(01-25-2022 02:18 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 11:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 09:56 AM)IM Snug Wrote:  If men's basketball splits, then I will never watch college basketball again forever.

I'm tired of this greedy BS. They're going to ruin my interest in the sport.

The greedy part is the schools who don't compete and don't contribute, but go Division I on the back's of student fees to get Division I handouts. Its not like these schools have been Division I forever. They are newbies grabbing for tourney gold. There were only 273 in 29 conferences in 1982 and 217 in 19 conferences in 1973 (I randomly picked a couple years) vs over 350 now.

But how are you going to differentiate between a "newbie grabbing for tourney gold" or a school like UCF that has built itself from joining D2 in the late 70's and D1 in 1984 to the cusp of the P5 today?

I think you need to raise the minimum expenditures and change the distribution formula so it no longer subsidizes schools to move up.

(01-25-2022 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 02:18 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 11:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 09:56 AM)IM Snug Wrote:  If men's basketball splits, then I will never watch college basketball again forever.

I'm tired of this greedy BS. They're going to ruin my interest in the sport.

The greedy part is the schools who don't compete and don't contribute, but go Division I on the back's of student fees to get Division I handouts. Its not like these schools have been Division I forever. They are newbies grabbing for tourney gold. There were only 273 in 29 conferences in 1982 and 217 in 19 conferences in 1973 (I randomly picked a couple years) vs over 350 now.

But how are you going to differentiate between a "newbie grabbing for tourney gold" or a school like UCF that has built itself from joining D2 in the late 70's and D1 in 1984 to the cusp of the P5 today?

In the last 50 years, there have been more than 100 new schools moving into Division I. Given that enormous number of move-ups, you are going to need dozens of examples among them to support your argument, and not just one (UCF).

If there's only one or a few in that UCF category, then they are outliers among a group of colleges that moved up but didn't become a well-financed and competitive D-I athletic department.

141 since 1973 to be precise. 217 to 358.

(01-25-2022 08:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 02:18 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 11:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  The greedy part is the schools who don't compete and don't contribute, but go Division I on the back's of student fees to get Division I handouts. Its not like these schools have been Division I forever. They are newbies grabbing for tourney gold. There were only 273 in 29 conferences in 1982 and 217 in 19 conferences in 1973 (I randomly picked a couple years) vs over 350 now.

But how are you going to differentiate between a "newbie grabbing for tourney gold" or a school like UCF that has built itself from joining D2 in the late 70's and D1 in 1984 to the cusp of the P5 today?

In the last 50 years, there have been more than 100 new schools moving into Division I. Given that enormous number of move-ups, you are going to need dozens of examples among them to support your argument, and not just one (UCF).

If there's only one or a few in that UCF category, then they are outliers among a group of colleges that moved up but didn't become a well-financed and competitive D-I athletic department.

And there are. Of all those move-ups, UCF is arguably the ONLY one that has actually built itself to the point where it might reach Power status and no longer need student subsidies to fund itself.

And that's still up in the air, as the Big 12 they are joining may not end up being a Power league.

USF arguably did it as well, when we joined the Big East, but alas, that didn't last.

The great bulk of D1 move-ups became welfare schools, subsisting on transfers, fees and subsidies, and running huge operating losses. Tourney gold and payday games are big parts of their failed budgets.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if there were more reasonable minimum requirements for D-I membership - that is if the range between the schools offering the most scholarships and those offering the least were much smaller than they are.

One requirement is that a school must award at least 50% of the maximum allowed in 14 sports (six men's and eight women's). Another is that the school must award at least 38 full scholarship equivalents in sports other than football, and men's and women's basketball. Think about that - 38.

Why are the requirements so low? Because there are a lot more schools with poor support for athletics than those with strong support - and they all get to vote. Basically, the bulk of the financial resources for many of the 357 D-I schools come from the NCAA basketball tournament, from taxing their students through athletics fees, and from offering up their athletes to get their butts whipped in exchange for cash from wealthier, more powerful schools. Only a small fraction of the costs of them being D-I members come from external sources like ticket revenues, sales of media rights, and booster donations.

Basically, it's the 80-20 rule. About 20% of D-I schools subsidize the other 80%. And the 80% complain that the 20% aren't giving them more. The P5/6 aren't being greedy. If anything, they are being generous. They could meet all their own needs by subsidizing ~70 schools instead of subsidizing ~280. The irony of efforts to eliminate amateurism in college sports is that they likely will ultimately harm most NCAA members and end most of those subsidies.

... and I think that's why some think 'consolidation', the formation of super-conferences and/or a P5 breakaway are inevitable. They think the P5 will tire of the complaints and the subsidies of smaller schools.

But I don't see it. IMO, the P5 generally regard the sharing of hoops revenue with the tiny schools, and CFP money with the G5, as money reasonably well spent.

Sure, they'd like to get even more, everyone wants more, but IMO, the P5 likes having the G5 and FCS level schools to compete against. Nick Saban may think Alabama should only play P5 schools, but he can afford that because he has all, or at least a lot, of the NFL-bound players. Most P5 count on games against G5 and FCS, in hoops and football, to pad their record.

Now maybe they would only need 70 or so of these lesser programs around rather than 280. But IMO the P5 know that the public likes these tiny FCS-level programs in the NCAA tournament. An all-P5, or even all P5/G5 tournament, would not have the same appeal. The casual fans who make the NCAA tourney a national event, and a billion-dollar event, want to see Belmont vs Duke and North Texas Panhandle Tech vs UCLA in the opening rounds. That's what gives it the romance factor. The P5 don't want to mess with the Golden Goose, IMO.

So to me, the P5 have no real problem with providing the G5-and-below of D1 their share of the hoops money. They realize these schools are already running massive operating deficits, $20m and more in student fees and transfers and the like, for the privilege of being "D1".

Even Division II and Division III is complaining they don't get a higher % of NCAA revenue even though they are a net negative. Its pretty pathetic.
I imagine the P5 administrators get pretty tired of it.

(01-25-2022 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 02:18 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 11:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 09:56 AM)IM Snug Wrote:  If men's basketball splits, then I will never watch college basketball again forever.

I'm tired of this greedy BS. They're going to ruin my interest in the sport.

The greedy part is the schools who don't compete and don't contribute, but go Division I on the back's of student fees to get Division I handouts. Its not like these schools have been Division I forever. They are newbies grabbing for tourney gold. There were only 273 in 29 conferences in 1982 and 217 in 19 conferences in 1973 (I randomly picked a couple years) vs over 350 now.

But how are you going to differentiate between a "newbie grabbing for tourney gold" or a school like UCF that has built itself from joining D2 in the late 70's and D1 in 1984 to the cusp of the P5 today?

In the last 50 years, there have been more than 100 new schools moving into Division I. Given that enormous number of move-ups, you are going to need dozens of examples among them to support your argument, and not just one (UCF).

If there's only one or a few in that UCF category, then they are outliers among a group of colleges that moved up but didn't become a well-financed and competitive D-I athletic department.

And there are. Of all those move-ups, UCF is arguably the ONLY one that has actually built itself to the point where it might reach Power status and no longer need student subsidies to fund itself.

And that's still up in the air, as the Big 12 they are joining may not end up being a Power league.

USF arguably did it as well, when we joined the Big East, but alas, that didn't last.

The great bulk of D1 move-ups became welfare schools, subsisting on transfers, fees and subsidies, and running huge operating losses. Tourney gold and payday games are big parts of their failed budgets.

There are a few FCS or non-Football schools that would also be looked at, just not at the same level (College of Charleston, Coastal Carolina, Liberty, Stony Brook, Grand Canyon, maybe a couple of others.)

(01-26-2022 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 08:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 02:18 PM)whittx Wrote:  But how are you going to differentiate between a "newbie grabbing for tourney gold" or a school like UCF that has built itself from joining D2 in the late 70's and D1 in 1984 to the cusp of the P5 today?

In the last 50 years, there have been more than 100 new schools moving into Division I. Given that enormous number of move-ups, you are going to need dozens of examples among them to support your argument, and not just one (UCF).

If there's only one or a few in that UCF category, then they are outliers among a group of colleges that moved up but didn't become a well-financed and competitive D-I athletic department.

And there are. Of all those move-ups, UCF is arguably the ONLY one that has actually built itself to the point where it might reach Power status and no longer need student subsidies to fund itself.

And that's still up in the air, as the Big 12 they are joining may not end up being a Power league.

USF arguably did it as well, when we joined the Big East, but alas, that didn't last.

The great bulk of D1 move-ups became welfare schools, subsisting on transfers, fees and subsidies, and running huge operating losses. Tourney gold and payday games are big parts of their failed budgets.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if there were more reasonable minimum requirements for D-I membership - that is if the range between the schools offering the most scholarships and those offering the least were much smaller than they are.

One requirement is that a school must award at least 50% of the maximum allowed in 14 sports (six men's and eight women's). Another is that the school must award at least 38 full scholarship equivalents in sports other than football, and men's and women's basketball. Think about that - 38.

Why are the requirements so low? Because there are a lot more schools with poor support for athletics than those with strong support - and they all get to vote. Basically, the bulk of the financial resources for many of the 357 D-I schools come from the NCAA basketball tournament, from taxing their students through athletics fees, and from offering up their athletes to get their butts whipped in exchange for cash from wealthier, more powerful schools. Only a small fraction of the costs of them being D-I members come from external sources like ticket revenues, sales of media rights, and booster donations.

Basically, it's the 80-20 rule. About 20% of D-I schools subsidize the other 80%. And the 80% complain that the 20% aren't giving them more. The P5/6 aren't being greedy. If anything, they are being generous. They could meet all their own needs by subsidizing ~70 schools instead of subsidizing ~280. The irony of efforts to eliminate amateurism in college sports is that they likely will ultimately harm most NCAA members and end most of those subsidies.

... and I think that's why some think 'consolidation', the formation of super-conferences and/or a P5 breakaway are inevitable. They think the P5 will tire of the complaints and the subsidies of smaller schools.

But I don't see it. IMO, the P5 generally regard the sharing of hoops revenue with the tiny schools, and CFP money with the G5, as money reasonably well spent.

Sure, they'd like to get even more, everyone wants more, but IMO, the P5 likes having the G5 and FCS level schools to compete against. Nick Saban may think Alabama should only play P5 schools, but he can afford that because he has all, or at least a lot, of the NFL-bound players. Most P5 count on games against G5 and FCS, in hoops and football, to pad their record.

Now maybe they would only need 70 or so of these lesser programs around rather than 280. But IMO the P5 know that the public likes these tiny FCS-level programs in the NCAA tournament. An all-P5, or even all P5/G5 tournament, would not have the same appeal. The casual fans who make the NCAA tourney a national event, and a billion-dollar event, want to see Belmont vs Duke and North Texas Panhandle Tech vs UCLA in the opening rounds. That's what gives it the romance factor. The P5 don't want to mess with the Golden Goose, IMO.

So to me, the P5 have no real problem with providing the G5-and-below of D1 their share of the hoops money. They realize these schools are already running massive operating deficits, $20m and more in student fees and transfers and the like, for the privilege of being "D1".

I agree that the P5 schools like March Madness, but I believe they want a larger share of the pie and a slightly expanded (72) field to get more at-larges.

(01-26-2022 11:33 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 08:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  In the last 50 years, there have been more than 100 new schools moving into Division I. Given that enormous number of move-ups, you are going to need dozens of examples among them to support your argument, and not just one (UCF).

If there's only one or a few in that UCF category, then they are outliers among a group of colleges that moved up but didn't become a well-financed and competitive D-I athletic department.

And there are. Of all those move-ups, UCF is arguably the ONLY one that has actually built itself to the point where it might reach Power status and no longer need student subsidies to fund itself.

And that's still up in the air, as the Big 12 they are joining may not end up being a Power league.

USF arguably did it as well, when we joined the Big East, but alas, that didn't last.

The great bulk of D1 move-ups became welfare schools, subsisting on transfers, fees and subsidies, and running huge operating losses. Tourney gold and payday games are big parts of their failed budgets.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if there were more reasonable minimum requirements for D-I membership - that is if the range between the schools offering the most scholarships and those offering the least were much smaller than they are.

One requirement is that a school must award at least 50% of the maximum allowed in 14 sports (six men's and eight women's). Another is that the school must award at least 38 full scholarship equivalents in sports other than football, and men's and women's basketball. Think about that - 38.

Why are the requirements so low? Because there are a lot more schools with poor support for athletics than those with strong support - and they all get to vote. Basically, the bulk of the financial resources for many of the 357 D-I schools come from the NCAA basketball tournament, from taxing their students through athletics fees, and from offering up their athletes to get their butts whipped in exchange for cash from wealthier, more powerful schools. Only a small fraction of the costs of them being D-I members come from external sources like ticket revenues, sales of media rights, and booster donations.

Basically, it's the 80-20 rule. About 20% of D-I schools subsidize the other 80%. And the 80% complain that the 20% aren't giving them more. The P5/6 aren't being greedy. If anything, they are being generous. They could meet all their own needs by subsidizing ~70 schools instead of subsidizing ~280. The irony of efforts to eliminate amateurism in college sports is that they likely will ultimately harm most NCAA members and end most of those subsidies.

... and I think that's why some think 'consolidation', the formation of super-conferences and/or a P5 breakaway are inevitable. They think the P5 will tire of the complaints and the subsidies of smaller schools.

But I don't see it. IMO, the P5 generally regard the sharing of hoops revenue with the tiny schools, and CFP money with the G5, as money reasonably well spent.

Sure, they'd like to get even more, everyone wants more, but IMO, the P5 likes having the G5 and FCS level schools to compete against. Nick Saban may think Alabama should only play P5 schools, but he can afford that because he has all, or at least a lot, of the NFL-bound players. Most P5 count on games against G5 and FCS, in hoops and football, to pad their record.

Now maybe they would only need 70 or so of these lesser programs around rather than 280. But IMO the P5 know that the public likes these tiny FCS-level programs in the NCAA tournament. An all-P5, or even all P5/G5 tournament, would not have the same appeal. The casual fans who make the NCAA tourney a national event, and a billion-dollar event, want to see Belmont vs Duke and North Texas Panhandle Tech vs UCLA in the opening rounds. That's what gives it the romance factor. The P5 don't want to mess with the Golden Goose, IMO.

So to me, the P5 have no real problem with providing the G5-and-below of D1 their share of the hoops money. They realize these schools are already running massive operating deficits, $20m and more in student fees and transfers and the like, for the privilege of being "D1".

I agree that the P5 schools like March Madness, but I believe they want a larger share of the pie and a slightly expanded (72) field to get more at-larges.

what is funny about that is in the last 5 tournaments 8 of 20 of those extra at larges would have gone to non P5 teams.

(01-26-2022 11:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 11:33 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 08:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And there are. Of all those move-ups, UCF is arguably the ONLY one that has actually built itself to the point where it might reach Power status and no longer need student subsidies to fund itself.

And that's still up in the air, as the Big 12 they are joining may not end up being a Power league.

USF arguably did it as well, when we joined the Big East, but alas, that didn't last.

The great bulk of D1 move-ups became welfare schools, subsisting on transfers, fees and subsidies, and running huge operating losses. Tourney gold and payday games are big parts of their failed budgets.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if there were more reasonable minimum requirements for D-I membership - that is if the range between the schools offering the most scholarships and those offering the least were much smaller than they are.

One requirement is that a school must award at least 50% of the maximum allowed in 14 sports (six men's and eight women's). Another is that the school must award at least 38 full scholarship equivalents in sports other than football, and men's and women's basketball. Think about that - 38.

Why are the requirements so low? Because there are a lot more schools with poor support for athletics than those with strong support - and they all get to vote. Basically, the bulk of the financial resources for many of the 357 D-I schools come from the NCAA basketball tournament, from taxing their students through athletics fees, and from offering up their athletes to get their butts whipped in exchange for cash from wealthier, more powerful schools. Only a small fraction of the costs of them being D-I members come from external sources like ticket revenues, sales of media rights, and booster donations.

Basically, it's the 80-20 rule. About 20% of D-I schools subsidize the other 80%. And the 80% complain that the 20% aren't giving them more. The P5/6 aren't being greedy. If anything, they are being generous. They could meet all their own needs by subsidizing ~70 schools instead of subsidizing ~280. The irony of efforts to eliminate amateurism in college sports is that they likely will ultimately harm most NCAA members and end most of those subsidies.

... and I think that's why some think 'consolidation', the formation of super-conferences and/or a P5 breakaway are inevitable. They think the P5 will tire of the complaints and the subsidies of smaller schools.

But I don't see it. IMO, the P5 generally regard the sharing of hoops revenue with the tiny schools, and CFP money with the G5, as money reasonably well spent.

Sure, they'd like to get even more, everyone wants more, but IMO, the P5 likes having the G5 and FCS level schools to compete against. Nick Saban may think Alabama should only play P5 schools, but he can afford that because he has all, or at least a lot, of the NFL-bound players. Most P5 count on games against G5 and FCS, in hoops and football, to pad their record.

Now maybe they would only need 70 or so of these lesser programs around rather than 280. But IMO the P5 know that the public likes these tiny FCS-level programs in the NCAA tournament. An all-P5, or even all P5/G5 tournament, would not have the same appeal. The casual fans who make the NCAA tourney a national event, and a billion-dollar event, want to see Belmont vs Duke and North Texas Panhandle Tech vs UCLA in the opening rounds. That's what gives it the romance factor. The P5 don't want to mess with the Golden Goose, IMO.

So to me, the P5 have no real problem with providing the G5-and-below of D1 their share of the hoops money. They realize these schools are already running massive operating deficits, $20m and more in student fees and transfers and the like, for the privilege of being "D1".

I agree that the P5 schools like March Madness, but I believe they want a larger share of the pie and a slightly expanded (72) field to get more at-larges.

what is funny about that is in the last 5 tournaments 8 of 20 of those extra at larges would have gone to non P5 teams.

And, those 12 additional units, when divided by the 65 P5 schools, would have only brought in a drop in the bucket compared to their annual budgets. Additional tournament units isn't where the money is. That's the second fund financed by tournament revenue (roughly equal in size to the participation pool), which is distributed to all D-I schools based on the number of scholarships each awards.

(01-26-2022 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 11:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 11:33 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 08:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  It probably wouldn't bother me so much if there were more reasonable minimum requirements for D-I membership - that is if the range between the schools offering the most scholarships and those offering the least were much smaller than they are.

One requirement is that a school must award at least 50% of the maximum allowed in 14 sports (six men's and eight women's). Another is that the school must award at least 38 full scholarship equivalents in sports other than football, and men's and women's basketball. Think about that - 38.

Why are the requirements so low? Because there are a lot more schools with poor support for athletics than those with strong support - and they all get to vote. Basically, the bulk of the financial resources for many of the 357 D-I schools come from the NCAA basketball tournament, from taxing their students through athletics fees, and from offering up their athletes to get their butts whipped in exchange for cash from wealthier, more powerful schools. Only a small fraction of the costs of them being D-I members come from external sources like ticket revenues, sales of media rights, and booster donations.

Basically, it's the 80-20 rule. About 20% of D-I schools subsidize the other 80%. And the 80% complain that the 20% aren't giving them more. The P5/6 aren't being greedy. If anything, they are being generous. They could meet all their own needs by subsidizing ~70 schools instead of subsidizing ~280. The irony of efforts to eliminate amateurism in college sports is that they likely will ultimately harm most NCAA members and end most of those subsidies.

... and I think that's why some think 'consolidation', the formation of super-conferences and/or a P5 breakaway are inevitable. They think the P5 will tire of the complaints and the subsidies of smaller schools.

But I don't see it. IMO, the P5 generally regard the sharing of hoops revenue with the tiny schools, and CFP money with the G5, as money reasonably well spent.

Sure, they'd like to get even more, everyone wants more, but IMO, the P5 likes having the G5 and FCS level schools to compete against. Nick Saban may think Alabama should only play P5 schools, but he can afford that because he has all, or at least a lot, of the NFL-bound players. Most P5 count on games against G5 and FCS, in hoops and football, to pad their record.

Now maybe they would only need 70 or so of these lesser programs around rather than 280. But IMO the P5 know that the public likes these tiny FCS-level programs in the NCAA tournament. An all-P5, or even all P5/G5 tournament, would not have the same appeal. The casual fans who make the NCAA tourney a national event, and a billion-dollar event, want to see Belmont vs Duke and North Texas Panhandle Tech vs UCLA in the opening rounds. That's what gives it the romance factor. The P5 don't want to mess with the Golden Goose, IMO.

So to me, the P5 have no real problem with providing the G5-and-below of D1 their share of the hoops money. They realize these schools are already running massive operating deficits, $20m and more in student fees and transfers and the like, for the privilege of being "D1".

I agree that the P5 schools like March Madness, but I believe they want a larger share of the pie and a slightly expanded (72) field to get more at-larges.

what is funny about that is in the last 5 tournaments 8 of 20 of those extra at larges would have gone to non P5 teams.

And, those 12 additional units, when divided by the 65 P5 schools, would have only brought in a drop in the bucket compared to their annual budgets. Additional tournament units isn't where the money is. That's the second fund financed by tournament revenue (roughly equal in size to the participation pool), which is distributed to all D-I schools based on the number of scholarships each awards.

Which a lot still goes to P5 since they give far more scholarships overall, and to those schools that are investing and giving out scholarships in many sports.

(01-26-2022 11:33 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 08:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  In the last 50 years, there have been more than 100 new schools moving into Division I. Given that enormous number of move-ups, you are going to need dozens of examples among them to support your argument, and not just one (UCF).

If there's only one or a few in that UCF category, then they are outliers among a group of colleges that moved up but didn't become a well-financed and competitive D-I athletic department.

And there are. Of all those move-ups, UCF is arguably the ONLY one that has actually built itself to the point where it might reach Power status and no longer need student subsidies to fund itself.

And that's still up in the air, as the Big 12 they are joining may not end up being a Power league.

USF arguably did it as well, when we joined the Big East, but alas, that didn't last.

The great bulk of D1 move-ups became welfare schools, subsisting on transfers, fees and subsidies, and running huge operating losses. Tourney gold and payday games are big parts of their failed budgets.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if there were more reasonable minimum requirements for D-I membership - that is if the range between the schools offering the most scholarships and those offering the least were much smaller than they are.

One requirement is that a school must award at least 50% of the maximum allowed in 14 sports (six men's and eight women's). Another is that the school must award at least 38 full scholarship equivalents in sports other than football, and men's and women's basketball. Think about that - 38.

Why are the requirements so low? Because there are a lot more schools with poor support for athletics than those with strong support - and they all get to vote. Basically, the bulk of the financial resources for many of the 357 D-I schools come from the NCAA basketball tournament, from taxing their students through athletics fees, and from offering up their athletes to get their butts whipped in exchange for cash from wealthier, more powerful schools. Only a small fraction of the costs of them being D-I members come from external sources like ticket revenues, sales of media rights, and booster donations.

Basically, it's the 80-20 rule. About 20% of D-I schools subsidize the other 80%. And the 80% complain that the 20% aren't giving them more. The P5/6 aren't being greedy. If anything, they are being generous. They could meet all their own needs by subsidizing ~70 schools instead of subsidizing ~280. The irony of efforts to eliminate amateurism in college sports is that they likely will ultimately harm most NCAA members and end most of those subsidies.

... and I think that's why some think 'consolidation', the formation of super-conferences and/or a P5 breakaway are inevitable. They think the P5 will tire of the complaints and the subsidies of smaller schools.

But I don't see it. IMO, the P5 generally regard the sharing of hoops revenue with the tiny schools, and CFP money with the G5, as money reasonably well spent.

Sure, they'd like to get even more, everyone wants more, but IMO, the P5 likes having the G5 and FCS level schools to compete against. Nick Saban may think Alabama should only play P5 schools, but he can afford that because he has all, or at least a lot, of the NFL-bound players. Most P5 count on games against G5 and FCS, in hoops and football, to pad their record.

Now maybe they would only need 70 or so of these lesser programs around rather than 280. But IMO the P5 know that the public likes these tiny FCS-level programs in the NCAA tournament. An all-P5, or even all P5/G5 tournament, would not have the same appeal. The casual fans who make the NCAA tourney a national event, and a billion-dollar event, want to see Belmont vs Duke and North Texas Panhandle Tech vs UCLA in the opening rounds. That's what gives it the romance factor. The P5 don't want to mess with the Golden Goose, IMO.

So to me, the P5 have no real problem with providing the G5-and-below of D1 their share of the hoops money. They realize these schools are already running massive operating deficits, $20m and more in student fees and transfers and the like, for the privilege of being "D1".

I agree that the P5 schools like March Madness, but I believe they want a larger share of the pie and a slightly expanded (72) field to get more at-larges.

I can see some tinkering with the formula to direct some more of the money towards the P5.

But I don't think we will see 'breakaways' and the like.

As with "autonomy", the lesser schools will realize it is in their interests to appease the P5, and the P5 will realize they can't push too far.

(01-26-2022 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 11:33 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 08:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And there are. Of all those move-ups, UCF is arguably the ONLY one that has actually built itself to the point where it might reach Power status and no longer need student subsidies to fund itself.

And that's still up in the air, as the Big 12 they are joining may not end up being a Power league.

USF arguably did it as well, when we joined the Big East, but alas, that didn't last.

The great bulk of D1 move-ups became welfare schools, subsisting on transfers, fees and subsidies, and running huge operating losses. Tourney gold and payday games are big parts of their failed budgets.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if there were more reasonable minimum requirements for D-I membership - that is if the range between the schools offering the most scholarships and those offering the least were much smaller than they are.

One requirement is that a school must award at least 50% of the maximum allowed in 14 sports (six men's and eight women's). Another is that the school must award at least 38 full scholarship equivalents in sports other than football, and men's and women's basketball. Think about that - 38.

Why are the requirements so low? Because there are a lot more schools with poor support for athletics than those with strong support - and they all get to vote. Basically, the bulk of the financial resources for many of the 357 D-I schools come from the NCAA basketball tournament, from taxing their students through athletics fees, and from offering up their athletes to get their butts whipped in exchange for cash from wealthier, more powerful schools. Only a small fraction of the costs of them being D-I members come from external sources like ticket revenues, sales of media rights, and booster donations.

Basically, it's the 80-20 rule. About 20% of D-I schools subsidize the other 80%. And the 80% complain that the 20% aren't giving them more. The P5/6 aren't being greedy. If anything, they are being generous. They could meet all their own needs by subsidizing ~70 schools instead of subsidizing ~280. The irony of efforts to eliminate amateurism in college sports is that they likely will ultimately harm most NCAA members and end most of those subsidies.

... and I think that's why some think 'consolidation', the formation of super-conferences and/or a P5 breakaway are inevitable. They think the P5 will tire of the complaints and the subsidies of smaller schools.

But I don't see it. IMO, the P5 generally regard the sharing of hoops revenue with the tiny schools, and CFP money with the G5, as money reasonably well spent.

Sure, they'd like to get even more, everyone wants more, but IMO, the P5 likes having the G5 and FCS level schools to compete against. Nick Saban may think Alabama should only play P5 schools, but he can afford that because he has all, or at least a lot, of the NFL-bound players. Most P5 count on games against G5 and FCS, in hoops and football, to pad their record.

Now maybe they would only need 70 or so of these lesser programs around rather than 280. But IMO the P5 know that the public likes these tiny FCS-level programs in the NCAA tournament. An all-P5, or even all P5/G5 tournament, would not have the same appeal. The casual fans who make the NCAA tourney a national event, and a billion-dollar event, want to see Belmont vs Duke and North Texas Panhandle Tech vs UCLA in the opening rounds. That's what gives it the romance factor. The P5 don't want to mess with the Golden Goose, IMO.

So to me, the P5 have no real problem with providing the G5-and-below of D1 their share of the hoops money. They realize these schools are already running massive operating deficits, $20m and more in student fees and transfers and the like, for the privilege of being "D1".

I agree that the P5 schools like March Madness, but I believe they want a larger share of the pie and a slightly expanded (72) field to get more at-larges.

I can see some tinkering with the formula to direct some more of the money towards the P5.

But I don't think we will see 'breakaways' and the like.

As with "autonomy", the lesser schools will realize it is in their interests to appease the P5, and the P5 will realize they can't push too far.

*If* university presidents care enough, the MM format might add 4 more at large teams and have a 72 team field. But university presidents probably don't have this high on their to-do lists, so I wouldn't expect to see it soon.

As for money, the presidents at P schools don't seem to care enough to tinker with the MM payouts. If they really cared about the payouts, they wouldn't tinker, they'd make a huge revision.

Maybe the big school presidents haven’t altered the MM payout because you would need a majority of the takers to agree to get less welfare for that to pass.

MM makes roughly $1B per year. Less than 40% is paid out to participant schools. Eventually the schools responsible are going to reach for more of that money. Recent and upcoming court rulings make that more likely every day.

The NCAA is a dinosaur staring up at the comet. The end of its usefulness is upon us. It won’t be long now.

(01-26-2022 05:51 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Maybe the big school presidents haven’t altered the MM payout because you would need a majority of the takers to agree to get less welfare for that to pass.

MM makes roughly $1B per year. Less than 40% is paid out to participant schools. Eventually the schools responsible are going to reach for more of that money. Recent and upcoming court rulings make that more likely every day.

The NCAA is a dinosaur staring up at the comet. The end of its usefulness is upon us. It won’t be long now.

MM doesn't yet make $1B per year, and the schools get a much higher %age than that. The question isn't how much is paid out. It's how it's divided up. The P6 get about 80% of the money from tournament units, but the other D-I schools get about 80% of the second pool. On balance, then, the P6 conferences get about half of the roughly 80% of the total tournament revenue that gets distributed to member schools.