Quote:"We don't want the perception to be that we haven't played at the highest level of college athletics," American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told me this week. "That's why there was some talk about us having our own playoff. I dismiss that because we don't want to go that route at all. Why would we put ourselves in a kind of subdivision?"

Quote:How would a Division 4 be established?

Remember, this isn't a breakaway. Not yet. Those Big 5 conferences would still play in FBS. Louisiana-Monroe would still have a chance to beat Alabama. The MAC would still pull its annual stunner or two against the Big Ten. It's more about governance and the big boys being able to call their own shots when it comes to rules.

...If the issue goes through the formal legislative process, it depends on how a split would be viewed. If it is considered a new division, all 1,000-plus schools would have to weigh in at a general business session at the NCAA convention.

The association's executive committee when then sponsor legislation for a new division. A two-thirds majority would be needed to pass. If Division 4 is viewed as a subdivision of Division I, then the issue would be limited to the 31 D1 conferences (340-plus schools).

Quote:Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:"We don't want the perception to be that we haven't played at the highest level of college athletics," American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told me this week. "That's why there was some talk about us having our own playoff. I dismiss that because we don't want to go that route at all. Why would we put ourselves in a kind of subdivision?"

Quote:How would a Division 4 be established?

Remember, this isn't a breakaway. Not yet. Those Big 5 conferences would still play in FBS. Louisiana-Monroe would still have a chance to beat Alabama. The MAC would still pull its annual stunner or two against the Big Ten. It's more about governance and the big boys being able to call their own shots when it comes to rules.

...If the issue goes through the formal legislative process, it depends on how a split would be viewed. If it is considered a new division, all 1,000-plus schools would have to weigh in at a general business session at the NCAA convention.

The association's executive committee when then sponsor legislation for a new division. A two-thirds majority would be needed to pass. If Division 4 is viewed as a subdivision of Division I, then the issue would be limited to the 31 D1 conferences (340-plus schools).

But he's dead wrong about this:

Quote:Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they are played by teams in the top division. Knock those teams down a division and their following drops off dramatically.

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:"We don't want the perception to be that we haven't played at the highest level of college athletics," American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told me this week. "That's why there was some talk about us having our own playoff. I dismiss that because we don't want to go that route at all. Why would we put ourselves in a kind of subdivision?"

Quote:How would a Division 4 be established?

Remember, this isn't a breakaway. Not yet. Those Big 5 conferences would still play in FBS. Louisiana-Monroe would still have a chance to beat Alabama. The MAC would still pull its annual stunner or two against the Big Ten. It's more about governance and the big boys being able to call their own shots when it comes to rules.

...If the issue goes through the formal legislative process, it depends on how a split would be viewed. If it is considered a new division, all 1,000-plus schools would have to weigh in at a general business session at the NCAA convention.

The association's executive committee when then sponsor legislation for a new division. A two-thirds majority would be needed to pass. If Division 4 is viewed as a subdivision of Division I, then the issue would be limited to the 31 D1 conferences (340-plus schools).

But he's dead wrong about this:

Quote:Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they are played by teams in the top division. Knock those teams down a division and their following drops off dramatically.

(08-02-2013 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:"We don't want the perception to be that we haven't played at the highest level of college athletics," American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told me this week. "That's why there was some talk about us having our own playoff. I dismiss that because we don't want to go that route at all. Why would we put ourselves in a kind of subdivision?"

Quote:How would a Division 4 be established?

Remember, this isn't a breakaway. Not yet. Those Big 5 conferences would still play in FBS. Louisiana-Monroe would still have a chance to beat Alabama. The MAC would still pull its annual stunner or two against the Big Ten. It's more about governance and the big boys being able to call their own shots when it comes to rules.

...If the issue goes through the formal legislative process, it depends on how a split would be viewed. If it is considered a new division, all 1,000-plus schools would have to weigh in at a general business session at the NCAA convention.

The association's executive committee when then sponsor legislation for a new division. A two-thirds majority would be needed to pass. If Division 4 is viewed as a subdivision of Division I, then the issue would be limited to the 31 D1 conferences (340-plus schools).

But he's dead wrong about this:

Quote:Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they are played by teams in the top division. Knock those teams down a division and their following drops off dramatically.

Exactly. That's why boxing is virtually dead. There are no heavy weights anyone cares about. Other than the Olympics, that's the only division anyone really cares anything about. Football is the same. People want to know who is the best football team---not the best peewee mid-cruiser weight champ. Nobody cares....I don't even care. Its not the real national champ. It a championship that's too narrowly defined to mean anything. Dodds an idiot and has simply refined his troll technique to be more subtle.

(08-02-2013 01:37 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:"We don't want the perception to be that we haven't played at the highest level of college athletics," American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told me this week. "That's why there was some talk about us having our own playoff. I dismiss that because we don't want to go that route at all. Why would we put ourselves in a kind of subdivision?"

Quote:How would a Division 4 be established?

Remember, this isn't a breakaway. Not yet. Those Big 5 conferences would still play in FBS. Louisiana-Monroe would still have a chance to beat Alabama. The MAC would still pull its annual stunner or two against the Big Ten. It's more about governance and the big boys being able to call their own shots when it comes to rules.

...If the issue goes through the formal legislative process, it depends on how a split would be viewed. If it is considered a new division, all 1,000-plus schools would have to weigh in at a general business session at the NCAA convention.

The association's executive committee when then sponsor legislation for a new division. A two-thirds majority would be needed to pass. If Division 4 is viewed as a subdivision of Division I, then the issue would be limited to the 31 D1 conferences (340-plus schools).

But he's dead wrong about this:

Quote:Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they are played by teams in the top division. Knock those teams down a division and their following drops off dramatically.

Just more BS from the usual suspects. It's not about governance or about overly-tight rules...it's about the elimination of competition, it's for the purpose of cementing a caste system within the FBS level. It's about slapping a stigma on those teams outside of the major conferences. "Don't sign with them, they play on an entirely different level!" They want so desperately for the college football audience to see the BCS bottom-feeders as superior to the best of the smaller leagues, but they're not. Without their welfare check from the top of their leagues, they wouldn't survive.

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they...

Quote:There's a simple answer regarding equality in this Division 4 discussion. A non-BCS playoff. The big boys have taken (almost) all the money for their college football Super Bowl beginning in 2014.

Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

(08-02-2013 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:"We don't want the perception to be that we haven't played at the highest level of college athletics," American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told me this week. "That's why there was some talk about us having our own playoff. I dismiss that because we don't want to go that route at all. Why would we put ourselves in a kind of subdivision?"

Quote:How would a Division 4 be established?

Remember, this isn't a breakaway. Not yet. Those Big 5 conferences would still play in FBS. Louisiana-Monroe would still have a chance to beat Alabama. The MAC would still pull its annual stunner or two against the Big Ten. It's more about governance and the big boys being able to call their own shots when it comes to rules.

...If the issue goes through the formal legislative process, it depends on how a split would be viewed. If it is considered a new division, all 1,000-plus schools would have to weigh in at a general business session at the NCAA convention.

The association's executive committee when then sponsor legislation for a new division. A two-thirds majority would be needed to pass. If Division 4 is viewed as a subdivision of Division I, then the issue would be limited to the 31 D1 conferences (340-plus schools).

But he's dead wrong about this:

Quote:Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they are played by teams in the top division. Knock those teams down a division and their following drops off dramatically.

Exactly. That's why boxing is virtually dead. There are no heavy weights anyone cares about. Other than the Olympics, that's the only division anyone really cares anything about. Football is the same. People want to know who is the best football team---not the best peewee mid-cruiser weight champ. Nobody cares....I don't even care. Its not the real national champ. It a championship that's too narrowly defined to mean anything. Dodds an idiot and has simply refined his troll technique to be more subtle.

Or you could argue that because Olympic boxing is a farce due to the scoring system and corruption within judging that no names and personalities are elevated to a level professionally that people identify with and want to follow. In my opinion boxing has suffered because nobody enjoys watching the kids (and I'm not talking about just American kids) get jobbed at the Olympics and so they simply turnoff on the sport.

Bob, I just wanted to thank you for a good thread with a great read, even if I don't agree with all of its assessments it does thoroughly cover the reasons behind the push for a new division if not a new organization.

(08-02-2013 02:43 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

Quote:There's a simple answer regarding equality in this Division 4 discussion. A non-BCS playoff. The big boys have taken (almost) all the money for their college football Super Bowl beginning in 2014.

Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

Took 'em a while, but they finally have come around to my line of thinking. Create the non-BCS playoff and my alma mater can **gasp** legitimately compete for an NCAA football championship. Sweet!!

(08-02-2013 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they...

...are football on TV. I suspect that if ESPN ever promoted the FCS playoffs from ESPN3 to TV, they'd get MACtion type ratings.

That said, I disagree with Dodds. I don't think a Nevada-Ohio lower-FBS national semifinal would get any better ratings than a Nevada-Ohio Idaho Potato Bowl.

(08-02-2013 02:52 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Doesn't matter to me whether it's financially viable or not -- I simply want to see my alma mater have a legit shot at winning an NCAA Football championship.

Plain and simple.

(08-02-2013 02:43 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

Quote:There's a simple answer regarding equality in this Division 4 discussion. A non-BCS playoff. The big boys have taken (almost) all the money for their college football Super Bowl beginning in 2014.

Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

Took 'em a while, but they finally have come around to my line of thinking. Create the non-BCS playoff and my alma mater can **gasp** legitimately compete for an NCAA football championship. Sweet!!

(08-02-2013 02:43 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

Quote:There's a simple answer regarding equality in this Division 4 discussion. A non-BCS playoff. The big boys have taken (almost) all the money for their college football Super Bowl beginning in 2014.

Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

Took 'em a while, but they finally have come around to my line of thinking. Create the non-BCS playoff and my alma mater can **gasp** legitimately compete for an NCAA football championship. Sweet!!

(08-02-2013 03:11 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 02:43 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

Quote:There's a simple answer regarding equality in this Division 4 discussion. A non-BCS playoff. The big boys have taken (almost) all the money for their college football Super Bowl beginning in 2014.

Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

Took 'em a while, but they finally have come around to my line of thinking. Create the non-BCS playoff and my alma mater can **gasp** legitimately compete for an NCAA football championship. Sweet!!

Go away. It's not the championship we you (and the rest of the Target pirate fans and distinguished ECU alums) want if it's not at the highest level.

(08-02-2013 02:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 01:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:"We don't want the perception to be that we haven't played at the highest level of college athletics," American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told me this week. "That's why there was some talk about us having our own playoff. I dismiss that because we don't want to go that route at all. Why would we put ourselves in a kind of subdivision?"

Quote:How would a Division 4 be established?

Remember, this isn't a breakaway. Not yet. Those Big 5 conferences would still play in FBS. Louisiana-Monroe would still have a chance to beat Alabama. The MAC would still pull its annual stunner or two against the Big Ten. It's more about governance and the big boys being able to call their own shots when it comes to rules.

...If the issue goes through the formal legislative process, it depends on how a split would be viewed. If it is considered a new division, all 1,000-plus schools would have to weigh in at a general business session at the NCAA convention.

The association's executive committee when then sponsor legislation for a new division. A two-thirds majority would be needed to pass. If Division 4 is viewed as a subdivision of Division I, then the issue would be limited to the 31 D1 conferences (340-plus schools).

But he's dead wrong about this:

Quote:Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

Nobody watches the lower divisions. Nobody watched the FCS playoffs or national championship game. If this were to happen, nobody would watch it either. Bowl games get viewers because they are played by teams in the top division. Knock those teams down a division and their following drops off dramatically.

Exactly. That's why boxing is virtually dead. There are no heavy weights anyone cares about. Other than the Olympics, that's the only division anyone really cares anything about. Football is the same. People want to know who is the best football team---not the best peewee mid-cruiser weight champ. Nobody cares....I don't even care. Its not the real national champ. It a championship that's too narrowly defined to mean anything. Dodds an idiot and has simply refined his troll technique to be more subtle.

Or you could argue that because Olympic boxing is a farce due to the scoring system and corruption within judging that no names and personalities are elevated to a level professionally that people identify with and want to follow. In my opinion boxing has suffered because nobody enjoys watching the kids (and I'm not talking about just American kids) get jobbed at the Olympics and so they simply turnoff on the sport.

Bob, I just wanted to thank you for a good thread with a great read, even if I don't agree with all of its assessments it does thoroughly cover the reasons behind the push for a new division if not a new organization.

LOL... Mayweather and Pacquaio are in the top 15 paid athletes for the year. They are not heavyweights. Klitschko is in the top 50 paid athletes and he is a heavyweight.

In September, Mayweather will move up to the number 1 paid athlete and the guy he's fighting (Canelo Alvarez) will move into the Top 25 paid. Me presumes you have buried boxing early.

I didn't see any MMA guys on the list... maybe I missed them.

(08-02-2013 03:19 PM)KevinSmith Wrote:  To me, it sounds like a big smoke screen for exactly what CFA was seeking in 1978-1984 - upper tier exclusivity for big TV money. Then it was 61 teams now its 65. Its an exclusive club and they want to make it very, very hard (read: nearly impossible) for new members to become a new mouth to feed. The existing "bottom feeders" of the club (and we all know who they are) are in and staying in due to family ties and bloodlines (just like joke, drunk third sons of old money families you sometimes see spending 40 hours a week at the country club). But if they were to be any new members they'd need to bring serious new money value.

That's why when I hear B1G wants to keep expanding, I would have to think it would be in a scenario where 5 conferences contract into 4 (which really could only happen with B12 or ACC being goobled up en masse by the other 4) with the number of club members actually staying the same or decreasing not increasing (e.g., with potentially some schools left without a chair - just spit-balling here so no offense intended - KSU? IA ST? TCU? BC? Wake? Duke?). This is about EXCLUSIVITY to the monetary benefit of the members.