JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,299
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8005
I Root For: SEC
Location: |
RE: School's Worth in Realignment
(01-16-2014 11:42 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote: (01-16-2014 02:01 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote: Agreed on the 72, JR. While I would have loved to see 4x16, I just don't know that the top dogs will have the guts or power to create an environment where existing P5 members would feel that opting out is in their best long term interest. At 72, everyone stays (65), BYU, UConn, Cincy, and I think both UCF and USF find homes. That leaves two spots. I would not want to be a part of the backroom madness that will take place to fill those two. I imagine it will come down to convenience of fit. Using my handy-dandy scores, those last two spots should go to Colorado State, UMass, or Temple, with Buffalo, Houston, and San Diego State knocking on the door. You have to think that Colorado State is in the best shape among those 6 schools because of their flexibility to fit well with the leftovers from the Big 12 or make it into a surviving Big 12. Whether the Big 12 survives or not, Colorado State finds a way to beneficially fit.
I still think that 72 will be substantially lower than the number we will end up seeing, at least initially. I believe that all of the existing members of the American and the Mountain West would make the investments that will be required for inclusion in the new upper classification. Then some of the remaining schools will also seek inclusion and will make the necessary commitments, but these schools will almost exclusively be east of the Mississippi and could possibly form a new conference or meld with the remnants of the American that aren't snatched up by the Big XII.
I just don't think it's all going to be as tidy as most of the scenarios I see proposed here. There will be lawsuits and threats of more if schools that have invested in their NCAA Division I athletics programs are arbitrarily ousted from the top level. The only way I see it working for the Power 5 conferences in such a way as to avoid the bulk of the issues that would be raised is if they created a meaningful set of cutoffs based on football attendance plus athletic budgets. That way there would be a method for excluding schools that placed the burden of worthiness on the schools and not the NCAA. Of course, they would have to make the attendance low enough to include schools that they want included, like Duke, but high enough to prevent those they don't want. Just find the lowest five-year average attendance for a Power five school and that is likely to be the cutoff. Same goes for athletic budgets. But exclusion from the top layer would have to be something that could be overcome by a commitment to an acceptable level of athletic expenditures, assuming attendance passed muster.
For example, say the average football attendance cutoff is 30,000 per home game and the minimum athletic budget is $40 million. Southern Miss might meet the attendance threshold, but would have to double their athletic budget for automatic admission into the top group. I would assume USM would decide that they didn't have the resource base for such an increase and would accept its assignment to the lower classification. However, if the budget cutoff was $25-30 million, they might consider making the commitment to remain in the top group. The point is, as long as the split isn't arbitrary and allows a pathway for inclusion for member schools, the upper classification could be created without a huge fallout. But if the Power 5 simply dictate an arbitrary number based on who is currently in the club, plus a few add-ons, then I believe all Hades would break loose and college sports would be all about courtrooms, not playing fields.
Well we differ there. Right now there are significant gaps in financing between 60 and 61, 64 and 66, and again at 71. Those are real and factual and hardly arbitrary. Also the criteria will include size of endowment for athletics, size and amenities of facilities, minimum number of scholarships sports offered and a minimum number of required sports to be offered, academic entrance minimums set, and others which the smaller schools will see as exorbitant expenses. The difference will be rather stark.
Now consider it from the network perspective. These moves are about product placement for the maximizing of revenue. In an upper tier, either official or de facto, the networks aren't going to want to pay top dollar for too much product. They will start smaller and add to reach consensus, a legally defensible position, and to keep their structure aligned. That's why I believe we will start with 60 or 64 and within two years move to 72. It gives the perception of upward mobility and inclusion but in reality stops just past the financial gap of investment between the top schools and the lower rung. But that case could also be made at 60, 64, 66, 68, or 70.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2014 06:20 AM by JRsec.)
|
|
![[Image: image_zps19901f5d.jpg]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l509/10thmountain1/image_zps19901f5d.jpg)
