More conference realignment talk

[WhiteTrash]

Just curious, what ever happened to George Kliavkoff?

[MUbiz]

Just curious, what ever happened to George Kliavkoff?

He has been quiet lately while still collecting his $3.5M annual salary. LOL.

[oldwarrior81]

In hoops back in the early 60's (until 1963), there were only 5 teams in what would evolve from the AAWU to become the Pac-8.
Those teams played a 14 game conference basketball schedule.  3 games against two teams, 4 games against two others.

[WhiteTrash]

He has been quiet lately while still collecting his $3.5M annual salary. LOL.

Maybe he is the smartest commissioner in college? 

[Herman Cain]

Washington State and Oregon State sue to protect their right to control Pac-12 future

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38353933/oregon-state-washington-state-file-complaint-pac-12?platform=amp

[forgetful]

I've wondered if the PAC12 could still vote to dissolve. My reading of the bylaws says no, but I'm no lawyer.

[WhiteTrash]

Washington State and Oregon State sue to protect their right to control Pac-12 future

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38353933/oregon-state-washington-state-file-complaint-pac-12?platform=amp

Not a good look for the 10 schools. OSU and WSU deserve that money and then some. When I say 'deserve' I mean they have legal rights to the funds and it looks like they are the only board members. IMO.

[El Guerrero 2]

Talk about pissing on their former brethren's graves... I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see schools stoop that low but I still am.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It's to be expected. Way too much on the table here and everyone needs to protect their interests.

[MU82]

Two things in the conference-switcheroo realm that caught my eye this morning:

++ Eight Pac-12 teams, including the two left behind by the Power-4, are ranked in this week's AP football poll.

++ The Athletic's Dana O'Neil says the NCAA basketball tournament needs to expand to at least 96 teams, giving big conferences still more entrants, to help keep the Power-4 football conferences from breaking off and forming their own hoops tourney. https://theathletic.com/4849778/2023/09/11/ncaa-tournament-expansion-realignment/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=7685257

[Shooter McGavin]

If they split away, Universities like MU will lose alumni engagement opportunities and money on multiple levels (tickets, tv contracts, donations, etc.).

Would there be a winnable lawsuit against the four conferences because of a monopoly?  Just curious.  It seems like that would cause irreparable financial harm to a significant number of non football schools.

[WhiteTrash]

Two things in the conference-switcheroo realm that caught my eye this morning:

++ Eight Pac-12 teams, including the two left behind by the Power-4, are ranked in this week's AP football poll.

++ The Athletic's Dana O'Neil says the NCAA basketball tournament needs to expand to at least 96 teams, giving big conferences still more entrants, to help keep the Power-4 football conferences from breaking off and forming their own hoops tourney. https://theathletic.com/4849778/2023/09/11/ncaa-tournament-expansion-realignment/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=7685257

+++ When listening to ESPN radio last week, they spent time talking about football and basketball teams splitting from the schools and operating under a licensing agreement for the name. (I can't remember the exact show and hosts) The logic is that these professional athletes should not be subject to thinly veiled academic requirements.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

If they split away, Universities like MU will lose alumni engagement opportunities and money on multiple levels (tickets, tv contracts, donations, etc.).

Would there be a winnable lawsuit against the four conferences because of a monopoly?  Just curious.  It seems like that would cause irreparable financial harm to a significant number of non football schools.

I don't think it's a monopoly. The schools that remain in the NCAA would be more than able to get their own media deal, but it would be less lucrative.

Ironically the financial harm caused to Marquette would mean that its product isn't as valuable as the P4 product.

[Coleman]

Two things in the conference-switcheroo realm that caught my eye this morning:

++ The Athletic's Dana O'Neil says the NCAA basketball tournament needs to expand to at least 96 teams, giving big conferences still more entrants, to help keep the Power-4 football conferences from breaking off and forming their own hoops tourney. https://theathletic.com/4849778/2023/09/11/ncaa-tournament-expansion-realignment/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=7685257

Ugh. I actually hate this. More mediocre teams.

But, if you HAD to do this....also give auto bids to teams that win their conference regular season but not the tournament. Would at least give the regular season more meaning.

With 30 more slots, You will still have more at large bids....should keep everyone happy.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Eh. The conferences determine their champion. If you want to "give the regular season more meaning," blame the conferences for taking away that meaning.

The tournament has needed to expand for years. Just do it.

[Coleman]

Eh. The conferences determine their champion. If you want to "give the regular season more meaning," blame the conferences for taking away that meaning.

The tournament has needed to expand for years. Just do it.

I know. But as a fan, I'd rather see a mid major that had a great season and otherwise would miss the tournament than a 17-14 team from a major conference

[brewcity77]

I still say expand to 80, not 96. The general guideline is 25% of participants and 96 would be more than that. Going to 80 would allow the addition of 12 at-large teams. The bulk would come from high-majors, insuring they get their money.

The key is expanding from the First Four games to the First Four sites with four games at each site. On Tuesday and Wednesday, each of the sites (I'd say Dayton, Omaha, Bloomington, and either Knoxville or Winston-Salem) play one at-large play-in and one auto-bid play-in. Then you need to structure 11-16 every year as follows:

11-seeds: at-large play-ins for true seeds 41-48 on Tuesday/Wednesday
12-seeds: at-large play-ins for true seeds 49-56 on Tuesday/Wednesday
13-seeds: auto-bids for true seeds 57-60
14-seeds: auto-bids for true seeds 61-64
15-seeds: auto-bid play-ins for true seeds 65-72
16-seeds: auto-bid play-ins for true seeds 73-80

This would likely give more at-large bids to high-majors as well as more opportunity for earning tourney credits on Tuesday/Wednesday, so high-majors win. It would also mean more tourney credits earned by low-majors on Tuesday/Wednesday (currently only 2 of the bottom 4 leagues can earn a Tuesday/Wednesday credit, this would insure 4 of the bottom 8), so the low-majors win. Finally, by weeding out 8 mid and low majors that only qualified because of winning their conference tournament, it would insure a higher quality field on Thursday/Friday so the fans also win. It would give a greater potential for upsets early because the quality of teams on the 13-16 lines would be improved across the board, but would also increase the likelihood of second and third weekends with more established brands because seeds 11-12 would have more big brands which is what fans profess to want after the first weekend chaos.

Everyone involved wins, from the players to the teams to the leagues to the fans.

[Warriors4ever]

Yet another reason for me to hate college football and what it's doing to the athletic landscape.

[WhiteTrash]

Yet another reason for me to hate college football and what it's doing to the athletic landscape.

As someone who enjoys college football, I have to agree with you.

[Coleman]

I still say expand to 80, not 96. The general guideline is 25% of participants and 96 would be more than that. Going to 80 would allow the addition of 12 at-large teams. The bulk would come from high-majors, insuring they get their money.

The key is expanding from the First Four games to the First Four sites with four games at each site. On Tuesday and Wednesday, each of the sites (I'd say Dayton, Omaha, Bloomington, and either Knoxville or Winston-Salem) play one at-large play-in and one auto-bid play-in. Then you need to structure 11-16 every year as follows:

11-seeds: at-large play-ins for true seeds 41-48 on Tuesday/Wednesday
12-seeds: at-large play-ins for true seeds 49-56 on Tuesday/Wednesday
13-seeds: auto-bids for true seeds 57-60
14-seeds: auto-bids for true seeds 61-64
15-seeds: auto-bid play-ins for true seeds 65-72
16-seeds: auto-bid play-ins for true seeds 73-80

This would likely give more at-large bids to high-majors as well as more opportunity for earning tourney credits on Tuesday/Wednesday, so high-majors win. It would also mean more tourney credits earned by low-majors on Tuesday/Wednesday (currently only 2 of the bottom 4 leagues can earn a Tuesday/Wednesday credit, this would insure 4 of the bottom 8), so the low-majors win. Finally, by weeding out 8 mid and low majors that only qualified because of winning their conference tournament, it would insure a higher quality field on Thursday/Friday so the fans also win. It would give a greater potential for upsets early because the quality of teams on the 13-16 lines would be improved across the board, but would also increase the likelihood of second and third weekends with more established brands because seeds 11-12 would have more big brands which is what fans profess to want after the first weekend chaos.

Everyone involved wins, from the players to the teams to the leagues to the fans.

Yuck. First round byes make more sense than a bunch of play in games for crappy seeds.

[WhiteTrash]

I still say expand to 80, not 96. The general guideline is 25% of participants and 96 would be more than that. Going to 80 would allow the addition of 12 at-large teams. The bulk would come from high-majors, insuring they get their money.

The key is expanding from the First Four games to the First Four sites with four games at each site. On Tuesday and Wednesday, each of the sites (I'd say Dayton, Omaha, Bloomington, and either Knoxville or Winston-Salem) play one at-large play-in and one auto-bid play-in. Then you need to structure 11-16 every year as follows:

11-seeds: at-large play-ins for true seeds 41-48 on Tuesday/Wednesday
12-seeds: at-large play-ins for true seeds 49-56 on Tuesday/Wednesday
13-seeds: auto-bids for true seeds 57-60
14-seeds: auto-bids for true seeds 61-64
15-seeds: auto-bid play-ins for true seeds 65-72
16-seeds: auto-bid play-ins for true seeds 73-80

This would likely give more at-large bids to high-majors as well as more opportunity for earning tourney credits on Tuesday/Wednesday, so high-majors win. It would also mean more tourney credits earned by low-majors on Tuesday/Wednesday (currently only 2 of the bottom 4 leagues can earn a Tuesday/Wednesday credit, this would insure 4 of the bottom 8), so the low-majors win. Finally, by weeding out 8 mid and low majors that only qualified because of winning their conference tournament, it would insure a higher quality field on Thursday/Friday so the fans also win. It would give a greater potential for upsets early because the quality of teams on the 13-16 lines would be improved across the board, but would also increase the likelihood of second and third weekends with more established brands because seeds 11-12 would have more big brands which is what fans profess to want after the first weekend chaos.

Everyone involved wins, from the players to the teams to the leagues to the fans.

Damn, I was told there would be no math. 

[brewcity77]

Yuck. First round byes make more sense than a bunch of play in games for crappy seeds.

That's already built in. 48 teams get a bye to Thursday/Friday. If you don't want to watch Tuesday/Wednesday, you don't have to, and you still get a better product when the field is narrowed to 64.

[dgies9156]

The issue behind expanding the NCAA is engagement. The more teams, the more alumni, the more demand for tickets and the greater the demand for television.

The NCAA hasn't had the best 64 teams in the country in its tournament for years. Even in a bad year, Syracuse could beat Coastal Carolina 10 times out of 10. The NCAA loves to romanticize the Maryland-Baltimore Counties taking down Virginia, but that's happened like once in the history of seeding.

We'll get 96 and maybe even more in the NCAA tournament because, well, it is profitable to add more teams.

[Shooter McGavin]

The issue behind expanding the NCAA is engagement. The more teams, the more alumni, the more demand for tickets and the greater the demand for television.

The NCAA hasn't had the best 64 teams in the country in its tournament for years. Even in a bad year, Syracuse could beat Coastal Carolina 10 times out of 10. The NCAA loves to romanticize the Maryland-Baltimore Counties taking down Virginia, but that's happened like once in the history of seeding.

We'll get 96 and maybe even more in the NCAA tournament because, well, it is profitable to add more teams.

Purdue went down just last year but I agree with your overall message.

[WhiteTrash]

The issue behind expanding the NCAA is engagement. The more teams, the more alumni, the more demand for tickets and the greater the demand for television.

The NCAA hasn't had the best 64 teams in the country in its tournament for years. Even in a bad year, Syracuse could beat Coastal Carolina 10 times out of 10. The NCAA loves to romanticize the Maryland-Baltimore Counties taking down Virginia, but that's happened like once in the history of seeding.

We'll get 96 and maybe even more in the NCAA tournament because, well, it is profitable to add more teams.

I love the Costal Carolina's of the world. It makes for great stories when it happens. It also reminds us that college hoops is more than the P5 (sorry P12). Gonzaga used to be UMBC but the great system has rewarded them and their fans.

Perhaps I'm too old school but I like the tourney to be the NCAA champ not just the best team in the P5 (although that is the reality either way).