Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Cat941]

Is college athletics headed for The Great Split? 'We need to recreate or relaunch the NCAA'

SPORTS.YAHOO.COM

---

With a looming reality due to several lawsuits, power conference schools may soon operate under a new governance structure. What would it look like?

In an interview that aired Sunday on "Meet The Press," Baker, in his ninth month as NCAA president, alluded to the creation of a new model for “50-70” programs that are “dramatically different than the rest.”

 

“I do believe five years from now that we will be at a point where we are sharing revenue with student-athletes,” Evans told leaders of the Knight Commission, a group of mostly former and current college athletic administrators promoting educational reforms in college sports.

“To think we are not going to be sharing some of those revenues… we are going to be there. It would not surprise me to see some sort of different type of governance structure in place that separates the A5 out from the current structure.”

 

***When I read this and the talk of separation of the A5, it reminds me that if we have a chance to go to the A5 (2PAC) we should do it.  Any chance to move up should be grabbed.  It's the only A5 with vacancies.  

[Jim Johnson]

5 hours ago, Bull Matrix said:

USF will be there…

I don't get this.  It's not the P5 against the NCAA... it's the P5 against G5 and FCS.  It's a membership-based organization.  And those schools can't really "leave" the NCAA entirely for all of their sports (the way the NCAA, the NJCAA, and NAIA are entirely separate.)

Everyone seems to forget 1977... when Division I split.  That is what needs to happen with the FBS... a new division with it's own rules for 70-80 schools.

[Cat941]

Please discuss. 

[Peatearpan]

10 hours ago, Cat941 said:

Is college athletics headed for The Great Split? 'We need to recreate or relaunch the NCAA'

SPORTS.YAHOO.COM

---

With a looming reality due to several lawsuits, power conference schools may soon operate under a new governance structure. What would it look like?

In an interview that aired Sunday on "Meet The Press," Baker, in his ninth month as NCAA president, alluded to the creation of a new model for “50-70” programs that are “dramatically different than the rest.”

 

“I do believe five years from now that we will be at a point where we are sharing revenue with student-athletes,” Evans told leaders of the Knight Commission, a group of mostly former and current college athletic administrators promoting educational reforms in college sports.

“To think we are not going to be sharing some of those revenues… we are going to be there. It would not surprise me to see some sort of different type of governance structure in place that separates the A5 out from the current structure.”

 

***When I read this and the talk of separation of the A5, it reminds me that if we have a chance to go to the A5 (2PAC) we should do it.  Any chance to move up should be grabbed.  It's the only A5 with vacancies.  

Two things:

1. The “difference” between those schools and the others is a manufactured idea pushed by the schools 

2. The top 50-70 schools would be included in the p4 conferences if they went 18 teams each.

[BDYZR]

10 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

I don't get this.  It's not the P5 against the NCAA... it's the P5 against G5 and FCS.  It's a membership-based organization.  And those schools can't really "leave" the NCAA entirely for all of their sports (the way the NCAA, the NJCAA, and NAIA are entirely separate.)

Everyone seems to forget 1977... when Division I split.  That is what needs to happen with the FBS... a new division with it's own rules for 70-80 schools.

I like the way you added teams. Gives USF a better chance.

[Jim Johnson]

2 hours ago, BDYZR said:

I like the way you added teams. Gives USF a better chance.

USF will be on that side of the equation... it's a large public school with a significant athletics budget.

The problems that P5 schools talk about is having Ohio State, Kent State, and Youngstown State all playing by the same rules in Division I -- and there is some logic to that argument... but USF operates more like Ohio State than Kent State... My guess is we see some dividing line around $50 million in athletic budgets.

[GoBulls84]

17 hours ago, belgianbull said:

Its not about not supporting USF. If that's the way you interpreted what I was saying then you misunderstood me. I will support USF no matter what conference we are in or whom ever we are playing. My point is that if the PAC becomes an option we should consider it. Also who we play matters for the more casual fan; of whom there are more than diehards. I firmly belief that if we played Air Force, Boise, or OSU  this weekend ( still 5-6) there would be more excitement and a bigger crowd then our game against Charlotte.

Forgive me  if I used the who vs whom incorrectly, my English is not the best.

I understood what you're saying perfectly. My point has been that, to us, those teams are a step up, sure. And maybe some small step up in stature to the media (but not much as we've already seen). My point has been, to the casual fans which we need to persuade to come out to games and start paying attention, Oregon State, Wazzou, and most of what would be in the new Pac 12 doesn't move the needle *that much more* that it would necessarily be prudent to leap gung ho into a conference which will likely end up with a marginally better media payout, but also have a far increased travel budget.

15 hours ago, Triple B said:

I don't think any of them draw "much" more. WSU/OSU maybe more because their recent legit P5 status. BSU, possibly because they actually were a brand in the not too distant past and Air Force because military academy/MacDill. The rest, throw 'em in a blender. The attendance for those games would rely on how USF is doing, to a point. I agree that the teams you mentioned are a step up over the ones you mentioned but not enough to warrant that big of a jump ....unless they're a top 15, possibly, coming in.

This is my point. Unless those teams are ranked, the casual fan increase at home games will be marginal when bringing in West Coast teams. Air Force possibly being the one main exception solely for the MacDill tie-in.

[MMW]

14 hours ago, Cat941 said:

Please discuss. 

This suggests schools are added by their current rank in sports.  

[Outlaw]

[Cat941]

7 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

USF will be on that side of the equation... it's a large public school with a significant athletics budget.

The problems that P5 schools talk about is having Ohio State, Kent State, and Youngstown State all playing by the same rules in Division I -- and there is some logic to that argument... but USF operates more like Ohio State than Kent State... My guess is we see some dividing line around $50 million in athletic budgets.

I wish I could believe that we will be on the right side of it.   But I think that as long as we're in the G5 we're going to be below their dividing line.  We're stuck.  Our revenue is just too low.