The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Tuesday Poll: New NCAA Division

Yesterday’s news regarding the momentum behind the five major conferences forming a new division got the Confidential thinking.  On the one hand, it is obvious that there is a huge huge difference in both revenue and the ability to earn revenue.  For every Boise State that rises up to take on the SEC, there are 30 other schools at the bottom of the FBS that have to be satisfied with far less.  Something has to give.  On the other hand, while football makes some sense, what about hoops?  Would the breakaway involve that too–jeopardizing March Madness?   Let’s do a poll and find out what YOU think.  And please add your comment below.  A vote is nice, an opinion (whatever it is) gets a meaningful discussion going.

The poll:

Single Post Navigation

8 thoughts on “Tuesday Poll: New NCAA Division

  1. Questions that need to be answered (for me):
    1) what happens to Army, Navy, BYU, UC, Houston, etc.?
    2) if we say P5 can only play other P5, are we also going to mandate 6 home / 6 road games?
    3) If players are going to be paid, will all schools work under a hard salary cap, or will it be “buy a championship” free-for-all?
    Though intriguing, I could see this going bad REAL fast!

    • That will be the issue–can the big schools give up a 7th home game? Of course, no reason why cross-divisional games cannot happen. FBS already has one FCS game each year (most schools, anyway)

  2. M. Caffrey on said:

    This is stupid. First of all, the main proponent of the idea is from the Big XII who basically had to get down on their hands and knees to beg Texas to stay so that the Big XII didn’t get eviscerated through conference realignment. This is classic “pulling up the ladder behind them”.

    As much as people (such as the Frank The Tank Commenteriat) loved to fantasize about the ACC’s dismantling through conference realignment, it was the Big XII who lost THREE schools to conference realignment (Nebraska, Texas A&M, Mizzou) and made the stupid mistake of taking West Virginia over Louisville. They have no where else to expand and as soon as their GORs expire, they will be the most vulnerable conference to raiding, yet again. And that’s assuming that Texas doesn’t bolt for the Pac12 or go independent before then. The Big XII has zero credibility on any topic involving the future of the Power 5 conferences; they should just be happy that they are even part of the discussions.

    Look, the Power 5 is already in a de facto subdivision amongst themselves. Despite the few crumbs that they allow to fall to the floor for the rest of the conferences, they control the vast majority of the wealth in college football.

    And in America, first you get the sugar money, then you get the power, and then you get the women.

    If they truly wanted to separate themselves from the riff-raff they can 1) agree across all conferences to only schedule games against other Power 5 conferences, thereby shutting out the rest of the teams from Millions of dollars, and 2) eliminate the final playoff spot that would go to a team from C-USA/MWC/AAC/MAC/etc… Don’t allow those other 6 conferences from getting access to (and then having to share) the final crumbs that the Power 5 must give them.

    Of course, eliminating the final play-off spot would probably open-up an anti-trust lawsuit or something…and the last thing the NCAA wants is more legal issues that could result in them (and the schools) from having to pay taxes. So you have to approach this like Dalton from Road House and “Be. Nice”.

    However, as I wrote elsewhere, if the Power 5 is serious about branching off into its own subdivision, the politically smart thing to do would be encourage the have-nots to form their own subdivision. It’s not kicking them out of the top tier, it’s allowing them to create their own destiny, get their own media contracts, etc.. By forming a new subdivision for the MWC/CUSA/AAC/MAC, etc… (although I would argue the MAC could belong in a top tier) would “bump-up” the Power 5 conferences by default. The end result is the same, it just doesn’t seem as evil and greedy.

    As for paying the students a stipend; let them. Allow every school in the NCAA to pay a stipend up-to 10% of the cost of tuition (which by the way, would allow more expensive, private schools to pay their athletes more than State schools with low tuition costs). The reality is that only a fraction of the schools can even afford to pay their players (namely those schools in the Power 5 and a few independents) so what’s the big deal? You can extend an offer to everyone but realize that not everyone can accept.

  3. HT1138 on said:

    I agree with Bowlsby. The barrier to entry is way too low. The criteria for entry into FBS need to be completely reworked. There are way too many mid-major FBS and FCS schools (and even some major FBS schools like Maryland) that are siphoning millions in athletic fees from students that are already being pushed into finacial ruin by tuition that has skyrocketed at several times the rate of inflation to fund athletic departments that continually operate in the red and have little if any hope of ever operating in the black. The low barrier to entry has created a false hope that uncompetitive programs can simply get an invite and spend their way to football riches and glory and it’s harming students and universities. There need to be enforced (this is key as the attendance threshold for FBS entry is already unenforced) standards for entry that include existing factors such as attendance and new factors like financial solvency. I would also like to see a ban on student fees subsidizing athletic departments as part of the entry requirements. This would be beneficial to the non-athlete students that comprise the majority of the student bodies and would serve as a significant barrier to entry to schools that don’t have the fan support to fund FBS programs. The ban on non-athlete students subsidizing athletics is probably a pipe dream, though.

%d bloggers like this: