(03-17-2018 01:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 12:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-16-2018 10:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's funny that no one has raised questions over the 65,000,000 in Gross Total Revenue, or the list of requisite sports. Those weed them out pretty well.

The list of sports is not that much of a bar. Sacramento State has all of those sports. And on the other hand, there are some northern P5 schools that don't have baseball and/or softball programs.

Revenue is an ok criterion if it's "real revenue", i.e., not including student fees or other university subsidies. If it included those things, then we'd be encouraging bad ideas like universities taxing the hell out of their own students just so they can have a college sports program in the top division.

I'm good with not counting subsidies placed on the backs of students. 65 million in Gross Total Revenue is a sweet dividing line. A few weaker P5's would be below it as would a few basketball only schools who have football, but just to claim the revenue of others. It also promotes several worthy G5's.

I don't see any of the P5 conferences agreeing to a new structure that excludes one of their own, though. It's one thing for a school to jump to a new conference by themselves; it's a much different thing for 13 schools to move on together and leave one behind in a lower division.

There are a lot of across the fence conversations taking place now that the pay model is changing. The Vandy's, Duke's, and Northwestern's of the world really aren't carrying their weight in the share and share alike model, and everyone's pay could go up if they weren't being carried.

In the coming economic climate, with the demographic shifts compounding economic issues, a reshuffling is possible. Especially if the tax status of players changes and cause state schools to comport themselves differently than privates.

And even if the tax relationship doesn't change, time and economic pressure are eventually going to force some of the privates out. Wake has already complained about stipends. Vanderbilt doesn't participate in all SEC sports and that's a bit of a rub.

So while the sentiment of what you say is true, it's legs are getting weaker and weaker upon examination of the anticipated pay model changes.

What the heck are your talking about?
Duke more than carries their own weight in the ACC.
When the Duke basketball team rolls into Clemson, the Tigers crowds are always bigger. When the Duke women's basketball team travels anywhere in the state the crowds are much larger than normal and the same holds true for Duke's lacrosse team for trips to UVa and Syracuse.

Your talk of minimums of attendance and dollars will just accelerate the demise of the P5 into one superconference.
Many schools will choose not to participate including the majority of the ACC.
https://www.foxsports.com/college-footba...ame-051616

(03-18-2018 01:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  What the heck are your talking about?
Duke more than carries their own weight in the ACC.

OK, a school that has off-the-charts basketball value is an exception. But of all the P5 schools that are, say, in the bottom 3 of their own conference in football value for TV, that's an exception that is only going to be enough for Duke and Kansas.

(03-18-2018 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  What the heck are your talking about?
Duke more than carries their own weight in the ACC.

OK, a school that has off-the-charts basketball value is an exception. But of all the P5 schools that are, say, in the bottom 3 of their own conference in football value for TV, that's an exception that is only going to be enough for Duke and Kansas.

I'm not even sure that it would be for Kansas or Duke. Kansas and Duke are in right now because the output of their respective conferences place them higher on the food chain than they would be in either the Big 10 or SEC for example. Duke might make it in the Big 10 or SEC, but I'm not so sure that Kansas would in the Big 10. What do they add that the Big 10 doesn't already have, including Kansas markets?

So my point is that the total revenue generated by both Duke and Kansas are viable where they are now. But in a larger association of better football brands I'm not sure they stay out of the bottom 1/3rd to bottom 1/4th.

(03-18-2018 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  What the heck are your talking about?
Duke more than carries their own weight in the ACC.

OK, a school that has off-the-charts basketball value is an exception. But of all the P5 schools that are, say, in the bottom 3 of their own conference in football value for TV, that's an exception that is only going to be enough for Duke and Kansas.

I'm not even sure that it would be for Kansas or Duke. Kansas and Duke are in right now because the output of their respective conferences place them higher on the food chain than they would be in either the Big 10 or SEC for example. Duke might make it in the Big 10 or SEC, but I'm not so sure that Kansas would in the Big 10. What do they add that the Big 10 doesn't already have, including Kansas markets?

So my point is that the total revenue generated by both Duke and Kansas are viable where they are now. But in a larger association of better football brands I'm not sure they stay out of the bottom 1/3rd to bottom 1/4th.

In a new association, if the postseason basketball tournament revenue is distributed more to the conferences, rather than the current situation in which the NCAA siphons off so much of the money for itself, Duke and Kansas, or any basketball program that frequently goes deep in the tournament, would be even more valuable to their conferences than they are today. The NCAA is artificially holding down the value of the best basketball programs by keeping so much of the March Madness revenue.

Think of the current way of distributing tournament shares (and omit the First Four for this purpose). A 64-team tournament has 63 games. A team that makes it to the final earns 6 shares for its conference; that's one-tenth of the total revenue shares. And that's just the NCAA's method, which is designed to give more to each conference and not as much to the big winners. If you instead weight the distribution to give more points for advancing to later rounds, rather than one point for each round, then consistent basketball success is even more valuable.

(03-18-2018 02:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  What the heck are your talking about?
Duke more than carries their own weight in the ACC.

OK, a school that has off-the-charts basketball value is an exception. But of all the P5 schools that are, say, in the bottom 3 of their own conference in football value for TV, that's an exception that is only going to be enough for Duke and Kansas.

I'm not even sure that it would be for Kansas or Duke. Kansas and Duke are in right now because the output of their respective conferences place them higher on the food chain than they would be in either the Big 10 or SEC for example. Duke might make it in the Big 10 or SEC, but I'm not so sure that Kansas would in the Big 10. What do they add that the Big 10 doesn't already have, including Kansas markets?

So my point is that the total revenue generated by both Duke and Kansas are viable where they are now. But in a larger association of better football brands I'm not sure they stay out of the bottom 1/3rd to bottom 1/4th.

In a new association, if the postseason basketball tournament revenue is distributed more to the conferences, rather than the current situation in which the NCAA siphons off so much of the money for itself, Duke and Kansas, or any basketball program that frequently goes deep in the tournament, would be even more valuable to their conferences than they are today. The NCAA is artificially holding down the value of the best basketball programs by keeping so much of the March Madness revenue.

Think of the current way of distributing tournament shares (and omit the First Four for this purpose). A 64-team tournament has 63 games. A team that makes it to the final earns 6 shares for its conference; that's one-tenth of the total revenue shares. And that's just the NCAA's method, which is designed to give more to each conference and not as much to the big winners. If you instead weight the distribution to give more points for advancing to later rounds, rather than one point for each round, then consistent basketball success is even more valuable.

That's a fair point. It could help them keep some traction. I would think the same would be true for the baseball and softball tournaments. Just getting the NCAA out of things would go a long way to monetizing smaller programs, like privates, in a new upper tier.

(03-18-2018 02:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 01:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  What the heck are your talking about?
Duke more than carries their own weight in the ACC.

OK, a school that has off-the-charts basketball value is an exception. But of all the P5 schools that are, say, in the bottom 3 of their own conference in football value for TV, that's an exception that is only going to be enough for Duke and Kansas.

I'm not even sure that it would be for Kansas or Duke. Kansas and Duke are in right now because the output of their respective conferences place them higher on the food chain than they would be in either the Big 10 or SEC for example. Duke might make it in the Big 10 or SEC, but I'm not so sure that Kansas would in the Big 10. What do they add that the Big 10 doesn't already have, including Kansas markets?

So my point is that the total revenue generated by both Duke and Kansas are viable where they are now. But in a larger association of better football brands I'm not sure they stay out of the bottom 1/3rd to bottom 1/4th.

In a new association, if the postseason basketball tournament revenue is distributed more to the conferences, rather than the current situation in which the NCAA siphons off so much of the money for itself, Duke and Kansas, or any basketball program that frequently goes deep in the tournament, would be even more valuable to their conferences than they are today. The NCAA is artificially holding down the value of the best basketball programs by keeping so much of the March Madness revenue.

Think of the current way of distributing tournament shares (and omit the First Four for this purpose). A 64-team tournament has 63 games. A team that makes it to the final earns 6 shares for its conference; that's one-tenth of the total revenue shares. And that's just the NCAA's method, which is designed to give more to each conference and not as much to the big winners. If you instead weight the distribution to give more points for advancing to later rounds, rather than one point for each round, then consistent basketball success is even more valuable.

If you altered the format for the regular season and the subsequent tournament qualification system then I think you could increase the value even more.

A lot of money is being siphoned off by the NCAA and I think a good chunk is being left on the table by the leagues as well.

I can't speak to Kansas, but Duke like Vanderbilt is a top ten academic institution and a top ten in research dollars.
Duke has tons of money and if they wanted to buy a top ten football program, they could reduce standards like the Alabama schools and buy one.

(03-18-2018 07:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  I can't speak to Kansas, but Duke like Vanderbilt is a top ten academic institution and a top ten in research dollars.
Duke has tons of money and if they wanted to buy a top ten football program, they could reduce standards like the Alabama schools and buy one.

Duke is no more likely to do that than MIT or the five Ivies that all have more money than Duke.

A membership fee of $5 million a year would keep out most of the riff raff. Then that money would be redistributed to the schools along with the TV money through their Tournaments. Since it's a new association, most of that would be through the Football and Basketball tournaments.

Does ticket sales vs butts-in-seats really matter? If you got money for a ticket who cares if they actually show up or not?

I think each sport should be considered individually. If school A wants to join for football, and school B wants to join for basketball, so be it. Each gets 1 vote in what ever sports they are members of.

I like the concept of annual dues. Distribution of post season money would be a huge factor. Big payouts might entice small schools to take financial risks they should not take.

There should be 3 departments:
Competition - on field rules, championships; schools get 1 vote in subscribed sports
Regulation - recruiting, scholarships, etc.; schools get 1 vote in subscribed sports
Administration - accounting, etc.; schools get 1 vote per sport

Student-athletes should be represented. They should get 1 vote per sport.

(03-19-2018 02:36 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  A membership fee of $5 million a year would keep out most of the riff raff. Then that money would be redistributed to the schools along with the TV money through their Tournaments. Since it's a new association, most of that would be through the Football and Basketball tournaments.

If they are all going to get that money back, then the high "membership fee" wouldn't really be a barrier to entry. Just a temporary loan.

At the end of the day, I really think we would be surprised how few schools really want to break away from what is now the FBS. Fans, yes. Schools, no.

(03-20-2018 12:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  At the end of the day, I really think we would be surprised how few schools really want to break away from what is now the FBS. Fans, yes. Schools, no.

That's because bureaucrats are both busy and lazy. They have a day's worth of paperwork to do and no interest in adding to their workload if status quo can be maintained. These are what most University Presidents are.

(03-20-2018 12:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 02:36 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  A membership fee of $5 million a year would keep out most of the riff raff. Then that money would be redistributed to the schools along with the TV money through their Tournaments. Since it's a new association, most of that would be through the Football and Basketball tournaments.

If they are all going to get that money back, then the high "membership fee" wouldn't really be a barrier to entry. Just a temporary loan.

It would keep out the schools that aren't competitive in any sport. If structured right it would keep out all the schools that are not competitive in football and men's basketball.

First and foremost, I would require that all schools joining the association play football. No 1/2 memberships.

(03-21-2018 02:05 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 02:36 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  A membership fee of $5 million a year would keep out most of the riff raff. Then that money would be redistributed to the schools along with the TV money through their Tournaments. Since it's a new association, most of that would be through the Football and Basketball tournaments.

If they are all going to get that money back, then the high "membership fee" wouldn't really be a barrier to entry. Just a temporary loan.

It would keep out the schools that aren't competitive in any sport. If structured right it would keep out all the schools that are not competitive in football and men's basketball.

First an foremost, I would require that all schools joining the association play football. No 1/2 memberships.

May your tribe increase!

Back around 2008 give or take a year or two either side of that, there was a proposal floating around among commissioners for a "reform of divisional membership".

There would be a new division created called Division A.

Membership criteria proposed was: sponsor 16 sports and award at least 200 grants in aid.

Division A would be announced and schools would have four years where Division I and Division A would fully overlap competition before Division A broke off but governance would separate immediately.

After the break date, a school could play up in Division A men's basketball for two years and Division A women's basketball for three years. Any Division I school could "play up" in Division A in one sport other than football, men's basketball or women's basketball indefinitely.

That's basically the same as the requirements for FBS, except for the requirement to have a football team. And if the NCAA is still the governing body and still has its tentacles around the March Madness money, there's no incentive to do it.

(03-22-2018 11:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's basically the same as the requirements for FBS, except for the requirement to have a football team. And if the NCAA is still the governing body and still has its tentacles around the March Madness money, there's no incentive to do it.

You don't have to leave the NCAA to get the NCAA out of the March Madness money.

You don't even have to split from the NCAA and reinvent the wheel which is basically just cut and paste the manual and hire some different people.

When I was doing work for the Sun Belt we "war gamed" a number of scenarios that could be potential threats. The one I threw out and ended doing a rough financial analysis on as well as an anti-trust analysis was attacking the NCAA Tournament by creating an alternate tournament, a BCS owned by a group of schools type of NIT.

100% of the money directly distributed to the schools and regional qualifying tournaments for lower ranked leagues to gain access to the tournament to deal with anti-trust.

The must play rule for the NCAA Tournament is extremely suspect and that's why the NCAA bought the NIT.

Would have forced the NCAA to rely on dues to fund operations. Of the bottom 8, 12, or 16 leagues needing to rely on qualifying tournaments to get in the numbers probably would have resulted in 25% or so eventually opting Division II or III

(03-25-2018 02:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's basically the same as the requirements for FBS, except for the requirement to have a football team. And if the NCAA is still the governing body and still has its tentacles around the March Madness money, there's no incentive to do it.

You don't have to leave the NCAA to get the NCAA out of the March Madness money.

You don't even have to split from the NCAA and reinvent the wheel which is basically just cut and paste the manual and hire some different people.

When I was doing work for the Sun Belt we "war gamed" a number of scenarios that could be potential threats. The one I threw out and ended doing a rough financial analysis on as well as an anti-trust analysis was attacking the NCAA Tournament by creating an alternate tournament, a BCS owned by a group of schools type of NIT.

100% of the money directly distributed to the schools and regional qualifying tournaments for lower ranked leagues to gain access to the tournament to deal with anti-trust.

The must play rule for the NCAA Tournament is extremely suspect and that's why the NCAA bought the NIT.

Would have forced the NCAA to rely on dues to fund operations. Of the bottom 8, 12, or 16 leagues needing to rely on qualifying tournaments to get in the numbers probably would have resulted in 25% or so eventually opting Division II or III

Which should happen. There are certainly about 10 leagues that are filled with Division II type schools and are not competitive in any sport.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...dness-1985

Records since 1985. This includes those play-in games.

13 existing conferences from this list have less than a 20% winning %.
Atlantic Sun 6-31
Southern 6-32
Ohio Valley 6-33
Southland 5-31
MAAC 5-32
Patriot 3-24
MEAC 3-28
Big Sky 3-31
Summit 1-9
America East 1-20
Big South 1-20
SWAC 1-23
NEC 0-25