More conference realignment talk

[Shooter McGavin]

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.

Yes with millions of fans not watching it.

[GoldenWarrior11]

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.

I'll repeat it: there is nothing the NCAA is currently doing that the autonomous conferences cannot either do themselves, or work with the Olympic governing body of the said sport, to successfully administer it.  The NCAA takes huge cuts of every championship sport.  This will be another revenue source that the autonomous conferences will inevitably keep for themselves.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'll repeat it: there is nothing the NCAA is currently doing that the autonomous conferences cannot either do themselves, or work with the Olympic governing body of the said sport, to successfully administer it.  The NCAA takes huge cuts of every championship sport.  This will be another revenue source that the autonomous conferences will inevitably keep for themselves.

Can? Absolutely. Want to? Doubt it.

Never underestimate a powerful university's desire to maintain the status quo.

[brewcity77]

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.

Yes. NIL has already shown us state legislatures can and will take action. People constantly forget we aren't talking about private corporations, we're talking about public schools. And state legislatures have ZERO PROBLEM stepping in when it comes to public schools. Just because they have limited how much they do so to this point doesn't mean they can't or won't.

[The Sultan]

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 won't happen. Madison largely gets free reign within the UW System and state because of their resources.

[The Sultan]

Can? Absolutely. Want to? Doubt it.

Never underestimate a powerful university's desire to maintain the status quo.

Exactly. Not to mention that the NCAA does these things pretty efficiently.

[MU90620]

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.

The bolded part is nonsense. If Alabama was told they could no longer compete at the top tier, the majority of their fans would lose interest. Their are a lot of reasons why the top tier teams might break away from the others, but the fact that those fan bases would lose interest if they weren't in the top tier is not one of them. Every fan base in college football and basketball would weaken considerably if you took away their team's opportunity to compete against the best.

[The Sultan]

The bolded part is nonsense. If Alabama was told they could no longer compete at the top tier, the majority of their fans would lose interest. Their are a lot of reasons why the top tier teams might break away from the others, but the fact that those fan bases would lose interest if they weren't in the top tier is not one of them. Every fan base in college football and basketball would weaken considerably if you took away their team's opportunity to compete against the best.

Undoubtedly fans would lose interest. But would a smaller tournament, that shares revenues with significantly less schools, be more valuable for the P5?  That's the question.

Currently, tournament win shares drive revenue to the top conferences to help with that. But the extreme undervalued television contract does not help.

[brewcity77]

It won't happen. Madison largely gets free reign within the UW System and state because of their resources.

I'm not so sure. When athletic directors and presidents start calling their alumni and local reps that are elected state officials, it can resonate. Less so in Wisconsin where you don't have as many D1s, but I can easily see it starting in an Illinois or California then spreading to other states as lower D1s, D2s, and D3s are threatened.

Contrary to what many (including in athletic departments) believe, these are not corporations that can put profit above all else.

[WhiteTrash]

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

I do too but that would be the first time for that to happen. Both Democrats and Republicans have brought more ridiculous issues before congress.

The survival of the Big East is not an issue of national concern or importance.  It will personally be heartbreaking. I'll stop following college hoops especially since schools like MU will have no TV outlets but I don't want congress wasting time on college sports.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Yes. NIL has already shown us state legislatures can and will take action. People constantly forget we aren't talking about private corporations, we're talking about public schools. And state legislatures have ZERO PROBLEM stepping in when it comes to public schools. Just because they have limited how much they do so to this point doesn't mean they can't or won't.

NIL is not regulated differently between private and public schools though.  It is a completely unregulated free market to student-athletes nationwide.  If anything, it's the P5 schools, with greater resources, creating NIL support positions within athletic departments to help guide these initiatives.

I'm not seeing Chicago State or Eastern Illinois creating these roles. The same is true for Wisconsin and other states.

[WhiteTrash]

The bolded part is nonsense. If Alabama was told they could no longer compete at the top tier, the majority of their fans would lose interest. Their are a lot of reasons why the top tier teams might break away from the others, but the fact that those fan bases would lose interest if they weren't in the top tier is not one of them. Every fan base in college football and basketball would weaken considerably if you took away their team's opportunity to compete against the best.

I think Golden's point, and I could be wrong, was that schools like OSU, Alabama and Texas don't care if a school or the majority of schools stop competing in sports. It is not their concern if MU or Oregon State or Villanova or Wake Forest fold. They are singularly interested in their own program.  There is no one in charge of looking out for the best interest of the sports as a whole.

Pro spots have figured this out with great success. Salary caps and revenue sharing level the playing field allowing teams like the Rays, Packers and Thunder to compete, heck, even exist. This is good for the overall product. If pro sports teams worked like college sports New York, Chicago and LA would dominate with advantages almost no different than giving the Giants 5 downs, the Cubs 4 outs or the Lakers 3 points for every basket.

[GoldenWarrior11]

The bolded part is nonsense. If Alabama was told they could no longer compete at the top tier, the majority of their fans would lose interest. Their are a lot of reasons why the top tier teams might break away from the others, but the fact that those fan bases would lose interest if they weren't in the top tier is not one of them. Every fan base in college football and basketball would weaken considerably if you took away their team's opportunity to compete against the best.

Alabama isn't going to be locked out because they are one of the top brands and storied programs, so that example is irrelevant.  The top fan bases, and programs that are generating the most revenues, aren't the ones that are going to be moved down.

Once again, it's all about consolidating revenues.  When the CFP was created, viewership dramatically increased (and this was a model that killed a football playing conference, regulating multiple programs down via loss guaranteed access of a BCS slot).  Even the BCS model dramatically increased viewership and revenues, and that was after the power brokers and networks killed off the SWC, leaving Rice, TCU, Houston and SMU behind.

Consolidation and regulation has been occurring for years, it's just that fans don't like to recognize or admit it.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I think Golden's point, and I could be wrong, was that schools like OSU, Alabama and Texas don't care if a school or the majority of schools stop competing in sports. It is not their concern if MU or Oregon State or Villanova or Wake Forest fold. They are singularly interested in their own program.  There is no one in charge of looking out for the best interest of the sports as a whole.

Pro spots have figured this out with great success. Salary caps and revenue sharing level the playing field allowing teams like the Rays, Packers and Thunder to compete, heck, even exist. This is good for the overall product. If pro sports teams worked like college sports New York, Chicago and LA would dominate with advantages almost no different than giving the Giants 5 downs, the Cubs 4 outs or the Lakers 3 points for every basket.

Correct.  There is nothing preventing Tulane from selling out its stadium weekly, creating a brand and earning success on the field.  For many, many reasons, LSU is THE revenue generator in Louisiana.  It's not LSU's responsibility to ensure financial and athletic revenues to all the other Louisiana schools and programs by continuing to guarantee access to playing them and/or sharing slices of the pie.

If a school like Tulane is dependent on LSU for folks to show up and support the athletic program, then that is a failed model (and one the P5 quickly learned when it became autonomous in structure).

[brewcity77]

Football has been allowed to break off because it hasn't adversely impacted the hundreds of public universities that state legislatures are ultimately responsible for funding and overseeing.

If the P2/3 schools do the same with basketball and in the process kill the athletic departments of hundreds of universities across the country, which will be the effect of taking the only real source of NCAA revenue, I don't see politicians standing for that.

And as many forget, University of Wisconsin isn't a collection of buildings in Madison, it's a system. The same goes for the other systems across the country. The politicians in Madison have proven all too happy to tell UWM to go screw itself in the past, I have no doubt they would do the same here because UWM is just one piece of a larger system they are responsible for.

[bilsu]

There is a huge difference between college football and college basketball. The mergers are being created by football. The mergers are good for football, but in my opinion are bad for the college basketball we love.

It is starting to look like to me that college sports are becoming big business. They should no longer be included in the tax exemption that universities are given. This decision can only be made by congress. It is after all federal tax law.

[MU90620]

Alabama isn't going to be locked out because they are one of the top brands and storied programs, so that example is irrelevant.  The top fan bases, and programs that are generating the most revenues, aren't the ones that are going to be moved down.

Once again, it's all about consolidating revenues.  When the CFP was created, viewership dramatically increased (and this was a model that killed a football playing conference, regulating multiple programs down via loss guaranteed access of a BCS slot).  Even the BCS model dramatically increased viewership and revenues, and that was after the power brokers and networks killed off the SWC, leaving Rice, TCU, Houston and SMU behind.

Consolidation and regulation has been occurring for years, it's just that fans don't like to recognize or admit it.

I was in no way suggesting that Alabama would be locked out. You said that the fact that the lesser schools would stop caring if they couldn't compete against the big boys was proof that they didn't belong. I merely said that any school, no matter how strong they currently are, would lose interest if they couldn't compete against the best.

In no way am I saying that the big schools won't break away or shouldn't. That's a different discussion. I'm just saying that that particular argument is a bad one. Any fan base would be diluted if demoted to a lower tier. That is not a sign that they don't belong.

[The Sultan]

I'm not so sure. When athletic directors and presidents start calling their alumni and local reps that are elected state officials, it can resonate. Less so in Wisconsin where you don't have as many D1s, but I can easily see it starting in an Illinois or California then spreading to other states as lower D1s, D2s, and D3s are threatened.

Contrary to what many (including in athletic departments) believe, these are not corporations that can put profit above all else.

They are going to do what is best for Badger sports regardless. They have more fans than the rest of the System combined.

[WhiteTrash]

There is a huge difference between college football and college basketball. The mergers are being created by football. The mergers are good for football, but in my opinion are bad for the college basketball we love.

It is starting to look like to me that college sports are becoming big business. They should no longer be included in the tax exemption that universities are given. This decision can only be made by congress. It is after all federal tax law.

I had the same question about the tax exempt status but was told on this board that the schools do in fact pay income tax on sports income.

[The Sultan]

I had the same question about the tax exempt status but was told on this board that the schools do in fact pay income tax on sports income.

College athletics is not subject to unrelated business income tax.

Should it be? Who knows. But that's not stopping what is happening now.

[muwarrior69]

I think Golden's point, and I could be wrong, was that schools like OSU, Alabama and Texas don't care if a school or the majority of schools stop competing in sports. It is not their concern if MU or Oregon State or Villanova or Wake Forest fold. They are singularly interested in their own program.  There is no one in charge of looking out for the best interest of the sports as a whole.

Pro spots have figured this out with great success. Salary caps and revenue sharing level the playing field allowing teams like the Rays, Packers and Thunder to compete, heck, even exist. This is good for the overall product. If pro sports teams worked like college sports New York, Chicago and LA would dominate with advantages almost no different than giving the Giants 5 downs, the Cubs 4 outs or the Lakers 3 points for every basket.

That is a great idea, but 5 downs won't cut it for the Giants.

[WhiteTrash]

College athletics is not subject to unrelated business income tax.

Should it be? Who knows. But that's not stopping what is happening now.

Well I'd guess that will be changing soon. Rightfully so. As a tax payer of this country I can't think of one good reason they should be tax exempt. The athletes are no longer amateurs. Why should we subsidies Texas, Alabama and USC? So they can have a new video room and an extra beer stand in their stadiums? 

[The Equalizer]

Can? Absolutely. Want to? Doubt it.

Will? Most likely.

Never underestimate a powerful university's desire to maintain the status quo.

A handful of teams stands  to increase their revenue by probably a billion dollars a year if they invest no more than $50 million/year on an organization that can take over what the NCAA does today.

And then they would be able to distribute the total pot across maybe 100 schools, instead of the 1100 the NCAA does today.

At some point, the powerful university's desire to increase power and revenue will surpass their desire to maintain the status quo. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Will? Most likely.
A handful of teams stands  to increase their revenue by probably a billion dollars a year if they invest no more than $50 million/year on an organization that can take over what the NCAA does today.

And then they would be able to distribute the total pot across maybe 100 schools, instead of the 1100 the NCAA does today.

At some point, the powerful university's desire to increase power and revenue will surpass their desire to maintain the status quo.

I don't think we agree on how it will look, but we seem to agree that a group of 100-150 schools will break off from the rest of D1. I just think they will break off entirely in football, and create a new division of the NCAA in all other sports.

[The Equalizer]

I'm not so sure. When athletic directors and presidents start calling their alumni and local reps that are elected state officials, it can resonate. Less so in Wisconsin where you don't have as many D1s, but I can easily see it starting in an Illinois or California then spreading to other states as lower D1s, D2s, and D3s are threatened.

Contrary to what many (including in athletic departments) believe, these are not corporations that can put profit above all else.

What's the argument they're going to make?  That the University of Illinois can't be allowed make decisions in its own best interest?  Its unfair they no longer want to compete with us, but want to compete only against a smaller number of equally powerful teams?

I don't see a successful argument that the U of I should be held back by state law because fans of Chicago State or SIU-Edwardsville or Eastern Illinois are miffed that they are no longer considered competors at the same level.

And it's a lot easier to understand the counterargument from Illinois being "well, fans of NIU, Governors State, Illinois State, etc, all you need to do is build an athletic program that brings as much to the table as we do, and I'm sure you'll be invited to participate as well. But until then, it sounds like you're just trying to ride our gravy train.