USA Today Article: After realignment, breakaway talk grows among power conferences...

Something almost all of us have suspected - long article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...split/2097115/

That fact brings out a host of critics, who wonder whether the schools responsible for generating that revenue will eventually want to stop sharing it — not just with Division II and III schools but with the so-called mid-majors, such as Wichita State, which earn NCAA "units" for their conference by playing and winning in the tournament over a rolling six-year span. Each unit is worth roughly $250,000. So Wichita State's Final Four run this season amounts to a windfall for the Missouri Valley Conference, which re-distributes that money equally to its members.

The fear among schools at that level, however, is that they would be excluded if the big-time football schools broke away and started their own basketball tournament. In much the same vein as school presidents approved a football playoff because the money was so overwhelming, a basketball tournament outside the NCAA is one of the last major money-grabs available.

An athletics director at a successful non-BCS basketball school, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic, said the major concern at that level is whether CBS and Turner Sports, which carry the men's Division I basketball tournament, will decide they would rather just get the guaranteed ratings with North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas than risk mid-major programs ending up in the Sweet 16.

"CBS has more or less already said, through the things you hear in this business, 'We don't care if there's 64 or 32 (teams in the tournament), the money is going to be the same,'" the athletics director said. "If the 'Big 5' (conferences) split away, when the next TV deal comes up, why are we (the non-BCS schools) going to be involved in it? It's the one place where the benefits spread to the whole. All the sudden, that's gone. So I can't afford to watch it split away."

If that happens I will quit watching college sports, not that it will make any difference to those in power, but all of this is ruining what I love about college basketball.

University presidents can't be that stupid, can they? The NCAA Tournament is the greatest event in all of sports. If the power conferences try to ruin the NCAA tourney, will congress finally get involved?

This is one of the reasons that I think Ohio State and Oregon got off with relatively light slaps on the wrist during their latest potential scandals. The NCAA is going to treat the major schools with kid gloves until they can figure all of this out. But if those projections are right, and the "Big 5" could get as much money as the NCAA is getting now to run its own little tournament, then you have to wonder what incentive they have to stick with the NCAA...outside of the fact that replicating the organization would be difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BuzzWilliams4Pres

If that happens I will quit watching college sports, not that it will make any difference to those in power, but all of this is ruining what I love about college basketball.

---

I agree and they may not say it publicly, but many fans of the larger schools wouldn't care for it either. I don't really watch professional sports anymore either.

I haven't read the article. Did they touch on the Title IX impact where schools like Marquette would have to drop sports and opportunities with the probable drop in athletic department revenue and the probable loss of jobs in athletic departments around the country?

If they want politicians involved, the presidents of the "Big 5" conferences could not find a better way to do it than to split from the NCAA. Also, the point about minor sports and their governance cannot be overlooked. The expense involved in governing these programs and sponsoring "National Championships" I would think is significant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedBaxter

I agree and they may not say it publicly, but many fans of the larger schools wouldn't care for it either. I don't really watch professional sports anymore either.

I haven't read the article. Did they touch on the Title IX impact where schools like Marquette would have to drop sports and opportunities with the probable drop in athletic department revenue and the probable loss of jobs in athletic departments around the country?

---

Great point Ted---the unintended consequences are often overlooked. There would certainly be a domino effect with a major loss in revenue to the school.

Would they do something this stupid and destructive? Of course they would. Look what football has done to conferences so far. The ACC used to be a conference of teams in states close together on the East Coast. Now it stretches from upper New York to Southern Florida. Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska were in the same conference and played each other for over 100 years. Now they are in three different conferences that are each spread over ridiculous distances, and they find themselves playing schools they have little in common with. The Big Ten stayed at ten teams for over 100 years, and they were all Midwestern universities with traditional rivalries. Now it stretched to the East Coas and includes New Jersey and Maryland. Imagine the excitement of the traditional rivalry between Iowa and Rutgers!

I have said for a long time that this was coming. The folks in charge of the big schools do not want more money, they want ALL the money, and they feel entitled to it. And frankly, they are likely to get it. The typical sports fan doesn't give a rip about smaller state schools, much less about schools like Marquette. Hell, the fans of Alabama can't even spell the names of states outside the SEC. If you look at the big names in football over the years, they really haven't changed much since the 1950's. Give or take a few teams, if you just looked at the names of the teams involved in the big games in the last week of the season, they would be pretty much the same.

And whether we like it or not, the same is pretty much true of basketball as well. Not to the same extent, but pretty close. Go look at the NCAA Final Four going back fifty or sixty years. Yes, Marquette and Loyola and UTEP and a few others make appearances, but far more often, you see UCLA, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, and a handful of other huge state schools dominating. If the big schools all got up and split from the NCAA to form their own basketball tournament, it would be tragic for the casual fan and for fans of teams like Marquette, and it would be a far less interesting tournament. But take a look at the second week of the tournament in most years. There will be sixteen teams, and at least a dozen of them will be large state universities with football teams. A tournament with just those teams might be worth less money, but it would not have to be split as many ways. And football is where the big money is anyway.

Would Congress get involved? Not bloody likely. Of course, one has to wonder why Congress cares about things like a football playoff as opposed to things that actually affect the country. As most of you have no doubt noticed, Congress is having a tough time lately agreeing on whether or not the sun rises in the East every morning. But while there may be a lot of anger on the part of smaller schools and their fans, the big schools would love it. Take a look at Wisconsin. If almost all the money generated by college sports in the state went to the state's largest state university, would that be fair? No. Would people be upset? Yes. But more people would be perfectly happy with the result. The same is true in most states. The big state schools have the biggest and most powerful constituencies.

The force behind all of this is the one major constant in American life. Greed.

Well, there are a lot of powerful politicians that went to schools w/o football (cf. Georgetown). And the gridlock in Washington will not necessarily be there in perpetuity.

A major part of the attraction of the the NCAA Basketball Tournament is the fact that the little guy gets a place at the table. The Florida Gulf Coast, Butler, George Mason and Wichita playing and beating the big state schools draws viewers. Losing the underdog aspect cannot be underrated.

There is also this part in the article:

Others, including Neinas, aren't sure there is much of an appetite for basketball to be part of any restructuring because the tournament's popularity is so culturally rooted in the diversity of schools participating and the annual story lines that emerge, such as Wichita State and Florida Gulf Coast this season.

Messing with that formula is risky, especially if a tournament is limited to just the FBS or a super-division of 64 or 80 schools, with nearly all of them participating -- not to mention how it would further devalue the regular season.

"I always felt the (current) tournament is absolutely the best model," said American Athletic Conference Commissioner Mike Aresco, who helped negotiate the current NCAA tournament television deal when he was the vice president at CBS Sports in charge of college programming. "The tournament reflects the country. Everybody has a real opportunity, and the tournament has that unique ability to include every part of the country every year. There's a real charm for that. I think the Cinderellas are usually valuable to the tournament. I wouldn't change a thing."

I would not be shocked if the top schools break off for football, and they were not be a giant fight about (especially if Mountain West and AAC are included in break off). However, I do no think they take the political risk of breaking off for all sports. This is an issue I think all political parties would agree upon.

Kevin O'Neil predicted this 20+ years ago. He indicated privately that it was a major reason why he left MU. He thought it was inevitable and it would happen soon. He was wrong about the soon part, but I still think it happens. To everyone who thinks Congress or the powerful alums of certain schools could stop this, you simply have your head in the sand. I started advocating football at MU when Kevin left. Too late now. If the BCS schools bolt, and they will one day, schools like MU are going to struggle. Unfortunately, the greed of some schools and the lack of vision at others is going to cause a lot of pain.

Well, let's take a look at the top 15, shall we? This is one year old.....

Top 15 in the Senate.....

1 Harvard - 8
2 Yale - 6
3 Georgetown - 5
4 George Washington U - 4
5 Stanford - 3
6 BYU - 3
7 Ole Miss - 3
8 Dartmouth - 3
9 Navy - 2
10 Arkansas - 2
11 Brooklyn College - 2
12 Ohio State - 2
13 Georgia - 2
14 Hawaii - 2
15 Pittsburgh - 2
BCS - 14
Non-BCS - 35

Top 15 in the House of Representatives....

1 California - 21
2 Texas - 14
3 Harvard - 13
4 Cal State - 11
5 North Carolina - 10
6 Illinois - 10
7 Georgetown - 8
8 Florida - 8
9 Yale - 7
10 Georgia - 7
11 George Washington - 7
12 Stanford - 6
13 Notre Dame - 6
14 Cornell - 6
15 Maryland - 6

BCS - 88
Non BCS - 52

I don't think they do it, the risks are too large relative to any increased benefits......

The financial underpinings of the University system as a whole - beyond merely athletics - sits precariously upon a house of cards.....Further scrutiny of the system by outsiders - be it politicians, the media, etc. - would not be a good thing.....

If they made this move, the next step would likely result in paying the players....and once that happens, do the net margins for the "Big 5" shrink even if gross revenue increases dramatically? I think so.....

That said, if they were stupid enough to try something like this, I actually think the NBE would be included......This would give the "Big 5" some political cover without much financial downside.....

I can't stand all of this crap. NCAA rules on limiting schollies helped level the playing field a bit in football, so now they want to make sure that they split so they can keep all the money.

Football drives the money bus. I get it and to an extent am ok with that too, that product has more value right now. I just think the bowl structure should be run differently to let better teams get a chance at money bowls. An 8th place 6-6 Big 10 team shouldn't get more money from a bowl than a conference champ and top 15 ranked team from a non BCS conference.

But what isn't right is that schools, just becuase they happen to be in a big conference, get to share the pie while more successful programs do not.

Schools like Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, Minn, Kentucky, Washington State, etc get an equal share while schools like Cincy, Boise State, Fresno State, Tulsa, San Diego State, East Carolina, Nevada, MAC schools, etc get close to nothing yet consistantly have better programs.

Go to a playoff structure and all will be fair with more than enough money to go around.

Interesting how those numbers break down. But I do not think they matter. The Ivies simply don't give a $#!+. Harvard and Yale have more money than God. They quit caring about football revenue at least fifty years ago. Beyond that, I do not know that you can expect much alumni loyalty from Congress. Suppose Congressman or Senator X graduated from some place like UWGB or Northern Illinois. Is he or she going to put their ass on the line to defend the old alma mater? Probably not, as their constituents are more likely to be fans of State U, and buckets of money are going to be rolling into the state coffers in any case. The governor and state legislatures would likely tell them to shut up and let State U enjoy its windfall.

People apparently really care about a football playoff, enough so that ridiculously enough, it became an issue of sorts in a presidential campaign. But do you think there was ever going to be legislation calling for one? In the unlikely event that the issue really seriously got considered by Congress, as opposed to a few politicians shouting and stomping about it, it would go nowhere. The big schools would have more than enough representation to stop any legislation dead in its tracks.

Jim, the issue isn't where they went to school as much as it is the constituency they represent. A Senator who went to Harvard, but represents Texas, is going to care a lot more about the interests of alumni of Texas than he is Harvard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warriorfan4life

There is also this part in the article:
I would not be shocked if the top schools break off for football, and they were not be a giant fight about (especially if Mountain West and AAC are included in break off). However, I do no think they take the political risk of breaking off for all sports. This is an issue I think all political parties would agree upon.

---

They already are broken off for football. They have the NCAA framework, but the BCS conferences run the championships, pretty much all the bowl games, and collect the lion's share of the revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

Jim, the issue isn't where they went to school as much as it is the constituency they represent. A Senator who went to Harvard, but represents Texas, is going to care a lot more about the interests of alumni of Texas than he is Harvard.

---

I was just putting the numbers out there. Nowhere did I suggest what these people would do, how the would separate or what their motives would be.