From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

(04-05-2024 01:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

There should have been a cutoff point of teams that could move up to the FBS when the BCS was being created back in the 90's.

Let’s play out how this might work:

In 1989-1990 Penn St, FSU, Arkansas, and SC all announce their moves and the Big East forms with Miami, Pitt, BC, Cuse, WVU, Rutgers, VT, and Temple.

1994 the Big 12’s announcement happens. The WAC adds Fresno St, Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU (14). C-USA forms out of necessity with Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, USM, Tulane, and Houston to start football. ECU, UAB, USF, UCF, and Army eventually

2004-2005 sees Miami, VT, & BC to the ACC; Lville, Cincy, and USF to the BE; and Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU to C-USA.

The WAC loses Utah and BYU in 2011. WVU & TCU to Big 12, the BE loses Rutgers, Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville too. Survivors join C-USA for this:

W: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Rice, Tulane, Memphis
E: Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF, UAB, USM

(04-05-2024 04:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s play out how this might work:

In 1989-1990 Penn St, FSU, Arkansas, and SC all announce their moves and the Big East forms with Miami, Pitt, BC, Cuse, WF, Rutgers, VT, and Temple.

1994 the Big 12’s announcement happens. The WAC adds Fresno St, Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU (14). C-USA forms out of necessity with Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, USM, Tulane, and Houston to start football. ECU, UAB, USF, UCF, and Army eventually

2004-2005 sees Miami, VT, & BC to the ACC; Lville, Cincy, and USF to the BE; and Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU to C-USA.

The WAC loses Utah and BYU in 2011. WVU & TCU to Big 12, the BE loses Rutgers, Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville too. Survivors join C-USA for this:

W: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Rice, Tulane, Memphis
E: Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF, UAB, USM

What happens to Wake Forest?? Why would Wake Forest leave the ACC for the Big East to begin with??

(04-06-2024 03:17 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 04:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s play out how this might work:

In 1989-1990 Penn St, FSU, Arkansas, and SC all announce their moves and the Big East forms with Miami, Pitt, BC, Cuse, WF, Rutgers, VT, and Temple.

1994 the Big 12’s announcement happens. The WAC adds Fresno St, Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU (14). C-USA forms out of necessity with Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, USM, Tulane, and Houston to start football. ECU, UAB, USF, UCF, and Army eventually

2004-2005 sees Miami, VT, & BC to the ACC; Lville, Cincy, and USF to the BE; and Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU to C-USA.

The WAC loses Utah and BYU in 2011. WVU & TCU to Big 12, the BE loses Rutgers, Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville too. Survivors join C-USA for this:

W: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Rice, Tulane, Memphis
E: Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF, UAB, USM

What happens to Wake Forest?? Why would Wake Forest leave the ACC for the Big East to begin with??

I think he meant West Virginia.

(04-06-2024 06:16 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 03:17 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 04:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s play out how this might work:

In 1989-1990 Penn St, FSU, Arkansas, and SC all announce their moves and the Big East forms with Miami, Pitt, BC, Cuse, WF, Rutgers, VT, and Temple.

1994 the Big 12’s announcement happens. The WAC adds Fresno St, Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU (14). C-USA forms out of necessity with Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, USM, Tulane, and Houston to start football. ECU, UAB, USF, UCF, and Army eventually

2004-2005 sees Miami, VT, & BC to the ACC; Lville, Cincy, and USF to the BE; and Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and SMU to C-USA.

The WAC loses Utah and BYU in 2011. WVU & TCU to Big 12, the BE loses Rutgers, Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville too. Survivors join C-USA for this:

W: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Rice, Tulane, Memphis
E: Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF, UAB, USM

What happens to Wake Forest?? Why would Wake Forest leave the ACC for the Big East to begin with??

I think he meant West Virginia.

Correct—it was a typo.

Let’s take a look at the creep into FBS. Using 1990, the season where the first major realignment wave hit, these modern day conferences had the following members in FBS:

MWC: 10 of 12 (everyone but Boise St and Nevada)
AAC: 8 of 14 (no UNT, UTSA, UAB, USF, FAU, or Charlotte)
MAC: 11 of 13 (no Buffalo or UMass, Akron just moved up)
C-USA: 2 of 11 (only UTEP and NMSU)
SBC: 2 of 14 (only USM and ULL)
Indy: 2 of 3 (no UConn)

Essentially, 2 and half whole conferences have been added

(04-05-2024 01:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

IMO, this is a good premise, but with a flawed conclusion. The G5 wanted a slice of the post season revenue. Money was the solution for them, it was the objective for the Power schools. Three fourths of the G5 or more are subsidized at more than 50%. All of them are subsidized at least 25% by their state's taxpayers. This means none of those schools can afford big time athletics on their own abilities.

A compromise for the Power schools would have been to draw the line on the G5 at 25% subsidy levels.

This one move would have created a consolidation of the top G5 schools into one conference and it would have slammed the door on about 60 of those schools leaving an upper tier of just over 70. None of the power leagues would have to have realigned initially, and when consolidation took eventually happened, they would have moved from a P6 into like a P4 of around 18 schools each with some, but less raiding between the top 4. Inclusion of the top 10 to 15 G5 schools would not have been a big deal if we were in 4 conferences of roughly 18 members and TV contracts would have been better for the 3rd and 4th conference.

The issue is one of perspective. The networks look at it from the most valuable down. The schools look at it based upon reasonable regionality and institutional fit. The poorer schools look at it as inclusion, and region and fit mean less to them. The P5 looked at it as being autonomous in decision making and the G5 looked at inclusion.

When you consider all of those angles were in play with money being the only tool for coordination it's a wonder that the whole thing wasn't even a bigger mess than it actually is now.

Now the various aspects are just 3. Networks want best earners. Conferences still want some regionality even if it only happens within divisions, and those at the bottom of the acceptable revenue scale simply want inclusion. And because the networks control the revenue offered more consolidation seems to be indicated and the final number in the upper tier could wind up being between 48 to 56.

(04-06-2024 07:08 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s take a look at the creep into FBS. Using 1990, the season where the first major realignment wave hit, these modern day conferences had the following members in FBS:

MWC: 10 of 12 (everyone but Boise St and Nevada)
AAC: 8 of 14 (no UNT, UTSA, UAB, USF, FAU, or Charlotte)
MAC: 11 of 13 (no Buffalo or UMass, Akron just moved up)
C-USA: 2 of 11 (only UTEP and NMSU)
SBC: 2 of 14 (only USM and ULL)
Indy: 2 of 3 (no UConn)

Essentially, 2 and half whole conferences have been added

Number of schools moving up (not counting the MAC down and up in 82-83:

1979-1990 2
1990-1994 4
(Akron, Nevada and 4 former SLC schools who got moved down in 82)
1995-1996 4
1997-2005 6 (2 MAC, 2 Sun Belt additions, 2 others)
2006-2011 3 (CUSA/Sun Belt additions)
2012-2025 16 (all but UMass and Liberty were WAC/CUSA/Sun Belt survival moveups)

(04-06-2024 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 01:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

IMO, this is a good premise, but with a flawed conclusion. The G5 wanted a slice of the post season revenue. Money was the solution for them, it was the objective for the Power schools. Three fourths of the G5 or more are subsidized at more than 50%. All of them are subsidized at least 25% by their state's taxpayers. This means none of those schools can afford big time athletics on their own abilities.

A compromise for the Power schools would have been to draw the line on the G5 at 25% subsidy levels.

This one move would have created a consolidation of the top G5 schools into one conference and it would have slammed the door on about 60 of those schools leaving an upper tier of just over 70. None of the power leagues would have to have realigned initially, and when consolidation took eventually happened, they would have moved from a P6 into like a P4 of around 18 schools each with some, but less raiding between the top 4. Inclusion of the top 10 to 15 G5 schools would not have been a big deal if we were in 4 conferences of roughly 18 members and TV contracts would have been better for the 3rd and 4th conference.

The issue is one of perspective. The networks look at it from the most valuable down. The schools look at it based upon reasonable regionality and institutional fit. The poorer schools look at it as inclusion, and region and fit mean less to them. The P5 looked at it as being autonomous in decision making and the G5 looked at inclusion.

When you consider all of those angles were in play with money being the only tool for coordination it's a wonder that the whole thing wasn't even a bigger mess than it actually is now.

Now the various aspects are just 3. Networks want best earners. Conferences still want some regionality even if it only happens within divisions, and those at the bottom of the acceptable revenue scale simply want inclusion. And because the networks control the revenue offered more consolidation seems to be indicated and the final number in the upper tier could wind up being between 48 to 56.

Right. If they wanted a separation, the bar needed to be just a tad higher in 1978-1985. I don’t think people realize just how significant letting the Big West fall above the cut line was in direct and indirectly caused move ups:

Direct:
UNLV, Nevada, UNT, Boise St, Idaho

Had the Big West schools not been above the cut line, there would be no WAC for UTSA and Texas St.

The depletion of the Big West eventually led to SBC members parking as affiliates, which led to the SBC’s take over of what was once the Big West football, so they are indirectly responsible for all the schools that moved up with the intention of being in the SBC:

MTSU, Troy, FAU, FIU, WKU, GA St, GA So, App St, Coastal Carolina, JMU

You could even say, had SBC come into existence, they would not raided C-USA in 2022, necessitating the additions of Sam Houston St, Jacksonville St, Kennesaw St, and Delaware.

Sending the Big West down in 1978 could have prevented this.

(04-06-2024 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 01:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

IMO, this is a good premise, but with a flawed conclusion. The G5 wanted a slice of the post season revenue. Money was the solution for them, it was the objective for the Power schools. Three fourths of the G5 or more are subsidized at more than 50%. All of them are subsidized at least 25% by their state's taxpayers. This means none of those schools can afford big time athletics on their own abilities.

A compromise for the Power schools would have been to draw the line on the G5 at 25% subsidy levels.

This one move would have created a consolidation of the top G5 schools into one conference and it would have slammed the door on about 60 of those schools leaving an upper tier of just over 70. None of the power leagues would have to have realigned initially, and when consolidation took eventually happened, they would have moved from a P6 into like a P4 of around 18 schools each with some, but less raiding between the top 4. Inclusion of the top 10 to 15 G5 schools would not have been a big deal if we were in 4 conferences of roughly 18 members and TV contracts would have been better for the 3rd and 4th conference.

The issue is one of perspective. The networks look at it from the most valuable down. The schools look at it based upon reasonable regionality and institutional fit. The poorer schools look at it as inclusion, and region and fit mean less to them. The P5 looked at it as being autonomous in decision making and the G5 looked at inclusion.

When you consider all of those angles were in play with money being the only tool for coordination it's a wonder that the whole thing wasn't even a bigger mess than it actually is now.

Now the various aspects are just 3. Networks want best earners. Conferences still want some regionality even if it only happens within divisions, and those at the bottom of the acceptable revenue scale simply want inclusion. And because the networks control the revenue offered more consolidation seems to be indicated and the final number in the upper tier could wind up being between 48 to 56.

Right. If they wanted a separation, the bar needed to be just a tad higher in 1978-1985. I don’t think people realize just how significant letting the Big West fall above the cut line was in direct and indirectly caused move ups:

Direct:
UNLV, Nevada, UNT, Boise St, Idaho

Had the Big West schools not been above the cut line, there would be no WAC for UTSA and Texas St.

The depletion of the Big West eventually led to SBC members parking as affiliates, which led to the SBC’s take over of what was once the Big West football, so they are indirectly responsible for all the schools that moved up with the intention of being in the SBC:

MTSU, Troy, FAU, FIU, WKU, GA St, GA So, App St, Coastal Carolina, JMU

You could even say, had SBC come into existence, they would not raided C-USA in 2022, necessitating the additions of Sam Houston St, Jacksonville St, Kennesaw St, and Delaware.

Sending the Big West down in 1978 could have prevented this.

Just make any form of subsidy a nonstarter. The rest will take care of itself. Those P schools with student fees and small subsidies will just cover them in the general athletic budget. No subsidy and you are in. Borrow to compete or take subsidies and you aren't. End of story and you have a very manageable upper tier.

I really don't think the power brokers are too annoyed with the FBS creep, granted it does annoy some of us. That is because they are effectively junior partners in the system bringining big alumni bases and important regions the power guys don't serve.

The greater annoyance is with the D1 creep as those conferences have a lot of pull on D1 committees and have chip into recruiting in Olympic sports. A full 100 members belong in DII and another 100 would be better served going that route.

(04-06-2024 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 01:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

IMO, this is a good premise, but with a flawed conclusion. The G5 wanted a slice of the post season revenue. Money was the solution for them, it was the objective for the Power schools. Three fourths of the G5 or more are subsidized at more than 50%. All of them are subsidized at least 25% by their state's taxpayers. This means none of those schools can afford big time athletics on their own abilities.

A compromise for the Power schools would have been to draw the line on the G5 at 25% subsidy levels.

This one move would have created a consolidation of the top G5 schools into one conference and it would have slammed the door on about 60 of those schools leaving an upper tier of just over 70. None of the power leagues would have to have realigned initially, and when consolidation took eventually happened, they would have moved from a P6 into like a P4 of around 18 schools each with some, but less raiding between the top 4. Inclusion of the top 10 to 15 G5 schools would not have been a big deal if we were in 4 conferences of roughly 18 members and TV contracts would have been better for the 3rd and 4th conference.

The issue is one of perspective. The networks look at it from the most valuable down. The schools look at it based upon reasonable regionality and institutional fit. The poorer schools look at it as inclusion, and region and fit mean less to them. The P5 looked at it as being autonomous in decision making and the G5 looked at inclusion.

When you consider all of those angles were in play with money being the only tool for coordination it's a wonder that the whole thing wasn't even a bigger mess than it actually is now.

Now the various aspects are just 3. Networks want best earners. Conferences still want some regionality even if it only happens within divisions, and those at the bottom of the acceptable revenue scale simply want inclusion. And because the networks control the revenue offered more consolidation seems to be indicated and the final number in the upper tier could wind up being between 48 to 56.

Right. If they wanted a separation, the bar needed to be just a tad higher in 1978-1985. I don’t think people realize just how significant letting the Big West fall above the cut line was in direct and indirectly caused move ups:

Direct:
UNLV, Nevada, UNT, Boise St, Idaho

Had the Big West schools not been above the cut line, there would be no WAC for UTSA and Texas St.

The depletion of the Big West eventually led to SBC members parking as affiliates, which led to the SBC’s take over of what was once the Big West football, so they are indirectly responsible for all the schools that moved up with the intention of being in the SBC:

MTSU, Troy, FAU, FIU, WKU, GA St, GA So, App St, Coastal Carolina, JMU

You could even say, had SBC come into existence, they would not raided C-USA in 2022, necessitating the additions of Sam Houston St, Jacksonville St, Kennesaw St, and Delaware.

Sending the Big West down in 1978 could have prevented this.

Just make any form of subsidy a nonstarter. The rest will take care of itself. Those P schools with student fees and small subsidies will just cover them in the general athletic budget. No subsidy and you are in. Borrow to compete or take subsidies and you aren't. End of story and you have a very manageable upper tier.

Oops! I guess Carolina is out then.

The Rams Club ( the official name is The Educational Foundation) pays the scholarship costs of all of the student-athletes at UNC. These numbers are always listed a a subsidy, so by your definition, I guess Carolina wouldn't qualify to be "in".

(04-08-2024 11:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 01:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

IMO, this is a good premise, but with a flawed conclusion. The G5 wanted a slice of the post season revenue. Money was the solution for them, it was the objective for the Power schools. Three fourths of the G5 or more are subsidized at more than 50%. All of them are subsidized at least 25% by their state's taxpayers. This means none of those schools can afford big time athletics on their own abilities.

A compromise for the Power schools would have been to draw the line on the G5 at 25% subsidy levels.

This one move would have created a consolidation of the top G5 schools into one conference and it would have slammed the door on about 60 of those schools leaving an upper tier of just over 70. None of the power leagues would have to have realigned initially, and when consolidation took eventually happened, they would have moved from a P6 into like a P4 of around 18 schools each with some, but less raiding between the top 4. Inclusion of the top 10 to 15 G5 schools would not have been a big deal if we were in 4 conferences of roughly 18 members and TV contracts would have been better for the 3rd and 4th conference.

The issue is one of perspective. The networks look at it from the most valuable down. The schools look at it based upon reasonable regionality and institutional fit. The poorer schools look at it as inclusion, and region and fit mean less to them. The P5 looked at it as being autonomous in decision making and the G5 looked at inclusion.

When you consider all of those angles were in play with money being the only tool for coordination it's a wonder that the whole thing wasn't even a bigger mess than it actually is now.

Now the various aspects are just 3. Networks want best earners. Conferences still want some regionality even if it only happens within divisions, and those at the bottom of the acceptable revenue scale simply want inclusion. And because the networks control the revenue offered more consolidation seems to be indicated and the final number in the upper tier could wind up being between 48 to 56.

Right. If they wanted a separation, the bar needed to be just a tad higher in 1978-1985. I don’t think people realize just how significant letting the Big West fall above the cut line was in direct and indirectly caused move ups:

Direct:
UNLV, Nevada, UNT, Boise St, Idaho

Had the Big West schools not been above the cut line, there would be no WAC for UTSA and Texas St.

The depletion of the Big West eventually led to SBC members parking as affiliates, which led to the SBC’s take over of what was once the Big West football, so they are indirectly responsible for all the schools that moved up with the intention of being in the SBC:

MTSU, Troy, FAU, FIU, WKU, GA St, GA So, App St, Coastal Carolina, JMU

You could even say, had SBC come into existence, they would not raided C-USA in 2022, necessitating the additions of Sam Houston St, Jacksonville St, Kennesaw St, and Delaware.

Sending the Big West down in 1978 could have prevented this.

Just make any form of subsidy a nonstarter. The rest will take care of itself. Those P schools with student fees and small subsidies will just cover them in the general athletic budget. No subsidy and you are in. Borrow to compete or take subsidies and you aren't. End of story and you have a very manageable upper tier.

Oops! I guess Carolina is out then.

The Rams Club ( the official name is The Educational Foundation) pays the scholarship costs of all of the student-athletes at UNC. These numbers are always listed a a subsidy, so by your definition, I guess Carolina wouldn't qualify to be "in".

Why that's no more of an accounting problem for UNC than say bogus African American Studies classes. The bursar will cover it for you!

(04-08-2024 11:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-08-2024 11:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO, this is a good premise, but with a flawed conclusion. The G5 wanted a slice of the post season revenue. Money was the solution for them, it was the objective for the Power schools. Three fourths of the G5 or more are subsidized at more than 50%. All of them are subsidized at least 25% by their state's taxpayers. This means none of those schools can afford big time athletics on their own abilities.

A compromise for the Power schools would have been to draw the line on the G5 at 25% subsidy levels.

This one move would have created a consolidation of the top G5 schools into one conference and it would have slammed the door on about 60 of those schools leaving an upper tier of just over 70. None of the power leagues would have to have realigned initially, and when consolidation took eventually happened, they would have moved from a P6 into like a P4 of around 18 schools each with some, but less raiding between the top 4. Inclusion of the top 10 to 15 G5 schools would not have been a big deal if we were in 4 conferences of roughly 18 members and TV contracts would have been better for the 3rd and 4th conference.

The issue is one of perspective. The networks look at it from the most valuable down. The schools look at it based upon reasonable regionality and institutional fit. The poorer schools look at it as inclusion, and region and fit mean less to them. The P5 looked at it as being autonomous in decision making and the G5 looked at inclusion.

When you consider all of those angles were in play with money being the only tool for coordination it's a wonder that the whole thing wasn't even a bigger mess than it actually is now.

Now the various aspects are just 3. Networks want best earners. Conferences still want some regionality even if it only happens within divisions, and those at the bottom of the acceptable revenue scale simply want inclusion. And because the networks control the revenue offered more consolidation seems to be indicated and the final number in the upper tier could wind up being between 48 to 56.

Right. If they wanted a separation, the bar needed to be just a tad higher in 1978-1985. I don’t think people realize just how significant letting the Big West fall above the cut line was in direct and indirectly caused move ups:

Direct:
UNLV, Nevada, UNT, Boise St, Idaho

Had the Big West schools not been above the cut line, there would be no WAC for UTSA and Texas St.

The depletion of the Big West eventually led to SBC members parking as affiliates, which led to the SBC’s take over of what was once the Big West football, so they are indirectly responsible for all the schools that moved up with the intention of being in the SBC:

MTSU, Troy, FAU, FIU, WKU, GA St, GA So, App St, Coastal Carolina, JMU

You could even say, had SBC come into existence, they would not raided C-USA in 2022, necessitating the additions of Sam Houston St, Jacksonville St, Kennesaw St, and Delaware.

Sending the Big West down in 1978 could have prevented this.

Just make any form of subsidy a nonstarter. The rest will take care of itself. Those P schools with student fees and small subsidies will just cover them in the general athletic budget. No subsidy and you are in. Borrow to compete or take subsidies and you aren't. End of story and you have a very manageable upper tier.

Oops! I guess Carolina is out then.

The Rams Club ( the official name is The Educational Foundation) pays the scholarship costs of all of the student-athletes at UNC. These numbers are always listed a a subsidy, so by your definition, I guess Carolina wouldn't qualify to be "in".

Why that's no more of an accounting problem for UNC than say bogus African American Studies classes. The bursar will cover it for you!

(04-08-2024 10:09 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  I really don't think the power brokers are too annoyed with the FBS creep, granted it does annoy some of us. That is because they are effectively junior partners in the system bringining big alumni bases and important regions the power guys don't serve.

The greater annoyance is with the D1 creep as those conferences have a lot of pull on D1 committees and have chip into recruiting in Olympic sports. A full 100 members belong in DII and another 100 would be better served going that route.

Correct. The P5 need the G5 to be second class citizens to maintain winning programs.

The remainder of non-football Division I does cause a little more direct harm in terms of taking away NCAA tournament units, but they do provide cannon fodder for basketball-first schools to have 18-20 home games and run up gaudy non-conference records.

This is what the cutoff should be today:
SEC
Big 10
Notre Dame
ACC
Big 12
Washington State
Oregon State
MW
AAC
UConn
Appalachian State
Liberty
UTEP
Marshall
100 schools.

(04-14-2024 10:14 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  This is what the cutoff should be today:
SEC
Big 10
Notre Dame
ACC
Big 12
Washington State
Oregon State
MW
AAC
UConn
Appalachian State
Liberty
UTEP
Marshall
100 schools.

I'll do like the old Roman emperors, and give that the thumbs down!!

I'm fine with FBS being where it currently is. No more teams,no less teams unless, any team(s) wish to relegate themselves out of FBS to whatever division/subdivision for any reason. That's fine. But I would like a hard cap on FBS teams at this point in time.

(04-14-2024 10:14 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  This is what the cutoff should be today:
SEC
Big 10
Notre Dame
ACC
Big 12
Washington State
Oregon State
MW
AAC
UConn
Appalachian State
Liberty
UTEP
Marshall
100 schools.

I’d put the cutoff at:

Big 10
SEC
Big 12
ACC
South Bend Catholic
MWC
AAC
Wash St
Ore St
UConn