Jim Calhoun believes top 125 schools will break away

[ChicosBailBonds]

On whether the current system needs to be changed:
"As far as the NCAA, I think the NCAA does work, to some degree, but I think it's just 356 schools all having too diverse ideas. My own personal opinion would be the fact that you're gonna see the top 125, 130 schools break away. Our goals and our mission, in many, many ways athletically and many times academically, is much different from the other schools. For example, there would only be about 110-20 schools that would vote for two more scholarships. The other 250 schools wouldn't vote that way because they can't afford it. That's not the situation at Connecticut, Duke, all the other schools, obviously. My point being simply is that you see it coming. The Big East is talking about it and it's eventually going to happen where you see possibly a separation there. ... You're heading towards where I'd like to be heading toward, a simple set of mandates. I'm not backing out of anything or shirking responsibility. I am captain of the UConn ship, basketball-wise, and I accept full responsibility, but I can't be responsible when I rely upon my university, the NCAA and all of the Big East if things happen beyond my control. And quite frankly, the thing that happened with us, honestly, is a national epidemic. And that's quite frankly runners and agents. That's the thing that's inching its way into virtually every program."

[MuMark]

In other words.....I take responsibility but its not my fault! 

What an ass.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In other words.....I take responsibility but its not my fault! 

What an ass.

He might get Chandler now as well, since he decommitted today from "lowly Xavier"

http://www.windycityhoosiersource.com/2010/11/michael-chandler-decommits-from-xavier.html

[GGGG]

In other words.....I take responsibility but its not my fault! 

What an ass.

Yeah, I wouldn't put too much stock in these comments.  This is him lashing out at the NCAA.  I really doubt the top 125 schools have much desire to add to their scholarship load either.  Its not as though they aren't interested in reducing costs.

[MarquetteDano]

I really hope Calhoun ends up being wrong on this.  It seems like every year a coach proposes an idea whereby the big money schools would have an ever greater advantage over smaller schools.  Sad.  They just don't want a level playing field.  It's funny because they already have nearly all of the advantages already but it just isn't enough.

Calhoun is probably still smarting from that loss to George Mason...

"If only I had two more schollies than them with Top 100 athletes I could have won".   

[GGGG]

I really hope Calhoun ends up being wrong on this.  It seems like every year a coach proposes an idea whereby the big money schools would have an ever greater advantage over smaller schools.  Sad.  They just don't want a level playing field.  It's funny because they already have nearly all of the advantages already but it just isn't enough.

That's one way of looking at it.  Another way is that the 125 schools that generate 90%+ of the interest and revenue are tired of subsidizing the 200 schools that don't.  I mean, say what you will about George Mason, but when is the last time you turned on a George Mason game?

[Benny B]

That's one way of looking at it.  Another way is that the 125 schools that generate 90%+ of the interest and revenue are tired of subsidizing the 200 schools that don't.  I mean, say what you will about George Mason, but when is the last time you turned on a George Mason game?

To say that George Mason is being subsidized because nobody would tune into a George Mason game is not entirely true at best and very shortsighted at worst.  Programming decisions are 50% made by the broadcasters and 50% by the audience.  In other words, to a certain extent, the audience (general public) will demand what the broadcasters (advertisers) tell them to demand.

Case in point - in a couple weeks ESPN is going to hype Wisconsin-Marquette to a national audience - it won't be LeBron James decision hype, but it will be hype nonetheless.  Nobody outside Wisconsin and MU nation gives a rat's patootie about MU-UW, but a portion of the audience (read: not everyone) is going to tune in because ESPN did a fantastic job of marketing their product.  If ESPN decided to arbitrarily hype George Mason vs. ____________, people would tune in for that game, too.

Say what you want about the mid- and low-majors during the regular season, but Cinderella stories, like George Mason, making deep tourney runs is a primary driver behind NCAA hoops' popularity.

[GGGG]

Say what you want about the mid- and low-majors during the regular season, but Cinderella stories, like George Mason, making deep tourney runs is a primary driver behind NCAA hoops' popularity.

Not really.  The George Mason Final Four was one of the least watched of all time.  6 million less than watched the year before when traditional powers UNC, Illinois, Michigan State and Louisville made it.  People love the *idea* of cinderellas...they would just rather watch the big boys play.

Don't get me wrong...ESPN creates hype.  But they create hype around the teams that already have an audience...not the George Masons of the world.

[NersEllenson]

That's one way of looking at it.  Another way is that the 125 schools that generate 90%+ of the interest and revenue are tired of subsidizing the 200 schools that don't.  I mean, say what you will about George Mason, but when is the last time you turned on a George Mason game?

Just like in society...the wealthy largely subsidize the poor..and I don't see anything wrong with that per se.  Guess it all goes back to Pareto's Principle the old 80/20 rule..or 80% of revenues come from 20% of the universities/people..however you want to look at it.  Think it's just the way the "system" and universal law are..and there is value as just like in society, there are many poor/lower middle class people who do extraordinary things in their lifetime given their starting point..the same with the George Mason's...and that is what I love about March Madness....is the GMasons, Northern Iowa's, St. Mary's, etc...all upsetting the Goliaths.

[MarquetteDano]

That's one way of looking at it.  Another way is that the 125 schools that generate 90%+ of the interest and revenue are tired of subsidizing the 200 schools that don't.  I mean, say what you will about George Mason, but when is the last time you turned on a George Mason game?

I am with Pukuni on this one regarding "subsidizing".  If they are so worried about their money and subsidizing why don't they stand on their own two feet and become "for profit"?  Oh that's right, because 35% of their income via donations is actually subsidized by a tax payer who may go to one of their small schools they resent "subsidizing".

They can't have their cake and eat it too.  If they want to do their own thing then tax payers should not have to foot the bill by giving them tax free status so that people like you and I get a  "discount" (via tax deduction) for giving them money.

I hear what you are saying in that "everyone" wants to see the big boys in the finals (proven by ratings).  But, I do not feel bad for them one bit about the "subsidizing" they do for smaller schools.  Because they are subsidized by a larger proportion by tax payers who may go to one of the small schools they "subsidize".

[NersEllenson]

I am with Pukuni on this one regarding "subsidizing".  If they are so worried about their money and subsidizing why don't they stand on their own two feet and become "for profit"?  Oh that's right, because 35% of their income via donations is actually subsidized by a tax payer who may go to one of their small schools they resent "subsidizing".

They can't have their cake and eat it too.  If they want to do their own thing then tax payers should not have to foot the bill by giving them tax free status so that people like you and I get a  "discount" (via tax deduction) for giving them money.

I hear what you are saying in that "everyone" wants to see the big boys in the finals (proven by ratings).  But, I do not feel bad for them one bit about the "subsidizing" they do for smaller schools.  Because they are subsidized by a larger proportion by tax payers who may go to one of the small schools they "subsidize".

Agree with everything you wrote..but the bolded section...think in NCAA hoops if you have a "blue blood" program facing up against a George mason..or even this past year with Bulter and Duke..think those games would provide the highest ratings..as we love the undergod in America...I haven't done the research on the ratings of Butler Duke vs Memphis Kansas the year before..but would think the ratings were equal to, if not better than the Kansas/Memphis game?

[GGGG]

Dano you are making the same mistake Pakuni made.  You are mixing up two seperate issues.

The issue here is whether or not these schools should continue to subsidize those who don't have the same popularity.  If they go off and form their own association, it is a completely seperate question than the taxation issue.  If you are going to tax intercolligiate athletics at the corporate taxation rate, you are probably going to harm smaller, less profitable schools disproportionately.  And you can't tax members of one association seperate from another association.  It's illegal.

[GGGG]

Agree with everything you wrote..but the bolded section...think in NCAA hoops if you have a "blue blood" program facing up against a George mason..or even this past year with Bulter and Duke..think those games would provide the highest ratings..as we love the undergod in America...I haven't done the research on the ratings of Butler Duke vs Memphis Kansas the year before..but would think the ratings were equal to, if not better than the Kansas/Memphis game?

It had larger ratings than any final since 2005 (UNC v. Illinois) but that wasn't because of Butler but because of Duke.  You have Duke v. Texas, Duke v. UCLA or Duke v. Kentucky in those finals, it would have easilly surpassed what they did with Butler.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I believe everything Calhoun is saying....coaches are always right and do nothing wrong.

[NersEllenson]

It had larger ratings than any final since 2005 (UNC v. Illinois) but that wasn't because of Butler but because of Duke.  You have Duke v. Texas, Duke v. UCLA or Duke v. Kentucky in those finals, it would have easilly surpassed what they did with Butler.

You think??  Is Duke really loved by that many people, non-Dookies??  Obviously they are a huge name in college hoop...but...to me I think the draw of the game/ratings...probably had something to do with the curiousity that goes along with the David vs. Goliath thing...?  Plausible?

Now Duke vs NC, Kentucky vs NC/Duke..yes..I do agree those would be huge draws as well...not so sure about the inclusion of Texas or UCLA...but splitting hairs..

[tower912]

This week's SI... (yes, I still subscribe)   from the article about a playoff system for football.   "Of the 120 athletic departments that play 1-A football, 106 lost money in 2009"    "Cincinnati reached two consecutive BCS bowls and still found itself $24 million in debt."      Potentially, there are anti-trust lawsuits coming against the BCS.   
    My point?    There is a whole lot of stuff out there to play out.   Football may be the financial golden goose, or it may be the golden fleece.    And when all is said and done it may be impossible for the BCS schools to split from the NCAA due to legal wranglings.   

[Lennys Tap]

This week's SI... (yes, I still subscribe)   from the article about a playoff system for football.   "Of the 120 athletic departments that play 1-A football, 106 lost money in 2009"    "Cincinnati reached two consecutive BCS bowls and still found itself $24 million in debt."      Potentially, there are anti-trust lawsuits coming against the BCS.   
    My point?    There is a whole lot of stuff out there to play out.   Football may be the financial golden goose, or it may be the golden fleece.    And when all is said and done it may be impossible for the BCS schools to split from the NCAA due to legal wranglings.   

If 90% of DI football programs are operating in the red how does football get to be the boss of anybody?

[Benny B]

This week's SI... (yes, I still subscribe)   from the article about a playoff system for football.   "Of the 120 athletic departments that play 1-A football, 106 lost money in 2009"    "Cincinnati reached two consecutive BCS bowls and still found itself $24 million in debt."      Potentially, there are anti-trust lawsuits coming against the BCS.   
    My point?    There is a whole lot of stuff out there to play out.   Football may be the financial golden goose, or it may be the golden fleece.    And when all is said and done it may be impossible for the BCS schools to split from the NCAA due to legal wranglings.   

Sometime in the near future, someone in Congress is going to ask the "why are we sending millions of dollars in grants, scholarship aid, loan guarantees, etc. to institutions that are wasting millions of dollars on athletic programs" question, but this time, people will be listening instead of rolling their eyes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If 90% of DI football programs are operating in the red how does football get to be the boss of anybody?

You should ask GM and Chrysler that along with many other industries in this country.

[bma725]

You think??  Is Duke really loved by that many people, non-Dookies??  Obviously they are a huge name in college hoop...but...to me I think the draw of the game/ratings...probably had something to do with the curiousity that goes along with the David vs. Goliath thing...?  Plausible?

Now Duke vs NC, Kentucky vs NC/Duke..yes..I do agree those would be huge draws as well...not so sure about the inclusion of Texas or UCLA...but splitting hairs..

Duke is like the Yankees.  If love them, you'll watch to see them win.  If you hate them, you'll watch in hopes they lose.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Duke is like the Yankees.  If love them, you'll watch to see them win.  If you hate them, you'll watch in hopes they lose.

Exactly and the TV ratings confirm this.  No different than the Cowboys, Yankees and a few other polarizing teams.  There is very little middle ground.

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

Exactly and the TV ratings confirm this.  No different than the Cowboys, Yankees and a few other polarizing teams.  There is very little middle ground.

Except the cowboys no longer really fit into this mold.  Because they havent won for so long.  They have been irrelovent for too long to matter...

[StillAWarrior]

Except the cowboys no longer really fit into this mold.  Because they havent won for so long.  They have been irrelovent for too long to matter...

If that's true, I wonder why about 25% of the NFL news I've seen/heard over the last several weeks has been about the Cowboys.  They're hardly irrelevant.  It's like the post on this board a couple of weeks ago arguing that Notre Dame football is irrelevant.  If people are talking about something a lot, it's probably still relevant.

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

If that's true, I wonder why about 25% of the NFL news I've seen/heard over the last several weeks has been about the Cowboys.  They're hardly irrelevant.  It's like the post on this board a couple of weeks ago arguing that Notre Dame football is irrelevant.  If people are talking about something a lot, it's probably still relevant.

It was actually just a jab at Chicos cowboys fandom.

But they have not been relevant in a competitive nature for about 15 years.

[Marquette84]

This is not the first time the specter of a complete split from the NCAA has come up:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21422.msg231272#msg231272

At the time, people seemed more worried about arguing how much football would cost or making absolute declarations that it simply can't be done.

The question then, as it is now, is what does MU do if such a football/non-football split occurs.

One thing that many people just assume is that our fortunes are safe because we're tied to Villanova, Georgetown, Xavier, Dayton, Gonzaga, etc.  They would would all join with us to make a viable basketball conference.

But given the chance to side with Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc, programs that ALREADY offer football would likely upgrade in order to stick with the big boys.  That obviously includes Villanova--but Georgtown, Dayton, Butler--they have football programs they could upgrade as well.  

This week's SI... (yes, I still subscribe)   from the article about a playoff system for football.   "Of the 120 athletic departments that play 1-A football, 106 lost money in 2009"    "Cincinnati reached two consecutive BCS bowls and still found itself $24 million in debt."      Potentially, there are anti-trust lawsuits coming against the BCS.  

I don't understand the antitrust angle.

If some subset of current members of the NCAA wanted to LEAVE the organization and form a competing organization, what are the grounds for anti-trust against them?  

As long as the new organization set up criteria that any school could meet if they wanted, and the new association didn't do anything to use their leverage to force networks to stop dealing with the NCAA, then there really is no case.  

And setting up minimum criteria is NOT in and of itself an antitrust violation. MSOE is not part of NCAA D1 not because the NCAA has outlawed them, but because MSOE has not chosen to upgrade their athletics to meet the NCAA D1 requirements.  

Any new BCS association could set up similar criteria that would not prevent MSOE (or Marquette) from joining, but rather would spell out very clear criteria on what it would require to join.  That would keep them safe from any anti-trust lawsuits.

Here's how I think it might shake out:
--Some schools--likely all members of the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, B12, Pac 10, CUSA, etc. . --would agree that they would be best served by severing their ties with the NCAA and forming their own association--let's call it the BCAA.

The BCAA would issue membership rules and bylaws (just like the NCAA).  Leagues would have to vote to change their affiliation from NCAA to the new association (bringing their members with them).  No school would be forced to change from the NCAA to the BCAA, but they would have the option to do so.

The BCAA would also allow any program that wanted to also join either as an independent--and they would have the rights to form new leagues, petition for membership in an existing conference.

The BCAA would set minimum criteria (just as the NCAA has done) for membership.  Their criteria would likely be something like:
--schools must field teams in football and mens basketball, and offer sufficient womens' sports to meet Title iX requirements.
--schools must have facilities capable of hosting 7500 for basketball and 35000 for football.
--Demonstrate that your athletics budget spends at least $XX annually
--Demonstrate that average attendance has been xxx for basketball and yyy for football over the last five seasons.
--etc.

Then they would start to negotiate with the networks for a television package.  It is not an antitrust violation for them to attempt to gain carriage of their games or tournament.   It would be if they tried to use their influence or popularity to prevent the NCAA from making similar negotiations.