(07-24-2013 12:23 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 05:07 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  And if the richest members choose to leave and start a new club, fine, because the current club's $770 million per year MBB contract with CBS and Turner runs until 2024 and five of the top ten rated conferences in basketball -- including two of the top five -- aren't leaving.

I doubt that CBS and TBS are on the hook for all that money in the event the top football conferences leave the NCAA. If that were true, then some execs at CBS and Turner would deserve to be fired. That would be like signing a contract to televise Big Ten football where the network has to pay every penny even if Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Wisconsin leave the league.

So, that's why the top 5 leagues have leverage with the NCAA. The March Madness cash cow goes away if those leagues leave the NCAA, and that's why the NCAA will make substantial concessions to the top conferences.

I don't know of the text of the NCAA's MBB tournament contract being published anywhere as public information. I do know it was signed in 2010 before the latest round of realignment took off. No one was talking then about major conference members breaking away from the NCAA. It would have been very far-sighted of the execs at CBS and Turner to include a clause invalidating the contract if certain schools left the NCAA but most remained.

I bet there is such a clause.

This USA Today article mentions that excerpts from the March Madness TV contract have been filed in court in the O'Bannon case. This specific issue isn't in the USA Today article, but it looks like there are many clauses that protect CBS and Turner in the event of changes to the tournament, one of them being that CBS/Turner have an out if "the creation of another postseason Division I men's basketball tournament that materially diminishes the status" (fragmented quote). Hmmm.

There's even an out if the NCAA moves the last day of the tournament later than the first Monday in April. With something that minor in the agreement to give the TV guys an escape hatch, it's fair to assume that CBS and Turner have fully protected themselves if the top leagues (who, as noted earlier here, have won 44 of the last 50 NCAA tournaments) leave the NCAA.

The NCAA isn't going to turn its back on the governance and money issues that the top conferences are raising. Emmert might be that arrogant and oblivious, but the leaders of D-I schools outside the top 5 conferences are smarter than that. They aren't going to dare the moneymakers to walk out of the NCAA.

(07-24-2013 01:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I bet there is such a clause.

This USA Today article mentions that excerpts from the March Madness TV contract have been filed in court in the O'Bannon case. This specific issue isn't in the USA Today article, but it looks like there are many clauses that protect CBS and Turner in the event of changes to the tournament, one of them being that CBS/Turner have an out if "the creation of another postseason Division I men's basketball tournament that materially diminishes the status" (fragmented quote). Hmmm.

Thank you for the link, that's interesting information. However I think you're misreading the meaning of that clause. The article says that CBS and Turner have an out if the NCAA changes its rules to create another postseason D-1 tournament, i.e. a tournament limited to power conference schools.

"The contract indicates that, at least under the NCAA's auspices, there will not be a split for basketball purposes such as the one that created the Bowl Subdivision — and that a conference championship will continue to give mid-major schools a place in the tournament."

The existence of that clause actually reinforces the notion that the big value driver for the TV networks is that the tournament includes all of the D-1 conferences.

(07-24-2013 01:24 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 01:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I bet there is such a clause.

This USA Today article mentions that excerpts from the March Madness TV contract have been filed in court in the O'Bannon case. This specific issue isn't in the USA Today article, but it looks like there are many clauses that protect CBS and Turner in the event of changes to the tournament, one of them being that CBS/Turner have an out if "the creation of another postseason Division I men's basketball tournament that materially diminishes the status" (fragmented quote). Hmmm.

Thank you for the link, that's interesting information. However I think you're misreading the meaning of that clause. The article says that CBS and Turner have an out if the NCAA changes its rules to create another postseason D-1 tournament, i.e. a tournament limited to power conference schools. The existence of that clause actually reinforces the notion that the big value driver for the TV networks is that the tournament includes all of the D-1 conferences.

The author infers the part about the NCAA splitting up D-I. But it's likely the clause would mean that CBS/Turner can cancel if the NCAA splits March Madness into two NCAA-sponsored tournaments, but also that CBS/Turner has the same out even if the split results in one NCAA and one non-NCAA tournament.

The clause doesn't say or imply that the networks want or need all of the D-I conferences in the tournament. Even the most die-hard fans of non-"top 5" hoops teams would have to admit that the TV guys don't care about all 350 teams or all 34 conferences. If the NCAA wanted to pare down D-I hoops, they could lop off every conference that has never placed a team in the Sweet 16 and CBS/Turner would still want to keep the contract.

Your argument isn't that CBS/Turner care about the 25th through 34th-best conferences. That's not a good argument. Your argument is really that CBS/Turner want at least the top 15 or so conferences. That's a better argument, but if you're saying CBS/Turner wouldn't pay a lot for an invitation-only (as opposed to autobids) tournament started by a group that breaks away from the NCAA, I don't agree.

And if the NCAA tried to stop its remaining schools from participating in a new, invitation-only tournament, those schools would put a stop to that. Memphis, Georgetown, UNLV, etc.... those teams aren't going to let the NCAA keep them out of a tournament that includes Louisville, Arizona, Duke and the other big names. That would be like declining a spot in the new college football playoff so you can play in the Music City Bowl instead.

(07-24-2013 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Your argument is really that CBS/Turner want at least the top 15 or so conferences.

My argument is that TV wants a genuine national championship tournament with some underdogs capable of making runs to the final four. I agree that having the top 15 or so conferences would accomplish that. Which doesn't change my key contention that a breakaway P5 tournament wouldn't fit the bill.

(07-24-2013 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And if the NCAA tried to stop its remaining schools from participating in a new, invitation-only tournament, those schools would put a stop to that. Memphis, Georgetown, UNLV, etc.... those teams aren't going to let the NCAA keep them out of a tournament that includes Louisville, Arizona, Duke and the other big names.

How are they going to do that? Threaten to leave the NCAA and form yet another collegiate athletics governing body? I have no doubt the NCAA would put a rule in place against its members playing in a P5-sponsored tournament instead of its own. The majority of left-behind D-1 schools would support such a rule.

If the P5 breaks away the result will be war, plain and simple. The NCAA will do everything it can to maintain its own relevance which includes blocking the P5 from sponsoring championship competition that could be deemed national in scope. That will be true in basketball and every other sport. No more March Madness, no more College World Series, no more national champions in volleyball or soccer or softball or any other sport. Fans will be angry, the networks will cut rights fees, the athletes will suffer and no one who cares about collegiate athletics will be happy. I just don't believe the P5 will pull the nuclear trigger knowing the result will be mutually assured destruction.

(07-23-2013 11:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  people who blindly compare pros to college like that should not be allowed to post here.....

the pros dont have operating costs from other sports attached to their football budgets. football pays the bills, basketball is where profit is made. telling the b10 who have multiple schools in the high 20s to mid 30s for sports fielded and say they can only spend as much as the sec/b12 who field about 18-21 sports each is gonna be a disaster.

schools have much different operating costs across d1, and this rule is gonna piss off the big boys "michigan texas, ohio state, usc, alabama etc) and thats the last thing the ncaa needs

I've been posting here for a while bud. This is nothing more than one man's opinion. It's an opinion board. If you can't handle that without making snide remarks I'd suggest maybe you're the one that shouldn't post here.

What about this? What about a cap on specific sports budgets or maybe coaching salaries? The reason I say that is b/c $$$$ is clearly a driver to athletic success.

(07-24-2013 03:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And if the NCAA tried to stop its remaining schools from participating in a new, invitation-only tournament, those schools would put a stop to that. Memphis, Georgetown, UNLV, etc.... those teams aren't going to let the NCAA keep them out of a tournament that includes Louisville, Arizona, Duke and the other big names.

How are they going to do that? Threaten to leave the NCAA and form yet another collegiate athletics governing body? I have no doubt the NCAA would put a rule in place against its members playing in a P5-sponsored tournament instead of its own. The majority of left-behind D-1 schools would support such a rule.

The NCAA already has such a rule in place. Teams that are invited to the NCAA basketball tournament are not allowed to play in any other post-season basketball tournament. The NCAA passed that rule in the 1970s to kill off the NIT (because there were at least two instances of high-profile teams choosing to play in the NIT instead of the NCAA tournament -- Kentucky one year, and Marquette another year). The NIT challenged that rule in a lawsuit against the NCAA, and the NCAA had to buy the NIT to make the lawsuit go away.

I don't agree that left-behind D-I schools would support the rule if they had the opportunity to accept invitations to a "BCS" hoops tournament. When Boise State, Hawaii, Utah, and TCU were invited to play in BCS bowl games, did they decline in order to play in some December 17 bowl game instead? No. If the NCAA had a rule forbidding those teams from playing in a major bowl game, they would have either fought the rule (which probably wouldn't stand up in court), or they would have defied the rule and dared the NCAA to do something about it.

(07-24-2013 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 01:24 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 01:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I bet there is such a clause.

This USA Today article mentions that excerpts from the March Madness TV contract have been filed in court in the O'Bannon case. This specific issue isn't in the USA Today article, but it looks like there are many clauses that protect CBS and Turner in the event of changes to the tournament, one of them being that CBS/Turner have an out if "the creation of another postseason Division I men's basketball tournament that materially diminishes the status" (fragmented quote). Hmmm.

Thank you for the link, that's interesting information. However I think you're misreading the meaning of that clause. The article says that CBS and Turner have an out if the NCAA changes its rules to create another postseason D-1 tournament, i.e. a tournament limited to power conference schools. The existence of that clause actually reinforces the notion that the big value driver for the TV networks is that the tournament includes all of the D-1 conferences.

The author infers the part about the NCAA splitting up D-I. But it's likely the clause would mean that CBS/Turner can cancel if the NCAA splits March Madness into two NCAA-sponsored tournaments, but also that CBS/Turner has the same out even if the split results in one NCAA and one non-NCAA tournament.

The clause doesn't say or imply that the networks want or need all of the D-I conferences in the tournament. Even the most die-hard fans of non-"top 5" hoops teams would have to admit that the TV guys don't care about all 350 teams or all 34 conferences. If the NCAA wanted to pare down D-I hoops, they could lop off every conference that has never placed a team in the Sweet 16 and CBS/Turner would still want to keep the contract.

Your argument isn't that CBS/Turner care about the 25th through 34th-best conferences. That's not a good argument. Your argument is really that CBS/Turner want at least the top 15 or so conferences. That's a better argument, but if you're saying CBS/Turner wouldn't pay a lot for an invitation-only (as opposed to autobids) tournament started by a group that breaks away from the NCAA, I don't agree.

And if the NCAA tried to stop its remaining schools from participating in a new, invitation-only tournament, those schools would put a stop to that. Memphis, Georgetown, UNLV, etc.... those teams aren't going to let the NCAA keep them out of a tournament that includes Louisville, Arizona, Duke and the other big names. That would be like declining a spot in the new college football playoff so you can play in the Music City Bowl instead.

There's zero value in the bottom dozen conferences or so. There's probably zero value in the middle 8-10 as well. I don't think there's much value outside the Big 5 and BE, but certainly all the value of the tourney would be in the top 14-15 conferences. BE, WCC, A10, MVC, the 10 FBS conferences and maybe the WAC or Colonial or Ivy. Noone outside their own fans will miss what's left of the Summit, Horizon, MAAC or Southern. The schools in the SLC, SWAC, MEAC, ASun, NE, Patriot, America East have probably never won 2 games in any tournament. OVC has maybe done it once. That's 29 and I can't even think of the other 2-4 conferences.

(07-24-2013 09:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 03:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And if the NCAA tried to stop its remaining schools from participating in a new, invitation-only tournament, those schools would put a stop to that. Memphis, Georgetown, UNLV, etc.... those teams aren't going to let the NCAA keep them out of a tournament that includes Louisville, Arizona, Duke and the other big names.

How are they going to do that? Threaten to leave the NCAA and form yet another collegiate athletics governing body? I have no doubt the NCAA would put a rule in place against its members playing in a P5-sponsored tournament instead of its own. The majority of left-behind D-1 schools would support such a rule.

The NCAA already has such a rule in place. Teams that are invited to the NCAA basketball tournament are not allowed to play in any other post-season basketball tournament. The NCAA passed that rule in the 1970s to kill off the NIT (because there were at least two instances of high-profile teams choosing to play in the NIT instead of the NCAA tournament -- Kentucky one year, and Marquette another year). The NIT challenged that rule in a lawsuit against the NCAA, and the NCAA had to buy the NIT to make the lawsuit go away.

I don't agree that left-behind D-I schools would support the rule if they had the opportunity to accept invitations to a "BCS" hoops tournament. When Boise State, Hawaii, Utah, and TCU were invited to play in BCS bowl games, did they decline in order to play in some December 17 bowl game instead? No. If the NCAA had a rule forbidding those teams from playing in a major bowl game, they would have either fought the rule (which probably wouldn't stand up in court), or they would have defied the rule and dared the NCAA to do something about it.

I can't see an antitrust action against the NCAA succeeding if it no longer includes the P5 conferences. How could anyone argue the organization was a monopoly at that point?

Anyhow I think our difference of opinion really boils down to what we think the 287 presidents of the D-1 schools left in the NCAA will do if the 64 P5 schools walk out. You think their individual desires to keep playing with the cool kids will undermine their unity and prevent them from passing rules that hurt the P5. You may be right Wedge. The last round of realignment amply demonstrated there's a lot of "every man for himself" thinking among the have-nots.

However my view is that the presidents of the left-behind schools will think "enough of this arrogance" and band together and go to war. I think there's a good chance of that happening because they will realize there's more to gain by sticking together than by being picked apart. The MWC schools saved their conference by unifying after the Big East took Boise State and SDSU and came back looking for another defector or two to seal their gains. No one left in the MWC budged.

In the end the P5 presidents will have to decide what they think their 287 D-1 peers will do if kicked in the groin -- grovel, or fight back. They had best not miscalculate.

I don't in any way think things should be "equal" or leveled, but the BCS was created for the exact opposite reason, to ensure that things never would be that way and to prop up certain schools while holding down others. What I would want is something that said the best reap the rewards and the worst don't. I'd like to see an 8 team playoff with no auto bids to anyone. If it's 5 SEC teams that's great, if it's 2 G5 teams that's great, if it's zero ACC and B1G teams that's great. I'd want the vast majority of the money to go to the teams and leagues that make the playoff and little to nothing to go to those that don't. Then if we are going to keep the bowls rank them from best to worst and then place teams in the bowls based on rankings and not what conference they want to be tied to.

It's been stated before that the NCAA is a voluntary organization. Schools don't have to belong if they don't want to belong.

Every school is free to leave. If a group of schools want to leave, they can.

(07-24-2013 10:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't in any way think things should be "equal" or leveled, but the BCS was created for the exact opposite reason, to ensure that things never would be that way and to prop up certain schools while holding down others.

No, the BCS was created to stop the push for a FBS playoff (they succeeded temporarily) by matching the polls' top two teams, after many, many years in which the top two (or more) teams didn't and couldn't play each other in a bowl game.

Anything about programs that already had an edge trying to increase their edge over others... that goes way back before the BCS, probably goes back to the start of college football. And you see it in business every day, even more than sports. Are Apple and Samsung trying to create a level playing field for other smartphone manufacturers, or are they trying to take an even bigger share of profits than the 98% they already have?

One running play per 1st down.

(07-24-2013 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 10:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't in any way think things should be "equal" or leveled, but the BCS was created for the exact opposite reason, to ensure that things never would be that way and to prop up certain schools while holding down others.

No, the BCS was created to stop the push for a FBS playoff (they succeeded temporarily) by matching the polls' top two teams, after many, many years in which the top two (or more) teams didn't and couldn't play each other in a bowl game.

Anything about programs that already had an edge trying to increase their edge over others... that goes way back before the BCS, probably goes back to the start of college football. And you see it in business every day, even more than sports. Are Apple and Samsung trying to create a level playing field for other smartphone manufacturers, or are they trying to take an even bigger share of profits than the 98% they already have?

The BCS was designed to maximize revenue within the framework allowed by the presidents.

The 12th game and the BCS title game it was hoped would temper the public demand for a playoff but the core function was to make the allowed framework as profitable as possible.

Now there was the revolt by the non-included leagues to have better access (initially had to be top 8 and a conference champ) and to increase the revenue distribution.

What happened next is a matter of perspective.

Many of the revolt leaders would likely say off-the-record that the threat of anti-trust challenge woke them up and brough the AQ to the table.

The position of the AQ was that it was in the interest of collegiality that they improved access and revenue distribution and they never believed the anti-trust claim had merit.

FWIW, they funded that extra distribution and provided that greater access by adding the 5th game. That 5th game allowed the AQ to have an additional participant or two (depending on the year) and allowed them to fund the new revenue distribution while increasing their own revenue from the events.

The CFP has followed a similar model. One participant from G5 is now guaranteed rather than contingent and the revenue stream for G5 increased while further increasing participation points for the P5 as well as revenue.

(07-24-2013 11:37 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  One running play per 1st down.

I think they should go in the opposite direction and encourage more creativity and more flexibility in offensive and defensive schemes. It's a shame that the high-school and college coaching groupthink crushed the A-11 offense.

(07-23-2013 11:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 10:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 08:09 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  I believe lowering the number of scholarships a school can offer would create a more level playing field and make the sport more competitive and exciting.

Any thoughts or suggestions

By better it would mean that colleges would provide more opportunities for student athlete participation which is their supposed charter as a non-profit.

With that in mind I would institute the following changes:

1) Implement an expense cap in all sports. This would include all expenses related to the sport including coaching salaries; dedicated facilities, training tables, recruiting costs etc. Schools could divide them as they see fit but must submit audited financials on all expenses to insure they stay within the cap to an accounting firm at the end of the year.

2) Implement an expense and sport minimum by division which means to be in D1 you must have annual expenses of a certain amount and you sponsor a minimum amount of sports.

3) Put scholarships at the true cost of attending school. This would include a stipend for living expenses.

4) Create a medical fund that could be used by athletes who have injuries that can be traced back to the playing of their sport. This helps primarily football players who have injuries graduate and are cut lose.

5) Eliminate Football from counting for all schools using participation rates to meet Title IX guidelines.

Your #1 is unconstitutional and your #5 would require an act of Congress. The SEC advocating my limited substitution proposal in the next year is more likely than getting that act of Congress. The only way I see going back to limited substitution is some combination of scandals (more widespread than just Miami and UNC), O'Bannon type lawsuits and concussion studies showing really bad results. Presidents might want to limit their liability and limit the pro sports influence. Still would be pretty remote, but wouldn't take any law changes.

1 is not unconstitutional it requires an exemption from Congress in terms of anti-trust laws. However the concept is hardly revolutionary as every major sport has some form of expense cap. Since Congress has to act anyway I added the Title IX exemption. Also schools would be free to leave the NCAA but they would just lose their tax status as a non profit which many aren't really anyway.

(07-23-2013 01:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remove football from Title IX and a lot more schools play football, while more women's sports are dropped. Is that the goal?

If you are referring to my post then no more women would play because more money would be available. I also said only in Prong 3 which requires athletes in percentage to the student body. Almost all schools use Prong 1 so they would be unaffected.

(07-23-2013 11:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a salary cap on athletic budgets is insane,

plus it hurts the b10/sec more than any other conference and they are the last guys the ncaa should be pissing off

If you put an expense cap on the sports the revenue doesn't change just the amount you can pour into football to attract top players. That means football players won't have private 60 inch HD TVs above their lockers. It might mean they have to share weight rooms with other sports. Oh the horror!

In the meantime Florida might use all that extra revenue to sponsor something like men's Water Polo. Currently two members of the mens National team are from Florida but not a single SEC school sponsors the sport. They are too busy shoveling millions into football in ever greater excess to maintain their dominance.

(07-26-2013 01:52 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 01:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remove football from Title IX and a lot more schools play football, while more women's sports are dropped. Is that the goal?

If you are referring to my post then no more women would play because more money would be available. I also said only in Prong 3 which requires athletes in percentage to the student body. Almost all schools use Prong 1 so they would be unaffected.

If you omit 105 roster spots for football from the Title IX equation, it doesn't matter which prong you use. There are 105 fewer roster spots to balance under the avenue you use.

(07-26-2013 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 01:52 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 01:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remove football from Title IX and a lot more schools play football, while more women's sports are dropped. Is that the goal?

If you are referring to my post then no more women would play because more money would be available. I also said only in Prong 3 which requires athletes in percentage to the student body. Almost all schools use Prong 1 so they would be unaffected.

If you omit 105 roster spots for football from the Title IX equation, it doesn't matter which prong you use. There are 105 fewer roster spots to balance under the avenue you use.

Prong One is about increasing access not a balance and if you put in place an expense cap then much more money becomes available to fund additional women's sports. The only schools where numbers and proportionality comes into play are those schools using or being forced to use Prong 3. It is a small list.

(07-24-2013 10:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't in any way think things should be "equal" or leveled, but the BCS was created for the exact opposite reason, to ensure that things never would be that way and to prop up certain schools while holding down others. What I would want is something that said the best reap the rewards and the worst don't. I'd like to see an 8 team playoff with no auto bids to anyone. If it's 5 SEC teams that's great, if it's 2 G5 teams that's great, if it's zero ACC and B1G teams that's great. I'd want the vast majority of the money to go to the teams and leagues that make the playoff and little to nothing to go to those that don't. Then if we are going to keep the bowls rank them from best to worst and then place teams in the bowls based on rankings and not what conference they want to be tied to.

The only problem with that is that conference perception becomes reality even moreso than it is now. How do you know if a Stanford team belongs rather than Auburn if they both have a similar record, they didn't play each other, didn't have any common opponents, and each conference only plays 3 OOC games against FBS opponents...maybe only 2 OOC FBS opponents depending on how many conference games they play? There just isn't enough info to go on to fairly rank them.