Jump to FBS

[Cratter]

You think the NCAA would allow it's members to play in a new tournament outside the NCAA and still keep good standing with the NCAA in their other sports? I'm not so sure about that.

If Wichita, Gonzaga and Marquette aren't a part of these new conferences in all sports, I don't see why the NCAA would just 'let' them play in a post season tournament other than thier own.

Maybe that's the point your not getting. It could be their own NCAA. A competitor. They wouldn't need the NCAA.

[Cratter]

A new NCAA sets its own rules. Sponsor fewer sports. Here's the amount of scholarships you must have yada. Except title 9 that's federal law.

[Bison06]

I think you have to be NCAA members to play all sports. You don't see an NAIA team in NCAA hockey. It's all or nothing. Basically the the Big Ten hockey conference would be no more if those schools left the NCAA.

Maybe that's the point your not getting. It could be their own NCAA. A competitor. They wouldn't need the NCAA.

No I get your point, but he is saying that teams outside the conferences that are now operating outside the NCAA would be allowed to play in this tournament. ie Wichita St, Gonzaga, Butler, insert any mid major basketball program. Under the proposal of you and others, those teams would still be members of the NCAA and still subject to any rule the NCAA imposes.

Why would the NCAA, after just losing some of it's best members, turn around and "let" the members it still has contribute to the success of their new competitor?

[homer]

How much money is the Big Ten losing in football because the MAC exists?

It would depend on how the money from the TV contract is divided up amongst the schools. I don't know the answer. If they decide to add a few more teams and renew the TV deal, that could be a lot of money if it is only split between 4-5 conferences instead of 10.

[Cratter]

Tv money. Don't they make the most from their own conference? What tv money are they splitting now? The bowl games? That money would be gone or less with less or no bowl games if they went to a 8 or 16 team playoff. Maybe a wash. And my guess is how many non bcs teams usually make a bowl game now. If the top half splits from the bottom half that assumes a one to one ratio. How much more money is could the gophers make if they didn't give Idaho some? I just dont think each school could make that much more in just football. Which is where all the talk stems from. Tv money will always increase. Everything increases with time, besides technology

[Cratter]

No I get your point, but he is saying that teams outside the conferences that are now operating outside the NCAA would be allowed to play in this tournament. ie Wichita St, Gonzaga, Butler, insert any mid major basketball program. Under the proposal of you and others, those teams would still be members of the NCAA and still subject to any rule the NCAA imposes.

Why would the NCAA, after just losing some of it's best members, turn around and "let" the members it still has contribute to the success of their new competitor?

Under my scenario, the basketball only schools would be full members. All sports for every school would no longer be in any part of the NCAA. The NCAA couldn't do anything about contributing to the success of its new competitor.

[Cratter]

I have no idea what Darrell is trying to say.

[Bison06]

Under my scenario, the basketball only schools would be full members. All sports for every school would no longer be in any part of the NCAA. The NCAA couldn't do anything about contributing to the success of its new competitor.

What do you mean by basketball only?

Under your scenario, you are either a part of the NCAA or you are a member of one of the conferences seceding from the NCAA. I don't see any gray area. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are proposing.

[Cratter]

My bad. Bad wording. I just meant schools like gongaga. Could be invited to the new non NCAA. And be full membets for all sports they have to help their own march madness. Weakening the ncaas. Making the new NCAA the NAIA. I mean its all fun speculation. I never see it happening.

[Bison06]

My bad. Bad wording. I just meant schools like gongaga. Could be invited to the new non NCAA. And be full membets for all sports they have to help their own march madness. Weakening the ncaas. Making the new NCAA the NAIA. I mean its all fun speculation. I never see it happening.

Ahh, now I see what you mean. That actually makes sense. Buy then you might have some competition issues with the other sports that "basketball" school sponsors. In that situation you might even have schools dropping all sports except basketball. Then we've completely dropped the notion of student-athlete and shown that college sports are really all about the money. Big surprise right?

[82SiouxGuy]

If the big schools decided to take their ball and go home it would create some major changes in all of college sports. The big school basketball tournament would be different without the David vs. Goliath potential. But some people are put off by the blowouts that also can happen. It would be more of a tournament of equals and I think that a lot of people would appreciate that. If they wanted, they could even turn it into a true national tournament, everyone is in the tournament. That would eliminate the conference tournaments, but could be the first real national tournament.

Other sports would suffer. Hockey is a great example. It is already a small group of schools. A split by the big schools would break hockey into 2 groups, neither large enough to be really successful. One option might be to create a separate organization to operate college hockey (or maybe turn it over to USA Hockey). That might be the only way to keep college hockey alive under this type scenario. Baseball might be another interesting example. I haven't looked at a breakdown of baseball playing schools, but I would guess that losing the big schools would be very hard to overcome.

Losing the big schools from March Madness may completely destroy the NCAA, at least the operation as we currently know it. To be honest, I don't know if that is totally a bad thing. Maybe the NCAA could go back to running an athletic program and coordinating sporting activities rather than everything they are trying to do now. Let the big schools deal with most of the big problems that can happen and becoming Jr versions of pro sports. But in reality, this potential loss of revenue is what will probably push the NCAA into making some changes in football rather than possibly losing the whole enchilada.

[GFG]

If the big schools decided to take their ball and go home it would create some major changes in all of college sports. The big school basketball tournament would be different without the David vs. Goliath potential. But some people are put off by the blowouts that also can happen. It would be more of a tournament of equals and I think that a lot of people would appreciate that. If they wanted, they could even turn it into a true national tournament, everyone is in the tournament. That would eliminate the conference tournaments, but could be the first real national tournament.

Other sports would suffer. Hockey is a great example. It is already a small group of schools. A split by the big schools would break hockey into 2 groups, neither large enough to be really successful. One option might be to create a separate organization to operate college hockey (or maybe turn it over to USA Hockey). That might be the only way to keep college hockey alive under this type scenario. Baseball might be another interesting example. I haven't looked at a breakdown of baseball playing schools, but I would guess that losing the big schools would be very hard to overcome.

Losing the big schools from March Madness may completely destroy the NCAA, at least the operation as we currently know it. To be honest, I don't know if that is totally a bad thing. Maybe the NCAA could go back to running an athletic program and coordinating sporting activities rather than everything they are trying to do now. Let the big schools deal with most of the big problems that can happen and becoming Jr versions of pro sports. But in reality, this potential loss of revenue is what will probably push the NCAA into making some changes in football rather than possibly losing the whole enchilada.

+1

[darell1976]

I have no idea what Darrell is trying to say.

Minnesota leaves the NCAA and joins this new BCS type division and is no longer a member of the NCAA in all sports including hockey. You can classify them the same as an a NAIA division and therefore cannot be in NCAA hockey because its football, basketball etc are not NCAA members. Understand? It's like Mayville St (NAIA member) trying to join the WCHA, they can't because they are not NCAA members, it would be the same if the B1G tells the NCAA goodbye, they leave the NCAA in all sports (hockey, wrestling, lacrosse etc).

[Herd]

I think the proclamation that the end of the ncaa is at hand, is a little premature. The larger conferences do not operate in a vacuum, and the cost and difficulty to administer college athletics is not something that you install over the weekend like a 1-3-1 defense. Ceratinly the ncaa isn't perfect, but they also do a lot of good for college athletics. If a new version of the ncaa were created to give you 3 governing boards for college athletics, how does that help financially?

At some point, even the B1G with all its arrogance and greed will need to do what's best for college athletics, and need to consider things beyond its conference. While Alabama, TX, and Ohio State would like to see massive change, I'm not sure the have nots in these conferences would be on board.

[Matt]

Interesting take here on the changes this past year in FCS from the Youngstown newspaper.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/apr/14/fcs-mess/?newswatch&buffer_share=adb31&utm_source=buffer

[The Sicatoka]

Interesting take here on the changes this past year in FCS from the Youngstown newspaper.

http://www.vindy.com...m_source=buffer

From that link:

With the FBS level moving toward a separation of haves (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, etc.) and have-nots (the “Group of Five”) some believe the upper tier conferences will eventually break off, leaving the NCAA behind.

“I’ve heard those rumors, but I don’t necessarily believe that,” Strollo said. “I don’t think there will be a formal separation, but clearly, there’s more and more of a separation.”

That could lead the bottom half of the FBS to merge with the upper half of the FCS, something that would require several schools to swallow their pride in hopes of building a substantial second tier.

“I suspect somewhere down the line, there’s going to be a line drawn between the BCS conferences and the bottom half of the FBS and the top half of the FCS,” Viverito said. “It probably makes some sense competitively but I don’t know if it could get done politically.

“We’ve not proven to have much aptitude in doing what makes sense in college sports, so maybe I’m answering my own question.”

So the MVFC commissioner sees the potential of "three tier" DI football. Maybe it's not so outlandish what I've said for a while:

- The BCS conferences of FBS

- The rest of FBS plus the top of FCS*

- The rest of DI (primarily non-scholarship)

*Gene Taylor recently called for a scheduling alliance amongst the Big Sky, MVFC, Southland, and CAA. That'd be the "top of FCS" I speak of.

[Herd]

The Valley commish is just stating what the rest of us already know. DI college football would benefit competitively from having 3 championship levels with 80 teams each, vs todays 2 levels witb 120 teams each. In both levels today (fbs & fcs) you have teams at the bottom without access to the championship that also struggle competitively with the top of their levels.

Then she agrees with me when she indicates, it likely wont change due to politics and the perception that bottom of fbs is still tbe highest level of college football. Meaning, the bottom 40 in fbs will likely want to stay at the top level, and cant be forced down due to scolarship levels and other political reasons.

[darell1976]

The three tier plan would be UND's way (and most likely NDSU's way) of moving up into the "FBS". Without a championship and neither school having a shot at the big boys bowl game (Orange, Rose, etc) there really is no point of moving up without a 3 tier division. I think keeping the non-scholarship teams in the FCS while moving the bigger conferences (BSC, MVFC, etc) into the new tier of DI with conferences like the SB, MAC, MW, would be great. Hopefully they get rid of the attendance rule (which is never enforced anyways), and lets see UND play Ohio (both schools play Stand Up and Cheer) for a National Title.

[Herd]

The three tier plan would be UND's way (and most likely NDSU's way) of moving up into the "FBS". Without a championship and neither school having a shot at the big boys bowl game (Orange, Rose, etc) there really is no point of moving up without a 3 tier division. I think keeping the non-scholarship teams in the FCS while moving the bigger conferences (BSC, MVFC, etc) into the new tier of DI with conferences like the SB, MAC, MW, would be great. Hopefully they get rid of the attendance rule (which is never enforced anyways), and lets see UND play Ohio (both schools play Stand Up and Cheer) for a National Title.

And again, Patty V & I agree that it likely won't happen. If the bottom level of FBS is sponsoring 85 scholarship (same as the top level), who is going to force them out? Unless the ncaa leads a change in scholarship levels that would take the FBS top tier upward (not likely) and the bottom of FBS downward (not likely), then the current 120+ schools will remain in FBS, with the bottom of FBS just happy to be along for the ride, even if they are struggling to afford it.

Maybe there will be a concrete plan proposed to alter the current 2 championship system, but I haven't seen one yet. Just chitter chatter about it from a few high profile schools who think they need more money, and people talking about it with no plan of how it would actually be accomplished. If there is a concrete plan, I haven't heard it yet.

[darell1976]

And again, Patty V & I agree that it likely won't happen. If the bottom level of FBS is sponsoring 85 scholarship (same as the top level), who is going to force them out? Unless the ncaa leads a change in scholarship levels that would take the FBS top tier upward (not likely) and the bottom of FBS downward (not likely), then the current 120+ schools will remain in FBS, with the bottom of FBS just happy to be along for the ride, even if they are struggling to afford it.

Maybe there will be a concrete plan proposed to alter the current 2 championship system, but I haven't seen one yet. Just chitter chatter about it from a few high profile schools who think they need more money, and people talking about it with no plan of how it would actually be accomplished. If there is a concrete plan, I haven't heard it yet.

What would it take to raise/lower scholarships? A vote per conference or a vote of every DI school? Or is it some NCAA board of execs who can alter the rules as they please.

[Herd]

The three tier plan would be UND's way (and most likely NDSU's way) of moving up into the "FBS". Without a championship and neither school having a shot at the big boys bowl game (Orange, Rose, etc) there really is no point of moving up without a 3 tier division. I think keeping the non-scholarship teams in the FCS while moving the bigger conferences (BSC, MVFC, etc) into the new tier of DI with conferences like the SB, MAC, MW, would be great. Hopefully they get rid of the attendance rule (which is never enforced anyways), and lets see UND play Ohio (both schools play Stand Up and Cheer) for a National Title.

If there was a 3 tier plan in DI football, you wouldn't be moving up to Tier 2, you would be staying in tier 2 where you are now (hopefully staying out of teir 3), but 1/3 of the current FBS might/would be joining you in tier 2 (in something other than FBS) making the current tier 2 (FCS) a more relavant grouping. Again this 3 tier 80/80/80 scenario is not likely, as the bottom 1/3 of the current FBS would leave the top tier kicking and screaming. Currently there are no scholarship differences in the top tier (obviously), thus the problem for a 3 tier system and forcing 40 schools out.

Ways to accomplish a 3 tier system would be: 1) Scholarship changes 2) Financial requirements 3) Or Attendance requirements. Scholarships and Financial ways are very tricky. The easiest way would be to impose a 30,000 attendance requirement, but this would really serve to fracture the bottom five FBS conferences, and even the top 5 FBS conferences.

[Herd]

Competitively, I'd structure 3 tiers a such: (Listed by 2013 Sagarin Order for FCS; FBS sagarin doesn't make sense due to all the schools moving; I'm listing by order of strength IMO) As I do this activity, I become more convinced that it will be nearly impossible to pull existing FBS conferneces out of the Top Tier, and find a way to combine the top of FCS and bottom of FBS.

Tier (1,2,3):

SEC (1)

B12 (1)

P12 (1)

B1G (1)

ACC (1)

America (1)

MWC (1)

CUSA (1)

MAC (2)

SBelt (2)

MVFC (2)

SoCon (2) (lost top 2)

OVC (2)

BigSky (2)

Southland (2)

CAA (2)

Ivy (3)

Patriot (3)

MEAC (3)

Big South (3)

NEC (3)

SWAC (3)

Pioneer (3)

Tier 1: 8 conferences; Maybe move CUSA & MWC to Tier 2 to balance number of teams.

Tier 2: 8 conferences Can't draw the line any higher, or full scholarship leagues end up in Tier 3. Competitively the FCS could complete well against the lower FBS, but scholarships are the issue.

Tier 3: 7 conferences Not much to play for here; few teams . . . the Ivies would plug their noses. Tier 3 is the reason that 3 tiers don't work. Think about dropping football would be a good idea, or play for fun w/o NC like the Ivys. I don't think there will ever be a championship in Tier 3, they would have to compete upward vs Tier 2 for a NC with a scholarship disadvantage. Could grant a waiver to play down for DII championship, but they DI budgets create probelms in the minds of the DII schools.

[GFG]

Competitively, I'd structure 3 tiers a such: (Listed by 2013 Sagarin Order for FCS; FBS sagarin doesn't make sense due to all the schools moving; I'm listing by order of strength IMO) As I do this activity, I become more convinced that it will be nearly impossible to pull existing FBS conferneces out of the Top Tier, and find a way to combine the top of FCS and bottom of FBS.

Tier (1,2,3):

SEC (1)

B12 (1)

P12 (1)

B1G (1)

ACC (1)

America (1)

MWC (1)

CUSA (1)

MAC (2)

SBelt (2)

MVFC (2)

SoCon (2) (lost top 2)

OVC (2)

BigSky (2)

Southland (2)

CAA (2)

Ivy (3)

Patriot (3)

MEAC (3)

Big South (3)

NEC (3)

SWAC (3)

Pioneer (3)

Tier 1: 8 conferences; Maybe move CUSA & MWC to Tier 2 to balance number of teams.

Tier 2: 8 conferences Can't draw the line any higher, or full scholarship leagues end up in Tier 3. Competitively the FCS could complete well against the lower FBS, but scholarships are the issue.

Tier 3: 7 conferences Not much to play for here; few teams . . . the Ivies would plug their noses. Tier 3 is the reason that 3 tiers don't work. Think about dropping football would be a good idea, or play for fun w/o NC like the Ivys. I don't think there will ever be a championship in Tier 3, they would have to compete upward vs Tier 2 for a NC with a scholarship disadvantage. Could grant a waiver to play down for DII championship, but they DI budgets create probelms in the minds of the DII schools.

Could it be possible that the America East (new Big East) gets sent down? It's basically all teams from C-USA now. Could also be that a couple of the top schools taken from those smaller FBS conferences are brought into the bigger conferences with the rest of the teams being sent down.

Something will get figured out, it's probably being worked on behind the scenes right now.

The only for sure is that the SEC, B1G, P12, B12 will be in the top tier. My next bet would actually be the MWC being conference #5. Especially after retaining Boise State.

[North Dakota]

In order to split the FBS (125 schools) and FCS (127 schools) as they are currently they would have to decrease scholarships for the bottom teams and or increase schollies for the top teams. Otherwise there is no justification for reclassification. Here is my thoughts:

Top 84 in FBS right now, goes to 90 schollies = D1-A. Split into 7, 12 team conferences, conference champs + 7 "wild cards" advance to playoff = 14.

Bottom 41 in FBS and Top 43 in FCS goes to 75 schollies = D1-AA conference champs plus 3 "wild cards" advance to playoff = 10.

Then the bottom 84 in FCS trim to 60 schollies = D1-AAA conference champs + 1 "wild card" advance to playoff = 8.

Then we combine all (32 teams) into one playoff system similar to the BB tourney:

32 team playoff, all games are "Bowl" games. Possible underdog story. One champion is crowned! Bracketology, betting, sponsers, money galore!

[Herd]

In order to split the FBS (125 schools) and FCS (127 schools) as they are currently they would have to decrease scholarships for the bottom teams and or increase schollies for the top teams. Otherwise there is no justification for reclassification. Here is my thoughts:

Top 84 in FBS right now, goes to 90 schollies = D1-A. Split into 7, 12 team conferences, conference champs + 7 "wild cards" advance to playoff = 14.

Bottom 41 in FBS and Top 43 in FCS goes to 75 schollies = D1-AA conference champs plus 3 "wild cards" advance to playoff = 10.

Then the bottom 84 in FCS trim to 60 schollies = D1-AAA conference champs + 1 "wild card" advance to playoff = 8.

Then we combine all (32 teams) into one playoff system similar to the BB tourney:

32 team playoff, all games are "Bowl" games. Possible underdog story. One champion is crowned! Bracketology, betting, sponsers, money galore!

Good Input . . . Easy to say, but really, really, really hard to make happen. Splitting 41 out of FBS to the 75 Level would be virually impossible. It would be just as easy for them to go up 5 than down 10. Also your split would throw two full scholarship FCS conference into tier 3, like the Southland, OVC, Big Sky or Valley. How do you choose two to move down? If you pick schools instead of conferences, you tear conferences apart. Really hard to make happen.

Also, I'd say your Tier 3 level of 60 scholarships is too high. I'd move the max to 50, but even at that level, a championship in Tier 3 is basically meaningless, with a lot of non-scholarship schools.

In the end, I belive that 2 championships will prevail, even if the levels change a little. In the end, I don't think you want any DI championship that has teams that are not as good as DII. That's what you'd have at the DI- 0to50 level.

And geez, get rid of your A,AA,AAA's. I'd just call the Subdivisions DI-90, DI-75, DI-50. All these schools are meeting the academic requirements of DI, and they all play DI basketball, don't screw that up.