(10-16-2025 12:05 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If you don’t think the rest of the P4 is 95%-plus in alignment with the Big Ten in terms of overall structural matters, then you’re being totally naive. They may be disagreeing on the margins, but the big picture is that they do agree that they shouldn’t be letting the other 1000 schools in the NCAA be dictating to them (hence the uniform P4 pushing for an expansion of the NCAA Tournament). There are the 68 P4 teams that matter and then everyone else.

I do not dispute this, but I'm raising a question: does the eventual P2 need to go, to allow the remainder of schools to reorganize for a 21st century model of athletics?

Let's be clear: the Big Ten cares nothing about the ACC or Big 12, much less the Big East, Sun Belt, Missouri Valley, MAC, or even Ivy. If it wants to be "NFL-C" (NFL-College), at what point does the NCAA hierarchy need to let them go and do it on its own? No one expects the other 300-odd Division I schools to follow their lead and we all know that the Big Ten doesn't want those 300 schools in the club to begin with.

Completely disagree. Athletics at the vast majority of schools in the Big Ten are not that different from those in the ACC or B12. All four power conferences want to broadly support elite collegiate athletics. Football and basketball are the sports priorities (for recognition and revenue), but universities in the P4 can all operate competitively at a relatively comparable level. Counting the number of NCAA D1 national champions during the past year by conference, it’s surprisingly even across the four power conferences. If there is a breakaway from the current NCAA D1 structure, it’s more likely to include the entire P4 than any smaller subset.

As a sidelight, non-P4 schools and conferences have also been able to establish valuable athletic brands. The Big East has consistently created value in men’s and women’s basketball…getting large media payouts and winning national championships. The Ivy has managed to effectively compete in non-revenue sports. Even in football, there are a handful of schools (e.g., Boise State, Memphis, USF, etc.) that aren’t substantially different from existing P4 members.

(10-16-2025 12:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 11:30 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 11:22 AM)MaverickManiac Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 09:42 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Is it time for the NCAA to wish the Big Ten well in its future endeavors and let them move on with what they have?

Why would the NCAA remove it's 2nd largest money maker?

The NCAA makes its money on the basketball tournament, with or without the B10. It makes comparatively nothing on FBS football, where the money goes to the conferences.

By contrast, the B10 is on a mission to turn college athletics into professional sports at the expense of 1,020 other schools who do not have the capacity or the will to do so.

If you don’t think the rest of the P4 is 95%-plus in alignment with the Big Ten in terms of overall structural matters, then you’re being totally naive. They may be disagreeing on the margins, but the big picture is that they do agree that they shouldn’t be letting the other 1000 schools in the NCAA be dictating to them (hence the uniform P4 pushing for an expansion of the NCAA Tournament). There are the 68 P4 teams that matter and then everyone else.

There are only about 20 P4 schools that matter tops and then everyone else.

Maybe there's 20 schools that matter in football.

But the top basketball schools matter a lot to the NCAA because they provide more revenue to the NCAA than football does. And for the most part that's different schools than the football powers.

And any school that controls its conference also matters a lot because they effectively control 10-18 votes. So a school like Memphis or Dayton holds enough power to have a seat at the bargaining table.


Still, at the end of the day, most of these schools have the exact same interest as their conference-mates. For example, Cincinnati never bothered to exercise any power because we want the exact same things as Louisville (when we were in C-USA), Pitt/Syracuse (when we were in the Big East), and Kansas (today).

(10-16-2025 03:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  ... And any school that controls its conference also matters a lot because they effectively control 10-18 votes. So a school like Memphis or Dayton holds enough power to have a seat at the bargaining table. ...

However, their leverage at that bargaining table is limited by the fact that any ultimatum to the p4 that leaves the p4 better off outside the NCAA than inside will be met by the p4 leaving, gutting the finances of the NCAA and killing off the value of Tourney units.

(10-16-2025 09:42 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Is it time for the NCAA to wish the Big Ten well in its future endeavors and let them move on with what they have?

Why in the world would the NCAA do that?

(10-16-2025 11:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The OP post is essentially proposing for the NCAA to shoot itself in the face. The Big Ten is the biggest moneymaker in *basketball*, by the way, so the sub-point thought that the NCAA Tournament would continue on just fine is also ridiculous.

If the Big Ten and SEC split off, everyone else WILL be killed financially. I don’t understand the people that have completely misplaced notions of who has leverage versus who doesn’t (and the only one that has any leverage compared to the Big Ten is the SEC - the rest of the NCAA is irrelevant).

We both know that's not true, or else the Big 12 and ACC would be paying their schools $1.7m for the CFP instead of $11.5-13m each. There are about 70 schools that really matter in FBS. The B1G has 18 of them, several of which are worth a whole lot more than the average certainly. However, unless the B1G is ready to absord the entire ACC and Big 12, they're one of 4 with a say rather than 1 of 2. And, um, exactly how unified is the B1G these days? Seems like some combination of USC/OSU/Michigan is always raising a ruckus about something or other. I don't think that the B1G office could do anything remotely controversial these days, simply b/c they would be unable to achieve unanimity among their key stakeholders. Which, just to be clear, the SEC has our own problems these days, how long did it take us to even approve a 9th Conference game? It took Sankey about 15 months AFTER he thought it was a done deal to actually get that one across the finish line.

We're all herding cats.

(10-16-2025 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 11:30 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 11:22 AM)MaverickManiac Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 09:42 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Is it time for the NCAA to wish the Big Ten well in its future endeavors and let them move on with what they have?

Why would the NCAA remove it's 2nd largest money maker?

The NCAA makes its money on the basketball tournament, with or without the B10. It makes comparatively nothing on FBS football, where the money goes to the conferences.

By contrast, the B10 is on a mission to turn college athletics into professional sports at the expense of 1,020 other schools who do not have the capacity or the will to do so.

If you don’t think the rest of the P4 is 95%-plus in alignment with the Big Ten in terms of overall structural matters, then you’re being totally naive. They may be disagreeing on the margins, but the big picture is that they do agree that they shouldn’t be letting the other 1000 schools in the NCAA be dictating to them (hence the uniform P4 pushing for an expansion of the NCAA Tournament). There are the 68 P4 teams that matter and then everyone else.

I'd argue that the BE has a say in the NCAAT, but, yeah, that's more in line with what I was thinking in my post above. There's not much daylight between what TCU, USC, Miami and Georgia want.

(10-16-2025 11:30 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  The NCAA makes its money on the basketball tournament, with or without the B10. It makes comparatively nothing on FBS football, where the money goes to the conferences.

By contrast, the B10 is on a mission to turn college athletics into professional sports at the expense of 1,020 other schools who do not have the capacity or the will to do so.

Oh, my. You think it’s just the B1G.

(10-16-2025 01:37 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:59 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  Is this over the CSC thing? If anything them not signing helps the NCAA retain power.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "CSC thing" and how does it help the NCAA retain power?

College Sports Commission, was supposed to take over governance of the P4 after House but the Big Ten isn’t signing off on it. Its the only difference I can see between them and the SEC.

And it’s probably a negotiation tactic. B1G wants postseason bans off the table. That granted, it’s a good bet the B1G also signs off on the CSC.

(10-16-2025 12:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You ding dongs have it backwards. The NCAA does not tell the big conferences and big schools what to do, the big conferences and big schools tell the NCAA what to do on their behalf. The B1G, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are like the four largest shareholders accounting for 90% of the value of the NCAA enterprises. The NCAA is a shell that does their bidding, makes rules that formalize what the powerful conferences are already doing as practice. Financially its tournament is dependents on the enthusiastic participation of these conferences.

The squabble between the big four conferences changes dynamics all the time. Often one is out of sync with the other (remember when the B1G, ACC and Pac-12 attempted to form an alliance to overcome the then uppity SEC that was doing things that upset the group). This time around it is the B1G. The NCAA has no incentive or reason to involve itself in position jockeying amongst its four most powerful board members. Those four will hash it out as they always do, because they have to for their own business success. Just because we get a glimpse from time to time where one is ahead or behind the others or pushing for a different direction and they debate forcefully, doesn't mean this doesn't happen out of our sight frequently at a lower decibel level.

The four have united very recently, with the Big East also riding with them, to revise the tournament to 76 teams effectively adding 8 more at-large play-in slots amongst themselves and relegating 8 more AQs to play-in (12 in all). Also, after a couple years of wrangling they expanded and agreed on a new
CFP structure and payout system with a look-in (B1G and SEC get ~29% of non-performance distributions, ACC ~17%, Big 12 ~15% and so on). This was sausage making with a lot of ranker and public lobbying (remember the Big 12 pushing for a look-in to sign on). The NCAA was almost a bystander, as their job is simply to sanction the decision and then write new byLaws to codify the new arrangement (ex post facto like everything else the NCAA does).

You guys have it completely backwards to think the NCAA can tell the big schools and conferences anything.

Yeah, it's been 20 years at least since the NCAA lorded over college athletics. The power conferences have been in control ever since football TV money got big.

(10-18-2025 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You ding dongs have it backwards. The NCAA does not tell the big conferences and big schools what to do, the big conferences and big schools tell the NCAA what to do on their behalf. The B1G, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are like the four largest shareholders accounting for 90% of the value of the NCAA enterprises. The NCAA is a shell that does their bidding, makes rules that formalize what the powerful conferences are already doing as practice. Financially its tournament is dependents on the enthusiastic participation of these conferences.

The squabble between the big four conferences changes dynamics all the time. Often one is out of sync with the other (remember when the B1G, ACC and Pac-12 attempted to form an alliance to overcome the then uppity SEC that was doing things that upset the group). This time around it is the B1G. The NCAA has no incentive or reason to involve itself in position jockeying amongst its four most powerful board members. Those four will hash it out as they always do, because they have to for their own business success. Just because we get a glimpse from time to time where one is ahead or behind the others or pushing for a different direction and they debate forcefully, doesn't mean this doesn't happen out of our sight frequently at a lower decibel level.

The four have united very recently, with the Big East also riding with them, to revise the tournament to 76 teams effectively adding 8 more at-large play-in slots amongst themselves and relegating 8 more AQs to play-in (12 in all). Also, after a couple years of wrangling they expanded and agreed on a new
CFP structure and payout system with a look-in (B1G and SEC get ~29% of non-performance distributions, ACC ~17%, Big 12 ~15% and so on). This was sausage making with a lot of ranker and public lobbying (remember the Big 12 pushing for a look-in to sign on). The NCAA was almost a bystander, as their job is simply to sanction the decision and then write new byLaws to codify the new arrangement (ex post facto like everything else the NCAA does).

You guys have it completely backwards to think the NCAA can tell the big schools and conferences anything.

Yeah, it's been 20 years at least since the NCAA lorded over college athletics. The power conferences have been in control ever since football TV money got big.

Well, sort of in control is a better way to say that, right? Leave the NCAA and who knows what sort of trauma Congress unleashes upon us. Today Congress is still so divided that one booster from Texas Tech has been able to single handedly kill SCORE. If the P4 leave as a group then there will be a LOT of very angry Congressmen looking to cause all sorts of mischief for us, crossing party lines in ways that we rarely see these days. If we do head off on our own, we'll need really good cover for it to ameliorate the political risks. For that matter, we'll need the smaller schools to largely WANT us to leave, which, I mean, I guess they could, but when have the smaller schools ever turned down NCAA handouts, handouts that are almost completely paid for by the P5?

(10-18-2025 09:23 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-18-2025 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You ding dongs have it backwards. The NCAA does not tell the big conferences and big schools what to do, the big conferences and big schools tell the NCAA what to do on their behalf. The B1G, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are like the four largest shareholders accounting for 90% of the value of the NCAA enterprises. The NCAA is a shell that does their bidding, makes rules that formalize what the powerful conferences are already doing as practice. Financially its tournament is dependents on the enthusiastic participation of these conferences.

The squabble between the big four conferences changes dynamics all the time. Often one is out of sync with the other (remember when the B1G, ACC and Pac-12 attempted to form an alliance to overcome the then uppity SEC that was doing things that upset the group). This time around it is the B1G. The NCAA has no incentive or reason to involve itself in position jockeying amongst its four most powerful board members. Those four will hash it out as they always do, because they have to for their own business success. Just because we get a glimpse from time to time where one is ahead or behind the others or pushing for a different direction and they debate forcefully, doesn't mean this doesn't happen out of our sight frequently at a lower decibel level.

The four have united very recently, with the Big East also riding with them, to revise the tournament to 76 teams effectively adding 8 more at-large play-in slots amongst themselves and relegating 8 more AQs to play-in (12 in all). Also, after a couple years of wrangling they expanded and agreed on a new
CFP structure and payout system with a look-in (B1G and SEC get ~29% of non-performance distributions, ACC ~17%, Big 12 ~15% and so on). This was sausage making with a lot of ranker and public lobbying (remember the Big 12 pushing for a look-in to sign on). The NCAA was almost a bystander, as their job is simply to sanction the decision and then write new byLaws to codify the new arrangement (ex post facto like everything else the NCAA does).

You guys have it completely backwards to think the NCAA can tell the big schools and conferences anything.

Yeah, it's been 20 years at least since the NCAA lorded over college athletics. The power conferences have been in control ever since football TV money got big.

Well, sort of in control is a better way to say that, right? Leave the NCAA and who knows what sort of trauma Congress unleashes upon us. Today Congress is still so divided that one booster from Texas Tech has been able to single handedly kill SCORE. If the P4 leave as a group then there will be a LOT of very angry Congressmen looking to cause all sorts of mischief for us, crossing party lines in ways that we rarely see these days. If we do head off on our own, we'll need really good cover for it to ameliorate the political risks. For that matter, we'll need the smaller schools to largely WANT us to leave, which, I mean, I guess they could, but when have the smaller schools ever turned down NCAA handouts, handouts that are almost completely paid for by the P5?

Agree. The NCAA’s long term value and power is overwhelmingly tied to political influence resulting from inclusion. By contrast, the NCAA’s financial resources are waning and will be overwhelmingly gone by 2032 (when the NCAA men’s tournament media deal expires). It’s no coincidence that the NCAA hired a professional politician (rather than someone tied to athletics or universities) as their President.

Members of the P5 (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten and SEC) have won 49 out of the past 50 men’s basketball tournaments. UNLV is the only school not in the P5 to win the championship, and that was now 35 years ago. There are only a handful of non-P5 programs that have been national championship contenders in multiple seasons (UNLV plus Gonzaga, Memphis and SDSU). So long as the five major conferences continue their alignment, they will inevitably exert ever greater control over the men’s tournament. That starts with leading future negotiations of media deals and distribution of payouts. NCAA administrators and non-major D1 programs know that the current financial gravy train has a definitive end date no later than June 30, 2032. The Majors are careful to not kill the goose that lays the golden egg (i.e., the Tournament), but neither the NCAA nor the non-Majors have leverage to determine its future.