More conference realignment talk

[Herman Cain]

You're assuming the NCAA includes the P5-6 in this scenario.

NCAA doesn’t have a right to change a pre existing deal .

[Scoop Snoop]

NCAA doesn’t have a right to change a pre existing deal .

True, but I think the point was that the supersized conferences can leave the NCAA and have their own Big Boys Basketball Tourney. I think that more likely, they will successfully pressure the NCAA to change some of the rules and structure of March Madness.

[Hards Alumni]

NCAA doesn’t have a right to change a pre existing deal .

I am aware.  I'm talking about the P5-6 conferences LEAVING the NCAA entirely and forming their own league with their own tournament.

[brewcity77]

For many reasons I've listed before, I don't see it, because it's not just taking on the March Madness but all the other sports the NCAA currently administers that go with it. I do think we will see gradual pressure toward altering the current format as we get closer to 2032, and expect the tournament will look radically different once the next contract is negotiated.

If they break off, it will be for football purposes, and it will end up with a football playoff that only includes probably 2-3 leagues (at most 5). I just don't see them staging a basketball tournament out of those leagues exclusively because no one wants to watch the dregs of even those leagues in March. They certainly won't include other (current) FBS schools in such an endeavor after cutting them out of the football revenues.

I think it's far more likely they force the NCAA to gradually reduce the number of auto-bids. Whether it's shrinking the size of D1, a consolidated low-major Tournament of Champions system like I suggested above, or the (most likely) at-large only, I do think they'll include the other NCAA leagues simply for inventory. You'll have a better product with better ratings and more revenue if you retain the Big East and other prominent non-P5 programs, while at the same time knowing that the bulk of the bids will go to those P5 (or 2, or 3, or whatever) schools.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

For many reasons I've listed before, I don't see it, because it's not just taking on the March Madness but all the other sports the NCAA currently administers that go with it. I do think we will see gradual pressure toward altering the current format as we get closer to 2032, and expect the tournament will look radically different once the next contract is negotiated.

If they break off, it will be for football purposes, and it will end up with a football playoff that only includes probably 2-3 leagues (at most 5). I just don't see them staging a basketball tournament out of those leagues exclusively because no one wants to watch the dregs of even those leagues in March. They certainly won't include other (current) FBS schools in such an endeavor after cutting them out of the football revenues.

I think it's far more likely they force the NCAA to gradually reduce the number of auto-bids. Whether it's shrinking the size of D1, a consolidated low-major Tournament of Champions system like I suggested above, or the (most likely) at-large only, I do think they'll include the other NCAA leagues simply for inventory. You'll have a better product with better ratings and more revenue if you retain the Big East and other prominent non-P5 programs, while at the same time knowing that the bulk of the bids will go to those P5 (or 2, or 3, or whatever) schools.

Two thoughts...

First, the P5 schools have no reason to break off from the NCAA for football.  The NCAA is still a useful organization in terms of services for eligibility, recruiting, etc., and provides those services at no extra cost. Furthermore it can be a nice scapegoat when those schools need to blame something on someone.

Second, I agree with you completely on the NCAA tournament. I can see more Tuesday and Wednesday play in games as a next step.

[brewcity77]

Honestly, I think the NCAA should've already expanded to 72, adding 4 at-larges but making all the play-in games all at-large. It would be more revenue and bids for the big schools, better ratings on Tuesday/Wednesday, and might appease some of the coming complaints.

Obviously, this current contract is also a problem. Emmert and the negotiating team massively screwed that up. The revenue per share is smaller than it should be, which will only help fuel the greed of the bigger programs that don't think their share is big enough. Ultimately, that contract may end up destroying the tournament as we know it.

[WhiteTrash]

Two thoughts...

First, the P5 schools have no reason to break off from the NCAA for football.  The NCAA is still a useful organization in terms of services for eligibility, recruiting, etc., and provides those services at no extra cost. Furthermore it can be a nice scapegoat when those schools need to blame something on someone.

What if they want to 'pay for play' with the players? What if they want enrollment at the school to be optional for the players? What if they want to collectively barging with a player's union? How would any of that fit within the framework of the NCAA and 90%+ of the member schools?

[Herman Cain]

What if they want to 'pay for play' with the players? What if they want enrollment at the school to be optional for the players? What if they want to collectively barging with a player's union? How would any of that fit within the framework of the NCAA and 90%+ of the member schools?

The P5 is not a concept developed by sportswriters , it is a legally defined concept within the NCAA. The Autonomy conferences as defined by the NCAA ( Big 10, Big 12 , SEC, ACC and PAC-12)have the right to set their own rules and regulations.

Here is a good article from the time the Autonomy legislation was adopted

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-adopts-new-division-i-model-giving-power-5-autonomy/

[Oldgym]

The P5 is not a concept developed by sportswriters , it is a legally defined concept within the NCAA. The Autonomy conferences as defined by the NCAA ( Big 10, Big 12 , SEC, ACC and PAC-12)have the right to set their own rules and regulations.

Interesting. I always thought it was branding, nothing more, and found it amusing when the AAC tried to sell the idea of "P6".

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What if they want to 'pay for play' with the players? What if they want enrollment at the school to be optional for the players? What if they want to collectively barging with a player's union? How would any of that fit within the framework of the NCAA and 90%+ of the member schools?

They definitely don't want 1 and 3. I don't think they want 2 either. If they do,  they will have the power to make it happen within the NCAA framework

[The Equalizer]

https://www.yahoo.com/video/ncaa-president-mark-emmerts-35-billion-mistake-will-define-his-failed-tenure-232648011.html

I think the most interesting comment of this whole debate is from this article linked by Herman:

"One expert predicted it could have gotten $1.5 billion from 2025-29, done a short deal and shot for $2.25 billion annually in 2030."

For the sake of argument, let's say a breakaway faction emerges with enough teams to make a 64-team tournament a reality.  I've suggested a good dividing line might be the FBS teams--that gives you about 130 teams--about 8 conferences of 16 teams each.  Enough that the tournament quality would be roughly equivalent (or perhaps slightly better) than what you have today.  Consider swapping Texas A&AM for Texas A&M Corpus Christi as your 16 seed.

Now, look at your baseline--the current NCAA contract where the rights go for $867.5 million per year
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/5/13/where-does-the-money-go.aspx

(the tournament makes another $177 million in ticket sales, and I imagine the 64 team tournament from the breakaway teams would be able to earn the same, given it's a wash, I'll exclude this from the comparision)

Consider:

You can get a decent size piece of $867 million each year through 2032.
or
You can get 100% of $1.5 billion each year starting in 2025, increase to 100% of $2.25 billion starting in 2030

Let's assume that the breakaway teams get 2/3 of the current NCAA revenue. That's $572 million per year. Not too shabby, but you could increase that to $1.5 billion a year starting in 2025 and $2.25 billion per year starting in 2030--increasing your take by $928 million annually beginning in 2025, and $1.68 billion beginning in 2030

The one caveat--you have to pick up all the administrative work on non-revenue sports the NCAA currently performs. 

That administrative work is currently budgeted at $45 million per year, plus another $58 million of "other association wide expenses."  Put aside that you can probably reduce those numbers as the number of members drops from 1100 to just over 100.  Let's just say it costs you $103 million to replicate all the work the NCAA currently performs.

Why wouldn't you spend $103 milllion to get a return of somewhere between $928 billion and $1.68 billion annually? 

[WhiteTrash]

They definitely don't want 1 and 3. I don't think they want 2 either. If they do,  they will have the power to make it happen within the NCAA framework

Well if they get/forced to have 1. pay for play, they may want 3. collective bargaining. That could help the sports with a salary cap.
If they can get more money somehow, they may want pay for play. Not sure how but a concept like non-student athletes that somehow exempts them from Title 9 expenses (I don't know if that works, I'm just 'spit-balling').
I don't know about wanting 2. non-student athletes, but possibly a discrimination law suit could force the issue.

This is not my hope, I just think we should all be ready for any and all possibilities.  I hope this turns out to be a mindless rant. I'm sure most will view it that way.

[DegenerateDish]

I occasionally do work with a former assistant AD who was at a Power 5 school, I asked him today what he thought might happen in the next 4 years. His guess was the SEC goes to 24 teams, and basically owns all of the Southeast. He thinks Louisville, Clemson, Ga Tech, Miami, FSU, UCF, Ok St, and Texas Tech all end up in the SEC.

Concerning Notre Dame, he echoed what I mentioned here, the Big 10 will give NBC a late afternoon Saturday Big 10 window (linear tv) and Peacock will get an 11am Big 10 Saturday kick every September Saturday if they can get ND on board (thinks NBC’s offer will be “gigantic”).

He also believes nothing will happen until ND decides, and if ND comes on board, UNC is the only other call. He thinks there’s little chance Oregon/Washington get a call, and said the one other school the Big 10 should call eventually (his opinion) is BYU (but they won’t).

[GoldenWarrior11]

Two thoughts...

First, the P5 schools have no reason to break off from the NCAA for football.  The NCAA is still a useful organization in terms of services for eligibility, recruiting, etc., and provides those services at no extra cost. Furthermore it can be a nice scapegoat when those schools need to blame something on someone.

Second, I agree with you completely on the NCAA tournament. I can see more Tuesday and Wednesday play in games as a next step.

There is nothing the B1G and SEC (and Big 12, ACC and PAC) cannot already do that the NCAA is currently "tasked" with doing.  Administration?  The leagues have large offices that can already administer each of their sports (and only be responsible for 16 teams rather than 300+).  Enforcement?  The NCAA has already thrown in the towel here.  Again a league enforcing rules for 16 schools (and each of their programs) is much easier to do than 300+ schools and all those programs.  Running conference/postseason tournaments?  Again, the schools already do this themselves (and give a big hunk to the NCAA).

The NCAA was officially deemed absolute as soon as Alston was determined by the Supreme Court.  It's starting with football, and will inevitably trickle down to Olympic sports.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Interesting. I always thought it was branding, nothing more, and found it amusing when the AAC tried to sell the idea of "P6".

#AmericanPow6r

One of the most hilariously awful marketing campaigns in college sports history.  When you have to continually reinforce and assure to the public that you're a member of a highly selective country club, guess what?  You're not actually a member of the selective country club.

The Big East never once pumped its chest, whined in the corner or put stickers on its courts saying how we belonged with the big boys. Our success on the court spoke for itself, as did our relationships with P5 conferences.

Had the AAC NOT done this campaign (and UCF not declared itself a national champion), I truly think the perception and optics of the league would have been better.  But that's my opinion.

[WhiteTrash]

There is nothing the B1G and SEC (and Big 12, ACC and PAC) cannot already do that the NCAA is currently "tasked" with doing.  Administration?  The leagues have large offices that can already administer each of their sports (and only be responsible for 16 teams rather than 300+).  Enforcement?  The NCAA has already thrown in the towel here.  Again a league enforcing rules for 16 schools (and each of their programs) is much easier to do than 300+ schools and all those programs.  Running conference/postseason tournaments?  Again, the schools already do this themselves (and give a big hunk to the NCAA).

The NCAA was officially deemed absolute as soon as Alston was determined by the Supreme Court.  It's starting with football, and will inevitably trickle down to Olympic sports.

For the record, the NCAA has 1,100 schools. I understand the drive by media acts like they only have the D1 schools but they facilitate athletic opportunities for 10,000+ students.

While schools like MU, Wisconsin, LSU, Kansas, ND, Loras, DePauw etc, (i.e. the members schools who run and make the policies of the NCAA), get criticized constantly, the NCAA does a very good job for the vast majority of the schools and players.

That said, the point that P5,4,3,or 2 conferences can administer all their sports is true IMO. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

There is nothing the B1G and SEC (and Big 12, ACC and PAC) cannot already do that the NCAA is currently "tasked" with doing.  Administration?  The leagues have large offices that can already administer each of their sports (and only be responsible for 16 teams rather than 300+).  Enforcement?  The NCAA has already thrown in the towel here.  Again a league enforcing rules for 16 schools (and each of their programs) is much easier to do than 300+ schools and all those programs.  Running conference/postseason tournaments?  Again, the schools already do this themselves (and give a big hunk to the NCAA).

The NCAA was officially deemed absolute as soon as Alston was determined by the Supreme Court.  It's starting with football, and will inevitably trickle down to Olympic sports.

So you think that the conference offices can just pick up things like running a track and field national championship at no extra cost?  Very doubtful.  Those are the things that the NCAA does well and with some efficiency. 

[Oldgym]

#AmericanPow6r

One of the most hilariously awful marketing campaigns in college sports history.  When you have to continually reinforce and assure to the public that you're a member of a highly selective country club, guess what?  You're not actually a member of the selective country club.

The Big East never once pumped its chest, whined in the corner or put stickers on its courts saying how we belonged with the big boys. Our success on the court spoke for itself, as did our relationships with P5 conferences.

Had the AAC NOT done this campaign (and UCF not declared itself a national champion), I truly think the perception and optics of the league would have been better.  But that's my opinion.

That was it.  And yes. Fake it till you make it might work for startups with something unique to offer.  AAC didn't have that.

[Scoop Snoop]

#AmericanPow6r

One of the most hilariously awful marketing campaigns in college sports history.  When you have to continually reinforce and assure to the public that you're a member of a highly selective country club, guess what?  You're not actually a member of the selective country club.

The Big East never once pumped its chest, whined in the corner or put stickers on its courts saying how we belonged with the big boys. Our success on the court spoke for itself, as did our relationships with P5 conferences.

Had the AAC NOT done this campaign (and UCF not declared itself a national champion), I truly think the perception and optics of the league would have been better.  But that's my opinion.

Very true. And of course, that includes the 2 nattys by Nova in case there were any hold out doubters among the talking heads looking for an excuse to write off the BE as not belonging to the Big Boys Club.

[bilsu]

I wonder at what point congress would step in. The power 5 schools breaking off could result in a lot of non-included schools cutting down their sports programs. This is of course would result in less opportunities for women and minorities. Congress could also look at the tax-exempt status of power 5 programs. They could declare their sports programs to be unrelated businesses and thus make them subject to income tax. Of course, if they are losing money, they still would not be paying any tax. I think there is a risk for the power 5 programs going too far along the path they may be going on.

I also think TV rights might become less valuable. Cutting out the non-power 5 schools, could result in a big decrease in people watching college basketball games. As a Marquette fan I am not sure I would watch much college basketball, if Marquette was left out. I might not even watch the new NCAA tournament, if it was limited to only power 5 schools.

[panda]

I wonder at what point congress would step in. The power 5 schools breaking off could result in a lot of non-included schools cutting down their sports programs. This is of course would result in less opportunities for women and minorities. Congress could also look at the tax-exempt status of power 5 programs. They could declare their sports programs to be unrelated businesses and thus make them subject to income tax. Of course, if they are losing money, they still would not be paying any tax. I think there is a risk for the power 5 programs going too far along the path they may be going on.

I also think TV rights might become less valuable. Cutting out the non-power 5 schools, could result in a big decrease in people watching college basketball games. As a Marquette fan I am not sure I would watch much college basketball, if Marquette was left out. I might not even watch the new NCAA tournament, if it was limited to only power 5 schools.

I genuinely hope with all of my heart that congress will concern themselves with more important issues.

[brewcity77]

I wonder at what point congress would step in. The power 5 schools breaking off could result in a lot of non-included schools cutting down their sports programs.

I've been wondering about it more at the state level. When UW-Madison's conference breaks away and savages the sports programs at Milwaukee, Green Bay, Whitewater, and others in the process, that seems like something they'd want to have a say in.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I wonder at what point congress would step in. The power 5 schools breaking off could result in a lot of non-included schools cutting down their sports programs. This is of course would result in less opportunities for women and minorities. Congress could also look at the tax-exempt status of power 5 programs. They could declare their sports programs to be unrelated businesses and thus make them subject to income tax. Of course, if they are losing money, they still would not be paying any tax. I think there is a risk for the power 5 programs going too far along the path they may be going on.

I also think TV rights might become less valuable. Cutting out the non-power 5 schools, could result in a big decrease in people watching college basketball games. As a Marquette fan I am not sure I would watch much college basketball, if Marquette was left out. I might not even watch the new NCAA tournament, if it was limited to only power 5 schools.

It is not the P5's (or top grouping's) responsibility to ensure financial health of all other programs within D1.  Not in football.  Not in any sport.  The fact that so many fans openly declare they won't watch anymore if their team cannot play the top teams just affirm that point, and highlight the reason why the top brands seek to play more against, and exclusively, against each other.

[Shooter McGavin]

I wonder at what point congress would step in. The power 5 schools breaking off could result in a lot of non-included schools cutting down their sports programs. This is of course would result in less opportunities for women and minorities. Congress could also look at the tax-exempt status of power 5 programs. They could declare their sports programs to be unrelated businesses and thus make them subject to income tax. Of course, if they are losing money, they still would not be paying any tax. I think there is a risk for the power 5 programs going too far along the path they may be going on.

I also think TV rights might become less valuable. Cutting out the non-power 5 schools, could result in a big decrease in people watching college basketball games. As a Marquette fan I am not sure I would watch much college basketball, if Marquette was left out. I might not even watch the new NCAA tournament, if it was limited to only power 5 schools.

I agree Bilsu and have said as much on here.  There are a ton of people who don’t go to P5 schools that will lose interest.  I am a rabid fan of NCAA basketball as it is currently built.  I would never actively seek out another CBB game again if MU was not able to participate in a first tier tournament with other P5 schools.  I would lose interest completely.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I've been wondering about it more at the state level. When UW-Madison's conference breaks away and savages the sports programs at Milwaukee, Green Bay, Whitewater, and others in the process, that seems like something they'd want to have a say in.

It's all about survival.  Texas didn't get in the way of the Longhorns leaving behind Tech, Baylor and TCU.  Oklahoma didn't care it is leaving behind OK State.  California won't stop UCLA and USC from going to the Big Ten.  These moves are within the P5; do you think any politician can realistically prevent the State's top athletic brand (and ability to make more money) in favor of small, money-losing, athletic programs?  Not a chance.