(05-08-2013 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think 65 is too small and hurts TV too much. Essentially, that throws about half the fan bases out of FBS. I cant imagine the networks would be too excited about a concept that potentially alienates about half of thier audience. I think we need to trim it down to where its been historically. Get it down to 80 to 90 teams. That cuts about a third and keeps most every school that would have pretty good argument for inclusion. Thats about the size the top level of college football has historically operated at and is a level where the game has thrived. Ninety teams sprinkled about the nation puts a representative near most everyone, gives the country variety of schools to watch--but keeps the game from getting too diluted.

How about this---5 power conferences.
Pac-12.....12
Big-12......12 (need to add 2)
Big10........14
SEC.........14
ACC.........14

Thats 66. That leaves 24 slots. So the MW is the west mid-major entry and the AAC is the east mid-major entry for an even 90. Eight team playoff. Six champions and 2 wildcards. That guarantees that the #1 and #2 ranked team are ALWAYS included--even if they are in the same confernece. Seed them based on rank, and settle it on the field. A 90 school division should be able to field a solid 64 team basketball tournamant. Or, they could just opt to leave olympic sports in the NCAA organizaion.

I think you are right on for football and close for basketball. I think they'd want to add some of the top basketball only conferences for the basketball side. Everything would be much like it is today, just the number of teams scaled down. JMO.

(05-09-2013 08:56 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:41 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I support the idea of paying players. The universities are essentially running minor league sports programs and the players should be treated as the professionals that they are with appropriate wages.

The problem is that the numbers don't work. There are fewer than 2 dozen public universities whose athletic departments make a profit. A handful of privates can be added to that list. In many cases, the profit margin is very small. Paying players would make the list of profitable schools even smaller.

Most of those Athletic Departments don't want to show a profit. Remember how state run institutions work. If you don't spend it you lose it. So they reinvest as much in their salaries, facilities, trainers, etc., as they can each year so that the carryover listed as profit is relatively low.

That's not to say that there aren't many schools who are legitimately in the red, it's just to say that there are many more who are far more in the black than they are letting be known.

These lists also tend to discount schools who subsidize athletics with student activities fees and that reduces those listed as profitable as well.

There are a lot of schools who also claim as much as half of the licensing revenue towards the university's general funds, and they aren't just schools that make a big profit on athletics or schools that receive zero subsidies from the university. Looking solely at athletic department revenue is a good start, but there are many accounting tricks put forth in these numbers that hide the real truth.

Interesting. Where can I find a list of schools that do this?

It's not a published list, but that info is based on discussions with a couple of sports business reporters. The line between the AA and the University in general is very blurry, and that's intentional in most cases.

(05-09-2013 09:01 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think 65 is too small and hurts TV too much. Essentially, that throws about half the fan bases out of FBS. I cant imagine the networks would be too excited about a concept that potentially alienates about half of thier audience. I think we need to trim it down to where its been historically. Get it down to 80 to 90 teams. That cuts about a third and keeps most every school that would have pretty good argument for inclusion. Thats about the size the top level of college football has historically operated at and is a level where the game has thrived. Ninety teams sprinkled about the nation puts a representative near most everyone, gives the country variety of schools to watch--but keeps the game from getting too diluted.

How about this---5 power conferences.
Pac-12.....12
Big-12......12 (need to add 2)
Big10........14
SEC.........14
ACC.........14

Thats 66. That leaves 24 slots. So the MW is the west mid-major entry and the AAC is the east mid-major entry for an even 90. Eight team playoff. Six champions and 2 wildcards. That guarantees that the #1 and #2 ranked team are ALWAYS included--even if they are in the same confernece. Seed them based on rank, and settle it on the field. A 90 school division should be able to field a solid 64 team basketball tournamant. Or, they could just opt to leave olympic sports in the NCAA organizaion.

I think you are right on for football and close for basketball. I think they'd want to add some of the top basketball only conferences for the basketball side. Everything would be much like it is today, just the number of teams scaled down. JMO.

Isn't that actually 64 teams from the P5? Where would the other 2 come from? Or would you go with 88 teams then?

Also, a 64-team tournament out of 90 (88) teams? What's the point of even having a regular season?

(05-08-2013 05:48 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  American (- Navy, + USM)
MWC (- AFA, + UTEP and BYU with ND-ACC like deal)

If both MWC and The American are included, then its not necessary to exclude Navy or the Air Force, since allowing one NCAA-Div1 school to play (as schools are allowed to play one FCS school today), would allow both Navy and Air Force to play Army. As far as allowing Navy to play FB only ... all that requires is, "Yes, we'll allow that", so that fixes that.

If the Breakaways want to have Cinderella teams for their basketball tournament, they could invite the Elite Eight or Final Four of the NCAA tournament (presumably a 24 team tournament) to come to the Big Dance.

(05-09-2013 10:19 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:01 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think 65 is too small and hurts TV too much. Essentially, that throws about half the fan bases out of FBS. I cant imagine the networks would be too excited about a concept that potentially alienates about half of thier audience. I think we need to trim it down to where its been historically. Get it down to 80 to 90 teams. That cuts about a third and keeps most every school that would have pretty good argument for inclusion. Thats about the size the top level of college football has historically operated at and is a level where the game has thrived. Ninety teams sprinkled about the nation puts a representative near most everyone, gives the country variety of schools to watch--but keeps the game from getting too diluted.

How about this---5 power conferences.
Pac-12.....12
Big-12......12 (need to add 2)
Big10........14
SEC.........14
ACC.........14

Thats 66. That leaves 24 slots. So the MW is the west mid-major entry and the AAC is the east mid-major entry for an even 90. Eight team playoff. Six champions and 2 wildcards. That guarantees that the #1 and #2 ranked team are ALWAYS included--even if they are in the same confernece. Seed them based on rank, and settle it on the field. A 90 school division should be able to field a solid 64 team basketball tournamant. Or, they could just opt to leave olympic sports in the NCAA organizaion.

I think you are right on for football and close for basketball. I think they'd want to add some of the top basketball only conferences for the basketball side. Everything would be much like it is today, just the number of teams scaled down. JMO.

Isn't that actually 64 teams from the P5? Where would the other 2 come from? Or would you go with 88 teams then?

Also, a 64-team tournament out of 90 (88) teams? What's the point of even having a regular season?

Hence my bolded comment...

(05-09-2013 10:19 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:01 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think 65 is too small and hurts TV too much. Essentially, that throws about half the fan bases out of FBS. I cant imagine the networks would be too excited about a concept that potentially alienates about half of thier audience. I think we need to trim it down to where its been historically. Get it down to 80 to 90 teams. That cuts about a third and keeps most every school that would have pretty good argument for inclusion. Thats about the size the top level of college football has historically operated at and is a level where the game has thrived. Ninety teams sprinkled about the nation puts a representative near most everyone, gives the country variety of schools to watch--but keeps the game from getting too diluted.

How about this---5 power conferences.
Pac-12.....12
Big-12......12 (need to add 2)
Big10........14
SEC.........14
ACC.........14

Thats 66. That leaves 24 slots. So the MW is the west mid-major entry and the AAC is the east mid-major entry for an even 90. Eight team playoff. Six champions and 2 wildcards. That guarantees that the #1 and #2 ranked team are ALWAYS included--even if they are in the same confernece. Seed them based on rank, and settle it on the field. A 90 school division should be able to field a solid 64 team basketball tournamant. Or, they could just opt to leave olympic sports in the NCAA organizaion.

I think you are right on for football and close for basketball. I think they'd want to add some of the top basketball only conferences for the basketball side. Everything would be much like it is today, just the number of teams scaled down. JMO.

Isn't that actually 64 teams from the P5? Where would the other 2 come from? Or would you go with 88 teams then?

Also, a 64-team tournament out of 90 (88) teams? What's the point of even having a regular season?

lol...the regular season is pointless now. All it does is serve as a seeding mechanism for conference tournaments.

I have no doubt that a number of D-1 schools are struggling with finances. However, I am having a hard time believing that a $2,000 stipend per scholarship athlete would be as devastating as some of the opponents suggest, or require a wholesale restructuring of D-1. Here's some math.

FBS schools have between 250 and 300 scholarship athletes, on average. FCS schools have something like 200. Non-football D-1 schools have 100-150.

At $2,000 a head for all scholarship athletes, the cost for an FBS school would be $500,000-$600,000 per year. The cost for an FCS school would be around $400,000 per year, and the cost for a non-football D-1 school would be $200,000-$300,000 per year.

For those with no ability to generate the revenue to cover this cost, the following options would appear to be available. First, I assume it won't be mandated. Therefore, don't offer the stipend as part of the scholarship package to all or some of your athletes. A full scholarship is still a heck of a deal. You'll obviously lose recruits to more affluent schools, but hey, that's happening already. Second, look at eliminating a few varsity sports. Even the smallest cut could cover all the difference. Eliminate Men's and Women's golf - that's 10 scholarships ($100,000-200,000), plus coaching and travel expenses. If you're at the absolute minimum number of sports, eliminate a few scholarships.

Finally, if there is wide opposition, drop the number of required sports required to qualify for D-1 from 14 to 12, the number of sports required to qualify for FBS from 16 to 14, and possibly the required number of team sports from three to two for men and women.

(05-09-2013 02:47 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I have no doubt that a number of D-1 schools are struggling with finances. However, I am having a hard time believing that a $2,000 stipend per scholarship athlete would be as devastating as some of the opponents suggest, or require a wholesale restructuring of D-1. Here's some math.

FBS schools have between 250 and 300 scholarship athletes, on average. FCS schools have something like 200. Non-football D-1 schools have 100-150.

At $2,000 a head for all scholarship athletes, the cost for an FBS school would be $500,000-$600,000 per year. The cost for an FCS school would be around $400,000 per year, and the cost for a non-football D-1 school would be $200,000-$300,000 per year.

For those with no ability to generate the revenue to cover this cost, the following options would appear to be available. First, I assume it won't be mandated. Therefore, don't offer the stipend as part of the scholarship package to all or some of your athletes. A full scholarship is still a heck of a deal. You'll obviously lose recruits to more affluent schools, but hey, that's happening already. Second, look at eliminating a few varsity sports. Even the smallest cut could cover all the difference. Eliminate Men's and Women's golf - that's 10 scholarships ($100,000-200,000), plus coaching and travel expenses. If you're at the absolute minimum number of sports, eliminate a few scholarships.

Finally, if there is wide opposition, drop the number of required sports required to qualify for D-1 from 14 to 12, the number of sports required to qualify for FBS from 16 to 14, and possibly the required number of team sports from three to two for men and women.

If the O'Bannon case is settled in favor of the athletes, all bets are off. They won't be able to limit stipends to the pittance that they're now talking about.

(05-09-2013 11:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 10:19 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:01 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think 65 is too small and hurts TV too much. Essentially, that throws about half the fan bases out of FBS. I cant imagine the networks would be too excited about a concept that potentially alienates about half of thier audience. I think we need to trim it down to where its been historically. Get it down to 80 to 90 teams. That cuts about a third and keeps most every school that would have pretty good argument for inclusion. Thats about the size the top level of college football has historically operated at and is a level where the game has thrived. Ninety teams sprinkled about the nation puts a representative near most everyone, gives the country variety of schools to watch--but keeps the game from getting too diluted.

How about this---5 power conferences.
Pac-12.....12
Big-12......12 (need to add 2)
Big10........14
SEC.........14
ACC.........14

Thats 66. That leaves 24 slots. So the MW is the west mid-major entry and the AAC is the east mid-major entry for an even 90. Eight team playoff. Six champions and 2 wildcards. That guarantees that the #1 and #2 ranked team are ALWAYS included--even if they are in the same confernece. Seed them based on rank, and settle it on the field. A 90 school division should be able to field a solid 64 team basketball tournamant. Or, they could just opt to leave olympic sports in the NCAA organizaion.

I think you are right on for football and close for basketball. I think they'd want to add some of the top basketball only conferences for the basketball side. Everything would be much like it is today, just the number of teams scaled down. JMO.

Isn't that actually 64 teams from the P5? Where would the other 2 come from? Or would you go with 88 teams then?

Also, a 64-team tournament out of 90 (88) teams? What's the point of even having a regular season?

lol...the regular season is pointless now. All it does is serve as a seeding mechanism for conference tournaments.

There are a lot of teams that get in based on record, that did not win the conference tournament. And very few crummy teams win the conference tournament. Therefore, the regular season is not pointless. I do think that only the top 8 teams at the most should be in the conference tournament instead of the "come one, come all" set up that they have now. Although the top teams do get byes.

Here is a problem that will be brought up of this happens. Alot of schools help their athletic dept by giving them a portion of all students tuition, called the student contribution. In a way you can say universities are basically taking money from students, and essentially giving student athletes spending money. Does that make much sense? Will students think this is fair? I would think alot would be ok with it, but some will not.

Furthermore, there are Hoops only programs that are not in the BE, B12, B10, SEC, ACC or P12 that draw outstanding attendance and may have the $ to pay a stipend in order to compete with the Power 6 conferences.

BYU draws better football than most Power 6 conference programs and could easily afford to pay a stipend.
Among the top 30 in hoops attendance: Memphis 11, BYU 12, NM 16, UNLV 17, Dayton 28, SD ST 29. Wichita State drew 10,400 per game last year. If they had to pinch some pennies in order to pay a stipend those schools may consider cutting back on a a non rev sport to pay a stipend.

(05-08-2013 11:44 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 11:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:32 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 09:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  That $5.40/day they want to give the students to live off of is the difference between being an amateur and a pro to you?

They are going to a university for free. In many cases had they not been recruited to play football or basketball they wouldn't have been admitted because they wouldn't have qualified academically. Why not just hire them to play and not require them to be a student at all? The ones that qualify academically and wanted to could take classes during the off season and the others could work for the university. Thus they are the schools team but not necessarily the schools students.

I didn't qualify for need based aid. I got about 2k in academic scholarships each semester while I was at school. Our department had a pretty good list of scholarships and would make sure they spread them around to everyone. It pretty much covered books and part of one month's rent. I did have a part time job too.

I don't think 2k is an unreasonable living allowance for a student that you aren't allowing to have any job or academic scholarships. It really isn't fair to them.

You can say they are getting their education for free which is true. However if you don't have the funds for college you could apply for need-based scholarships and they would cover more than the actual cost of your attendance. You do get living expenses from them. You could apply under academic scholarships if you work hard enough. You could get a job to make up any funding gap. The students going on athletic scholarship don't have those options though. It isn't just as simple as "you get your education free". There are costs of just being alive that you need to cover. Free education is great if you can afford to live with no job and no family assistance.

I learned a new word yesterday, Humble Bragger, does this qualify

I'm not bragging, I'm trying to tell you from personal experience that 2k can help a lot when you aren't getting need-based grants even if your school is "paid" for (in my case by loans).

There is some idea that two thousand dollars spending money will equate to a semi pro league. You do have expenses when you are away from home and the NCAA closes every "loophole" normal students would use to help.

Another thing about that is that in my department we had about 60 students and I can't think of any that didn't receive some amount of a scholarship. There could be money for these kids that are playing sports if the NCAA didn't restrict scholarships.

I was just messing. My daughter gets nothing. I pay for everything, and I don't make a lot of money. So even if 2k isn't that much it kind of rubs some people the wrong way.

(05-09-2013 06:27 PM)MasMack Wrote:  Here is a problem that will be brought up of this happens. Alot of schools help their athletic dept by giving them a portion of all students tuition, called the student contribution. In a way you can say universities are basically taking money from students, and essentially giving student athletes spending money. Does that make much sense? Will students think this is fair? I would think alot would be ok with it, but some will not.

For a public university....is that equal protection under the law?

(05-09-2013 07:11 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  Furthermore, there are Hoops only programs that are not in the BE, B12, B10, SEC, ACC or P12 that draw outstanding attendance and may have the $ to pay a stipend in order to compete with the Power 6 conferences.

BYU draws better football than most Power 6 conference programs and could easily afford to pay a stipend.
Among the top 30 in hoops attendance: Memphis 11, BYU 12, NM 16, UNLV 17, Dayton 28, SD ST 29. Wichita State drew 10,400 per game last year. If they had to pinch some pennies in order to pay a stipend those schools may consider cutting back on a a non rev sport to pay a stipend.

Here are some others in the top 30 who fit the same category:

Creighton - 17,155
Marquette - 15,033
Georgetown - 10,911
UConn - 10,728

(05-08-2013 06:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The have nots need to stick together. If they go...they gotta go. No basketball tourney. No scheduling. No Olympic sports. Complete divorce.

Let them beat each other up in a semi-pro league and form a small basketball tourney with no cinderellas.

The rest of us can work on building a more traditional amateur league with maybe a little less greed.

I agree. We would all be better off