Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
Author Message
BePcr07 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,200
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 10:26 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  This PowerPoint looks like it was put together by a high schooler.

I thought the same thing. Says a lot and nothing at all at the same time
10-13-2020 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,189
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 100
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 08:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 08:14 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea. Splitting off FBS (ie---basically a split off of P5 football from the NCAA that includes the G5) was atrractive to only 23% of the P5.

I look at it this way...only 25% say they're likely to agree and 36% "somewhat likely". Most P5s also don't seem to think this will create savings or fix problems in DI governance.

And they want to keep the DI basketball tournament together? Well, you're not doing that and having the split.

Well it was 77-12. A5 are 19% of Division I. I can't imagine more than a handful of non A5 wanting to split. So odds are A5 was about 2/3 in favor of not keeping bb tourney together.

Yup. A full split seems to be more popular with the P5 than I expected. The P5 usually gets what it wants so---if this data is correct---it's probably going to happen---and it appears the overwhelming majority of the NCAA membership thinks now is a great time to make big changes.

Well, if it does happen, it might well end up biting the P5 in the @$$.

American sports fans like having more, not fewer viewing options. That's why the football AFL and basketball ABA were so successful that the NFL and NBA felt compelled to incorporate them, so that they wouldn't have to compete against them for viewers.

Separating could turn the non P5 D1 teams into a boutique market, which is precisely what the P5 conferences should be trying to avoid.
(This post was last modified: 10-13-2020 11:48 PM by jedclampett.)
10-13-2020 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,914
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 01:41 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-cont...320-01.pdf

Appears that most are not happy with the status quo for a variety of reasons. Most leaders support breaking off FBS football from the rest of Division I under their own form of governance.

Note that those who are unhappy with the status quo have more incentive to respond, so with the relatively low response rates, there is likely to be selection bias problem:

Role / Total (N) / Response Rate
Presidents / 69 / 20%
Athletics Directors (ADs) / 106 / 30%
Conference Commissioner / 21 / 66%
Faculty Athletics Representative (FARs) / 90 / 25%
Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) / 66 19%
Student athlete representatives from NCAA SAAC / 10 /
25%
10-14-2020 12:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,047
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1609
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 10:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 02:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Re-NCAA Tournament and CFP revenue distribution models:

"Analysis by competitive classification reveals that only the A5 respondents have high levels of satisfaction with both revenue distribution models."

Which is why quo and many others have said the March Madness breakaway is merely a figment of people's imaginations. The A5 like the current set-up.


Re-Keeping all current Division 1 schools in the same basketball tournament is essential:
77% Agree
12% Disagree


Straight from the horses' mouths.

Strategy. They realize that a successful breakaway of football is the first priority. Therefore they will not express a desire to do the same for basketball until the football separation is a fete accompli. Then you will hear their true desire to maximize the revenue streams of the schools in question by having a similar breakaway in hoops, only with some basketball only conferences that operate at the highest level.

AD's play poker all the time with Donors and Presidents and Coaches. Commissioners do it with Presidents and Networks. They all know you accomplish much more over a period of time by taking your objectives one at the time and in a sequence of priority. And don't ever forget it!

And for the record very few trust the Knght Commission. Commissioners had the highest participation rate. Everyone else was between 25% and 33%. There is the data of how seriously you should take this.

A5 was opposed to football only. They, were, however, strongly in favor of the option of everything breaking away with the exception of basketball.

That was kind of surprising. I guess they figure they can monetize the other sports better and the other schools add zero to value. Obviously, there are some good non A5 baseball programs, but the value is probably exactly the same with or without them.
10-14-2020 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 35,917
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1065
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #25
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea. Splitting off FBS (ie---basically a split off of P5 football from the NCAA that includes the G5) was atrractive to only 23% of the P5.

Yes, it's clear that the A5 regards the G5 as kind of a drag, they do not regard the G5 as really belonging in the "same league".

I have to admit that I must give credit to Aresco on this. For years now, since back when the A5 got that "autonomy" in the NCAA, Aresco has expressed concern about a A5 split from the G5, and he has been keen to lay groundwork so as to ensure that the AAC "get taken along" if that happens. He seems to understand an underlying pulse among the conferences that I didn't, as I have long believed that the A5 does not want a full football split from the G5, as they like having the G5 around to play games against.

That said, as BruceMF notes above, the low response rate, particularly among university presidents (20%), the ones who actually call these shots, means the results have to be taken with a sizable grain of salt.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2020 01:19 PM by quo vadis.)
10-14-2020 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,004
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 656
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
Here’s an ESPN article summarizing the responses with some commentary and quotes from participants. Another interesting find is the majority of the respondents are in favor of anti-trust exemptions to curtail escalating costs (ie. coaching salary cap).

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...caa-sports
10-14-2020 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scoochpooch1 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 374
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 23
I Root For: P4
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 11:36 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 08:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 08:14 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea. Splitting off FBS (ie---basically a split off of P5 football from the NCAA that includes the G5) was atrractive to only 23% of the P5.

I look at it this way...only 25% say they're likely to agree and 36% "somewhat likely". Most P5s also don't seem to think this will create savings or fix problems in DI governance.

And they want to keep the DI basketball tournament together? Well, you're not doing that and having the split.

Well it was 77-12. A5 are 19% of Division I. I can't imagine more than a handful of non A5 wanting to split. So odds are A5 was about 2/3 in favor of not keeping bb tourney together.

Yup. A full split seems to be more popular with the P5 than I expected. The P5 usually gets what it wants so---if this data is correct---it's probably going to happen---and it appears the overwhelming majority of the NCAA membership thinks now is a great time to make big changes.

Well, if it does happen, it might well end up biting the P5 in the @$$.

American sports fans like having more, not fewer viewing options. That's why the football AFL and basketball ABA were so successful that the NFL and NBA felt compelled to incorporate them, so that they wouldn't have to compete against them for viewers.

Separating could turn the non P5 D1 teams into a boutique market, which is precisely what the P5 conferences should be trying to avoid.

Uh, sorta.
The NFL and NBA had 16 teams when they expanded. Not 65 CFB teams. Personally, I like when leagues have a tighter team count as we know that MLB, NBA and NHL should all cut around 5-10 teams to enhance the product.
Like it or not, the G5 is obviously a minor league (not all teams but most). Having 65-80 teams in big boy CFB is much better than the current 130 teams or David's imaginary 7,000 team D1.
10-14-2020 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,407
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 520
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #28
Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
7000 in one conference division...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
10-14-2020 12:58 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 17,027
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 751
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #29
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea.

Think like a G5 athletic director who is trying to make ends meet and who would love to get away from the FBS subdivision requirements for minimum number of varsity sports and minimum number of athletic scholarships.

If G5 schools are free from the current FBS requirements, those schools can get together with FCS and no-football D1 schools to make new rules that permit them to drastically cut down on scholarships and sports. Some of them might want to go so far as to have only football and men's hoops, plus just enough women's sports to balance out athletic scholarship numbers. For no-football schools, even fewer sports would be needed.

Maybe 26% of G5 athletic directors are thinking that if they can get significant cost relief while still getting some March Madness revenue, then that long-term financial benefit outweighs being able to say they play football in the same division as Ohio State and Alabama.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2020 01:29 PM by Wedge.)
10-14-2020 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,407
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 520
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #30
Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
This is all fake news. Everyone is upset in the A5 until they get their distribution check.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
10-14-2020 01:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,107
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 190
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #31
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 01:41 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-cont...320-01.pdf

Appears that most are not happy with the status quo for a variety of reasons. Most leaders support breaking off FBS football from the rest of Division I under their own form of governance.

The Knight Commission can eat a dong. What was the purpose of surveying other than planting a seed to instigate. Of course they would prefer less teams to compete against. I imagine if you asked the bigger 4 if they would like the PAC12 to be out of the running for the playoff, over half would be in favor of that because they wouldn't be asking the PAC12.

Bunch of crap trying to segregate FBS football. They already say we don't have enough P5 teams on our schedules to be considered for the playoff. Then I hear fools on the radio saying the P5 should only play P5.

At that point, it's like reverse Jackie Robinson. They can go back to saying "You're a great football team, but you don't play on the same level. You couldn't compete if you played us."

The more and more P5 teams that lose to G5 teams, the louder this BS is going to get.
10-14-2020 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 33,224
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1662
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea.

Think like a G5 athletic director who is trying to make ends meet and who would love to get away from the FBS subdivision requirements for minimum number of varsity sports and minimum number of athletic scholarships.

If G5 schools are free from the current FBS requirements, those schools can get together with FCS and no-football D1 schools to make new rules that permit them to drastically cut down on scholarships and sports. Some of them might want to go so far as to have only football and men's hoops, plus just enough women's sports to balance out athletic scholarship numbers. For no-football schools, even fewer sports would be needed.

Maybe 26% of G5 athletic directors are thinking that if they can get significant cost relief while still getting some March Madness revenue, then that long-term financial benefit outweighs being able to say they play football in the same division as Ohio State and Alabama.

That would leave about 40 G5 teams trying to put together a division. Some FCS schools might want to move up and join them---but they might be happy just staying where they are when an influx of 20 or so former FBS schools drop down. Could potentially leave the remaining 40 or so G5's in a fairly untenable position.
10-15-2020 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 35,917
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1065
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #33
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea.

Think like a G5 athletic director who is trying to make ends meet and who would love to get away from the FBS subdivision requirements for minimum number of varsity sports and minimum number of athletic scholarships.

If G5 schools are free from the current FBS requirements, those schools can get together with FCS and no-football D1 schools to make new rules that permit them to drastically cut down on scholarships and sports.

I'm not sure about this. The *only* reason to be G5 these days is if you have a plan to become P5. It may, and likely is, a highly unrealistic plan, but given the enormous annual deficits that have to be run to be "in the same league" with Alabama and USC on about 1/3 of the budget, it is the only justification. You view those $25 million a year subsidies as an "investment" towards the day when you too get the call-up, and can celebrate that it was All Worth It.

If the AD of a G5 school is really tired of that endless sped-up treadmill and wants off, there's always FCS, which costs about $10 million a year less in subsidies to do.
10-15-2020 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,407
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 520
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #34
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-15-2020 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea.

Think like a G5 athletic director who is trying to make ends meet and who would love to get away from the FBS subdivision requirements for minimum number of varsity sports and minimum number of athletic scholarships.

If G5 schools are free from the current FBS requirements, those schools can get together with FCS and no-football D1 schools to make new rules that permit them to drastically cut down on scholarships and sports.

I'm not sure about this. The *only* reason to be G5 these days is if you have a plan to become P5. It may, and likely is, a highly unrealistic plan, but given the enormous annual deficits that have to be run to be "in the same league" with Alabama and USC on about 1/3 of the budget, it is the only justification. You view those $25 million a year subsidies as an "investment" towards the day when you too get the call-up, and can celebrate that it was All Worth It.

If the AD of a G5 school is really tired of that endless sped-up treadmill and wants off, there's always FCS, which costs about $10 million a year less in subsidies to do.
The reason you sponsor FBS football is as marketing for the University. The difference in visibility from FCS to even the G5 is enormous. Almost nobody who moved to FBS since 2010 was looking for a P5 invite.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
10-15-2020 06:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 35,917
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1065
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #35
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-15-2020 06:16 PM)panama Wrote:  
(10-15-2020 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea.

Think like a G5 athletic director who is trying to make ends meet and who would love to get away from the FBS subdivision requirements for minimum number of varsity sports and minimum number of athletic scholarships.

If G5 schools are free from the current FBS requirements, those schools can get together with FCS and no-football D1 schools to make new rules that permit them to drastically cut down on scholarships and sports.

I'm not sure about this. The *only* reason to be G5 these days is if you have a plan to become P5. It may, and likely is, a highly unrealistic plan, but given the enormous annual deficits that have to be run to be "in the same league" with Alabama and USC on about 1/3 of the budget, it is the only justification. You view those $25 million a year subsidies as an "investment" towards the day when you too get the call-up, and can celebrate that it was All Worth It.

If the AD of a G5 school is really tired of that endless sped-up treadmill and wants off, there's always FCS, which costs about $10 million a year less in subsidies to do.

The reason you sponsor FBS football is as marketing for the University. The difference in visibility from FCS to even the G5 is enormous.

That's not a rational reason, as there's zero evidence that it pays off in any discernible way. If that's the model, then you are in effect charging your students $25 million or so per year to pay for highly indirect advertising for the university. That's comical on its face.

A good example is UCF. Last year, they spent about $900,000 on advertising for the university - running ads of various kinds to promote the university. That's direct advertising with a focused message to attract students. Why on earth would they spend more than 25x (the subsidy for athletics) on a method that has no proven results and that is extremely indirect and unfocused?

Makes zero sense, so that's probably not why they are doing it.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2020 08:38 PM by quo vadis.)
10-15-2020 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,047
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1609
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-15-2020 05:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea.

Think like a G5 athletic director who is trying to make ends meet and who would love to get away from the FBS subdivision requirements for minimum number of varsity sports and minimum number of athletic scholarships.

If G5 schools are free from the current FBS requirements, those schools can get together with FCS and no-football D1 schools to make new rules that permit them to drastically cut down on scholarships and sports. Some of them might want to go so far as to have only football and men's hoops, plus just enough women's sports to balance out athletic scholarship numbers. For no-football schools, even fewer sports would be needed.

Maybe 26% of G5 athletic directors are thinking that if they can get significant cost relief while still getting some March Madness revenue, then that long-term financial benefit outweighs being able to say they play football in the same division as Ohio State and Alabama.

That would leave about 40 G5 teams trying to put together a division. Some FCS schools might want to move up and join them---but they might be happy just staying where they are when an influx of 20 or so former FBS schools drop down. Could potentially leave the remaining 40 or so G5's in a fairly untenable position.

I think the result is that those 40 G5 teams would be FCS.
10-15-2020 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,405
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #37
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-13-2020 02:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Re-Keeping all current Division 1 schools in the same basketball tournament is essential:
77% Agree
12% Disagree


Straight from the horses' mouths.

It was the A5 which had the most support for that opinion.

What are they afraid of if they go it alone in basketball?
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2020 10:21 PM by Kit-Cat.)
10-15-2020 10:20 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 33,224
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1662
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-15-2020 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-15-2020 05:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  A new A5 division that would do everything but men's and women's basketball separately:
non football 33-56
FCS 26-56
G5 26-57
A5 61-15

Support in the A5 is actually higher than I expected for an "A5 ONLY split off". Frankly, Im shocked 26% of the G5 thinks being separated from the P5 is a winning idea.

Think like a G5 athletic director who is trying to make ends meet and who would love to get away from the FBS subdivision requirements for minimum number of varsity sports and minimum number of athletic scholarships.

If G5 schools are free from the current FBS requirements, those schools can get together with FCS and no-football D1 schools to make new rules that permit them to drastically cut down on scholarships and sports. Some of them might want to go so far as to have only football and men's hoops, plus just enough women's sports to balance out athletic scholarship numbers. For no-football schools, even fewer sports would be needed.

Maybe 26% of G5 athletic directors are thinking that if they can get significant cost relief while still getting some March Madness revenue, then that long-term financial benefit outweighs being able to say they play football in the same division as Ohio State and Alabama.

That would leave about 40 G5 teams trying to put together a division. Some FCS schools might want to move up and join them---but they might be happy just staying where they are when an influx of 20 or so former FBS schools drop down. Could potentially leave the remaining 40 or so G5's in a fairly untenable position.

I think the result is that those 40 G5 teams would be FCS.

The negative financial implication for G5 schools with significant stadium debt could be catastrophic. SDSU and Colorado St are two that already have well over 200 million invested in a stadium. Houston has around 60 million in football stadium debt---and there would be zero demand for tickets as part of a FCS league. TSU and Houston Baptist generally attract around 3-5K a game. A G5 team can attract some interest in a pro-football town---but its already an uphill climb. FCS competition would represent a death sentence. There's simply no way to attract any interest what so ever as an FCS team in a major market.

G5 football programs in a city like Houston might have to try to navigate a path to independence in the P5 division or die. FCS isnt viable. A handful of G5's might be able to lobby their way into a P5 breakaway division as indy schools along with Army, Navy, Air Force, Notre Dame, and BYU. That would be their only shot at survival.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2020 10:46 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-15-2020 10:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,047
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1609
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-15-2020 10:20 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 02:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Re-Keeping all current Division 1 schools in the same basketball tournament is essential:
77% Agree
12% Disagree


Straight from the horses' mouths.

It was the A5 which had the most support for that opinion.

What are they afraid of if they go it alone in basketball?

What is your source for that? I didn't see anything in the powerpoint breaking down that particular vote by group.
10-16-2020 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,957
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 457
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #40
RE: Knight Commission: Division I Reconfiguration
(10-15-2020 10:20 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(10-13-2020 02:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Re-Keeping all current Division 1 schools in the same basketball tournament is essential:
77% Agree
12% Disagree


Straight from the horses' mouths.

It was the A5 which had the most support for that opinion.

What are they afraid of if they go it alone in basketball?

Would ratings go down without Cinderellas??

Do they want to find out??
10-18-2020 08:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.