If the NCAA is gone, what replaces it?

[sackman]

Just food for thought. The writing is on the wall with the NCAA. There are conferences cutting their own deals and openly talking about compensating student athletes. Conference expansion is not over, and I truly believe we're moving towards a point where we have 64-70 teams in a "major" college division who will tell the NCAA to kiss off.
So if that happens, what happens to the bowl games? Do we get a playoff? A playoff that includes bowl games? What about the NCAA tournament? Obviously, if a school is not a member institution, it can't participate. So there are then separate tournaments for each sport?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Chaos.





Edit -

as long as the NCAA holds the rights to the multi-billion dollar NCAA basketball tournament, I don't think too many schools / conferences will go anywhere.

 

[CUFan]

Are the rights to the NCAA basketball tournament worth much when the first tier teams (64-70) bolt and form a new tournament?

I would imagine this would effectively collapse the NCAA in its current form, and the second tier schools would form their own new association.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Are the rights to the NCAA basketball tournament worth much when the first tier teams (64-70) bolt and form a new tournament?

I would imagine this would effectively collapse the NCAA in its current form, and the second tier schools would form their own new association.

Given the fact that the "big 6" conferences received $113 mil (63%) of the total NCAA tournament payout - I would say it is worth a ****load!!

 

[SINKRATZ]

This would be a football-centric move because it really would screw up basketball. Unlike football the non-BCS schools are at much less of a competetive disadvantage in hoops. I don't know how you can really crown a basketball champion when only half the schools have a chance to participate. Sorry Butler, Gonzaga, George Mason, Princeton, Memphis...

In a 70 team BCS basketball tourney, do you let all but 2 teams in? Do you shrink the field. I would love it if they somehow kept the NCAA basketball tourney in place, but not sure how that would work.

 

[GregInArlington]

I see this as a football move only if it happens at all.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

This would be a football-centric move because it really would screw up basketball. Unlike football the non-BCS schools are at much less of a competetive disadvantage in hoops. I don't know how you can really crown a basketball champion when only half the schools have a chance to participate. Sorry Butler, Gonzaga, George Mason, Princeton, Memphis...

In a 70 team BCS basketball tourney, do you let all but 2 teams in? Do you shrink the field. I would love it if they somehow kept the NCAA basketball tourney in place, but not sure how that would work.

They could probably separate football from the other sports (not sure of the Title IX ramifications of that). Already there are teams that are in conferences in basketball, but not in conferences in football (Notre Dame, for example).

 

[CUFan]

Given the fact that the "big 6" conferences received $113 mil (63%) of the total NCAA tournament payout - I would say it is worth a ****load!!

I would argue it would not be since you have just removed 64-70 teams from the equation. No one is paying the NCAA that kind of money without those teams.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I would argue it would not be since you have just removed 64-70 teams from the equation. No one is paying the NCAA that kind of money without those teams.

And no one is paying the conferences, either.

 

[MtnBuff]

Three ways to do it.
One is to have a football only organization, all other sports in the NCAA. A little hard to do because the NCAA depends on football revenues to fund a lot of the rest of what they do and you would have serious conflict between the members who split for football and those who were left behind.

Two is to have the new organization allow other schools to participate in non-football championships. This would allow them to let the elite non-football schools to participate without having to share with the lower D-1 leagues like right now. A 32 or 48 team tourney without having to distribute funds to the Patriot league and the other conferences that generally send their AQ team for a game and collect a check.

Three is to say screw the other teams and have a tourney among themselves. The conference tourneys would simply become a part of the overall package. This would cause the NCAA tourney to wither and die as a major event, the basketball only schools would be put in a difficult position and eventually fade just as the football programs at many of those schools have been forced to fade out of existence or to lower level competition by the increasing budgets of the major schools.

The last two options would take some time to implement but there is no question in my mind that the TV money would follow the major conference schools. I could see a situation where the networks would push to void the final years of their existing contracts by stating that the product they purchased is no longer being delivered. In any case once the contracts ran out they would not be renewed with the NCAA or the schools left out of the mix.

Title IX is the big sticking point in that the schools have to show that they are providing equal funding and opportunity for womens sports. A potential legal strategy would be to say the by the large schools leaving they are effectively killing many sporting opportunities for women at the smaller schools by removing that revenue stream that supports it. The big schools would respond that they are individually providing equal opportunity and in fact with the additional funds available providing more opportunity at the highest level. How the courts would rule I won't even venture a guess.

 

[CUFan]

And no one is paying the conferences, either.

I think TV people would pay quite a bit for a tournament with all the top teams in the country. The reality is if 64-70 teams broke off and decided to do their own thing, they are going to be the teams making the vast majority of the money in both football and basketball. This would create a huge competitive advantage for these teams over the ones left in say a lower division.

I absolutely do not argue for this and it would destroy what makes the NCAA basketball tournament great (anyone can win), but I think it is safe to assume the break away conferences will command a lot of money for their basketball product.

 

[sackman]

Three is to say screw the other teams and have a tourney among themselves. The conference tourneys would simply become a part of the overall package. This would cause the NCAA tourney to wither and die as a major event, the basketball only schools would be put in a difficult position and eventually fade just as the football programs at many of those schools have been forced to fade out of existence or to lower level competition by the increasing budgets of the major schools.

The last two options would take some time to implement but there is no question in my mind that the TV money would follow the major conference schools. I could see a situation where the networks would push to void the final years of their existing contracts by stating that the product they purchased is no longer being delivered. In any case once the contracts ran out they would not be renewed with the NCAA or the schools left out of the mix.

Title IX is the big sticking point in that the schools have to show that they are providing equal funding and opportunity for womens sports. A potential legal strategy would be to say the by the large schools leaving they are effectively killing many sporting opportunities for women at the smaller schools by removing that revenue stream that supports it. The big schools would respond that they are individually providing equal opportunity and in fact with the additional funds available providing more opportunity at the highest level. How the courts would rule I won't even venture a guess.

This is what I see eventually happening - the end of the NCAA. The big schools are tired of the BS from the NCAA and feel like they're footing the bill for a bunch of hangers-on.

Title IX would be easily enough regulated. The Feds just want equal access. That's easy enough to provide and document.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Title IX would not be an issue with the "split" whether it is football-only or all sports. That is a Federal regulation that applies to the schools regardless of their assocation in the NAIA or NCAA or whatever.

To be fair it isn't exactly about "equal access" because they don't base it on "demand" but based on "opportunity". If women didn't want to play sports at a school but were offered equally, Title IX doesn't care; the men's sports would suffer regardless of the "demand" by women enrolling at the college.

And the testing isn't across the NCAA as a single organization, so the schools that "split" aren't going to care if the ripple effect is that Colorado State University has to cut some men's teams because they can't fund men and women scholarships as before due to decreased revenue streams. Since it is a school-by-school regulation, nobody is going to make their decisions based on whats good for "everyone", just themselves.

In the split scenario, no way will there be a playoff. This is a pre-emptive strike by the power conferences to prevent just that, IMO. The Fed involvement and vocal "anti-BCS" rhetoric is what is pushing us towards this scenario. If the power conferences wanted a playoff, it would have happened.

They don't, but they don't want to have to "share" access to their big-time bowl games either. So they will leave and form their own group where they can write the rules and not share the proceeds.

The NCAA (the organization, not the "group") doesn't make much money at all from football from what I can tell. Aside from certifying bowl games I'm not aware of any direct revenue streams that go the NCAA. Certainly, they make a good deal from the basketball tourney but that would diminish significantly if the "BCS teams" left.

 

[MtnBuff]

I agree that Title IX shouldn't be an issue in this matter but we also know that if/when the split happens the schools that are left behind are going to try everything in their power to stop it or at least get a more favorable division. One strategy that they will use is to try to litigate themselves into a negotiating position. We all know that Title IX is intended to provide equal opportunity on a school by school basis but the argument they will make is that by taking schools out of the funding stream provided by top level football, and to a lesser extent basketball if it goes as well, they are in effect reducing the opportunity for women to participate. This argument is not consistent with the intent or the wording of the law but we all know that all they need is to find a sympathetic court willing to stretch the interpretation and you have at least delays needed to pursue the appeal process and the posibility that the higher courts will be hesitant to overturn the origional ruling.

It would be a hail mary type strategy but for a bunch of schools looking at losing prestige, publicity, and most importantly access to milliions of dollars they would be willing to pursue it.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Someone from SI wrote a good article about this like a year ago. If a new football league started the NCAA wouldn't do anything because of tournament money.

 

[kalbuff]

There are some thoughtful and informed posts in this thread. It seems to me that Title IX and money are mostly related to college football. We all know that football, and to a limited extent, basketball, pay the bills. But these sports also cost the most and in some cases, too much.

Not long ago someone suggested setting up essentially a minor league football organization that was just associated with various universities but separate. The revenue could continue to help fund regular sports at the school but the players didn't have to engage in the sham of going to classes and such. Seems like a possible solution to me. As for the playoffs, well, I think the cabal of the bowl system will have to end. The Fiesta Bowl debacle suggest this isn't imminent and as was stated in the beginning the power of the good old boys at the NCAA has to end before significant change occurs.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Someone from SI wrote a good article about this like a year ago. If a new football league started the NCAA wouldn't do anything because of tournament money.

I'd like to see the link, but I don't think you are grasping what the context is.

A division (read as a separation) of the NCAA "BCS Conference" schools is not the same as adding a new "Division" to the NCAA.

What is being discussed is that the major college programs would "cede" from the NCAA entirely and form a new governing body entirely.

 

[Buffalo Brad]

The big conferences need to be careful of what they are wishing for. The govt is looking for a reason to get involved in college althletics and would jump all over them. You might just end up with a worse agency than the NCAA running the college game in the name of being fair to the smaller colleges. Can you imagine a mandate from the govt covering college sports? I can. The money might just be too good to keep them out.

 

[Dark Bohner]

I was thinking the Buffedup Dictatorship of College Athletics.

 

[BlackNGold]

I do not see it as an NCAA issue. It is an issue with the BCS. The NCAA makes almost no money off of football. Most of the NCAA's money comes from basketball. The NCAA serves a purpose as a regulatory body and if that is gone something has to replace otherwise it opens up all sorts of issues. Not a lot of schools want to see the likes of Texas, USC, etc operate without any oversight.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I do not see it as an NCAA issue. It is an issue with the BCS. The NCAA makes almost no money off of football. Most of the NCAA's money comes from basketball. The NCAA serves a purpose as a regulatory body and if that is gone something has to replace otherwise it opens up all sorts of issues. Not a lot of schools want to see the likes of Texas, USC, etc operate without any oversight.

The NCAA is a membership entity, if some of the members resign and form a new membership that took its place it would be just like the NAIA or any other entity that regulated amateur sports. I don't think any of the "rumors" of an NCAA split have meant to imply that there would be no governing body.

 

[sackman]

I think the big schools feel like they are being unfairly governed by the same rules that apply to smaller schools. They feel like they are operating under a different set of circumstances, and therefore should be governed by a different set of rules. To that end, they'll kick the NCAA to the curb. This is the direction we're headed.

 

[JimmyBuff]

I want football away from the NCAA and I want the schools/boosters to pay whatever kind of money they want to entice recruits to represent their school.

 

[BlackNGold]

I think the big schools feel like they are being unfairly governed by the same rules that apply to smaller schools. They feel like they are operating under a different set of circumstances, and therefore should be governed by a different set of rules. To that end, they'll kick the NCAA to the curb. This is the direction we're headed.

What are these rules...? I don't see that as the case at all. There are already different rules for the different divisions. What is the driver to go away from the NCAA? In football it is not money, the money is controlled by the conferences and the BCS.

The big issue is that the BCS conferences are getting media deals that create a large financial divide between them and the non-BCS conferences which is only going to get worse. So the question really becomes is when will it happen that the non-BCS conferences and schools seek relief through legal channels.

 

[sackman]

What are these rules...? I don't see that as the case at all. There are already different rules for the different divisions. What is the driver to go away from the NCAA? In football it is not money, the money is controlled by the conferences and the BCS.

The big issue is that the BCS conferences are getting media deals that create a large financial divide between them and the non-BCS conferences which is only going to get worse. So the question really becomes is when will it happen that the non-BCS conferences and schools seek relief through legal channels.

What do you mean, what are the rules? The NCAA is full of rules. The problem is that the rules are set up to treat the big schools just like the little ones. The fact of the matter is that places like USC and Texas don't feel like they should have to follow the same rules as Moorhead State and Georgia Southern. The only real difference between those schools so far as the NCAA is concerned is that Texas gets a few more scholarships. UT looks at that and says "we're running a 100 Million dollar department here, and you're treating us the same as somebody who is running an AD that's 1/100th the size". They have a point.

 

[MtnBuff]

What do you mean, what are the rules? The NCAA is full of rules. The problem is that the rules are set up to treat the big schools just like the little ones. The fact of the matter is that places like USC and Texas don't feel like they should have to follow the same rules as Moorhead State and Georgia Southern. The only real difference between those schools so far as the NCAA is concerned is that Texas gets a few more scholarships. UT looks at that and says "we're running a 100 Million dollar department here, and you're treating us the same as somebody who is running an AD that's 1/100th the size". They have a point.

All of this is correct.

A big part of the problem for the big schools is that the rules the NCAA makes and enforces are decided upon by all the members, not just the schools who they apply to. This means that when it comes to rules on recruiting for example Western State has just as much power and influence in the process as Washington State. Decisions that only are relevant to BCS level schools are subject to being approved by D3 schools.

 

[Hugegroove]

This is what I see eventually happening - the end of the NCAA. The big schools are tired of the BS from the NCAA and feel like they're footing the bill for a bunch of hangers-on.

Title IX would be easily enough regulated. The Feds just want equal access. That's easy enough to provide and document.

Let's say hypothetically that all 64 -70 schools decide to dump the ncaa. I assume that by doing so the BCS would be dead and a playoff scenerio would emerge?

 

[ScottyBuff]

Let's say hypothetically that all 64 -70 schools decide to dump the ncaa. I assume that by doing so the BCS would be dead and a playoff scenerio would emerge?

Not in the way you would hope.

The BCS has not direct relationship with the NCAA (aside from getting a "certification")

However, the BCS relationship with the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC, Big 12, and Big East would still exist; as would those conferences agreements with the bowl games.

This is the same group that prevents a playoff from taking place now and they would have a total control over the new membership governing body's decisions to regulate their postseason. They would continue with some form of the BCS, but reduce or eliminate the "non-AQ" provisions of access and revenue sharing as they do not belong to the same association.

The remaining D-I FBS teams: those in the MWC, WAC, Conference USA, MAC, and SunBelt would then probably be forced to merge with the D-I FCS schools into a consolidated D-I Division and that division would have a playoff as the only way the could profit enough under the new economic environment.

So yes, you get a playoff; but not for the schools you would hope for.