(07-24-2013 02:28 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  Well they could draw the dividing line like they do in high school which is by the schools enrollment numbers. We could do 25k for D1, 15k for D2, 5k for D3 and the rest in a new D4.

So Stanford drops to D3 and FAU gets promoted to D1?

Pardone the language.

WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT OF A SPLIT?

Aren't we still pretending that this is an academic endeavor rather than a multi-billion dollar sports entertainment venture? Aren't we still telling institutions that they have to offer a variety of sports that do not generate revenue because this is an academic venture designed to enhance the academic environment? If Title IX were the concern, offer football, basketball and enough wimmen's sports to shut 'em up but you have to offer more men's sports than that.

Are the accreditting agencies for universities proposing reducing the number accredited institutions because the puny ones don't belong? Are we declaring academic students at lower level schools ineligible to become Fulbright Scholars or other such achievement because they aren't in the elite schools?

Turn it pro and disconnect it from the university or let's operate from the premise it remains an academic project and quit trying to reduce competition.

(07-24-2013 02:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Pardone the language.

WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT OF A SPLIT?

Greed and power.

(07-24-2013 02:35 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:28 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  Well they could draw the dividing line like they do in high school which is by the schools enrollment numbers. We could do 25k for D1, 15k for D2, 5k for D3 and the rest in a new D4.

So Stanford drops to D3 and FAU gets promoted to D1?

Why not? Colleges choose their enrollments so they could admit more kids. To make it more interesting you could have an academic standard as well so there aren't schools just letting anyone in o maintain their status. So for D1 a school would need 25K enrollment with an incoming freshman gpa of 3.1, D2 could be 15k and 2.8, D3 5k and 2.7, D4 everyone else.

(07-24-2013 02:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

1978 the line was drawn thusly.
1. Sponsor a set number of sports and award a set number of scholies.

If you could not meet #1, you could in the alternative meet it by
1. Averaging 17,000 once in 4 years in a 30,000 seat stadium
2. Averaging 17,000 over four years.
3. Average 20,000 home and away once in four years if you had 30,000 seats.
4. Average 20,000 home and away over four years.
5. Be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the requirements.

In 1981 it became #1 plus the second list not OR the second list.

No way. I think the dividing line should either be averaging 35 or 40k. 20 is way too low. Thats not a big deal.

Moving it to 20 would drop about 25+ programs from FBS. Moving it to 25 would only drop another 10, but would start to drop some P5 programs. If you went to 30K as a minimum, that would leave about 75 programs, but a couple of P5 programs would be left out.

(07-24-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

I think the PTB will make it a conference-wide decision. Essentially, force a conference to state whether its teams will play by "big boy" rules or not (whatever those "rules" end up being). So, Cincinnati and Boise State can't be "Division 4" but play in the AAC or MWC. That gives eager schools two choices--give up the fight and accept their lesser status OR find 8-10-12 other schools who have similar desires. I'm not against having 75-80 teams in "Division 4"...I just want them to be the best schools. It's bad enough that Iowa State and Wake Forest get to come along for the ride...let's not let a weak AAC team or MWC team in just because they are hanging on that lesser conference's coattails.

Most likely the dividing line is

-the P5 (because regardless of individual schools, as collective units, they more than make enough money and fan support.

-The 2 Indys ND and BYU

Now, since no other conference is even close to the money and fan support the P5, any other additions would have to be single schools voted on to either join a P5 conference OR as an indy. I could see a handful like UConn, Cincy, USF and ECU being voted in that way (mostly as independents)

everyone on here is going to want qualifications that favor their particluar school - enrollment, attendance, budget, top 25 seasons, etc.

enrollment is stupid - you're going to cut out Notre Dame, TCU, Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern, Wake Forest and many other great FB schools.

attendance is fluid - as you get better, your attendance improves. but schools go through dry spells, losing seasons, etc. this favors large state schools again, which is fine - but you will be leaving out some great programs.

budget is a better factor IMHO - because it shows exactly how commited the school is to the program. Pure $$ (which favors my alma mater, so I proved my own point).

(07-24-2013 12:33 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This would be very easy had a "best of the rest" conference emerged. The Big East screwed itself by catering to the C7 for far too long and not creating a viable "all sports" division for Western schools.

2 best of the rest conferences have emerged. The American and the MWC. Whoever the latest commissioner was to speak on this subject was, said 75 or so school earn 90% of the National Championships. So those Best of the Rest conferences would be included.

(07-24-2013 01:23 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:33 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This would be very easy had a "best of the rest" conference emerged. The Big East screwed itself by catering to the C7 for far too long and not creating a viable "all sports" division for Western schools.

2 best of the rest conferences have emerged. The American and the MWC. Whoever the latest commissioner was to speak on this subject was, said 75 or so school earn 90% of the National Championships. So those Best of the Rest conferences would be included.

There is too much dead weight attached to the AAC and MWC. This has always been the problem for the better mid-major conferences and only got worse with this round of realignment. I don't see how either the MWC or AAC can keep up as currently organized.

I don't believe the American Conference and Mountain West have any chance of being included, because of the dead weight in each conference. The P5 are not going to take the bottom feeders of these two conferences.

(07-24-2013 03:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Most likely the dividing line is

-the P5 (because regardless of individual schools, as collective units, they more than make enough money and fan support.

-The 2 Indys ND and BYU

Now, since no other conference is even close to the money and fan support the P5, any other additions would have to be single schools voted on to either join a P5 conference OR as an indy. I could see a handful like UConn, Cincy, USF and ECU being voted in that way (mostly as independents)

You are going to have a real tough legal argument if it's split that way. How could you make a legit argument in a court (and that's where this would end up) that it's acceptable to take certain independents but others that have the financial support and will to do it couldn't go independent and stay as well?

heres how id do it.....

the schools with a national following should be in so check off

byu, army, navy, air force

looking at the weakest of the large landgrants that are p5 schools it appears that the b12 has the most with ksu, osu, isu, ku, & tech. it doesnt seem far fetched to say that if any of those schools were replaced with a good land grant g5 school they could fill a similar role. (are colorado state & oklahoma state really that different?) looking at schools that fit this profile the following come to mind.......

utah state, colorado state, nevada, uconn, ohio, & usf

next is the eye test where you use anything from being a large land grant, to recent coaching hires/past success, but also give weight to basketball.....

memphis, unlv cincy, ucf, new mexico, western kentucky, smu, & houston

_______________________________________thats my cutoff line

you can add more teams after that, but things start to get fishy, after this point a lot of good schools can make legit claims that they deserve to be in, but they come from area's of the country where they have lots of regional competition. thats why i personally gave the nod to csu/utah st over schools like ecu, temple etc.

(07-24-2013 03:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Most likely the dividing line is

-the P5 (because regardless of individual schools, as collective units, they more than make enough money and fan support.

-The 2 Indys ND and BYU

Now, since no other conference is even close to the money and fan support the P5, any other additions would have to be single schools voted on to either join a P5 conference OR as an indy. I could see a handful like UConn, Cincy, USF and ECU being voted in that way (mostly as independents)

I think you make a good point. Teams may have to get an invite to a P5 conference or go independent and apply.

(07-24-2013 02:58 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You can draw it simply by setting some of the same types of standards that were done in 78 to cut the numbers down. Those that have the ability and desire to do what is required to stay at the top level can stay and those that can't can drop. Just saying you'll draw it at the P5 or at the American or MWC or whatever isn't how it should go down. Set up the stipend, maybe a real attendance rule, stadium size requirement, budgetary minimums, and then at least it give the appearance that no one was kicked out and those that left chose to leave.

I think the PTB will make it a conference-wide decision. Essentially, force a conference to state whether its teams will play by "big boy" rules or not (whatever those "rules" end up being). So, Cincinnati and Boise State can't be "Division 4" but play in the AAC or MWC. That gives eager schools two choices--give up the fight and accept their lesser status OR find 8-10-12 other schools who have similar desires. I'm not against having 75-80 teams in "Division 4"...I just want them to be the best schools. It's bad enough that Iowa State and Wake Forest get to come along for the ride...let's not let a weak AAC team or MWC team in just because they are hanging on that lesser conference's coattails.

OR go Independent if you can't find enough playmates to form a conference.

Well why not do what MOST pro leagues around the world do.

There is no such thing in them as a being a lucky member of the club who gets to stay eternally simply because someone in 1933 made a good decision.

You are at the bottom of the league at the end of the season? Out you go to be replaced by the top of the league below you. Want back in? Play better. It's not about being in the club nor does it even matter if you draw great crowds or have awesome TV value, its all about performance.

(07-24-2013 03:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  heres how id do it.....

the schools with a national following should be in so check off

byu, army, navy, air force

looking at the weakest of the large landgrants that are p5 schools it appears that the b12 has the most with ksu, osu, isu, ku, & tech. it doesnt seem far fetched to say that if any of those schools were replaced with a good land grant g5 school they could fill a similar role. (are colorado state & oklahoma state really that different?) looking at schools that fit this profile the following come to mind.......

utah state, colorado state, nevada, uconn, ohio, & usf

next is the eye test where you use anything from being a large land grant, to recent coaching hires/past success, but also give weight to basketball.....

memphis, unlv cincy, ucf, new mexico, western kentucky, smu, & houston

_______________________________________thats my cutoff line

you can add more teams after that, but things start to get fishy, after this point a lot of good schools can make legit claims that they deserve to be in, but they come from area's of the country where they have lots of regional competition. thats why i personally gave the nod to csu/utah st over schools like ecu, temple etc.

Be sure to take population in to account when making assumptions about regional competition. ECU really only has to compete with NC state and Ewenc on a large scale, but our state has roughly 10 million people in the pool. Duke and WF do not take much of the regional fans at all (except maybe the casual fan who watches Duke basketball). Utah state only has about three million, but they have to deal with both BYU and Utah.

Temple is in a similar situation with a large potential for support.

I drew the line at P5 + ND, with allowances for independent entries.

BYU + most of AAC + most of MWC can simply apply as independent schools with a scheduling agreement. Furthermore, the conferences can all live IF enough schools from each do manage to qualify.

I wish the best for the AAC, but I also feel the need to be fair about this. There are more than 65 schools worthy of being in the top division - but I see no problem in each of the "borderline" cases being vetted by the power conferences in order to determine how committed they REALLY are.

(07-24-2013 03:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well why not do what MOST pro leagues around the world do.

There is no such thing in them as a being a lucky member of the club who gets to stay eternally simply because someone in 1933 made a good decision.

You are at the bottom of the league at the end of the season? Out you go to be replaced by the top of the league below you. Want back in? Play better. It's not about being in the club nor does it even matter if you draw great crowds or have awesome TV value, its all about performance.

Because that would be bad for many P5 members and the P5 has all the voting clout, and those P5 members who would be against your system have enough clout in the P5 to control the P5.

(07-24-2013 03:25 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 03:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  heres how id do it.....

the schools with a national following should be in so check off

byu, army, navy, air force

looking at the weakest of the large landgrants that are p5 schools it appears that the b12 has the most with ksu, osu, isu, ku, & tech. it doesnt seem far fetched to say that if any of those schools were replaced with a good land grant g5 school they could fill a similar role. (are colorado state & oklahoma state really that different?) looking at schools that fit this profile the following come to mind.......

utah state, colorado state, nevada, uconn, ohio, & usf

next is the eye test where you use anything from being a large land grant, to recent coaching hires/past success, but also give weight to basketball.....

memphis, unlv cincy, ucf, new mexico, western kentucky, smu, & houston

_______________________________________thats my cutoff line

you can add more teams after that, but things start to get fishy, after this point a lot of good schools can make legit claims that they deserve to be in, but they come from area's of the country where they have lots of regional competition. thats why i personally gave the nod to csu/utah st over schools like ecu, temple etc.

Be sure to take population in to account when making assumptions about regional competition. ECU really only has to compete with NC state and Ewenc on a large scale, but our state has roughly 10 million people in the pool. Duke and WF do not take much of the regional fans at all (except maybe the casual fan who watches Duke basketball). Utah state only has about three million, but they have to deal with both BYU and Utah.

Temple is in a similar situation with a large potential for support.

but the problem is the name brand recognition of ecu/temple is what kills them. im from NY and i see plenty of unc/duke gear all around, but i never see ecu logos. in fact i see schools like texas tech, ucf, and new mexico from time to time but never ECU

I'd also like to add one more thing: C-USA, the SBC, and the MAC all still have viable properties going forward.

C-USA still has Rice, USM, and Louisiana Tech.

MAC still has Ohio, Massachusetts, NIU (they DID just make an Orange Bowl), Miami (OH), and MAYBE Buffalo.

SBC still has Arkansas State and ULL (both are developing properties that will be worth more in 10-15 years)

Let's not talk about the rest of the G5 as if they're hopeless entities with nothing of realignment value.

(07-24-2013 12:15 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  How about, let the P5 get their weighted voting so they can get what they want, vote to allow stipends and those schools that can afford it; pay the athletes the stipends. That way you don't have to change much and no body gets left behind.

I think that's probably what happens. Something like:

P5 3 votes each
G5 1 vote each
I-AA, I-AAA share 10 votes.

That gives the P5 50% of the voting power, and then they start passing requirements to stay in Division I.