First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

Second. UAB was permitted to walk away from football for two years and resume without reclassifying. It’s possible some schools may find sitting out in their best interest because of local restrictions, because enrollment has plummeted, or financially not playing makes better sense for them than playing w/o a crowd.

The semi-relevant. The NCAA rule requiring an invite from an existing league was suspect under anti-trust. The NCAA waiting period for auto bids for new leagues is also suspect because it is designed to discourage aligning into consumer friendly or preferred competition groups. Similarly the BCS dismissed newly formed Sun Belt from participating in revenue sharing because it wasn’t a signatory. The dollar’s at stake were less than attorney’s fees for quality anti-trust representation. That’s not true of the CFP. Those inclined get pencils and crayons out to make your perfect realignment maps absent actual news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Do away the FBS/FCS for now and allow waivers for D2 schools that are large enough to help D1 schools out to recover could help. Like, you can't travel from one state to another without the fear of spreading more viruses around. Central Oklahoma playing D1 football against Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Tulsa would be an idea as a D2 school that could help.

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

It can also be a time where schools take a closer look at the latitude and restrictions of government, excluding the NCAA, and to make an assessment of their continued relationship with the NCAA, especially in light of the right to image decision and also the likelihood of the acceptance by the courts of some kind of pay for play. It seems to me that an entirely different governance structure will be required for institutions that opt to go down the pay for play path.

(04-11-2020 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

It can also be a time where schools take a closer look at the latitude and restrictions of government, excluding the NCAA, and to make an assessment of their continued relationship with the NCAA, especially in light of the right to image decision and also the likelihood of the acceptance by the courts of some kind of pay for play. It seems to me that an entirely different governance structure will be required for institutions that opt to go down the pay for play path.

Roughly 10 years ago I was involved in a white paper outlining alternatives. The tepid option was very similar to what we got with autonomy.

Section I worked on was a stock equity structure. Worked up two proposals one was conference based and one school based. Some economic professor had calculated relative values the ACC B10 B12 BE, P10, SEC were valued at right at 80%. The remaining 20% was spread over around 120 schools.

If I had been betting I would have put my money on an unbalanced voting system that would give each AQ added votes to such a degree that a majority of AQ would be a majority vote.

(04-11-2020 04:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

It can also be a time where schools take a closer look at the latitude and restrictions of government, excluding the NCAA, and to make an assessment of their continued relationship with the NCAA, especially in light of the right to image decision and also the likelihood of the acceptance by the courts of some kind of pay for play. It seems to me that an entirely different governance structure will be required for institutions that opt to go down the pay for play path.

Roughly 10 years ago I was involved in a white paper outlining alternatives. The tepid option was very similar to what we got with autonomy.

Section I worked on was a stock equity structure. Worked up two proposals one was conference based and one school based. Some economic professor had calculated relative values the ACC B10 B12 BE, P10, SEC were valued at right at 80%. The remaining 20% was spread over around 120 schools.

If I had been betting I would have put my money on an unbalanced voting system that would give each AQ added votes to such a degree that a majority of AQ would be a majority vote.

That might have helped, but I think now the very nature of the game relative to the organizing principles of the NCAA is changing in ways that necessitate other governance.

(04-11-2020 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 04:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

It can also be a time where schools take a closer look at the latitude and restrictions of government, excluding the NCAA, and to make an assessment of their continued relationship with the NCAA, especially in light of the right to image decision and also the likelihood of the acceptance by the courts of some kind of pay for play. It seems to me that an entirely different governance structure will be required for institutions that opt to go down the pay for play path.

Roughly 10 years ago I was involved in a white paper outlining alternatives. The tepid option was very similar to what we got with autonomy.

Section I worked on was a stock equity structure. Worked up two proposals one was conference based and one school based. Some economic professor had calculated relative values the ACC B10 B12 BE, P10, SEC were valued at right at 80%. The remaining 20% was spread over around 120 schools.

If I had been betting I would have put my money on an unbalanced voting system that would give each AQ added votes to such a degree that a majority of AQ would be a majority vote.

That might have helped, but I think now the very nature of the game relative to the organizing principles of the NCAA is changing in ways that necessitate other governance.

IMO, what's pulling at the NCAA as a single organization is the sheer amount of money flowing into the most popular aspects of football and basketball.

One result being that athletic departments with $100 million or more in real revenue are competing in the same sports in the same division with athletic departments that spend one-third that much or less and are 50 to 90 percent funded by university funds and student fees, with the further result that, for example, Alabama has more people on their payroll working exclusively on football than most D-I universities have on their entire athletic department payroll.

Things like NIL rights for athletes are a minor impact compared to the athletic department revenue disparities.

(04-11-2020 05:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 04:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

It can also be a time where schools take a closer look at the latitude and restrictions of government, excluding the NCAA, and to make an assessment of their continued relationship with the NCAA, especially in light of the right to image decision and also the likelihood of the acceptance by the courts of some kind of pay for play. It seems to me that an entirely different governance structure will be required for institutions that opt to go down the pay for play path.

Roughly 10 years ago I was involved in a white paper outlining alternatives. The tepid option was very similar to what we got with autonomy.

Section I worked on was a stock equity structure. Worked up two proposals one was conference based and one school based. Some economic professor had calculated relative values the ACC B10 B12 BE, P10, SEC were valued at right at 80%. The remaining 20% was spread over around 120 schools.

If I had been betting I would have put my money on an unbalanced voting system that would give each AQ added votes to such a degree that a majority of AQ would be a majority vote.

That might have helped, but I think now the very nature of the game relative to the organizing principles of the NCAA is changing in ways that necessitate other governance.

IMO, what's pulling at the NCAA as a single organization is the sheer amount of money flowing into the most popular aspects of football and basketball.

One result being that athletic departments with $100 million or more in real revenue are competing in the same sports in the same division with athletic departments that spend one-third that much or less and are 50 to 90 percent funded by university funds and student fees, with the further result that, for example, Alabama has more people on their payroll working exclusively on football than most D-I universities have on their entire athletic department payroll.

Things like NIL rights for athletes are a minor impact compared to the athletic department revenue disparities.

Different organ, same organism of which I speak. There is a big difference between the SEC and Big 10 and PAC and ACC in revenue but an even more enormous difference between the bottom of the ACC and PAC and Conference USA and the Sunbelt. I think it possible that the AAC and MWC could combine to form a respectable lower rung of the upper division, but below those 2 MAC included with the SB and USA the disparity is simply too large to justify inclusion in the same structure.

(04-11-2020 05:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 05:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 04:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It can also be a time where schools take a closer look at the latitude and restrictions of government, excluding the NCAA, and to make an assessment of their continued relationship with the NCAA, especially in light of the right to image decision and also the likelihood of the acceptance by the courts of some kind of pay for play. It seems to me that an entirely different governance structure will be required for institutions that opt to go down the pay for play path.

Roughly 10 years ago I was involved in a white paper outlining alternatives. The tepid option was very similar to what we got with autonomy.

Section I worked on was a stock equity structure. Worked up two proposals one was conference based and one school based. Some economic professor had calculated relative values the ACC B10 B12 BE, P10, SEC were valued at right at 80%. The remaining 20% was spread over around 120 schools.

If I had been betting I would have put my money on an unbalanced voting system that would give each AQ added votes to such a degree that a majority of AQ would be a majority vote.

That might have helped, but I think now the very nature of the game relative to the organizing principles of the NCAA is changing in ways that necessitate other governance.

IMO, what's pulling at the NCAA as a single organization is the sheer amount of money flowing into the most popular aspects of football and basketball.

One result being that athletic departments with $100 million or more in real revenue are competing in the same sports in the same division with athletic departments that spend one-third that much or less and are 50 to 90 percent funded by university funds and student fees, with the further result that, for example, Alabama has more people on their payroll working exclusively on football than most D-I universities have on their entire athletic department payroll.

Things like NIL rights for athletes are a minor impact compared to the athletic department revenue disparities.

Different organ, same organism of which I speak. There is a big difference between the SEC and Big 10 and PAC and ACC in revenue but an even more enormous difference between the bottom of the ACC and PAC and Conference USA and the Sunbelt. I think it possible that the AAC and MWC could combine to form a respectable lower rung of the upper division, but below those 2 MAC included with the SB and USA the disparity is simply too large to justify inclusion in the same structure.

Right, there is a huge disparity even at the lower revenue end of the P5. Washington State has a budget of about $65 million and a subsidy of about $5 million (all figures here are per USA Today), so they have $60 million/year in real revenue. Compare that to the MAC program with the largest budget, Buffalo, which has a $41 million budget but $31 million of that is subsidy, so they have only $10 million/year in real revenue. That's a $50 million difference in annual real revenue between the lowest budget in P5 and the highest budget in the MAC.

(04-11-2020 10:31 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Do away the FBS/FCS for now and allow waivers for D2 schools that are large enough to help D1 schools out to recover could help. Like, you can't travel from one state to another without the fear of spreading more viruses around. Central Oklahoma playing D1 football against Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Tulsa would be an idea as a D2 school that could help.

What a great idea!

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

The power conferences might want to limit NCAA exceptions in order to force that to happen. Most likely they don't, but it is a possibility.

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

Yes this is a perfect time for money losing programs to close down their athletics. But schools cling to football like barnacles.

(04-11-2020 09:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

Yes this is a perfect time for money losing programs to close down their athletics. But schools cling to football like barnacles.

There will never be a better time for college ADs to demonstrate their value added. They will never have better cover to make controversial decisions. If they’re not already lobbying the NCAA to relax/change regulations inhibiting conference reorganizations they arguably ought to be in a different line of work. They have no justification to ask donors and students to subsidize conference footprints that were becoming unsustainable before the pandemic and are indisputably so going forward.

(04-11-2020 09:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

Yes this is a perfect time for money losing programs to close down their athletics. But schools cling to football like barnacles.

There are around 775 college football programs and roughly 30 or so spend less than they earn. That’s a lot of colleges believing football has value.

(04-14-2020 09:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

Yes this is a perfect time for money losing programs to close down their athletics. But schools cling to football like barnacles.

There are around 775 college football programs and roughly 30 or so spend less than they earn. That’s a lot of colleges believing football has value.

That statement among the P5 is meaningless. A lot of programs run a zero sum budget for a variety of reasons among which are to keep donors motivated, to make sure they can ask for budget increases, to purposefully not show a profit, etc.

(04-14-2020 09:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First. When New Orleans was devastated the NCAA permitted Tulane and UNO to fall below the minimum sports sponsorship levels. Many if not most schools facing football without fans in attendance will need to consider dropping sports for a time to cut costs.

I think we can predict that given the extraordinary shocks caused by this virus situation that many normal NCAA regulations will be suspended for a time to allow schools to recover.

Will still have to comply with federal requirements, though.

Agreed that D-I athletic programs will likely be given a grace period that might be as long as three or four years, during which they could suspend D-I participation altogether or sponsor fewer than the required number of sports and later return to full D-I membership (like UAB football) without jumping through further hoops.

Colleges that are barely scraping by in D-I athletics and subsidizing the vast majority of their athletic budget ought to use the current economic calamity to take a realistic look at whether they should even be in D-I, but I don't expect that will occur.

Yes this is a perfect time for money losing programs to close down their athletics. But schools cling to football like barnacles.

There are around 775 college football programs and roughly 30 or so spend less than they earn. That’s a lot of colleges believing football has value.

It has value - for administrators and the bureaucracy. The numbers tell us that football is a big money loser at most places. Just how it is.