Old saying goes, 'the more things change the more they remain the same", interesting story about the Ivy League being demoted to 1-AA and the forces that forced them against their will to be demoted, and how they felt about it. Good insight.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1981/1...s-vote-to/

30+ years later, they are still at the 1-AA/FCS level.

Interesting, I can see why, at the time, they were upset about it...but given that the Ivy also doesn't offer athletic scholarships and wont participate in the post season because of academic concerns (they turn down their FCS tournament AQ every year), I don't think they'd even WANT to be part of FBS anymore.

In fact, it sounds like if it weren't for the NCAA basketball tournament (and to a lesser extent lacrosse and rowing), they'd be a lot more comfortable just going full D3

The philosophy of Division I as set out in the Division I manual implies it is contrary to the mission of the Division to not participate in the sanctioned post-season events.

I've thought for decades that the SWAC and Ivy should be sent packing for their refusal to participate in the FCS playoffs.

I think the really instructive lesson is found at the end of the article where the school reps and experts talk about how they think they could actually end up making more money. The G5 needs to learn from that. Any split will end with the G5 making the same kind of nothing that the FCS and Ivies make now. The G5 needs to do whatever they need to do to stay with the P5. If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains. They already keep most of the money from football. Cutting out the G5 wont really make them much more. Getting a football sized cut of the NCAA tournament---now there's where the P5 could really see some real increased cash flow.

(02-03-2014 10:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Interesting, I can see why, at the time, they were upset about it...but given that the Ivy also doesn't offer athletic scholarships and wont participate in the post season because of academic concerns (they turn down their FCS tournament AQ every year), I don't think they'd even WANT to be part of FBS anymore.

In fact, it sounds like if it weren't for the NCAA basketball tournament (and to a lesser extent lacrosse and rowing), they'd be a lot more comfortable just going full D3

Today, the issues would be different, but they'd still mean that the big boys wouldn't want the Ivy in FBS:

1) It would be another conference taking a slice of the new playoff money

2) More importantly, it would be troubling if FBS big boys lined up to play Ivy schools and got to count those as FBS games. The competitive imbalance between non-scholarship programs and the best scholarship programs is far greater in football than in other NCAA sports.

(02-03-2014 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains.

The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:
Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

(02-03-2014 09:05 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Old saying goes, 'the more things change the more they remain the same", interesting story about the Ivy League being demoted to 1-AA and the forces that forced them against their will to be demoted, and how they felt about it. Good insight.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1981/1...s-vote-to/

I didn't know the 30,000 seat stadium rule dated back to 1981. I had always thought that it was drafted around 1990 or so looking back through the legislation.

Clearly the current rule of having an invite to an existing FBS conference is better but at the time they needed a way to force the issue because there was no historical basis for the Division 1-A split. Once the subdivision had been around for a few decades its much easier to demand an invite from an existing FBS conference to play at the top level.

(02-03-2014 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains.

The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:

Code:

Pac-12     7
Big 12     6
Big Ten    6
ACC        6
American   5
SEC        4
Big East   4
A-10       4
Mtn West   2
West Coast 2

Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

There are lot of FCS football schools who are moving up to FBS with the intent of improving their basketball situation.

In the long term, the best basketball conferences will be those with FBS football. The Big East is strong enough to survive at the top tier but imagine the A10 without UMass, St. Louis and Dayton in a few years. Is it still a multibid conference without those schools?

(02-03-2014 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains.

The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:

Code:

Pac-12     7
Big 12     6
Big Ten    6
ACC        6
American   5
SEC        4
Big East   4
A-10       4
Mtn West   2
West Coast 2

Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

There is no reason many of the G5 couldn't become hybrids picking off the top schools from the non-football conferences. The P5 want to run things and have the lions share of the money. Under a D4 consisting of FBS conferences---they would run it the way they want and the money would be divided on a eat what you kill basis. Plus they have the ability to put on a 64 team NCAA tournament with the kind of monetary split they get in football. A handful of non-football schools might get added to the G5 to bring the Georgetowns, Gonzagas, and St Johns into the fold. You don't need the ENTIRE Big East and A-10, you just need some of the key members.

Basically, the G5 would become power basketball conferences that play decent football, provide the G5 with football wins, the networks with inventory, fill the bottom bowls, and fill out the 64 team tournament bracket. This could be a very attractive deal for everyone.

Strikingly simliar to what transpiring today. History repeating itself, NCAA meeting giving th P5 what they want. Same old suspects Texas etc. pushing things. Other conferences being relegated to the back of the bus.

(02-04-2014 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains.

The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:

Code:

Pac-12     7
Big 12     6
Big Ten    6
ACC        6
American   5
SEC        4
Big East   4
A-10       4
Mtn West   2
West Coast 2

Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

There is no reason many of the G5 couldn't become hybrids picking off the top schools from the non-football conferences. The P5 want to run things and have the lions share of the money. Under a D4 consisting of FBS conferences---they would run it the way they want and the money would be divided on a eat what you kill basis. Plus they have the ability to put on a 64 team NCAA tournament with the kind of monetary split they get in football. A handful of non-football schools might get added to the G5 to bring the Georgetowns, Gonzagas, and St Johns into the fold. You don't need the ENTIRE Big East and A-10, you just need some of the key members.

Basically, the G5 would become power basketball conferences that play decent football, provide the G5 with football wins, the networks with inventory, fill the bottom bowls, and fill out the 64 team tournament bracket. This could be a very attractive deal for everyone.

Just like the old Big East, old Conference USA and before that, the old Missouri Valley? All of which Louisville was a member of and Houston was as well (although the old Big East split apart before UH got there).

(In case anyone missed the point, hybrids don't work).

(02-04-2014 08:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains.

The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:

Code:

Pac-12     7
Big 12     6
Big Ten    6
ACC        6
American   5
SEC        4
Big East   4
A-10       4
Mtn West   2
West Coast 2

Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

There is no reason many of the G5 couldn't become hybrids picking off the top schools from the non-football conferences. The P5 want to run things and have the lions share of the money. Under a D4 consisting of FBS conferences---they would run it the way they want and the money would be divided on a eat what you kill basis. Plus they have the ability to put on a 64 team NCAA tournament with the kind of monetary split they get in football. A handful of non-football schools might get added to the G5 to bring the Georgetowns, Gonzagas, and St Johns into the fold. You don't need the ENTIRE Big East and A-10, you just need some of the key members.

Basically, the G5 would become power basketball conferences that play decent football, provide the G5 with football wins, the networks with inventory, fill the bottom bowls, and fill out the 64 team tournament bracket. This could be a very attractive deal for everyone.

Just like the old Big East, old Conference USA and before that, the old Missouri Valley? All of which Louisville was a member of and Houston was as well (although the old Big East split apart before UH got there).

(In case anyone missed the point, hybrids don't work).

Define "work". The Big East hybrid worked in the sense that the group was worth more together than apart. For the G5, conferences cannot be built upon the shoulders of anchor schools like Texas, Alabama, or Ohio St. The G5 needs to use whatever means possible to maximize value. The fact is, at the G5 level, stability has not equaled value. The most stable G5 conference is the among it's lowest paid. The most unstable and realignment ravaged conference is its highest paid.

The "hybrids don't work" argument cracks me up because it implies that non-hybrids do work. The fact is, at the G5 level, nothing really works. If you can squeeze a little more value out of a G5 conference through the limited use of the hybrid---may as well go for it. History has shown the G5 conferences to be very unstable. It's not like any of these G5 conferences are likely to hold any one configuration for very long regardless of what they do.

(02-04-2014 10:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 08:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains.

The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:

Code:

Pac-12     7
Big 12     6
Big Ten    6
ACC        6
American   5
SEC        4
Big East   4
A-10       4
Mtn West   2
West Coast 2

Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

There is no reason many of the G5 couldn't become hybrids picking off the top schools from the non-football conferences. The P5 want to run things and have the lions share of the money. Under a D4 consisting of FBS conferences---they would run it the way they want and the money would be divided on a eat what you kill basis. Plus they have the ability to put on a 64 team NCAA tournament with the kind of monetary split they get in football. A handful of non-football schools might get added to the G5 to bring the Georgetowns, Gonzagas, and St Johns into the fold. You don't need the ENTIRE Big East and A-10, you just need some of the key members.

Basically, the G5 would become power basketball conferences that play decent football, provide the G5 with football wins, the networks with inventory, fill the bottom bowls, and fill out the 64 team tournament bracket. This could be a very attractive deal for everyone.

Just like the old Big East, old Conference USA and before that, the old Missouri Valley? All of which Louisville was a member of and Houston was as well (although the old Big East split apart before UH got there).

(In case anyone missed the point, hybrids don't work).

Define "work". The Big East hybrid worked in the sense that the group was worth more together than apart. For the G5, conferences cannot be built upon the shoulders of anchor schools like Texas, Alabama, or Ohio St. The G5 needs to use whatever means possible to maximize value. The fact is, at the G5 level, stability has not equaled value. The most stable G5 conference is the among it's lowest paid. The most unstable and realignment ravaged conference is its highest paid.

The "hybrids don't work" argument cracks me up because it implies that non-hybrids do work. The fact is, at the G5 level, nothing really works. If you can squeeze a little more value out of a G5 conference through the limited use of the hybrid---may as well go for it. History has shown the G5 conferences to be very unstable. It's not like any of these G5 conferences are likely to hold any one configuration for very long regardless of what they do.

My reasoning for not wanting Olympic sports-only teams goes beyond the whole "hybrids don't work" thought process.

The AAC has already proven to be a very good basketball conference (with proven on-the-court successful programs). It's not like we're struggling to get multiple bids. In fact, we're on par or better off than most other conferences, including some of the P5.

If adding the Olympic sports-only members is about getting a better future TV contract payout then you should look at the current Big East...

The Big East basketball schools do have a better TV payout right now, but Fox is now realizing that it overpaid for an average at best viewership "power basketball conference." Given the let-down this new Big East has been, do you really think the next AAC contract is going to be that much more by adding a few good basketball programs? My guess is that ESPN or whoever is going to look at the Big East contract and learn the mistake of relying too much on basketball for money/viewership.

IMO the basketball schools won't provide enough worth for a better contract. They will actually end up costing the football playing members more money than they're worth. That added to the fact that we don't need these Olympic sports-only schools for a good basketball conference because we already have one is why I personally don't believe we should/need to add them.

(02-04-2014 11:20 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 10:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 08:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:

Code:

Pac-12     7
Big 12     6
Big Ten    6
ACC        6
American   5
SEC        4
Big East   4
A-10       4
Mtn West   2
West Coast 2

Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

There is no reason many of the G5 couldn't become hybrids picking off the top schools from the non-football conferences. The P5 want to run things and have the lions share of the money. Under a D4 consisting of FBS conferences---they would run it the way they want and the money would be divided on a eat what you kill basis. Plus they have the ability to put on a 64 team NCAA tournament with the kind of monetary split they get in football. A handful of non-football schools might get added to the G5 to bring the Georgetowns, Gonzagas, and St Johns into the fold. You don't need the ENTIRE Big East and A-10, you just need some of the key members.

Basically, the G5 would become power basketball conferences that play decent football, provide the G5 with football wins, the networks with inventory, fill the bottom bowls, and fill out the 64 team tournament bracket. This could be a very attractive deal for everyone.

Just like the old Big East, old Conference USA and before that, the old Missouri Valley? All of which Louisville was a member of and Houston was as well (although the old Big East split apart before UH got there).

(In case anyone missed the point, hybrids don't work).

Define "work". The Big East hybrid worked in the sense that the group was worth more together than apart. For the G5, conferences cannot be built upon the shoulders of anchor schools like Texas, Alabama, or Ohio St. The G5 needs to use whatever means possible to maximize value. The fact is, at the G5 level, stability has not equaled value. The most stable G5 conference is the among it's lowest paid. The most unstable and realignment ravaged conference is its highest paid.

The "hybrids don't work" argument cracks me up because it implies that non-hybrids do work. The fact is, at the G5 level, nothing really works. If you can squeeze a little more value out of a G5 conference through the limited use of the hybrid---may as well go for it. History has shown the G5 conferences to be very unstable. It's not like any of these G5 conferences are likely to hold any one configuration for very long regardless of what they do.

My reasoning for not wanting Olympic sports-only teams goes beyond the whole "hybrids don't work" thought process.

The AAC has already proven to be a very good basketball conference (with proven on-the-court successful programs). It's not like we're struggling to get multiple bids. In fact, we're on par or better off than most other conferences, including some of the P5.

If adding the Olympic sports-only members is about getting a better future TV contract payout then you should look at the current Big East...

The Big East basketball schools do have a better TV payout right now, but Fox is now realizing that it overpaid for an average at best viewership "power basketball conference." Given the let-down this new Big East has been, do you really think the next AAC contract is going to be that much more by adding a few good basketball programs? My guess is that ESPN or whoever is going to look at the Big East contract and learn the mistake of relying too much on basketball for money/viewership.

IMO the basketball schools won't provide enough worth for a better contract. They will actually end up costing the football playing members more money than they're worth. That added to the fact that we don't need these Olympic sports-only schools for a good basketball conference because we already have one is why I personally don't believe we should/need to add them.

That opinion at least makes some sense. That said, the Big East Fox ratings have more to do with Fox Sports-1 being an infant platform than with the Big East (though I agree that they are overpaid even based on last years ESPN ratings). The AAC, which offers good basketball and FBS football, is still being paid less than half of what the Big East is getting for just basketball. The Big East got 2 million a year per team for basketball on thier OLD basketball contract. No reason adding a couple of solid basketball schools in large markets cannot help the AAC hit or exceed that old 2 million per team number for just basketball. The better than expected football product can probably land an additional 2-3 million meaning all-sports teams could look to making 5 million per team with just a few tweaks to the basketball side come renegotiation time (assuming stability).

One thing that jumped out at me from that article is that there were only 137 schools in Division I at that time. Today there are almost that many in the FBS, and as many again in the FCS. If you took the CFA from that era, and added the B1G and PAC schools, you would be right about the number that many predict will once again become an autonomous division for football.

Deja vu all over again.

(02-04-2014 12:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  One thing that jumped out at me from that article is that there were only 137 schools in Division I at that time. Today there are almost that many in the FBS, and as many again in the FCS. If you took the CFA from that era, and added the B1G and PAC schools, you would be right about the number that many predict will once again become an autonomous division for football.

Deja vu all over again.

No, that 137 is Division I football. There were probably around 250 in Division I total.

(02-04-2014 12:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  One thing that jumped out at me from that article is that there were only 137 schools in Division I at that time. Today there are almost that many in the FBS, and as many again in the FCS. If you took the CFA from that era, and added the B1G and PAC schools, you would be right about the number that many predict will once again become an autonomous division for football.

Deja vu all over again.

But when they trimmed the numbers of division one, it fell to just under 100. That's why I continue to say the sweet spot is for a timmed down top division is from 80-100 schools.

(02-04-2014 10:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 08:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I were the G5, I'd be pushing a full split of FBS from the NCAA. Then let each conference keep what they kill. It sounds harsh, but the same math is being calculated by the smaller D1 schools. The small D-1's plan to throw the G5 under the bus as long as their NCAA tournament gets protected. The G5 needs to show the P5 that they make way more by splitting off the 126 FBS schools and creating their own NCAA tournament. That's where the P5 can really reap some significant gains.

The P5 doesn't want to do that and won't. There are many no-football schools that are more valuable properties for a basketball tournament than some of the G5 basketball teams. Just as one example, look at the breakdown of teams by conference in Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology projection for this year's NCAA tournament:

Code:

Pac-12     7
Big 12     6
Big Ten    6
ACC        6
American   5
SEC        4
Big East   4
A-10       4
Mtn West   2
West Coast 2

Top-heavy with P5 teams as usual, but only 2 of the G5 conferences are projected to get multiple bids, whereas 3 no-football conferences are projected as multiple-bid leagues. If the P5 ever creates a new basketball post-season tournament, the pool of teams won't be based on who plays FBS football, it will be based on who plays the best basketball. As it should be.

There is no reason many of the G5 couldn't become hybrids picking off the top schools from the non-football conferences. The P5 want to run things and have the lions share of the money. Under a D4 consisting of FBS conferences---they would run it the way they want and the money would be divided on a eat what you kill basis. Plus they have the ability to put on a 64 team NCAA tournament with the kind of monetary split they get in football. A handful of non-football schools might get added to the G5 to bring the Georgetowns, Gonzagas, and St Johns into the fold. You don't need the ENTIRE Big East and A-10, you just need some of the key members.

Basically, the G5 would become power basketball conferences that play decent football, provide the G5 with football wins, the networks with inventory, fill the bottom bowls, and fill out the 64 team tournament bracket. This could be a very attractive deal for everyone.

Just like the old Big East, old Conference USA and before that, the old Missouri Valley? All of which Louisville was a member of and Houston was as well (although the old Big East split apart before UH got there).

(In case anyone missed the point, hybrids don't work).

Define "work". The Big East hybrid worked in the sense that the group was worth more together than apart. For the G5, conferences cannot be built upon the shoulders of anchor schools like Texas, Alabama, or Ohio St. The G5 needs to use whatever means possible to maximize value. The fact is, at the G5 level, stability has not equaled value. The most stable G5 conference is the among it's lowest paid. The most unstable and realignment ravaged conference is its highest paid.

The "hybrids don't work" argument cracks me up because it implies that non-hybrids do work. The fact is, at the G5 level, nothing really works. If you can squeeze a little more value out of a G5 conference through the limited use of the hybrid---may as well go for it. History has shown the G5 conferences to be very unstable. It's not like any of these G5 conferences are likely to hold any one configuration for very long regardless of what they do.

Even among the P5, the most stable are the ones with the most similar schools. The Big 10 schools look a lot alike. The SWC schools were very different. The Big 12 were very different. The Pac 12 are different and did dissolve in the late 50s. They left behind, at least temporarily, Oregon, Oregon St., Washington St. and Idaho behind.

When you aren't even sponsoring the same sports, that makes it harder to work in the same direction. That very much contributed to the Big East falling apart. It led to the Villanova invite which was just before everyone left.

I don't think the Ivy League has been hurt at all without big time football. They have more money and more students applying than ever. The Ivy League brand is bigger now than it was back then, to boot.