Potential effect of D1 conferences realignment

[wildcat11]

For those that have a pulse on the NCAA what do you think could be the downhill effect for the potential of the D1 conferences realignment into "super" conferences.  Short term, does that mean more revenue for the NCAA to help the lower divisions.  Long term, do these conferences break away and tell the NCAA to get lost and we have to go to the NAIA model (schools pay own way for post-season, etc)?

What do you think?

[hickory_cornhusker]

I think out of the two options you listed the second one is much more likely. There will be no new infusion of money that wil trickle down to Division III. All new television money that would be gained by these super conferences would be in contracts signed by the conferences so the money would stay with the conference schools.

The best case senario for Division III may be a formation of a third level of Division I (or forth if you count I-AAA) The four sixteen team super conferences form I-A, the rest of current FBS forms I-AA and the current FCS is now I-AAA. The NCAA controls playoffs in all 3 and makes a killing at a level mirroring March Madness (football is much more popular but with less teams there is less programming for the network and chance for advertising dollars so the two cancel each other out). The new money trickles down like March Madness money trickles down.

Unfortunately there is as much chance of this happening perfectly as the Super-conferences telling the NCAA to get lost. You have to remember that the top schools have more than football and basketball. The Olympic sports need to be supported as well and I highly doubt the NCAA would allow the Olympic sports to compete in their Association but the revenue sports not.

[Ralph Turner]

Why do the Big East, the ACC, the Big Ten, the SEC, and Big XII and the Pac-10 really need the NCAA?

They can take their ball and play elsewhere.

[HSCTiger74]

Why do the Big East, the ACC, the Big Ten, the SEC, and Big XII and the Pac-10 really need the NCAA?
They can take their ball and play elsewhere.

Obviously they wouldn't need the NCAA, and that's even assuming that the Big East and Big 12 still exist after all the raiding and realignment are finished. There's a lot of speculation that the other four will ultimately become "superconferences" of 16 teams each, and you know that (except for a TCU or Boise or Utah) they won't be picking up those new members from the MAC or Conference USA or WAC.

[Gray Fox]

DI will end up with too many losers and few winners on the field.  Alumni will not be happy and this whole process may eventually reverse itself toward smaller conferences.

[Ralph Turner]

DI will end up with too many losers and few winners on the field.  Alumni will not be happy and this whole process may eventually reverse itself toward smaller conferences.

+1! That is why we have 36 D-1 Bowl games and the NIT!

[Gregory Sager]

Speaking strictly for myself, it's all sort of depressing. I've gone from having an indifferent attitude towards major-college sports to having an active dislike of them and everything that they stand for -- and yet I know that D3 national tournaments are completely at their mercy, because D3 doesn't generate any revenue and is dependent upon the big boys for its tourney budgets.

[sac]

Its all Notre Dame's fault.  If they would just play ball and join the Big 10 already, that would be the end of the expansion mess.

[wildcat11]

They can take their ball and play elsewhere.

That's where I think this is headed one day.  Probably just an overreaction but if/when these super conferences form why do they need the NCAA model anymore? 

[Just Bill]

They can take their ball and play elsewhere.

That's where I think this is headed one day.  Probably just an overreaction but if/when these super conferences form why do they need the NCAA model anymore? 

I think they will still need the NCAA to govern their other 20+ sports.  Even with as much money as they are making, these schools will need some kind of organization to manage tennis, swimming, volleyball, etc.  They won't want to take it on themselves because that would cut drastically into their cash, time and resources. They can't simply cut minor sports because the PR backlash would be deadly and it would ba tacit admission that they don't care about anything but football.  I think they need the NCAA to maintain at least the illusion of still being "amatuer".

[Ralph Turner]

They can take their ball and play elsewhere.

That's where I think this is headed one day.  Probably just an overreaction but if/when these super conferences form why do they need the NCAA model anymore?  

I think they will still need the NCAA to govern their other 20+ sports.  Even with as much money as they are making, these schools will need some kind of organization to manage tennis, swimming, volleyball, etc.  They won't want to take it on themselves because that would cut drastically into their cash, time and resources. They can't simply cut minor sports because the PR backlash would be deadly and it would ba tacit admission that they don't care about anything but football.  I think they need the NCAA to maintain at least the illusion of still being "amatuer".

I agree that the NCAA provides some administrative responsibilities, but do the "Big 64" need the other 260 D-1 schools so they can be better than any other 230 schools in those minor sports?  The Big 64 are usually the best at the minor sports, too.  Gymnastics, Swimming, Volleyball.  There are a few quality teams in soccer that are not in the Big 64, but are they worth the hassle?

Let's look at the Directors' Cup.  We have a smattering of C-USA, MWC, MAC and WAC's scattered in the top of the Directors Cup, mainly because you get so many points just for earning the conference AQ.

How do the Big 64 hold onto as much money as possible?  

[hickory_cornhusker]

They can take their ball and play elsewhere.

That's where I think this is headed one day.  Probably just an overreaction but if/when these super conferences form why do they need the NCAA model anymore?  

I think they will still need the NCAA to govern their other 20+ sports.  Even with as much money as they are making, these schools will need some kind of organization to manage tennis, swimming, volleyball, etc.  They won't want to take it on themselves because that would cut drastically into their cash, time and resources. They can't simply cut minor sports because the PR backlash would be deadly and it would ba tacit admission that they don't care about anything but football.  I think they need the NCAA to maintain at least the illusion of still being "amatuer".

I agree that the NCAA provides some administrative responsibilities, but do the "Big 64" need the other 260 D-1 schools so they can be better than any other 230 schools in those minor sports?  The Big 64 are usually the best at the minor sports, too.  Gymnastics, Swimming, Volleyball.  There are a few quality teams in soccer that are not in the Big 64, but are they worth the hassle?

Let's look at the Directors' Cup.  We have a smattering of C-USA, MWC, MAC and WAC's scattered in the top of the Directors Cup, mainly because you get so many points just for earning the conference AQ.

How do the Big 64 hold onto as much money as possible?  

I think Just Bill's concern with how to handle the Olympic sports will slow the Big 64 from leaving the NCAA for a few years but ultimately I think they will leave like Ralph Turner is suggesting. I hope it doesn't happen but I think it will.

[Gargantuan Gull]

They can take their ball and play elsewhere.

That's where I think this is headed one day.  Probably just an overreaction but if/when these super conferences form why do they need the NCAA model anymore?  

I think they will still need the NCAA to govern their other 20+ sports.  Even with as much money as they are making, these schools will need some kind of organization to manage tennis, swimming, volleyball, etc.  They won't want to take it on themselves because that would cut drastically into their cash, time and resources. They can't simply cut minor sports because the PR backlash would be deadly and it would ba tacit admission that they don't care about anything but football.  I think they need the NCAA to maintain at least the illusion of still being "amatuer".

I agree that the NCAA provides some administrative responsibilities, but do the "Big 64" need the other 260 D-1 schools so they can be better than any other 230 schools in those minor sports?  The Big 64 are usually the best at the minor sports, too.  Gymnastics, Swimming, Volleyball.  There are a few quality teams in soccer that are not in the Big 64, but are they worth the hassle?

Let's look at the Directors' Cup.  We have a smattering of C-USA, MWC, MAC and WAC's scattered in the top of the Directors Cup, mainly because you get so many points just for earning the conference AQ.

How do the Big 64 hold onto as much money as possible?  

I think the 100lb. gorilla that is still in the room that hasn't been discussed is that by remaining in the NCAA, the Big 64 can keep the pretense that their institutions are concerned about academics first.  The NCAA governs college athletics but also allows the Big 64 and the rest of D1 to argue that their football players, basketball players, etc... are student athletes (The APR etc...allows the Big 64 to claim that academics are the most important part).  Being part of the NCAA allows the institutions to claim that they are "academic institutions first" that allow their students to participate in athletics and gain scholarships because of their athletic talents.  If the Big 64 left the NCAA they would have a more difficult time making the argument that academics are most important....it would show their true colors that they still try to hide....money is what it is all about.  So IMO I think they stay in the NCAA even if they go to 4 super-conferences.
 

[Gray Fox]

Using the 16-PAC model, teams will play seven games in their own division and two in the other.  That will give a school a chance to play old rivals (USC/Notre Dame)  or Nebraska patsies like Haskell Indian. 

[Gargantuan Gull]

I think the 16 team superconference is not a bad idea entirely.  7 games against your division, 2 against the other division that would rotate each year, and depending on the # of games that you have on your schedule you would have 1-3 at large games....1 at D3, and up to 3 at the D1 level.  The superconference would probably cut down on costs at the D3 level since scheduling would be easy and predictable from year to year plus administrative costs would be shared by 16....It might even be enough to get some type of conference TV coverage...and maybe 2 AQ bids to the playoffs.