Conference Realignment - where will we be in 5 yrs?

[Red]

I think the MVC is in a precarious spot and could lose schools in the shakeup. I'm even more concerned that the big boys say to heck with everyone and make their own organization and we'll all be left out.

[MoValley John]

I think the landscape will change significantly, and I strongly believe that protecting the Valley and enhancing the conference should be Elgin's only priority right now. One of the enhancements is to schedule better. Period.

As for the BCS teams bolting from the NCAA, I think it is possible, but I think what is more likely is that the BCS teams will simply separate football from the NCAA. Football is the moneymaker, football is everything. With that, the biggest and richest schools still need available, less expensive and ample competition in all other sports (including basketball). And there just isn't that much more money to gain, if any, in basketball by separating from the NCAA. In fact, there maybe less. A watered down tournament would not look nearly as exciting to the masses and would have fewer rounds. Without the "Cindarella Story" the tourney would be quite boring and viewership might drop.

By cutting completely from the NCAA, the BCS schools would make mnore money in football, but lose money everywhere else. And face it, the BCS schools don't care about wrestling and swimming. Yes, they want to win and yes they want to be competitive in those sports, but even at their level, it is important for the Iowa's to be able to duel the UNI's in wrestling. It keeps costs down. It is important for BCS teams to compete against the smaller schools within their regions.

Now, if the BCS schools simply pulled their football programs out of the NCAA, they could enact rules that apply to them, they could pay players, they could change recruitment practices and restrictions and probably negotiate much larger television contracts. And by doing so, they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot everywhere else. The BCS would in fact, have their cake and eat it too. I think this is as likely a scenario as anything else.

[Aargh]

I've got to agree with MVJ. A 64-team basketball tournament would include every team in the expected 4 super-conferences. Then there would be competition from the NCAA and their 64-team tournament made up of their 300 or so teams. Dplitting from the NCAA in BB would probably be a financial loss for the BCS schools - as long as they continue getting the "apparent" preferential treatment in invites to the NCAA's tournament.

[Khan4Cats]

I would agree. If this superconference thing becomes a reality or a split with the NCAA occurs, it will be over football only. There is too much need to keep opponents available for basketball-it would be very hard to schedule a 30 game season among only 64 teams and have everyone still get their 20 home games. It would also be hard to sell the whole Tourney package thing without the Cinderellas. I think you may see a move to expand to maybe 96, and thus protect about 30 BcS teams by giving them a first round bye and protecting their deep-tourney run chances.

Since the NCAA doesn't currently sponsor a championship for FBS football, it would be more feasible for them to pull away and even set up a "plus one" scenario where the four conference winners play 'semi-finals' and the winners play for the big title. Could probably keep the current bowl set up and just move the championship back, maybe even to the NFL bye-week prior to the Super Bowl. The only question would be the second tier FBS leagues and whether they would be able to work any anti-trust cases. Right now, there is a semi-shield with the NCAA.

[MoValley John]

Anti-trust for what? The Supreme Court already ruled in favor of the big boys back in the 80's. And as you said, FBS ball would have little to argue, FBS already plays at a different level. They have different TV contracts and play by different rules, nothing to sue over (ended with a preposition!!!). The real losers would be the MAC, C-USA and WAC type teams, they would be absolutely Butt Farkled.

[Khan4Cats]

Anti-trust for what? The Supreme Court already ruled in favor of the big boys back in the 80's. And as you said, FBS ball would have little to argue, FBS already plays at a different level. They have different TV contracts and play by different rules, nothing to sue over (ended with a preposition!!!). The real losers would be the MAC, C-USA and WAC type teams, they would be absolutely Butt Farkled.

That's why I phrased it as a question of whether they would be able to make it work. BY going to 4 superconferences, the previous equation of the number of conferences/teams at the highest level is altered and I am sure you will hear the smaller leagues howl. I don't think there is much they can do about it though, when it gets down to it. The superconferences will include the big state schools of the big population states, and those states that are left out will likely not have enough political clout to push anything through even Congressional type action. Who's going to have more pull, Texas, Florida, California or Wyoming, Idaho, and New Mexico? The only course that the smaller conference schools would have would be to somehow agree to never play the big boys in order to limit the home games the big boys get if they have to only play themselves but that won't happen once the money gets dangled in front of them.

[MoValley John]

Anti-trust for what? The Supreme Court already ruled in favor of the big boys back in the 80's. And as you said, FBS ball would have little to argue, FBS already plays at a different level. They have different TV contracts and play by different rules, nothing to sue over (ended with a preposition!!!). The real losers would be the MAC, C-USA and WAC type teams, they would be absolutely Butt Farkled.

That's why I phrased it as a question of whether they would be able to make it work. BY going to 4 superconferences, the previous equation of the number of conferences/teams at the highest level is altered and I am sure you will hear the smaller leagues howl. I don't think there is much they can do about it though, when it gets down to it. The superconferences will include the big state schools of the big population states, and those states that are left out will likely not have enough political clout to push anything through even Congressional type action. Who's going to have more pull, Texas, Florida, California or Wyoming, Idaho, and New Mexico? The only course that the smaller conference schools would have would be to somehow agree to never play the big boys in order to limit the home games the big boys get if they have to only play themselves but that won't happen once the money gets dangled in front of them.

If the BCS schools separate in football, they won't play anyone else. Period. The BCS schools can drop from seven home games to six, and with increased television, make more money than they can in the present situation. In football, 64 teams is plenty of competition for everyone to be happy. No offense to you MVFC guys, but BCS season ticket holders wouldn't grumble anymore because of buy games with Missouri State, UNI and whomever the heck else plays in the FCS. The cupcakes now become Vandy and North Carolina, much more interesting.

[Khan4Cats]

Do you see them going to just a conference slate and no non-conference games? I don't see that happening. The problem then becomes the schools that don't want to ever go on the road in the non-conference schedule. Who are they going to convince to play on the road? Unless the superconferences agree to an NFL-like even balanced schedule of home and away games. It might work if there was an even sharing agreement of TV revenues, but isn't that what is tearing the Big 12-2 apart?

[MoValley John]

Do you see them going to just a conference slate and no non-conference games? I don't see that happening. The problem then becomes the schools that don't want to ever go on the road in the non-conference schedule. Who are they going to convince to play on the road? Unless the superconferences agree to an NFL-like even balanced schedule of home and away games. It might work if there was an even sharing agreement of TV revenues, but isn't that what is tearing the Big 12-2 apart?

This is exactly how I see it. It is the only way it will work. Six home, six road, nine conference games and three non-con's. How they work out the details is another story. I could even see them suddenly jumping to 14 games. 14 games, 17 if you make to the NC, is not too much to ask. A grind, yes, too much, no, especially since you will be paying these guys.

[Khan4Cats]

Do you see them going to just a conference slate and no non-conference games? I don't see that happening. The problem then becomes the schools that don't want to ever go on the road in the non-conference schedule. Who are they going to convince to play on the road? Unless the superconferences agree to an NFL-like even balanced schedule of home and away games. It might work if there was an even sharing agreement of TV revenues, but isn't that what is tearing the Big 12-2 apart?

This is exactly how I see it. It is the only way it will work. Six home, six road, nine conference games and three non-con's. How they work out the details is another story. I could even see them suddenly jumping to 14 games. 14 games, 17 if you make to the NC, is not too much to ask. A grind, yes, too much, no, especially since you will be paying these guys.

Okay. I just don't see it working with an unbalanced number of conference or non-conference games, teams will want to get their home gates (unless those get split but I really can't see that). They won't have to worry about a game limit if they pull further away from NCAA controls, so I could see a 14 game slate, with a conference title game, bowl game and maybe a +1 championship scenario to get to 17.