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

[warriorfan4life]

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.

[MU88]

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.

[IWB]

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

[TrevorCandelino]

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.....

[Goose85]

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.

[unclejohn]

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.

[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.

[TheSultan]

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.

[IWB]

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.