(01-02-2021 07:39 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 07:00 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I keep laughing at the Anti-Trust talk. If the conferences break away, where is the anti-trust. The P5 learned from the BCS how to manage to avoid anti-trust. Remember the NCAA just bought the NIT, that is what the CFP basically did. Breaking away crushes more of the small D1 schools that depend on the NCAA Tournament. If a group of schools want to form a conference and the networks are willing to pay, then there is no anti-trust. The NCAA and G5 stay intact. If they can't compete, why is that the P5's fault? To me, the P5 makes more money by no longer having to create a welfare net for the other schools. NCAA will beg them to stay, the are closer to telling the G5 to walk. The problem 4 of the 5 conferences will take more money to keep afloat.

The anti-trust issue are certainly real, and not imaginary, but you're completely missing the point if you think that slipping out of anti-trust difficulties is all there is to it.

Much more importantly, ESPN and the other major networks would have little or no incentive to support a breakaway by the P5 conferences. Quite the contrary, they might have a much stronger incentive to maintain the status quo.

As things already stand, the major networks have started to alter the ratio of P5 to G5 games that they air, in the direction of the non-P5 teams. This has been due, in part, to the fact that the P5 conferences have been able to negotiate such extremely large payments that the major networks have been forced to limit the number of games that they will obtain the rights to broadcast.

This has given the major networks a strong incentive to broadcast a mixture of P5 and non-P5 games, and for this reason, they have been strengthening their broadcasting partnerships with the G5 conferences and putting more effort into promoting games between non-P5 teams, as a way to generate a comparable amount of revenue by offsetting their inability to cover all of the P5 games and expanding the number of non-P5 games that they broadcast.

It's the financial incentives, not the legal matters, that will keep the non-P5s in the picture, and these financial incentives may one day become the great equalizer between the P5s and the non-P5s.

The anti-trust issue is in relation to paying players, not the G5 or FCS.

(01-02-2021 07:00 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I keep laughing at the Anti-Trust talk. If the conferences break away, where is the anti-trust.

Yes, to me the only way a P5 breakaway could result in anti-trust would be if the P5 broke away and then tried to use their leverage to stymie the G5, like asking TV networks not to sign deals with the G5 and the like. But the P5 would be stupid to do that.

Usually, "restraint of trade" involves efforts to *keep* organizations in a particular fold, like if an industry forms a cartel and threatens those who want to exit. A P5 exit would be the opposite of that. Heck, in 1984 the federal courts endorsed the CFA's attempt to exit the NCAA television contracts, and rebuked the NCAA's attempt to keep them under the NCAA contract umbrella as a restraint of trade.

So I do not see any kind of anti-trust path for the G5 to stop the P5 from separating. Then again, since the P5 gained "autonomy" I don't think the P5 have any desire to separate from the G5, so I think discussing it as we are is an academic exercise.

who cares about all this anti trust crap!, we g5ers just need to paint BLM on all their “ autonomous “ fields and we will be just fine on our own

The P5 is mostly reluctant to form a new organization to do all the things the NCAA does. They just don't want to take on the headache of writing rules and enforcing them and negotiating with the justice department, etc.

But if the money is large enough and the NCAA not compliant enough, then they will break away. But we are not there yet.

More likely they would want to grow their autonomy and become "Division 4" with much stronger gatekeeping to keep most of the D-I schools out.

The easiest way to get there would be to somewhat lower the minimums for D-I and FBS, then let that settle for a few years to maximize the gulf between the halves and the have nots. Then introduce D-IV with much stricter rules and minimums too high for all but the P5 to reach, and a handful of aspiring G5 and upper Mid-Major schools. And then install themselves as the gatekeepers, to restrict new applicants.

This keeps the umbrella of the NCAA, and their bureaucracy, which the P5 do not want to do themselves, while reducing dramatically the number of schools in the top tier to spread the wealth around to.

Also games against the lower division as OOC would continue, and count as part of the W-L record.

(01-08-2021 03:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P5 is mostly reluctant to form a new organization to do all the things the NCAA does. They just don't want to take on the headache of writing rules and enforcing them and negotiating with the justice department, etc.

Yes, many act as if the NCAA is just this purely parasitic entity. But truth is, it is a creation of the schools to perform functions they deem necessary, and if the P5 leave the NCAA they will have to create a new organization to perform those functions.

As you say, that is a headache, so they would much rather not do that. They will if they have to, but they don't want to. IMO, with autonomy, it is unlikely they will feel they have to any time soon. I know many think wresting control over March Madness revenue is incentive enough to do so, but I disagree.

(01-08-2021 05:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P5 is mostly reluctant to form a new organization to do all the things the NCAA does. They just don't want to take on the headache of writing rules and enforcing them and negotiating with the justice department, etc.

Yes, many act as if the NCAA is just this purely parasitic entity. But truth is, it is a creation of the schools to perform functions they deem necessary, and if the P5 leave the NCAA they will have to create a new organization to perform those functions.

As you say, that is a headache, so they would much rather not do that. They will if they have to, but they don't want to. IMO, with autonomy, it is unlikely they will feel they have to any time soon. I know many think wresting control over March Madness revenue is incentive enough to do so, but I disagree.

Just no!!! A breakaway could hire an independent rules enforcement entity, unify the officiating of the current P5 thereby standardizing how certain calls should be made, and contract out the scheduling, and do it all for much less than the NCAA currently sucks out of them. What the presidents don't want is he hassle of having to organize their own.

The truth is they don't have to. So this argument that they are wanted and needed is a red herring plain and simple. Simply adopt current NCAA recruitment regulations and game rules and amend them to suit the consensus of AD's in the new upper division. Contract out the enforcement as noted above, give AD's the final approval of the scheduling outsourcing and you have it covered.

It's not rocket science, and nothing with the NCAA has ever needed to be as truly as difficult as they make it.

(01-08-2021 03:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P5 is mostly reluctant to form a new organization to do all the things the NCAA does. They just don't want to take on the headache of writing rules and enforcing them and negotiating with the justice department, etc.

But if the money is large enough and the NCAA not compliant enough, then they will break away. But we are not there yet.

More likely they would want to grow their autonomy and become "Division 4" with much stronger gatekeeping to keep most of the D-I schools out.

The easiest way to get there would be to somewhat lower the minimums for D-I and FBS, then let that settle for a few years to maximize the gulf between the halves and the have nots. Then introduce D-IV with much stricter rules and minimums too high for all but the P5 to reach, and a handful of aspiring G5 and upper Mid-Major schools. And then install themselves as the gatekeepers, to restrict new applicants.

This keeps the umbrella of the NCAA, and their bureaucracy, which the P5 do not want to do themselves, while reducing dramatically the number of schools in the top tier to spread the wealth around to.

Also games against the lower division as OOC would continue, and count as part of the W-L record.

Yup you really think the P5 want to deal with organizing gymnastic meets or volleyball tournaments.

That’s the NCAAs function to regulate and govern 90 percent of the sports that no one wants to deal with.

Basketball is their payment.

(01-08-2021 06:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P5 is mostly reluctant to form a new organization to do all the things the NCAA does. They just don't want to take on the headache of writing rules and enforcing them and negotiating with the justice department, etc.

But if the money is large enough and the NCAA not compliant enough, then they will break away. But we are not there yet.

More likely they would want to grow their autonomy and become "Division 4" with much stronger gatekeeping to keep most of the D-I schools out.

The easiest way to get there would be to somewhat lower the minimums for D-I and FBS, then let that settle for a few years to maximize the gulf between the halves and the have nots. Then introduce D-IV with much stricter rules and minimums too high for all but the P5 to reach, and a handful of aspiring G5 and upper Mid-Major schools. And then install themselves as the gatekeepers, to restrict new applicants.

This keeps the umbrella of the NCAA, and their bureaucracy, which the P5 do not want to do themselves, while reducing dramatically the number of schools in the top tier to spread the wealth around to.

Also games against the lower division as OOC would continue, and count as part of the W-L record.

Yup you really think the P5 want to deal with organizing gymnastic meets or volleyball tournaments.

Well, the P5 each have a conference office that does that for their conference tournaments in those sports. State high school athletic associations manage to do it. It's not this huge challenge that only the NCAA has the expertise to handle.

Quote:That’s the NCAAs function to regulate and govern 90 percent of the sports that no one wants to deal with.

Basketball is their payment.

It's not so much the NCAA that is providing the service to the P5, as the small schools. The small schools provide opponents, so that 2/3 of the P5 (and Big East) can have glittery winning records, and NCAA tournament interest through Cinderellas.

If the P5 separate they will only take ND with them. The AAC may be top tier G5 but it’s still G5. Only way they are brought up is if Big XII decides to go back to 12 members and only those 2 schools will be invited up. The real question is what do the G5 do in regards to FCS teams and conferences that want to come up? I mean most will see it as a FCS 2.0 and nothing more. So that sucks.

I think a P5 breakaway is very unlikely and, as others have noted, it’s really about basketball and the other sports more than football. The political issues aren’t so much about Congress at the federal level, but rather the state and local level. (The University of Texas System Board of Trustees does have a fiduciary duty to its non-Austin campuses, for instance. You can replicate that among a lot of other state university systems.)

That being said, I always thought the OP’s argument about worse records for teams in a P5 breakaway was one of the weakest ones. Fans would ultimately adjust their mental definition of a “good season” in that scenario. Look at the NFL with my Bears at 8-8 and a losing Washington team in the playoffs: it would be less about the record in and of itself and more about what it takes for playoff qualification (as the main benefit of a P5 breakaway would likely be a much more structured and objective playoff system that isn’t based as much on subjective style points and padded records from playing non-conference cupcakes).

(01-08-2021 05:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P5 is mostly reluctant to form a new organization to do all the things the NCAA does. They just don't want to take on the headache of writing rules and enforcing them and negotiating with the justice department, etc.

Yes, many act as if the NCAA is just this purely parasitic entity. But truth is, it is a creation of the schools to perform functions they deem necessary, and if the P5 leave the NCAA they will have to create a new organization to perform those functions.

...I know many think wresting control over March Madness revenue is incentive enough to do so, but I disagree.

1. I agree with you that the NCAA was created for and by the schools, and for that reason they are hesitant to break away from it completely; I do think the P5 will push for a stronger division between themselves and others, with stricter gatekeeping as well. Letting Liberty join the P5 ranks without a conference invitation was a "last straw" event, IMO - even if they are allowed to remain at this level, the fact that they did it shows that there essentially is no lock on the gate!

2. It isn't necessary for the P5 to break away from the NCAA in order to gain control of the basketball revenue. All they really need is to change the financial model - let each school pay dues to the NCAA, and pay out ALL of the basketball tournament revenue to the schools (i.e. separate the NCAA from the tournament revenues). Once that happens, it's just a matter of negotiating who gets how much...

(01-11-2021 12:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 05:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P5 is mostly reluctant to form a new organization to do all the things the NCAA does. They just don't want to take on the headache of writing rules and enforcing them and negotiating with the justice department, etc.

Yes, many act as if the NCAA is just this purely parasitic entity. But truth is, it is a creation of the schools to perform functions they deem necessary, and if the P5 leave the NCAA they will have to create a new organization to perform those functions.

...I know many think wresting control over March Madness revenue is incentive enough to do so, but I disagree.

1. I agree with you that the NCAA was created for and by the schools, and for that reason they are hesitant to break away from it completely; I do think the P5 will push for a stronger division between themselves and others, with stricter gatekeeping as well. Letting Liberty join the P5 ranks without a conference invitation was a "last straw" event, IMO - even if they are allowed to remain at this level, the fact that they did it shows that there essentially is no lock on the gate!

2. It isn't necessary for the P5 to break away from the NCAA in order to gain control of the basketball revenue. All they really need is to change the financial model - let each school pay dues to the NCAA, and pay out ALL of the basketball tournament revenue to the schools (i.e. separate the NCAA from the tournament revenues). Once that happens, it's just a matter of negotiating who gets how much...

If teams really wanted to break away individual teams could just form a coalition and go up. Imagine an eastern-based conference that has like UF, UGA, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Auburn, Penn State, and FSU and what they could generate financially. Others could form a western version and you're looking at a P2 and everyone else then. East v West champion for the CFP. It would generate $$$$$ because having a conference where USC plays Texas, OU, and LSU yearly and where Clemson, Bama, tOSU, play yearly as conference games would generate wildly large fan interest from those fan bases more than Bama/Ark does, or OU and KU does, or Clemson and WF does.

I think it's less of the P5 separating vs major brands leaving and forming some form of coalition for football only while leaving other sports the same. Who knows, maybe that would be better for CFP. FCS, FBS, and like an 18 team super league called FPS (Football Playoff Series) so that way FBS could still have a solid group to play for an FBS national championship that would bring new teams into the fold and create larger engagement OR maybe it wouldn't and would be erased after a season or two.

(01-02-2021 07:00 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I keep laughing at the Anti-Trust talk. If the conferences break away, where is the anti-trust. The P5 learned from the BCS how to manage to avoid anti-trust. Remember the NCAA just bought the NIT, that is what the CFP basically did. Breaking away crushes more of the small D1 schools that depend on the NCAA Tournament. If a group of schools want to form a conference and the networks are willing to pay, then there is no anti-trust. The NCAA and G5 stay intact. If they can't compete, why is that the P5's fault? To me, the P5 makes more money by no longer having to create a welfare net for the other schools. NCAA will beg them to stay, the are closer to telling the G5 to walk. The problem 4 of the 5 conferences will take more money to keep afloat.

Two things. The fact they bought the NIT would tend to indicate the NCAA realized there was an anti-trust issue. Secondly, the CFP didnt buy the G5. They paid the G5 to agree to a system that did appear on its surface to have a path to the playoff for the G5. However, the way the CFP has been managed makes it clear there is no legitimate path to the playoff. Im not sure the NCAA/NIT situation is the same. Im nost so sure this current CFP strategy will offer any long term anti-trust protection to the CFP.

Its another reason I suspect the 5-1-2 is coming. Look, there is no doubt the P5 holds the upper hand and will continue to dictate the terms---but I also suspect they recognize they will need to create a legit path if they want to stay protected. Frankly, given that the 65 G5 fanbases--which probably make up at least a third of the hard core college football audience---- are losing interest in the CFP---there is a reasonable and compelling economic reason to expand the CFP to include a legit path to the playoff for those 65 teams. My belief is one doesnt need to rely on the anti-trust angle as the only reason for a G5 path to the playoff should be created. I think its more basic than that. I think its simply in the long term economic interests of the CFP to create that G5 path because it expands the circle of interest.

NCAA wouldn't exist without revenue from the basketball tournament. The basketball tournament is essentially the payment to the NCAA to deal with all the other stuff. And the tourney credits payment to the smaller schools for creating media inventory.

The P5 in itself mainly holds power in football and basketball. Many of the conferences are actually pretty weak in a lot of the non-revenue sports, some not even having them like hockey, lacrosse, ect. It would be impossible for P5 to hold a national tournaments for many sports without inviting many outsiders.

While we as mainly football/basketball fan don't care, admins from many of these universities do care as they tout it as a major part of the Student QOL.

(01-11-2021 01:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Two things. The fact they bought the NIT would tend to indicate the NCAA realized there was an anti-trust issue. Secondly, the CFP didnt buy the G5. They paid the G5 to agree to a system that did appear on its surface to have a path to a New Years Six bowl for the G5. However, the way the CFP has been managed makes it clear there is no legitimate path to the playoff.

Who EVER told you that the G5 would have a path to the playoff when the CFP was created?

Quote:Im not sure the NCAA/NIT situation is the same. Im nost so sure this current CFP strategy will offer any long term anti-trust protection to the CFP.

Its another reason I suspect the 5-1-2 is coming. Look, there is no doubt the P5 holds the upper hand and will continue to dictate the terms---but I also suspect they recognize they will need to create a legit path if they want to stay protected.

I agree, but just because public-relations-wise isn't going to be an unnecessary argument to justify why a non-top-8 PAC or ACC or Big XII champ gets a playoff spot and an undefeated G5 never, ever does. The G5 gets a spot every year (and the No.1 team a much easier game) so that the P5 get guaranteed spots for their champs.

Quote:Frankly, given that the 65 G5 fanbases--which probably make up at least a third of the hard core college football audience----

Unsupported assertion

Quote:are losing interest in the CFP---

Unsupported assertion

Quote:there is a reasonable and compelling economic reason to expand the CFP to include a legit path to the playoff for those 65 teams. My belief is one doesnt need to rely on the anti-trust angle as the only reason for a G5 path to the playoff should be created. I think its more basic than that. I think its simply in the long term economic interests of the CFP to create that G5 path because it expands the circle of interest.

That's not entirely wrong.

(01-02-2021 07:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:26 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:01 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i think the G5 will realize soon that they don’t need the autonomous conferences and set about playing real football playoffs

My opinion is a little different. I think to prevent antitrust issues with Congress and keep interest and performance at adequate levels nationwide you would need to include a solid chunk of the G5. At the very least, the MWC and AAC would need to be in tow.

The G5 and P5 may soon be in same boat. Granted, the P5 will be in first class state rooms and the G5 will be below decks in steerage---but NIL laws, court ordered increases in FCOA, and even court mandated (or legislated) full on free agency are still possible at the FBS level. Its very possible that if the economics of competitive player bidding become the law of the land for building college rosters---that may mean the NCAA is largely no longer needed by the group of schools that opt to field teams in the major revenue producing sports.

It is in place at all levels. The next step would be paying high school players to mow your lawn and shovel your driveway

FIFY David

Seriously I think a new league should have about 80-90 teams. Those that do not make the cut form a Super FCS with the best of the FCS. They can play games against the larger P5/6/7/8/9 for paychecks.