I can't see where Houston would be accepted in a south division with ACC schools
I've read on the ACC board the response from those teams reguarding Houston joining the ACC and it ain't good, it's not hostile or anything like that, it's more like they think it's just way outside their territory and Houston would be a financial drain and with a small stadium
Thanks to the OP for the concideration

(12-24-2016 07:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ***What would you like to see happen?

The big boys take their ball and go home leaving the NCAA to become NAIA 2.0. For the sake of this post, we'll call it N(ew)CAA. As part of the move to a new parent organization, there is wholesale conference merger and reorganization. I tried very hard to keep the reorganization cogent, reasonable, and one where nobody that matters gets screwed thus leading to political and legal upheaval. So while this is a radical departure from the status quo, I genuinely believe this is attainable.

N(ew)CAA Division I-A:
- Conference: Super Southeast
--- Division (HQ in Charlotte): North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Louisville
--- Division (HQ in Atlanta): Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Florida State, Florida, Auburn, Kentucky
--- Division (HQ in Birmingham): Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas, Vandy, Miami
--- Division (HQ in Dallas): Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska

- Conference: Super Northwest
--- Division (HQ in Los Angeles): Southern Cal, UCLA, San Diego St, Stanford, Cal, Nevada, UNLV, Arizona, Arizona State
--- Division (HQ in Seattle): Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise State, Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado
--- Division (HQ in Chicago): Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana
--- Division (HQ in New York City): Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse, Boston College, UCONN, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland

- Conference: Mountain West (HQ in Denver)
--- Division: Fresno State, SJSU, Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP, Wyoming, Colorado State, Hawaii

- Conference: Mid-American (HQ in Columbus)
--- Division: NIU, Ball State, CMU, EMU, WMU, Toledo
--- Division: Bowling Green, Miami (OH), Ohio, Akron, Kent State, Buffalo

- Conference: Gulf Coast (HQ in Orlando)
--- Division: Georgia Southern, FAU, UCF, USF, Troy, UAB, Southern Miss, Tulane, ULL

- Conference: Sun Belt (HQ in Atlanta)
--- Division: Middle Tennessee, Memphis, Charlotte, Appalachian State, East Carolina, Old Dominion, Marshall, Western Kentucky, Arkansas St

- Conference: Southwestern (HQ in Houston)
--- Division: Rice, North Texas, UTSA, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Texas State, LA Tech, ULM

- Independents: Army, Navy

Dropped to lower status: Georgia State, FIU





N(ew)CAA Division I-AA:
- CAA, SoCon, Ivy, MEAC, MVFC, Northeast, OVC, Patriot, Southland, SWAC, Big Sky, Big South ... though quite a bit of consolidation could be done here too, I'm too lazy to take it that far. Basically, everybody in your conference MUST be playing FCS football. If not ... you'reeeeeeeeeee OUTTA THERE. Those teams will be left behind in NAIA 2.0.





Major changes for N(ew)CAA I-A:
- No more pre-season exhibition.
- No more I-AA games.
- Total overhaul of recruiting rules
- Coaching salary cap
- Player stipend cap
- Facilities cap
- If you go outside the cap, you pay a HEFTY luxury tax which is redistributed equally to all of I-A.
- New pre-season game against I-AA with a cap on compensation to the I-AA team (say $250,000) which does NOT count in any standings but does get sold in the season ticket book.
- Bowl games retained. After conference play is over, bowls. The NY6 are folded back into the bowl pool. The biggest paying bowls get first picks as before.
- After bowls games, 16 team playoff. Each super conference division champion is autobid (8 teams). After that, the two best non-super conference teams are autobid by committee (2 teams). The last 6 spots are picked at-large by committee.
- NIT-esk lesser playoff of 16 teams as well, all selected by committee.
- All playoff games in both playoffs are played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team, with said team maintaining the option of moving their game to the nearest NFL stadium in case you get a fluke like a G5 team hosting a game.
- In governance, super conference members get 2 votes, all other I-A members get 1 vote.
- Super conferences have a TV channel for each division
- Structure of 9-team division allows for ideal scheduling. One team with a bye or cross-division or OOC game, then four division games. The MAC is the only exception to this structure. They can play themselves in "OOC" games if necessary. Their geography and culture are just too tight to break up.
- NO COLORED TURF. EVER. Take that bush league stuff down to I-AA.

(01-01-2017 09:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 07:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ***What would you like to see happen?

The big boys take their ball and go home leaving the NCAA to become NAIA 2.0. For the sake of this post, we'll call it N(ew)CAA. As part of the move to a new parent organization, there is wholesale conference merger and reorganization. I tried very hard to keep the reorganization cogent, reasonable, and one where nobody that matters gets screwed thus leading to political and legal upheaval. So while this is a radical departure from the status quo, I genuinely believe this is attainable.

N(ew)CAA Division I-A:
- Conference: Super Southeast
--- Division (HQ in Charlotte): North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Louisville
--- Division (HQ in Atlanta): Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Florida State, Florida, Auburn, Kentucky
--- Division (HQ in Birmingham): Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas, Vandy, Miami
--- Division (HQ in Dallas): Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska

- Conference: Super Northwest
--- Division (HQ in Los Angeles): Southern Cal, UCLA, San Diego St, Stanford, Cal, Nevada, UNLV, Arizona, Arizona State
--- Division (HQ in Seattle): Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise State, Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado
--- Division (HQ in Chicago): Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana
--- Division (HQ in New York City): Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse, Boston College, UCONN, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland

- Conference: Mountain West (HQ in Denver)
--- Division: Fresno State, SJSU, Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force

- Conference: Mid-American (HQ in Columbus)
--- Division: NIU, Ball State, CMU, EMU, WMU, Toledo
--- Division: Bowling Green, Miami (OH), Ohio, Akron, Kent State, Buffalo

- Conference: Gulf Coast (HQ in Orlando)
--- Division: Georgia Southern, FAU, UCF, USF, Troy, UAB, Southern Miss, Tulane, ULL

- Conference: Sun Belt (HQ in Atlanta)
--- Division: Middle Tennessee, Memphis, Charlotte, Appalachian State, East Carolina, Old Dominion, Marshall, Western Kentucky, Arkansas St

- Conference: Southwestern (HQ in Houston)
--- Division: Rice, North Texas, UTSA, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Texas State, LA Tech, ULM

Dropped to lower status: Georgia State, FIU





N(ew)CAA Division I-AA:
- CAA, SoCon, Ivy, MEAC, MVFC, Northeast, OVC, Patriot, Southland, SWAC, Big Sky, Big South ... though quite a bit of consolidation could be done here too, I'm too lazy to take it that far. Basically, everybody in your conference MUST be playing FCS football. If not ... you'reeeeeeeeeee OUTTA THERE. Those teams will be left behind in NAIA 2.0.





Major changes for N(ew)CAA I-A:
- No more pre-season exhibition.
- No more I-AA games.
- Total overhaul of recruiting rules
- Coaching salary cap
- Player stipend cap
- Facilities cap
- If you go outside the cap, you pay a HEFTY luxury tax which is redistributed equally to all of I-A.
- New pre-season game against I-AA with a cap on compensation to the I-AA team (say $250,000) which does NOT count in any standings but does get sold in the season ticket book.
- Bowl games retained. After conference play is over, bowls. The NY6 are folded back into the bowl pool. The biggest paying bowls get first picks as before.
- After bowls games, 16 team playoff. Each super conference division champion is autobid (8 teams). After that, the two best non-super conference teams are autobid by committee (2 teams). The last 6 spots are picked at-large by committee.
- NIT-esk lesser playoff of 16 teams as well, all selected by committee.
- All playoff games in both playoffs are played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team, with said team maintaining the option of moving their game to the nearest NFL stadium in case you get a fluke like a G5 team hosting a game.
- In governance, super conference members get 2 votes, all other I-A members get 1 vote.
- Super conferences have a TV channel for each division
- Structure of 9-team division allows for ideal scheduling. One team with a bye or cross-division or OOC game, then four division games. The MAC is the only exception to this structure. They can play themselves in "OOC" games if necessary. Their geography and culture are just too tight to break up.
- NO COLORED TURF. EVER. Take that bush league stuff down to I-AA.

Your two super conferences work fine. The rest need to remain in their own division. It's simple capitalism at work and nothing more. We can set caps on salaries and stipends and facilities, but we need to do so within the scope of the top 64.

Set the same for those who average 25,000 at their high school stadiums, but set it at levels appropriate for them.

Some sharing is appropriate within cartels. After that it's just socialism.

(01-01-2017 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your two super conferences work fine. The rest need to remain in their own division. It's simple capitalism at work and nothing more. We can set caps on salaries and stipends and facilities, but we need to do so within the scope of the top 64.

Set the same for those who average 25,000 at their high school stadiums, but set it at levels appropriate for them.

Some sharing is appropriate within cartels. After that it's just socialism.

You have more confidence that booting the G5 out won't lead to a political meltdown than I do.

(01-01-2017 09:43 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your two super conferences work fine. The rest need to remain in their own division. It's simple capitalism at work and nothing more. We can set caps on salaries and stipends and facilities, but we need to do so within the scope of the top 64.

Set the same for those who average 25,000 at their high school stadiums, but set it at levels appropriate for them.

Some sharing is appropriate within cartels. After that it's just socialism.

You have more confidence that booting the G5 out won't lead to a political meltdown than I do.

As long as there are viable criteria for upward mobility (attendance minimums, academic minimums, facilities minimums, etc.) there is not a a great case for any kind of anti trust claims.

Hmm...I have a much simpler idea. First, I kind of like 5 power conferences. IMO, conferences shouldn't have more than 14 football schools as at that point, are they even really conferences?

Let's assume there is no CR for a while (which is possible if the Big 12 stays put). I believe there are too many FBS schools so here is my scenario: split Division 1 into three subdivisions: 1-A, 1-AA, 1-AAA.

1-A: Big 12, SEC, ACC, B1G, PAC-12, AAC, MW, BYU, Notre Dame, Army (91 schools in total). 8-team playoff (auto bids for P5 winners, auto bid for higher ranked champ of AAC/MW, two at-large spots).

1-AA: MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, UMass, New Mexico St., Big Sky, CAA, MVFC, Southern, Southland, OVC (99 schools). 16-team playoff (auto bids for
9 conference champs, 7 at-large spots).

1-AAA: Big South, Ivy, MEAC, NEC, Patriot, Pioneer, SWAC (60 schools). 8-team playoff (auto bids for Big South, NEC, Patriot, and Pioneer-others abstain, and 4 at-large spots.

(01-01-2017 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As long as there are viable criteria for upward mobility (attendance minimums, academic minimums, facilities minimums, etc.) there is not a a great case for any kind of anti trust claims.

I agree in principle. But in political practice, any criteria will be deemed too punitive and unrealistic. And there are scores of entire states that would be excluded, lending itself to strong federal opposition in the Senate.

(01-01-2017 10:39 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Hmm...I have a much simpler idea. First, I kind of like 5 power conferences. IMO, conferences shouldn't have more than 14 football schools as at that point, are they even really conferences?

The reason I have them as conferences is they are like super scheduling alliances. Notice I don't even crown an outright champion for the entire conference ... only for the divisions. Your division is MOST of who you want to play. Everybody else you want to play for the most part is in your conference and thus you will eventually see them. I should also note that in my configuration there are no more extinct rivalries. Games I brought back from the dead with my alignment: Pitt-WVU, Texas-TAMU, Kansas-Mizzou, GT-Auburn, GT-Tennessee, UNC-SC, ND-MSU, Arkansas-Texas, Florida-Miami


The only games I can readily think of that would not be played in my alignment with rivalry implications: Nebraska-Colorado (Boulder has fundamentally changed the Buffs to where they are more culturally at home playing UC-Berkeley, so I don't think this is a huge loss anymore), Miami-ND, Miami-BC

(01-01-2017 11:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As long as there are viable criteria for upward mobility (attendance minimums, academic minimums, facilities minimums, etc.) there is not a a great case for any kind of anti trust claims.

I agree in principle. But in political practice, any criteria will be deemed too punitive and unrealistic. And there are scores of entire states that would be excluded, lending itself to strong federal opposition in the Senate.

I call hooey. Most states are in the process of downsizing these smaller schools already. Let's see those left out would be: Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Delaware which is fine with it. Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine which share the disdain for FBS affiliation already and have other issues politically to fry. There's only one state to raise a cry: Connecticut. There aren't enough Senate or House votes in the others to raise a whimper.

Look at the most football crazy states in the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast and find me a state where the largest two schools don't control internal politics.

I realize you need to feign this stand to be an equitable dealer to your clientele for the site since a significant proportion of them are G5.

But that position is a one of business necessity for this site, not one that adequately depicts the political realities either nationally, or internal the states involved.

The fallout would be negligible except for on message boards which the real government doesn't entertain. They look at state higher education budgets they can't support over the next projected 10 years, they look at the big money donor's wishes, they look at what the FEDS will and won't support, and the FEDS don't give a hoot about schools that aren't producing their lobbyists and representatives.

As for the Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico and Idaho situation they would simply receive favors on other bills not pertaining to athletics in exchange for their silence.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles every where but here.

It's not a matter of pander, it's a matter of how irrational politics is. Just look at one popular Governor can do even for a school not on the government teet (Baylor). When you concentrate athletic power, you by definition unite more and more political power against you.

(01-02-2017 01:29 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It's not a matter of pander, it's a matter of how irrational politics is. Just look at one popular Governor can do even for a school not on the government teet (Baylor). When you concentrate athletic power, you by definition unite more and more political power against you.

Baylor is the oldest university in the state of Texas. They have strong money backers for a private. They have political affiliations. And they have a deep seeded need to sweep things under the rug. The last statement begs the question of why? The answer is powerful people are attached either directly or indirectly to what happened there, much as with Penn State where the full story is locked deep inside state politics. BTW: Ditto for SMU circa the 80's.

We aren't really discussing a Baylor type revolt here. If the P4 found a way to include Cincinnati, B.Y.U., and Connecticut along with maybe New Mexico or Nevada, the issue would be dead.

The political reality is we must now back down from GI Bill and Baby Boomer numbers that once swelled the ranks of the Southern Miss's, Troy's, Georgia Southern's etc. and their counterparts in many other states. It is a painful political and economic reality. The realignment of the P5 is simply the circling of the wagons to protect the schools that are politically connected and to find new ways to drive revenue streams since the old ones are drying up.

In Alabama we are closing Troy's satellite campuses, refocusing the educational mission of the direction schools like West Alabama (Livingston), North Alabama, and many others even smaller. Ditto for Louisiana and Mississippi schools and many more nationwide.

And for the record I don't think you pander, but I do think you are sensitive to the views of everyone here.

What is happening with the downsizing of higher education predates realignment as we now know it. The long range planners have been wrestling with this for almost 40 years now. But as with all things political nothing gets done until there is a crisis to justify it. We've been waiting on that crisis and it hit full bloom in 2006-8. Now we are beginning to implement plans that have been around for a decade or in some cases much longer.

As a society we are having to come to grips with the fact that outside of certain disciplines we don't need a nation full of college grads who still don't know math, science, or have engineering skills. They can't find jobs in an ever increasing tech world and they certainly can't pay back those educational loans that burgeoned annually with the damned COLA's that faculty and staff sought every year.

So it is what it is.

As for the G5 some of them have a bright future, because they teach needed disciplines. Others, not so much.

Now the real market forces come into play. The P5 are being salvaged because they are cheaper to produce than the NFL, they come with massive followings for teams that also breed state allegiances, and now conference ones which have been carefully cultivated over the last 20 or so years. And did I mention that with stipends they are still way cheaper to maintain than professional sports.

Sociologists converted to market analysis already see the handwriting on the wall for professional sports salaries, ticket costs, etc. It's only TV revenue that keeps them chugging along. Why do you think the NFL flirted with airing games on Thursday's, Saturday's, etc. They wanted to go head to head with the NCAA. We're their only competition. And we are the only alternative for networks not wanting to have to continue to deal with the NFL without having an alternative.

The future is just around the corner, but the NFL is on borrowed time as well. How long? It's hard to say. But their players have the liability of having at least 8 years of exposure to head trauma when they arrive and their playing duration is going to be ever more curtailed by the concussion issue.

With restrictions in High School implemented, NCAA football may one day wind up being the final tier of football.

I think we keep MLB and the NBA, but I think professional football will die out with us.

We are headed for a world where there will no longer be blue collar fans who can afford professional tickets of any kind. We may already be there. That world will also be one with fewer institutions of higher learning and more specialized trade schools a notch below them.

So buckle up and don't take what I'm saying as a rebuke. But all of the present data on the younger generation says we are headed for the world I just described. Part of that is our fault, the economic portion. Part of that is a matter of their choices which after all are market forces in play.

The biggest reason the smaller schools won't sue is because their product doesn't command the payouts based upon viewership that the larger state schools receive. There's nothing you can do in a capitalist society to argue against the winners and losers in a free market.

It will be argued that if they want football for the students they need to offer it in an affordable way. If they want football to be a money maker they can't complain when the market doesn't reward their product. That's just business.

(01-02-2017 01:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As long as there are viable criteria for upward mobility (attendance minimums, academic minimums, facilities minimums, etc.) there is not a a great case for any kind of anti trust claims.

I agree in principle. But in political practice, any criteria will be deemed too punitive and unrealistic. And there are scores of entire states that would be excluded, lending itself to strong federal opposition in the Senate.

I call hooey. Most states are in the process of downsizing these smaller schools already. Let's see those left out would be: Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Delaware which is fine with it. Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine which share the disdain for FBS affiliation already and have other issues politically to fry. There's only one state to raise a cry: Connecticut. There aren't enough Senate or House votes in the others to raise a whimper.

Look at the most football crazy states in the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast and find me a state where the largest two schools don't control internal politics.

I realize you need to feign this stand to be an equitable dealer to your clientele for the site since a significant proportion of them are G5.

But that position is a one of business necessity for this site, not one that adequately depicts the political realities either nationally, or internal the states involved.

The fallout would be negligible except for on message boards which the real government doesn't entertain. They look at state higher education budgets they can't support over the next projected 10 years, they look at the big money donor's wishes, they look at what the FEDS will and won't support, and the FEDS don't give a hoot about schools that aren't producing their lobbyists and representatives.

As for the Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico and Idaho situation they would simply receive favors on other bills not pertaining to athletics in exchange for their silence.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles every where but here.

Ohio, for one.

(01-02-2017 02:05 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As long as there are viable criteria for upward mobility (attendance minimums, academic minimums, facilities minimums, etc.) there is not a a great case for any kind of anti trust claims.

I agree in principle. But in political practice, any criteria will be deemed too punitive and unrealistic. And there are scores of entire states that would be excluded, lending itself to strong federal opposition in the Senate.

I call hooey. Most states are in the process of downsizing these smaller schools already. Let's see those left out would be: Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Delaware which is fine with it. Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine which share the disdain for FBS affiliation already and have other issues politically to fry. There's only one state to raise a cry: Connecticut. There aren't enough Senate or House votes in the others to raise a whimper.

Look at the most football crazy states in the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast and find me a state where the largest two schools don't control internal politics.

I realize you need to feign this stand to be an equitable dealer to your clientele for the site since a significant proportion of them are G5.

But that position is a one of business necessity for this site, not one that adequately depicts the political realities either nationally, or internal the states involved.

The fallout would be negligible except for on message boards which the real government doesn't entertain. They look at state higher education budgets they can't support over the next projected 10 years, they look at the big money donor's wishes, they look at what the FEDS will and won't support, and the FEDS don't give a hoot about schools that aren't producing their lobbyists and representatives.

As for the Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico and Idaho situation they would simply receive favors on other bills not pertaining to athletics in exchange for their silence.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles every where but here.

Ohio, for one.

Yeah, that's certainly true. Like Missouri there's only 1!

(01-02-2017 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 02:05 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As long as there are viable criteria for upward mobility (attendance minimums, academic minimums, facilities minimums, etc.) there is not a a great case for any kind of anti trust claims.

I agree in principle. But in political practice, any criteria will be deemed too punitive and unrealistic. And there are scores of entire states that would be excluded, lending itself to strong federal opposition in the Senate.

I call hooey. Most states are in the process of downsizing these smaller schools already. Let's see those left out would be: Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Delaware which is fine with it. Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine which share the disdain for FBS affiliation already and have other issues politically to fry. There's only one state to raise a cry: Connecticut. There aren't enough Senate or House votes in the others to raise a whimper.

Look at the most football crazy states in the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast and find me a state where the largest two schools don't control internal politics.

I realize you need to feign this stand to be an equitable dealer to your clientele for the site since a significant proportion of them are G5.

But that position is a one of business necessity for this site, not one that adequately depicts the political realities either nationally, or internal the states involved.

The fallout would be negligible except for on message boards which the real government doesn't entertain. They look at state higher education budgets they can't support over the next projected 10 years, they look at the big money donor's wishes, they look at what the FEDS will and won't support, and the FEDS don't give a hoot about schools that aren't producing their lobbyists and representatives.

As for the Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico and Idaho situation they would simply receive favors on other bills not pertaining to athletics in exchange for their silence.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles every where but here.

Ohio, for one.

Yeah, that's certainly true. Like Missouri there's only 1!

Well, there are numerous state universities in populous Ohio, two of them of significant size (the second largest has an enrollment of 45,000+), but Ohio's parochial state government still believes the world is flat and that legislators will fall off if they give any consideration or money to institutions of higher learning beyond the city limits of Columbus.

Come to think of it, the world is pretty flat in topographically-challenged Columbus. Maybe that's why those folks at the statehouse think they way they do.

(01-01-2017 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 07:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ***What would you like to see happen?

The big boys take their ball and go home leaving the NCAA to become NAIA 2.0. For the sake of this post, we'll call it N(ew)CAA. As part of the move to a new parent organization, there is wholesale conference merger and reorganization. I tried very hard to keep the reorganization cogent, reasonable, and one where nobody that matters gets screwed thus leading to political and legal upheaval. So while this is a radical departure from the status quo, I genuinely believe this is attainable.

N(ew)CAA Division I-A:
- Conference: Super Southeast
--- Division (HQ in Charlotte): North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Louisville
--- Division (HQ in Atlanta): Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Florida State, Florida, Auburn, Kentucky
--- Division (HQ in Birmingham): Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas, Vandy, Miami
--- Division (HQ in Dallas): Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska

- Conference: Super Northwest
--- Division (HQ in Los Angeles): Southern Cal, UCLA, San Diego St, Stanford, Cal, Nevada, UNLV, Arizona, Arizona State
--- Division (HQ in Seattle): Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise State, Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado
--- Division (HQ in Chicago): Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana
--- Division (HQ in New York City): Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse, Boston College, UCONN, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland

- Conference: Mountain West (HQ in Denver)
--- Division: Fresno State, SJSU, Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force

- Conference: Mid-American (HQ in Columbus)
--- Division: NIU, Ball State, CMU, EMU, WMU, Toledo
--- Division: Bowling Green, Miami (OH), Ohio, Akron, Kent State, Buffalo

- Conference: Gulf Coast (HQ in Orlando)
--- Division: Georgia Southern, FAU, UCF, USF, Troy, UAB, Southern Miss, Tulane, ULL

- Conference: Sun Belt (HQ in Atlanta)
--- Division: Middle Tennessee, Memphis, Charlotte, Appalachian State, East Carolina, Old Dominion, Marshall, Western Kentucky, Arkansas St

- Conference: Southwestern (HQ in Houston)
--- Division: Rice, North Texas, UTSA, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Texas State, LA Tech, ULM

Dropped to lower status: Georgia State, FIU





N(ew)CAA Division I-AA:
- CAA, SoCon, Ivy, MEAC, MVFC, Northeast, OVC, Patriot, Southland, SWAC, Big Sky, Big South ... though quite a bit of consolidation could be done here too, I'm too lazy to take it that far. Basically, everybody in your conference MUST be playing FCS football. If not ... you'reeeeeeeeeee OUTTA THERE. Those teams will be left behind in NAIA 2.0.





Major changes for N(ew)CAA I-A:
- No more pre-season exhibition.
- No more I-AA games.
- Total overhaul of recruiting rules
- Coaching salary cap
- Player stipend cap
- Facilities cap
- If you go outside the cap, you pay a HEFTY luxury tax which is redistributed equally to all of I-A.
- New pre-season game against I-AA with a cap on compensation to the I-AA team (say $250,000) which does NOT count in any standings but does get sold in the season ticket book.
- Bowl games retained. After conference play is over, bowls. The NY6 are folded back into the bowl pool. The biggest paying bowls get first picks as before.
- After bowls games, 16 team playoff. Each super conference division champion is autobid (8 teams). After that, the two best non-super conference teams are autobid by committee (2 teams). The last 6 spots are picked at-large by committee.
- NIT-esk lesser playoff of 16 teams as well, all selected by committee.
- All playoff games in both playoffs are played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team, with said team maintaining the option of moving their game to the nearest NFL stadium in case you get a fluke like a G5 team hosting a game.
- In governance, super conference members get 2 votes, all other I-A members get 1 vote.
- Super conferences have a TV channel for each division
- Structure of 9-team division allows for ideal scheduling. One team with a bye or cross-division or OOC game, then four division games. The MAC is the only exception to this structure. They can play themselves in "OOC" games if necessary. Their geography and culture are just too tight to break up.
- NO COLORED TURF. EVER. Take that bush league stuff down to I-AA.

Your two super conferences work fine. The rest need to remain in their own division. It's simple capitalism at work and nothing more. We can set caps on salaries and stipends and facilities, but we need to do so within the scope of the top 64.

Set the same for those who average 25,000 at their high school stadiums, but set it at levels appropriate for them.

Some sharing is appropriate within cartels. After that it's just socialism.

I think there's a middle ground here.

Let's remember that schools ultimately put down money on big time athletics in order to market their university to potential students. That's not a new phenomenon in the era of big money, but it's the reason they've been doing it since the early days when there was no real money in it.

I think JR is right about the dip in the number of college students that is coming and the dip in funding that's related to the economic question. Some of these G5 schools will survive though because they are seeking to do what the Power schools have always done...market their university. The function and scope of their school might change, but spending money on big time athletics would still likely serve them well. If the money dries up from the government then finding a way to coax it out of students will still pay off and lead to self-perpetuation.

It's not as though the value of education will ever disappear like your standard product in the marketplace. It will, however, change in scope and nature. It will still be there though. So the politicos do have an interest in maintaining the financial well-being of certain state schools, just not all of them.

So maybe something like this...

The networks will only pay a premium for a certain number of schools. The question is how many? The politicos have a role here certainly...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and BYU

-Gets strong brand in OU, good complimentary brand in OSU. Sacrifices by taking image-damaged Baylor albeit giving greater access to TX. Also sacrifices by taking geographic outlier BYU, but ESPN wants them. Overall, brings in a lot of good football content and large fan bases around the country.

B1G takes Kansas, Iowa State, UConn, and Colorado State

-Gets strong brand in KU, 2 AAU schools as IA politicians rush to protect ISU, greater access to Northeast with UConn, and access to Denver with CSU. Overall, brings in great basketball schools.

ACC takes Notre Dame, Texas, West Virginia, and Cincinnati

-Gets the 2 best brands on the board with ND and UT. Sacrifices a bit with WVU and UC to protect political interests.

PAC takes Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, New Mexico, UNLV, and Kansas State

-The PAC has to make a few sacrifices in quality here, but they get to 18, get 3 teams in the heart of TX, and allay any concerns of politicos in key states.

There's a lot of symmetry here and virtually every state flagship school is taken care of at the highest level. Champions only playoff and 3 divisions allows conference semi-finals.

With all the extra games though...the question of creating revenue from home games while not playing too steep a competition and safeguarding from head trauma creates an interesting intersection of issues.

We could include then a few minor state schools and any remaining flagships by creating a lower division with certain perks. At this point, we're talking about strong academic schools or important state institutions that need the opportunity to market their school. The leagues are set up purely as regional operations rather than leagues looking to tap markets. The purpose of the leagues in this 2nd division is to grant access to playing Power schools. The 2nd division is guaranteed a few money games per year while having their own larger playoff and their own national championship. The large scope and breadth of the 2nd division should guarantee a fairly popular product especially once playoff time comes around. Remember that these games now get decent ratings, just not as good a rating as Power schools. Plenty of filler content. Forget bowls for these schools...the playoff is where it's at and should make more money.

Mountain West = 12

Boise State, Utah State, Nevada, San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Hawaii, New Mexico State, UTEP, UTSA, Air Force, Wyoming

AAC = 16

SMU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, USF, Georgia State, Charlotte, ECU, Old Dominion, Navy, Army, Temple, Buffalo, UMass

MAC = 12

Northern Illinois, Ball State, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Toledo, Akron, Bowling Green, Kent State, Ohio, Miami of Ohio, Marshall

Sun Belt = 16

North Texas, Texas State, Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, ULL, ULM, Southern Miss, South Alabama, Troy, UAB, Middle Tennessee State, Western Kentucky, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, FAU, FIU

This way the separation is pretty smooth. It's basically FBS going on its own.

If you not in....you're not getting in.
I, like others have become a proponent of the three division conference.
Because of geography, it's not possible to have equal distribution so I am promoting a 15, 15, 15, 18 alignment.
TCU and Baylor are out.
The PAC will get the 18 teams with three divisions of 6 teams each. The other three conferences will have 15 teams with three divisions of 5.
The B1G gets Missouri.
The SEC takes Texas and West Virginia.
The ACC gets Notre Dame.
The PAC gets Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State.

You could eliminate two more mouths to feed by reducing the PAC to 16 teams (5, 5, 6 alignment). Eliminate two of: Texas Tech, Kansas State or Iowa State.

I think that you will see SEC divisions broken down like this:

West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
South Carolina

Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU
Ole Miss

Florida
Georgia
Auburn
Alabama
Mississippi State

(01-05-2017 04:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  I think that you will see SEC divisions broken down like this:

West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
South Carolina

Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU
Ole Miss

Florida
Georgia
Auburn
Alabama
Mississippi State

I don't know if it will turn out that way, but the divisions make sense.

Let's say nobody leaves an existing P conference for another. If we added just Texas (using your premise as the starting point) it still works out fine:

Arkansas
Louisiana State
Missouri
Texas
Texas A&M

Alabama
Auburn
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Vanderbilt

Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee

Or you could sub Oklahoma for Texas and it still works fine.

There's still the question of what to do with the LHN.

My theory is that ESPN will use it to broadcast additional content of whatever league UT joins which makes me think whatever league that is will go to at least 18.

ESPN has already invested a lot in that linear network and they're probably not going to just phase it out.

(01-05-2017 10:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's still the question of what to do with the LHN.

My theory is that ESPN will use it to broadcast additional content of whatever league UT joins which makes me think whatever league that is will go to at least 18.

ESPN has already invested a lot in that linear network and they're probably not going to just phase it out.

They can do that with the LHN whether it is just Texas or Texas and 3 more. Let's say that just Texas joined the SEC. We would have a western division channel, a eastern division channel and have the the additional overflow channel for a central division. And we have that now.

I'm just not sure that the network will be a factor in determining how many schools get in.

I have no problem with 18, but 15 works too.