Big tell is this paragraph:

Quote:“For me, it would make sense to have self-governance for a smaller group of conferences than the 32 that currently make up Division I. But that doesn’t necessarily mean being separate from the NCAA. You can do that within the NCAA, similar to the way certain autonomy was given to the (Power 5) conferences for certain issues.”

Kliavkoff said he understands that enforcing rules would require an enforcement arm similar to what the NCAA has, and that there would need to be bureaucratic elements to any non-NCAA entity formed to manage football. He also said he thinks five conferences governing the sport is “too small” but that 32 conferences governing all of college sports is “too big.”

If the following conferences either become the new Division 1 or gain autonomous status for all sports, the NCAA tournament could continue to be a 68-team event, and the CFP could expand to 12 and none would be the wiser:

SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
MW
AAC
A-10
WCC

Maybe:
MVC
Ivy League

(06-17-2022 09:21 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  If the following conferences either become the new Division 1 or gain autonomous status for all sports, the NCAA tournament could continue to be a 68-team event, and the CFP could expand to 12 and none would be the wiser:

SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
MW
AAC
A-10
SunBelt
WCC

Maybe:
MVC
MAC
C-USA
Ivy League
Patriot

add in the Sunbelt for sure and maaayyyybe the MAC, C-USA. If you add in the College World Series, do you add any more conferences in addition to the ones listed or not?

I think we’re going to see the P5 pull out of college football which will probably mean that the G5 get merged into FCS (unless the NCAA wants to continue with a 2 tier system and let some of the stronger FCS leagues move into the G5 tier).

(06-17-2022 09:21 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  If the following conferences either become the new Division 1 or gain autonomous status for all sports, the NCAA tournament could continue to be a 68-team event, and the CFP could expand to 12 and none would be the wiser:

SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
MW
AAC
A-10
WCC

Maybe:
MVC
Ivy League

Something looks strangely odd with two leagues in your lineup.

First, you can’t just move a league up over another one. I don’t have a problem with the MWC wanting to promote themselves over the AAC but before I’m convinced of that they must mirror AAC results. Yes and I mean NY6 and tv eyeball results.

Two, the new Big East has proudly abandon football so they have kindly removed themselves away from the football basketball full member conference club.

SEC
B1G
Big12
Pac-12
ACC
AAC
MW
MAC
Sun Belt
CUSA

The difficulty is that the conference structure for football is not the same as for other sports. In FBS there's not much difference. The Sun Belt expelled their last two non-fb members. MWC only has Hawaii as a football only member. AAC only has Navy as football only and Wichita St. as non-football. But in FCS there's a lot of differences. And there are still 3.5 independents.

Its interesting that he says the number is more than 5.

Kliavkoff is socializing a simple principle…the current NCAA D1 governance model doesn’t make sense for football. Specifically,

1) football issues are unique (Vis-a-Vis other sports) and need specialized focus
2) 32 conferences with voting rights is too cumbersome, especially when many schools & conferences don’t compete at the same level

I don’t get who is the intended audience. I imagine that A5 commissioners already have frequent direct conversations with each other. The Saban v Fisher dust-up; the fast-turnaround of Miami and USC recruiting fortunes; the disparity in state NIL rules; and the complexities in managing rosters and transfers could be examples that the A5 still has unique shared-interest in common governance. So is he merely communicating to fans and boosters? Or is this directed to leaders at G5, FCS, and/or non-football D1 programs? Or maybe he’s targeting ptb at A5 universities?

If the A5 is now aligned, do the G5 conferences and schools have a choice to tag-along with this forthcoming change in football governance? Also, separation of football from NCAA D1 will lead to a more serious discussion about the future of basketball. Both A5 and FBS-level football can be separated from D1 without financially cripling NCAA operations…but basketball has a much different level of interdependence.

Or, you can just have each conference establish its own rules and enforcement. If your conference sets rules no other conference is willing to live with they can just stop playing your schools. That moderating influence should quickly result in a manageable number of conferences and schools with common interests.

(06-18-2022 10:35 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Kliavkoff is socializing a simple principle…the current NCAA D1 governance model doesn’t make sense for football. Specifically,

1) football issues are unique (Vis-a-Vis other sports) and need specialized focus
2) 32 conferences with voting rights is too cumbersome, especially when many schools & conferences don’t compete at the same level

I don’t get who is the intended audience. I imagine that A5 commissioners already have frequent direct conversations with each other. The Saban v Fisher dust-up; the fast-turnaround of Miami and USC recruiting fortunes; the disparity in state NIL rules; and the complexities in managing rosters and transfers could be examples that the A5 still has unique shared-interest in common governance. So is he merely communicating to fans and boosters? Or is this directed to leaders at G5, FCS, and/or non-football D1 programs? Or maybe he’s targeting ptb at A5 universities?

If the A5 is now aligned, do the G5 conferences and schools have a choice to tag-along with this forthcoming change in football governance? Also, separation of football from NCAA D1 will lead to a more serious discussion about the future of basketball. Both A5 and FBS-level football can be separated from D1 without financially cripling NCAA operations…but basketball has a much different level of interdependence.

The Knight commission talked about separate governance of football and most were in favor. However, most of the P5 schools were not. My guess is that they wanted to move basketball out as well.

(06-18-2022 10:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Knight commission talked about separate governance of football and most were in favor. However, most of the P5 schools were not. My guess is that they wanted to move basketball out as well.

Agreed. When the Pac-12 commissioner and the Ohio State AD talk about setting up a separate governing structure for college football, what they really want is to use football as a first step into a larger new structure. Would be more efficient to use that same new structure and new rules for everything. Anyone can see that.

If what these guys are talking about is ever done, they might begin with football, but they won't stop there. Going beyond football gets messier. Even in this (so far short) message thread, fans are getting pissy about who would be included and who would not. Just imagine how much more heated actual real-world stakeholders would be at the prospect of being left behind in the NCAA, or, conversely, at the prospect that "too many" lightly-funded athletic departments would still get fat slices of football and/or basketball playoff money.

(06-18-2022 10:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  Or, you can just have each conference establish its own rules and enforcement. If your conference sets rules no other conference is willing to live with they can just stop playing your schools. That moderating influence should quickly result in a manageable number of conferences and schools with common interests.

Agree that there are folks in the SEC who are seriously contemplating that option…hence the SEC-only CFP expansion discussion.

IMO - regardless of how flawed the whole execution of an Alliance has been, the origins of the Alliance was the commonality in the long term interests across conferences. All three Alliance members are definitely much better-off with a common governing structure. Kliavkoff’s comments are not controversial within Alliance schools.

On the other hand, establishing conference-specific rules is not really a choice for the B12 and G5. If the SEC and Alliance can’t compromise on football governance, then these conferences have more options.

(06-18-2022 12:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  Or, you can just have each conference establish its own rules and enforcement. If your conference sets rules no other conference is willing to live with they can just stop playing your schools. That moderating influence should quickly result in a manageable number of conferences and schools with common interests.

Agree that there are folks in the SEC who are seriously contemplating that option…hence the SEC-only CFP expansion discussion.

IMO - regardless of how flawed the whole execution of an Alliance has been, the origins of the Alliance was the commonality in the long term interests across conferences. All three Alliance members are definitely much better-off with a common governing structure. Kliavkoff’s comments are not controversial within Alliance schools.

On the other hand, establishing conference-specific rules is not really a choice for the B12 and G5. If the SEC and Alliance can’t compromise on football governance, then these conferences have more options.

When I spoke of a moderating influence, I was assuming that the conferences with the most power would have to be the ones to compromise if they want other conferences to play with them. I do think they wouldn't want to only play each other. I don't think they care much if G5 schools won't play them, but they want to play against ACC, B12 and PAC schools.

For some reason, some of you ACC fans keep talking about The Alliance as if it's a real thing?

Read the article linked in the OP with Kliavkoff's comments. Then read this article in which Gene Smith, the Ohio State AD, talks about FBS-only governance of college football. Then, read this article about the issue with comments from Jim Phillips, the ACC commissioner.

Do a word search in each article, if you like. The word "Alliance" doesn't appear anywhere in any of those articles, and isn't mentioned by the Pac-12 commissioner, the Ohio State AD, or the ACC commissioner.

(06-17-2022 09:21 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  If the following conferences either become the new Division 1 or gain autonomous status for all sports, the NCAA tournament could continue to be a 68-team event, and the CFP could expand to 12 and none would be the wiser:

SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
MW
AAC
A-10
WCC

Maybe:
MVC
Ivy League

He said football, not the conferences without football.

(06-18-2022 07:25 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 09:21 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  If the following conferences either become the new Division 1 or gain autonomous status for all sports, the NCAA tournament could continue to be a 68-team event, and the CFP could expand to 12 and none would be the wiser:

SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
MW
AAC
A-10
WCC

Maybe:
MVC
Ivy League

Something looks strangely odd with two leagues in your lineup.

First, you can’t just move a league up over another one. I don’t have a problem with the MWC wanting to promote themselves over the AAC but before I’m convinced of that they must mirror AAC results. Yes and I mean NY6 and tv eyeball results.

Two, the new Big East has proudly abandon football so they have kindly removed themselves away from the football basketball full member conference club.

SEC
B1G
Big12
Pac-12
ACC
AAC
MW
MAC
Sun Belt
CUSA

MVFC formed a full FBS all sports league.
Big Sky
WAC/ASUN/Lamar/McNeese State/North Carolina A&T/ Tennessee State/Chatanooga/Stony Brook/Delaware/New Hampshire/UMass./UConn/Florida A&M/Jackson State/Texas Southern/West Texas A&M/Central Oklahoma/Lindenwood/Indianapolis/North Florida adding football etc could form new conferences like one in the west, central and east coast.

If not all the Big Sky schools could move up? Merge them with some D2 schools like Central Washington, Western Washington, Western Oregon, Northwest Nazarene, Seattle U., Grand Canyon U., Utah Valley, Colorado Mesa, CSU-Peublo, CSU-L.A. San Francisco State, Cal Poly Pomona, CSU-San Bernardino, and so forth as likely ones. You have the two D1 conferences on the west coast and in the southeast that could be transformed to an all sports conferences.

He's not wrong.

(06-18-2022 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  For some reason, some of you ACC fans keep talking about The Alliance as if it's a real thing?

Read the article linked in the OP with Kliavkoff's comments. Then read this article in which Gene Smith, the Ohio State AD, talks about FBS-only governance of college football. Then, read this article about the issue with comments from Jim Phillips, the ACC commissioner.

Do a word search in each article, if you like. The word "Alliance" doesn't appear anywhere in any of those articles, and isn't mentioned by the Pac-12 commissioner, the Ohio State AD, or the ACC commissioner.

All of those articles are behind paywalls, Wedge!!

I like Kliavkoff so far as he has a solid business perspective.

He wasn't trying to say anything here. He was keeping an idea at the forefront. He didn't mention a number for conferences because he knows there isn't agreement on the number. He wants consensus on the idea first and knows Sankey can't be the one to propose it. It was a marvelously successful nonspecific statement.

1. Spoken: The NCAA doesn't need to govern football.

2. Unspoken: We leave the door open to decide on other sports.

3. Unspoken: All who agree call me and we'll get on the same page.

(06-17-2022 08:53 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Big tell is this paragraph:

Quote:“For me, it would make sense to have self-governance for a smaller group of conferences than the 32 that currently make up Division I. But that doesn’t necessarily mean being separate from the NCAA. You can do that within the NCAA, similar to the way certain autonomy was given to the (Power 5) conferences for certain issues.”

Kliavkoff said he understands that enforcing rules would require an enforcement arm similar to what the NCAA has, and that there would need to be bureaucratic elements to any non-NCAA entity formed to manage football. He also said he thinks five conferences governing the sport is “too small” but that 32 conferences governing all of college sports is “too big.”

That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

(06-18-2022 07:47 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  For some reason, some of you ACC fans keep talking about The Alliance as if it's a real thing?

Read the article linked in the OP with Kliavkoff's comments. Then read this article in which Gene Smith, the Ohio State AD, talks about FBS-only governance of college football. Then, read this article about the issue with comments from Jim Phillips, the ACC commissioner.

Do a word search in each article, if you like. The word "Alliance" doesn't appear anywhere in any of those articles, and isn't mentioned by the Pac-12 commissioner, the Ohio State AD, or the ACC commissioner.

All of those articles are behind paywalls, Wedge!!

Regardless of whether they are using the word “Alliance”… in those three articles are the commissioners aligned on their talking points?
That is what will really tell you if the Alliance is still a ‘thing’