https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3481548800

I really don't think the ADs are calling the shots on this.

This is a president/conference commissioner decision.

It may well play out the other way. Olympic sports may be the ones to leave the NCAA.

Doesn't shock me. There's still a very high level of inertia within the college presidents.

The FBS conferences already control their own playoff and they just voted for expansion. As a result, this move would be largely be breaking away from the NCAA for the sake of breaking away as opposed to having a large financial impact while taking on all of the less-sexy/fun/downright miserable governance issues.

For all of the talk about football, it's really what the P5 (and maybe a select few others like the Big East) want to do with basketball that would impact the NCAA much more.

(09-14-2022 05:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  It may well play out the other way. Olympic sports may be the ones to leave the NCAA.

Why would they?

(09-14-2022 05:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Doesn't shock me. There's still a very high level of inertia within the college presidents.

The FBS conferences already control their own playoff and they just voted for expansion. As a result, this move would be largely be breaking away from the NCAA for the sake of breaking away as opposed to having a large financial impact while taking on all of the less-sexy/fun/downright miserable governance issues.

For all of the talk about football, it's really what the P5 (and maybe a select few others like the Big East) want to do with basketball that would impact the NCAA much more.

As you are fond of saying, is the juice worth the squeeze?


I don't expect anything to happen at all until the Tournament contract is up. Even then, will the benefit outweigh all the negatives?

(09-14-2022 05:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Doesn't shock me. There's still a very high level of inertia within the college presidents.

The FBS conferences already control their own playoff and they just voted for expansion. As a result, this move would be largely be breaking away from the NCAA for the sake of breaking away as opposed to having a large financial impact while taking on all of the less-sexy/fun/downright miserable governance issues.

For all of the talk about football, it's really what the P5 (and maybe a select few others like the Big East) want to do with basketball that would impact the NCAA much more.

As you are fond of saying, is the juice worth the squeeze?


I don't expect anything to happen at all until the Tournament contract is up. Even then, will the benefit outweigh all the negatives?

Another "even then." By that point, you'll have a worked-out model for a non-NCAA entity to run a big-time big-money playoff, without the downsides of breaking from the NCAA. I'm pretty sure I remember Temple coach John Chaney once complained about the NCAA Tournament being a "BCS Invitational", well....

NCAA might have to start charging membership dues to run the non-revenue sport championships.

(09-14-2022 06:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Doesn't shock me. There's still a very high level of inertia within the college presidents.

The FBS conferences already control their own playoff and they just voted for expansion. As a result, this move would be largely be breaking away from the NCAA for the sake of breaking away as opposed to having a large financial impact while taking on all of the less-sexy/fun/downright miserable governance issues.

For all of the talk about football, it's really what the P5 (and maybe a select few others like the Big East) want to do with basketball that would impact the NCAA much more.

As you are fond of saying, is the juice worth the squeeze?


I don't expect anything to happen at all until the Tournament contract is up. Even then, will the benefit outweigh all the negatives?

Another "even then." By that point, you'll have a worked-out model for a non-NCAA entity to run a big-time big-money playoff, without the downsides of breaking from the NCAA. I'm pretty sure I remember Temple coach John Chaney once complained about the NCAA Tournament being a "BCS Invitational", well....

NCAA might have to start charging membership dues to run the non-revenue sport championships.

That is exactly what the NCAA should do. No different than an expansion fee in professional sports. You have to pay to play. There are too many programs that have jumped up to Division 1 that have only done so to grab the NCAA tourney money and then they do absolutely nothing of note in any major sport. IMO, a major problem in life is the rich and poor trying to rip off the middle class, and college sports are no different.

Heather Dinich of ESPN reports on the LEAD1 meeting.

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

This quote is much more revealing than the headline.

""...Rarely do we have such consensus on an issue," McMillen said. "It was doubly reaffirmed today that the status quo was not acceptable, and that there was a strong, very strong preference for a model in the NCAA that is extremely streamlined and much less bureaucratic. That's a lot of details to be worked out in that, but a much [more] streamlined governance within the NCAA. And if that can't be accomplished, move it to the outside....""

AND:

"...Sankey has said the problems currently facing college athletics won't disappear simply by moving FBS football out of the NCAA and under the purview of the CFP. He has questioned what athletic leaders would tell their Olympic sport athletes when attempting to explain why football would be separated and they wouldn't be -- a message he reiterated to the athletic directors here...."

(09-14-2022 05:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Doesn't shock me. There's still a very high level of inertia within the college presidents.

The FBS conferences already control their own playoff and they just voted for expansion. As a result, this move would be largely be breaking away from the NCAA for the sake of breaking away as opposed to having a large financial impact while taking on all of the less-sexy/fun/downright miserable governance issues.

For all of the talk about football, it's really what the P5 (and maybe a select few others like the Big East) want to do with basketball that would impact the NCAA much more.

I fully agree here. The NCAA is about as hands off as they can possibly get with FBS already, so there's no need for a breakaway there. The upcoming drama will be around basketball, and as much money as the NCAA wastes I'd bet there's a compromise to be had that keeps everybody in the fold. Not certain, but it's a whole lot more likely in the absence of a football breakaway.

"SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, who is a co-chair of the NCAA's transformation committee, pulled an index card out of his suit breast pocket and rattled off topics such as "membership, governance, student-athlete experience" as points the transformation committee is tackling."

To me this signifies that Sankey is trying to cull the herd at the Division 1 level; not necessarily a P5+BE breakaway, but a strengthening of membership requirements designed to remove the leeches.

I'm at the same event Ross is at, and am talking to many of the same ADs, and he's exactly right. My story goes up tomorrow...but ADs today saw a lot of data to suggest that 1) breaking football away from the NCAA is going to be pretty expensive and 2) there is no guarantee that it will deliver better....or at least faster....results.

Once people started doing the real math behind what it would take...it has become much less attractive.

(09-14-2022 06:30 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 06:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Doesn't shock me. There's still a very high level of inertia within the college presidents.

The FBS conferences already control their own playoff and they just voted for expansion. As a result, this move would be largely be breaking away from the NCAA for the sake of breaking away as opposed to having a large financial impact while taking on all of the less-sexy/fun/downright miserable governance issues.

For all of the talk about football, it's really what the P5 (and maybe a select few others like the Big East) want to do with basketball that would impact the NCAA much more.

As you are fond of saying, is the juice worth the squeeze?


I don't expect anything to happen at all until the Tournament contract is up. Even then, will the benefit outweigh all the negatives?

Another "even then." By that point, you'll have a worked-out model for a non-NCAA entity to run a big-time big-money playoff, without the downsides of breaking from the NCAA. I'm pretty sure I remember Temple coach John Chaney once complained about the NCAA Tournament being a "BCS Invitational", well....

NCAA might have to start charging membership dues to run the non-revenue sport championships.

That is exactly what the NCAA should do. No different than an expansion fee in professional sports. You have to pay to play. There are too many programs that have jumped up to Division 1 that have only done so to grab the NCAA tourney money and then they do absolutely nothing of note in any major sport. IMO, a major problem in life is the rich and poor trying to rip off the middle class, and college sports are no different.

I love that people are finally noticing.

(09-14-2022 08:48 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I'm at the same event Ross is at, and am talking to many of the same ADs, and he's exactly right. My story goes up tomorrow...but ADs today saw a lot of data to suggest that 1) breaking football away from the NCAA is going to be pretty expensive and 2) there is no guarantee that it will deliver better....or at least faster....results.

Once people started doing the real math behind what it would take...it has become much less attractive.

Meaning the added costs would fall onto the universities that breakaway?

(09-14-2022 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  This quote is much more revealing than the headline.

""...Rarely do we have such consensus on an issue," McMillen said. "It was doubly reaffirmed today that the status quo was not acceptable, and that there was a strong, very strong preference for a model in the NCAA that is extremely streamlined and much less bureaucratic. That's a lot of details to be worked out in that, but a much [more] streamlined governance within the NCAA. And if that can't be accomplished, move it to the outside....""

AND:

"...Sankey has said the problems currently facing college athletics won't disappear simply by moving FBS football out of the NCAA and under the purview of the CFP. He has questioned what athletic leaders would tell their Olympic sport athletes when attempting to explain why football would be separated and they wouldn't be -- a message he reiterated to the athletic directors here...."

I have an answer, "football makes money, your sport doesn't."

(09-14-2022 07:11 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  "SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, who is a co-chair of the NCAA's transformation committee, pulled an index card out of his suit breast pocket and rattled off topics such as "membership, governance, student-athlete experience" as points the transformation committee is tackling."

To me this signifies that Sankey is trying to cull the herd at the Division 1 level; not necessarily a P5+BE breakaway, but a strengthening of membership requirements designed to remove the leeches.

I think people like us in conference realignment forum land are much more willing to jump to the conclusion of reducing the number of Division I schools than the Powers That Be. I really don’t think the Big Ten or SEC really care about whether schools like Chicago State should be D-1 or not. It’s the G5 and midmajor basketball conferences that want D-I to be more exclusive since that would raise their *own* relative status.

Now, to be sure, one thing that all non-P5/Big East conferences should be expecting is that it’s not going to be just equal units paid out for the NCAA Tournament anymore. The P5 (or P2) could conceivably want to vastly change the NCAA Tournament to be more football-like and closed off if they could start it from scratch, but they’re also not completely stupid. The NCAA Tournament might very well be the closest thing to a universally loved sporting event in America. So, the next step isn’t so much to mess with the NCAA Tournament format or structure, but recognize that the power conferences are the ones bringing in the lion’s share of the revenue just like they are in football and there will be a more unbalanced revenue distribution accordingly. (Note that this could have the side effect of basketball being more of a factor in conference realignment compared to now.) That’s a more direct way to stem off the “leeches” than the messy process of outright downgrading the classifications of a bunch of schools.

(09-14-2022 06:30 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 06:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Doesn't shock me. There's still a very high level of inertia within the college presidents.

The FBS conferences already control their own playoff and they just voted for expansion. As a result, this move would be largely be breaking away from the NCAA for the sake of breaking away as opposed to having a large financial impact while taking on all of the less-sexy/fun/downright miserable governance issues.

For all of the talk about football, it's really what the P5 (and maybe a select few others like the Big East) want to do with basketball that would impact the NCAA much more.

As you are fond of saying, is the juice worth the squeeze?


I don't expect anything to happen at all until the Tournament contract is up. Even then, will the benefit outweigh all the negatives?

Another "even then." By that point, you'll have a worked-out model for a non-NCAA entity to run a big-time big-money playoff, without the downsides of breaking from the NCAA. I'm pretty sure I remember Temple coach John Chaney once complained about the NCAA Tournament being a "BCS Invitational", well....

NCAA might have to start charging membership dues to run the non-revenue sport championships.

That is exactly what the NCAA should do. No different than an expansion fee in professional sports. You have to pay to play. There are too many programs that have jumped up to Division 1 that have only done so to grab the NCAA tourney money and then they do absolutely nothing of note in any major sport. IMO, a major problem in life is the rich and poor trying to rip off the middle class, and college sports are no different.

There are way too many small schools who do not have the money to compete at D1 level, but the larger schools who could easily move up with the big student bodies who could move up. There have been schools that moved up from D2 that have done well in D1. Coastal Carolina baseball champs, FGCU's run in men's basketball, etc etc.

(09-14-2022 09:08 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 08:48 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I'm at the same event Ross is at, and am talking to many of the same ADs, and he's exactly right. My story goes up tomorrow...but ADs today saw a lot of data to suggest that 1) breaking football away from the NCAA is going to be pretty expensive and 2) there is no guarantee that it will deliver better....or at least faster....results.

Once people started doing the real math behind what it would take...it has become much less attractive.

Meaning the added costs would fall onto the universities that breakaway?

Yup. Leaving the NCAA means needing to spend to build a legal, enforcement, research and communication infrastructure outside of the NCAA. Turns out, that's pretty expensive!

My dispatch, in case anybody is interested, is here: https://www.extrapointsmb.com/lead1-inte...s-ncaa-no/

(09-14-2022 08:48 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I'm at the same event Ross is at, and am talking to many of the same ADs, and he's exactly right. My story goes up tomorrow...but ADs today saw a lot of data to suggest that 1) breaking football away from the NCAA is going to be pretty expensive and 2) there is no guarantee that it will deliver better....or at least faster....results.

Once people started doing the real math behind what it would take...it has become much less attractive.

I don't believe there is a reason to break football away. What does need to occur is a re-structuring. Base it on on ability to pay, ability to fund your programs to compete at specific levels. You can't fund your football program at an acceptable level, you move down.

That is the same with in basketball. If you play in a HS gym, and your main funding source is student fees, you should not have access to the NCAA tournament and be able to call your self a D1 school.