http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013...rences.htm

Quote:...North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham suggested that teams in Division X should have a higher minimum number of sports. And not just a couple more than Division I's current minimum of 14. Cunningham suggested a increase to 24, more than 50% over the current limit.

As one would expect, Cunningham's Tar Heels check in comfortably with 28 NCAA sports. But what about the rest of the country? I researched the sport sponsorship at every BCS school to see what the offerings looked like. That research raised two interesting questions. Today I'll look at which schools and conferences would be most impacted by Cunningham's requirement. Tomorrow will start to ask which sports would see sponsorship rise and what championships a theoretical Division X or new association might focus on holding first...

...Cunningham's idea would add millions in new expenses to most institutions' balance sheets, just as their revenue may be reduced significantly.

I think this will be the way they weed schools out. Increase the minimum number of sports to 20-24. Pass the stipend. Make it cost prohibitive.

This way, they aren't voting to exclude anyone. Because any school could theoretically choose to pay the piper.

UCF would have a long way to go, as there is only 15 sports sponsored (at least according to what is on the Athletics Website).

(07-25-2013 08:01 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I think this will be the way they weed schools out. Increase the minimum number of sports to 20-24. Pass the stipend. Make it cost prohibitive.

This way, they aren't voting to exclude anyone. Because any school could theoretically choose to pay the piper.

This should bold well for the AAC/MWC I would think...

(07-25-2013 08:03 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:01 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I think this will be the way they weed schools out. Increase the minimum number of sports to 20-24. Pass the stipend. Make it cost prohibitive.

This way, they aren't voting to exclude anyone. Because any school could theoretically choose to pay the piper.

This should bold well for the AAC/MWC I would think..

If not for the conferences as a whole, then there will be a group of schools from the MWC and American who will join the new division as independents in football.

Memphis currently sponsors 18 sports (9 each mens/womens). Going to 20 is likely not an issue. Going to 24 might be.

(07-25-2013 08:03 AM)knightalum74 Wrote:  UCF would have a long way to go, as there is only 15 sports sponsored (at least according to what is on the Athletics Website).

indoor track & field and outdoor track & field are considered separate sports by the NCAA. UCF has the FBS minimum of 16, as do a few of the P5 schools as noted in the article in the OP.

I suggested that raising the minimum number of sports would be probably the most realistic way of drawing a line between D4 and everyone else, but as the article points out, there are 23 schools even within the ranks of the P5 that are under 20 total sports.

Quote:Clemson: 19
Northwestern: 19
Pitt: 19
Syracuse: 19
Washington: 19
Baylor: 18
Iowa State: 18
Kansas: 18
Miami: 18
Oklahoma State: 18
Oregon: 18
Utah: 18
Wake Forest: 18
West Virginia: 18
Colorado: 17
Georgia Tech: 17
Mississippi State: 17
Ole Miss: 17
Oregon State: 17
Texas Tech: 17
Washington State: 17
Kansas State: 16
Vanderbilt: 16

http://www.ncaa.com/schools/connecticut

I think this should have the info regarding number of sports sponsored by school. UConn has 24 currently according to this list.

This is where this will have to go. There's not going to be a straight P5/G5 split, but they are going to make it so cost prohibitive to be Division 4 that they get rid of all but the most committed and financially viable G5 schools.

(07-25-2013 08:01 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I think this will be the way they weed schools out. Increase the minimum number of sports to 20-24. Pass the stipend. Make it cost prohibitive.

This way, they aren't voting to exclude anyone. Because any school could theoretically choose to pay the piper.

I took a quick look at the website and it said that Temple has 24 men’s and women’s varsity teams which is a few more than I expected. I would think this should be a pretty consistent number across the AAC schools given the size of most members.

(07-25-2013 08:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is where this will have to go. There's not going to be a straight P5/G5 split, but they are going to make it so cost prohibitive to be Division 4 that they get rid of all but the most committed and financially viable G5 schools.

Agree. I assume all current and about-to-be American conference teams will opt in, if that's a possibility. It will be interesting to see what happens with the MWC. That conference might split between those that want in, and those that don't. I think the other FBS conferences won't go for it.

Of course, the P5 might try to make the stipulations so onerous that none of us can afford it, since there is now such a big gap in money between them and everybody else.

maybe Bubba Cunningham needs to be more concerned with keeping their fb team off probation than with forcing other schools to go to 24 sports...jmo

The G4 will not be able to get away from UConn. That is pretty clear to me. So I'm going to stop worrying about it. There is no metric they can create that would bar UConn but not a huge chunk of current P5 schools.

(07-25-2013 08:08 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I suggested that raising the minimum number of sports would be probably the most realistic way of drawing a line between D4 and everyone else, but as the article points out, there are 23 schools even within the ranks of the P5 that are under 20 total sports.

Quote:Clemson: 19
Northwestern: 19
Pitt: 19
Syracuse: 19
Washington: 19
Baylor: 18
Iowa State: 18
Kansas: 18
Miami: 18
Oklahoma State: 18
Oregon: 18
Utah: 18
Wake Forest: 18
West Virginia: 18
Colorado: 17
Georgia Tech: 17
Mississippi State: 17
Ole Miss: 17
Oregon State: 17
Texas Tech: 17
Washington State: 17
Kansas State: 16
Vanderbilt: 16

The thing is, those schools are just now making $20M a year in TV money, and are about to make even more under the new football postseason structure. They have the funds to go to 24 without much pain.

The G5 schools will have to come out of pocket, because none of them are making a profit right now.

It's a typical "spend money" provision voted on by the rich schools to pressure the poorer schools. In the history of college athletics, you see it time and time again.

(07-25-2013 08:08 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:03 AM)knightalum74 Wrote:  UCF would have a long way to go, as there is only 15 sports sponsored (at least according to what is on the Athletics Website).

indoor track & field and outdoor track & field are considered separate sports by the NCAA. UCF has the FBS minimum of 16, as do a few of the P5 schools as noted in the article in the OP.

Thanks Bob, did not realize that. Is it the same for Women's Beach Volleyball? That would appear to be an easy "add" with an existing Women's Volleyball team.

NCAA I Sand Volleyball

While that would only get UCF to 17, it's closer to 20 which is a more reasonable number. 24 is pretty high and would prove very expensive, unless of course there are guarantees of large TV revenue in the future.

(07-25-2013 08:07 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:03 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:01 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I think this will be the way they weed schools out. Increase the minimum number of sports to 20-24. Pass the stipend. Make it cost prohibitive.

This way, they aren't voting to exclude anyone. Because any school could theoretically choose to pay the piper.

This should bold well for the AAC/MWC I would think..

If not for the conferences as a whole, then there will be a group of schools from the MWC and American who will join the new division as independents in football.

I think we would do what was necessary to stay in big time sports. The whole point of sports is to function as the public face and PR arm of the university. It really doesnt do much if nobody even knows you have sports teams---which what it will be like for any school compting below the top level of college sports. The school is making a 160 million investment in football and basketball facilities that will essentially be wasted if they try to peddle pee-wee sports in Houston. I don think that's going to happen if it's just a matter of agreeing to a certain level of spending.

(07-25-2013 08:15 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is where this will have to go. There's not going to be a straight P5/G5 split, but they are going to make it so cost prohibitive to be Division 4 that they get rid of all but the most committed and financially viable G5 schools.

Agree. I assume all current and about-to-be American conference teams will opt in, if that's a possibility. It will be interesting to see what happens with the MWC. That conference might split between those that want in, and those that don't. I think the other FBS conferences won't go for it.

Of course, the P5 might try to make the stipulations so onerous that none of us can afford it, since there is now such a big gap in money between them and everybody else.

Some of them are not exactly in the best financial situations. Yes they rake in huge TV paychecks, but they spend money at such a high rate that making it so cost prohibitive to get rid of all the G5 would probably bankrupt a few of them as well. They are going to set the bar at something all of the club members can reach, and whatever that level is will likely be reachable by pretty much all of the AAC and most of the MWC.

(07-25-2013 08:17 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  The G4 will not be able to get away from UConn. That is pretty clear to me. So I'm going to stop worrying about it. There is no metric they can create that would bar UConn but not a huge chunk of current P5 schools.

I think Cincy is right there too...which means they either drop the whole thing or make the problem go away by inviting in the schools they see as "problems". Either way, should work out for us both....I hope.

(07-25-2013 07:57 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013...rences.htm

Quote:...Cunningham's idea would add millions in new expenses to most institutions' balance sheets, just as their revenue may be reduced significantly.

And there's the catch. I read this as a minimum requirement to be in the club NOT a ticket in. A school on the outside could spend these millions, be bled dry, and still never receive an invite.

(07-25-2013 08:15 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is where this will have to go. There's not going to be a straight P5/G5 split, but they are going to make it so cost prohibitive to be Division 4 that they get rid of all but the most committed and financially viable G5 schools.

Agree. I assume all current and about-to-be American conference teams will opt in, if that's a possibility. It will be interesting to see what happens with the MWC. That conference might split between those that want in, and those that don't. I think the other FBS conferences won't go for it.

Of course, the P5 might try to make the stipulations so onerous that none of us can afford it, since there is now such a big gap in money between them and everybody else.

Possibly. However, if the Div 4 is trimmed that drastically, any school in division 4 will be more valuable due to the scarcity of D4 inventory. My guess is that any school that can pay the expense will more than break even over the long run.

In fact, my guess is that new media contracts would likely easily cover the new expenses. As only a handful of individual schools would be willing to pay th costs required to join---the old AAC media contract would not apply to those joining schools. They would either be covered under new Indy contracts or the schools that opted to move to D4 would organize a totally new conference. That conference, as the only available D4 media contract might do pretty well. The net cost of D4 might not be as bad as some think due to increased revenue possibilities.

I wonder I exit fees apply to schools leaving a conference caught up in changing divisional governance?