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

Conference records since 1985 by conference. Current conferences are numbered. There are gaps between 11 and 12, 17 and 18, 18 and 19 and 19 and 20.

I would draw the line after #19 and probably dump the WAC as they aren't the conference that got all those wins. NMSU would need to find a new home. I don't find the 1-16 or 2-15 games interesting except on rare occassions. A bunch of these conferences should be in a different division.

1 ACC 307-153 0.667
MW City * 2-1 0.667
2 Big East 278-172 0.618
3 SEC 223-143 0.609
4 Big Ten 270-177 0.604
5 American 11-8 0.579
Big 8 * 67-49 0.578
6 Big 12 147-110 0.572
PCAA * 8-6 0.571
Pac-10 * 141-107 0.569
Great Midwest * 15-12 0.556
7 Pac-12 26-23 0.531
8 Horizon 19-18 0.514
Metro * 26-25 0.51
9 CUSA 53-52 0.505
10 A-10 87-95 0.478
SWC 21-24 0.467
11 WCC 33-40 0.452
Independents 13-18 0.419
12 Big West 21-32 0.396
13 WAC 42-64 0.396
14 MVC 36-57 0.387
15 CAA 21-36 0.368
16 MAC 18-37 0.327
17 MWC 20-42 0.323
MW Coll * 10-22 0.313
18 Sun Belt 16-41 0.281
ASC * 1-3 0.25
Mid-Cont * 7-23 0.233
19 Ivy 8-32 0.2
NAC * 2-8 0.2
20 A-Sun 6-31 0.162
21 Southern 6-32 0.158
22 OVC 6-33 0.154
23 Southland 5-31 0.139
24 MAAC 5-32 0.135
WCAC * 1-7 0.125
25 Patriot 3-24 0.111
ECAC * 1-9 0.1
26 Summit 1-9 0.1
27 MEAC 3-28 0.097
28 Big Sky 3-31 0.088
29 American East 1-20 0.048
30 Big South 1-20 0.048
31 SWAC 1-23 0.042
ECC * 0-7 0
32 NEC 0-25 0

Move the bottom ~10% down to Division II.

(10-28-2018 02:41 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Move the bottom ~10% down to Division II.

Division II is pretty crowded. I think it makes sense to move the top to a new Division-make it Division "A" so that the remaining Division I doesn't feel inferior. Maybe a few of the Division II move into a new Division I with less stringent requirements.

There are about 100 more schools in Division I than there were in the mid-80s.

Let me begin by saying I have been known to be wrong before but what follows is how I tentatively see things playing out.

In whatever follows the current version of the NCAAs, I see 12-13 conferences dropping or downgraded or whatever terminology one wants to use that will impact between 110-125 institutions. A few of those individual institutions might find safe haven within one of those conferences that remain, but I see approximately a third of the current division 1 men's institutions going away. I take no pleasure in saying this. It is just the reality as I see it of how college athletics have gone since I developed a passion for it in the late 70s and early 80s.

The P5 (or whatever it is to become) will not simply let a pot of money that will bring in slightly over $1 billion annually starting in 2024? (another reason why middle of next decade is likely to be critical). They (meaning the P5 or whatever it is to become) especially will not want to put all of their eggs into college football with the trend toward 4 hour+ games, reduced physical attendance at games, constant reviews, threat of concussions, etc. And the only other sport that makes real $$$ at the college level is men's basketball which on the pro level is enjoying a rise in popularity that may or may not come to college basketball. Again, it is what it is.

As a Syracuse fan some might think I am biased toward college basketball but the truth is I have always been a slightly bigger college football fan, but just haven't had much to personally root for this century.

My love for college football was lit during the 1980s with the eastern independents (SU, Miami, PSU, Pitt, BC, WVU, FSU because of their rivalry with Miami and ND - being Irish Catholic myself). And it was the rapid rise of Big East basketball that elevated my interest in that sport the same decade.

Anyway, enough about me. Tell me about what I indicated above. Do you see it happening? why? why not?

Cheers,
Neil

(10-28-2018 06:04 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Let me begin by saying I have been known to be wrong before but what follows is how I tentatively see things playing out.

In whatever follows the current version of the NCAAs, I see 12-13 conferences dropping or downgraded or whatever terminology one wants to use that will impact between 110-125 institutions. A few of those individual institutions might find safe haven within one of those conferences that remain, but I see approximately a third of the current division 1 men's institutions going away. I take no pleasure in saying this. It is just the reality as I see it of how college athletics have gone since I developed a passion for it in the late 70s and early 80s.

The P5 (or whatever it is to become) will not simply let a pot of money that will bring in slightly over $1 billion annually starting in 2024? (another reason why middle of next decade is likely to be critical). They (meaning the P5 or whatever it is to become) especially will not want to put all of their eggs into college football with the trend toward 4 hour+ games, reduced physical attendance at games, constant reviews, threat of concussions, etc. And the only other sport that makes real $$$ at the college level is men's basketball which on the pro level is enjoying a rise in popularity that may or may not come to college basketball. Again, it is what it is.

As a Syracuse fan some might think I am biased toward college basketball but the truth is I have always been a slightly bigger college football fan, but just haven't had much to personally root for this century.

My love for college football was lit during the 1980s with the eastern independents (SU, Miami, PSU, Pitt, BC, WVU, FSU because of their rivalry with Miami and ND - being Irish Catholic myself). And it was the rapid rise of Big East basketball that elevated my interest in that sport the same decade.

Anyway, enough about me. Tell me about what I indicated above. Do you see it happening? why? why not?

Cheers,
Neil

I don't see the power teams continuing to leave that money on the table. Everybody knows there are about 100 schools who add no value. They are just leeches jumping into the big time to get the publicity. The basketball money allows them to continue to overspend on college athletics. Without the basketball money, they would be at a more manageable level.

The big school presidents are risk averse. But the NCAA is starting to become an embarrassing albatross. I think they try for another decade to drive up the cost of being in Division I to drive some of the schools out. When that doesn't work, I think they figure out a way to split, either within the NCAA or outside of it. And they probably don't split with 18-20 conferences, but more like a dozen or so.

how much money does bottom 100 really get
i don't think power schools would notice difference to thier bottom lines
i'd be wary how this effects NCAA tourn, maybe NIT with crazy upsets
less buy games, sch would be stronger, less wins
which would effect atten & donations & maybe conf networks

(10-28-2018 08:38 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  how much money does bottom 100 really get
i don't think power schools would notice difference to thier bottom lines
i'd be wary how this effects NCAA tourn, maybe NIT with crazy upsets
less buy games, sch would be stronger, less wins
which would effect atten & donations & maybe conf networks

True. But I also don't see the new organization, whatever it is sponsoring championships in as many sports as the NCAA does now. If Pay for Play indeed comes, I think the new organization will only focus on a handful of sports - football, men's and women's basketball, baseball, softball, hockey, men's and women's soccer and a couple of more.

All the rest might wind up being "club" sports if a school wants to keep them going.

As for the basketball concerns, conferences with more than 10 are moving (or will likely move) toward 20 conference game seasons anyway as a result of their networks, so schedules are already getting stronger with the P5 and since less wins won't necessarily result in not making the championship tourney at the end not sure donor $$$ for basketball will be greatly affected by the changes that are upcoming as it is. And there will still be some "buy" games each year (home ticket revenues), like in football, the number of them will just be less which is going to happen next year in the ACC anyway.

Again, just my thoughts. Could definitely be wrong about all of it.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-28-2018 08:38 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  how much money does bottom 100 really get
i don't think power schools would notice difference to thier bottom lines
i'd be wary how this effects NCAA tourn, maybe NIT with crazy upsets
less buy games, sch would be stronger, less wins
which would effect atten & donations & maybe conf networks

They get a decent amount. But the big $$s are what the NCAA skims off the top. With a smaller top group, they define what happens with the money the NCAA has been grabbing.

I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

if NCAA skimming of the top & bureaucracy is the promblem
cutting 100 schools doesn't solve the promblem
cutting sports, u need 100 scholarships for title 9
we already got girls who never been in a boat getting free rides now [rowing]

(10-29-2018 03:07 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  if NCAA skimming of the top & bureaucracy is the promblem
cutting 100 schools doesn't solve the promblem
cutting sports, u need 100 scholarships for title 9
we already got girls who never been in a boat getting free rides now [rowing]

The answer to rowing is to cut football. Realistically, there are a lot of schools that should think about that. Especially the smaller privates. Basketball has worked fine for schools like Gonzaga and those in the Big East.

That or look into beach volleyball maybe.

(10-29-2018 12:30 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  That or look into beach volleyball maybe.

Rowing has teams of 20-30. Beach volleyball is a half dozen. Equestrian also has big squads. So that is why a number of schools do women's rowing or equestrian-to keep up their Title IX ratios.

Templefootballfan, do female Temple athletes like to horse ride???

I believe in things making sense. No matter where you draw a line, there is always going to be a bottom 10% that sucks.

Consider the criteria for Division I. In the Division overall you must sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in at least 14 sports (note Pioneer football schools generally offer at least 15 sports, or at least did, so they don't have to count football toward the 15), play around 60% to 75% of your contests vs other Division I, depending on the sport.

Now when you say Division I what comes to mind for most people is not Alabama A&M or Pepperdine but Alabama and USC. What is the criteria for FBS? Play 16 sports, award 90% of the allowed football rides, 200 total rides, play at least 5 (42%) of football games at home.

If we want to align our criteria, then maybe something more like this:
Sponsor 16 sports.
Award 90% of the allowed aid in each of the sports sponsored.
Play 40% of team sport contests at home.

I don't think we ought to expect Utah Valley State to award 200 rides but they should be awarding at or close to the limits in the sports they sponsor and men's and women's basketball, baseball, men's and women's soccer, and volleyball ought to be on campus 40% of the time that they play, not counting their conference tournament. They have track and field so they probably do indoor and outdoor and are already at 16.

(10-28-2018 06:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 02:41 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Move the bottom ~10% down to Division II.

Division II is pretty crowded. I think it makes sense to move the top to a new Division-make it Division "A" so that the remaining Division I doesn't feel inferior...

Call the new top division...

DIVISION by ZERO

$1/0 = infinite dollars!

NO? How about...

JOY DIVISION*

???

* Love will tear us apart again...

(10-28-2018 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

I don't know. Maybe a lot of the bureaucracy does go away, which would be a good thing, but I think the grants stay, and Division I stays intact. No superleague forms.

(10-28-2018 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

To borrow a line from Frank.

Think like a university president.

A lot of that NCAA overhead is to pay for side items like research and outreach etc that the presidents like and they know if that money flows into the athletic department it will go to facilities and salaries, if it stays with the NCAA it can fund their interests.

Don't assume that the presidents that matter dislike how the NCAA uses the money that is generated via the value of their athletic departments.

(11-01-2018 08:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

To borrow a line from Frank.

Think like a university president.

A lot of that NCAA overhead is to pay for side items like research and outreach etc that the presidents like and they know if that money flows into the athletic department it will go to facilities and salaries, if it stays with the NCAA it can fund their interests.

Don't assume that the presidents that matter dislike how the NCAA uses the money that is generated via the value of their athletic departments.

But the people who generate it don't get it.

(11-01-2018 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the deal is that Div. III and Div. II continue to get the organization structure funded. So does the left behind Division I. But a lot of the bureaucracy and grants go away. And they probably do drop subsidizing championships on sports with less than a certain number of schools and reduce the amount of subsidy so the lower divisions have to decide how big a championship they want.

Division II and III probably go along. But if they don't, the top group forms its own organization and the rest have nothing.

To borrow a line from Frank.

Think like a university president.

A lot of that NCAA overhead is to pay for side items like research and outreach etc that the presidents like and they know if that money flows into the athletic department it will go to facilities and salaries, if it stays with the NCAA it can fund their interests.

Don't assume that the presidents that matter dislike how the NCAA uses the money that is generated via the value of their athletic departments.

But the people who generate it don't get it.

That's not really an argument that sways most college Presidents. The majority (not all, but a clear majority) of them are commies at heart.