(02-08-2022 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, I think this money distribution would run counter to what the P5 want. As others have noted, school administrators do not like 'variable' income flows. They like guaranteed money. The PAC collects that huge $60m CFP check, and a $40m Rose Bowl check most years as well, even if they don't place anyone in the playoffs. That's how the big conferences want it. So IMO, if anything, we are likely to see a revamp of the NCAA tournament distributions in a direction less oriented towards merit - making the tournament - and more towards guaranteed money for the P5..

The way I see it, you're making my point for me. The way it is now, the bulk of the NCAA's money comes from the existing Big Dance. They they use that money for all sorts of things, including financing D2 and D3, compliance, marketing, etc. It doesn't all flow to the school's athletic departments. If all that Big Dance money were flowing only to the participants, there would be a substantial increase to them. And yes, it could be constructed so that money came to the participant's conferences rather than to the participants, or some combination thereof. So the money could be both higher and stable.

The key here is that tournament money isn't flowing to the "hangers on" that are just in D1 for the association with the Big Dance.

(02-08-2022 02:42 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, I think this money distribution would run counter to what the P5 want. As others have noted, school administrators do not like 'variable' income flows. They like guaranteed money. The PAC collects that huge $60m CFP check, and a $40m Rose Bowl check most years as well, even if they don't place anyone in the playoffs. That's how the big conferences want it. So IMO, if anything, we are likely to see a revamp of the NCAA tournament distributions in a direction less oriented towards merit - making the tournament - and more towards guaranteed money for the P5..

The way I see it, you're making my point for me. The way it is now, the bulk of the NCAA's money comes from the existing Big Dance. They they use that money for all sorts of things, including financing D2 and D3, compliance, marketing, etc. It doesn't all flow to the school's athletic departments. If all that Big Dance money were flowing only to the participants, there would be a substantial increase to them. And yes, it could be constructed so that money came to the participant's conferences rather than to the participants, or some combination thereof. So the money could be both higher and stable.

The key here is that tournament money isn't flowing to the "hangers on" that are just in D1 for the association with the Big Dance.

Fair point.

But OK, do you know what % of the Big Dance money goes to the "hangers on", the conferences that are not P5 or G5?

I'm not sure it's a huge amount, but maybe I'm wrong.

(02-08-2022 02:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:42 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, I think this money distribution would run counter to what the P5 want. As others have noted, school administrators do not like 'variable' income flows. They like guaranteed money. The PAC collects that huge $60m CFP check, and a $40m Rose Bowl check most years as well, even if they don't place anyone in the playoffs. That's how the big conferences want it. So IMO, if anything, we are likely to see a revamp of the NCAA tournament distributions in a direction less oriented towards merit - making the tournament - and more towards guaranteed money for the P5..

The way I see it, you're making my point for me. The way it is now, the bulk of the NCAA's money comes from the existing Big Dance. They they use that money for all sorts of things, including financing D2 and D3, compliance, marketing, etc. It doesn't all flow to the school's athletic departments. If all that Big Dance money were flowing only to the participants, there would be a substantial increase to them. And yes, it could be constructed so that money came to the participant's conferences rather than to the participants, or some combination thereof. So the money could be both higher and stable.

The key here is that tournament money isn't flowing to the "hangers on" that are just in D1 for the association with the Big Dance.

Fair point.

But OK, do you know what % of the Big Dance money goes to the "hangers on", the conferences that are not P5 or G5?

I'm not sure it's a huge amount, but maybe I'm wrong.

No I don't, but I have seen P5 complaints about it so it must be enough to make a difference.

(02-08-2022 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 01:27 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 12:22 PM)Midwestan Wrote:  Just speaking for myself, if/when it happens, I think I would lose interest in college sports, overall, if the NCAA Basketball Tournament only consisted of the Power 6 conferences and a handful of invited schools from other leagues. One of the beauties to March Madness is seeing lesser teams that few people have heard of, pushing the big boys to the limit, and sometimes, even handing them a stunning loss. As it is now, I have virtually no interest in college football like I used to have. There's no real excitement to the regular season for me anymore. The same teams or conferences dominate each and every year, and no matter how close a game is, college football just doesn't hold the same level of enjoyment as it used to.

Monday night, I did not see any of the Kansas-Texas game. Those teams are on the tube frequently. Instead, I watched some of the Alabama A & M at Grambling game. Sure, the level of play wasn't the same, but the fans in attendance were into the game and were as excited as the fans in Austin. I don't know...maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy!

Feel the same way about CFB. Strangely the CFP has seemed to make the sport more static than it was before so its lost some of its novelty. This is resulting from recruits seeing the limited path to the top and there seems to be more of concentration of talent in a few places than ever before. At this point if the top 5 or so conferences left the rest it would probably mean the end of my interest in college BB and FB as it would basically just be a minor league at that point.

I agree with this. It's seemingly counterintuitive, as one of the main arguments for playoff expansion is to "get more teams involved" or something, but it hasn't worked that way, and I don't think it would work if we expanded to 8 or 12 or 16 either.

Even this year, with two new teams making the CFP for the first time, felt like kind of a fluke. Michigan and Cincy getting in because several big powers, like LSU and Clemson and Ohio State having, by their standards, off-years.

College football used to be much more 'geologically active' before the CFP, and moreso still before the BCS. Every move towards expanding the playoffs has made the CFP world less like the earth and more like the moon, geologically.

Only having 2 and 4 teams would do that, since they are selecting based somewhat on a beauty/ratings criteria.

More teams, the less static it will be.

A lotta low-P5 fans are talking about a D1 breakaway just assume the line would be drawn with them on the inside. Seems like a braver move than they might think it is to me.

It isn't going to happen. They will shut the door on programs moving up soon but there won't be any split because it benefits nobody. The money keeps getting bigger every contract and the playoff money will be even more generous. Lower half P5 programs cannot afford to lose more games than they already lose and still attract boosters and lucrative NIL deals for athletes.

The one free transfer, NIL and the portal is actually going to create more parity across FBS and the very elite already had an advantage that will not change much.

Nobody is killing the golden goose.

(02-08-2022 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 01:27 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 12:22 PM)Midwestan Wrote:  Just speaking for myself, if/when it happens, I think I would lose interest in college sports, overall, if the NCAA Basketball Tournament only consisted of the Power 6 conferences and a handful of invited schools from other leagues. One of the beauties to March Madness is seeing lesser teams that few people have heard of, pushing the big boys to the limit, and sometimes, even handing them a stunning loss. As it is now, I have virtually no interest in college football like I used to have. There's no real excitement to the regular season for me anymore. The same teams or conferences dominate each and every year, and no matter how close a game is, college football just doesn't hold the same level of enjoyment as it used to.

Monday night, I did not see any of the Kansas-Texas game. Those teams are on the tube frequently. Instead, I watched some of the Alabama A & M at Grambling game. Sure, the level of play wasn't the same, but the fans in attendance were into the game and were as excited as the fans in Austin. I don't know...maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy!

Feel the same way about CFB. Strangely the CFP has seemed to make the sport more static than it was before so its lost some of its novelty. This is resulting from recruits seeing the limited path to the top and there seems to be more of concentration of talent in a few places than ever before. At this point if the top 5 or so conferences left the rest it would probably mean the end of my interest in college BB and FB as it would basically just be a minor league at that point.

I agree with this. It's seemingly counterintuitive, as one of the main arguments for playoff expansion is to "get more teams involved" or something, but it hasn't worked that way, and I don't think it would work if we expanded to 8 or 12 or 16 either.

Even this year, with two new teams making the CFP for the first time, felt like kind of a fluke. Michigan and Cincy getting in because several big powers, like LSU and Clemson and Ohio State having, by their standards, off-years.

College football used to be much more 'geologically active' before the CFP, and moreso still before the BCS. Every move towards expanding the playoffs has made the CFP world less like the earth and more like the moon, geologically.

Exactly, and my first instinct in terms of remedy is limiting scholarships but I dont think that would ever happen. So how do you fix this? IMO, the autobids for Conf champs in an expanded Playoff could work. Would it? Who knows. But right now the west coast is bleeding talent in the recruiting game thanks to the PACs fall from grace. BIG/SEC fans wont like this, but autobids for the top 5 conferences which are regionally oriented in different parts of the country may be the only solution left to try and balance out the talent across the top 50-60 schools instead of the top 15-20.

(02-08-2022 03:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 01:27 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 12:22 PM)Midwestan Wrote:  Just speaking for myself, if/when it happens, I think I would lose interest in college sports, overall, if the NCAA Basketball Tournament only consisted of the Power 6 conferences and a handful of invited schools from other leagues. One of the beauties to March Madness is seeing lesser teams that few people have heard of, pushing the big boys to the limit, and sometimes, even handing them a stunning loss. As it is now, I have virtually no interest in college football like I used to have. There's no real excitement to the regular season for me anymore. The same teams or conferences dominate each and every year, and no matter how close a game is, college football just doesn't hold the same level of enjoyment as it used to.

Monday night, I did not see any of the Kansas-Texas game. Those teams are on the tube frequently. Instead, I watched some of the Alabama A & M at Grambling game. Sure, the level of play wasn't the same, but the fans in attendance were into the game and were as excited as the fans in Austin. I don't know...maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy!

Feel the same way about CFB. Strangely the CFP has seemed to make the sport more static than it was before so its lost some of its novelty. This is resulting from recruits seeing the limited path to the top and there seems to be more of concentration of talent in a few places than ever before. At this point if the top 5 or so conferences left the rest it would probably mean the end of my interest in college BB and FB as it would basically just be a minor league at that point.

I agree with this. It's seemingly counterintuitive, as one of the main arguments for playoff expansion is to "get more teams involved" or something, but it hasn't worked that way, and I don't think it would work if we expanded to 8 or 12 or 16 either.

Even this year, with two new teams making the CFP for the first time, felt like kind of a fluke. Michigan and Cincy getting in because several big powers, like LSU and Clemson and Ohio State having, by their standards, off-years.

College football used to be much more 'geologically active' before the CFP, and moreso still before the BCS. Every move towards expanding the playoffs has made the CFP world less like the earth and more like the moon, geologically.

Only having 2 and 4 teams would do that, since they are selecting based somewhat on a beauty/ratings criteria.

More teams, the less static it will be.

Agreed. We went from wide open (pre-BCS), to limited potential (BCS), to slightly less limited potential but with further compounding of the previous era (CFP, and focus on "Bluebloods" and Money). At 12 with the top 6 conf champs in the tourney things would be much more wide open than ever before. I believe that creating more wide spread opportunity will help deal with the concentration of talent issue...which right now is THE issue imo.

I wouldn’t watch it. Not as a statement protest kind of thing. I just wouldn’t be interested. I just don’t understand why so many people want 2 NFL’s.

(02-08-2022 11:43 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... what happens to the schools that remain from the mid-majors in D1 all the way down to the D3 bottom feeders?

What does college athletics look like without benefit of the massive TV contracts, subsidies from the College Football Playoff and possibly a reconfigured March Madness?

How about things that change and things that stay the same.

What y'all think?

With the recent SCOTUS ruling and changes in the NCAA, it's not the upper tier that will breakaway. IMO, it's lower-revenue schools that are gradually distancing themselves from the "upper tier"...and becoming self-sufficient.

The recent NCAA convention approved a new constitution. Over 80% of the 1,100+ schools voted to create Division-based autonomy within the NCAA. That allows D2 and D3 to keep truer amateur models (while D1 pursues a more complex business model). Longer-term, it should also force NCAA administrators to stop using D1-generated funds to subsidize D2 & D3 activities. Less than 20% of schools (mainly from D2 & D3) wanted keep the subsidization model that the "upper tier" detests.

The D1 subcommittee is now working on new rules for its 350+ members. The SCOTUS decision is forcing the high-revenue generating schools to spend more on student-athletes...when a school generates substantial revenue from athletics, then it can no longer restrict student-athletes from benefiting financially. The Autonomous 5 conferences have lots of revenue and future financial growth potential. The A5 can try to be inclusive to whomever wants to compete, but they can't cap the amount that they spend on athletes. In six months (when the D1 subcommittee finishes its work), I could see a gradual self-selection amongst D1 members. Specifically, many schools won't want to further subsidize athletics, don't materially benefit from competing against the "upper tier", and will seek an off-ramp from the financially-driven business model. The "upper-tier" doesn't break-away, they will just adhere to the new laws...while lower-revenue programs gradually peel-away.

(02-08-2022 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  I began following college sports before television played a significant role and it did just fine. The NCAA tournament wasn't televised at all. I imagine I'll continue to follow it no matter what happens.

When I started following it there were about 250 or so schools. None of the bottom 100 would be missed at all. In fact, I think it would vastly improve the tournament. 1 vs. 16 and 2 vs 15 are boring.

(02-08-2022 04:08 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 11:43 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... what happens to the schools that remain from the mid-majors in D1 all the way down to the D3 bottom feeders?

What does college athletics look like without benefit of the massive TV contracts, subsidies from the College Football Playoff and possibly a reconfigured March Madness?

How about things that change and things that stay the same.

What y'all think?

With the recent SCOTUS ruling and changes in the NCAA, it's not the upper tier that will breakaway. IMO, it's lower-revenue schools that are gradually distancing themselves from the "upper tier"...and becoming self-sufficient.

The recent NCAA convention approved a new constitution. Over 80% of the 1,100+ schools voted to create Division-based autonomy within the NCAA. That allows D2 and D3 to keep truer amateur models (while D1 pursues a more complex business model). Longer-term, it should also force NCAA administrators to stop using D1-generated funds to subsidize D2 & D3 activities. Less than 20% of schools (mainly from D2 & D3) wanted keep the subsidization model that the "upper tier" detests.

The D1 subcommittee is now working on new rules for its 350+ members. The SCOTUS decision is forcing the high-revenue generating schools to spend more on student-athletes...when a school generates substantial revenue from athletics, then it can no longer restrict student-athletes from benefiting financially. The Autonomous 5 conferences have lots of revenue and future financial growth potential. The A5 can try to be inclusive to whomever wants to compete, but they can't cap the amount that they spend on athletes. In six months (when the D1 subcommittee finishes its work), I could see a gradual self-selection amongst D1 members. Specifically, many schools won't want to further subsidize athletics, don't materially benefit from competing against the "upper tier", and will seek an off-ramp from the financially-driven business model. The "upper-tier" doesn't break-away, they will just adhere to the new laws...while lower-revenue programs gradually peel-away.

Many in Division II and Division III were upset they don't get more of a subsidy. That was their only objection to the model.

(02-08-2022 02:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:02 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 01:38 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  This is tough to predict how it will play out.

What seems to be happening is the P5 is gradually adding the remaining valuable athletic brands to the point where they have enough programs to create their own subdivision. The G5 appears to be at their own game of gobbling up all the quality FCS programs.

If the P5 does leave that would leave the FBS/FCS split in place in D1. FBS could then have a bowl championship series to determine its champion. FCS then has its separate playoff.

D1 would be left with about 300 schools so a 64 team tournament could still be viable, OTOH what does that to P5 basketball? A 16 team tournament? Its problematic for them.

Another option would be to create a new top division but require FBS football to participate. That would force the BE to add FB again if they want to stay top level which could cause realignment effects. At the end of the day a new D1 of 150-160 is a possible outcome.

If you were to take only the conferences who get multiple teams in each year, you'd have about 130-140 teams to choose 48-64 teams from. Perfectly doable.

Clearly the P5 aren't going to separate themselves from all 290 or so basketball teams in D-I. But even if only 30-40 non P5 schools joined them they would have a very viable tournament and the other 240 or so teams would be left with a tournament that few people would watch and networks wouldn't pay much to televise.

The P-5 National Basketball Championship Tournament runs just fine including the Big East, A10, MAC, Mountain West, American, Big Sky, CUSA, etc., and keeping guaranteed conference bids to no more than say 12. All you are doing is changing the potential "Cinderellas" and keeping the money from the NCAA.

(02-08-2022 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 04:08 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 11:43 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... what happens to the schools that remain from the mid-majors in D1 all the way down to the D3 bottom feeders?

What does college athletics look like without benefit of the massive TV contracts, subsidies from the College Football Playoff and possibly a reconfigured March Madness?

How about things that change and things that stay the same.

What y'all think?

With the recent SCOTUS ruling and changes in the NCAA, it's not the upper tier that will breakaway. IMO, it's lower-revenue schools that are gradually distancing themselves from the "upper tier"...and becoming self-sufficient.

The recent NCAA convention approved a new constitution. Over 80% of the 1,100+ schools voted to create Division-based autonomy within the NCAA. That allows D2 and D3 to keep truer amateur models (while D1 pursues a more complex business model). Longer-term, it should also force NCAA administrators to stop using D1-generated funds to subsidize D2 & D3 activities. Less than 20% of schools (mainly from D2 & D3) wanted keep the subsidization model that the "upper tier" detests.

The D1 subcommittee is now working on new rules for its 350+ members. The SCOTUS decision is forcing the high-revenue generating schools to spend more on student-athletes...when a school generates substantial revenue from athletics, then it can no longer restrict student-athletes from benefiting financially. The Autonomous 5 conferences have lots of revenue and future financial growth potential. The A5 can try to be inclusive to whomever wants to compete, but they can't cap the amount that they spend on athletes. In six months (when the D1 subcommittee finishes its work), I could see a gradual self-selection amongst D1 members. Specifically, many schools won't want to further subsidize athletics, don't materially benefit from competing against the "upper tier", and will seek an off-ramp from the financially-driven business model. The "upper-tier" doesn't break-away, they will just adhere to the new laws...while lower-revenue programs gradually peel-away.

Many in Division II and Division III were upset they don't get more of a subsidy. That was their only objection to the model.

Agree that amongst those who opposed the new constitution, many were D2 & D3 schools who specifically wanted to maintain the subsidy model.

My point: even if it hurts their immediate financial interests, most universities understood that the current NCAA structure can't be maintained.

(02-08-2022 12:22 PM)Midwestan Wrote:  Just speaking for myself, if/when it happens, I think I would lose interest in college sports, overall, if the NCAA Basketball Tournament only consisted of the Power 6 conferences and a handful of invited schools from other leagues.

Count me as another that would lose interest if the NCAA goes that direction for bball. I've already stopped watching the football "national championship" a few years ago because it is not a playoff, but an invitational where it is the same small handful of teams that get to play for it and occasionally another team from a slightly larger pool may "win the lottery" for a chance.

I would be done and would go "all in" on NAIA. I already attend and follow NAIA on a limited basis.

(02-08-2022 04:50 PM)topper1296 Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 12:22 PM)Midwestan Wrote:  Just speaking for myself, if/when it happens, I think I would lose interest in college sports, overall, if the NCAA Basketball Tournament only consisted of the Power 6 conferences and a handful of invited schools from other leagues.

Count me as another that would lose interest if the NCAA goes that direction for bball. I've already stopped watching the football "national championship" a few years ago because it is not a playoff, but an invitational where it is the same small handful of teams that get to play for it and occasionally another team from a slightly larger pool may "win the lottery" for a chance.

The fascination of watching a team play one or two games when they are overmatched is simply amazing to me. Five 11 seeds have made the final 4. LSU in 86, George Mason in 2006, Loyola in 2018, VCU in 2011, and UCLA in 2021.

The only 10 was Syracuse in 2016. The only 9 was Wichita State in 2013. The last real Cinderella that go close was Butler in 2011 - an 8 who made the title game. When people say they will lose interest if the small fry are not in the tournament, what do you do when the small fry lose? Do you quit watching and skip the Sweet 16, Final Four and Title games?

(02-08-2022 02:54 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:42 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, I think this money distribution would run counter to what the P5 want. As others have noted, school administrators do not like 'variable' income flows. They like guaranteed money. The PAC collects that huge $60m CFP check, and a $40m Rose Bowl check most years as well, even if they don't place anyone in the playoffs. That's how the big conferences want it. So IMO, if anything, we are likely to see a revamp of the NCAA tournament distributions in a direction less oriented towards merit - making the tournament - and more towards guaranteed money for the P5..

The way I see it, you're making my point for me. The way it is now, the bulk of the NCAA's money comes from the existing Big Dance. They they use that money for all sorts of things, including financing D2 and D3, compliance, marketing, etc. It doesn't all flow to the school's athletic departments. If all that Big Dance money were flowing only to the participants, there would be a substantial increase to them. And yes, it could be constructed so that money came to the participant's conferences rather than to the participants, or some combination thereof. So the money could be both higher and stable.

The key here is that tournament money isn't flowing to the "hangers on" that are just in D1 for the association with the Big Dance.

Fair point.

But OK, do you know what % of the Big Dance money goes to the "hangers on", the conferences that are not P5 or G5?

I'm not sure it's a huge amount, but maybe I'm wrong.

No I don't, but I have seen P5 complaints about it so it must be enough to make a difference.

I guess the answer depends on who you consider hangers on. Some of the G5 conferences would be among the hangers on for basketball, while some conferences that are not FBS are not hangers on (like the Big East, A-10, WCC, MVC).

If you consider the bottom 20 D-I basketball conferences to be the hangers on, I would estimate that group receives about one-third of the Big Dance money that is distributed to D-I schools. Ballpark, that's about $240 million a year. So, yes, it's enough to make a difference.

I already don’t watch college football, so nothing would change there, my hate for it would just grow.
I’m a big College Basketball fan, so if a split were to occur there, I’d be pretty bummed, and it’d likely fall by the wayside for me, just as college football has.

(02-08-2022 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2022 02:22 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I've mentioned this previously....

The one thing that solves all the problems is a 3rd party sponsoring an Invitational tournament. The tournament could invite anyone they wanted from any division, even D2 if they thought a team worthy. The sponsorship and broadcast money would be huge, and it would flow to the schools that actually earned an invitation.

And it might save the NCAA. Right now there's an enormous conflict of interest with the NCAA being a content provider (i.e. games) that bring huge money, and being a regulator of conduct. See North Carolina academic fraud controversy. Take the huge money from the NCAA, and they'll be able to better do their job of regulating.

As many have said here, a division of just the P5 wouldn't be interesting. See what happened in Euro soccer when they tried to form a super league last year. The fans rebelled, and it was totally unexpected from the organizers. It was cancelled.

So you'd have a major reshuffling of divisions:
D1a = P5 & G5 (schools that spend and earn enormous amounts of money)
D1b = Schools the spend a lot of money but don't earn a lot of money
D2 = Schools that spend a moderate amount of money
D3 = Schools that don't offer scholarships

Everyone would want to be D1a, but only the P5 & G5 would qualify
The remainder of existing D1 would be D1b, plus a lot of big D2s that that would now find it viable to be D1(b)
D2s would consist of smaller schools that want to offer athletic scholarships and play at a high level, but keep other costs low, including some existing D3s. You would also get some D1b step downs, who find that D1 has lost its charm once they aren't in the same division as Duke and Michigan.
D3 would still be the remainder that doesn't offer athletic scholarships.

Just about the bolded parts -

First, I think this money distribution would run counter to what the P5 want. As others have noted, school administrators do not like 'variable' income flows. They like guaranteed money. The PAC collects that huge $60m CFP check, and a $40m Rose Bowl check most years as well, even if they don't place anyone in the playoffs. That's how the big conferences want it. So IMO, if anything, we are likely to see a revamp of the NCAA tournament distributions in a direction less oriented towards merit - making the tournament - and more towards guaranteed money for the P5.

That segues in to the second bolded statement. I agree, interest in a P5-only tournament would be far less than in the current tournament. As with European soccer, the romance of the sport, what attracts casual fans who sponsors crave, is the chance of big Cinderella upsets. And by that I don't mean Ole Miss beating Texas. But on the other hand, it's also IMO true that the great bulk of the appeal of the NCAA tournament is from the big P5 brands. People love to see underdog Pepperdine vs big dog Duke, but they also love to see big dog Kentucky vs big dog Duke. They don't have any interest in seeing underdog Pepperdine vs underdog Texas Pan-American. So the P5 are still where most of the value of the event lies.

Finally, about your categories, I would say that almost all G5 are best described as "spend enormous amounts of money but earn very little money".

Just my two cents ....

Lost me at European soccer. I don’t understand these hipsters comparing and longing for any American sport to be constructed like European soccer. “Promotion, regulation, gaaaaaah our uniforms look like stock cars!!” GTFO of here with European soccer.

Not you personally, just see a lot of people thinking college athletics being constructed like that and think it’s dumb and totally unrealistic.