https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-football

Quote:Clemson head football coach Dabo Swinney said this week he thinks a lack of uniformity will lead to a complete restructuring in college athletics at some point. In particular, he sees the larger, more prominent Power 5 schools forming their own division in football.

"I think there's going to be a complete blowup ... especially in football, and there needs to be," Swinney told ESPN. "I think eventually there will be some type of break and another division. Right now, you got everybody in one group, and it's not feasible. Alabama has different problems than Middle Tennessee, but we're trying to make them all the same and it's just not. I think you'll have 40 or 50 teams and a commissioner and here are the rules."

Swinney said the current system is a "mess" and that it's hard to get anything accomplished as college athletics continue to evolve and change in the new world of the transfer portal and name, image and likeness.

Dabo: "I think you'll have 40 or 50 teams and a commissioner and here are the rules."

No place for the lower tier ACC and Pac-12 schools in that scenario.

65-70 and call it a day.

Time for bracketology NCAAF edition?

Seeds:

1. ND, Bama, OSU, UGa
2. OU, A&M, LSU, UM
3. UT, USC, Clemson, Fla
4. Auburn, Oregon, PSU, UW
5. MSU, FSU, Wisc, Stanford
6. UCLA, OSU, UN, Tennessee
7. USC, Cal, UNC, Arkansas
8. Maryland, Utah, Iowa, Ole Miss

Top 32 ad libbed.

As few as 40:

Big Ten+10
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Oregon, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Virginia, Wisconsin.

SEC-20
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, North Carolina State, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas A&M, Texas, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

40-50 teams? Whatever.

Given the calculated additions made over the last 30+ years in the SEC, B1G, PAC, ACC and XII I do not see why you shed 20-30 from those conferences.

2-5 more probably get in. USF, CSU and SMU possibly as a replacement in the XII if there is some more movement.

It would have to move by conferences and not teams. Which of these conferences gonna she’d teams. Will the sec dump Missouri or Mississippi st? No. so whole conferences are a must.

(04-08-2022 09:41 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Given the calculated additions made over the last 30+ years in the SEC, B1G, PAC, ACC and XII I do not see why you shed 20-30 from those conferences.

The same reason the Big East got taken out. The same reason the Big 12 was taken down a notch. The same reason the ACC is next in line: consolidation of power and media rights money means lots more for the cartel.

The big fish don't need the Northeastern schools, they don't need a Georgia Tech or an Arizona, they don't need an Oregon State or a Texas Tech.

of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

(04-08-2022 09:49 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:41 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Given the calculated additions made over the last 30+ years in the SEC, B1G, PAC, ACC and XII I do not see why you shed 20-30 from those conferences.

The same reason the Big East got taken out. The same reason the Big 12 was taken down a notch. The same reason the ACC is next in line: consolidation of power and media rights money means lots more for the cartel.

The big fish don't need the Northeastern schools, they don't need a Georgia Tech or an Arizona, they don't need an Oregon State or a Texas Tech.

If you only have 40 schools, 20 of them will have to be in the second division which isn't good for the bottom line of those 20.

What makes more sense is the P5 to pump up to 75-80 members to make the top 40-45 look good.

When FBS (D1-A) was created it was supposed to be a super division of under 100 teams but now its 130-135 members and conferences that don't have the resources.

Taking more expansion by the P5 into account...

SEC 20 (FSU, Clemson, Duke, UNC)
B1G 20 (Kansas, Colorado, ASU, USC, UCLA, Stanford)
PAC 12 (BYU, CSU, Boise, UNLV, SDSU)
ACC 14 (USF, ECU, Temple, UConn)
XII 14 (SMU, Memphis. Tulane)

That make for 80 total members in the P5 for a robust top subdivision.

MWC 10 (NMSU, UTEP)
AAC 10
MAC 12
SBC 14
CUSA 9 (SFA, MoSt)

55 left over in the G5 but only a half step above FCS in resources. They could play the bowls and then have a +1 national championship game.

I've seen this show before...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/01/23/th...s-decision

(04-08-2022 11:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I've seen this show before...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/01/23/th...s-decision

"The Texases and the Tennessees, with their $4 million athletic budgets and 80,000-seat stadiums and the goals and problems those things imply, were simply split away from the Ball States and the Marshalls with their more modest aspirations."

The author definitely overestimated the number of teams that would willingly choose I-AA.

This guy is a complete idiot. His school have lost to G5 and FCS schools with less resources. Having all the money does not mean that you are the better school in football. I think it is best that we blow up the conferences and placed them in regions. Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, boise State, Idaho, Utah, Utah State, BYU and UNR are in one regional conference.

What is not well understood is how important a big tent is to the overall interest in college athletics.

Fans of G5 conferences are tuning into the college football season as they perceive they are a part of it.

Go to this limited 30-40 team model and there wouldn't be as much overall interest in it.

(04-09-2022 02:00 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What is not well understood is how important a big tent is to the overall interest in college athletics.

Fans of G5 conferences are tuning into the college football season as they perceive they are a part of it.

Go to this limited 30-40 team model and there wouldn't be as much overall interest in it.

I highly doubt the big tent includes G5.
The G5 is the G5 because they lack viewers and fans. Even if they’re lost, it won’t offset the reduction in costs of including them in revenue sharing. In reality they will have the least amount of fans turning away from college football because their program can’t compete. They already don’t.

Pushing out 20-30 P5 programs is a bigger question. Some may protest turning away from CFB. But again, even if all the fans of the culled schools don’t watch the super league, it won’t offset the super league not having to pay then. If they had large enough pull for that to be a negative, they’d be included. It’s simply better for the top 40 to make 4 billion on 40 schools than 5 billion on 65+. They’ll lose fans, but that’s okay, the elasticity is in their favor

(04-09-2022 02:30 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:00 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What is not well understood is how important a big tent is to the overall interest in college athletics.

Fans of G5 conferences are tuning into the college football season as they perceive they are a part of it.

Go to this limited 30-40 team model and there wouldn't be as much overall interest in it.

I highly doubt the big tent includes G5.
The G5 is the G5 because they lack viewers and fans. Even if they’re lost, it won’t offset the reduction in costs of including them in revenue sharing. In reality they will have the least amount of fans turning away from college football because their program can’t compete. They already don’t.

Pushing out 20-30 P5 programs is a bigger question. Some may protest turning away from CFB. But again, even if all the fans of the culled schools don’t watch the super league, it won’t offset the super league not having to pay then. If they had large enough pull for that to be a negative, they’d be included. It’s simply better for the top 40 to make 4 billion on 40 schools than 5 billion on 65+. They’ll lose fans, but that’s okay, the elasticity is in their favor

A lot of the "valuation" is predicated on the alumni sizes, particularly in the B1G where they are huge.

G5 in many cases has large alumni bases that opt into the system by virtue of being FBS. This also goes for basketball at the non-P5 conferences.

The non-blueblood schools are tuning in because they believe their program can rise in the tent. Take them out and they aren't going to follow along with it. The top level of CFB/CBB becomes effectively a regional sport like College Hockey.

This is why IF there is a structural change its going to be nothing more than a new football subdivision with the 75-80 P5 schools so they can maintain as much of a big tent as possible.

The G5 isn't being pushed out by the lack of viewers and fans. That has always been a challenge and is nothing new. They are being pushed out (sliding out) because of the deregulation and specifically the movement toward pay for play. If they had their own level to control they could regulate it. They could even make rules that require a sit out year if a player wishes to transfer.

P5 really doesn't want a G5 regulating their own subdivision. They'd prefer they would stay in FBS and continue along with the unequal treatment and stay in the tent for football with a glimmer of hope of earning a bid someday to the P5, while spending 4 or 5 million on coaches to do it.

If you take another 3-5 well funded G5's out of there like USF, CSU, SMU, Boise, Memphis and the G5s left behind are going to be even more inclined to go their separate ways.

IMHO it's only a matter of time until the power 5 break with the NCAA. They just are not on the same page right now. But when they get on the same page they will go.

They have wanted separation from "G5" as it's known today, and even more from the mass of D-I FCS and Basketball schools they see as mooching off their earnings. And they want the NCAA out of the way for many things. Also the NCAA is becoming a honey pot for all kinds of litigation and soon legislative intervention. Add to that it's under performing in revenue for CFP and Basketball and you have more reasons to get out of it than stay in. Just fear of the unknown and lack of common focus among the P5 has kept this at bay.

But Sweeney may well get his wish. But I agree it'll be about 70 football schools. I seriously doubt that when the big split happens any will want to voluntarily surrender their status.

I have no idea what will become of all the rest.

(04-09-2022 03:30 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  IMHO it's only a matter of time until the power 5 break with the NCAA. They just are not on the same page right now. But when they get on the same page they will go.

They have wanted separation from "G5" as it's known today, and even more from the mass of D-I FCS and Basketball schools they see as mooching off their earnings. And they want the NCAA out of the way for many things. Also the NCAA is becoming a honey pot for all kinds of litigation and soon legislative intervention. Add to that it's under performing in revenue for CFP and Basketball and you have more reasons to get out of it than stay in. Just fear of the unknown and lack of common focus among the P5 has kept this at bay.

But Sweeney may well get his wish. But I agree it'll be about 70 football schools. I seriously doubt that when the big split happens any will want to voluntarily surrender their status.

I have no idea what will become of all the rest.

But then, you will have politicians what their schools in with the big boys as well. I am seeing a lot of politicians got elected at the local, state and federal who are not a graduate of a P5 school.