http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2666455

A breath of realism by Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick.

Quote:And Swarbrick isn't quite as eager as some of his colleagues to make massive changes or divide up Division I the way it has been framed since the conference commissioners started talking publicly about it last month.

"I get really nervous when you get consensus there has to be reform," Swarbrick said. "My 'spidey senses' start to tingle. I buy the premise. But a lot of what we're talking about now is treating symptoms, not the underlying problems. The law of unintended consequences is going to be so evident if we're not careful about stuff we do here."

So if governance is the symptom, what's the disease?

That word, Swarbrick said, is too harsh for his liking. But he's frustrated that this has been framed as a have/have-not issue, because he thinks it's far more complicated than simply a difference in athletic budgets between Ball State and Michigan. Why, for instance, is nobody talking about the difference between a Stanford, which sponsors 36 sports, and an SEC school that sponsors 16?

"The economics of the two institutions aren't that different, so it's not a have/have-not problem, but what they're doing looks really different and has different implications," Swarbrick said.

"Some of the haves and have-nots have much closer operating models than some of the haves do. So it has driven me nuts, and I'll use the stipend issue. Everyone wants to treat this as a have/have-not issue, and as a member of both committees who has dealt with this, it hasn't played out that way at all. There are fundamental differences in views among the haves over this stuff. And that goes to these other differences. We just have to work our way through those, and frankly it's just sloppy thinking to say it's a have/have-not issue, and when you look at votes on legislation, it rarely is."

Exactly. The narrative going through the media has been largely that there's friction between the big $$ schools and the small $$ schools, when that actually hasn't largely been the case at all.

Well, I think that Swarbrick has touched on some of the "weeds" that you'll encounter with these issues, but I don't think that the media has been too far off when the 5 power conference commissioners have all said explicitly that they have all met together (to the exclusion of everyone else) and all agreed at a high level that there need to be changes. Much like the formation of the new playoff system, there might be particular issues that the 5 power conferences need to figure out amongst each other, but the point is that whatever they end up figuring out is going to get pushed down to everyone else.

'spidey senses'? Really?

He probably has dealt with the have/not issue many times with his C7 and former Big East friends.

While there is much truth in Swarbrick's comments and in his analysis of the complications behind simplistic talking points there is also an agenda. I imagine that any new division or breakaway might include requirements on conference membership in order to try to level the playing field between all participants. I also imagine that it would include a minimum number of required sports. I thought his comparison between Stanford's choice for 30 plus sports versus the SEC's 16 when most SEC schools outside of Mississippi have a couple more, and indeed are only behind the Big 10 by 1 or 2 on average of sports offered, was a bit disingenuous. His implication there is that somehow the spending in the South on fewer sports helps them to dominate a few. Nobody in the deep South outside of Florida would participate in Water Polo (a great sport in my opinion), or in some of the other offerings of Stanford. The kids simply aren't exposed at a young enough age. Some things have to be the choices of the Universities involved. But I do believe we need a broader baseline of athletics in an upper tier. And as for football in the SEC it is simply the culture of the South and that actually hurts some of our other sports because kids want to be football heroes more than basketball stars.

Quote:Why, for instance, is nobody talking about the difference between a Stanford, which sponsors 36 sports, and an SEC school that sponsors 16?

"The economics of the two institutions aren't that different, so it's not a have/have-not problem, but what they're doing looks really different and has different implications," Swarbrick said.

The economics are completely different. Stanford's athletic budget of about $85 million is funded by a relatively small group of very generous donors. They have endowments that fund a lot of the operating revenue for athletics. They don't depend on FB ticket revenue or on FB-centered donations. So, not the same as an SEC school, Jack. Maybe you should compare Ohio State with Florida.

Also, I suspect that Swarbrick's implied concern about SEC varsity sports (as if he really cares about that) will go away and eventually SEC schools will start to spend some of their rivers of cash on fielding more varsity sports. Like the Pac-12 schools, the SEC schools have the climate to support a wide variety of "outdoor" sports. But that's a topic for a different thread.

More to the point, Swarbrick is skipping over that the Big 5's intent to reform NCAA governance is something that Stanford and Alabama have in common, regardless of the differences in their athletic departments. Both are running big-time athletic departments, both have a lot of money and want to spend it, both want to be able to spend it without smaller schools trying to use the NCAA rule book to limit everyone's spending.

So some G5 schools have operating models like most of the P5 schools? Maybe like UConn, Cincinnati, etc.?

And there are some P5 schools that have a different operating model? Maybe one that doesn't want to include a stipend? Maybe Wake, Northwestern, etc?

It's a shame that some P5 schools are about to be forced to go in a direction that they don't want to go. And there are many G5 schools that are willing to take the next step, but they may be left behind.

Nd should have to be in a conference, why should they get special treatment in a new division?

(08-16-2013 10:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So some G5 schools have operating models like most of the P5 schools? Maybe like UConn, Cincinnati, etc.?

And there are some P5 schools that have a different operating model? Maybe one that doesn't want to include a stipend? Maybe Wake, Northwestern, etc?

It's a shame that some P5 schools are about to be forced to go in a direction that they don't want to go. And there are many G5 schools that are willing to take the next step, but they may be left behind.

I think he was talking more about the number of sports and the spending per sport. That some high budget teams are funding tons of sports (Stanford) and some high budget teams have few sports and put their money into football (SEC). Then some of the G5 only support football and little more while others try to support a bunch of Olympic sports.

(08-16-2013 10:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So some G5 schools have operating models like most of the P5 schools? Maybe like UConn, Cincinnati, etc.?

And there are some P5 schools that have a different operating model? Maybe one that doesn't want to include a stipend? Maybe Wake, Northwestern, etc?

It's a shame that some P5 schools are about to be forced to go in a direction that they don't want to go. And there are many G5 schools that are willing to take the next step, but they may be left behind.

For a variety of reasons I don't think that Connecticut will be left behind. Your basketball product being chief among the reasons. Once the conferences get whittled down to 4, and I do believe there is a desire from the top (networks) for a more manageable and predictable format, then the conferences will make additions depending upon the value of teams left and the needs of the individual conferences and that this will be encouraged with funding by the networks. If their is an upper tier Connecticut will most assuredly be a basketball product that some network will want to encourage to participate against schools with large markets. Connecticut may be a cheap product to own in the AAC, but it will not be optimized for its true value unless it is pitted against the top basketball programs from the largest market base. That's why I think ultimately, if not initially, UConn will make the move to a P4 conference. I believe in the end we will be looking at 18 team conferences grouped geographically into 3 divisions of 6 teams each. Both Cincinnati and UConn should make that cut. At 16 I think you still might make the cut, but it will depend upon who goes where geographically speaking.

(08-16-2013 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While there is much truth in Swarbrick's comments and in his analysis of the complications behind simplistic talking points there is also an agenda.

Simmah down. He was comparing 2 schools. He wasn't slamming the SEC. Below is a list of the P5 schools who sponsor less than 20 sports. Notice the SEC ranks pretty high on the list of having schools that sponsor a bunch of sports. The Big 12 is the biggest laggard, with the ACC and Pac 12 not far behind:

SEC 3/14
Miss St
Ole Miss
Vandy

Big 12 7/10
Baylor
West Virginia
Iowa St
Kansas
Okla St
Texas Tech
Kansas St

Pac 12 6/12
Washington
Oregon
Utah
Colorado
Oregon St
Wash St

ACC 6/14
Clemson
Pitt
Syracuse
Miami
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech

Big 10 1/14
Northwestern

Overall, here are the conference averages:

1. Big 10 - 24
2. ACC - 23
3. SEC - 20
4. Pac 12 - 19.5
5. Big 12 - 18

So, the ACC schools with more than 20 sports have A LOT more than 20 to pull that average up to 23. Again, the Big 12 and Pac 12 bring up the rear.

Source.

(08-16-2013 10:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While there is much truth in Swarbrick's comments and in his analysis of the complications behind simplistic talking points there is also an agenda.

Simmah down. He was comparing 2 schools. He wasn't slamming the SEC. Below is a list of the P5 schools who sponsor less than 20 sports. Notice the SEC ranks pretty high on the list of having schools that sponsor a bunch of sports:

SEC 3/14
Miss St
Ole Miss
Vandy

Big 12 7/10
Baylor
West Virginia
Iowa St
Kansas
Okla St
Texas Tech
Kansas St

Pac 12 6/12
Washington
Oregon
Utah
Colorado
Oregon St
Wash St

ACC 6/14
Clemson
Pitt
Syracuse
Miami
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech

Big 10 1/14
Northwestern

Thanks for the quick data. The agenda I referred to was the potential loss of independence. If there are no sweeping changes that doesn't even come into question. If there is an upper tier with 4 or 5 conferences then independence could become an issue.

I did take the reference to the number of sports offered as a bit of a dig, but not as the agenda.

I think Swarbrick is on the right track in that he points out that have/have not is an over-simplification.

There are big differences within the P5.

There are schools who can sell lots and lots of tickets but don't have a fan culture that buys into club/loge/suite seating. There are schools that sell out their club/loge/suite seating but can't sell their cheap third deck end zone seats.

There are schools where any special admission is heavily scrutinized as suspect and schools where it is a rubber stamp.

At some schools a poor performing double dutch coach has job security if he or she isn't asking for too much in the budget and other schools the archery coach is under fire in year two if not contending for the national title.

The biggest obstacle to changing the governance structure isn't going to be getting the little guys to concede control, the issue will be having a structure that is even more conference oriented when there are big differences in the agenda of the members of the same conference. If 6 members of a conference think the league's voting favors the other 8 that will create tension.

(08-16-2013 10:29 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So some G5 schools have operating models like most of the P5 schools? Maybe like UConn, Cincinnati, etc.?

And there are some P5 schools that have a different operating model? Maybe one that doesn't want to include a stipend? Maybe Wake, Northwestern, etc?

It's a shame that some P5 schools are about to be forced to go in a direction that they don't want to go. And there are many G5 schools that are willing to take the next step, but they may be left behind.

I think he was talking more about the number of sports and the spending per sport. That some high budget teams are funding tons of sports (Stanford) and some high budget teams have few sports and put their money into football (SEC). Then some of the G5 only support football and little more while others try to support a bunch of Olympic sports.

I think he was basically talking about the fact that some P5 schools have astronomical budgets compared to others - even within the same conference.

(08-16-2013 10:22 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Nd should have to be in a conference, why should they get special treatment in a new division?

Where are the tablets from Mt. Sinai or the Dead Sea Scrolls that mandate that all schools have to play football in a conference?

There used to be lots of football independents twenty to twenty five years ago.

Most of those programs were not able to survive as such and had to join a collective.

That doesn't mean every one has to do so.

Not every school fits or wants to fit into this "one size fits all", cookie cutter vision that some people have.

Not just ND, but BYU probably will be in this alleged new division, perhaps as a football independent.

(08-17-2013 07:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:22 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Nd should have to be in a conference, why should they get special treatment in a new division?

Where are the tablets from Mt. Sinai or the Dead Sea Scrolls that mandate that all schools have to play football in a conference?

There used to be lots of football independents twenty to twenty five years ago.

Most of those programs were not able to survive as such and had to join a collective.

That doesn't mean every one has to do so.

Not every school fits or wants to fit into this "one size fits all", cookie cutter vision that some people have.

Not just ND, but BYU probably will be in this alleged new division, perhaps as a football independent.

Swarbrick is worried about only one thing: anything that threatens the status quo allowing ND to remain a football independent. He could give a rat's ass about how other schools run their AD.

(08-16-2013 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While there is much truth in Swarbrick's comments and in his analysis of the complications behind simplistic talking points there is also an agenda. I imagine that any new division or breakaway might include requirements on conference membership in order to try to level the playing field between all participants. I also imagine that it would include a minimum number of required sports. I thought his comparison between Stanford's choice for 30 plus sports versus the SEC's 16 when most SEC schools outside of Mississippi have a couple more, and indeed are only behind the Big 10 by 1 or 2 on average of sports offered, was a bit disingenuous. His implication there is that somehow the spending in the South on fewer sports helps them to dominate a few. Nobody in the deep South outside of Florida would participate in Water Polo (a great sport in my opinion), or in some of the other offerings of Stanford. The kids simply aren't exposed at a young enough age. Some things have to be the choices of the Universities involved. But I do believe we need a broader baseline of athletics in an upper tier. And as for football in the SEC it is simply the culture of the South and that actually hurts some of our other sports because kids want to be football heroes more than basketball stars.

that is not true at all. SEC schools field a much smaller amount of teams than the b10. the SEC has only 3 schools with 21 sports, 1 has 20, the rest are at 19, 18, or 16. the b10 has 5 teams at the 27-38 range. another 4 teams at the 23-26 range. the last 5 teams have 22, 22, 21, 21, 18 (NW is 18 but still beats out all but 1 b12 school)

Won't happen, but football divisions should fall into ranges for total budget for the football program. The escalation of coaching salaries is killing many schools.

Like high school conferences, you can then have different divisions in the same conference but come playoff time, it is done by division.

(08-16-2013 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While there is much truth in Swarbrick's comments and in his analysis of the complications behind simplistic talking points there is also an agenda. I imagine that any new division or breakaway might include requirements on conference membership in order to try to level the playing field between all participants. I also imagine that it would include a minimum number of required sports. I thought his comparison between Stanford's choice for 30 plus sports versus the SEC's 16 when most SEC schools outside of Mississippi have a couple more, and indeed are only behind the Big 10 by 1 or 2 on average of sports offered, was a bit disingenuous. His implication there is that somehow the spending in the South on fewer sports helps them to dominate a few. Nobody in the deep South outside of Florida would participate in Water Polo (a great sport in my opinion), or in some of the other offerings of Stanford. The kids simply aren't exposed at a young enough age. Some things have to be the choices of the Universities involved. But I do believe we need a broader baseline of athletics in an upper tier. And as for football in the SEC it is simply the culture of the South and that actually hurts some of our other sports because kids want to be football heroes more than basketball stars.

I think you see the target but, in my opinion, I think you may have just slightly missed the target.

I think Notre Dame might be worrying that in the new Division there will be further incentive to join a conference. He is going to know a lot more than us. I would say that if there was going to be an extended tournament that ends up having conference champion autobids then that puts Notre Dame at a slight disadvantage as they are only playing for three open spots out of eight where as teams in the five major conferences would be playing for eight spots.

Who knows what else is being talked about, that we havnt touched on yet, which could have him spooked as well.

I agree though, this is a whole lot talking for a very simple statement from him. He really did his homework before making this one.

(08-16-2013 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While there is much truth in Swarbrick's comments and in his analysis of the complications behind simplistic talking points there is also an agenda.

Simmah down. He was comparing 2 schools. He wasn't slamming the SEC. Below is a list of the P5 schools who sponsor less than 20 sports. Notice the SEC ranks pretty high on the list of having schools that sponsor a bunch of sports:

SEC 3/14
Miss St
Ole Miss
Vandy

Big 12 7/10
Baylor
West Virginia
Iowa St
Kansas
Okla St
Texas Tech
Kansas St

Pac 12 6/12
Washington
Oregon
Utah
Colorado
Oregon St
Wash St

ACC 6/14
Clemson
Pitt
Syracuse
Miami
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech

Big 10 1/14
Northwestern

Thanks for the quick data. The agenda I referred to was the potential loss of independence. If there are no sweeping changes that doesn't even come into question. If there is an upper tier with 4 or 5 conferences then independence could become an issue.

I did take the reference to the number of sports offered as a bit of a dig, but not as the agenda.

theres no way thats correct for the sec/b12 unless somewhere along the lines track & field/swimming got miscounted (some conferences count them differently)

(08-17-2013 07:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:22 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Nd should have to be in a conference, why should they get special treatment in a new division?

Where are the tablets from Mt. Sinai or the Dead Sea Scrolls that mandate that all schools have to play football in a conference?

There used to be lots of football independents twenty to twenty five years ago.

Most of those programs were not able to survive as such and had to join a collective.

That doesn't mean every one has to do so.

Not every school fits or wants to fit into this "one size fits all", cookie cutter vision that some people have.

Not just ND, but BYU probably will be in this alleged new division, perhaps as a football independent.

A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP BASED ON CONFERENCE PLAY!!!