What would it take to pass a rule allowing conference championship semifinals in football? I'm talking 2 rounds, 3 games, all within the conference...

Here's a scenario I'd like to toss out: Suppose the ACC, SEC and Big XII got together to form a plan whereby the ACC absorbs 4 teams from the Big XII and the SEC absorbs the other 6... then they propose a rule change before the Big XII is disbanded so that you have the ACC, SEC and Big XII all voting in favor.

The proposal might be something like this:
If a conference has 18 teams or more, they can divide into 3 divisions and stage a 2-round conference championship playoff consisting of the champs of each division plus one at-large team.

You guys can probably figure out which teams go to each conference better than I can. My main question is: would that be enough votes (assuming both the Big Ten and Pac-12 oppose it)? Or would it be necessary to bring in at least one G5 conference also? It could be seen as a way for the AAC to expand profitably...

THOUGHTS? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

(05-17-2018 08:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What would it take to pass a rule allowing conference championship semifinals in football? I'm talking 2 rounds, 3 games, all within the conference...

Here's a scenario I'd like to toss out: Suppose the ACC, SEC and Big XII got together to form a plan whereby the ACC absorbs 4 teams from the Big XII and the SEC absorbs the other 6... then they propose a rule change before the Big XII is disbanded so that you have the ACC, SEC and Big XII all voting in favor.

The proposal might be something like this:
If a conference has 18 teams or more, they can divide into 3 divisions and stage a 2-round conference championship playoff consisting of the champs of each division plus one at-large team.

You guys can probably figure out which teams go to each conference better than I can. My main question is: would that be enough votes (assuming both the Big Ten and Pac-12 oppose it)? Or would it be necessary to bring in at least one G5 conference also? It could be seen as a way for the AAC to expand profitably...

THOUGHTS? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Why not just say that conferences with 16 or more members can stage a four team conference championship tournament, and may select the participants however they see fit?

I would guess that any moves which bring two conferences to that number or greater would trigger other moves which eliminate one of the P5 conferences. At that point, at least three of the remaining four would likely all qualify for and support such a tournament, and would have the votes to pass it using their existing autonomy.

Only the PAC might balk at adding four schools to get to the magic number (because the available candidates won't be very attractive). If you want unanimity, just allow all conferences with 12 or more members to have a semifinal round.

(05-17-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 08:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What would it take to pass a rule allowing conference championship semifinals in football? I'm talking 2 rounds, 3 games, all within the conference...

Here's a scenario I'd like to toss out: Suppose the ACC, SEC and Big XII got together to form a plan whereby the ACC absorbs 4 teams from the Big XII and the SEC absorbs the other 6... then they propose a rule change before the Big XII is disbanded so that you have the ACC, SEC and Big XII all voting in favor.

The proposal might be something like this:
If a conference has 18 teams or more, they can divide into 3 divisions and stage a 2-round conference championship playoff consisting of the champs of each division plus one at-large team.

You guys can probably figure out which teams go to each conference better than I can. My main question is: would that be enough votes (assuming both the Big Ten and Pac-12 oppose it)? Or would it be necessary to bring in at least one G5 conference also? It could be seen as a way for the AAC to expand profitably...

THOUGHTS? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Why not just say that conferences with 16 or more members can stage a four team conference championship tournament, and may select the participants however they see fit?

I would guess that any moves which bring two conferences to that number or greater would trigger other moves which eliminate one of the P5 conferences. At that point, at least three of the remaining four would likely all qualify for and support such a tournament, and would have the votes to pass it using their existing autonomy.

Only the PAC might balk at adding four schools to get to the magic number (because the available candidates won't be very attractive). If you want unanimity, just allow all conferences with 12 or more members to have a semifinal round.

If the Big 10 and SEC agree it will be done. And 16 is the number to permit multiple divisions. Besides, the conferences would likely be in favor of this because if we are going to expand the playoffs why not do it internally to the conference structures where the conferences and not necessarily the networks make more money out of the extra games.

Do that and move a champs only format for the 4 remaining conferences and you have a winner from the public's perspective and from the conferences' perspectives.

The top non CFP bowl pairings could then be made from the finish of those 12 schools not making the CFP bowls. It would be a much more competitive set up than what we have now, and more interesting.

(05-17-2018 11:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 08:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What would it take to pass a rule allowing conference championship semifinals in football? I'm talking 2 rounds, 3 games, all within the conference...

Here's a scenario I'd like to toss out: Suppose the ACC, SEC and Big XII got together to form a plan whereby the ACC absorbs 4 teams from the Big XII and the SEC absorbs the other 6... then they propose a rule change before the Big XII is disbanded so that you have the ACC, SEC and Big XII all voting in favor.

The proposal might be something like this:
If a conference has 18 teams or more, they can divide into 3 divisions and stage a 2-round conference championship playoff consisting of the champs of each division plus one at-large team.

You guys can probably figure out which teams go to each conference better than I can. My main question is: would that be enough votes (assuming both the Big Ten and Pac-12 oppose it)? Or would it be necessary to bring in at least one G5 conference also? It could be seen as a way for the AAC to expand profitably...

THOUGHTS? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Why not just say that conferences with 16 or more members can stage a four team conference championship tournament, and may select the participants however they see fit?

I would guess that any moves which bring two conferences to that number or greater would trigger other moves which eliminate one of the P5 conferences. At that point, at least three of the remaining four would likely all qualify for and support such a tournament, and would have the votes to pass it using their existing autonomy.

Only the PAC might balk at adding four schools to get to the magic number (because the available candidates won't be very attractive). If you want unanimity, just allow all conferences with 12 or more members to have a semifinal round.

If the Big 10 and SEC agree it will be done. And 16 is the number to permit multiple divisions. Besides, the conferences would likely be in favor of this because if we are going to expand the playoffs why not do it internally to the conference structures where the conferences and not necessarily the networks make more money out of the extra games.

Do that and move a champs only format for the 4 remaining conferences and you have a winner from the public's perspective and from the conferences' perspectives.

The top non CFP bowl pairings could then be made from the finish of those 12 schools not making the CFP bowls. It would be a much more competitive set up than what we have now, and more interesting.

I have no problem with that. So, assuming the SEC, B1G and ACC all survive the cut, what happens to the Big XII and Pac-12? I would imagine these 16-team conferences:

ACC + Notre Dame + either WVU or Cincinnati
SEC + 2 Big XII teams?
B1G + 2 Big XII teams? OR + Kansas + Colorado?
Pac + 4 Big XII teams OR Big XII + 10 Pac-12 teams? or ???

Why do you need 16 teams?

If the 10-team Big 12 wants to have a 4-team conference tournament with its top 4 teams, why would anyone need to prevent that from happening?

(05-17-2018 11:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 08:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What would it take to pass a rule allowing conference championship semifinals in football? I'm talking 2 rounds, 3 games, all within the conference...

Here's a scenario I'd like to toss out: Suppose the ACC, SEC and Big XII got together to form a plan whereby the ACC absorbs 4 teams from the Big XII and the SEC absorbs the other 6... then they propose a rule change before the Big XII is disbanded so that you have the ACC, SEC and Big XII all voting in favor.

The proposal might be something like this:
If a conference has 18 teams or more, they can divide into 3 divisions and stage a 2-round conference championship playoff consisting of the champs of each division plus one at-large team.

You guys can probably figure out which teams go to each conference better than I can. My main question is: would that be enough votes (assuming both the Big Ten and Pac-12 oppose it)? Or would it be necessary to bring in at least one G5 conference also? It could be seen as a way for the AAC to expand profitably...

THOUGHTS? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Why not just say that conferences with 16 or more members can stage a four team conference championship tournament, and may select the participants however they see fit?

I would guess that any moves which bring two conferences to that number or greater would trigger other moves which eliminate one of the P5 conferences. At that point, at least three of the remaining four would likely all qualify for and support such a tournament, and would have the votes to pass it using their existing autonomy.

Only the PAC might balk at adding four schools to get to the magic number (because the available candidates won't be very attractive). If you want unanimity, just allow all conferences with 12 or more members to have a semifinal round.

If the Big 10 and SEC agree it will be done. And 16 is the number to permit multiple divisions. Besides, the conferences would likely be in favor of this because if we are going to expand the playoffs why not do it internally to the conference structures where the conferences and not necessarily the networks make more money out of the extra games.

Do that and move a champs only format for the 4 remaining conferences and you have a winner from the public's perspective and from the conferences' perspectives.

The top non CFP bowl pairings could then be made from the finish of those 12 schools not making the CFP bowls. It would be a much more competitive set up than what we have now, and more interesting.

Exactly. The B1G and the SEC don't need anybody's permission. They can do whatever they think is in their interest, and there is nothing the NCAA could do to stop them. The NCAA needs those schools more than the other way around. And the rest of the autonomous conferences will side with the big dogs for the same reason.

I would recommend a few other changes.

First, I would eliminate the CFP. In its place I would create a Tournament of Champions for the P4 that makes no pretense at being a national championship playoff. That is essentially what you have recommended, except I would make it explicit that this is outside the Bowl System, and that its associated revenues are also separate from the Bowls.

The AP can continue to declare a mythical national champion by its current poll method. This provides an opportunity for sports writers to give a shout out to schools outside the P4 who have had excellent seasons even though they may not be truly one of the 25 "best" teams. It also allows them to select a champion which was upset in its conference tournament.

I would change the format of the Coaches' Poll, which is currently redundant. Instead, I would have the Coaches' Poll include every FBS coach, not just half of them. Instead of voting for a Top 25, have them instead vote for a Top Ten only. And require every coach to allow his ballot to be released to the public. It would be interesting to see whether the two polls' Top Ten teams would be the same. I would bet that at least 90% of the time, they would have the same #1 as the AP does.

It would require amending the season practice and playing limit. As it is you get no more than:
12 plus
1 for playing an NCAA member in Hawaii or Alaska.
1 for a conference title game
1 for a bowl
1 for the CFP title game.

The absolute maximum right now is 16 and can only happen if you go to Hawaii, play in your conference title game, get selected for the playoff and win the opening round bowl.

A two-tier conference playoff just needs the votes. It doesn't fit under the autonomy legislation definition so it would be a full FBS matter.

Thing is let's hypothetically say the SEC and B1G wanted it. Who is opposed?
Pac-12, ACC and Big 10 are opposed because its greasing the skids to gut them.
AAC? MWC? Sun Belt? MAC? CUSA?

Five yes votes, well at least four. MWC knows they aren't likely to lose anyone to a P5/4, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA aren't going to end up any worse off and might end up better off. AAC? Maybe a shakey vote because some may fear that they will be raided.

Far more likely to see a conference go to 16/20/24 and some current Power 5's are left behind. You think AAC is really going to be upset if say Boston College and Wake Forest are left out of the P4?

(05-17-2018 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It would require amending the season practice and playing limit. As it is you get no more than:
12 plus
1 for playing an NCAA member in Hawaii or Alaska.
1 for a conference title game
1 for a bowl
1 for the CFP title game.

The absolute maximum right now is 16 and can only happen if you go to Hawaii, play in your conference title game, get selected for the playoff and win the opening round bowl.

A two-tier conference playoff just needs the votes. It doesn't fit under the autonomy legislation definition so it would be a full FBS matter.

Thing is let's hypothetically say the SEC and B1G wanted it. Who is opposed?
Pac-12, ACC and Big 10 are opposed because its greasing the skids to gut them.
AAC? MWC? Sun Belt? MAC? CUSA?

Five yes votes, well at least four. MWC knows they aren't likely to lose anyone to a P5/4, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA aren't going to end up any worse off and might end up better off. AAC? Maybe a shakey vote because some may fear that they will be raided.

Far more likely to see a conference go to 16/20/24 and some current Power 5's are left behind. You think AAC is really going to be upset if say Boston College and Wake Forest are left out of the P4?

More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts? At that point you had better believe that Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and perhaps a few PAC schools would want in.

If the SEC and Big 10 truly work together we could easily see a 40 school tier of its own. Both would be fine on their own and could wait out existing contracts to grab the other schools that would want inclusion.

I'd love see the NCAA basketball tournament without Big 10 and SEC schools, let alone football, baseball, hockey, and softball. If those two conferences were truly inhibited by the NCAA they would make so very much more on their own and everyone else would suffer because of it.

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts?

Inertia is too strong. The P5 conferences (plus the Big East) could bring in at least another $2 or 3 million per school per year, over what the NCAA gives them now, if they took over the basketball tournament. Given that the Big Ten and SEC (and others) haven't seriously threatened to leave the NCAA over the NCAA hijacking the March Madness revenue, then they're not going to threaten to leave over whether they can play two football semifinal games a year.

(05-17-2018 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts?

Inertia is too strong. The P5 conferences (plus the Big East) could bring in at least another $2 or 3 million per school per year, over what the NCAA gives them now, if they took over the basketball tournament. Given that the Big Ten and SEC (and others) haven't seriously threatened to leave the NCAA over the NCAA hijacking the March Madness revenue, then they're not going to threaten to leave over whether they can play two football semifinal games a year.

They don't have to threaten to leave. All they have to do is break the rules and dare the NCAA to expel them. Maybe all the big dogs need is an excuse to give their presidents the political cover to leave an institution that has zero good will among the public. I think the reaction of fans would be "what took you so long?" If the NCAA had any sense, they would cave in a heartbeat rather than face their likely demise as an institution.

(05-17-2018 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts?

Inertia is too strong. The P5 conferences (plus the Big East) could bring in at least another $2 or 3 million per school per year, over what the NCAA gives them now, if they took over the basketball tournament. Given that the Big Ten and SEC (and others) haven't seriously threatened to leave the NCAA over the NCAA hijacking the March Madness revenue, then they're not going to threaten to leave over whether they can play two football semifinal games a year.

Sure we will. All of this pooled money crap is about to die. If you pull your weight with the TV ratings you can be part of a collective bargaining unit. If not we don't need you.

Look, we are in the midst of the FBI probe into hoops. We are facing the lifting of the cap on stipends via Federal Court ruling. We are moving into a streaming world and T3 rights can be pooled for extra revenue. So I look for the strongest football schools to eventually bargain as a unit to maximize their T3 rights via subscriptions, but eventually sell all of their T1 and T2 rights either to fat network contracts or fat streaming contracts.

What they aren't going to want to do is subsidize anyone else via an NCAA tourney type arrangement when they can have their own tourney and keep all of the proceeds.

The FBI will make clear how useless the NCAA really is and in future cash crunch days due to shrinking state and Federal support schools are going to be very aroused about the the pocketing of 70 million plus per year by the NCAA via the tourney. Place that against the backdrop of state budgeting processes whee smaller schools are going to be merged or shutdown and the climate will be ripe for a breakaway to a more efficient sports pay model.

I know people will scream officials, scheduling, enforcement etc. But that's all red herring material. The SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big 12 and PAC already have their own officials, already handle their own scheduling, and could easily outsource enforcement. A5 is only the first step because nobody was ready yet to make that move. It buys time to organize behind the scenes. OU/UGA vs the NCAA is another first step to what will eventually be the taking back of basketball rights from the NCAA.

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It would require amending the season practice and playing limit. As it is you get no more than:
12 plus
1 for playing an NCAA member in Hawaii or Alaska.
1 for a conference title game
1 for a bowl
1 for the CFP title game.

The absolute maximum right now is 16 and can only happen if you go to Hawaii, play in your conference title game, get selected for the playoff and win the opening round bowl.

A two-tier conference playoff just needs the votes. It doesn't fit under the autonomy legislation definition so it would be a full FBS matter.

Thing is let's hypothetically say the SEC and B1G wanted it. Who is opposed?
Pac-12, ACC and Big 10 are opposed because its greasing the skids to gut them.
AAC? MWC? Sun Belt? MAC? CUSA?

Five yes votes, well at least four. MWC knows they aren't likely to lose anyone to a P5/4, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA aren't going to end up any worse off and might end up better off. AAC? Maybe a shakey vote because some may fear that they will be raided.

Far more likely to see a conference go to 16/20/24 and some current Power 5's are left behind. You think AAC is really going to be upset if say Boston College and Wake Forest are left out of the P4?

More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts? At that point you had better believe that Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and perhaps a few PAC schools would want in.

If the SEC and Big 10 truly work together we could easily see a 40 school tier of its own. Both would be fine on their own and could wait out existing contracts to grab the other schools that would want inclusion.

I'd love see the NCAA basketball tournament without Big 10 and SEC schools, let alone football, baseball, hockey, and softball. If those two conferences were truly inhibited by the NCAA they would make so very much more on their own and everyone else would suffer because of it.

If 40 or more football powers from the P5 were excluded from the NCAA tournament, does anybody think fans would really consider the winner of that tournament as a legitimate "national champion"?

I think the greater likelihood is that those breakaway schools would have to beat a lot of other schools off with a stick rather than include them in their "revolt". Nobody would want to be left behind in a dying NCAA.

(05-17-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It would require amending the season practice and playing limit. As it is you get no more than:
12 plus
1 for playing an NCAA member in Hawaii or Alaska.
1 for a conference title game
1 for a bowl
1 for the CFP title game.

The absolute maximum right now is 16 and can only happen if you go to Hawaii, play in your conference title game, get selected for the playoff and win the opening round bowl.

A two-tier conference playoff just needs the votes. It doesn't fit under the autonomy legislation definition so it would be a full FBS matter.

Thing is let's hypothetically say the SEC and B1G wanted it. Who is opposed?
Pac-12, ACC and Big 10 are opposed because its greasing the skids to gut them.
AAC? MWC? Sun Belt? MAC? CUSA?

Five yes votes, well at least four. MWC knows they aren't likely to lose anyone to a P5/4, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA aren't going to end up any worse off and might end up better off. AAC? Maybe a shakey vote because some may fear that they will be raided.

Far more likely to see a conference go to 16/20/24 and some current Power 5's are left behind. You think AAC is really going to be upset if say Boston College and Wake Forest are left out of the P4?

More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts? At that point you had better believe that Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and perhaps a few PAC schools would want in.

If the SEC and Big 10 truly work together we could easily see a 40 school tier of its own. Both would be fine on their own and could wait out existing contracts to grab the other schools that would want inclusion.

I'd love see the NCAA basketball tournament without Big 10 and SEC schools, let alone football, baseball, hockey, and softball. If those two conferences were truly inhibited by the NCAA they would make so very much more on their own and everyone else would suffer because of it.

If 40 or more football powers from the P5 were excluded from the NCAA tournament, does anybody think fans would really consider the winner of that tournament as a legitimate "national champion"?

I think the greater likelihood is that those breakaway schools would have to beat a lot of other schools off with a stick rather than include them in their "revolt". Nobody would want to be left behind in a dying NCAA.

As Federal and State money dwindles, as enrollment nationwide dips, and as the NCAA wants to expand its welfare system in which it keeps enough to add to its 1 Billion dollar endowment to the tune of 70 million more per year, the time is coming when the reasons to breakaway will be so compelling, and the ability to shed dead weight even within the existing P5 structure so needed, that the Big 10 and SEC could easily lead a reformation of college athletics. They could bargain as 1 and set up 2 leagues of two conferences each. 40 to 48 schools would be all we would need. They could pool officials, schedule from the league offices, and hire an independent enforcement firm for recruitment purposes, but even that would not be needed if we simply move away from scholarships and into contracts.

(05-17-2018 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It would require amending the season practice and playing limit. As it is you get no more than:
12 plus
1 for playing an NCAA member in Hawaii or Alaska.
1 for a conference title game
1 for a bowl
1 for the CFP title game.

The absolute maximum right now is 16 and can only happen if you go to Hawaii, play in your conference title game, get selected for the playoff and win the opening round bowl.

A two-tier conference playoff just needs the votes. It doesn't fit under the autonomy legislation definition so it would be a full FBS matter.

Thing is let's hypothetically say the SEC and B1G wanted it. Who is opposed?
Pac-12, ACC and Big 10 are opposed because its greasing the skids to gut them.
AAC? MWC? Sun Belt? MAC? CUSA?

Five yes votes, well at least four. MWC knows they aren't likely to lose anyone to a P5/4, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA aren't going to end up any worse off and might end up better off. AAC? Maybe a shakey vote because some may fear that they will be raided.

Far more likely to see a conference go to 16/20/24 and some current Power 5's are left behind. You think AAC is really going to be upset if say Boston College and Wake Forest are left out of the P4?

More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts? At that point you had better believe that Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and perhaps a few PAC schools would want in.

If the SEC and Big 10 truly work together we could easily see a 40 school tier of its own. Both would be fine on their own and could wait out existing contracts to grab the other schools that would want inclusion.

I'd love see the NCAA basketball tournament without Big 10 and SEC schools, let alone football, baseball, hockey, and softball. If those two conferences were truly inhibited by the NCAA they would make so very much more on their own and everyone else would suffer because of it.

If 40 or more football powers from the P5 were excluded from the NCAA tournament, does anybody think fans would really consider the winner of that tournament as a legitimate "national champion"?

I think the greater likelihood is that those breakaway schools would have to beat a lot of other schools off with a stick rather than include them in their "revolt". Nobody would want to be left behind in a dying NCAA.

As Federal and State money dwindles, as enrollment nationwide dips, and as the NCAA wants to expand its welfare system in which it keeps enough to add to its 1 Billion dollar endowment to the tune of 70 million more per year, the time is coming when the reasons to breakaway will be so compelling, and the ability to shed dead weight even within the existing P5 structure so needed, that the Big 10 and SEC could easily lead a reformation of college athletics. They could bargain as 1 and set up 2 leagues of two conferences each. 40 to 48 schools would be all we would need. They could pool officials, schedule from the league offices, and hire an independent enforcement firm for recruitment purposes, but even that would not be needed if we simply move away from scholarships and into contracts.

While most B1G and SEC schools would be OK with a breakaway, are there any in your opinion who might opt out? Vandy? Northwestern?

Are there any schools in other P5 conferences who, if invited to join this group, would likely decline the invitation? And if not, how do you keep out a P5 school that wants in without also excluding one that you might want?

Can you just form a league by invitation only without running afoul of antitrust laws?

I'm a big advocate of conference semi-finals. My model would be for the big conferences to have 3 divisions with division winners and a wild card advancing to the conference playoff.

15 or 18 members becomes the new magic number.

The ability to add 4 new members each gives the SEC and Big Ten a lot of flexibility in who they pursue for membership.

(05-17-2018 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It would require amending the season practice and playing limit. As it is you get no more than:
12 plus
1 for playing an NCAA member in Hawaii or Alaska.
1 for a conference title game
1 for a bowl
1 for the CFP title game.

The absolute maximum right now is 16 and can only happen if you go to Hawaii, play in your conference title game, get selected for the playoff and win the opening round bowl.

A two-tier conference playoff just needs the votes. It doesn't fit under the autonomy legislation definition so it would be a full FBS matter.

Thing is let's hypothetically say the SEC and B1G wanted it. Who is opposed?
Pac-12, ACC and Big 10 are opposed because its greasing the skids to gut them.
AAC? MWC? Sun Belt? MAC? CUSA?

Five yes votes, well at least four. MWC knows they aren't likely to lose anyone to a P5/4, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA aren't going to end up any worse off and might end up better off. AAC? Maybe a shakey vote because some may fear that they will be raided.

Far more likely to see a conference go to 16/20/24 and some current Power 5's are left behind. You think AAC is really going to be upset if say Boston College and Wake Forest are left out of the P4?

More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts? At that point you had better believe that Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and perhaps a few PAC schools would want in.

If the SEC and Big 10 truly work together we could easily see a 40 school tier of its own. Both would be fine on their own and could wait out existing contracts to grab the other schools that would want inclusion.

I'd love see the NCAA basketball tournament without Big 10 and SEC schools, let alone football, baseball, hockey, and softball. If those two conferences were truly inhibited by the NCAA they would make so very much more on their own and everyone else would suffer because of it.

If 40 or more football powers from the P5 were excluded from the NCAA tournament, does anybody think fans would really consider the winner of that tournament as a legitimate "national champion"?

I think the greater likelihood is that those breakaway schools would have to beat a lot of other schools off with a stick rather than include them in their "revolt". Nobody would want to be left behind in a dying NCAA.

As Federal and State money dwindles, as enrollment nationwide dips, and as the NCAA wants to expand its welfare system in which it keeps enough to add to its 1 Billion dollar endowment to the tune of 70 million more per year, the time is coming when the reasons to breakaway will be so compelling, and the ability to shed dead weight even within the existing P5 structure so needed, that the Big 10 and SEC could easily lead a reformation of college athletics. They could bargain as 1 and set up 2 leagues of two conferences each. 40 to 48 schools would be all we would need. They could pool officials, schedule from the league offices, and hire an independent enforcement firm for recruitment purposes, but even that would not be needed if we simply move away from scholarships and into contracts.

While most B1G and SEC schools would be OK with a breakaway, are there any in your opinion who might opt out? Vandy? Northwestern?

Are there any schools in other P5 conferences who, if invited to join this group, would likely decline the invitation? And if not, how do you keep out a P5 school that wants in without also excluding one that you might want?

Can you just form a league by invitation only without running afoul of antitrust laws?

As long as there are two leagues and multiple conferences there would be no antitrust suits. Minimum standards for admission is all that needs to be set. Attendance, Endowment levels, Number and Kinds of sports offered, etc can be used to set a bar.

As far as programs opting out that would probably depend directly upon whether or not stipends are paid and if they are capped or not. Let's assume they aren't capped. Then yes there would be schools to opt out.

Who might be invited outside of the Big 10 and SEC?

Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and possibly Miami, N.C. State, and Louisville from the ACC.

Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and possibly Oklahoma State from the Big 12.

Washington, Oregon, the California schools, and possibly Utah or the Arizonas from the PAC.

Notre Dame and Brigham Young as former independents.

I'm thinking 90 million in gross revenue, 55,000 in attendance, at least 18 men's and women's sports of the right kind, and a $500,000,000 endowment should the school be deficient in other areas.

what's in it for the players

(05-17-2018 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  More to the point. The rules won't matter. If the SEC and Big 10 work in concert on something they will get what they want. If they don't can you imagine the clout that the two would have to simply pull out of the NCAA together and negotiate as one on TV contracts? At that point you had better believe that Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and perhaps a few PAC schools would want in.

If the SEC and Big 10 truly work together we could easily see a 40 school tier of its own. Both would be fine on their own and could wait out existing contracts to grab the other schools that would want inclusion.

I'd love see the NCAA basketball tournament without Big 10 and SEC schools, let alone football, baseball, hockey, and softball. If those two conferences were truly inhibited by the NCAA they would make so very much more on their own and everyone else would suffer because of it.

If 40 or more football powers from the P5 were excluded from the NCAA tournament, does anybody think fans would really consider the winner of that tournament as a legitimate "national champion"?

I think the greater likelihood is that those breakaway schools would have to beat a lot of other schools off with a stick rather than include them in their "revolt". Nobody would want to be left behind in a dying NCAA.

As Federal and State money dwindles, as enrollment nationwide dips, and as the NCAA wants to expand its welfare system in which it keeps enough to add to its 1 Billion dollar endowment to the tune of 70 million more per year, the time is coming when the reasons to breakaway will be so compelling, and the ability to shed dead weight even within the existing P5 structure so needed, that the Big 10 and SEC could easily lead a reformation of college athletics. They could bargain as 1 and set up 2 leagues of two conferences each. 40 to 48 schools would be all we would need. They could pool officials, schedule from the league offices, and hire an independent enforcement firm for recruitment purposes, but even that would not be needed if we simply move away from scholarships and into contracts.

While most B1G and SEC schools would be OK with a breakaway, are there any in your opinion who might opt out? Vandy? Northwestern?

Are there any schools in other P5 conferences who, if invited to join this group, would likely decline the invitation? And if not, how do you keep out a P5 school that wants in without also excluding one that you might want?

Can you just form a league by invitation only without running afoul of antitrust laws?

As long as there are two leagues and multiple conferences there would be no antitrust suits. Minimum standards for admission is all that needs to be set. Attendance, Endowment levels, Number and Kinds of sports offered, etc can be used to set a bar.

As far as programs opting out that would probably depend directly upon whether or not stipends are paid and if they are capped or not. Let's assume they aren't capped. Then yes there would be schools to opt out.

Who might be invited outside of the Big 10 and SEC?

Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and possibly Miami, N.C. State, and Louisville from the ACC.

Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and possibly Oklahoma State from the Big 12.

Washington, Oregon, the California schools, and possibly Utah or the Arizonas from the PAC.

Notre Dame and Brigham Young as former independents.

I'm thinking 90 million in gross revenue, 55,000 in attendance, at least 18 men's and women's sports of the right kind, and a $500,000,000 endowment should the school be deficient in other areas.

Would that be $90MM and 55K, or would it be either/or?

The problem I have with the gross revenue criterion (wherever you set the level) is that it brings in schools who only qualify because they are already in the club. For many Big Ten schools, they may qualify only because they get media/bowl/NCAAT money by virtue of being in the Big Ten in the first place.

I would prefer a revenue criterion that only counts the money that a school's athletics bring in from gate receipts and donations (which are often just an indirect way of paying true market value for preferred seating), plus perhaps local advertising and radio deals.

The problem you potentially get into when using only football criteria is that you are likely to wind up with a membership that is too small to replicate the lucrative championship tournaments in other sports like basketball and baseball, but which is big enough to sap the remaining schools of their ability to maintain the revenue streams from existing ones.

I, for one, don't really want to see a 32 school breakaway from the rest of the college sports world. There has to be some middle ground between that and a 350 member Division I like we have now. Neither makes much sense to me.

(05-18-2018 08:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  If 40 or more football powers from the P5 were excluded from the NCAA tournament, does anybody think fans would really consider the winner of that tournament as a legitimate "national champion"?

I think the greater likelihood is that those breakaway schools would have to beat a lot of other schools off with a stick rather than include them in their "revolt". Nobody would want to be left behind in a dying NCAA.

As Federal and State money dwindles, as enrollment nationwide dips, and as the NCAA wants to expand its welfare system in which it keeps enough to add to its 1 Billion dollar endowment to the tune of 70 million more per year, the time is coming when the reasons to breakaway will be so compelling, and the ability to shed dead weight even within the existing P5 structure so needed, that the Big 10 and SEC could easily lead a reformation of college athletics. They could bargain as 1 and set up 2 leagues of two conferences each. 40 to 48 schools would be all we would need. They could pool officials, schedule from the league offices, and hire an independent enforcement firm for recruitment purposes, but even that would not be needed if we simply move away from scholarships and into contracts.

While most B1G and SEC schools would be OK with a breakaway, are there any in your opinion who might opt out? Vandy? Northwestern?

Are there any schools in other P5 conferences who, if invited to join this group, would likely decline the invitation? And if not, how do you keep out a P5 school that wants in without also excluding one that you might want?

Can you just form a league by invitation only without running afoul of antitrust laws?

As long as there are two leagues and multiple conferences there would be no antitrust suits. Minimum standards for admission is all that needs to be set. Attendance, Endowment levels, Number and Kinds of sports offered, etc can be used to set a bar.

As far as programs opting out that would probably depend directly upon whether or not stipends are paid and if they are capped or not. Let's assume they aren't capped. Then yes there would be schools to opt out.

Who might be invited outside of the Big 10 and SEC?

Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and possibly Miami, N.C. State, and Louisville from the ACC.

Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and possibly Oklahoma State from the Big 12.

Washington, Oregon, the California schools, and possibly Utah or the Arizonas from the PAC.

Notre Dame and Brigham Young as former independents.

I'm thinking 90 million in gross revenue, 55,000 in attendance, at least 18 men's and women's sports of the right kind, and a $500,000,000 endowment should the school be deficient in other areas.

Would that be $90MM and 55K, or would it be either/or?

The problem I have with the gross revenue criterion (wherever you set the level) is that it brings in schools who only qualify because they are already in the club. For many Big Ten schools, they may qualify only because they get media/bowl/NCAAT money by virtue of being in the Big Ten in the first place.

I would prefer a revenue criterion that only counts the money that a school's athletics bring in from gate receipts and donations (which are often just an indirect way of paying true market value for preferred seating), plus perhaps local advertising and radio deals.

The problem you potentially get into when using only football criteria is that you are likely to wind up with a membership that is too small to replicate the lucrative championship tournaments in other sports like basketball and baseball, but which is big enough to sap the remaining schools of their ability to maintain the revenue streams from existing ones.

I, for one, don't really want to see a 32 school breakaway from the rest of the college sports world. There has to be some middle ground between that and a 350 member Division I like we have now. Neither makes much sense to me.

1. Remember the Big 10 and SEC in this hypothetical move together and then establish the criteria for inclusion.

2. There would be no reason why a separate set of criteria could be created for basketball only schools to be included in the breakaway but not as members of the football conferences.

3. 55,000 attendance and 90 million Gross Total Revenue are both required. But the 90 million would be after inclusion (in other words would their GTR be 90 million if making the TV revenue of the new association). That would account for those you see as being grandfathered in. Requisite number of sports offered and their kind is necessary as well.

I don't know.

I believe the conferences that want this will need to make a legitimate argument that it can't determine it's TRUE champion using the existing format of 2 divisions and 1 CCG.

The fact is 16, 18 or 20 team conferences can all determine its champion using just 2 divisions and 1 CCG.

Even a 22 team conference could make it work if they expanded to 10 conference games and used rotating non-permanent divisions.

There is no need for adding semi-finals when the existing rules can work for up to 22 team conferences.