We're about to have a new NCAA Constitutional Convention, right?

And there is, in fact, legitimate discontent among ADs at the long distances involved in sending nonrevenue sports hither and yon for conference sports.

But is it written in stone that CUSA and the AAC and the WAC have to play so many sports in conference? No, it's written in the NCAA Division I Manual and bylaws.

So what if they change those rules? Reduce the number and specifications on sports to be a Member Conference. The 8-year waiting period for an autobid is a sufficient deterrent to forming conferences willy-nilly and threatening precious March Madness bids.

If that happens, then maybe you see schools realign geographically for sports at the bottom of the totem pole. If travel costs are an issue, no reason that North Texas and Texas State and UTSA can't play women's volleyball in a Texas Womens' Volleyball league with Lamar and Tarleton State and Houston Baptist.

Of course, the problem there is--what happens to the schools no one wants to travel to? The Idaho's, the New Mexico State's, the St Bonaventures, the UTEPs, the Hawaii's.

If they really wanted to blow **** up, they'd do this:

Football-only conferences
Basketball (men and women)-only conferences
Olympic sports conferences

It probably wouldn't affect the P5 because those relationships are mostly baked in (maybe West Virginia moves basketball to the Big East and Olympics to the BE or another regional conference). But outside of the P5/Ivy/Big East, it could allow for a lot of positive changes. Gonzaga/Wichita State/top A-10 programs join or helps start a major hoops conference. The AAC/CUSA/Belt become football only, with the other programs creating or joining more appropriate groupings.

EDIT TO ADD: Taking the examples from the OP:
Idaho is in its best conference; there'd be no need to leave them in any sport
New Mexico State and UTEP join or create a Southwest-based basketball and an Olympics conference
St Bonaventure stays in the A-10 or joins a higher-end basketball conference but puts Olympics in a Northeastern conference
Hawaii probably makes do as they do now

Can't say that I think it'd ever happen even with the most progressive version of the NCAA possible; there must be innumerable obstacles that I haven't even thought of. But if we're going to get on the dance floor, let's not just stand in the corner and snap our fingers off the beat.

Regarding the OP, and not addressing such massive changes as single sport FB or Basketball conferences ...

... for individual sports, it's less of an issue, but allowing all team sports other than Basketball and FB in single sport conferences to count toward core member sport requirements would be a big step toward allowing more regionalization of subsidy team sports.

(10-12-2021 05:42 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If they really wanted to blow **** up, they'd do this:

Football-only conferences
Basketball (men and women)-only conferences
Olympic sports conferences

It probably wouldn't affect the P5 because those relationships are mostly baked in (maybe West Virginia moves basketball to the Big East and Olympics to the BE or another regional conference). But outside of the P5/Ivy/Big East, it could allow for a lot of positive changes. Gonzaga/Wichita State/top A-10 programs join or helps start a major hoops conference. The AAC/CUSA/Belt become football only, with the other programs creating or joining more appropriate groupings.

EDIT TO ADD: Taking the examples from the OP:
Idaho is in its best conference; there'd be no need to leave them in any sport
New Mexico State and UTEP join or create a Southwest-based basketball and an Olympics conference
St Bonaventure stays in the A-10 or joins a higher-end basketball conference but puts Olympics in a Northeastern conference
Hawaii probably makes do as they do now

Can't say that I think it'd ever happen even with the most progressive version of the NCAA possible; there must be innumerable obstacles that I haven't even thought of. But if we're going to get on the dance floor, let's not just stand in the corner and snap our fingers off the beat.

I like the concept.

Upwards of three outstanding basketball-only leagues could be created with programs that are not members of the P6.

(10-12-2021 05:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We're about to have a new NCAA Constitutional Convention, right?

And there is, in fact, legitimate discontent among ADs at the long distances involved in sending nonrevenue sports hither and yon for conference sports.

But is it written in stone that CUSA and the AAC and the WAC have to play so many sports in conference? No, it's written in the NCAA Division I Manual and bylaws.

So what if they change those rules? Reduce the number and specifications on sports to be a Member Conference. The 8-year waiting period for an autobid is a sufficient deterrent to forming conferences willy-nilly and threatening precious March Madness bids.

If that happens, then maybe you see schools realign geographically for sports at the bottom of the totem pole. If travel costs are an issue, no reason that North Texas and Texas State and UTSA can't play women's volleyball in a Texas Womens' Volleyball league with Lamar and Tarleton State and Houston Baptist.

Of course, the problem there is--what happens to the schools no one wants to travel to? The Idaho's, the New Mexico State's, the St Bonaventures, the UTEPs, the Hawaii's.

Conferences came to be for logical reasons - guaranteed games, one central body to oversee sports, etc. You blow it up, it will eventually go back to conferences.

Schools have higher travel costs for two reasons:

1) Geography - no reasonable alternative. (Like NAU).
2).
3) Pride - schools, like most humans, want to be upwardly mobile. They want to associate with "better, peer Schools" even if more expensive to travel to.

And realistically, most conferences are fairly logically oriented in regards to geography - only exceptions are a few of the G5's like AAC, C-USA

Given the massive scholarship disparity caused by the big rosters in football, many of the non-revenue sports are on the women’s side. I suspect any attempt to regionalize non-revenue sports would be seen as discriminatory, so it’s probably a non-starter.

(10-12-2021 06:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Conferences came to be for logical reasons - guaranteed games, one central body to oversee sports, etc. You blow it up, it will eventually go back to conferences.

Schools have higher travel costs for two reasons:

1) Geography - no reasonable alternative. (Like NAU).
2).
3) Pride - schools, like most humans, want to be upwardly mobile. They want to associate with "better, peer Schools" even if more expensive to travel to.

And realistically, most conferences are fairly logically oriented in regards to geography - only exceptions are a few of the G5's like AAC, C-USA

Yeah, as I've been flipping through wikipedia while doing other things, most of the low-level one-bid leagues are pretty geographically reasonable. Which makes sense--there's no money in that level in being in This League or That Conference, so geography and "institutional fit" are the reasons to move.

There are about a half-dozen leagues that might logically be interested in shuffling their non-revenue sports.
1. Conference USA obviously,
2. American Athletic Conference if you figure out how this isn't beneath their dignity
3. Atlantic 10 (from UMass to Saint Louis and Charlotte)
4. Colonial Athletic Association (Boston to Charleston),
5. maybe the SWAC (Texas to Florida). But TX to FL is really Houston to Jacksonville, so does this do a lot for them?
6. Sun Belt is a maybe. Same geography as the SWAC, with more money.

The WAC would seem like a good prospect, but who would be the dance partners? The Big Sky doesn't really gain from a WAC partnership. The Big West and WCC are already basically bus leagues.

Maybe if you get the WAC, Big Sky and Mountain West? Without doing a full scenario, I'm guessing you're still flying to the games, so is there really a point?

(10-12-2021 07:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 06:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Conferences came to be for logical reasons - guaranteed games, one central body to oversee sports, etc. You blow it up, it will eventually go back to conferences.

Schools have higher travel costs for two reasons:

1) Geography - no reasonable alternative. (Like NAU).
2).
3) Pride - schools, like most humans, want to be upwardly mobile. They want to associate with "better, peer Schools" even if more expensive to travel to.

And realistically, most conferences are fairly logically oriented in regards to geography - only exceptions are a few of the G5's like AAC, C-USA

Yeah, as I've been flipping through wikipedia while doing other things, most of the low-level one-bid leagues are pretty geographically reasonable. Which makes sense--there's no money in that level in being in This League or That Conference, so geography and "institutional fit" are the reasons to move.

There are about a half-dozen leagues that might logically be interested in shuffling their non-revenue sports.
1. Conference USA obviously,
2. American Athletic Conference if you figure out how this isn't beneath their dignity
3. Atlantic 10 (from UMass to Saint Louis and Charlotte)
4. Colonial Athletic Association (Boston to Charleston),
5. maybe the SWAC (Texas to Florida). But TX to FL is really Houston to Jacksonville, so does this do a lot for them?
6. Sun Belt is a maybe. Same geography as the SWAC, with more money.

The WAC would seem like a good prospect, but who would be the dance partners? The Big Sky doesn't really gain from a WAC partnership. The Big West and WCC are already basically bus leagues.

Maybe if you get the WAC, Big Sky and Mountain West? Without doing a full scenario, I'm guessing you're still flying to the games, so is there really a point?

For the Mountain schools, you are flying regardless. The original Big Sky (Gonzaga, Idaho, Idaho State, Montana, Montana State, Weber State) was about as compact as you can get - throw Eastern Washington in there (and Boise) and that is mostly drivable, but even Idaho to Idaho State is a 8-9 hour drive.