(05-23-2020 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 01:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

We've heard that hogwash forever, but the truth is the closer you get to the final 4 the better the viewing. Gambling and office pools made the first round relevant, not the schools in the bracket. And none of that will change except fewer blowouts in those rounds and probably more upsets. I think that drives the ratings well enough.

Yeah, its hogwash. The P5 cover nearly the entire country. The tourney was huge with 250 schools. You could drop the bottom 100 schools and the change in viewership would be positive. You wouldn't have drastic mismatches in the first round. Even fans aren't particularly interested in Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. beating a school seeded #16 that nobody has ever heard of by 20, 30, 40 or 50 points.

NCSU was a huge underdog that generated a lot of interest in '83. Underdogs are relative. Dropping the bottom 250 schools would have a negligible impact.

I agree about cutting the bottom 100-150.... but there are people talking about cutting this down to fewer than 80 schools (P5+ND+Big East). That's just insane--- people on this forum might not value the Cincinnati's, Memphis', and Gonzaga's of the world- but those schools have better basketball tradition, have more of a fan following, put more $ into their hoops budget than a lot of the schools that would be in the protected caste.

(05-23-2020 01:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Very likely the break away group could also negotiate a much larger contract. So the take for the schools will be even greater, definitely double what it is now, maybe triple.

I don't think the P5 (and also the Big East if coming too) would really want to do away with the credit system per se. A big part of being in the conference is distribution sharing. They don't want to go to a Texas and the little-8 setup. Maybe some more incentive for the individual schools, but the baseline take will raise for everyone in the tournament or not.

Its amazing how often in sports people repeat total nonsense. The Big 12 now has equal revenue sharing. The Big 12 had more equal revenue sharing in 2010 than the Big East or Pac 12. The gap in revenue from top to bottom was typically $8 to $12 million. In the Big East and Pac 12, the gap could be 300%. USC was literally making 3 times the amount from the conference that Washington St. was. And the revenue was performance based. So Kansas and Oklahoma sometimes lead the conference in revenue.

Its also pretty hypocritical for a Big 10 fan from the conference that steals teams from other conferences but doesn't want to share revenue with the rest of the P5 to criticize that model. And it is a conference that has a bigger buy-in than probably any conference in history. Rutgers making $30 million less than the legacy schools? Nebraska paying in well over $50 million? Nebraska is $50 million behind where they would have been if they simply stayed in the Big 12. The SEC gave Missouri and Texas A&M equal revenue sharing from the start. The Pac 12 had a buy in for Utah, but not as drastic as the Big 10.

(05-23-2020 02:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 01:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

We've heard that hogwash forever, but the truth is the closer you get to the final 4 the better the viewing. Gambling and office pools made the first round relevant, not the schools in the bracket. And none of that will change except fewer blowouts in those rounds and probably more upsets. I think that drives the ratings well enough.

Yeah, its hogwash. The P5 cover nearly the entire country. The tourney was huge with 250 schools. You could drop the bottom 100 schools and the change in viewership would be positive. You wouldn't have drastic mismatches in the first round. Even fans aren't particularly interested in Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. beating a school seeded #16 that nobody has ever heard of by 20, 30, 40 or 50 points.

NCSU was a huge underdog that generated a lot of interest in '83. Underdogs are relative. Dropping the bottom 250 schools would have a negligible impact.

I agree about cutting the bottom 100-150.... but there are people talking about cutting this down to fewer than 80 schools (P5+ND+Big East). That's just insane--- people on this forum might not value the Cincinnati's, Memphis', and Gonzaga's of the world- but those schools have better basketball tradition, have more of a fan following, put more $ into their hoops budget than a lot of the schools that would be in the protected caste.

I agree that there is value in the next 50 or so after the P5. And while the P5 would lead a breakaway, I doubt they would limit themselves to just that.

(05-23-2020 02:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  I agree that there is value in the next 50 or so after the P5. And while the P5 would lead a breakaway, I doubt they would limit themselves to just that.

The breakaway is about changing the method that teams are selected, and teams are compensated, for participating in a postseason tournament. I used a P6 as a theoretical so I could calculate the relative financial advantage of changing the status quo.

Regardless, any team or conference could be included in the breakaway. But only participants in the tournament keep the proceeds from the tournament. The tournament isn’t a funding tool for broader social engineering. Selection to participate would likely be more merit based. In order to promote the regular season, the tournament could actually be a more selective 32 to 40 team affair. Has a 9th seed or higher ever won?

(05-23-2020 02:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 01:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

We've heard that hogwash forever, but the truth is the closer you get to the final 4 the better the viewing. Gambling and office pools made the first round relevant, not the schools in the bracket. And none of that will change except fewer blowouts in those rounds and probably more upsets. I think that drives the ratings well enough.

Yeah, its hogwash. The P5 cover nearly the entire country. The tourney was huge with 250 schools. You could drop the bottom 100 schools and the change in viewership would be positive. You wouldn't have drastic mismatches in the first round. Even fans aren't particularly interested in Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. beating a school seeded #16 that nobody has ever heard of by 20, 30, 40 or 50 points.

NCSU was a huge underdog that generated a lot of interest in '83. Underdogs are relative. Dropping the bottom 250 schools would have a negligible impact.

I agree about cutting the bottom 100-150.... but there are people talking about cutting this down to fewer than 80 schools (P5+ND+Big East). That's just insane--- people on this forum might not value the Cincinnati's, Memphis', and Gonzaga's of the world- but those schools have better basketball tradition, have more of a fan following, put more $ into their hoops budget than a lot of the schools that would be in the protected caste.

I agree that there is value in the next 50 or so after the P5. And while the P5 would lead a breakaway, I doubt they would limit themselves to just that.

Insane. If you limit it to 60 or under the payouts would be in the 110 to 120 million range per school. Add the next 50 and we are right back where we are, maybe less. What makes it lucrative is the networks don't have to deal with top programs scheduling outside of their classification. That's why they are willing to pay the premium. Now with hoops the Big East includes some of the top programs and a conference of carefully picked West Coast basketball only schools would fit in fine as well. But these programs don't have football and so don't detract from the value of the football contracts. The networks want an all P schedule so that every game has value. Now if we decide to have a preseason game instead of Spring games and have it in late August against a local G5 or FCS program that would probably be fine because that becomes bonus coverage of an actual game instead of a scrimmage. I think the nets would be fine with that. But once the season kicks off they really don't want Bowling Green at Florida and Kent State at Michigan.

The P5+BE structure change is simply taking their ball and going home. They stage a 24-48 team tournament with ZERO auto bids. Sure, Gonzaga could get an invite without being in a “Power” conference, no one would exclude them and the attention they bring. This thread is more about “maximizing” tournament revenue, not cutting the bottom 100 or 250 teams. Another tourney (NIT, NCAA?) can still be held with 1 rep from each conference, it just won’t be the premier post-season tourney.

I think a healthy cut off would be about the top 125 schools or so.

The P5
Big East
AAC
MWC
a few select other programs across the country, to be absorbed the those 3 non-P5 conferences.

I think you take the P5 football and then offer the Big East and AAC basketball. Don't really know if that's feasible but if the P5 makes the rules I guess it would be. The group really doesn't need any football outside the P5. The real question is what to do with elite A10 and WCC basketball schools. You don't want to take an entire conference to get Gonzaga or VCU, for example. Maybe offer MW basketball with the stipulation they take Gonzaga and do the same for BE and AAC saying they take Dayton, VCU, etc.

The elites will eventually break away. The NCAA will eventually reach a point that it is no longer useful enough to justify the extreme basketball skim. The only question is will it be 1 year, 5 years or twenty and who gets to go along for the ride.

Possibly the 2021 Tournament should be the transition year for the breakaway. The P6 breakaway is could allow their conference tournament champions to continue to participate in the NCAA sponsored tournament this year, but require up to 5 or 6 of the best teams per conference to play in their Power Invitational Championship. The NCAA selection committee could still select at-large teams from the P6...but many teams desired by the NCAA would have prior commitments.

For example, using KenPom 2020 rankings in March 2020 as a proxy for next year’s selection of post season tournaments:

BIG to NCAA: MSU (likely conf champ) plus a bunch of at large selections (PSU, Minn, Rutgers, Illini and IN)
BIG to PIC: OSU, UMD, MI, WI, IA and Purdue
ACC to NCAA: Duke (as champ), plus likely at large (Georgia Tech and Clemson)
ACC to PIC: Louisville, FSU, UVA, NCSt, Syracuse and Notre Dame)

The P6 could sell their media rights to the Power Invitational Championship to ESPN and Fox in order to better determine whether there is an appetite for a breakaway. The American would likely seek to have teams in the PIC...paving the way for broadening the breakaway.

This could be a financial bonanza in the midst of a pandemic.

(05-23-2020 05:04 PM)Crayton Wrote:  The P5+BE structure change is simply taking their ball and going home. They stage a 24-48 team tournament with ZERO auto bids. Sure, Gonzaga could get an invite without being in a “Power” conference, no one would exclude them and the attention they bring. This thread is more about “maximizing” tournament revenue, not cutting the bottom 100 or 250 teams. Another tourney (NIT, NCAA?) can still be held with 1 rep from each conference, it just won’t be the premier post-season tourney.

March madness is valued at $1 Billion, this tourney your describing is worth maybe $300 million. all your doing is saying a big **** you to about 75% of your most valued demographic, College educated sports fans. I go to the tourney every time its hosted in Albany or Buffalo. Even have made the Dayton games a few years back. You tell me my Alma mater isn't allowed, I wont even watch that **** on TV. And a lot of college ball fans would feel the same way.

(05-23-2020 03:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 01:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We've heard that hogwash forever, but the truth is the closer you get to the final 4 the better the viewing. Gambling and office pools made the first round relevant, not the schools in the bracket. And none of that will change except fewer blowouts in those rounds and probably more upsets. I think that drives the ratings well enough.

Yeah, its hogwash. The P5 cover nearly the entire country. The tourney was huge with 250 schools. You could drop the bottom 100 schools and the change in viewership would be positive. You wouldn't have drastic mismatches in the first round. Even fans aren't particularly interested in Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. beating a school seeded #16 that nobody has ever heard of by 20, 30, 40 or 50 points.

NCSU was a huge underdog that generated a lot of interest in '83. Underdogs are relative. Dropping the bottom 250 schools would have a negligible impact.

I agree about cutting the bottom 100-150.... but there are people talking about cutting this down to fewer than 80 schools (P5+ND+Big East). That's just insane--- people on this forum might not value the Cincinnati's, Memphis', and Gonzaga's of the world- but those schools have better basketball tradition, have more of a fan following, put more $ into their hoops budget than a lot of the schools that would be in the protected caste.

I agree that there is value in the next 50 or so after the P5. And while the P5 would lead a breakaway, I doubt they would limit themselves to just that.

Insane. If you limit it to 60 or under the payouts would be in the 110 to 120 million range per school. Add the next 50 and we are right back where we are, maybe less. What makes it lucrative is the networks don't have to deal with top programs scheduling outside of their classification. That's why they are willing to pay the premium. Now with hoops the Big East includes some of the top programs and a conference of carefully picked West Coast basketball only schools would fit in fine as well. But these programs don't have football and so don't detract from the value of the football contracts. The networks want an all P schedule so that every game has value. Now if we decide to have a preseason game instead of Spring games and have it in late August against a local G5 or FCS program that would probably be fine because that becomes bonus coverage of an actual game instead of a scrimmage. I think the nets would be fine with that. But once the season kicks off they really don't want Bowling Green at Florida and Kent State at Michigan.

If Division I simply cut the NCAA's take which gets spread to other sports, other divisions, bureaucracy, academic awards, etc., that would massively increase everyone's take even if all 350 stayed in Division I.

100-150 and its a massive increase for the P5. Since the allocation will be based on units and distributed annually instead of over 6 years, it will be a big increase for the P5.

(05-25-2020 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 03:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Yeah, its hogwash. The P5 cover nearly the entire country. The tourney was huge with 250 schools. You could drop the bottom 100 schools and the change in viewership would be positive. You wouldn't have drastic mismatches in the first round. Even fans aren't particularly interested in Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. beating a school seeded #16 that nobody has ever heard of by 20, 30, 40 or 50 points.

NCSU was a huge underdog that generated a lot of interest in '83. Underdogs are relative. Dropping the bottom 250 schools would have a negligible impact.

I agree about cutting the bottom 100-150.... but there are people talking about cutting this down to fewer than 80 schools (P5+ND+Big East). That's just insane--- people on this forum might not value the Cincinnati's, Memphis', and Gonzaga's of the world- but those schools have better basketball tradition, have more of a fan following, put more $ into their hoops budget than a lot of the schools that would be in the protected caste.

I agree that there is value in the next 50 or so after the P5. And while the P5 would lead a breakaway, I doubt they would limit themselves to just that.

Insane. If you limit it to 60 or under the payouts would be in the 110 to 120 million range per school. Add the next 50 and we are right back where we are, maybe less. What makes it lucrative is the networks don't have to deal with top programs scheduling outside of their classification. That's why they are willing to pay the premium. Now with hoops the Big East includes some of the top programs and a conference of carefully picked West Coast basketball only schools would fit in fine as well. But these programs don't have football and so don't detract from the value of the football contracts. The networks want an all P schedule so that every game has value. Now if we decide to have a preseason game instead of Spring games and have it in late August against a local G5 or FCS program that would probably be fine because that becomes bonus coverage of an actual game instead of a scrimmage. I think the nets would be fine with that. But once the season kicks off they really don't want Bowling Green at Florida and Kent State at Michigan.

If Division I simply cut the NCAA's take which gets spread to other sports, other divisions, bureaucracy, academic awards, etc., that would massively increase everyone's take even if all 350 stayed in Division I.

100-150 and its a massive increase for the P5. Since the allocation will be based on units and distributed annually instead of over 6 years, it will be a big increase for the P5.

To maximize a breakaway the P5 need to limit the football participants. The revenue for this kind of move has been discussed and the limits were on about 48 schools stretching it to 60 would be workable and still profitable. More than that ant the networks aren't getting the content they want.

With basketball the P football conferences could stand to have a couple of Basketball only conferences added to the mix. It won't hurt football revenue and enhances basketball revenue. The Big East is a no brainer and that's why I said we could probably create a 2nd conference for basketball only and focus more middle of the country to West.

100 football schools is too many, let alone 150.

For those who want to just weed out 100-150 schools from DI how do you go about determining who stays and who goes?

(05-25-2020 02:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For those who want to just weed out 100-150 schools from DI how do you go about determining who stays and who goes?

It's football schools we are weeding out and it's easy as can be. If you are subsidized more than 25% you are out. If you have subsidies less than 20% you are in. Hint, only 1 school in the P5 would fail, Rutgers, and that won't be the case when they get their first full share of Big 10 money next season. And only 1 G5 program would be in, B.Y.U.. There's your dividing line and it's pretty solid.

If you are extending beyond the P5 and Big East, it would have to be on a school by school basis. For Football $19m budget is roughly the line for "power" level. For Men's Basketball $6m budget would be a good line.

Only Oregon State ($17,323,268 #72) of the P5 falls below that.

Wake Forest ($19,360,660 #69) is the line

P5 above that line:
Colorado State ( $21,696,561 #56)
UCF ($21,610,325 #57)
Temple ($21,066,698 #60)
SMU ($20,465,957 #63)
BYU ($19,435,229 #68)

None are far above the line, none even crack the top 50

The next one up is Fresno State ($17,870,018 #70), but as you can see there is a gap to the power line. Memphis is just below Fresno State and then the size of budgets start to fall another couple million.

Basketball has three high major level funded schools:
Gonzaga ($14,723,219 #8)
Dayton ($14,201,764 #9)
Memphis ($11,859,500 #16)

There are a bunch in what I'd call the transition zone, but above the $6M major level:
Wichita State ($7,513,193 #65)
Southern Methodist ($7,497,541 #66)
Brigham Young ($7,468,917 #67)
Cincinnati ($7,465,979 #68)
Saint Louis ($6,876,215 #72)
Temple ($6,533,015 #76)
Colorado State ($6,334,144 #80) *
San Diego State ($6,207,228 #83)
Loyola-Chicago ($6,194,444 #84) *
VCU ($6,148,859 #85)

* Colorado State and LUC have attendance numbers far below major level, and NET rankings lower; LUC is probably a one time fluke for extra expenses with their Tournament run.

There is quite a range here. The first four, while only ahead of 15 major programs, are pretty solidly above the threshold. The bottom four or five not much above it - annual fluctuations put put them above or below in any given year. You could add Tulsa, UNLV and Rhode Island who are just below that line as well.

Washington State is way below the major line in Basketball. Oklahoma State is ever so barely above, Butler and Oregon State are close but below the line (again annual fluctuations could put any of these above or below).

-----------------------------------------

To JRsec's point, it's hard to see how you could collect a Western group with consistent metric criteria out of the non-major schools.
Gonzaga, Dayton, Memphis for sure you could make a case; Wichita State, SMU, BYU and Cincy more in the depth category, but have the numbers to justify; but for any of Temple, Colorado State, SDSU, VCU, Tulsa, UNLV, URI you stretching the definition. Excepting Gonzaga, Dayton and Memphis, I'd categorize the others as High Mid-Majors, which frankly many "Majors" really are in basketball (i.e., Oregon State, Butler, Cal, Stanford, Seton Hall, Oklahoma State, BC, Mississippi State, DePaul, Penn State, Rutgers, Iowa State). These types of programs provide depth.

The question I have is how do you set up a mechanism to accept additional schools? They'd definitely have to be Independents until enough of them are in to form a conference. And how do you build them a schedule?

Bottom line, you really don't need any of them. But to be frank, I think they might take a few in football independents over Basketball because scheduling for Notre Dame and possibly UConn will be difficult with a couple more Independents. BYU, while not wanted as a member is important for P12 scheduling as well. Would a few AAC and MWC schools be looked at as possible Independents? Or is that a can of worms?

Basketball I think you just have to accept that the P5 is the P5, Gonzaga is out.

The bigger question is, with this split will the recruiting of top players completely dry up for those Mid-Majors? And will the NCAA Tournament be compelling (I think possibly)?

72 Max.

(05-25-2020 04:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  72 Max.

If they can't afford to play without subsidies we don't need them and they can't afford the move up as it indicates the lack of support from their alumni bases.

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

Agreed. Maybe not 90%, but the value of the tourney is in the "Everyone has a shot" format.

If the P6 did try a power move breakaway, it will be the end of college athletics.

(05-25-2020 03:58 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  If you are extending beyond the P5 and Big East, it would have to be on a school by school basis. For Football $19m budget is roughly the line for "power" level. For Men's Basketball $6m budget would be a good line.

Only Oregon State ($17,323,268 #72) of the P5 falls below that.

Wake Forest ($19,360,660 #69) is the line

P5 above that line:
Colorado State ( $21,696,561 #56)
UCF ($21,610,325 #57)
Temple ($21,066,698 #60)
SMU ($20,465,957 #63)
BYU ($19,435,229 #68)

None are far above the line, none even crack the top 50

The next one up is Fresno State ($17,870,018 #70), but as you can see there is a gap to the power line. Memphis is just below Fresno State and then the size of budgets start to fall another couple million.

Basketball has three high major level funded schools:
Gonzaga ($14,723,219 #8)
Dayton ($14,201,764 #9)
Memphis ($11,859,500 #16)

There are a bunch in what I'd call the transition zone, but above the $6M major level:
Wichita State ($7,513,193 #65)
Southern Methodist ($7,497,541 #66)
Brigham Young ($7,468,917 #67)
Cincinnati ($7,465,979 #68)
Saint Louis ($6,876,215 #72)
Temple ($6,533,015 #76)
Colorado State ($6,334,144 #80) *
San Diego State ($6,207,228 #83)
Loyola-Chicago ($6,194,444 #84) *
VCU ($6,148,859 #85)

* Colorado State and LUC have attendance numbers far below major level, and NET rankings lower; LUC is probably a one time fluke for extra expenses with their Tournament run.

There is quite a range here. The first four, while only ahead of 15 major programs, are pretty solidly above the threshold. The bottom four or five not much above it - annual fluctuations put put them above or below in any given year. You could add Tulsa, UNLV and Rhode Island who are just below that line as well.

Washington State is way below the major line in Basketball. Oklahoma State is ever so barely above, Butler and Oregon State are close but below the line (again annual fluctuations could put any of these above or below).

-----------------------------------------

To JRsec's point, it's hard to see how you could collect a Western group with consistent metric criteria out of the non-major schools.
Gonzaga, Dayton, Memphis for sure you could make a case; Wichita State, SMU, BYU and Cincy more in the depth category, but have the numbers to justify; but for any of Temple, Colorado State, SDSU, VCU, Tulsa, UNLV, URI you stretching the definition. Excepting Gonzaga, Dayton and Memphis, I'd categorize the others as High Mid-Majors, which frankly many "Majors" really are in basketball (i.e., Oregon State, Butler, Cal, Stanford, Seton Hall, Oklahoma State, BC, Mississippi State, DePaul, Penn State, Rutgers, Iowa State). These types of programs provide depth.

The question I have is how do you set up a mechanism to accept additional schools? They'd definitely have to be Independents until enough of them are in to form a conference. And how do you build them a schedule?

Bottom line, you really don't need any of them. But to be frank, I think they might take a few in football independents over Basketball because scheduling for Notre Dame and possibly UConn will be difficult with a couple more Independents. BYU, while not wanted as a member is important for P12 scheduling as well. Would a few AAC and MWC schools be looked at as possible Independents? Or is that a can of worms?

Basketball I think you just have to accept that the P5 is the P5, Gonzaga is out.

The bigger question is, with this split will the recruiting of top players completely dry up for those Mid-Majors? And will the NCAA Tournament be compelling (I think possibly)?

A sustained minimum basketball budget amount would be a good and objective criteria for joining the Power 6. Had no idea that Gonzaga, Dayton and Memphis were investing so much on basketball...makes sense given their following and performance.

Also, as a long-time Philly resident...happy to see Temple is finally investing in the two major sports. Temple historically had an awkward, Rutgers-like, aversion to promoting major sports. I believe that the move to the AAC has helped to better align the university administrators and the athletic department.

(05-25-2020 04:30 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

Agreed. Maybe not 90%, but the value of the tourney is in the "Everyone has a shot" format.

If the P6 did try a power move breakaway, it will be the end of college athletics.

Nah. The bottom 22 conferences have over 250 members, less than 10% get in and only 1 in 10 of those 20 win a game in the round of 64. So 248 of the bottom 250 are gone by the Friday. The ratings go up on the weekend, and go up more as they whittle down to the big boys.

College Sports wont die anymore than any other sport died when sanctioning bodies changed. That doesn't matter. It just means a bunch of FBS schools will be the equivalent of I-AA by remaining outside the "Premier League". Schools at the very top of G5 will have to evaluate whether to continue to spend money or give up on making the jump. It will be more focused.

What I do think it could bring an end to is the high deficit athletics, as many schools will decide they wont cross that bridge in the next 30 to 50 years, so they'll scale back.

There are 10-12 schools I think will still try.