(03-30-2013 06:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They wont force anyone down. They will just elevate themselves up. Super-FBS, FBS, FCS. The NCAA is really not in a position to stop them. The NCAA needs the power schools to stick around for basketball. The entire NCAA structure is funded via the NCAA basketball tournament.

They've already done that in football ~ one guaranteed spot among 12 to the Group of Five and notional access to the championship game buys legal protection against anti-trust action, and the obvious opportunity for close to any school that can afford it to get into the Group of Five only strengthens their position on that front.

The Group of Five "Access Bowl" revenue distribution is a modest insurance premium compared to the threat of the whole collusive enterprise running afoul of the law.

So the threat would seem to be mostly on the BBall side ~ at present, its a fair chunk of change that is being spread out among the FCS and non-FB division through NCAA units and the various other pots of money coming out of the NCAA tourney. An 11 conference breakaway including the Group of Five and the New Big East would allow a 48 team tournament with 32 first round and 16 second round seeds and 37 at-large bids, and without carrying the entire NCAA overheads. All it takes is a network willing to pay the piper to call the tune: but given the value of NCAA tourney rights, and the risk to media value connected with any breakaway system, that "All it takes" is quite a big qualifier.

(03-31-2013 02:38 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 06:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They wont force anyone down. They will just elevate themselves up. Super-FBS, FBS, FCS. The NCAA is really not in a position to stop them. The NCAA needs the power schools to stick around for basketball. The entire NCAA structure is funded via the NCAA basketball tournament.

They've already done that in football ~ one guaranteed spot among 12 to the Group of Five and notional access to the championship game buys legal protection against anti-trust action, and the obvious opportunity for close to any school that can afford it to get into the Group of Five only strengthens their position on that front.

The Group of Five "Access Bowl" revenue distribution is a modest insurance premium compared to the threat of the whole collusive enterprise running afoul of the law.

So the threat would seem to be mostly on the BBall side ~ at present, its a fair chunk of change that is being spread out among the FCS and non-FB division through NCAA units and the various other pots of money coming out of the NCAA tourney. An 11 conference breakaway including the Group of Five and the New Big East would allow a 48 team tournament with 32 first round and 16 second round seeds and 37 at-large bids, and without carrying the entire NCAA overheads. All it takes is a network willing to pay the piper to call the tune: but given the value of NCAA tourney rights, and the risk to media value connected with any breakaway system, that "All it takes" is quite a big qualifier.

That might be a big mistake. Remove the FGCU cinderellas and you don't know how that will fly. The Cinderellas are pretty important to the magic.

(03-29-2013 11:21 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  No reason why Ga Southern wont become as good or better than Southern Miss. Larger school, winning tradition and located in a state with much, much more talent.

You guys were 0-12 last year. I probably should have said we already passed you.

(03-31-2013 04:30 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  You guys were 0-12 last year. I probably should have said we already passed you.

0-12 was almost as embarrassing as someone from GSU comparing themselves to our program. In a one year sample, and that sample being 2012, yes, can't argue that. But what about the 99 years before that? Care to compare 18 straight winning seasons, nine bowls in ten years, or 556 wins? Didn't think so. But great job on 2012. Impressive.

Buh bye, GSU fanatic.

(03-31-2013 02:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  That might be a big mistake. Remove the FGCU cinderellas and you don't know how that will fly. The Cinderellas are pretty important to the magic.

I quite agree. Also no telling how long the cable subscription fee gravy train will keep running ... any substantial switch to pay per channel in response to growing cable-cutting toward the end of this decade, and the torrent of money might drop back to just a steady flow.

(03-29-2013 01:30 PM)goherd17 Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 11:21 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  ... No reason why Ga Southern wont become as good or better than Southern Miss. Larger school, winning tradition and located in a state with much, much more talent.

I dont know who has the bigger ego problem Ga southern or appy state. every since invited to the belt all you guys have talked about is how big and bad your going to be and surpass everyone.

Oh, I don't know ... the ambition of being "better than Southern Miss" is really not that big of an ambition. Access bowl busting ambitions, like "better than Boise State" ... that would be a bit stronger on the ego department.

(03-31-2013 08:45 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:34 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://www.arkst.com/realignment-partici...spectator/

I skimmed it, but from what I saw, it looked like the reasoning was very flawed. I noticed that much of it is concerned with markets and that is a HUGE mistake. Markets do not matter very much. Fan support matters and that has very little to do with markets.

Fan support doesn't matter that much in this era of conference realignment.

Are you out of your mind???? That's the most important thing! Most realignment is all about money and money is all about fan support.

Much of the rest of realignment is about adding good products on the field and that is directly linked to fan support. Progams with fans will have a good atmosphere, and programs with good atmospheres will usually recruits well, and programs that recruit well will usually win.

The rest of realignment involves playing where the recruits are, adding high caliber academic institutions that fit the other institutions in the conference, and building a presence in states that export students.

EDIT:
Spelling and I should have included geography as a factor.

Of course FBS is going to grow in size, there is no option but for it to happen because the leagues across the south are so busy with their pants unzipped trying to show who has the biggest member(s).

A look at a map shows it is more about not being in a conference with X than it is about trying to make geographically sensible alignments of schools.

Go look at the winning percentages of the schools of fBe, CUSA, Sun Belt. Pick your time frame. 2 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 8 years and get back with me about how they are trying to build leagues of strong teams.

The sad part of it all is that six schools left CUSA because they were going to cash in on a TV contract worth $6 million a year just for football and half were pursuing AQ status.

(03-31-2013 06:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:45 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:34 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://www.arkst.com/realignment-partici...spectator/

I skimmed it, but from what I saw, it looked like the reasoning was very flawed. I noticed that much of it is concerned with markets and that is a HUGE mistake. Markets do not matter very much. Fan support matters and that has very little to do with markets.

Fan support doesn't matter that much in this era of conference realignment.

Are you out of your mind???? That's the most important thing! Most realignment is all about money and money is all about fan support.

Much of the rest of realignment is about adding good products on the field and that is directly linked to fan support. Progams with fans will have a good atmosphere, and programs with good atmospheres will usually recruits well, and programs that recruit well will usually win.

The rest of realignment involves playing where the recruits are, adding high calaber academic institutions that fit the other institutions in the conference, and building a presence in states that export students.

The programs with highest attendance in the SBC are still in the SBC. Fan interest has meant nothing.

The back-to-back champs are still in the SBC. Two-time New Orleans Bowl winner still in the SBC. Winning on the field has meant nothing.

(04-01-2013 09:08 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 06:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:45 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:34 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://www.arkst.com/realignment-partici...spectator/

I skimmed it, but from what I saw, it looked like the reasoning was very flawed. I noticed that much of it is concerned with markets and that is a HUGE mistake. Markets do not matter very much. Fan support matters and that has very little to do with markets.

Fan support doesn't matter that much in this era of conference realignment.

Are you out of your mind???? That's the most important thing! Most realignment is all about money and money is all about fan support.

Much of the rest of realignment is about adding good products on the field and that is directly linked to fan support. Progams with fans will have a good atmosphere, and programs with good atmospheres will usually recruits well, and programs that recruit well will usually win.

The rest of realignment involves playing where the recruits are, adding high calaber academic institutions that fit the other institutions in the conference, and building a presence in states that export students.

The programs with highest attendance in the SBC are still in the SBC. Fan interest has meant nothing.

The back-to-back champs are still in the SBC. Two-time New Orleans Bowl winner still in the SBC. Winning on the field has meant nothing.

Thats why I keep saying they should just merge. The teams left behind have almost as much to offer as the teams taken. To me thats a much better solution for all of FBS football than promoting more FCS teams to the FBS ranks. Unfortunately, Im not seeing much support for that view.

(04-01-2013 11:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 09:08 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 06:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:45 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:34 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I skimmed it, but from what I saw, it looked like the reasoning was very flawed. I noticed that much of it is concerned with markets and that is a HUGE mistake. Markets do not matter very much. Fan support matters and that has very little to do with markets.

Fan support doesn't matter that much in this era of conference realignment.

Are you out of your mind???? That's the most important thing! Most realignment is all about money and money is all about fan support.

Much of the rest of realignment is about adding good products on the field and that is directly linked to fan support. Progams with fans will have a good atmosphere, and programs with good atmospheres will usually recruits well, and programs that recruit well will usually win.

The rest of realignment involves playing where the recruits are, adding high calaber academic institutions that fit the other institutions in the conference, and building a presence in states that export students.

The programs with highest attendance in the SBC are still in the SBC. Fan interest has meant nothing.

The back-to-back champs are still in the SBC. Two-time New Orleans Bowl winner still in the SBC. Winning on the field has meant nothing.

Thats why I keep saying they should just merge. The teams left behind have almost as much to offer as the teams taken. To me thats a much better solution for all of FBS football than promoting more FCS teams to the FBS ranks. Unfortunately, Im not seeing much support for that view.

The nBE should have just merged with CUSA 2.0 so that the Sun Belt would have been left alone thus solving the fcs move up issues.

(03-31-2013 04:30 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  You guys were 0-12 last year. I probably should have said we already passed you.

GSU shouldn't even have sports. It's basically like DeVry, but instead of being marketed to dorky twenty-something guys it's directed at overly ambitious single moms. That's not a horrible thing to be, but nobody with a clue about sports in the southeast will ever confuse you with USM.

(04-01-2013 09:08 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 06:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:45 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:34 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://www.arkst.com/realignment-partici...spectator/

I skimmed it, but from what I saw, it looked like the reasoning was very flawed. I noticed that much of it is concerned with markets and that is a HUGE mistake. Markets do not matter very much. Fan support matters and that has very little to do with markets.

Fan support doesn't matter that much in this era of conference realignment.

Are you out of your mind???? That's the most important thing! Most realignment is all about money and money is all about fan support.

Much of the rest of realignment is about adding good products on the field and that is directly linked to fan support. Progams with fans will have a good atmosphere, and programs with good atmospheres will usually recruits well, and programs that recruit well will usually win.

The rest of realignment involves playing where the recruits are, adding high calaber academic institutions that fit the other institutions in the conference, and building a presence in states that export students.

The programs with highest attendance in the SBC are still in the SBC. Fan interest has meant nothing.

The back-to-back champs are still in the SBC. Two-time New Orleans Bowl winner still in the SBC. Winning on the field has meant nothing.

Tell that to Miami ("team of the 80's" and continued being dominant until the early 00's), FSU (team of the 90's), Syracuse (2nd highest attendance in bball), UL (highest attendance in bball), Nebraska (longest sellout streak in football and has won multiple NC's), WVU (team that carried the BIG EAST), TAMU (home of the 12th man and winner of the Heisman in their first SEC year), Taxes and Oklahoma (two of the most storied programs in CFB - each have flirted with every power conference), UNC (basketball blue blood - supposedly has offers from everyone and their brother), BSU (top 5 team of the 00's), SDSU (best non-AQ not named BSU), TCU (BCS Bowl caliber team when they were added), Utah (BCS Bowl caliber team when they were added), VTech (see Miami), BC (at the time, they were the model of consistency that was ranked in the top 25 every year), PSU (top 15 all time team that was >10 years removed from 2 NC's and has arguably the biggest following in the nation), Mizzou (ranked in both basketball and football when they were added), ND (flirted with every non-Pac/SEC conference - legendary following in football and a legendary on-field product), Navy (terrible on field product, but a built-in national following), and Pitt (had been ranked on and off in football and consistently ranked in basketball - both have decent attendances, but not mind blowing - however, the "Oakland Zoo" is pretty respected).

RU and UMD were added for other reasons (i.e. recruiting, geographic, and academic), and I don't know enough about UC Boulder to say why they were added.

The difference between the first place team in the SBC and the last place team in the SBC isn't that much. That's whyit gets weird results. The list above includes every major add and as many major attempted adds as I could think of.