NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:42 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 71  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 11:40 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1753
Well, you can go 2 ways on this. Continue spending willy-nilly, or setting some limits (as many pro sports agree to salary caps).

You can let anyone into the Super-league club, but their athletics budget will be over-stressed to the max (see Rutgers) -
trying to keep up with Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Alabama, etc. who have annual athletic department budgets approaching $100 million.

Very few schools can sustain this. And to compete at the highest level now, schools are paying coaches $5 mill/year, and maybe another $3 mill for their staff.
That kind of expenditure is sustainable if you are the NFL. If you are an educational institution it is ridiculous.
Winning at FBS level (or any level) is a zero-sum game. If everyone pays more for coaches and facilities in an "arms race", the total number of wins does not go up.
You are depriving the students and the rest of the university just so (say) MIssissippi can win 2 more games at the expense of (say) Mississippi State.

The schools not in the Power 5 have no hope of sustaining a Texas-like budget. And they shouldn't even try.
Bottom line - schools need to make sensible decisions about the level at which they choose to compete,
COMENSURATE WITH an athletics budget that is sustainable for their institiution.

Over the long haul, New Mexico State can't compete in football with Ohio State. Deal with it.
This goes back to why the NCAA set up Division I, II, III and I-A (now FBS) and I-AA (now FCS) football.
As we type, there is a de-facto ongoing split within FBS, based on revenue of the 5 Power Conferences vs. the Group of 5 Conferences.
As the G5 gets left behind by the P5, do they become thier own NCAA Football Division or do theyjoin the FCS ranks ?
from an athletics budget standpoint, the latter might make sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:18 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Putting other programs out of the business of college football is untenable and exposes the cannibalism that exists when "football drives the bus." 30-40 years ago, you had a lot of programs playing "top-level" college football. 50-60 years ago, still more. Even if we see something where 64-72 programs "make the cut," give it another decade or two, and we'll see arguments on why even that paltry number is way too much. Even in the football-rich SEC, not every mouth will be fed. Today, we look to "cut out" Baylor, Wake Forest, and Northwestern...so, what does tomorrow spell for Washington State, California, and Mississippi State?


Bingo! Network producers could get to the point of saying to a conference such as the SEC (hypothetically), you need to get rid of Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State, and add Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and Miami" in some new re-assignment scheme.

Leave it to the programmers and we'll see what: Oregon and Georgia in the same conference?

Some of those that are willing to sacrifice the Iowa States', may find their own heads on the chopping blocks a few years later. How loyalty and tradition may be valued in the future is unclear. We've already seen a number of great traditional rivalry games busted apart.

Actually, I would like to see conferences have a moratorium on conference sizes-- like a max of 16. It puts a limit on perceived threats. Examples such as Delany suggesting, or not definitively squashing, rumors that the B1G could go to 18, 20, or 24 schools adds to the paranoia. GoRs' are an outcome, an entrusted shield based on defensive thinking that could be proven flawed as the trend takes a life of its own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
tute79 wrote:
or setting some limits (as many pro sports agree to salary caps).

Good point.

FCS has the minimum limits stuff. The focus is making new minimum limits for the elite.
But what are they talking about for the maximum limits? It sounds unlimited which is the problem. The talk is more cash, more control, more power, dumping have-nots. None of them (the power decision-makers) are talking about a 'cap' on earnings, conference sizes, and adapting a consistent standard each participants can cope with reasonably.
Among potential examples, if Texas going to earn 50 million a year more than anyone else, and Notre Dame is allowed to make their procedures and practices to be incorporated, there shall be more of the super-elite among a new and reduced set of elite. If there is not some concept of equity in terms of access and limits, are they really reaching a purpose other than shedding some baggage to exploit what the market offers for greater earnings?

Not only do the pros' have salary caps, but they have drafts. These major conferences need to decide now if they want owners, player bargaining, trades, selling off teams, drafts, etc. Build the mechanism, and these unsought things will work their way into it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 1:35 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1177
And FCS is no picnic. I don't know who's making money on that side of Division 1 (Montana, NDSU, or Delaware?), but seeing the Patriot step up to the scholarship level is shocking, if nothing else, because they recognize as a collective that the sport is getting well ahead of them, too, from a resource perspective. The school name is not enough of an incentive to bring competitive kids in through the doors.

tute79 wrote:
The schools not in the Power 5 have no hope of sustaining a Texas-like budget. And they shouldn't even try.


I don't disagree...but is that really fair?

"Fake it 'til you make it" worked for Louisville, and others before them (UMFL?). It's not like institutionally, UL is lock-step with the ACC. They just spent a ton of money on sports and have rabid fans who help make the program look desirable. Is Virginia Tech really that worthy of major conference inclusion? Rutgers?

I don't know what the solution is. It's all so arbitrary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1753
Patriot League and Ivy League had some arrangement whereby they distributed scholarship money that was measured in scholarship equivalvents
(using something called an academic Index). this was for football. Patriot did award scholarship for BB and some other sports in normal manner.

Fordham (a football affiliate member) unilaterally decided to switch over to scholarships and told the Patriot: accept this, kick us out, or all of you switch over too.
The Patriot disqualified Fordham from the championship for a year while they studied it, and then decided to switch to the standard NCAA scholarship model.
This wsa more of a book-keeping matter for the AD's office.

If, by saying the FCS is no picnic, you mean there are FCS teams that are quite good, I agree.
No FBS team in their right mind would want to play North Dakota State the past few years.
You might beat them, but you would not get a way with not putting out a full effort.

Is it fair that smaller schools can't compete with the really big schools ? I don't know - who said this was subject to "fairness" ?

It seems only reasonable that if all schools spend the same amount of money PER ENROLLED STUDENT on athletics,
it stands to reason he bigger schools should ON AVERAGE have more financial resources to be able to compete at a higher level.
I don't lose any sleep over the fact that Slippery Rock can't beat the FSU Seminoles in football.
In my world, they should not be competing with each other.
That is why Slippery Rock plays in PSAC in Division II against similar sized schools, with similar athletic budgets, where they should be quite competitive.

Within D-I now, there is quite a disparity, and so it seems only natural to sub-divide D-I football in such a way to create competitive groupings.
There is no expectation that Campbell (FCS, non-scholly), James Madison (FCS), and Southern Cal (FBS) all field teams wiht the same talent level.
I'm not sure what the proper groupings should be, or how many scholarships should be funded for a FB team at each specific level, but we need to be realistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:55 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1177
tute79 wrote:
Patriot League and Ivy League had some arrangement whereby they distributed scholarship money that was measured in scholarship equivalvents
(using something called an academic Index). this was for football. Patriot did award scholarship for BB and some other sports in normal manner.

Fordham (a football affiliate member) unilaterally decided to switch over to scholarships and told the Patriot: accept this, kick us out, or all of you switch over too.
The Patriot disqualified Fordham from the championship for a year while they studied it, and then decided to switch to the standard NCAA scholarship model.
This wsa more of a book-keeping matter for the AD's office.

If, by saying the FCS is no picnic, you mean there are FCS teams that are quite good, I agree.
No FBS team in their right mind would want to play North Dakota State the past few years.
You might beat them, but you would not get a way with not putting out a full effort.

Is it fair that smaller schools can't compete with the really big schools ? I don't know - who said this was subject to "fairness" ?

It seems only reasonable that if all schools spend the same amount of money PER ENROLLED STUDENT on athletics,
it stands to reason he bigger schools should ON AVERAGE have more financial resources to be able to compete at a higher level.
I don't lose any sleep over the fact that Slippery Rock can't beat the FSU Seminoles in football.
In my world, they should not be competing with each other.
That is why Slippery Rock plays in PSAC in Division II against similar sized schools, with similar athletic budgets, where they should be quite competitive.

Within D-I now, there is quite a disparity, and so it seems only natural to sub-divide D-I football in such a way to create competitive groupings.
There is no expectation that Campbell (FCS, non-scholly), James Madison (FCS), and Southern Cal (FBS) all field teams wiht the same talent level.
I'm not sure what the proper groupings should be, or how many scholarships should be funded for a FB team at each specific level, but we need to be realistic.


The Patriot, when it was literally the Ivy-lite, worked with grants as forms of aid like the Ivies did/still do. They started going with scholarships because they couldn't bring in certain kids, or retain them if they showed talent but couldn't afford the tab. When it finally trickled down to football, it sort of shown the totality of the issue. Great, prestigious institutions like Lehigh and Holy Cross had great names, but they were no UPenn or Harvard, and they couldn't keep up with schools in the NEC and CAA, either. Don't get me wrong...I think the Patriot is doing a good thing by finally offering scholarships (and setting a standard through the academic index as a qualifier), but if you know just how good an institution those are in the Patriot...that kids would rather go elsewhere says that either the tab is too high (and that sports aren't enough of a subsidy) or maybe those playing sports don't understand the value of the name on the iron gates.

The "picnic" FCS is not is partly what you say: very competitive. It's also no treat because practically nobody runs a profitable program out that way, and subsidizing the cost of running a program almost necessitates the frequent FBS "body bag" games, as both a budgetary boost and a recruiting need. That schools would rather get thumped than roll the dice with another home game for students, alumni, and fans...it says a lot.

To fairness...why are certain schools even in the major conferences today? What make them more worthy than others who presently aren't? Legacy? Politics? If it isn't on merit...it will never significantly improve for all involved. Like, why can't East Carolina aim for the SEC? Why can't Memphis? It's not merit that has them where they are...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 11:08 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
The SEC has distributed the divisional rotation matchups for 2014 through 2025:

http://msn.foxsports.com/south/story/se ... ons-051914
_______________

The conferences moved fast in settling the matter for an extended period. There was the grumbling from some of the usual complainers about having it tougher than some others, but the design looks intended to be basically fair. Sure the assigned permanent cross-overs have notable differences in distance, strength, and levels of intensity, but everybody has to have one in the 6-1-1 format. And marquee games that are permanent cross-overs were sought to be protected.

If the SEC expands in membership before 2025, that will be a doozy incorporating new scheduling. However, the model is adaptive to modification, and if new additions would be one to the east division and one to the west division, they could end up canceling the rotation with the other division entirely if 8 conference games would continue to be the limit. Or, they can then embrace the 9 conference game format, and maintain a rotation.

Also, in a situation whereby a new addition (such as FSU if it ever happens) that would already be a permanent OOC fixture on a member's schedule, and placement pertains to the same division, certain scheduling could be comparatively easier in some regards. That's part of why when it comes to scheduling, in-footprint additions should not be totally ruled out. For now though, the thinking about what schools could be added, suggests desirable major schools from states contiguous to the SEC, and no more than one from any new state that would be represented. That really narrows the any potential pool.

From what I hear about Mizzou, they seem content with being in the SEC-east. The Alabama schools have refused to split before, and seemed adamant to stay together in the SEC-west. Certainly whatever west school could be added may shape Mizzou's, and perhaps another's, divisional preference.

Future SEC expansion: NCSU to the east? Some current B12 school to the west? Whatever the case, how SEC divisions and scheduling currently exist, may largely determine who, how, and when, expansion candidates are determined if the issue gets back on the table at some future point. Maybe holding off on going to 9 conference games factors into the thought that future expansion is possible, and it may offer a bit more flexibility for future transitions. That said, there are multiple reasons for the consensus on the model adapted.


Last edited by sec03 on Tue May 20, 2014 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 4:17 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 783
Location: Columbus, OH
My best guess is that any expansion in the SEC will be in the East, and that if/when that comes Missouri will move to the West.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 5:01 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
fighting muskie wrote:
My best guess is that any expansion in the SEC will be in the East, and that if/when that comes Missouri will move to the West.


As far as relalignment options go...other are no likely options to the West so I'd agree with you.

But like sec03 stated, I think the SEC East is actually pretty good for Mizzou.

In the East and with Arky as a rival Mizzou plays its three closest schools geographically, Arky, Vandy, and Kentucky.

And the rest of the division is full of solid fb schools UF, UGA, USC, and TN which I think they see themselves more in common with these schools rather than the West which consists of Ag schools in poorer states.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:27 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1177
If FSU were one of the acquired schools, they'd go west. Assuming its other schools in the east, I don't know...something tells me a Carolina school, even NCSU, wouldn't get the rub of being east with South Carolina. Maybe a bit of bad blood there, still. I could see WVU in the west. I could see Cincy more in the west (away from UK). Weird as it is, I don't see Missouri being a west school. I think they're in a good place in the east...if they have to be somewhere before the Big Ten finally gives them a shot. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 12:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
tkalmus wrote:
And the rest of the division is full of solid fb schools UF, UGA, USC, and TN which I think they see themselves more in common with these schools rather than the West which consists of Ag schools in poorer states.

tkalmus,
I agree that 'collectively', the SEC-east has a more of a progressive appearance. I've heard Pitt fans call Penn State a Moo University. Nowadays, having that land-grant history and big Ag schools/departments are a source of pride and gains some big research dollars. Technology and trends related to the food industry shows related majors are becoming ever more valued. Getting admitted to vet school, anywhere in the USA, is among the most challenging---more than most medical schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 1:32 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
sec03 wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
And the rest of the division is full of solid fb schools UF, UGA, USC, and TN which I think they see themselves more in common with these schools rather than the West which consists of Ag schools in poorer states.

tkalmus,
I agree that 'collectively', the SEC-east has a more of a progressive appearance. I've heard Pitt fans call Penn State a Moo University. Nowadays, having that land-grant history and big Ag schools/departments are a source of pride and gains some big research dollars. Technology and trends related to the food industry shows related majors are becoming ever more valued. Getting admitted to vet school, anywhere in the USA, is among the most challenging---more than most medical schools.

I don't disagree, but from Mizzou's perspective I think they see themselves fitting in with the East over the West. They fit more with the larger populated states with to media market and bball rather than the poor South (MS/AL) and Ag schools.

Being an Ag school isn't bad, just like ND not being AAU doesn't mean their degrees are worthless, but it is a perception issue that Mizzou can sell.

Like I said they have a great mix, 3 local schools and 4 exciting power schools, in the West they'd lose a local school for a Mississippi school and the power schools are in smaller markets (except A&M but even they are rural so it's not a good road trip).

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 1:47 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
Article pertaining to upcoming SEC spring meetings in Destin, Fl.
(Slive Expects Autonomy to be hot topic for SEC - John Zenor, AP Sports Writer, 5/21/2014):

http://www.thestate.com/2014/05/21/3459 ... 9/181/185/

The conferences consisting of the 65 school body seem determined to pursue greater autonomy. The Pac 12 has written up a proposal which suggests major collaboration and informal agreements already.

My expectation is they all are going to have a big honeymoon as they prepare to embark on the agreement. After the separation happens, and the playoffs get going with some new bowl arrangements, conflicts and new drama shall arise. With five conferences (two at 14, one at 14+fb indy ND, one at 12, and one at 10), challenges shall be over equity issues and assured representations for the post-season. And, those new, autonomous rules, shall have some big growing pains, fusses about money, and new scandals in exploiting new rules. Re-alignment/expansion shall not be over by a long-shot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2014 10:01 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 34
My ranking of the top 10 SEC Candidates (in order)...

1. Texas ... for the obvious reason of getting the SEC Network on standard cable/Tier 2 package in the state of Texas
2. Florida State ... a major step towards a Southern Monopoly on college sports content
3. North Carolina ... a lesser effect than FSU in the monopoly respect, but would be amazing for the SECN and for SEC hoops
4. Virginia ... solid, classy move, prevents Big Ten encroachment into the South (assuming B1G wouldn't take VT alone)
5. Virginia Tech ... switch with #6 if you want a more Southern flavor and slightly better overall sports package
6. North Carolina State ... only less than #5 for lesser football (but SEC affiliation would have a swing effect by pure comparison)
7. Miami ... I think this adds a new "king" to SEC football, wherein Miami could rise to National Title Contender status again
8. Louisville ... a lesser version of what Miami would bring, albeit with much better hoops
9. West Virginia ... decent pickup, but would need a home run of an expansion pair (FSU??) to prevent groaning
10. Baylor ... could go Clemson here, but I'd rather have more Texas exposure than doubling down in South Carolina

All that said, I think the base number (you want a low number) is 11. So, if you take Baylor, you also have to take Texas to make it worth doing. WVU & FSU = 11, UNC & Lou. = 11, VA & VT = 9 etc.

Is a pairing of Texas & FSU (max. score of 3) in play? I don't see why not in 2026. That is the best possible move for the SEC in my view. I thought about Notre Dame's place, but the idea seemed too far-fetched as Notre Dame wouldn't side with any region be it Midwest, Southern or Western. Right now, the ACC is the closest thing to a national conference (but its Northeastern end isn't that valuable IMO).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2014 10:12 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1753
Say you added FSU and Texas. SEC would have succeeded in locking up a huge fan base with top-notch FB schools, and this would attract that many more eyeballs to SEC Network, etc.

A PROBLEM - as I see it, is that you have created a football monster (Assuming Texas returns to playing FB closer to it's historical level - LIKELY).
It may wind up being difficult to finish 10-2.... wil this hurt the confernece when the playoff is seeded ?

Will some up-and-coming coaches shy away, due to having to deal with unrealistic expectations ?
(taking an SEC team to an 8-4 season might be doing a tremendous job, yet fans will scream for your head !)
Would some coaches and players think it better to "shine" in a lesser conference, rather than face a weekly grind and wind up a face in the crowd ?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 71  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Quinn and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group