(05-28-2020 06:02 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  ESPN has been positioning its pieces for this for the last decade. In a system that players get paid, who can pay the most?

You build the new organization around SEC football and ACC basketball. The consistently best leagues in college athletics. Ask yourself if a college football championship without Alabama or basketball championship without Duke really a championship?

No one can assume anyone, beyond Notre Dame, and I see that far from a given, would walk away. Notre Dame has the resources to survive outside of the new college athletics structure. Hard to say if playing for the football equivalent of an NIT championship every season would be enough for the Irish.

You are naive if you believe a private school like Northwestern or Duke is going to walk away from suckling at the conference teet for the sake of academics. The moment college athletics agreed to freshman eligibility, redshirting and one & dones the integrity of amateur athletics was forever changed.

Some private schools invest heavily on athletics. Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have leveraged athletics very well. No reason to automatically exclude private universities from a breakaway.

I do wonder whether schools with smaller athletic budgets will go along. For example, Washington State or Wake Forest may be tempted to reconsider. Low budget schools depend much more heavily on the conferences’ media distribution for their finances. They may not want to jump into a business model where their university’s brand is being used in manners that is further out of their direct control.

For many of the current Power 5 university leaders, this change (breakaway) may end-up analogous to how they handle “health systems” within the broader umbrella of a large university complex. For example, UVA has a wonderful health system that operates a breadth of health care services (i.e., hospitals, physicians, clinics, ACOs, etc.) that have little to do with the research or academic missions of the University.

These private schools are dead set against paying players or unionized them. They would drop down to D3 then going with the breakaway. PAC 12 do need schools like San Francisco State, Concordia Irvine, Azusa Pacific, Fresno Pacific and others for water sports, wrestling and all that. Sonoma State would like a better money flow playing the PAC 12 schools so that they could have kept women's water polo.

San Francisco State just added men's wrestling, and the PAC 12 would be their landing spot for them.

(05-28-2020 09:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 06:02 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  ESPN has been positioning its pieces for this for the last decade. In a system that players get paid, who can pay the most?

You build the new organization around SEC football and ACC basketball. The consistently best leagues in college athletics. Ask yourself if a college football championship without Alabama or basketball championship without Duke really a championship?

No one can assume anyone, beyond Notre Dame, and I see that far from a given, would walk away. Notre Dame has the resources to survive outside of the new college athletics structure. Hard to say if playing for the football equivalent of an NIT championship every season would be enough for the Irish.

You are naive if you believe a private school like Northwestern or Duke is going to walk away from suckling at the conference teet for the sake of academics. The moment college athletics agreed to freshman eligibility, redshirting and one & dones the integrity of amateur athletics was forever changed.

Some private schools invest heavily on athletics. Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have leveraged athletics very well. No reason to automatically exclude private universities from a breakaway.

I do wonder whether schools with smaller athletic budgets will go along. For example, Washington State or Wake Forest may be tempted to reconsider. Low budget schools depend much more heavily on the conferences’ media distribution for their finances. They may not want to jump into a business model where their university’s brand is being used in manners that is further out of their direct control.

For many of the current Power 5 university leaders, this change (breakaway) may end-up analogous to how they handle “health systems” within the broader umbrella of a large university complex. For example, UVA has a wonderful health system that operates a breadth of health care services (i.e., hospitals, physicians, clinics, ACOs, etc.) that have little to do with the research or academic missions of the University.

Pretty much, yes. I really look for no more willful departures than say 4 or 5 from the present number unless some form of political posturing or signaling occurs, which these days can't be ruled out altogether. I look primarily at investment rates and schools like Washington State and possibly Oregon State jump out. Vanderbilt's points of emphasis are not sports related and campus space is critical. Wake Forest and possibly Boston College come to mind as well.

Culturally speaking I can't foresee anyone dropping out from the Big 12 and Northwestern certainly appears all in given their facilities upgrades. So politics being the wild card that's really the 5 I had in mind.

So we might see the elevation of 4 or so. Brigham Young would have to top the list, but the question would be if the Big 12 doesn't take them where can they go?

Personally I see large upsides to both Central and South Florida but while neither is at P5 numbers IMO a conference taking a flyer on either would be probably have a nice payoff on the investment. I have absolutely nothing against UCF but strategically South Florida would be a great opportunity for a forward looking SEC. The issue here isn't enrollment or UCF is the better grab, but the issue is location. The SEC's presence in Florida tends toward the panhandle because of proximity to Alabama and from Jacksonville down to Daytona and through Palatka and back to the panhandle. Adding Tampa/St.Pete to that demographic would be huge and having a Gulf location ties in New Orleans/Baton Rouge, and through Houston A&M. I see it as a move that simply brings the Southern Footprint of the SEC into much clearer definition and opens a lot of destination games to the alumni of the schools of the conference. Houston is interesting as well, but not as much for the SEC. Toss in Cincinnati and you have 4 fairly solid prospects outside of B.Y.U. that could have appeal whether there is broader movement from the Big 12 or ACC, or none.

The fallacy in the thinking so far in this thread is that the new tier will be composed anything like the NCAA. There is no reason to assume that if your school is included for Basketball that your Football and Baseball and Women's sports would follow. They might but would do so on their merits. I can easily envision basketball only members and baseball only members. And if the NCAA remains they will likely allow any sport that does not violate amateurism in even if another sport at that school does. I think in other words that the new paradigm will be sport by sport basis when determining membership.

Like Notre Dame playing basketball in the ACC and hockey in the Big 10. AD's and schools will do what is best for each program instead of trying to force one size fits all. And I believe this approach will be thrifty and beneficial for all and playing much more regionally for non profits will become reality while for profit sports will be the ones with travel overhead.

(05-28-2020 10:23 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  These private schools are dead set against paying players or unionized them. They would drop down to D3 then going with the breakaway. PAC 12 do need schools like San Francisco State, Concordia Irvine, Azusa Pacific, Fresno Pacific and others for water sports, wrestling and all that. Sonoma State would like a better money flow playing the PAC 12 schools so that they could have kept women's water polo.

San Francisco State just added men's wrestling, and the PAC 12 would be their landing spot for them.

I believe that you may be overly generalizing and making inaccurate inferences about unions. Many universities, both public and private, already have employees that belong to unions. Large employers (and these are likely universities with very large workforces) have professional Human Resources and labor relations staff.

The real decision point is whether or not a University leader wants (or does not want) to associate their university’s brand with athletics. I believe that Notre Dame, Stanford & Duke made this decision many decades ago when they invested heavily on football (for ND), basketball (Duke) and Olympic sports (Stanford). Other universities (such as the University of Chicago or the Ivy League schools) have made a very different decision.

For example, Duke is currently willing to associate itself with Coach K...who can earn $10M per year. I don’t believe that it would be unthinkable for Duke to also associate itself with a star player (say Zion Williamson) who could earn $50K per year.

(05-27-2020 08:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:18 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The reason I don't think an all-sports breakaway will happen can be summed up in one word: Villanova.

Do you leave behind one of the best basketball programs in the country, or do you take an FCS football team along?

Believe what you will but Villanova would have a choice to compete in Hoops, but to play football at a lower level. Football won't be devalued as a product to include basketball teams, nor should it. If Villanova wants to compete in hoops they have a seat. If not it's their choice.

So you're envisioning a complete breakaway from the NCAA by the power schools completely devaluing the NCAA's most valuable asset in March Madness and sucking the air out of the programs left behind and you expect those schools that you just left to whither to allow you to park your non revenue sports or any other "lower-level" sports in? I think not my good man.

(05-28-2020 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 06:02 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  ESPN has been positioning its pieces for this for the last decade. In a system that players get paid, who can pay the most?

You build the new organization around SEC football and ACC basketball. The consistently best leagues in college athletics. Ask yourself if a college football championship without Alabama or basketball championship without Duke really a championship?

No one can assume anyone, beyond Notre Dame, and I see that far from a given, would walk away. Notre Dame has the resources to survive outside of the new college athletics structure. Hard to say if playing for the football equivalent of an NIT championship every season would be enough for the Irish.

You are naive if you believe a private school like Northwestern or Duke is going to walk away from suckling at the conference teet for the sake of academics. The moment college athletics agreed to freshman eligibility, redshirting and one & dones the integrity of amateur athletics was forever changed.

Some private schools invest heavily on athletics. Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have leveraged athletics very well. No reason to automatically exclude private universities from a breakaway.

I do wonder whether schools with smaller athletic budgets will go along. For example, Washington State or Wake Forest may be tempted to reconsider. Low budget schools depend much more heavily on the conferences’ media distribution for their finances. They may not want to jump into a business model where their university’s brand is being used in manners that is further out of their direct control.

For many of the current Power 5 university leaders, this change (breakaway) may end-up analogous to how they handle “health systems” within the broader umbrella of a large university complex. For example, UVA has a wonderful health system that operates a breadth of health care services (i.e., hospitals, physicians, clinics, ACOs, etc.) that have little to do with the research or academic missions of the University.

Pretty much, yes. I really look for no more willful departures than say 4 or 5 from the present number unless some form of political posturing or signaling occurs, which these days can't be ruled out altogether. I look primarily at investment rates and schools like Washington State and possibly Oregon State jump out. Vanderbilt's points of emphasis are not sports related and campus space is critical. Wake Forest and possibly Boston College come to mind as well.

Culturally speaking I can't foresee anyone dropping out from the Big 12 and Northwestern certainly appears all in given their facilities upgrades. So politics being the wild card that's really the 5 I had in mind.

So we might see the elevation of 4 or so. Brigham Young would have to top the list, but the question would be if the Big 12 doesn't take them where can they go?

Personally I see large upsides to both Central and South Florida but while neither is at P5 numbers IMO a conference taking a flyer on either would be probably have a nice payoff on the investment. I have absolutely nothing against UCF but strategically South Florida would be a great opportunity for a forward looking SEC. The issue here isn't enrollment or UCF is the better grab, but the issue is location. The SEC's presence in Florida tends toward the panhandle because of proximity to Alabama and from Jacksonville down to Daytona and through Palatka and back to the panhandle. Adding Tampa/St.Pete to that demographic would be huge and having a Gulf location ties in New Orleans/Baton Rouge, and through Houston A&M. I see it as a move that simply brings the Southern Footprint of the SEC into much clearer definition and opens a lot of destination games to the alumni of the schools of the conference. Houston is interesting as well, but not as much for the SEC. Toss in Cincinnati and you have 4 fairly solid prospects outside of B.Y.U. that could have appeal whether there is broader movement from the Big 12 or ACC, or none.

The fallacy in the thinking so far in this thread is that the new tier will be composed anything like the NCAA. There is no reason to assume that if your school is included for Basketball that your Football and Baseball and Women's sports would follow. They might but would do so on their merits. I can easily envision basketball only members and baseball only members. And if the NCAA remains they will likely allow any sport that does not violate amateurism in even if another sport at that school does. I think in other words that the new paradigm will be sport by sport basis when determining membership.

Like Notre Dame playing basketball in the ACC and hockey in the Big 10. AD's and schools will do what is best for each program instead of trying to force one size fits all. And I believe this approach will be thrifty and beneficial for all and playing much more regionally for non profits will become reality while for profit sports will be the ones with travel overhead.

Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 06:02 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  ESPN has been positioning its pieces for this for the last decade. In a system that players get paid, who can pay the most?

You build the new organization around SEC football and ACC basketball. The consistently best leagues in college athletics. Ask yourself if a college football championship without Alabama or basketball championship without Duke really a championship?

No one can assume anyone, beyond Notre Dame, and I see that far from a given, would walk away. Notre Dame has the resources to survive outside of the new college athletics structure. Hard to say if playing for the football equivalent of an NIT championship every season would be enough for the Irish.

You are naive if you believe a private school like Northwestern or Duke is going to walk away from suckling at the conference teet for the sake of academics. The moment college athletics agreed to freshman eligibility, redshirting and one & dones the integrity of amateur athletics was forever changed.

Some private schools invest heavily on athletics. Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have leveraged athletics very well. No reason to automatically exclude private universities from a breakaway.

I do wonder whether schools with smaller athletic budgets will go along. For example, Washington State or Wake Forest may be tempted to reconsider. Low budget schools depend much more heavily on the conferences’ media distribution for their finances. They may not want to jump into a business model where their university’s brand is being used in manners that is further out of their direct control.

For many of the current Power 5 university leaders, this change (breakaway) may end-up analogous to how they handle “health systems” within the broader umbrella of a large university complex. For example, UVA has a wonderful health system that operates a breadth of health care services (i.e., hospitals, physicians, clinics, ACOs, etc.) that have little to do with the research or academic missions of the University.

Pretty much, yes. I really look for no more willful departures than say 4 or 5 from the present number unless some form of political posturing or signaling occurs, which these days can't be ruled out altogether. I look primarily at investment rates and schools like Washington State and possibly Oregon State jump out. Vanderbilt's points of emphasis are not sports related and campus space is critical. Wake Forest and possibly Boston College come to mind as well.

Culturally speaking I can't foresee anyone dropping out from the Big 12 and Northwestern certainly appears all in given their facilities upgrades. So politics being the wild card that's really the 5 I had in mind.

So we might see the elevation of 4 or so. Brigham Young would have to top the list, but the question would be if the Big 12 doesn't take them where can they go?

Personally I see large upsides to both Central and South Florida but while neither is at P5 numbers IMO a conference taking a flyer on either would be probably have a nice payoff on the investment. I have absolutely nothing against UCF but strategically South Florida would be a great opportunity for a forward looking SEC. The issue here isn't enrollment or UCF is the better grab, but the issue is location. The SEC's presence in Florida tends toward the panhandle because of proximity to Alabama and from Jacksonville down to Daytona and through Palatka and back to the panhandle. Adding Tampa/St.Pete to that demographic would be huge and having a Gulf location ties in New Orleans/Baton Rouge, and through Houston A&M. I see it as a move that simply brings the Southern Footprint of the SEC into much clearer definition and opens a lot of destination games to the alumni of the schools of the conference. Houston is interesting as well, but not as much for the SEC. Toss in Cincinnati and you have 4 fairly solid prospects outside of B.Y.U. that could have appeal whether there is broader movement from the Big 12 or ACC, or none.

The fallacy in the thinking so far in this thread is that the new tier will be composed anything like the NCAA. There is no reason to assume that if your school is included for Basketball that your Football and Baseball and Women's sports would follow. They might but would do so on their merits. I can easily envision basketball only members and baseball only members. And if the NCAA remains they will likely allow any sport that does not violate amateurism in even if another sport at that school does. I think in other words that the new paradigm will be sport by sport basis when determining membership.

Like Notre Dame playing basketball in the ACC and hockey in the Big 10. AD's and schools will do what is best for each program instead of trying to force one size fits all. And I believe this approach will be thrifty and beneficial for all and playing much more regionally for non profits will become reality while for profit sports will be the ones with travel overhead.

Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

Your the one trippin'. If the NCAA survives the last thing they will be is selective. If they don't survive then all of those schools will form their own associations and do their own thing. And that is actually how the supply and demand system works. Right now the supply of students is going down and that trend will continue for a bit. So if demand is down we don't need all of those schools. They existed because of the GI Bill, followed by Boomers, followed by student loans and Pell grants which kept an artificial supply of students not worried about cost of education versus ROI. Well this time around the government isn't flush to keep all of those operating which is why the push for the upper tier and more media money. It's the race to the top of the stairs and the fresh air of survival.

There's no need to make this personal, it's already happening. I'm just telling you why. Is it what I would like to see happen? No. But it is. And it is simply a supply and demand issue that has been artificially avoided for about 30 or so years and now there's no way to dodge it again.

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

I hope the NCAA has that exact mentality. Nothing would cause them to totally dissolve faster.

(05-28-2020 11:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 06:02 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  ESPN has been positioning its pieces for this for the last decade. In a system that players get paid, who can pay the most?

You build the new organization around SEC football and ACC basketball. The consistently best leagues in college athletics. Ask yourself if a college football championship without Alabama or basketball championship without Duke really a championship?

No one can assume anyone, beyond Notre Dame, and I see that far from a given, would walk away. Notre Dame has the resources to survive outside of the new college athletics structure. Hard to say if playing for the football equivalent of an NIT championship every season would be enough for the Irish.

You are naive if you believe a private school like Northwestern or Duke is going to walk away from suckling at the conference teet for the sake of academics. The moment college athletics agreed to freshman eligibility, redshirting and one & dones the integrity of amateur athletics was forever changed.

Some private schools invest heavily on athletics. Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have leveraged athletics very well. No reason to automatically exclude private universities from a breakaway.

I do wonder whether schools with smaller athletic budgets will go along. For example, Washington State or Wake Forest may be tempted to reconsider. Low budget schools depend much more heavily on the conferences’ media distribution for their finances. They may not want to jump into a business model where their university’s brand is being used in manners that is further out of their direct control.

For many of the current Power 5 university leaders, this change (breakaway) may end-up analogous to how they handle “health systems” within the broader umbrella of a large university complex. For example, UVA has a wonderful health system that operates a breadth of health care services (i.e., hospitals, physicians, clinics, ACOs, etc.) that have little to do with the research or academic missions of the University.

Pretty much, yes. I really look for no more willful departures than say 4 or 5 from the present number unless some form of political posturing or signaling occurs, which these days can't be ruled out altogether. I look primarily at investment rates and schools like Washington State and possibly Oregon State jump out. Vanderbilt's points of emphasis are not sports related and campus space is critical. Wake Forest and possibly Boston College come to mind as well.

Culturally speaking I can't foresee anyone dropping out from the Big 12 and Northwestern certainly appears all in given their facilities upgrades. So politics being the wild card that's really the 5 I had in mind.

So we might see the elevation of 4 or so. Brigham Young would have to top the list, but the question would be if the Big 12 doesn't take them where can they go?

Personally I see large upsides to both Central and South Florida but while neither is at P5 numbers IMO a conference taking a flyer on either would be probably have a nice payoff on the investment. I have absolutely nothing against UCF but strategically South Florida would be a great opportunity for a forward looking SEC. The issue here isn't enrollment or UCF is the better grab, but the issue is location. The SEC's presence in Florida tends toward the panhandle because of proximity to Alabama and from Jacksonville down to Daytona and through Palatka and back to the panhandle. Adding Tampa/St.Pete to that demographic would be huge and having a Gulf location ties in New Orleans/Baton Rouge, and through Houston A&M. I see it as a move that simply brings the Southern Footprint of the SEC into much clearer definition and opens a lot of destination games to the alumni of the schools of the conference. Houston is interesting as well, but not as much for the SEC. Toss in Cincinnati and you have 4 fairly solid prospects outside of B.Y.U. that could have appeal whether there is broader movement from the Big 12 or ACC, or none.

The fallacy in the thinking so far in this thread is that the new tier will be composed anything like the NCAA. There is no reason to assume that if your school is included for Basketball that your Football and Baseball and Women's sports would follow. They might but would do so on their merits. I can easily envision basketball only members and baseball only members. And if the NCAA remains they will likely allow any sport that does not violate amateurism in even if another sport at that school does. I think in other words that the new paradigm will be sport by sport basis when determining membership.

Like Notre Dame playing basketball in the ACC and hockey in the Big 10. AD's and schools will do what is best for each program instead of trying to force one size fits all. And I believe this approach will be thrifty and beneficial for all and playing much more regionally for non profits will become reality while for profit sports will be the ones with travel overhead.

Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

Your the one trippin'. If the NCAA survives the last thing they will be is selective. If they don't survive then all of those schools will form their own associations and do their own thing. And that is actually how the supply and demand system works. Right now the supply of students is going down and that trend will continue for a bit. So if demand is down we don't need all of those schools. They existed because of the GI Bill, followed by Boomers, followed by student loans and Pell grants which kept an artificial supply of students not worried about cost of education versus ROI. Well this time around the government isn't flush to keep all of those operating which is why the push for the upper tier and more media money. It's the race to the top of the stairs and the fresh air of survival.

There's no need to make this personal, it's already happening. I'm just telling you why. Is it what I would like to see happen? No. But it is. And it is simply a supply and demand issue that has been artificially avoided for about 30 or so years and now there's no way to dodge it again.

You're all over the place man. Your economic theory about the supply and demand of higher education is severely flawed. Not all together wrong but just lacks anywhere close to the amount of nuance to be useful. But really is so far away from the subject at hand I'm not sure where it came from. You think the couple hundred other Division 1 schools will shutter overnight? Or even shut down athletics because of the move? Neither would happen and the NCAA would carry on because we want to see our alma maters play. We would regionalize and there would be less money in it but it would go on as a true amateur college athletics organization. See once you take the money out of it then we really could be as petty and selective as we wanted to be because it'd just exist for the love of the sport at that point. If you took all the revenues then you take the reasons for all the other universities to be beholden to your "Power".

But you'd really creating an inferior product by doing it March Madness wouldn't be anywhere near as entertaining and college football at that level would start to look like the XFL. Nobody likes semipro, it's just cheap feeling.

Finally, I will take it personally because you would ruin college sports by doing so and nobody believes this isn't what you want, you get a major hard on anytime the topic comes up.

(05-28-2020 12:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

I hope the NCAA has that exact mentality. Nothing would cause them to totally dissolve faster.

Well it'd be a different NCAA once all the toxic elements left. Not the toothless gimp the P5 have created.

(05-28-2020 12:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

I hope the NCAA has that exact mentality. Nothing would cause them to totally dissolve faster.

Well it'd be a different NCAA once all the toxic elements left. Not the toothless gimp the P5 have created.

You do know the P5 are hugely outnumbered in voting for everything other than football right? Cal State Fullerton and Furman and Kansas and Alabama have the same voting rights as members of Division 1. There are a lot more CSF and Furmans than there are Kansas and Alabamas.

(05-28-2020 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Assuming the entire P5 (and Notre Dame) breakaway to start: that's the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, PAC and SEC (65 teams) for football. Anything more than 80 teams in this new football set-up does not really maximize revenue, so, in theory, you have a cap of an additional 15-teams (80 max), for football purposes. ...

Maximizing revenue for whom???

Start with the ACC, Big12, Big Ten, PAC and SEC.

Now, in terms of football revenues FOR those conference, what does it cost those conferences to add the AAC? Basically, nothing. The MWC? Nothing. CUSA? Nothing. How about strapping on the entire Funbelt? Nothing. Even a bit of MACtion? Nothing.

The SEC is getting it's FB money. If the media value of FB goes it, it will find a way to keep on doing so. Ditto the Big Ten. Adding the AAC doesn't cut the FB revenues of the SEC or the Big Ten at all. That's why we have the "FBS", after all.

The reason why the whole system is organized to keep down the number of conferences while allowing the lower conferences to keep promoting a trickle of new Division 1 schools and lower tier FBS conferences to promote a trickle of FCS schools is because the name of the game is not giving up more auto-bids to schools who would never get an at-large bid.

The pot of money is the BASKETBALL tournament money that is being funneled into keeping the entire NCAA system afloat.

Round the tourney revenues down to $800m for simplicity. 30% goes into the participant pool, so $240m. The first table I see is a bit long in the teeth at 2007-2012, but for back of the envelope old & real beats made up, so 10% ACC, 11% Big12, 11% Big Ten, 8% PAC-12, and 8% SEC, so 48%. It'll be higher 2012-2019, I'm sure, but round that to 50%, or $120m.

Suppose that the new "American Collegiate Athletics Association", ACAA takes 20% of tourney media revenue to pay the bills, and 80% is distributed, and a 64 school tournament drops down to 9-10 conferences ... even with 4 fewer entries, that is 8 more at large spots.

For simplicity, suppose they end up in the hands of the P5, that's up from 50% of 30% of $800m, or $120m ...
... to 62.5% of 80% of $800m, which is $400m
... an increase of $280m.

(And if it's actually presently 62.5% and it bumps it to 75%, that's $150m to $480m, which is an increase of $330m, so even better.)

And if the value of the tourney grows, the P5 would continue to gain the lion's share of the media value, rather than an agent's commission.

But only if the media value of the tournament is maintained. Adding conferences that add more to the perceived media value of the conference than they will cost the P5 in tournament shares would be the "revenue maximization".

It's pretty much immaterial how much money they are worth as Football conferences, since each football conference eats what it kills.

(05-28-2020 12:08 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Some private schools invest heavily on athletics. Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have leveraged athletics very well. No reason to automatically exclude private universities from a breakaway.

I do wonder whether schools with smaller athletic budgets will go along. For example, Washington State or Wake Forest may be tempted to reconsider. Low budget schools depend much more heavily on the conferences’ media distribution for their finances. They may not want to jump into a business model where their university’s brand is being used in manners that is further out of their direct control.

For many of the current Power 5 university leaders, this change (breakaway) may end-up analogous to how they handle “health systems” within the broader umbrella of a large university complex. For example, UVA has a wonderful health system that operates a breadth of health care services (i.e., hospitals, physicians, clinics, ACOs, etc.) that have little to do with the research or academic missions of the University.

Pretty much, yes. I really look for no more willful departures than say 4 or 5 from the present number unless some form of political posturing or signaling occurs, which these days can't be ruled out altogether. I look primarily at investment rates and schools like Washington State and possibly Oregon State jump out. Vanderbilt's points of emphasis are not sports related and campus space is critical. Wake Forest and possibly Boston College come to mind as well.

Culturally speaking I can't foresee anyone dropping out from the Big 12 and Northwestern certainly appears all in given their facilities upgrades. So politics being the wild card that's really the 5 I had in mind.

So we might see the elevation of 4 or so. Brigham Young would have to top the list, but the question would be if the Big 12 doesn't take them where can they go?

Personally I see large upsides to both Central and South Florida but while neither is at P5 numbers IMO a conference taking a flyer on either would be probably have a nice payoff on the investment. I have absolutely nothing against UCF but strategically South Florida would be a great opportunity for a forward looking SEC. The issue here isn't enrollment or UCF is the better grab, but the issue is location. The SEC's presence in Florida tends toward the panhandle because of proximity to Alabama and from Jacksonville down to Daytona and through Palatka and back to the panhandle. Adding Tampa/St.Pete to that demographic would be huge and having a Gulf location ties in New Orleans/Baton Rouge, and through Houston A&M. I see it as a move that simply brings the Southern Footprint of the SEC into much clearer definition and opens a lot of destination games to the alumni of the schools of the conference. Houston is interesting as well, but not as much for the SEC. Toss in Cincinnati and you have 4 fairly solid prospects outside of B.Y.U. that could have appeal whether there is broader movement from the Big 12 or ACC, or none.

The fallacy in the thinking so far in this thread is that the new tier will be composed anything like the NCAA. There is no reason to assume that if your school is included for Basketball that your Football and Baseball and Women's sports would follow. They might but would do so on their merits. I can easily envision basketball only members and baseball only members. And if the NCAA remains they will likely allow any sport that does not violate amateurism in even if another sport at that school does. I think in other words that the new paradigm will be sport by sport basis when determining membership.

Like Notre Dame playing basketball in the ACC and hockey in the Big 10. AD's and schools will do what is best for each program instead of trying to force one size fits all. And I believe this approach will be thrifty and beneficial for all and playing much more regionally for non profits will become reality while for profit sports will be the ones with travel overhead.

Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

Your the one trippin'. If the NCAA survives the last thing they will be is selective. If they don't survive then all of those schools will form their own associations and do their own thing. And that is actually how the supply and demand system works. Right now the supply of students is going down and that trend will continue for a bit. So if demand is down we don't need all of those schools. They existed because of the GI Bill, followed by Boomers, followed by student loans and Pell grants which kept an artificial supply of students not worried about cost of education versus ROI. Well this time around the government isn't flush to keep all of those operating which is why the push for the upper tier and more media money. It's the race to the top of the stairs and the fresh air of survival.

There's no need to make this personal, it's already happening. I'm just telling you why. Is it what I would like to see happen? No. But it is. And it is simply a supply and demand issue that has been artificially avoided for about 30 or so years and now there's no way to dodge it again.

You're all over the place man. Your economic theory about the supply and demand of higher education is severely flawed. Not all together wrong but just lacks anywhere close to the amount of nuance to be useful. But really is so far away from the subject at hand I'm not sure where it came from. You think the couple hundred other Division 1 schools will shutter overnight? Or even shut down athletics because of the move? Neither would happen and the NCAA would carry on because we want to see our alma maters play. We would regionalize and there would be less money in it but it would go on as a true amateur college athletics organization. See once you take the money out of it then we really could be as petty and selective as we wanted to be because it'd just exist for the love of the sport at that point. If you took all the revenues then you take the reasons for all the other universities to be beholden to your "Power".

But you'd really creating an inferior product by doing it March Madness wouldn't be anywhere near as entertaining and college football at that level would start to look like the XFL. Nobody likes semipro, it's just cheap feeling.

Finally, I will take it personally because you would ruin college sports by doing so and nobody believes this isn't what you want, you get a major hard on anytime the topic comes up.

That's your opinion. I'm retired did analytical work for a long long time and still have people who call me for my insights. So good luck.

And I'm not creating anything. I'm simply relaying where the trends say we are headed.

And finally you are over reactive, I'm not ruining a damn thing. You explain to me very carefully how an old retired guy has any power. I know people yes. But these aren't my plans.

i don't know why you fixated on me but get some help. You can't handle reality, can't make a rational informed argument as to your position other than the "I say so" argument and it gets tedious seeing your over-wrought responses.

You obviously need an object for your repressed frustrations and I'm not it.

You should try ranting on Wlner and Dodd, and Thompson who all see it very differently than you lay it out and give their reasons. The demographic, cultural, and economic shifts are realities and they aren't gong away to fit your idealized view of the world. But if venting your spleen, howling and throwing rocks at the moon make you feel better that's at least not a bad thing.

(05-27-2020 11:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So a "P5 breakaway" only makes a lot of financial sense if it is a P5 led breakaway rather than a "P5 only" breakaway.

That's what it would be. If this ever happened, it would be a P5-led group that would set criteria for joining (e.g., minimum number of varsity sports, minimum amount of funding for those sports, minimum athletic department revenue not including university funds or student fees, lower minimums for schools that don't have a football team in the new organization), and would be open to any school that wanted to join and met those criteria. And there's no point in arguing about which non-P5 "conferences" would be part of or not part of the new group, because it would be an evaluation of each individual school, not whole conferences.

(05-27-2020 08:38 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  That playful and artsy statue of the venerable Nate B. Forrest can be found in my hometown of Nashville. Three years ago, it was given this lovely pink paint job.

Photo courtesy of WZTV

I'd love to extend an invitation to those folks to come and attempt to slosh pink paint on the NBF portrait hanging in my home.

(05-28-2020 12:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

I hope the NCAA has that exact mentality. Nothing would cause them to totally dissolve faster.

Well it'd be a different NCAA once all the toxic elements left. Not the toothless gimp the P5 have created.

The organization called the NCAA has a $165M operating budget for its internal operating expenses. The NCAA also coordinates services (such as insurance and educational conferences) to the tune of $35M annually. The NCAA also distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to colleges and universities.

How does the NCAA earn all this money?

Basically, they have convinced Zion Williamson and other elite basketball youth...as well as Duke University and other elite basketball programs to play in their annual Tournament.

If folks honestly believe that there are hundreds of colleges that have a spare $1.1B annually (that they are willing to gift to maintain the current NCAA funding model), then there is a bridge that is looking for that same owner somewhere.

(05-28-2020 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 11:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So a "P5 breakaway" only makes a lot of financial sense if it is a P5 led breakaway rather than a "P5 only" breakaway.

That's what it would be. If this ever happened, it would be a P5-led group that would set criteria for joining (e.g., minimum number of varsity sports, minimum amount of funding for those sports, minimum athletic department revenue not including university funds or student fees, lower minimums for schools that don't have a football team in the new organization), and would be open to any school that wanted to join and met those criteria. And there's no point in arguing about which non-P5 "conferences" would be part of or not part of the new group, because it would be an evaluation of each individual school, not whole conferences.

This is correct.

The ones that might get added are probably the 10 first round survivors of the B12 expansion committee screening, plus add San Diego State, Memphis, Gonzaga, Dayton and possibly a couple more basketball schools (Wichita State comes to mind). Also the Big East, which probably would be accepted as a conference (or it might dissolve, every member accepted then reform again). Not all in that list get in. You have to think Rice would not, Tulane likely not and USF funding levels have slid down. (Boise State is surprisingly low funded, behind Fresno State and San Diego State).

Another possibility is schools might be accepted in individual sports rather than as a whole. For example Big West Volleyball, Water Polo and Baseball are played at pretty high level. Another would be Johns Hopkins Lacrosse. Ice Hockey might warrant it's own separate sanctioning body, as might other sports. This might be the best route to go with Football.

One thing I expect the P5 to do is take their sweet time deciding who to accept and not. A couple years outside the group would quickly separate those who could financially sustain and those that cannot among the aspirants. In short let survival of the fittest among those held out.

No I don't see the academies in the breakaway. Army-Navy game will still be big, and no reason not to allow Notre Dame-Navy to continue, and a few others. But cross sanctioning body games occur now, so I see know reason why they would not happen with a break away.

(05-28-2020 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 11:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So a "P5 breakaway" only makes a lot of financial sense if it is a P5 led breakaway rather than a "P5 only" breakaway.

That's what it would be. If this ever happened, it would be a P5-led group that would set criteria for joining (e.g., minimum number of varsity sports, minimum amount of funding for those sports, minimum athletic department revenue not including university funds or student fees, lower minimums for schools that don't have a football team in the new organization), and would be open to any school that wanted to join and met those criteria. And there's no point in arguing about which non-P5 "conferences" would be part of or not part of the new group, because it would be an evaluation of each individual school, not whole conferences.

Bolded, I agree that the best programs would be selected from the G5 that add real value. I wouldn't be surprised if the final number of schools in such a new alignment would be only about 80, but we're all just speculating based upon speculation.

And I'll add, since this is all driven by football, it may not include non (BCS)- football schools. The priorities of those university athletic departments really don't align with BCS football schools. We've seen that movie before. It resulted in the dissolution of the old Big East.

(05-28-2020 02:24 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 11:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So a "P5 breakaway" only makes a lot of financial sense if it is a P5 led breakaway rather than a "P5 only" breakaway.

That's what it would be. If this ever happened, it would be a P5-led group that would set criteria for joining (e.g., minimum number of varsity sports, minimum amount of funding for those sports, minimum athletic department revenue not including university funds or student fees, lower minimums for schools that don't have a football team in the new organization), and would be open to any school that wanted to join and met those criteria. And there's no point in arguing about which non-P5 "conferences" would be part of or not part of the new group, because it would be an evaluation of each individual school, not whole conferences.

This is correct.

The ones that might get added are probably the 10 first round survivors of the B12 expansion committee screening, plus add San Diego State, Memphis, Gonzaga, Dayton and possibly a couple more basketball schools (Wichita State comes to mind). Also the Big East, which probably would be accepted as a conference (or it might dissolve, every member accepted then reform again). Not all in that list get in. You have to think Rice would not, Tulane likely not and USF funding levels have slid down. (Boise State is surprisingly low funded, behind Fresno State and San Diego State).

Another possibility is schools might be accepted in individual sports rather than as a whole. For example Big West Volleyball, Water Polo and Baseball are played at pretty high level. Another would be Johns Hopkins Lacrosse. Ice Hockey might warrant it's own separate sanctioning body, as might other sports. This might be the best route to go with Football.

One thing I expect the P5 to do is take their sweet time deciding who to accept and not. A couple years outside the group would quickly separate those who could financially sustain and those that cannot among the aspirants. In short let survival of the fittest among those held out.

No I don't see the academies in the breakaway. Army-Navy game will still be big, and no reason not to allow Notre Dame-Navy to continue, and a few others. But cross sanctioning body games occur now, so I see know reason why they would not happen with a break away.

Body bag games won't happen because the Networks who would be paying for this want games contained to a grouping that deliver ratings every week and that's what they would be paying to acquire. Some of the figures tossed around are really stunning. So this idea that those games will continue is just not justified.

(05-28-2020 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 11:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So a "P5 breakaway" only makes a lot of financial sense if it is a P5 led breakaway rather than a "P5 only" breakaway.

That's what it would be. If this ever happened, it would be a P5-led group that would set criteria for joining (e.g., minimum number of varsity sports, minimum amount of funding for those sports, minimum athletic department revenue not including university funds or student fees, lower minimums for schools that don't have a football team in the new organization), and would be open to any school that wanted to join and met those criteria. And there's no point in arguing about which non-P5 "conferences" would be part of or not part of the new group, because it would be an evaluation of each individual school, not whole conferences.

So Hello Liberty and Grand Canyon!