(04-22-2013 10:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 05:21 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The NCAA isn't just some governing body...it is the schools you speak of themselves. It's the presidents of those schools that make up the NCAA. They would be breaking away from themselves in order to create the exact same thing

This is what people don't understand. The NCAA isn't some governing body disconnected from the schools making these arbitrary rules. These rules are created by the member presidents themselves. Those who say the smaller schools are just out opting the power schools also are either unaware of how it's run or are being disengenuous. The power schools chair almost every committee and if they don't support a rule that rule doesn't pass.

Also, anyone who thinks that San Jose st or Georgia Southern is more if a legit or respectable athletic program because they sponsor football and Georgetown or Marquette isn't because they don't, are fools. Just seen that sentiment a few times on these boards.

Non-FBS schools out number FBS schools by a 2 to 1 margin. Nothing the non-FBS schools don't want to pass can pass. Simple as that. By the way, it's not a given that every FBS school would even be included in a break away. It is a given that every school included will play FBS football. The up side is that there will still be plenty of basketball first programs left in the NCAA and there will still be a solid NCAA tournament field. It just wont make near as much money.

Same goes for a tournament that's made up just if power 5 schools. You leave out the MWC, AAC and big east and you're just asking for most people to not count your champ as legit. A tournament half the size with a bunch if scrubs will never get the attention the tournament gets now.

Depends. If they include all of FBS, they can put together a suitable field. There will be enough non-power conference schools that the cinderrella angle still exists. If they reduce it to just the P-5, the tourney will have to be reduced to just 32 schools at most and the cinderella angle pretty much goes away. Like the NIT and the NCAA, at some point the public will gravitate to one of the two tournaments and the other will simply become an afterthought. Before long, there will be no real question about which tourney crowns the legit national champ. Once that occurs, the big recruits will flow in that direction and the quality of basketball played in the two tourneys wont really be that close anymore.

(04-22-2013 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 05:21 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The NCAA isn't just some governing body...it is the schools you speak of themselves. It's the presidents of those schools that make up the NCAA. They would be breaking away from themselves in order to create the exact same thing

This is what people don't understand. The NCAA isn't some governing body disconnected from the schools making these arbitrary rules. These rules are created by the member presidents themselves. Those who say the smaller schools are just out opting the power schools also are either unaware of how it's run or are being disengenuous. The power schools chair almost every committee and if they don't support a rule that rule doesn't pass.

Also, anyone who thinks that San Jose st or Georgia Southern is more if a legit or respectable athletic program because they sponsor football and Georgetown or Marquette isn't because they don't, are fools. Just seen that sentiment a few times on these boards.

Non-FBS schools out number FBS schools by a 2 to 1 margin. Nothing the non-FBS schools don't want to pass can pass. Simple as that. By the way, it's not a given that every FBS school would even be included in a break away. It is a given that every school included will play FBS football. The up side is that there will still be plenty of basketball first programs left in the NCAA and there will still be a solid NCAA tournament field. It just wont make near as much money.

Same goes for a tournament that's made up just if power 5 schools. You leave out the MWC, AAC and big east and you're just asking for most people to not count your champ as legit. A tournament half the size with a bunch if scrubs will never get the attention the tournament gets now.

Depends. If they include all of FBS, they can put together a suitable field. There will be enough non-power conference schools that the cinderrella angle still exists. If they reduce it to just the P-5, the tourney will have to be reduced to just 32 schools at most and the cinderella angle pretty much goes away. Like the NIT and the NCAA, at some point the public will gravitate to one of the two tournaments and the other will simply become an afterthought. Before long, there will be no real question about which tourney crowns the legit national champ. Once that occurs, the big recruits will flow in that direction and the quality of basketball played in the two tourneys wont really be that close anymore.

That's not true since the NCAA/nit didn't exclude all but 64 teams. Most of the colleges won't just become an after thought. C'mon dude

(04-22-2013 10:46 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  This is what people don't understand. The NCAA isn't some governing body disconnected from the schools making these arbitrary rules. These rules are created by the member presidents themselves. Those who say the smaller schools are just out opting the power schools also are either unaware of how it's run or are being disengenuous. The power schools chair almost every committee and if they don't support a rule that rule doesn't pass.

Also, anyone who thinks that San Jose st or Georgia Southern is more if a legit or respectable athletic program because they sponsor football and Georgetown or Marquette isn't because they don't, are fools. Just seen that sentiment a few times on these boards.

Non-FBS schools out number FBS schools by a 2 to 1 margin. Nothing the non-FBS schools don't want to pass can pass. Simple as that. By the way, it's not a given that every FBS school would even be included in a break away. It is a given that every school included will play FBS football. The up side is that there will still be plenty of basketball first programs left in the NCAA and there will still be a solid NCAA tournament field. It just wont make near as much money.

Same goes for a tournament that's made up just if power 5 schools. You leave out the MWC, AAC and big east and you're just asking for most people to not count your champ as legit. A tournament half the size with a bunch if scrubs will never get the attention the tournament gets now.

Depends. If they include all of FBS, they can put together a suitable field. There will be enough non-power conference schools that the cinderrella angle still exists. If they reduce it to just the P-5, the tourney will have to be reduced to just 32 schools at most and the cinderella angle pretty much goes away. Like the NIT and the NCAA, at some point the public will gravitate to one of the two tournaments and the other will simply become an afterthought. Before long, there will be no real question about which tourney crowns the legit national champ. Once that occurs, the big recruits will flow in that direction and the quality of basketball played in the two tourneys wont really be that close anymore.

That's not true since the NCAA/nit didn't exclude all but 64 teams. Most of the colleges won't just become an after thought. C'mon dude

I think if its just 64-65 power conference schools you would be right. If its 120-130 FBS teams, the field is large enough and includes enough portions of the nation that the rest could become an afterthought.

(04-22-2013 11:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:46 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Non-FBS schools out number FBS schools by a 2 to 1 margin. Nothing the non-FBS schools don't want to pass can pass. Simple as that. By the way, it's not a given that every FBS school would even be included in a break away. It is a given that every school included will play FBS football. The up side is that there will still be plenty of basketball first programs left in the NCAA and there will still be a solid NCAA tournament field. It just wont make near as much money.

Same goes for a tournament that's made up just if power 5 schools. You leave out the MWC, AAC and big east and you're just asking for most people to not count your champ as legit. A tournament half the size with a bunch if scrubs will never get the attention the tournament gets now.

Depends. If they include all of FBS, they can put together a suitable field. There will be enough non-power conference schools that the cinderrella angle still exists. If they reduce it to just the P-5, the tourney will have to be reduced to just 32 schools at most and the cinderella angle pretty much goes away. Like the NIT and the NCAA, at some point the public will gravitate to one of the two tournaments and the other will simply become an afterthought. Before long, there will be no real question about which tourney crowns the legit national champ. Once that occurs, the big recruits will flow in that direction and the quality of basketball played in the two tourneys wont really be that close anymore.

That's not true since the NCAA/nit didn't exclude all but 64 teams. Most of the colleges won't just become an after thought. C'mon dude

I think if its just 64-65 power conference schools you would be right. If its 120-130 FBS teams, the field is large enough and includes enough portions of the nation that the rest could become an afterthought.

The claim has been made often that CBS will pay about the same for 32 as 64. I suspect that claim factors out shares going to about 20 conferences and means it is revenue neutral for the top leagues.

If you had 120-130 basically half the teams make the field at 64 and I suspect that the most compelling reason no one would ever utter aloud to stay at 64 rather than 32 or 48 would be the fact that the tournament draws a lot of viewers who don't care about anything other than the bracket they filled out without knowing much about college basketball and the 64 team bracket is what those people expect.

(04-22-2013 11:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:46 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 08:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Non-FBS schools out number FBS schools by a 2 to 1 margin. Nothing the non-FBS schools don't want to pass can pass. Simple as that. By the way, it's not a given that every FBS school would even be included in a break away. It is a given that every school included will play FBS football. The up side is that there will still be plenty of basketball first programs left in the NCAA and there will still be a solid NCAA tournament field. It just wont make near as much money.

Same goes for a tournament that's made up just if power 5 schools. You leave out the MWC, AAC and big east and you're just asking for most people to not count your champ as legit. A tournament half the size with a bunch if scrubs will never get the attention the tournament gets now.

Depends. If they include all of FBS, they can put together a suitable field. There will be enough non-power conference schools that the cinderrella angle still exists. If they reduce it to just the P-5, the tourney will have to be reduced to just 32 schools at most and the cinderella angle pretty much goes away. Like the NIT and the NCAA, at some point the public will gravitate to one of the two tournaments and the other will simply become an afterthought. Before long, there will be no real question about which tourney crowns the legit national champ. Once that occurs, the big recruits will flow in that direction and the quality of basketball played in the two tourneys wont really be that close anymore.

That's not true since the NCAA/nit didn't exclude all but 64 teams. Most of the colleges won't just become an after thought. C'mon dude

I think if its just 64-65 power conference schools you would be right. If its 120-130 FBS teams, the field is large enough and includes enough portions of the nation that the rest could become an afterthought.

Well then why leave out the likes of GTown, butler and Gonzaga for app st, Georgia southern and San Jose?

I've thought since the CFA was formed, and took football TV rights away from the NCAA, that it would eventually lead to the bigger schools breaking away to form their own division or regulatory organization. Nothing that's happened since has changed my mind. IMO it's just a matter of time...

One point of history.

What became the FBS/FCS split in 1978 and was enlarged in 1982 was actually mentioned in newspaper articles at least as far back as 1975 and was initially envisoned as much smaller and going across sports.

It quickly became a football only discussion but then at the time, the money was in football. The NCAA Tournament was not a big money maker. If it had been, the revenue split would have never looked like it does, it would look much more like the split in the BCS/CFP.

If splitting ever gains serious traction, it will be the five rich leagues plus Notre Dame and for a variety of reasons (national politics, local politics, anti-trust concerns, competitive balance, etc.,) the size will grow.

The easiest line to draw is the line you already have because you already know the outcome and that's the FBS/FCS line.

FWIW, I know one consultant about three years ago drew up an NCAA split proposal for a client they would not disclose to me (other than it was an FBS league). The consultant was given a set of criteria about the sorts of schools that should be included as well as governance concerns and legal and regulatory concerns.

The proposal they put forward was to forego the association model and form either corporation or a cooperative model with shares. The 6 AQ conferences (at that time) would receive 15 shares each. The 5 non-AQ would receive two share each. The entity would retain 25 unissued shares.

Each sport championship generating a profit after covering reasonable transportation and per diem costs (obviously some sports would lose money) would see the profits split 40-60 with 40% going into a fund for distribution based on performance in that event and 60% going to the entity.

The entity after paying its costs and holding whatever is determined to be an appropriate reserve would distribute a dividend per share.

You want to play under the entity you have to be a member of a league that is a shareholder (Notre Dame being in the Big East at the time resolved the issue for them). Any league meeting basic criteria for membership wanting to join would have to purchase at least one share based on the appraised value of a share either purchasing that share from the entity or from a conference willing to sell a share.

A shareholding conference could admit anyone they wanted as a member with no real impact on anyone other than than the conference admitting them.

Are Ohio State and Northwestern "like-minded" institutions?