Power conferences rattling sabers

[Ken D]

In the past couple of weeks, the commissioners of three of the five football power conferences have come awfully close to saying there is going to be something of a revolution in the wind. And the PAC 10 and Big Ten haven't denied they're on board with it.

John Swofford has been the strongest voice saying they still want to be a part of the NCAA, and not simply bolt entirely. But its clear the haves are tired of having to appease the havenots in the college football world. I wonder if this is a genie best left in the bottle. Just as with conference realignment, once these things get going they take on a life of their own, and they are as hard to stop as a freight train.

These commissioners are smart guys. They know they don't operate in a vacuum, and some outside influences can't be safely ignored. Congress and state legislatures to name two of them. What form this revolution may take is going to expose a lot of sensitive questions to scrutiny, and they may not like some of the answers. What are the anti-trust implications? Title IX? The IRS?

If this is purely football driven - as it seems to be - what are the implications for programs like Duke and Wake Forest? Are they in danger of being left behind as football members of the ACC?

Any thoughts?

[Tizu]

I'm really not sure how to approach this. While I certainly understand the drive behind the power conferences, I'd hate for the not-so successful programs year over year to be left out simply because, well...they're not very good. Everything goes in cycles, and those will eventually be broken. Especially on the Div 1 level. Duke has been 'down' for a very long time, it appears they're finally starting to get some buzz and gusto behind the program. They have an athletic director and coach that is driving for success in football.

I'd hate for them to be left out simply because over the past 30 years, they haven't been very good...every conference has a team that's had struggles for lengthy periods of time.

Overall, I'm not sure how I feel about having "super conferences". Good for football, but what about the other sports? I understand Football is the biggest revenue driver for a lot of the Div 1 schools, but at some point, something's gotta give.

[Ken D]

I don't think any schools in the power conferences would be left out because they aren't very good - either right now, or for a long period of time. I say that because of what I have said before. The power conferences need a number of "reliable losers" in order to make their top teams' records more impressive. They don't want NFL style parity.

My concerns about some schools being left out have to do with antitrust issues. I don't think the Big Five can just say, we are Division Four, and nobody else can join our club. That would be a cartel in its purest form, and I don't think it would hold up against the inevitable challenges of those who are left on the outside. I think they have to establish some relevant criteria, and admit any school that meets the criteria. The flip side of that is that they have to exclude schools that don't meet the criteria.

Among the criteria the NCAA currently uses to determine eligibility for Division I football are stadium size, attendance requirements and number of sports offered. I believe the current minimum for attendance is 15,000 for football. I think (but I'm still researching) that an individual school whose average is below that can play in D-I if they are in a conference that averages more than 15K. Otherwise, I don't think schools like Eastern Michigan could stay in the MAC averaging around 4K per game.

Wake Forest and Duke rank 79th and 80th in attendance, and both are well below the average of the other 12 ACC teams ( a little over 50K ).

If you were to increase the number of sports required, schools like State could be affected. Last time I looked, the Pack sponsored close to the D-I minimum - not surprising since they had the smallest athletic budget in the league. Their budget numbers may have improved, but I'm not sure how many sports they currently sponsor. I'll look it up when I get a chance.

In any case, I'm sure there are going to be schools outside the Big Five that could meet whatever criteria they set for membership in a new division. That's where I suspect we would wind up. I think the new AAC and the Mountain West will be included eventually, and the MAC, Sunbelt and C-USA will drop down in class.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

I can see a day in the not too distant future where Division IA (there, I showed my age) splits "again":

I can see the top level of the SEC, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. making a "top level", maybe 30-40 schools (hmmmm - 32 would be symmetrical for a playoff, now wouldn't it?). The next level would be the ACC, Big-East-Whatchamacallit, Mountain West, lower level of the SEC, leftovers from the PAC-12 and Big 10, etc. As such, I can see a "dissolution" (for lack of a better term) of "ACC", etc. football and just being in national divisions, maybe as many as 6-8 NCAA football levels (kind of like high schools do now, separated based on school size classification).

I don't know, I don't spend a lot of time at all thinking about it because I simply don't care that much, but Ken's right - you've started this freight train, it's going to be hard to stop - and what is driving the train is ....... $$$$$$. If "they" think there's some more $$$$$$ out there to be made, they're going to go for it.

[Ken D]

Jul 30, 2013 9:25:06 GMT -5 Marty Da Hungry Wolf said:

I can see a day in the not too distant future where Division IA (there, I showed my age) splits "again":

I can see the top level of the SEC, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. making a "top level", maybe 30-40 schools (hmmmm - 32 would be symmetrical for a playoff, now wouldn't it?). The next level would be the ACC, Big-East-Whatchamacallit, Mountain West, lower level of the SEC, leftovers from the PAC-12 and Big 10, etc. As such, I can see a "dissolution" (for lack of a better term) of "ACC", etc. football and just being in national divisions, maybe as many as 6-8 NCAA football levels (kind of like high schools do now, separated based on school size classification).

I don't know, I don't spend a lot of time at all thinking about it because I simply don't care that much, but Ken's right - you've started this freight train, it's going to be hard to stop - and what is driving the train is ....... $$$$$$. If "they" think there's some more $$$$$$ out there to be made, they're going to go for it.

A week or so ago, in response to a WRAL article, I came up with a top tier of 28 schools, put in 7 divisions. One reason for picking 28 (I also suggested 4 alternates) was that you could play each team in your division home and home, plus one team from each of the other divisions each year, for a total of 12 games. I figured they would eventually have a 16 team playoff. But I struggle with the idea that the remaining 12 schools, who are all perennial Top 25 schools, would be left out of post season play. I don't think either alumni or coaches would go along with that.

But if your new super division for football includes 66 schools (I assume Notre Dame and BYU would be included), then that only leaves 60 schools in the FBS. What are they playing for? The bowl tie-ins they would get hardly cover travel expenses. And if they have a poll or a playoff to name a champion, who's going to care? They might as well save some money and drop down to FCS.

[Ken D]

I saw an interesting statistic the other day. It said that only 79 different schools have won D-I championships in ALL SPORTS combined. So even though football is unique in many respects, the dominance by schools in the power conferences is anything but unique to football.

Probing a little further, I found that in the past 50 years, only 20 schools won championships in football (for consistency, I used the AP champion). Eleven of those schools won 41 of the 50 championships.

During that time, 22 schools won NCAA basketball titles. Eleven of those accounted for 39 championships among them. Only two schools won both a football championship and an NCAA title. Michigan won one of each, and Florida won 2 NCAAs and 3 AP crowns. Remarkably, 4 of those titles came between 2006 and 2008.

I'll bet if you looked at all sports, you would probably find a similar pattern of dominance by a relatively small number of schools. It's the 80-20 rule in all its glory. 80% of the titles are won by 20% of the teams. It almost never fails.

[Ken D]

Jul 30, 2013 9:19:26 GMT -5 Ken D said:

I don't think any schools in the power conferences would be left out because they aren't very good - either right now, or for a long period of time. I say that because of what I have said before. The power conferences need a number of "reliable losers" in order to make their top teams' records more impressive. They don't want NFL style parity.

My concerns about some schools being left out have to do with antitrust issues. I don't think the Big Five can just say, we are Division Four, and nobody else can join our club. That would be a cartel in its purest form, and I don't think it would hold up against the inevitable challenges of those who are left on the outside. I think they have to establish some relevant criteria, and admit any school that meets the criteria. The flip side of that is that they have to exclude schools that don't meet the criteria.

Among the criteria the NCAA currently uses to determine eligibility for Division I football are stadium size, attendance requirements and number of sports offered. I believe the current minimum for attendance is 15,000 for football. I think (but I'm still researching) that an individual school whose average is below that can play in D-I if they are in a conference that averages more than 15K. Otherwise, I don't think schools like Eastern Michigan could stay in the MAC averaging around 4K per game.

Wake Forest and Duke rank 79th and 80th in attendance, and both are well below the average of the other 12 ACC teams ( a little over 50K ).

If you were to increase the number of sports required, schools like State could be affected. Last time I looked, the Pack sponsored close to the D-I minimum - not surprising since they had the smallest athletic budget in the league. Their budget numbers may have improved, but I'm not sure how many sports they currently sponsor. I'll look it up when I get a chance.

In any case, I'm sure there are going to be schools outside the Big Five that could meet whatever criteria they set for membership in a new division. That's where I suspect we would wind up. I think the new AAC and the Mountain West will be included eventually, and the MAC, Sunbelt and C-USA will drop down in class.

I was surprised how hard it was to find out what the rules are for D-I/FBS membership. That could be because the NCAA isn't too strict on enforcing them.

Turns out I was partly right. To play in the FBS, a school must average 15,000 attendance in at least one of every two consecutive years. And I was wrong in that a school can't ride the coattails of being in a conference that averages more than 15,000. In addition, schools must award scholarships in at least 7 men's and 7 women's sports to qualify.

Last season, 12 schools failed to meet the minimum attendance requirement. Six of these were in the MAC. Eastern Michigan averaged only 3,923 fans per game. When asked about this, the school's AD indicated that in their reports to the NCAA they are over 15,000 because they choose to include free tickets distributed within the community, whether they are actually used or not. They also include tickets paid for but not used (many schools do this) and count players, coaches, cheerleaders, bands, and stadium staff (even though these are to be expressly excluded per NCAA reporting instructions).

You might ask why they want to be in the FBS in the first place. Their combined record for the last three years is 10-26. I can only surmise that it's an ego thing, since both Western and Central Michigan play in the MAC (Western is one of the schools that average below 15K). They have to be losing their shirts.

I wonder whether the fact that they have been used as cannon fodder so often by the Big Ten keeps the NCAA from questioning whether the MAC belongs in the FBS. Last year, the two leagues met on the field 12 times. If those games had been considered FCS, three Big Ten schools that played in a bowl would not have qualified, including Michigan State.

I would like to see a Division Four limited to schools that average 25,000 in attendance, or who average 20,000 and play in a conference that averages 30,000. The 5 power conferences would still have a huge advantage over the smaller ones, but they would have to play each other more often. The Big Ten is already going to a nine game league schedule, and I suspect more will follow suit at the urging of ESPN. That can't be a bad thing.