Conference Realignment thread

[wolf from 73]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:36 AM, renoskier said:

problem...the billions in NIL doesn't belong to the schools

Yes. I know that and I don't know how the women could force private donners to share that money but unless I read something differently that's seems to be the intent of the law-suit as I understand it. If somebody has a link to an article that states other-wise I'd like to read it.

[Someone Else]

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/ncaa-to-propose-new-subdivision-with-direct-athlete-compensation-per-report/

 

[Wyobraska]

On 12/5/2023 at 11:06 AM, 818SUDSFan said:

Baker is an impressive guy but he's only the NCAA's president. IOW, he's beholden to not just the 60 or so schools that would form the new subdivision but the 300 other Division I colleges and universities about 20% of which also play FBS football. Call me naive but I can see those little guys voting against Baker on this.

I think the frame work is far from final but the monied schools are not going to keep playing nice with the less resourced schools.  NCAA or no NCAA.  

[wolf from 73]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:46 AM, Someone Else said:

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/ncaa-to-propose-new-subdivision-with-direct-athlete-compensation-per-report/

 

Thanks that explained more clearly what Baker was talking about. However I would like to read something defining the law-suit and its relation to NIL money.

[wolf from 73]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:46 AM, Someone Else said:

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/ncaa-to-propose-new-subdivision-with-direct-athlete-compensation-per-report/

 

It states that under this proposal the schools would establish the NIL deals with athletes. There is where Title IX would force schools to share that NIL money at 50%  with the women. Can you imagine a female college athlete making a million in a sport that very few have interest in or watch.

[Billings]

On 12/5/2023 at 8:58 AM, wolf from 73 said:

It states that under this proposal the schools would establish the NIL deals with athletes. There is where Title IX would force schools to share that NIL money at 50%  with the women. Can you imagine a female college athlete making a million in a sport that very few have interest in or watch.

yep part of the scholarship it is.

[RSF]

On 12/5/2023 at 12:58 PM, wolf from 73 said:

It states that under this proposal the schools would establish the NIL deals with athletes. There is where Title IX would force schools to share that NIL money at 50%  with the women. Can you imagine a female college athlete making a million in a sport that very few have interest in or watch.

Don't have to imagine it.  Sunisa Lee and Olivia Dunne (gymnastics) both drew 7 figures.  Because of their social media presence.

[wolf from 73]

On 12/5/2023 at 11:38 AM, RSF said:

Don't have to imagine it.  Sunisa Lee and Olivia Dunne (gymnastics) both drew 7 figures.  Because of their social media presence.

In order to fund players with NIL money at current levels it would have to increase by 100%. The money to fund college sports will become prohibitive for the vast majority of colleges at this new division.

[alum93]

On 12/5/2023 at 1:24 PM, wolf from 73 said:

In order to fund players with NIL money at current levels it would have to increase by 100%. The money to fund college sports will become prohibitive for the vast majority of colleges at this new division.

The whole point of a new division is to divide up the 133 teams that currently play FBS.  The only question is how high to they make min requirement for athletic budgets.  If 59 schools can afford $100M and above, my guess is the new number will be in that range.  That would eliminate nearly everyone in G5 and some in P4.  And just like that,  they break away formally and we get 2 playoff systems, 3 if you count FCS.

[RebelAlliance]

A couple of graphics that give some insight into who'll make the cut and who won't.

Who leeches the most off their students and academics.

Who actually brings money to the table rather than riding conference media deals.

 

And the overall numbers.

[alum93]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:06 PM, RebelAlliance said:

A couple of graphics that give some insight into who'll make the cut and who won't.

Who leeches the most off their students and academics.

Who actually brings money to the table rather than riding conference media deals.

 

And the overall numbers.

Assuming these graphs are accurate,  make the cutoff $100M.  There would be awesome competition and playoffs left for the next level.  All the teams i like to watch out west would all stay at the same level, and none of them are remotely close to meeting that type of insane budget.   Good riddance to the SEC and BiG.  I also have no interest whatsoever in trying to see my school pay $1M for a college quarterback or running back.  To me that is no longer college athletics.   That is just rich boosters buying teams.  Yuck.

 

[818SUDSFan]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:20 PM, alum93 said:

Assuming these graphs are accurate,  make the cutoff $100M.  There would be awesome competition and playoffs left for the next level.  All the teams i like to watch out west would all stay at the same level, and none of them are remotely close to meeting that type of insane budget.   Good riddance to the SEC and BiG.  I also have no interest whatsoever in trying to see my school pay $1M for a college quarterback.  To me that is no longer college athletics.   That is just rich boosters buying teams.  Yuck.

Well the TV networks aren't going to be thrilled to have the cut be based solely on money spent on athletics. Would they want Northwestern and Illinois for example? How 'bout the Vanderbilt Commode Doors? Or Indiana? Or Rutgers? Or Cal and its decrepit stadium? And would they actually care about Stanford? It's athletic budget is huge mainly because Stanford prides itself on annually sponsoring and winning the most Oly titles.

So it seems to me that just one metric won't do. Maybe also include men's and women's basketball (talkin' about you, Indiana) since there have been suggestions of severing those sports out too. In any event, it's too early to be specific.

[alum93]

On 12/5/2023 at 3:45 PM, 818SUDSFan said:

Well the TV networks aren't going to be thrilled to have the cut be based solely on money spent on athletics. Would they want Northwestern and Illinois for example? How 'bout the Vanderbilt Commode Doors? Or Indiana? Or Rutgers? Or Cal and its decrepit stadium? And would they actually care about Stanford? It's athletic budget is huge mainly because Stanford prides itself on annually sponsoring and winning the most Oly titles.

So it seems to me that just one metric won't do. Maybe also include men's and women's basketball (talkin' about you, Indiana) since there have been suggestions of severing those sports out too. In any event, it's too early to be specific.

Women's basketball?  This is about big time football and nothing else.  And the bar needs to be set high enough to eliminate 60-70 teams for the new level.  $50M won't do it.  

[OzzyOzz]

On 12/5/2023 at 1:06 PM, RebelAlliance said:

A couple of graphics that give some insight into who'll make the cut and who won't.

Who leeches the most off their students and academics.

Who actually brings money to the table rather than riding conference media deals.

 

And the overall numbers.

Stats literally just say what you want them to..I wonder that 100m budget cutoff that is literally a sand-castle number, given that this is university critical business, endowments come into play as far as budgets are concerned..

Why this metric?

And if a cutoff of 100m is to be determined, I'm sure that WSU can find a way..it's a huge alumni network.

Actually, let's make the cutoff $1 billion, WSU might just be able to find that within their budget too..

Can every school say that?

If it is about the money, but it isn't.

Does the pac 2 have a road to the playoffs in 2024 or not? 

There are 12 spots up for grabs, are we playing for a national championship or not? 

Who makes the decisions? 

[alum93]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:13 PM, OzzyOzz said:

Stats literally just say what you want them to..I wonder that 100m budget cutoff that is literally a sand-castle number, given that this is university critical business, endowments come into play as far as budgets are concerned..

Why this metric?

And if a cutoff of 100m is to be determined, I'm sure that WSU can find a way..it's a huge alumni network.

Actually, let's make the cutoff $1 billion, WSU might just be able to find that within their budget too..

Can every school say that?

If it is about the money, but it isn't.

Does a the pac 2 have a road to the playoffs in 2024 or not?

There are 12 spots up for grabs, are we playing for a national championship or not?

Who makes the decisions? 

Sure you have a path.  There are only 5 autobids to the five highest ranked conference champions.  Go undefeated and grab one of the open 7 at large bids.  There is your path for 2024.  Good luck.

[Did I hear a WOOSH?]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:06 PM, RebelAlliance said:

A couple of graphics that give some insight into who'll make the cut and who won't.

Who leeches the most off their students and academics.

Who actually brings money to the table rather than riding conference media deals.

 

And the overall numbers.

Not trying to beat a dead horse but if it’s from Tony Altimore then the figures are cooked and not accurate.  He isn’t a credible statistician.  

[OzzyOzz]

On 12/5/2023 at 3:20 PM, alum93 said:

Sure you have a path.  There are only 5 autobids.  Go undefeated and grab one of the open 7 at large bids.  There is your path for 2024.  Good luck.

The MWC teams are trash even if wsu ran the table they'd never get ranked lol..

The reason they expanded college football playoffs is to allow more programs into the fold..yes or no?

College sports is a publicly controlled space, it is not supposed to be for sale to oligarchs. 

They aren't even doing this for money. 

It's out of spite. 

I mean...this really makes me angry. It's the same fight over and over again.

Is there a civil solution to this..?

Programs that pour millions of $ into this will FORCE inclusion. Hawaii, Wyoming, Montana, UNLV, AF..there are many programs that deserve national inclusion. It's a national sport. Get used to it. It won't be taken by demi demons, they can go play in the NFL.

They need to be banned from collegiate athletics if that is the case...or do the right thing and just retire.

And if they don't? Then WSU should defund all football because there isnt a point if there isn't a chance. It's why people go to wsu and become cougs..

File the case..tired of the back and forth..find a judge, strip them of their positions..it's to be done..

 

 

[alum93]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:34 PM, OzzyOzz said:

The MWC teams are trash even if wsu ran the table they'd never get ranked lol..

The reason they expanded college football playoffs to allow more programs into the fold..yes or no?

College sports is a publicly controlled space, it is not supposed to be for sale to oligarchs. 

They aren't even doing this for money. 

It's out of spite. 

I mean...this really makes me angry. It's the same fight over and over again.

Is there a civil solution to this..?

Programs that pour millions of $ into this will FORCE inclusion. Hawaii, Wyoming, Montana, UNLV, AF..there are many programs that deserve national inclusion. It's a national sport. Get used to it. It won't be taken by demi demons, they can go play in the NFL.

They need to banned from collegiate athletics if that is the case...or do the right thing and just retire.

And if they don't? Then WSU should defund all football because there isnt a point if there isn't a chance. It's why people go to wsu and become cougs..

File the case..tired of the back and forth..

 

 

College football and the playoffs are absolutely about the money.  The sooner you accept that the less bitter you will be.  And 12 teams is a heck of a lot better than 4, especially when they guarantee a spot for at least one G5 team.  And what does Montana have to do with anything regarding FBS playoffs?

[utgrizfan]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:34 PM, OzzyOzz said:

The MWC teams are trash even if wsu ran the table they'd never get ranked lol..

The reason they expanded college football playoffs to allow more programs into the fold..yes or no?

College sports is a publicly controlled space, it is not supposed to be for sale to oligarchs. 

They aren't even doing this for money. 

It's out of spite. 

I mean...this really makes me angry. It's the same fight over and over again.

Is there a civil solution to this..?

Programs that pour millions of $ into this will FORCE inclusion. Hawaii, Wyoming, Montana, UNLV, AF..there are many programs that deserve national inclusion. It's a national sport. Get used to it. It won't be taken by demi demons, they can go play in the NFL.

They need to be banned from collegiate athletics if that is the case...or do the right thing and just retire.

And if they don't? Then WSU should defund all football because there isnt a point if there isn't a chance. It's why people go to wsu and become cougs..

File the case..tired of the back and forth..find a judge, strip them of their positions..it's to be done..

 

 

I mean I wish we were FBS personally but until that happens I don't see why we're in the Conversation. I'll just keep holding out hope of a partial MWC raid or if someone buys/takes over the MWC after the merger, you're probably correct we are upgrading facilities to increase odds of getting an FBS invite down the road, however that's a long way from a shot at the FBS Playoffs.

[RSF]

On 12/5/2023 at 5:46 PM, alum93 said:

College football and the playoffs are absolutely about the money.  The sooner you accept that the less bitter you will be.  

what are the odds of that happening...