(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

The NCAA is not an independent entity. All decisions about allocation of funds and the rules come from a coalition of university presidents and the system is designed to weight that control to the P5 representatives.

The endowment exists because the power schools wish it to exist. They also made use of it to settle a lawsuit that primarily impacted them.

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

About the bolded phrases, I was about to say that the first explains the second, i.e., the most powerful members don't want to change the NCAA because the NCAA allows them to get away with crap.

But then i realized that in the last 15 years, football schools like Ohio State, USC, Penn State, Alabama, and Notre Dame have all suffered NCAA sanctions of one kind or another. So maybe it's not that after all?

There are advantages to ceding power to a bureaucracy - it allows the powerful to not have to dirty their hands with tough issues. That's why so much of our daily life is governed by the decisions of courts and administrative agencies these days - congress and the President often don't want to have to address the divisive issues.

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney. I don't think leaving them out would significantly improve the tourney, if anything it leaves the door open for the historic upsets like UMBC over UVA last year, which are fun (unless you're a Wahoo) for most sports fans. It gets get people talking and increases the interest in the tourney. Most likely the #1 seed will roll over whoever the bottom seed is regardless of conference. The only reason I see for doing it is to further consolidate money at the top, which is not a goal I think sports fans do or should have. Watch the NBA if you want the best of the best.

I do know there would be little desire to go back to a 32 team field because Turner is making a lot of money of those first two days and it's just been growing.

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney.

Plus, the MEAC and SWAC have been "D1" for a long time in hoops, they aren't johnny-come-lately's.

Those are the schools - the ones that have jumped to D1 recently - that should be first on any chop-block.

I think what's missing in this discussion is that what makes this worth the money it generates is the ability of the NCAA tournament to bring in so many casual fans. Real hardcore sports fans will likely watch the tournament no matter who is playing, and can find compelling aspects of almost any match-up (even if it's to root against one of the teams). But what makes Turner and CBS spend so much on the tournament is that it brings in fans who wouldn't be tuning in otherwise, whether it's to see Sister Jean and Loyola or what have you. This proposal to take away some of these autobids would result in a dramatic decrease in that value, so I really think it's a non-starter.

FWIW, this is also why I think a true playoff that allowed every team to have a chance to participate is what would make college football even more money. Casual fans get more worked up about a feel good story of an underdog than making sure a third SEC team is given a chance even though the conference season already lost out on the SEC title.

USFFan

Everyone wants the club to be smaller and more exclusive. It makes them feel better.

The NCAA is doing what the powers that be want done.

The unfortunate thing is March Madness has become such a hit that basketball is in a decline because the regular season is for the most part pointless.

The tournament is a hit but who the hell watches much basketball outside of a handful of fan bases?

By the time the New Year's Day bowl games concluded roughly 2/3rds of Division I was eliminated from even being in the at-large conversation. By the end of January there will be no more than 60-70 schools with any hope of an at-large.

We no longer hear casualish fans talking about the last team out unless it was their team because by the time you get that deep in the field you are talking about schools with pretty meager resumes.

Mid-January take whatever rating system you want, rate everyone 1-350 or whatever the number is now.
The top whatever get a bye (say 112).
The remainder go into a lottery half the teams get home games, the other half are drawn to travel against one of the others. Purely random.
Over the next month the teams play down to leave 112. Some will have to win twice, some will have to win once depending on where they come out in the lottery.
After those games are concluded the 112 survivors go into a pot and are drawn to advance to play the top 112 at the home site of the 1-112. Play those out over two weeks or so.
That leaves 56 teams.
Convene the selection committee. They are tasked with selecting 8 teams that lost already to get a second chance (ideally a team that lost in the round of 112 in a tight game or OT game, especially on the road gets extra credit).
They pick 8 teams. They seed everyone 1-64 and we tipoff the traditional NCAA tournament.

Conferences can continue to roll along playing regular season games during the tournament in order to crown a champion but there is no need for a conference tournament unless that's how you want to determine who gets the league's trophy (looking at you ACC). Everyone still alive has extra incentive in regular season games because there is the 1-64 seed to deal with and the fight to get one of the 8 second chance slots.

More games of relevant basketball from mid-January to the start of the tournament.

(01-31-2019 02:55 PM)usffan Wrote:  FWIW, this is also why I think a true playoff that allowed every team to have a chance to participate is what would make college football even more money. Casual fans get more worked up about a feel good story of an underdog than making sure a third SEC team is given a chance even though the conference season already lost out on the SEC title.

USFFan

I wish it was the case, but I don't think it is. Remember, in the hoops tournament, it's not the 3rd-place ACC or B1G team that misses out in favor of a Maryland Baltimore-County, it's around the 9th place team, a whale of a difference.

Last year, the 3rd-place B1G hoops team was 28-7 Michigan, who made it all the way to finals. If it was the case that either Michigan or UMBC is in the tournament, the vast majority would prefer the former.

Basically, fans like the small schools in the tournament because all the big powers get in anyway. You don't have to choose between them, there's room for everyone. If that wasn't the case, the small schools would get jettisoned. The nature of football is such that you can't have both like you can in hoops.

(01-31-2019 01:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  The size of the NCAA field really isn't the main point. It's merely a byproduct of the size of the top division in (or apart from) the NCAA. And as lucrative as the tournament is, that won't be what drives the bus when it comes to deciding who will be in that top division and whether or not it will still be part of the NCAA. Football will dictate that.

In my view of how that will ultimately evolve, I expect it won't just be schools now in a P5 conference. And I don't believe there will be a complete reset for conferences when it happens. I think conferences in the top level will look much the same as they do now. Could it be as many as 150 schools? Maybe. But I think it would at least start out at no more than the 101 schools I posited.

At that size, I don't think a national basketball tournament would warrant a field of 64 teams. 32 would be roughly one third of all those teams. If you are going to have 64, you might as well just include everybody. I wouldn't want to do that. If the top division were to grow to 150 schools, 64 teams wouldn't be as bad. But very few of the 50 additional schools would get into that field - you would just have more teams from what is now the P5. I don't see the point of, or need for, that kind of evolution.

IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that.

I don't disagree with all of it. I think a football separation is more likely to happen and is more warranted but I don't see the need to have the shift effect all DIV 1 sports. They could create another subdivision for football as the have now.

I'll admit there are probably some or plenty of Div 1 schools that aren't investing and don't have the support to warrant being Div 1. Those are the low majors though. Where and how you cut the line would cut out a lot of schools that have better programs and support than many that would be included.

I don't really care though about the MEAC or SWAC getting a shot at the NCAA tourney. I don't think leaving them out would significantly improve the tourney, if anything it leaves the door open for the historic upsets like UMBC over UVA last year, which are fun (unless you're a Wahoo) for most sports fans. It gets get people talking and increases the interest in the tourney. Most likely the #1 seed will roll over whoever the bottom seed is regardless of conference. The only reason I see for doing it is to further consolidate money at the top, which is not a goal I think sports fans do or should have. Watch the NBA if you want the best of the best.

I do know there would be little desire to go back to a 32 team field because Turner is making a lot of money of those first two days and it's just been growing.

How much money they are making depends on how much they are paying for those games. It would be interesting to see how much of the total contract was for those 32 games, and how much was for the other 35.

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

“In the 80’s not a single mid major made final 4. Wrong. UNLV beat Iowa in the elite 8 in 1987 so...that’s a final 4.
Also go ahead and list the 70’s. Freaking Drake made a final 4. Not Duke. Drake.
Didn’t mid major Louisville make some final 4’s too? You called Utah, UConn etc mid majors. Trying to figure out who is or isn’t mid majuh

(01-31-2019 01:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

About the bolded phrases, I was about to say that the first explains the second, i.e., the most powerful members don't want to change the NCAA because the NCAA allows them to get away with crap.

But then i realized that in the last 15 years, football schools like Ohio State, USC, Penn State, Alabama, and Notre Dame have all suffered NCAA sanctions of one kind or another. So maybe it's not that after all?

There are advantages to ceding power to a bureaucracy - it allows the powerful to not have to dirty their hands with tough issues. That's why so much of our daily life is governed by the decisions of courts and administrative agencies these days - congress and the President often don't want to have to address the divisive issues.

Well duh! Those schools don't make the NCAA a pile of money in hoops now do they? And the NCAA isn't making any money off of their football. It's the big time basketball schools that bring the NCAA their revenue.

And to ArkStFan: Presidents made those rules back in the 60's when the money for wasn't anywhere what it is today. When those kinds of operating rules are set the bureaucracy is never going to give them up. The presidents don't want to deal with scheduling, officiating, oversight, etc. The NCAA was a surrogate that assisted them with much of that and their A.D. covered the rest. It's inattention for the most part.

But what I've had to stay about their endowments stands. 70 million a year added to 1 billion in endowments? Really?

(01-29-2019 07:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 03:06 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 02:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 01:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.

First, you never answered my question of "why?". Why is this needed? What improvement are you expecting?

Secondly, collectively they are superior but individually that's not necessarily the case. If you don't think the A10 (or even CUSA or the MAC) is competitive in Div 1 basketball then you're not paying attention. The fact that Kentucky will beat us 98 times out of 100 doesn't make the rest of the SEC somehow superior (although they are much better this year).

And lastly, you want to do this for ALL Div 1 sports?!?!? Not just basketball? The parity is even greater in non-revenue sports.

I believe what I said was that I thought this was the direction we are heading. It's not a question of "why" I personally prefer it to what we have now.

That being said, I prefer that sports teams play against peers. I don't believe that MLB teams should include International League or Pacific Coast League teams in their post season tournaments. They aren't peers just because they are all professional baseball teams.

There are 32 D-I conferences in basketball. They are not all peers. They just aren't. The only reason many - most - of those schools are in D-I is because the NCAA gives them "free money" to be there, not because they "belong" in any real sense.

From time to time, International League baseball teams win a game against their parent club. Just like from time to time, schools like UMBC or Wofford or Chaminade capture lightning in a bottle and upset a superior team. That doesn't mean they should all be in the same league, playing at the same level.

You may believe that C-USA is a peer of the Big Ten. I don't. You may see parity in other sports besides basketball. I don't. I see a few powerful conferences dominating college sports, whether that's football, basketball, baseball, golf, tennis, swimming, or track and field. Examples of Cinderellas can be found in all those sports. They are notable for their rarity. They aren't examples of parity, at least not in my eyes.

Let's be honest. Minnesota isn't a "peer" to Ohio State and Michigan athletically either. All your solution would do is substitute mid-level teams from premier conferences with the best from lower conferences. That's not going to give you better competition. We could cut down the field to eight if all we wanted to do was find the best team in the land. Boring.

In other sports there are plenty of schools from lower conferences that are some of the best in the country. Rice baseball, Akron soccer. ODU has more field hockey national titles than any other school in the country.

And I disagree that this is the direction we're heading in anything other than possibly football. March madness ratings would tank under your suggestion. It be like killing the NCAA Golden Goose.

Ratings would go up with fewer mismatches.

And there are probably 10-15 conferences that aren't competitive nationally in any sport.

NAU and their three straight Men's X-Country Championships would disagree (Big Sky bottom 10 conference this year).

Denver from the Summit conference (also bottom 10) wins NC most years in one sport or another.

(01-31-2019 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

The NCAA is not an independent entity. All decisions about allocation of funds and the rules come from a coalition of university presidents and the system is designed to weight that control to the P5 representatives.

The endowment exists because the power schools wish it to exist. They also made use of it to settle a lawsuit that primarily impacted them.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand - the P5 has the power and control of the NCAA as it is. They are the ones directing what is going on.

(01-31-2019 05:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  “In the 80’s not a single mid major made final 4. Wrong. UNLV beat Iowa in the elite 8 in 1987 so...that’s a final 4.

UNLV was in a mid-major conference but they weren't a mid-major program. Under Tarkanian, they were definitely a national power from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s.

(01-31-2019 08:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 05:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  “In the 80’s not a single mid major made final 4. Wrong. UNLV beat Iowa in the elite 8 in 1987 so...that’s a final 4.

UNLV was in a mid-major conference but they weren't a mid-major program. Under Tarkanian, they were definitely a national power from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s.

Like Gonzaga under Mark Few

(01-31-2019 03:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Everyone wants the club to be smaller and more exclusive. It makes them feel better.

The NCAA is doing what the powers that be want done.

The unfortunate thing is March Madness has become such a hit that basketball is in a decline because the regular season is for the most part pointless.

The tournament is a hit but who the hell watches much basketball outside of a handful of fan bases?

By the time the New Year's Day bowl games concluded roughly 2/3rds of Division I was eliminated from even being in the at-large conversation. By the end of January there will be no more than 60-70 schools with any hope of an at-large.

We no longer hear casualish fans talking about the last team out unless it was their team because by the time you get that deep in the field you are talking about schools with pretty meager resumes.

Mid-January take whatever rating system you want, rate everyone 1-350 or whatever the number is now.
The top whatever get a bye (say 112).
The remainder go into a lottery half the teams get home games, the other half are drawn to travel against one of the others. Purely random.
Over the next month the teams play down to leave 112. Some will have to win twice, some will have to win once depending on where they come out in the lottery.
After those games are concluded the 112 survivors go into a pot and are drawn to advance to play the top 112 at the home site of the 1-112. Play those out over two weeks or so.
That leaves 56 teams.
Convene the selection committee. They are tasked with selecting 8 teams that lost already to get a second chance (ideally a team that lost in the round of 112 in a tight game or OT game, especially on the road gets extra credit).
They pick 8 teams. They seed everyone 1-64 and we tipoff the traditional NCAA tournament.

Conferences can continue to roll along playing regular season games during the tournament in order to crown a champion but there is no need for a conference tournament unless that's how you want to determine who gets the league's trophy (looking at you ACC). Everyone still alive has extra incentive in regular season games because there is the 1-64 seed to deal with and the fight to get one of the 8 second chance slots.

More games of relevant basketball from mid-January to the start of the tournament.

What?! Win your conference tournament! It's the second greatest thing about college basketball behind the Big Dance!

Conference play is an absolute meat-grinder. If you aren't interested, then you're just not a fan of college hoops.

This season has been excellent. Almost anybody in the top 10 could win it this year; I don't think UNC could, and I believe they are overrated, but that's a different topic. Kansas and Marquette: not sure of yet. Then you have extremely dangerous teams from outside the power conferences like Houston, Nevada, and Buffalo.

One last rant...

For god's sakes, will somebody else please win the Big XII!?!?!

(01-31-2019 07:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...IMO, if the NCAA were to decide tomorrow to stop giving out free money for schools just because they want to call themselves DI, a significant number of them would opt to play at a division more suited to their ability and their resources. As Ronald Reagan famously said, if you want to get more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. The NCAA is subsidizing membership in DI. If they taxed it (by having higher barriers to entry) they would have fewer members. In my view, that would be better for sport.

Or "tax it" by taking away the NCAA Tournament money from funding the NCAA and instead fund it by charging membership dues (so much in dues for D-II schools, a little more for D-I, etc.). This way instead of getting more subsidy at a higher level you get no subsidy and higher dues... but you also get the OPPORTUNITY to EARN more (because NCAA units would be more like 80% of the revenue instead of the current 20% - check my math at "Tracking NCAA Money - 1/29/19").

The NCAA bankrolls over 70 million a year from the tournament. Most of that goes into one of their two endowments which now total right at or a little over 1 Billion in revenues that have been rat-holed away from the D1 membership. There is no reason for the NCAA to sit on a Billion. None. They are a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy that is only serving itself. When certain schools in certain sports never get punished for misdeeds it is because those schools earn them revenue.

Make it a dues paying system instead of a squirrel away the revenue system and at least that part of it changes. If they don't care that their top draws are not in the tournament on a given year because they are no longer calculating ad revenues and how much they'll be able to skim the whole thing changes.

Now let me also add that the system of paying tourney creds helps them to skim the interest on the payout money they hold over the years the credits are paid out.

It's a damned racket from the get go with the way things are being handled and the top members are gutless for allowing it to be worked this way and those getting a handout they didn't earn will continue to vote the dole, just like in the real world.

About the bolded phrases, I was about to say that the first explains the second, i.e., the most powerful members don't want to change the NCAA because the NCAA allows them to get away with crap.

But then i realized that in the last 15 years, football schools like Ohio State, USC, Penn State, Alabama, and Notre Dame have all suffered NCAA sanctions of one kind or another. So maybe it's not that after all?

There are advantages to ceding power to a bureaucracy - it allows the powerful to not have to dirty their hands with tough issues. That's why so much of our daily life is governed by the decisions of courts and administrative agencies these days - congress and the President often don't want to have to address the divisive issues.

Well duh! Those schools don't make the NCAA a pile of money in hoops now do they? And the NCAA isn't making any money off of their football. It's the big time basketball schools that bring the NCAA their revenue.

And to ArkStFan: Presidents made those rules back in the 60's when the money for wasn't anywhere what it is today. When those kinds of operating rules are set the bureaucracy is never going to give them up. The presidents don't want to deal with scheduling, officiating, oversight, etc. The NCAA was a surrogate that assisted them with much of that and their A.D. covered the rest. It's inattention for the most part.

But what I've had to stay about their endowments stands. 70 million a year added to 1 billion in endowments? Really?

The NCAA doesn't help them with scheduling nor officiating. Those are conference level issues.

Fact remains that when the P5 were in danger of a large financial hit from full cost of attendance, the NCAA reserves were tapped to pay for it. It was the NCAA reserves that were tapped for the concussion settlement.

The NCAA is a useful hidey hole to keep money out of the AD's hands to keep as self-insurance for risk management instead of building teak lockers with high speed internet hookups.

(01-31-2019 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 02:55 PM)usffan Wrote:  FWIW, this is also why I think a true playoff that allowed every team to have a chance to participate is what would make college football even more money. Casual fans get more worked up about a feel good story of an underdog than making sure a third SEC team is given a chance even though the conference season already lost out on the SEC title.

USFFan

I wish it was the case, but I don't think it is. Remember, in the hoops tournament, it's not the 3rd-place ACC or B1G team that misses out in favor of a Maryland Baltimore-County, it's around the 9th place team, a whale of a difference.

Last year, the 3rd-place B1G hoops team was 28-7 Michigan, who made it all the way to finals. If it was the case that either Michigan or UMBC is in the tournament, the vast majority would prefer the former.

Basically, fans like the small schools in the tournament because all the big powers get in anyway. You don't have to choose between them, there's room for everyone. If that wasn't the case, the small schools would get jettisoned. The nature of football is such that you can't have both like you can in hoops.

New emphasis added to make sure we're talking about the same thing. College football fans are going to tune into the CFP regardless of who's in there, even if it's to hate watch. Hell, that's the only reason I'll be watching the Super Bowl on Sunday.

Casual fans are not going to be upset if, say, a team that couldn't even qualify for their conference title game because they lost games is left out. What draws [b]casual fans[/b] to the games are new stories, not some misguided sense of SEC superiority.

USFFan

(01-31-2019 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 02:55 PM)usffan Wrote:  FWIW, this is also why I think a true playoff that allowed every team to have a chance to participate is what would make college football even more money. Casual fans get more worked up about a feel good story of an underdog than making sure a third SEC team is given a chance even though the conference season already lost out on the SEC title.

USFFan

I wish it was the case, but I don't think it is. Remember, in the hoops tournament, it's not the 3rd-place ACC or B1G team that misses out in favor of a Maryland Baltimore-County, it's around the 9th place team, a whale of a difference.

Last year, the 3rd-place B1G hoops team was 28-7 Michigan, who made it all the way to finals. If it was the case that either Michigan or UMBC is in the tournament, the vast majority would prefer the former.

Basically, fans like the small schools in the tournament because all the big powers get in anyway. You don't have to choose between them, there's room for everyone. If that wasn't the case, the small schools would get jettisoned. The nature of football is such that you can't have both like you can in hoops.

I'll always root for the UMBC over Michigan, Kentucky, Kansas or Duke.

(01-30-2019 10:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 04:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  It might well kill the NCAA's Golden Goose. But I don't believe it would significantly impact the value of the tournament. It would just cut 250 schools (and the NCAA) out of the picture as beneficiaries of that contract.

Where can I sign up to this arrangement? Some of me does wish some of those 250 schools could stay, but ALL of me wishes the NCAA would cease to exist.

There are 350 schools. That's the problem.

In the early 80s it was about 250.