes less of an obstacle in creating good conferences.

Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

no thanks. I like all sport conferences and want to compete against the SEC in everything. This is what OOC matches are for.

(01-07-2015 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

Except that it might open the door to lots of teams moving in from FCS. Say 8 or 9 of the Big Sky teams, or Missouri Valley teams, or a combination of both, want to start an FBS football-only conference and keep their other sports in their current league. If two or three such conferences form, then there might be another 20 or 30 FBS football programs. Requiring FBS conferences to be all-sports is one way to keep a lid on that movement.

(01-07-2015 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

Except that it might open the door to lots of teams moving in from FCS. Say 8 or 9 of the Big Sky teams, or Missouri Valley teams, or a combination of both, want to start an FBS football-only conference and keep their other sports in their current league. If two or three such conferences form, then there might be another 20 or 30 FBS football programs. Requiring FBS conferences to be all-sports is one way to keep a lid on that movement.

Still have to either comply with the must have an invite rule or successfully challenge it.

(01-07-2015 05:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

Except that it might open the door to lots of teams moving in from FCS. Say 8 or 9 of the Big Sky teams, or Missouri Valley teams, or a combination of both, want to start an FBS football-only conference and keep their other sports in their current league. If two or three such conferences form, then there might be another 20 or 30 FBS football programs. Requiring FBS conferences to be all-sports is one way to keep a lid on that movement.

Still have to either comply with the must have an invite rule or successfully challenge it.

I'd guess that if a group of G5 teams wanted to start their own FB-only conference, they'd get kicked out of their current all-sports conference, so I don't see any of the existing FBS programs leaving their current league to start a FB-only conference. The "must have an invite" rule, if it is still on the books, would then effectively mean that no FB-only conferences would be formed.

(01-07-2015 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

Except that it might open the door to lots of teams moving in from FCS. Say 8 or 9 of the Big Sky teams, or Missouri Valley teams, or a combination of both, want to start an FBS football-only conference and keep their other sports in their current league. If two or three such conferences form, then there might be another 20 or 30 FBS football programs. Requiring FBS conferences to be all-sports is one way to keep a lid on that movement.

The G5 could benefit by having possible tweener conferences. Giving them a chance to pad their records extra home games. Eliminating the P5 vs FCS games replace them with these type of teams. The top seven conferences would probably stay as is. Three to five conferences would be helped by the savings.

The P5 benefit with more inventory for money games .
The G5 could introduce rules to keep their group at five without shutting the door to FBS. Any new conference would have a period of time before being eligible for play off shares. Allowing access to the access bowl for fairness.
Kinda like the P5 does theoretically allowing G5 play off access. Slim chance of either happening.

You have to keep in mind bottom feeder P5 schools can buy home games now.

(01-07-2015 06:02 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 05:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

Except that it might open the door to lots of teams moving in from FCS. Say 8 or 9 of the Big Sky teams, or Missouri Valley teams, or a combination of both, want to start an FBS football-only conference and keep their other sports in their current league. If two or three such conferences form, then there might be another 20 or 30 FBS football programs. Requiring FBS conferences to be all-sports is one way to keep a lid on that movement.

Still have to either comply with the must have an invite rule or successfully challenge it.

I'd guess that if a group of G5 teams wanted to start their own FB-only conference, they'd get kicked out of their current all-sports conference, so I don't see any of the existing FBS programs leaving their current league to start a FB-only conference. The "must have an invite" rule, if it is still on the books, would then effectively mean that no FB-only conferences would be formed.

The rule would go away in this scenario.
I think you would end up with a split Big Sky.
The MVFC would be the other substituting a few members in and out. The Sun belt and CUSA could stay as is pretty much for football . While creating new non revenue conferences for those sports reducing travel.

Like all the Texas teams with NMSU and the two Arkansas teams. Random example but you get the idea limit cost for volleyball and other non revenue sports.

(01-07-2015 09:33 PM)MJG Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:02 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 05:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

Except that it might open the door to lots of teams moving in from FCS. Say 8 or 9 of the Big Sky teams, or Missouri Valley teams, or a combination of both, want to start an FBS football-only conference and keep their other sports in their current league. If two or three such conferences form, then there might be another 20 or 30 FBS football programs. Requiring FBS conferences to be all-sports is one way to keep a lid on that movement.

Still have to either comply with the must have an invite rule or successfully challenge it.

I'd guess that if a group of G5 teams wanted to start their own FB-only conference, they'd get kicked out of their current all-sports conference, so I don't see any of the existing FBS programs leaving their current league to start a FB-only conference. The "must have an invite" rule, if it is still on the books, would then effectively mean that no FB-only conferences would be formed.

The rule would go away in this scenario.
I think you would end up with a split Big Sky.
The MVFC would be the other substituting a few members in and out. The Sun belt and CUSA could stay as is pretty much for football . While creating new non revenue conferences for those sports reducing travel.

Like all the Texas teams with NMSU and the two Arkansas teams. Random example but you get the idea limit cost for volleyball and other non revenue sports.

The rule wouldn't need to go away. There is still no reason for the current FBS conferences to add additional schools or conferneces. Elimination of the rule would just create a situation where the P5 (and maybe others) would just break away for football---but stay in he NCAA for everything else.

No, the rule requiring an invite would remain in place. All this change would do is just change the way schools look at conference affiliation and expenses (especially in the G5). A conference like the AAC would maybe play basketball and football together-----but not non-revenue sports. A school like Wichita might play basketball in a different conference than all its other sports. It actually makes a lot of sense for some schools---less sense for other schools.

I think if you're in a conference you should compete in all sports the conference competes in - period.

(01-07-2015 04:41 PM)MJG Wrote: [ -> ]Make football and basketball only conference's.
Have the option to place non revenue Olympic sports in a local conference. Keep the number of teams and athletes the same for D1.

The MAC for example could stay the same for the two main sports. The three Michigan schools could compete against other D1 Michigan schools in track,volleyball and the rest of the non revenue sports.

Basketball and football is all that matters for rivalry purposes.
The P5 would not change at all but it would help the G5.
Geography becomes less of an obstacle in creating good conferences.

I've been advocating this for years. Flying a football team to long distance conference opponents once every two years while playing all other sports regionally would save G5 schools millions of dollars.

(01-07-2015 09:56 PM)jgkojak Wrote: [ -> ]I think if you're in a conference you should compete in all sports the conference competes in - period.

Easy to say when you're in a P5 league pulling in millions of TV dollars annually.

If the G5 and FCS want to combine forces to create regional bus leagues for all sports no one is going to stop you.

But no P5 team wants to be forced to play nothing but all the smaller regional schools in anything.

(01-07-2015 10:16 PM)AppManDG Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 09:56 PM)jgkojak Wrote: [ -> ]I think if you're in a conference you should compete in all sports the conference competes in - period.

Easy to say when you're in a P5 league pulling in millions of TV dollars annually.

Nobody would be "forced" to do anything. If a school wanted to play in a small regional conference for diving, cross country, tennis, and womens volleyball---it could do that IF it wanted to. Conferences would continue to be voluntary associations. These small regional conferences might only be for one or two sports and the schools forming them would all have to agree to the association. The only difference would be that If that caused an FBS confernece to fall under the 8 teams playing in the required sports needed to support FBS football---it wouldn't matter anymore. FBS would just be another single sport league. So, no need to be concerned about being forced to play against schools your university would not wish to play. All the NCAA was doing is seeing if single sport leagues might make some sense.

The way I understand it---it would be up to the individual schools to decide where they want to play their sports. For the P5, I doubt much would change---though a few might take advantage of such a system to cut some costs. I could see the where a number of G5 schools and below might change the way they play their non-revenue sports.

(01-07-2015 09:33 PM)MJG Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:02 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 05:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Simply allowing football only conferences again could be beneficial.

Except that it might open the door to lots of teams moving in from FCS. Say 8 or 9 of the Big Sky teams, or Missouri Valley teams, or a combination of both, want to start an FBS football-only conference and keep their other sports in their current league. If two or three such conferences form, then there might be another 20 or 30 FBS football programs. Requiring FBS conferences to be all-sports is one way to keep a lid on that movement.

Still have to either comply with the must have an invite rule or successfully challenge it.

I'd guess that if a group of G5 teams wanted to start their own FB-only conference, they'd get kicked out of their current all-sports conference, so I don't see any of the existing FBS programs leaving their current league to start a FB-only conference. The "must have an invite" rule, if it is still on the books, would then effectively mean that no FB-only conferences would be formed.

The rule would go away in this scenario.
I think you would end up with a split Big Sky.
The MVFC would be the other substituting a few members in and out. The Sun belt and CUSA could stay as is pretty much for football . While creating new non revenue conferences for those sports reducing travel.

Like all the Texas teams with NMSU and the two Arkansas teams. Random example but you get the idea limit cost for volleyball and other non revenue sports.

The Big Sky splitting into FBS and FCS conferences for football would make sense. But again, that rule change would add a lot of new football teams to FBS, and if there are people who don't like the idea of adding 20 or 30 more teams to FBS, then there are people who would want to block the idea of FB-only FBS conferences. (Who might not like it? How about existing G5 conferences, if the CFP tells them that they still get the same amount of playoff money collectively, whether they're dividing it among 60 G5 schools or 90. It would also be increased competition for football recruits at that level.)

(01-07-2015 10:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]If the G5 and FCS want to combine forces to create regional bus leagues for all sports no one is going to stop you.

But no P5 team wants to be forced to play nothing but all the smaller regional schools in anything.

Why would you be forced its just an option to save cost.
My guess is something will be done to reduce cost for G5 schools.
Now that its not exactly amateur athletics anymore.
Why fly your cross country or track team across country when no one watches ?

The P5 have TV and play off revenue that is ten times what the G5 get.
Allowing some cost cutting measures increases opportunity and reduces the chance of another UAB. I doubt FBS would add twenty to thirty teams close to twenty would be a stretch. Stadium size and a long wait to get a play off share would limit that.

Take a school like Webber St they might make the move if possible.
The opportunity to play home and home with an in state FBS schools.
A limited expansion of the football stadium would be needed.

Somehow schools like Kent ST reduce their stadium to twenty thousand and average few fans but make it. A school like Idaho with a too small stadium makes more in FBS vs FCS even during a terrible run. Highly successful schools like NDSU and Montana would make sense if cost were better.
Schools who could actually make the move is probably in the teens not thirty.

Another factor its better for the student athlete less travel and time away from class.
A school like App ST benefits from playing Texas ST or Arkansas ST in football maybe basketball.
They would be better off playing UNC-Asheville or Western Carolina in volleyball than Texas ST.
Limiting travel in non spectator sports and let the money sports be more like hockey.
Hockey is strong with a higher percentage of programs making money than basketball or football.
Does it hurt hockey programs that the rest of their teams are in other conferences no.
Just like in hockey (the Big Ten ) keeping all sports together makes sense if P5 and you have a network.

With the union/employee issue, this may be the future anyway. Major college football will be a minor league for the NFL. They are essentially that now but this change would make it true in name and in practice.

I don't see MBB in this category though.

(01-07-2015 09:56 PM)jgkojak Wrote: [ -> ]I think if you're in a conference you should compete in all sports the conference competes in - period.

What if your conference doesn't offer that sport?

Big Sky doesn't offer FBS football so Idaho plays football in the Sun Belt.
WAC doesn't offer FBS football so NMSU plays in the Sun Belt.
Patriot doesn't offer FBS football Army and Navy are Indy and AAC for football.
A10 doesn't offer football so they compete Indy now.

(01-07-2015 10:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]If the G5 and FCS want to combine forces to create regional bus leagues for all sports no one is going to stop you.

But no P5 team wants to be forced to play nothing but all the smaller regional schools in anything.

At no point in this thread is ANYONE suggesting that P5 be forced to do one effing thing.

Your strawman is in ashes now.

Then see my first point: if the G5 and FCS want to get together to create bus leagues for themselves then no one is going to stop you.