(08-08-2022 02:20 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  This is GREAT. The B1G needs at least 12 teams every year. ACC and Big 12 should send 8-10 annually.

The SAD part is I think this poster is serious. IMO it should be sarcasm.

I have a very hard time imagining this happening.


The appeal of being a #1 seed is that you get to play vs an automatic qualifier that’s really about the 200th best team in the country.

(08-08-2022 03:35 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 02:20 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  This is GREAT. The B1G needs at least 12 teams every year. ACC and Big 12 should send 8-10 annually.

The SAD part is I think this poster is serious. IMO it should be sarcasm.

On one hand I get it for fans of these schools to want to see their teams in the tourney. But if 12/16 B1G teams get into March, will their own fans still care about the regular season or conference tournament? It feels like the stakes are largely removed.

(08-08-2022 03:55 PM)Poster Wrote:  I have a very hard time imagining this happening.


The appeal of being a #1 seed is that you get to play vs an automatic qualifier that’s really about the 200th best team in the country.

Yes, if a 16-beating-1 is now the 63rd best team beating the 4th best team, it's not special anymore and barely notable. You see teams ranked 63-68 beat a top-4 team in the regular season already somewhat frequently.

Last year, 1-seed Arizona lost to NET 74 Colorado.

(08-08-2022 01:33 PM)GreatDane96 Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 12:54 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  *President, not AD.

And he's voicing a similar concern that I, Jeff Goodman, SI, and other media outlets have raised over the last six-ish months.

There will be a large amount of legal and political pressure to stop this from happening. The solution is likely to expand the tourney to 96 teams.

When FCS football had an autobid problem, there was talk of antitrust suits by certain leagues/schools. Obviously that situation is much different due to the number of teams involved.

However, in this situation, the stakes are much higher and the number of schools that could be left out of the equation FAR FAR FAR exceed that of the number of schools that would be "in", and this includes adding the number of non P5 schools that could likely get an at large in a given year to the P5 number (for example, the top of each G5 league or basketball centric leagues like the WCC and the Big East).

I can't think of a school admin that wants to dump that kind of money defending lawsuits, including against the leagues. And I really don't think the TV execs want that headache either.

This is posturing on all sides- the small FGCU President's who want to ensure they have a seat at the table...and the P5/Big East/WCC's of the world that want more slots for their middling teams with 7-13 conference records.

In the end, the addition of teams will bring more cash to all leagues, and you might see some sort of graded revenue sharing to account for the bigger leagues, with a minimum per unit guarantee.

I honestly see this one as a nothing burger...and if it DOES go down, kiss College Sports as we know it goodbye...the top league that comes out of this will be a legit minor league / pro sport concept.

I think what the Power conferences truly want is more control over the tournament and the selection process. Ultimately with the NCAA out of the picture...akin to what we have for the football postseason.

I don't blame them although I also see where that could be an issue for current FCS conferences.

(08-08-2022 02:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 12:54 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  *President, not AD.

And he's voicing a similar concern that I, Jeff Goodman, SI, and other media outlets have raised over the last six-ish months.

Some of the leadership at non-football schools have been voicing this since 2016. Several in leadership at the Big 10 and SEC are saying that all sports would be 1A and 1AA in the future including men's basketball. There are a lot of schools that already came out that they are ready for FBS including Missouri State, Chattanooga, NC A&T, NDSU, Jackson State, UCA, UNA, Kennesaw State, Tarleton State etc. I am wondering if several public schools are now thinking of adding football to keep up?

It's not gonna happen. It's just not gonna happen

(08-08-2022 03:35 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 02:20 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  This is GREAT. The B1G needs at least 12 teams every year. ACC and Big 12 should send 8-10 annually.

The SAD part is I think this poster is serious. IMO it should be sarcasm.

I'm sure it is sarcasm. Because Rutgers basketball isn't exactly God's gift to fans.

Some number of autobids is probably ok, but there are not 32 conferences deserving of an autobid, and I would rather they eliminate some autobids than increase the size of the tourney (or they can do both, so long as it minimizes the number of autobids they eliminate)

(08-08-2022 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 01:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 01:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 01:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I just don't see what would cutting off access accomplish, unless its part of a deal where there is permanent FCS like status for all sports

Really.

They need them out of division I. They will raise the spending limits and lower the financial incentives of the tourney for those eliminated in the first round. Get 1 credit for the first round and 2 credits for later rounds. That will give stability to the stronger conferences while not benefitting the Division II schools masquerading as Division I.

We don't need P5 teams with losing records in the tourney.

Is the basketball money worth the bad publicity and possible backlash?

Football money, sure because that's on a whole different level. But is the basketball money increase that significant split between all of P5

If the bottom 10 conferences disappeared nobody would notice.

Nobody would notice that UK fan is trying to get rid of the MAAC?

This would be a sad day for college sports. As I am a UConn fan, I am fearful that one day my Huskies may not be in Division 1 for basketball due to not being in the SEC or B1G. I hope that day never comes but I am preparing for it. Greed has killed the golden goose. College sports was never supposed to be about profit.

I also believe that the schools at the bottom of Division 1 are to blame for this as well. They are leeching off of the system.

It is the schools that aren't in the SEC and B1G who have been in Division 1 for 50+ years that are going to lose out. I hope this idea gets flamed out like the European Super League.

That a school President of a mid-major thinks automatic berths may be going away, suggests this proposal is pretty far along the process toward happening. It makes sense. Major conferences don't need the automatic qualifier as they are multibid, and upper mid-majors like Gonzaga are near locks, and the other high mid-majors will always get a school or two in there.

This would reduce the problem which is one of the greatest complaints of the power conferences, that the revenue they generate is shared with conferences that contribute zero to D-I. By eliminating automatic berths they would remove much of the financial incentive --the wealth redistribution structure of the NCAA (get TV money from each according to their ability, distribute to each according to their need stuff ... what do they call that?)-- of these small school conferences to be in D-I. That should prove a self culling device.

(08-08-2022 07:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  That a school President of a mid-major thinks automatic berths may be going away, suggests this proposal is pretty far along the process toward happening. It makes sense. Major conferences don't need the automatic qualifier as they are multibid, and upper mid-majors like Gonzaga are near locks, and the other high mid-majors will always get a school or two in there.

This would reduce the problem which is one of the greatest complaints of the power conferences, that the revenue they generate is shared with conferences that contribute zero to D-I. By eliminating automatic berths they would remove much of the financial incentive --the wealth redistribution structure of the NCAA (get TV money from each according to their ability, distribute to each according to their need stuff ... what do they call that?)-- of these small school conferences to be in D-I. That should prove a self culling device.

This is true. I just hope that about 100 schools drop out and we go back to the AQ+At-large Bid situation. If we lose 10 conferences (even with a 64-team format), we would still have 42 at-large bids.

(08-08-2022 12:59 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  If the power conferences go to 20-24 schools, I think it is reasonable to expect some of these smaller conferences to merge/expand so that they each have at least 16 schools. So maybe instead of having 32 auto bids, you only have around 20.

Thats never going to happen. Move on.

The P2 are embarrassed that they get beat by small schools like Gonzaga, Loyola Chicago, Butler, Villanova etc. They don't want to share money with those schools.

(08-08-2022 08:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The P2 are embarrassed that they get beat by small schools like Gonzaga, Loyola Chicago, Butler, Villanova etc. They don't want to share money with those schools.

Newsflash: They don't want to share money with ULM, Akron, New Mexico, etc. either

If they do this I can stop watching college sports altogether, freeing up a lot of time and money. So I think I'm for it.

(08-08-2022 09:11 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 08:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The P2 are embarrassed that they get beat by small schools like Gonzaga, Loyola Chicago, Butler, Villanova etc. They don't want to share money with those schools.

Newsflash: They don't want to share money with ULM, Akron, New Mexico, etc. either

Yeah - the big guys aren't bothered by the Big East schools or Gonzaga. They actually bring money to the system.

It's the total money takers that bother the power conferences.

No one mentioned a key point from the OP article: the FGCU president used to be the LSU chancellor. That's significant to me because he understands the thinking from the power conference side. This isn't someone that only has experience with mid-major/low-major college sports.

(08-08-2022 06:57 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  If the bottom 10 conferences disappeared nobody would notice.

Nobody would notice that UK fan is trying to get rid of the MAAC?

Nice, lol. But the MAAC isn’t a bottom 10 conference, it usually ranks in the teens.

The thinking from several P5 schools want to eliminate The non=FBS schools from 1A for all sports and make the rest as 1AA. That way they don't have the non-football schools vote on matters of football. They think these schools including Gonzaga, Big East, FGCU and others don't have votes on all the issues.

(08-08-2022 08:07 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 07:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  That a school President of a mid-major thinks automatic berths may be going away, suggests this proposal is pretty far along the process toward happening. It makes sense. Major conferences don't need the automatic qualifier as they are multibid, and upper mid-majors like Gonzaga are near locks, and the other high mid-majors will always get a school or two in there.

This would reduce the problem which is one of the greatest complaints of the power conferences, that the revenue they generate is shared with conferences that contribute zero to D-I. By eliminating automatic berths they would remove much of the financial incentive --the wealth redistribution structure of the NCAA (get TV money from each according to their ability, distribute to each according to their need stuff ... what do they call that?)-- of these small school conferences to be in D-I. That should prove a self culling device.

This is true. I just hope that about 100 schools drop out and we go back to the AQ+At-large Bid situation. If we lose 10 conferences (even with a 64-team format), we would still have 42 at-large bids.

There are around that many in reality. Kansas was an AQ last season. If there were no AQ they would still have been selected.