If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around. When we got I-A/I-AA instead it ended up being 105.

I suspect 60-70 is an opening bid.

The potential damages for a Sun Belt / MAC are pretty big. Compare their peanuts TV deals to what their neighbors in the OVC, Southern, Southland, Valley get for TV in football and it's a decent amount of money that merely having the FBS label brings. That's before considering the CFP revenue share and there's a lot more money there.

Rattle the saber, get the concessions you want and then declare everyone a big happy family again.

(08-13-2013 10:13 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

Quote:It's no different than asking, "Should we take a look at an additional division within Division I?" I happen to think that you should. I think that there are 60-70 schools that are different than everybody else in Division I. Different than anybody else and I think the time has probably come where we need to recognize that, that what goes on Michigan State is different than what they have to deal with at Eastern Michigan. It just is. What happens at Illinois is different than what they deal with at Illinois State. So let's recognize it, let's admit it, and let's just say, "OK, let's find the commonalities of those 60-70 schools

Because it's not 60-70 schools; it's about 25-30 schools and a bunch of tag-alongs. If you want to pull it down to 25-30 football factories, no objection from me.

(08-13-2013 10:32 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My feeling is that it's all or nothing for the non-power conferences: either all of them get into the new Division 4 or none of them get in. Alden's refrain of "60 to 70 schools" (which is essentially only the power conferences plus Notre Dame) reflects that. I have serious doubts that the power conferences are going through serious talks amongst themselves for a massive restructuring where the net effect is to only leave behind 3 non-power FBS conferences (assuming that the AAC and MWC are the 2 non-power leagues that could be brought along). The purpose seems to be either (a) a broad football-based restructuring allow for FBS schools to vote on their own rules and regulations, in which case all FBS conferences are brought along or (b) make a clear separation between the power conferences and non-power conferences. It doesn't make sense that it would be in between.

Perhaps so.

But Alden's comment strike me as being more in the spirit of an "opening bid" that is subject to future negotiation. He is initiating the discussion by putting forth his absolute maximum-ideal scenario. Time will tell if he is able to get it in the final settlement.

That's the thing: what are we actually settling?

Is it simply being able to vote on stipends and other issues that smaller Division I basketball schools are blocking? Then that points to a more inclusive definition of Division 4 that would include the non-power conferences. This is also easier to implement on paper within the confines of the NCAA (and I feel this is more likely).

However, is it about going further than that in terms of institutionalizing revenue and power (where, to paraphrase Alden, "We only want schools that look like us?)? Then that points to a messy divorce, and if the 5 power conferences are willing to engage in a messy divorce, then there's little point in them including anyone other than themselves plus Notre Dame. You don't engage in a messy divorce in order to only get rid of the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA while still taking along the AAC and MWC. Instead, that divorce is about taking *only* who you want.

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around. When we got I-A/I-AA instead it ended up being 105.

I suspect 60-70 is an opening bid.

The potential damages for a Sun Belt / MAC are pretty big. Compare their peanuts TV deals to what their neighbors in the OVC, Southern, Southland, Valley get for TV in football and it's a decent amount of money that merely having the FBS label brings. That's before considering the CFP revenue share and there's a lot more money there.

Rattle the saber, get the concessions you want and then declare everyone a big happy family again.

Oh this is the typical P5/Power Conference move, sabre rattle, make threats about cutting everyone out completely, and then get some concessions they want and then pretend like they are being inclusive and fair after the fact.

(08-13-2013 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:32 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My feeling is that it's all or nothing for the non-power conferences: either all of them get into the new Division 4 or none of them get in. Alden's refrain of "60 to 70 schools" (which is essentially only the power conferences plus Notre Dame) reflects that. I have serious doubts that the power conferences are going through serious talks amongst themselves for a massive restructuring where the net effect is to only leave behind 3 non-power FBS conferences (assuming that the AAC and MWC are the 2 non-power leagues that could be brought along). The purpose seems to be either (a) a broad football-based restructuring allow for FBS schools to vote on their own rules and regulations, in which case all FBS conferences are brought along or (b) make a clear separation between the power conferences and non-power conferences. It doesn't make sense that it would be in between.

Perhaps so.

But Alden's comment strike me as being more in the spirit of an "opening bid" that is subject to future negotiation. He is initiating the discussion by putting forth his absolute maximum-ideal scenario. Time will tell if he is able to get it in the final settlement.

That's the thing: what are we actually settling?

Is it simply being able to vote on stipends and other issues that smaller Division I basketball schools are blocking? Then that points to a more inclusive definition of Division 4 that would include the non-power conferences. This is also easier to implement on paper within the confines of the NCAA (and I feel this is more likely).

However, is it about going further than that in terms of institutionalizing revenue and power (where, to paraphrase Alden, "We only want schools that look like us?)? Then that points to a messy divorce, and if the 5 power conferences are willing to engage in a messy divorce, then there's little point in them including anyone other than themselves plus Notre Dame. You don't engage in a messy divorce in order to only get rid of the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA while still taking along the AAC and MWC. Instead, that divorce is about taking *only* who you want.

Well it seems coaches and AD's want the full P5 split, but then you have people like Delany and Scott who have said it won't be anything nearly that severe. Not that I trust their public statements, but they are the ones who will actually make these decisions and not coaches and AD's. I agree if they are going the messy divorce route and willing to deal with nasty lawsuits and it getting really ugly they'll just boot everyone, but I don't believe they really want that. I think they want to threaten that just to get what they really desire, the ability to essentially write the rules they way they'd like without the smallest of D1 telling them they can't. The G5 for the most part votes with the P5 on the issues they want because they know they pretty much have to.

(08-13-2013 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's the thing: what are we actually settling?

Is it simply being able to vote on stipends and other issues that smaller Division I basketball schools are blocking? Then that points to a more inclusive definition of Division 4 that would include the non-power conferences. This is also easier to implement on paper within the confines of the NCAA (and I feel this is more likely).

However, is it about going further than that in terms of institutionalizing revenue and power (where, to paraphrase Alden, "We only want schools that look like us")? Then that points to a messy divorce, and if the 5 power conferences are willing to engage in a messy divorce, then there's little point in them including anyone other than themselves plus Notre Dame. You don't engage in a messy divorce in order to only get rid of the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA while still taking along the AAC and MWC. Instead, that divorce is about taking *only* who you want.

I agree these are the 2 basic scenarios coming over the horizon. One of them -- or something very close to one of them -- will come to pass. Option A (the first one Frank described, and which he feels is more likely) would be at least broadly recognizable to the existing status-quo. Option B -- the so-called "messy divorce" -- would obviously be highly destabilizing to a lot of people (both those who are in "Div. 4" and those who are not).

I am not sure of how to handicap the likelihood of each scenario. But I do think if it turns out to be the "messy divorce", the end-result will be that the two groups will have virtually NOTHING to do with one another. The bitterness and distrust will carry over into all aspects of college/university functions. Hopefully, that won't happen. We'll see.

(08-13-2013 10:24 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I fully expect a "Mike Aldan is an ass" thread to be started by angry Eastern Michigan fans. Don't let me down.

Yes, both of them are very upset by this.

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around.

Are there any links for that?

(08-13-2013 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My feeling is that it's all or nothing for the non-power conferences: either all of them get into the new Division 4 or none of them get in. Alden's refrain of "60 to 70 schools" (which is essentially only the power conferences plus Notre Dame) reflects that. I have serious doubts that the power conferences are going through serious talks amongst themselves for a massive restructuring where the net effect is to only leave behind 3 non-power FBS conferences (assuming that the AAC and MWC are the 2 non-power leagues that could be brought along). The purpose seems to be either (a) a broad football-based restructuring to allow for FBS schools to vote on their own rules and regulations, in which case all FBS conferences are brought along or (b) make a clear separation between the power conferences and non-power conferences. It doesn't make sense that it would be in between.

I am of similar mind. First benefit to the majors with this plan would be to split the G5 vote in half. If only half make it then the Majors have the majority vote within the new division. They will also cover their ass legally by not having it just be the Major Conferences.

They are still going to want some schools to make it up to the new level so that match ups against them are not weakened for SoS purposes.

Such a gatekeeper conference would see an increase of scheduled games against them and that means money. That is why we may be seeing a group of them banding together to see who they want to bring along. It will be different than the Major Conference Country Club but it will be an entirely new Country Club that is going to be just as selective of whom they allow in.

Its obvious that its going to have to be conference based. You can't just pull teams along individually without asking them to join your conference. I think this might give some legitimacy to MHV3rs tweet that the AAC and MWC teams are getting together. The ones that are above the "fall line" if you will.

(08-13-2013 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:32 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My feeling is that it's all or nothing for the non-power conferences: either all of them get into the new Division 4 or none of them get in. Alden's refrain of "60 to 70 schools" (which is essentially only the power conferences plus Notre Dame) reflects that. I have serious doubts that the power conferences are going through serious talks amongst themselves for a massive restructuring where the net effect is to only leave behind 3 non-power FBS conferences (assuming that the AAC and MWC are the 2 non-power leagues that could be brought along). The purpose seems to be either (a) a broad football-based restructuring allow for FBS schools to vote on their own rules and regulations, in which case all FBS conferences are brought along or (b) make a clear separation between the power conferences and non-power conferences. It doesn't make sense that it would be in between.

Perhaps so.

But Alden's comment strike me as being more in the spirit of an "opening bid" that is subject to future negotiation. He is initiating the discussion by putting forth his absolute maximum-ideal scenario. Time will tell if he is able to get it in the final settlement.

That's the thing: what are we actually settling?

Is it simply being able to vote on stipends and other issues that smaller Division I basketball schools are blocking? Then that points to a more inclusive definition of Division 4 that would include the non-power conferences. This is also easier to implement on paper within the confines of the NCAA (and I feel this is more likely).

However, is it about going further than that in terms of institutionalizing revenue and power (where, to paraphrase Alden, "We only want schools that look like us?)? Then that points to a messy divorce, and if the 5 power conferences are willing to engage in a messy divorce, then there's little point in them including anyone other than themselves plus Notre Dame. You don't engage in a messy divorce in order to only get rid of the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA while still taking along the AAC and MWC. Instead, that divorce is about taking *only* who you want.

BINGO!

You cut Sun Belt, C-USA, and MAC you have to draw a very shakey line to get it to work because there is so much overlap in spending levels and attendance levels between the upper parts of each and the majority of MWC/AAC.

You draw a brighter line like 45,000 conference average attendance and you've got a better chance to talk about product difference and providing consumers a superior product.

Fact of the matter is the potential damages aren't a whole lot different whether you cut all the G5 or the bottom 3 of the G5. If you are going to risk tens if not hundreds of millions in damages to cull 38 schools why not go ahead and cull 61. The extra financial risk is trivial and you can set a much higher bar.

Like I said, FBS is invitation only and yet FCS has not sued because they can't just move up because they want to.

The precedent has been established.

(08-13-2013 10:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around.

Are there any links for that?

Little Rock public library has the Arkansas Gazette on microfilm. No idea if Google has any of it. I stumbled on to it a few years ago hunting game stories from 1975.

(08-13-2013 10:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  easy: invitation only

like the ones these guys handed out for their coming out party??

(08-13-2013 11:04 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Like I said, FBS is invitation only and yet FCS has not sued because they can't just move up because they want to.

The precedent has been established.

Who is the potential plaintiff for FCS to FBS move?

James Madison? They have a path to FBS today. It's the Sun Belt. They just have to pick up the phone.

Missouri State? ditto.

Lamar? They talk FBS but haven't done much proactively.

Liberty? By all accounts they seem to be of the opinion that the Sun Belt or MAC will call soon.

Jacksonville State? They are still lobbying for Sun Belt membership.

Unless Liberty or Jax St chooses to sue, you don't have a plaintiff and I suspect that neither is ready to sue today because they are holding out hope that the Sun Belt will still call. Even if they were to sue and be successful, both know the odds are against them if they are successful (and I think they have a good chance of being successful) because they still have to comply with the schedule requirements and reaching the point of having 4 FBS home games each year without a conference is a big stretch for both.

The mere absence of such a suit does not make such a suit impossible to win.

(08-13-2013 11:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around.

Are there any links for that?

Little Rock public library has the Arkansas Gazette on microfilm. No idea if Google has any of it. I stumbled on to it a few years ago hunting game stories from 1975.

I'll try to find that, thanks.

From the time that American college football first emerged as a distinct sport in the 1880s until the creation of the BCS Cartel system in ~1997, I don't believe there was ever a time when the upper-level of competitive classification was limited to only 65 schools nationwide. That was a new innovation, the legacy of the BCS.

So how do the P5 schedule games in the event of a messy divorce? They would have to fundamentally change to an "NFL model" if they couldn't load up the ooc schedule with MAC, C*USA, AAC, Sun Belt, and MWC schools, not to mention an occasional FCS school.

Perhaps more importantly, the home/away schedules would have to be even. ND, Ohio State, etc. couldn't have eight home games and four road games every year.

Do they really want to do that?

(08-13-2013 10:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around.

Are there any links for that?

The linked article is primarily about a vote on a football playoff in the 1970s. However, the last third or so is about the then impending 1-A split with the notion that 81 schools would end up in 1-A. The Big 8 commissioner mentioned in the article will be a familiar name in this seemingly never ending discussion within the NCAA.

1-A Split

(08-13-2013 11:15 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around.

Are there any links for that?

The linked article is primarily about a vote on a football playoff in the 1970s. However, the last third or so is about the then impending 1-A split with the notion that 81 schools would end up in 1-A.

1-A Split

Great find, LIS.

I guess 81 is close to "60 to 80".

I'd be fascinated to know who those 81 were back in the days of President Gerald Ford. I'm positive it didn't include Utah. Louisville, Miami (FL), and AZ/AZState would've been on the fence.

Northwestern would be a MAC team if they weren't in the Big 14. They are no more like Ohio State or Texas than most of the G5 schools. It's silly to use Texas State and Texas as an example. He should be smart enough to realize that but apparently not.