I think a 24 league football only merger between the acc and big 12 works great right now, should be green lighted. There is no reason to have a full merger, football only is enough. Of course, the key point is getting a rule change so 4 pods of 6 could have a 2 game playoff. However, i guess they could just go with the 2 highest rated teams from the 4 pods of 6 which is still rule change. Now if the sec is involved, than that would change everything. You could go total super conference but they would cut the fat from the big 12 and acc. Thus, it would be much more complex and not happening + there is no reason for the sec to do it if the big 12/acc would merge since the champ of the sec would play the champ of the big 12/acc merger in a bowl game. I think the big 10 is the league that should focus on super conference status with a plan to jump to 40 and 4 divisions of 10. Start off by taking in the pac 12, than build a texas division and eastern division around penn state. I like the end game of the big 10 going to 40 with 4 divisions of 10 + a 2 game playoff and the sec jumping to 20-24 + 2 game playoff with the champ of the big 10 playoff meeting the champ of the sec playoff in a bowl game.

(03-26-2014 10:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 08:33 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  Football maybe the engine that drives the bus, but basketball is the wheels that makes the bus go round & round. And without the mid-majors in March Madness many people would not feel the merged conferences are the only national champions. That would make it feel like NBA & ABA champions. it would also open the door for the mid-majors to go with one network and the majors go with another network, giving each party equal exposure and equal legitimacy.

And the ABA fell apart. I agree the tourney with the midmajors is beneficial but if the P5 split away and took the AAC and MWC it would still prosper and the other tourney would be the NIT.

and they get to keep 100% of the revenue

lets face it: with 64 teams the tourny will still be a big deal because the "march madness" aspect of it is kept intact. the tourny is the closest event college sports have at replicating the super bowl. they are the only 2 sporting events that can attract non sports fans in such large numbers.

have the 10 FBS conferences + a-10, MVC & big east and you automatically retain 90% of the tourny bids. add in the ivy league and maybe one other conference for old times sake.

I think it would be a total disaster for the big leagues to mess with the current hoop setup. Giving access to all types of school's is very important.

(03-26-2014 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think people overestimate the value of the mid-majors. Dayton isn't going to get the best ratings in the sweet 16. We've got 12 P5 schools, 2 AAC (1 a future P5), 1 MWC and Dayton. Ratings would probably be better if Dayton was replaced by Ohio ST. or Syracuse.

Underdogs don't have to be mid-majors. Jim Valvano's NCSU was an underdog. Iowa St. or Baylor or UConn or Tennessee or San Diego St. could play the role this year.

You might be right, but I think that's a really bad example. Dayton is consistently in the Top 10 for college basketball ratings on ESPN. They were #7 this year at a 1.9 rating. Even non-Dayton fans in the market will tune in to watch the team.

I'd argue Stanford is more the problem than Dayton. You have a school not all that highly interested in basketball, and a country of neutral fans that sees this game as a 'meh' game because an underdog is facing a school not highly regarded in basketball. Put Dayton against Kansas and I guarantee you would have a very highly rated game. If there is one thing a neutral fan loves about the tournament, its an underdog to root for.

(03-26-2014 10:32 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think a 24 league football only merger between the acc and big 12 works great right now, should be green lighted. Of course, the key point is getting a rule change so 4 pods of 6 could have a 2 game playoff. However, i guess they could just go with the 2 highest rated teams from the 4 pods of 6 which is still rule change. Now if the sec is involved, than that would change everything. You could go total super conference but they would cut the fat from the big 12 and acc. Thus, it would be much more complex and not happening + there is no reason for the sec to do it if the big 12/acc would merge since the champ of the sec would play the champ of the big 12/acc merger in a bowl game. I think the big 10 is the league that should focus on super conference status with a plan to jump to 40 and 4 divisions of 10.

if i would split up FBS i would do it like this:

big ten + stanford, cal, washington, colorado, usc, notre dame, ucla, mizz, kansas, syracuse, pitt, BC, oregon, arizona (28 teams)

SEC + wvu, uva, vtech, unc, duke, ncsu, wake forest, clemson, fsu, miami, texas, oklahoma, okie st. texas tech, (28 teams)

AAC/MWC/b12/pac12 hybrid(36 teams)
KSU, ISU, baylor, smu, houston, TCU, rice, tulsa, tulane, nevada, unlv, sdsu, wsu, ASU, ore st, BSU, utah, byu, utah state, CSU, new mexico, wyoming, air force, louisville, memphis, cincy, umass, uconn, temple, buffalo, army, navy, USF, UCF, ECU

I could see something like this 12 years down the road...TX/TT/OU/oSu leaving for the P12 then aligns with the ACC/ND and the B1G aligns with the SEC while all 4 split from the NCAA.

They play a NFL (NFC/AFC) type rotating 16 game schedule with 2 conferences in each division. There would be a conference champion but no conference championship game like the NFL. The conference champion would get an automatic birth in the playoff. The wild card teams would be the top non conference champions within each division.

The top 8 remaining teams from each division (16 total teams) would play the other division in bowl games.


There would likely be room for a few more (1-5) teams outside of this but the TV market & actual ratings will rule who is let in.

College presidents don't view the process the way NFL or NBA owners view the process.

A full break is improbable where the P5 part ways with everyone else. It has been discussed frequently for five or so decades and every time it was discussed, on a straight business analysis it made sense but it hasn't made sense for the presidents and most likely will not ever make sense for the presidents. Yeah they've trimmed and nip/tucked over the years but a wholesale break hasn't fit their needs.

Of all the revenue streams they share the NCAA Tournament, but the basketball unit distribution, sport sponsorship fund, and grant-in-aid funds insure they receive the bulk of what is directly paid out. They share a fraction of the CFP but that amount (which the P5 selected) amounts to a bit over $1 million per team, not significant money in the grand scheme.

The political blowback, further eroding the illusion of jolly college students playing sports for fun to build strong minds, bodies and character, the risk of anti-trust litigation, the risk of having to commercialize when everyone involved in the enterprise is highly profitable, just being non-collegial by kicking people to the curb. None of these warrant the small gain in revenue to the presidents.

If a split happens it will be because a fundamental and intractable difference in how intercollegiate athletics are to be conducted in the future and that break won't be P5 against the world, it would internal to the P5.

The P5 currently have ample decision-making authority and control over their financial fate that the remainder of Division I is of no significant concern warranting a split, only a disagreement within that group would prompt a split and it would be a split between them and most likely each would allow some number of hanger-ons to travel with them post-split.

Ive always said the SEC and ACC should form an alliance/merger which would be an absolute killer in both sports and TV dollars

29 teams (28 full time + ND) in 4x7 divisions

Pitt
BC
SU
UL
UVA
VT
MIA

UNC
DU
NCSU
WF
CU
USC
UK

UF
FSU
UT
UGA
GT
UA
AU


A&M
LSU
ARK
UM
MSU
MU
Vandy

Congrats, you now own the whole South, the Mid-Atlantic and the East Coast



(And I imagine the response would be for the B1G and PAC to cherry pick the 2-3 B12 teams of any value and then form their own super conference that dominated the North, the Midwest and the West Coast)

(03-26-2014 11:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Ive always said the SEC and ACC should form an alliance/merger which would be an absolute killer in both sports and TV dollars

29 teams (28 full time + ND) in 4x7 divisions

Pitt
BC
SU
UL
UVA
VT
MIA

UNC
DU
NCSU
WF
CU
USC
UK

UF
FSU
UT
UGA
GT
UA
AU


A&M
LSU
ARK
UM
MSU
MU
Vandy

Congrats, you now own the whole South and the East Coast

checkmate big ten

(03-26-2014 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  College presidents don't view the process the way NFL or NBA owners view the process.

A full break is improbable where the P5 part ways with everyone else. It has been discussed frequently for five or so decades and every time it was discussed, on a straight business analysis it made sense but it hasn't made sense for the presidents and most likely will not ever make sense for the presidents. Yeah they've trimmed and nip/tucked over the years but a wholesale break hasn't fit their needs.

Of all the revenue streams they share the NCAA Tournament, but the basketball unit distribution, sport sponsorship fund, and grant-in-aid funds insure they receive the bulk of what is directly paid out. They share a fraction of the CFP but that amount (which the P5 selected) amounts to a bit over $1 million per team, not significant money in the grand scheme.

The political blowback, further eroding the illusion of jolly college students playing sports for fun to build strong minds, bodies and character, the risk of anti-trust litigation, the risk of having to commercialize when everyone involved in the enterprise is highly profitable, just being non-collegial by kicking people to the curb. None of these warrant the small gain in revenue to the presidents.

If a split happens it will be because a fundamental and intractable difference in how intercollegiate athletics are to be conducted in the future and that break won't be P5 against the world, it would internal to the P5.

The P5 currently have ample decision-making authority and control over their financial fate that the remainder of Division I is of no significant concern warranting a split, only a disagreement within that group would prompt a split and it would be a split between them and most likely each would allow some number of hanger-ons to travel with them post-split.

I think the P5 will receive autonomy on a number of significant issues before all is said and done. The voting change is not the major change the P5 have pushed for. If they get some reasonable version of autonomy, the P5 will be appeased. I agree with you that the P5 would prefer not to break away. That said, a separate division in the NCAA is totally different than a break away. A separate division is still possible.

The problem with a superconference is that certain schools are going to go from being 7-5 programs to 2-10 deadbeats that don't sell out the stadium or bring TV viewership.

The money will be better - at least for a long while - but what's the point of making more money on athletics if it brings you no closer to winning games and/or championships?

Each superconference is going to ultimately build a new underclass of once proud programs that have fallen on extended bad times...

(03-26-2014 12:03 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with a superconference is that certain schools are going to go from being 7-5 programs to 2-10 deadbeats that don't sell out the stadium or bring TV viewership.

The money will be better - at least for a long while - but what's the point of making more money on athletics if it brings you no closer to winning games and/or championships?

Each superconference is going to ultimately build a new underclass of once proud programs that have fallen on extended bad times...

with more equal revenue sharing I am sure the smaller schools will have an easier time.

as long as you keep the ratio off ooc/conf games similar i really don't expect teams to struggle. if Kentucky can't get 4 wins out of their OOC then that's on them.

and all the media contracts go out the window?

(03-26-2014 07:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:54 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...and at the risk of major backlash for posting this, just remember, I'm only the messenger (and if it's somewhere previously, I also apologize):

From our old pal MHver3 on Twitter (hopefully it's OK to link this...please inform me otherwise):

LINK...

In general, the rumor is that Slive is about to make a 'power' move, to create a 'true superconference'...the only thing I could figure is... SEC merge with Big12 or ACC... THAT would be a major deal...

Isn't MHver3 the Dude's second cousin (twice removed)?

Just by marriage...lol

More hints from the OP's dubious source.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
Think about this: one conference that encompasses over 50% of the Power5.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
One conference that has TV deals with 3 different major TV companies.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
One conference that can pick their champion any way they see fit.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
One conference who will surely get 2-3 teams into the new playoffs/ 4-6 teams in yearly when it eventually changed to 8






(03-26-2014 11:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  College presidents don't view the process the way NFL or NBA owners view the process.

A full break is improbable where the P5 part ways with everyone else. It has been discussed frequently for five or so decades and every time it was discussed, on a straight business analysis it made sense but it hasn't made sense for the presidents and most likely will not ever make sense for the presidents. Yeah they've trimmed and nip/tucked over the years but a wholesale break hasn't fit their needs.

Of all the revenue streams they share the NCAA Tournament, but the basketball unit distribution, sport sponsorship fund, and grant-in-aid funds insure they receive the bulk of what is directly paid out. They share a fraction of the CFP but that amount (which the P5 selected) amounts to a bit over $1 million per team, not significant money in the grand scheme.

The political blowback, further eroding the illusion of jolly college students playing sports for fun to build strong minds, bodies and character, the risk of anti-trust litigation, the risk of having to commercialize when everyone involved in the enterprise is highly profitable, just being non-collegial by kicking people to the curb. None of these warrant the small gain in revenue to the presidents.

If a split happens it will be because a fundamental and intractable difference in how intercollegiate athletics are to be conducted in the future and that break won't be P5 against the world, it would internal to the P5.

The P5 currently have ample decision-making authority and control over their financial fate that the remainder of Division I is of no significant concern warranting a split, only a disagreement within that group would prompt a split and it would be a split between them and most likely each would allow some number of hanger-ons to travel with them post-split.

I think the P5 will receive autonomy on a number of significant issues before all is said and done. The voting change is not the major change the P5 have pushed for. If they get some reasonable version of autonomy, the P5 will be appeased. I agree with you that the P5 would prefer not to break away. That said, a separate division in the NCAA is totally different than a break away. A separate division is still possible.

Based on past history... looking at the numerous reforms and revisions to the divisional structure, it is consistently the case that when a new divison is created it tends to be roughly double the size of the number of schools leading the quest to start it and when an existing division is regulated smaller the regulations have never eliminated more than 17.5% of the existing division and they have always contained a path for inclusion that seemed more difficult to attain at the time than history ended up supporting.

People forget that I-AA was initially created because of the change in the NCAA structure that was bringing the Big Sky, MEAC, OVC, and Yankee into Division I football to match their basketball. The SWAC was the only one who "went down".

The reforms of the 50's 70's and 80's all followed these patterns. Even the adoption of federated governance could be argued to have installed a similar power structure but for the over-ride provision.

Using those norms, if the P5 were to create a new division, it would contain roughly 130 schools, ironic or not thats probably where FBS lands and stops. If Division I as a whole is "reformed" using those norms you are looking at around 290 schools, roughly the equivalent of eliminating five to six bottom tier basketball conferences.

(03-26-2014 12:03 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with a superconference is that certain schools are going to go from being 7-5 programs to 2-10 deadbeats that don't sell out the stadium or bring TV viewership.

The money will be better - at least for a long while - but what's the point of making more money on athletics if it brings you no closer to winning games and/or championships?

Each superconference is going to ultimately build a new underclass of once proud programs that have fallen on extended bad times...

Which is why I tend to believe that if the P5 were to ever break, they would take the remainder of FBS with them to transfer the need imposed by basic mathmatics for someone to lose each game to someone outside their group 22% of the time (assuming one-third of games are non-conference and the P5 win 2/3rds of the time facing the others).

The problem is that you have to have more teams with skin in the championship game. The pros in all sports have been moving to adding playoff contenders/spots - which increases attendance-viewership.

A 32 team superconference is really no good in football if 2/32 or even 4/32 play in a play-off. If you imagine those 32 teams come from 3 conferences, and 3-4 teams in each conference are near the top and have a shot at some point of leading - you really need 10-12 teams to have an opportunity for play-off or post-season play beyond the bowl system.

Problem is that is completely unworkable - they're not adding 2-3 games to football schedule.

I COULD see a 32 team superconference with 4 8-team divisions that play a true round-robin every year, have 4 non-con game spots available (2 reserved for rivals or teams in another conf division). The 4 would then play-off with the champs of the two 32-36 team supers playing for the nat. title.

How cool would ISU, KU, KSU, OU, OSU, TEX, TTU and Baylor be for an 8-team division?

Or Mizzou, A&M, Ark, LSU, MISS, Ole Miss, Tenn and KY be?

(03-26-2014 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  More hints from the OP's dubious source.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
Think about this: one conference that encompasses over 50% of the Power5.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
One conference that has TV deals with 3 different major TV companies.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
One conference that can pick their champion any way they see fit.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 1h
One conference who will surely get 2-3 teams into the new playoffs/ 4-6 teams in yearly when it eventually changed to 8






ESPN, Fox and CBS....

(03-26-2014 01:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  College presidents don't view the process the way NFL or NBA owners view the process.

A full break is improbable where the P5 part ways with everyone else. It has been discussed frequently for five or so decades and every time it was discussed, on a straight business analysis it made sense but it hasn't made sense for the presidents and most likely will not ever make sense for the presidents. Yeah they've trimmed and nip/tucked over the years but a wholesale break hasn't fit their needs.

Of all the revenue streams they share the NCAA Tournament, but the basketball unit distribution, sport sponsorship fund, and grant-in-aid funds insure they receive the bulk of what is directly paid out. They share a fraction of the CFP but that amount (which the P5 selected) amounts to a bit over $1 million per team, not significant money in the grand scheme.

The political blowback, further eroding the illusion of jolly college students playing sports for fun to build strong minds, bodies and character, the risk of anti-trust litigation, the risk of having to commercialize when everyone involved in the enterprise is highly profitable, just being non-collegial by kicking people to the curb. None of these warrant the small gain in revenue to the presidents.

If a split happens it will be because a fundamental and intractable difference in how intercollegiate athletics are to be conducted in the future and that break won't be P5 against the world, it would internal to the P5.

The P5 currently have ample decision-making authority and control over their financial fate that the remainder of Division I is of no significant concern warranting a split, only a disagreement within that group would prompt a split and it would be a split between them and most likely each would allow some number of hanger-ons to travel with them post-split.

I think the P5 will receive autonomy on a number of significant issues before all is said and done. The voting change is not the major change the P5 have pushed for. If they get some reasonable version of autonomy, the P5 will be appeased. I agree with you that the P5 would prefer not to break away. That said, a separate division in the NCAA is totally different than a break away. A separate division is still possible.

Based on past history... looking at the numerous reforms and revisions to the divisional structure, it is consistently the case that when a new divison is created it tends to be roughly double the size of the number of schools leading the quest to start it and when an existing division is regulated smaller the regulations have never eliminated more than 17.5% of the existing division and they have always contained a path for inclusion that seemed more difficult to attain at the time than history ended up supporting.

People forget that I-AA was initially created because of the change in the NCAA structure that was bringing the Big Sky, MEAC, OVC, and Yankee into Division I football to match their basketball. The SWAC was the only one who "went down".

The reforms of the 50's 70's and 80's all followed these patterns. Even the adoption of federated governance could be argued to have installed a similar power structure but for the over-ride provision.

Using those norms, if the P5 were to create a new division, it would contain roughly 130 schools, ironic or not thats probably where FBS lands and stops. If Division I as a whole is "reformed" using those norms you are looking at around 290 schools, roughly the equivalent of eliminating five to six bottom tier basketball conferences.

I have always said that I thought the top division would be closer to 90-100 schools (which is a bit smaller than historical prospective would indicate). Frankly, all of FBS as a new upper division would probably work as well. Those schools certainly have more in common as a group than many FCS and non-football schools currently in D-1.