There has been much discussion/debate recently about the likely changes coming to the governance structure of major college football. Some predict that there will be a new "super division" created within the NCAA while others believe a full-blown schism between the most powerful schools and the rest of the NCAA's membership is about to take place.

Frankly, I have no idea what is going to happen but no matter where one falls on these myriad complex issues, just about everyone seems to expect some sort of major change to the governance structure of major college athletics. It has become so pervasive that each conference commissioner seems to be openly discussing the likely changes at his or her league's respective media days.

I guess my question is, if the change does indeed happen, where do you folks see as the appropriate place to draw the dividing line for the "haves" and the "have-nots"?

Is it after the so called "Power 5 Conferences" or does Notre Dame figure into that as well. And if there is a schism, would that force the Irish into a conference? Also, what about other indies like Brigham Young and some of the others? How do they figure into things? The Cougars have won a national championship in most of our lifetimes (1984). Can you really kick out a team that has so relatively recently achieved the sport's top honor: a National Championship? I'm not so sure you can.

Also, what about leagues like the American or the Mountain West? To me it is difficult to make the case that Boise State and Cincinnati don't belong with the other big time football programs but Vanderbilt, Kansas and Duke do.

Finally, what about men's college basketball? Will that too be a part of this "super division" or will that stay as is? If a "super division" is formalized, what happens to leagues like the Big East - which may be as good a men's basketball league as there is in the country and is certainly in the top three or four leagues even after so much upheaval?

So what do you folks think? Where do we draw the line?

As you can see, there are some very tough decisions to be made in the coming months. Not all of them are going to be universally loved and for the schools that are left out, they are finished a major college brands, IMHO.

Lines should NEVER be drawn... If you were creating a conference for _academics_ and _athletics_, you might have an argument.

But as long as the debate on these forums is "athletics only" discussions.. there should _NEVER_ be a dividing line among the schools, as much as the big boys want there to be.

How about, let the P5 get their weighted voting so they can get what they want, vote to allow stipends and those schools that can afford it; pay the athletes the stipends. That way you don't have to change much and no body gets left behind.

You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

This would be very easy had a "best of the rest" conference emerged. The Big East screwed itself by catering to the C7 for far too long and not creating a viable "all sports" division for Western schools.

(07-24-2013 12:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This would be very easy had a "best of the rest" conference emerged. The Big East screwed itself by catering to the C7 for far too long and not creating a viable "all sports" division for Western schools.

2 best of the rest conferences have emerged. The American and the MWC. Whoever the latest commissioner was to speak on this subject was, said 75 or so school earn 90% of the National Championships. So those Best of the Rest conferences would be included.

I think that the split should be for football. I don't think that the split should include basketball. There are too many traditional basketball powers/quality teams that aren't in power conferences to have a worth-while split. Also, there are way more upsets in basketball, so the divide between good and bad isn't as clear.

To quote the Dude, "The situation is fluid." But, seriously, your categories don't capture the issues. It's not about the power 5 but about those in charge determining what the number needs to be to have the cleanest point of differentiation on investment in athletics, while still having a program that offers a new market, or a large enough fan base to be worth including.

If we do indeed go down this path I look for 72. 71st position is a point of differentiation in investment and teams like Cincinnati, Connecticut and Brigham Young will be included in my opinion. The question will be around the final four to make the cut. I would think that geography would be a large part of that. If the PAC needs to add we could be looking at U.N.L.V., Nevada, New Mexico, or Hawaii. With Big 12 survival if the SEC really really wants into North Carolina then E.C.U. does have the fan following to get a look if Slive desires to move to 16 for scheduling purposes and market push.

With a P5 arrangement we could stop 65 or any number up to about 72. But it won't be the P5 plus another conference, or the P5 and ND or any of those options.

(07-24-2013 12:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This would be very easy had a "best of the rest" conference emerged. The Big East screwed itself by catering to the C7 for far too long and not creating a viable "all sports" division for Western schools.

Ehh if necessary to stay at the top level the MWC and AAC could just merge and the same thing would still result. Now I agree the Big East catered to the C7 too long, but the bigger issue was that Aresco wouldn't give up the dream of BYU until it was too late. I believe Fresno could have been had easily and if they are taken and the MWC is forced to add NMSU or Idaho to stay afloat they wouldn't have been able to solidify enough to get teams back. The AAC made a faulty assumption that the MWC couldn't ever get it's feet back underneath them enough to get Boise and SDSU back. They could have killed the MWC and didn't.

(07-24-2013 12:33 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This would be very easy had a "best of the rest" conference emerged. The Big East screwed itself by catering to the C7 for far too long and not creating a viable "all sports" division for Western schools.

2 best of the rest conferences have emerged. The American and the MWC. Whoever the latest commissioner was to speak on this subject was, said 75 or so school earn 90% of the National Championships. So those Best of the Rest conferences would be included.

There is too much dead weight attached to the AAC and MWC. This has always been the problem for the better mid-major conferences and only got worse with this round of realignment. I don't see how either the MWC or AAC can keep up as currently organized.

Voted for the last three. They all seem good.

(07-24-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

I agree with all except for the stadium size requirement, there are a number of teams that play in NFL stadiums and this would discourage teams like Tulane from building an OCS. Besides, the attendance rule would already cover this (you can't have large attendance numbers in a small stadium).

(07-24-2013 01:44 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

I agree with all except for the stadium size requirement, there are a number of teams that play in NFL stadiums and this would discourage teams like Tulane from building an OCS. Besides, the attendance rule would already cover this (you can't have large attendance numbers in a small stadium).

I was just tossing things out there, I don't really agree with that one nor do I think it's likely. If you went with that it would have to be a low enough bar for Duke to get over.

I'll start by saying I believe this is about a lot more than football.

That said think you draw the primary line at FBS. It gets pretty complex for the non-football schools after that. There would have to be some sort of tangible criteria besides being part of the "right" basketball conference. I don't know that the "right" formula would be but it's pretty safe to say the Big East and most of the A10 would be a part of it. I'd think schools like Wichita State, Gonzaga, BYU, St Mary's, have a good case for inclusion.

(07-24-2013 01:23 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:33 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This would be very easy had a "best of the rest" conference emerged. The Big East screwed itself by catering to the C7 for far too long and not creating a viable "all sports" division for Western schools.

2 best of the rest conferences have emerged. The American and the MWC. Whoever the latest commissioner was to speak on this subject was, said 75 or so school earn 90% of the National Championships. So those Best of the Rest conferences would be included.

There is too much dead weight attached to the AAC and MWC. This has always been the problem for the better mid-major conferences and only got worse with this round of realignment. I don't see how either the MWC or AAC can keep up as currently organized.

If you're discussing football then I might agree. But there's without a doubt value in basketball brands like UNLV, UNM, Memphis, Temple and UConn. "Dead weight" would be a school that brings very, very little to the table like SJSU for example.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...ent/1.html

I know numbers change slightly...but it's fascinating that 63 of the top 64 teams on this list (plus 67 Mississippi State) are currently in the P5 conferences. (I'm assuming Utah is the only team not on this list from the current P5...and I can't imagine them being outside the top 70. BYU is where?)

I know it may seem completely arbitrary to draw the line at 38 million and revenue...but it's NOT arbitrary when you consider that the line is 38 millions and/or inclusion the five major conferences. I don't have hard data...but I bet that the American Athletic Conference (in addition to UConn at #40) has most of the teams positioned at #66 to #78 or so.

(07-24-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

1978 the line was drawn thusly.
1. Sponsor a set number of sports and award a set number of scholies.

If you could not meet #1, you could in the alternative meet it by
1. Averaging 17,000 once in 4 years in a 30,000 seat stadium
2. Averaging 17,000 over four years.
3. Average 20,000 home and away once in four years if you had 30,000 seats.
4. Average 20,000 home and away over four years.
5. Be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the requirements.

In 1981 it became #1 plus the second list not OR the second list.

Well they could draw the dividing line like they do in high school which is by the schools enrollment numbers. We could do 25k for D1, 15k for D2, 5k for D3 and the rest in a new D4.

(07-24-2013 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To quote the Dude, "The situation is fluid." But, seriously, your categories don't capture the issues. It's not about the power 5 but about those in charge determining what the number needs to be to have the cleanest point of differentiation on investment in athletics, while still having a program that offers a new market, or a large enough fan base to be worth including.

If we do indeed go down this path I look for 72. 71st position is a point of differentiation in investment and teams like Cincinnati, Connecticut and Brigham Young will be included in my opinion. The question will be around the final four to make the cut. I would think that geography would be a large part of that. If the PAC needs to add we could be looking at U.N.L.V., Nevada, New Mexico, or Hawaii. With Big 12 survival if the SEC really really wants into North Carolina then E.C.U. does have the fan following to get a look if Slive desires to move to 16 for scheduling purposes and market push.

With a P5 arrangement we could stop 65 or any number up to about 72. But it won't be the P5 plus another conference, or the P5 and ND or any of those options.

5 x 16 = 80. I think 80 is the upper limit of what the P5 could reasonably expand to.

That said, I think that if any of this saber-rattling produces anything, it would really only be to rearrange the governance structure of D1 and to get the stipend passed. If anything happens for a new division, there will be a line drawn about a stipend, the number of sponsored sports (although about a dozen or so P5 schools would have to add sports to make that distinction rather pronounced), and maybe an increased number for attendance in both football and maybe a new measure of attendance for basketball.

(07-24-2013 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

1978 the line was drawn thusly.
1. Sponsor a set number of sports and award a set number of scholies.

If you could not meet #1, you could in the alternative meet it by
1. Averaging 17,000 once in 4 years in a 30,000 seat stadium
2. Averaging 17,000 over four years.
3. Average 20,000 home and away once in four years if you had 30,000 seats.
4. Average 20,000 home and away over four years.
5. Be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the requirements.

In 1981 it became #1 plus the second list not OR the second list.

No way. I think the dividing line should either be averaging 35 or 40k. 20 is way too low. Thats not a big deal.