(06-19-2022 05:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:53 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Big tell is this paragraph:

Quote:“For me, it would make sense to have self-governance for a smaller group of conferences than the 32 that currently make up Division I. But that doesn’t necessarily mean being separate from the NCAA. You can do that within the NCAA, similar to the way certain autonomy was given to the (Power 5) conferences for certain issues.”

Kliavkoff said he understands that enforcing rules would require an enforcement arm similar to what the NCAA has, and that there would need to be bureaucratic elements to any non-NCAA entity formed to manage football. He also said he thinks five conferences governing the sport is “too small” but that 32 conferences governing all of college sports is “too big.”

That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

For governance it is! They can't agree on anything. The demographics of the conferences are changing to much to remain aligned. Self interest is to the point they can't even agree on a CFP that would be good for the sport.

(06-19-2022 05:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:53 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Big tell is this paragraph:

Quote:“For me, it would make sense to have self-governance for a smaller group of conferences than the 32 that currently make up Division I. But that doesn’t necessarily mean being separate from the NCAA. You can do that within the NCAA, similar to the way certain autonomy was given to the (Power 5) conferences for certain issues.”

Kliavkoff said he understands that enforcing rules would require an enforcement arm similar to what the NCAA has, and that there would need to be bureaucratic elements to any non-NCAA entity formed to manage football. He also said he thinks five conferences governing the sport is “too small” but that 32 conferences governing all of college sports is “too big.”

That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

To me, it suggest a complete breakaway for x number of schools. That number won't be 69. It will be more than 69 but less than 362. My guess is that number is somewhere between 150-200.

(06-19-2022 05:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:53 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Big tell is this paragraph:

Quote:“For me, it would make sense to have self-governance for a smaller group of conferences than the 32 that currently make up Division I. But that doesn’t necessarily mean being separate from the NCAA. You can do that within the NCAA, similar to the way certain autonomy was given to the (Power 5) conferences for certain issues.”

Kliavkoff said he understands that enforcing rules would require an enforcement arm similar to what the NCAA has, and that there would need to be bureaucratic elements to any non-NCAA entity formed to manage football. He also said he thinks five conferences governing the sport is “too small” but that 32 conferences governing all of college sports is “too big.”

That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

Yes, I think a breakaway is the direction we are headed. Kliavkoff is sending a message to all other like minded schools and conference commissioners, Let's talk.

I suspect in the not to distant future Kliavkoff and Sankey will call a summit of sorts that includes the B1G, SEC, PAC, ACC, and ND. This meeting will be all about coming up with a direction for football and what a new governance might look like. It might sound strange to some of you, but the PAC and SEC under George and Greg are more like minded than you think and more than that, they're the ones speaking up and leading.

IMO the intention is not to breakaway without giving other conferences(G) a chance to join but they will have to fall in line with what the Power commissioners agree to.

It's going to be a wild couple years my friends, grab your popcorn.

Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

(06-19-2022 10:36 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 05:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:53 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Big tell is this paragraph:

Quote:“For me, it would make sense to have self-governance for a smaller group of conferences than the 32 that currently make up Division I. But that doesn’t necessarily mean being separate from the NCAA. You can do that within the NCAA, similar to the way certain autonomy was given to the (Power 5) conferences for certain issues.”

Kliavkoff said he understands that enforcing rules would require an enforcement arm similar to what the NCAA has, and that there would need to be bureaucratic elements to any non-NCAA entity formed to manage football. He also said he thinks five conferences governing the sport is “too small” but that 32 conferences governing all of college sports is “too big.”

That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

Yes, I think a breakaway is the direction we are headed. Kliavkoff is sending a message to all other like minded schools and conference commissioners, Let's talk.

I suspect in the not to distant future Kliavkoff and Sankey will call a summit of sorts that includes the B1G, SEC, PAC, ACC, and ND. This meeting will be all about coming up with a direction for football and what a new governance might look like. It might sound strange to some of you, but the PAC and SEC under George and Greg are more like minded than you think and more than that, they're the ones speaking up and leading.

IMO the intention is not to breakaway without giving other conferences(G) a chance to join but they will have to fall in line with what the Power commissioners agree to.

It's going to be a wild couple years my friends, grab your popcorn.

It will either be the B$G and $EC sitting in a room or all 5. ND may or may not be there. There are two tiers to the P5 and its not 4 and 1. Its 2 and 3.

(06-19-2022 11:31 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

What's being discussed is a breakaway of the 10 FBS conferences, meaning, those conferences that fund and play 85-scholarship football. As I'm sure you know, the Big East, A10 and WCC don't play 85-scholarship football. The 10 conferences that do are listed below:

SEC
Big Ten
ACC
Big 12
Pac 12
MWC
MAC
AAC
SBC
C-USA

Listen to Adam Rittenberg of ESPN reporting on this a month ago.

https://mobile.twitter.com/finebaum/stat...LNv64qAAAA

(06-19-2022 12:04 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 11:31 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

What's being discussed is a breakaway of the 10 FBS conferences, meaning, those conferences that fund and play 85-scholarship football. As I'm sure you know, the Big East, A10 and WCC don't play 85-scholarship football. The 10 conferences that do are listed below:

SEC
Big Ten
ACC
Big 12
Pac 12
MWC
MAC
AAC
SBC
C-USA

On no planet will the MAC, SBC, and C-USA be Division 1 while the Big East, A-10, and Gonzaga be Division 2.

(06-19-2022 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 10:36 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 05:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:53 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Big tell is this paragraph:

Quote:“For me, it would make sense to have self-governance for a smaller group of conferences than the 32 that currently make up Division I. But that doesn’t necessarily mean being separate from the NCAA. You can do that within the NCAA, similar to the way certain autonomy was given to the (Power 5) conferences for certain issues.”

Kliavkoff said he understands that enforcing rules would require an enforcement arm similar to what the NCAA has, and that there would need to be bureaucratic elements to any non-NCAA entity formed to manage football. He also said he thinks five conferences governing the sport is “too small” but that 32 conferences governing all of college sports is “too big.”

That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

Yes, I think a breakaway is the direction we are headed. Kliavkoff is sending a message to all other like minded schools and conference commissioners, Let's talk.

I suspect in the not to distant future Kliavkoff and Sankey will call a summit of sorts that includes the B1G, SEC, PAC, ACC, and ND. This meeting will be all about coming up with a direction for football and what a new governance might look like. It might sound strange to some of you, but the PAC and SEC under George and Greg are more like minded than you think and more than that, they're the ones speaking up and leading.

IMO the intention is not to breakaway without giving other conferences(G) a chance to join but they will have to fall in line with what the Power commissioners agree to.

It's going to be a wild couple years my friends, grab your popcorn.

It will either be the B$G and $EC sitting in a room or all 5. ND may or may not be there. There are two tiers to the P5 and its not 4 and 1. Its 2 and 3.

I think you vastly underestimate the PAC's influence. Kliavkoff has been in meetings with all of the major players and continues to have dialogue with them. The PAC will be involved whether you like it or not.

After we re-negotiate our TV deal the power will look much more like 2+1+2+G5

(06-19-2022 12:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:04 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 11:31 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

What's being discussed is a breakaway of the 10 FBS conferences, meaning, those conferences that fund and play 85-scholarship football. As I'm sure you know, the Big East, A10 and WCC don't play 85-scholarship football. The 10 conferences that do are listed below:

SEC
Big Ten
ACC
Big 12
Pac 12
MWC
MAC
AAC
SBC
C-USA

On no planet will the MAC, SBC, and C-USA be Division 1 while the Big East, A-10, and Gonzaga be Division 2.

Again, forget about Olympic sports, including basketball, this is all about the schools that fund/play 85-scholarship football. Adam Rittenberg of ESPN reported on this over a month ago.

https://mobile.twitter.com/finebaum/stat...LNv64qAAAA

(06-19-2022 12:31 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:04 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 11:31 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

What's being discussed is a breakaway of the 10 FBS conferences, meaning, those conferences that fund and play 85-scholarship football. As I'm sure you know, the Big East, A10 and WCC don't play 85-scholarship football. The 10 conferences that do are listed below:

SEC
Big Ten
ACC
Big 12
Pac 12
MWC
MAC
AAC
SBC
C-USA

On no planet will the MAC, SBC, and C-USA be Division 1 while the Big East, A-10, and Gonzaga be Division 2.

Again, forget about Olympic sports, including basketball, this is all about the schools that fund/play 85-scholarship football. Adam Rittenhouse of ESPN reported on this over a month ago.

https://mobile.twitter.com/finebaum/stat...LNv64qAAAA

That's a guess, not reporting. The big conferences want basketball under their umbrella as well and leaving out the Big East, Gonzaga, and A-10 leaves money on the table. They won't be doing that.

(06-19-2022 12:20 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 10:36 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 05:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:53 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Big tell is this paragraph:

That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

Yes, I think a breakaway is the direction we are headed. Kliavkoff is sending a message to all other like minded schools and conference commissioners, Let's talk.

I suspect in the not to distant future Kliavkoff and Sankey will call a summit of sorts that includes the B1G, SEC, PAC, ACC, and ND. This meeting will be all about coming up with a direction for football and what a new governance might look like. It might sound strange to some of you, but the PAC and SEC under George and Greg are more like minded than you think and more than that, they're the ones speaking up and leading.

IMO the intention is not to breakaway without giving other conferences(G) a chance to join but they will have to fall in line with what the Power commissioners agree to.

It's going to be a wild couple years my friends, grab your popcorn.

It will either be the B$G and $EC sitting in a room or all 5. ND may or may not be there. There are two tiers to the P5 and its not 4 and 1. Its 2 and 3.

I think you vastly underestimate the PAC's influence. Kliavkoff has been in meetings with all of the major players and continues to have dialogue with them. The PAC will be involved whether you like it or not.

After we re-negotiate our TV deal the power will look much more like 2+1+2+G5

With the 4 team playoff Slive and Delany sat in a room, made a decision, and presented it to the rest. If there are less than 11 in the room, it will include all the A5 or just the P2.

As for $$s with TV, we will see. Maybe the Pac will pull well ahead of the Big 12 and ACC, but will still be closer to them than to the P2.

(06-19-2022 12:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:20 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 10:36 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 05:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  That last sentence is very subtle. He says five conferences governing football is too small. But he doesn't say 32 conferences governing football is too big, he says it's too big to govern all of college sports.

The 32 conferences he is referring to are only the D-I conferences within the NCAA, some of which don't even sponsor football. It sounds like he is floating the idea that there should be a much smaller group of schools and conferences with complete autonomy for all sports. While he suggests that this doesn't have to be outside the NCAA structure, why would the NCAA be needed at all except for those schools that aren't "autonomous"?

Isn't a complete breakaway the logical conclusion?

Yes, I think a breakaway is the direction we are headed. Kliavkoff is sending a message to all other like minded schools and conference commissioners, Let's talk.

I suspect in the not to distant future Kliavkoff and Sankey will call a summit of sorts that includes the B1G, SEC, PAC, ACC, and ND. This meeting will be all about coming up with a direction for football and what a new governance might look like. It might sound strange to some of you, but the PAC and SEC under George and Greg are more like minded than you think and more than that, they're the ones speaking up and leading.

IMO the intention is not to breakaway without giving other conferences(G) a chance to join but they will have to fall in line with what the Power commissioners agree to.

It's going to be a wild couple years my friends, grab your popcorn.

It will either be the B$G and $EC sitting in a room or all 5. ND may or may not be there. There are two tiers to the P5 and its not 4 and 1. Its 2 and 3.

I think you vastly underestimate the PAC's influence. Kliavkoff has been in meetings with all of the major players and continues to have dialogue with them. The PAC will be involved whether you like it or not.

After we re-negotiate our TV deal the power will look much more like 2+1+2+G5

With the 4 team playoff Slive and Delany sat in a room, made a decision, and presented it to the rest. If there are less than 11 in the room, it will include all the A5 or just the P2.

Herein resides the issue. Delany was always amenable to discussion and knew he had the authority to commit to issues he had already cleared with his presidents. Slive knew not to call Delany unless he had the same.

Warren won't even talk. George will be the new Delany.

(06-19-2022 12:48 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:31 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:04 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  [quote='shizzle787' pid='18279447' dateline='1655656314']
Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

What's being discussed is a breakaway of the 10 FBS conferences, meaning, those conferences that fund and play 85-scholarship football. As I'm sure you know, the Big East, A10 and WCC don't play 85-scholarship football. The 10 conferences that do are listed below:

SEC
Big Ten
ACC
Big 12
Pac 12
MWC
MAC
AAC
SBC
C-USA

On no planet will the MAC, SBC, and C-USA be Division 1 while the Big East, A-10, and Gonzaga be Division 2.

Again, forget about Olympic sports, including basketball, this is all about the schools that fund/play 85-scholarship football. Adam Rittenberg of ESPN reported on this over a month ago.

https://mobile.twitter.com/finebaum/stat...LNv64qAAAA
[/quote

That's a guess, not reporting. The big conferences want basketball under their umbrella as well and leaving out the Big East, Gonzaga, and A-10 leaves money on the table. They won't be doing that.

Did you even read The Athletic article written by Nicole Auerbach that is the source of the OP?

(06-19-2022 08:12 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 07:47 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  For some reason, some of you ACC fans keep talking about The Alliance as if it's a real thing?

Read the article linked in the OP with Kliavkoff's comments. Then read this article in which Gene Smith, the Ohio State AD, talks about FBS-only governance of college football. Then, read this article about the issue with comments from Jim Phillips, the ACC commissioner.

Do a word search in each article, if you like. The word "Alliance" doesn't appear anywhere in any of those articles, and isn't mentioned by the Pac-12 commissioner, the Ohio State AD, or the ACC commissioner.

All of those articles are behind paywalls, Wedge!!

Regardless of whether they are using the word “Alliance”… in those three articles are the commissioners aligned on their talking points?
That is what will really tell you if the Alliance is still a ‘thing’

By that logic, if Sankey is saying the same things, then the SEC is also a part of this Alliance that is just as real as the Avengers and the Ghostbusters.

(06-19-2022 12:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:04 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 11:31 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

What's being discussed is a breakaway of the 10 FBS conferences, meaning, those conferences that fund and play 85-scholarship football. As I'm sure you know, the Big East, A10 and WCC don't play 85-scholarship football. The 10 conferences that do are listed below:

SEC
Big Ten
ACC
Big 12
Pac 12
MWC
MAC
AAC
SBC
C-USA

On no planet will the MAC, SBC, and C-USA be Division 1 while the Big East, A-10, and Gonzaga be Division 2.

Arrgghh!!!!!!
sizzle and Beat Western, ever considered both will be included in Division I, or are you too elitist for that, shizzle?? Whether or not the Big East and the A10 like it or not , the current FBS is here to stay. The real question is FCS going to be the new D2, IMO.

(06-19-2022 12:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 12:04 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(06-19-2022 11:31 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

What's being discussed is a breakaway of the 10 FBS conferences, meaning, those conferences that fund and play 85-scholarship football. As I'm sure you know, the Big East, A10 and WCC don't play 85-scholarship football. The 10 conferences that do are listed below:

SEC
Big Ten
ACC
Big 12
Pac 12
MWC
MAC
AAC
SBC
C-USA

On no planet will the MAC, SBC, and C-USA be Division 1 while the Big East, A-10, and Gonzaga be Division 2.

This is why I keep saying the Big East needs to reconsider FB and some of those better A10 teams should be taking a look at the MAC.

(06-19-2022 11:31 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Who I think makes the cut (revised list):
SEC
B1G
Pac-12
ACC
Big 12
Big East
Atlantic 10
Mountain West
WCC
American

There would be 130 basketball schools (assuming Hawaii joins the MW for all sports) and 98 football schools.
They could keep the 64-team March Madness format and even bluff their way into staying in the NCAA and continuing to be called Division 1 while every other team moves down a division.
Each conference could have three auto bids in the tourney and then there would be 34 at-large spots left for the six major leagues to add to.

The conferences would likely all have at least 20-22 game schedules.

Football would have a 12-team playoff. Army and Navy would get a waiver to play Division 1 football with the rest of the sports in Division 2, and the current FCS football programs in basketball leagues (Big East, A-10, WCC) would play Division 2 football if they so choose.

Division 1 revenue sports (m/w basketball, football) would be pay for play.

No, the non-football can't get along with the football schools.

MVFC could fill the void, and any FCS schools that wants to make the jump are already a handful of schools that are talking to come from FCS to FBS.

AAC
ACC
Big 12
Big 10
some Big Sky
C-USA
some ASUN
MAC
MVFC as a full all sports conference.
MWC
PAC 12
SEC
SBC
Chattanooga
Army
Navy
UConn joining a conference for all sports
UMAss joining for all sports
some CAA
Tennessee State
Florida A&M
McNeese State
Lamar
some WAC
Notre Dame

Now, if Georgetown and Villanova are interested in spending more money on football and they have access to a pro stadium in their town? They could get into the ACC. One of the articles that some of these people are slamming the schools without football having the same voting powers about football when they should not be. If you add the A10, WCC and Big East? You are giving them voting powers on football. That is not what they breakaway is about. It have to be to do with football.

Don't want to start another thread on this. Kliavkoff gives some clues on what he wants for the PAC's next contract:

Quote:What’s happening with Pac-12 media rights?

“We’ve begun the process of engagement in our next media rights deal,” he said. “Every single decision is viewed through the filter of what this would do to the value of media rights long term.”

Does the recent Apple TV deal with Major League Soccer mean Apple is a potential partner now?

”All of the direct to consumer services — Apple being one of the dozens — are potential bidders,” he said. “It’s more likely than not that our Tier 1 rights, the biggest of our football games, will continue to be distributed on linear television. The balance of our rights, the content that often sits on the Pac-12 Network, is likely to be distributed on a combination of linear and digital players.”

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-ge...year?sd=pf

(06-18-2022 10:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  Or, you can just have each conference establish its own rules and enforcement. If your conference sets rules no other conference is willing to live with they can just stop playing your schools. That moderating influence should quickly result in a manageable number of conferences and schools with common interests.

Except... the Supreme Court said that this is an illegal trust.


The only reason conferences used to set eligibility rules for student-athletes (such as not paying salaries) is so that schools would compete on even ground. But the Supreme Court said that schools can not coordinate on any rules that involve compensation.

Going forward, individual schools can choose to stop playing other individual schools. But conferences can't choose to stop playing other conferences based on NIL money or any form of compensation, because it would violate anti-trust law.


It's possible that the Supreme Court didn't realize this was implied in their ruling. But I doubt it.