NCAA vs the Big 6 conferences - a divide might be coming

[Buffnik]

There's a lot of stuff in the beginning about how comments by the Big 10, SEC and other Big 6 commissioners have emphasized the disparity between them and the rest of NCAA's D1A. Also, some comments from Appalachian State and statistics to show that they're "closer to East Carolina than East Carolina is to the ACC" and how they draw more fans per game than 1/4 of D1A programs. Further, some stuff about the current lawsuit against the BCS system being a frontal attack on the Big 6 conferences.

That leads into this interesting piece:

So here is today's exercise. Imagine if you will that the big boy conferences of the BCS grow tired of getting beat up about their postseason. They get tired of getting direct threats by the attorney general of Utah and indirect threats from the Justice Department. With five of the six BCS conferences (the Big East is the exception) in possession of television deals that are over 10 years in length, they are pretty secure financially. So consider this possible chain of events:

• The Big East, as our Brett McMurphy reported this week, knows it has to expand to 12 to prove it is serious about the football business. It does that and finally gets a serious television deal.

• Some time in 2012 or early 2013 the six BCS conferences announce the end of the BCS as we know it when the current contract expires after the 2014 bowl season. The 70 schools in those six conferences will be joined by independents Army, Navy, Notre Dame, and BYU to form the College Football Association (Sound familiar? It should. The original CFA was formed in 1984 and broke up when conferences began negotiating their own TV deals). The CFA will crown its own national champion, either through the bowls and polls or through a playoff. The CFA will also expand the value of its scholarships to include the full cost of attendance.

• The remaining conferences in Division I-A (Mountain West, WAC, Mid-American, Conference USA, and Sun Belt), will be joined by the best conferences in Division I-AA to form a new Division I. This division will crown a national champion with a playoff. The Big Sky, CAA, Missouri Valley and Southern conferences would be among those I-AA leagues likely to help form a new Division I-A.

• The Division I-AA conferences that did not want to move up to Division I-A would remain and still play for a championship. The doors would also open for Division II programs that wanted to move up.

So when all the smoke clears your divisions in college football for the 2014 regular season would be:

The College Football Association (CFA): ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac-12, Army, Navy, Notre Dame, and BYU.

Division I-A: Mountain West, WAC, Mid-American, Conference USA, Sun Belt, Big Sky, CAA, Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, Southern, Southland, Charlotte (Independent)

Division I-AA: Big South, Ivy, MEAC, Northeast, Patriot, Pioneer, SWAC, Fordham (Independent)

Division II

Division III

Is this just a hypothetical? Of course. Would it be controversial? Extremely.

But ask yourself: Why are all these conferences getting these incredible, long-term TV deals? Why are Delany and Slive floating the trial balloon of expanding scholarships? What's the end game?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15164842/divide-might-be-coming-but-which-leagues-will-conquer/rss

 

[MtnBuff]

Somewhere between possible and highly probable at some point in the future. The fact is that there is a significant divide in college football between the haves and the have nots in terms of revenue generation. If you work out the numbers based on attendance and ticket prices, there are a number of games each week where individual schools from the Big X, the SEC, the BigXII, and the PAC 12 generate more money in stadium revenue than the entire MWC which is the first conference on the list left out does in all their stadiums combined. With the new TV deals, each of the teams in the PAC 12, the Big X and the SEC will make more in TV revenue than the combined totals of the MWC schools.

The smaller D-1 schools (mid-majors, non-AQ, whatever else you want to call them) are demanding equal access to BCS money and a bigger share of the other revenues. At the same time the major conference schools look at these schools from a standpoint of their very limited contribution to the revenue pool.

In the end we will see a filtering out of college football with a lot of lawyers making a lot of money in the process but in the end it will happen. The states that lack a school in the top tier will fight it but the political weight and will rest with the top end schools and they will eventually win out.

 

[CUFan]

I know this is hypothetical, but probably need to put Air Force in the CFA under this scenario.

 

[SINKRATZ]

All this talk of blowing up the NCAA scares me for fear of how the CFA (or whatever it's called) will be run, but I'm just glad we're sitting at the big kid's table.

 

[Alfred91]

I could see the potential of this happening, but as it is now, we'll be on the bottom side of this new structure.

But here's the biggest question, to me: Will beating up on the D-1s in non-conference be similarly frowned upon and potentially not be counted as actual wins as wins against D-1AA are now? That might be the coolest thing that could happen. There could potentially be multiple epic non-conference games every weekend in September.

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

I know this is hypothetical, but probably need to put Air Force in the CFA under this scenario.

Air Force would have to leave the Mountain West...and as far as I know they are very happy there

 

[SINKRATZ]

I've been thinking about this, and to some extent some of these "have-nots" can make a great case that they're getting fu**ed. Look at schools like Boise, TCU, Utah (until now), Louisville, Marshall, Southern Miss - these schools aren't "have-nots" because they're not competetive or can't generate revenue, it's because they are stuck in weak conferences that can't generate mega TV deals like the Big 6. TCU might get screwed while schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, and Washington State reap huge rewards - and not because they run superior athletic programs.

Let's face it, they aren't 70 elite athletic programs out there that deserve to dominate college athletics, there might be 30, and the rest of the current BCS schools are benefitting from the media deals the top 30 programs attract.

We're sitting fat and happy now because we're going to benefit from the most lucrative TV deal in college sports, but even diehard Buff fans like myself have to sheepishly admit that it's not because ESPN thinks CU is worth $21 million on our own.

Looking way down the road, what happens when the top 30 programs in the country (Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, Oregon, etc.) decide to blow up the entire conference system and form a single mega conference? It's not that far of a leap if the lesson here is that by trimming the fat there is more money to be made by the elite programs.

This is all a bunch of "what ifs", but it's easy for us to rejoice when we're in the group with all the spoils...what happens when we're not.

 

[CsquaredCC]

Air Force would have to leave the Mountain West...and as far as I know they are very happy there

Much like the MWC, it looks like C-USA is now getting ready for a raid. The Big East is talking expansion and that includes, Houston, East Carolina, and Central Florida. Rumors are circulating however, that AFA, BYU, Army, and Navy are also in the mix.

If C-USA is hit by the defections of East Carolina and UCF, my guess is the MWC comes in and grabs Houston and SMU. That would be a tough blow to C-USA and the MWC might remain as the only viable non-BCS conference. Which would make its appeal for provisional BCS inclusion, even without TCU, Utah, and BYU very intersting given how political everything seems to be getting: http://www.cbssports.com/#!/collegefootball/story/15093404

 

[Buffnik]

I don't see a scenario where we're not in the top group. We always have been. We have always won a lot. And 30 super elite programs breaking away wouldn't be able to fill a schedule. I think this is a non-starter as a concern.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I've been thinking about this, and to some extent some of these "have-nots" can make a great case that they're getting fu**ed. Look at schools like Boise, TCU, Utah (until now), Louisville, Marshall, Southern Miss - these schools aren't "have-nots" because they're not competetive or can't generate revenue, it's because they are stuck in weak conferences that can't generate mega TV deals like the Big 6. TCU might get screwed while schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, and Washington State reap huge rewards - and not because they run superior athletic programs.

Let's face it, they aren't 70 elite athletic programs out there that deserve to dominate college athletics, there might be 30, and the rest of the current BCS schools are benefitting from the media deals the top 30 programs attract.

We're sitting fat and happy now because we're going to benefit from the most lucrative TV deal in college sports, but even diehard Buff fans like myself have to sheepishly admit that it's not because ESPN thinks CU is worth $21 million on our own.

Looking way down the road, what happens when the top 30 programs in the country (Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, Oregon, etc.) decide to blow up the entire conference system and form a single mega conference? It's not that far of a leap if the lesson here is that by trimming the fat there is more money to be made by the elite programs.

This is all a bunch of "what ifs", but it's easy for us to rejoice when we're in the group with all the spoils...what happens when we're not.

This is exactly where it leads if the current system continues down this path IMO. The BCS monopoly will continue to consolidate power until the other "non-power" schools band together or the feds step in.

 

[sackman]

I've been thinking about this, and to some extent some of these "have-nots" can make a great case that they're getting fu**ed. Look at schools like Boise, TCU, Utah (until now), Louisville, Marshall, Southern Miss - these schools aren't "have-nots" because they're not competetive or can't generate revenue, it's because they are stuck in weak conferences that can't generate mega TV deals like the Big 6. TCU might get screwed while schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, and Washington State reap huge rewards - and not because they run superior athletic programs.

Let's face it, they aren't 70 elite athletic programs out there that deserve to dominate college athletics, there might be 30, and the rest of the current BCS schools are benefitting from the media deals the top 30 programs attract.

We're sitting fat and happy now because we're going to benefit from the most lucrative TV deal in college sports, but even diehard Buff fans like myself have to sheepishly admit that it's not because ESPN thinks CU is worth $21 million on our own.

Looking way down the road, what happens when the top 30 programs in the country (Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, Oregon, etc.) decide to blow up the entire conference system and form a single mega conference? It's not that far of a leap if the lesson here is that by trimming the fat there is more money to be made by the elite programs.

This is all a bunch of "what ifs", but it's easy for us to rejoice when we're in the group with all the spoils...what happens when we're not.

I see what you're saying, but I am not quite willing to take that leap just yet. The mega conferences will need a minimum of 64 schools to make scheduling work, IMO. TV markets come into play, obviously. It's not like CU got into the Pac 12 based on our on-field/court performance. We got in because there are a lot of TV sets in the area and a lot of CU alumni across the country willing to pony up for a package that includes CU. Any super D-1 would have to cover a majority of the country, which is why I still think they stop at four conferences of 16 eventually.

 

[Buffnik]

This is exactly where it leads if the current system continues down this path IMO. The BCS monopoly will continue to consolidate power until the other "non-power" schools band together or the feds step in.

This is like it's straight out of "Atlas Shrugged". Our enterprise can't compete, so the government needs to step in with regulations and court rulings to artificially prop us up and/or hold others down.

That's pathetic. We're talking about sports leagues. It's entertainment. It's big business (despite being non-profit at the school level). If a program doesn't bring enough to the party to benefit whatever level it's on and doesn't have the resources to compete on that level... it should be on a different level.

 

[CsquaredCC]

This is like it's straight out of "Atlas Shrugged". Our enterprise can't compete, so the government needs to step in with regulations and court rulings to artificially prop us up and/or hold others down.

That's pathetic. We're talking about sports leagues. It's entertainment. It's big business (despite being non-profit at the school level). If a program doesn't bring enough to the party to benefit whatever level it's on and doesn't have the resources to compete on that level... it should be on a different level.

The major difference is your not talking about private enterprise, your talking about amateur athletics and Universities that benefit from variety of income streams including federal funds and state tax payer dollars. If the "power universities" want to give up those sources of income and move to a "market driven" system where athletic revenues fund their institutions, more power to them. However, if your institution takes public funds, you can't turn around and piss and moan when the federal goverment wants to come in and regulate your industry.

 

[Buffnik]

The major difference is your not talking about private enterprise, your talking about amateur athletics and Universities that benefit from variety of income streams including federal funds and state tax payer dollars. If the "power universities" want to give up those sources of income and move to a "market driven" system, more power to them.

I'm also talking about the networks and merchandising companies that are heavily involved in this.

I do agree that to make this work the athletic programs should not be taking tax dollars except maybe for facilities that are owned by the school and, therefore, the state. At CU, the AD pays millions of dollars into the university for the scholarships it gives out. It's not like tax dollars are paying for the athletic programs. It's actually the athletic programs that are creating additional opportunities for the students, faculty and university through the money the AD pays out.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I'm also talking about the networks and merchandising companies that are heavily involved in this.

I do agree that to make this work the athletic programs should not be taking tax dollars except maybe for facilities that are owned by the school and, therefore, the state. At CU, the AD pays millions of dollars into the university for the scholarships it gives out. It's not like tax dollars are paying for the athletic programs. It's actually the athletic programs that are creating additional opportunities for the students, faculty and university through the money the AD pays out.

I think we are actually in agreement. The television dollars are only one piece. No one is arguing that the PAC-12 can't negotiate its own deal. Hell go out and get your billions if you can. However, there is no denying that its about access to the BCS games which helps drive the on-the-field product. Hypothetically, if the MWC were a BCS conference, you would have to agree that the product on the field becomes more compelling; correct? This drives the ability to negotiate larger television deals, sponsorships, etc. It also provides much needed access to additional income from the BCS games which filters throughout the conferences, not just one university. This has been and will continue to be about access. Thats it. Then every university has the opportunity to stand on its own merits, conference affiliation, television deals, etc. etc.

 

[Wyo Buff]

This is like it's straight out of "Atlas Shrugged". Our enterprise can't compete, so the government needs to step in with regulations and court rulings to artificially prop us up and/or hold others down.

That's pathetic. We're talking about sports leagues. It's entertainment. It's big business (despite being non-profit at the school level). If a program doesn't bring enough to the party to benefit whatever level it's on and doesn't have the resources to compete on that level... it should be on a different level.

Ayn Rand for Super-Comish!!!

 

[Wyo Buff]

The major difference is your not talking about private enterprise, your talking about amateur athletics and Universities that benefit from variety of income streams including federal funds and state tax payer dollars. If the "power universities" want to give up those sources of income and move to a "market driven" system where athletic revenues fund their institutions, more power to them. However, if your institution takes public funds, you can't turn around and piss and moan when the federal goverment wants to come in and regulate your industry.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think D-1 Football is "Big Business."

 

[Buffnik]

I think we are actually in agreement. The television dollars are only one piece. No one is arguing that the PAC-12 can't negotiate its own deal. Hell go out and get your billions if you can. Its about access to the BCS games which helps drive the product. Hypothetically, if the MWC were a BCS conference, you would have to agree that the product on the field becomes more compelling; correct? This drives the ability to negotiate larger television deals, sponsorships, etc. It also provides much needed access to additional income from the BCS games which filters throughout the conferences, not just one university.

MWC schools already have opportunities to move up, though. Utah kicked butt with performance, attendance, fan interest and game ratings. It got to join the Pac-12. Similarly, TCU to the Big East. BYU did well enough to go independent and would likely be part of a split off even if the Pac-12 and Big 12 never expand and offer an invite.

There is possibly a chance that having more teams and conferences at the BCS level would increase the overall size of the pie by driving interest in more programs and rallying more fan bases. But my bet is that it wouldn't be additive. Basketball has shown me that even a power conference of smaller schools like the A-10 is unable to move the ratings needle when it has a regular season matchup of conference opponents. And that's a consistent multi-bid conference to the NCAA tourney. Even though they're treated as equals, I don't see the networks writing blank checks so that they can lock up rights to the Xavier-Temple matchup for national broadcast.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I don't see a scenario where we're not in the top group. We always have been. We have always won a lot. And 30 super elite programs breaking away wouldn't be able to fill a schedule. I think this is a non-starter as a concern.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. The NFL fills a 16 game schedule with 32 teams, so I'm pretty sure a league with 30 teams could fill a 12 game schedule.

As to the regional issue, there are elite programs from coast to coast and in every conference so you'd have a large chunk of the country covered.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be a market for the rest of the schools not part of the elite group, but I could see a scenario where instead of 70 schools making $10-$20 million per school, we might have a behemoth created by the top programs where a Mega Conference generates $50 million per school and everyone else becomes essentially 1A earning $8-$10 million each.

It's capitalism at its best (or worst) - why should Washington State earn $21 million a year while TCU and Boise earn less than $10m?

 

[BlackNGold]

I'm going to respectfully disagree. The NFL fills a 16 game schedule with 32 teams, so I'm pretty sure a league with 30 teams could fill a 12 game schedule.

As to the regional issue, there are elite programs from coast to coast and in every conference so you'd have a large chunk of the country covered.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be a market for the rest of the schools not part of the elite group, but I could see a scenario where instead of 70 schools making $10-$20 million per school, we might have a behemoth created by the top programs where a Mega Conference generates $50 million per school and everyone else becomes essentially 1A earning $8-$10 million each.

It's capitalism at its best (or worst) - why should Washington State earn $21 million a year while TCU and Boise earn less than $10m?

TCU is in the Big East so they are in the BCS. As is Louisville.

 

[Buffnik]

I'm going to respectfully disagree. The NFL fills a 16 game schedule with 32 teams, so I'm pretty sure a league with 30 teams could fill a 12 game schedule.

And it relegates some of the teams to being the Bengals in prestige. No way the elites want to risk that. Look at the Big 12 move in the past year. Texas didn't want too many threats to its throne. They want to be in a situation where in most years they just need to beat Oklahoma (the other conference elite) and they will be playing in a BCS bowl, if not the title game. They need their Iowa States. The last thing the elites want is 32 teams with comparable resources beating each other up and 2/3 of them being mediocre or worse every year. The egos wouldn't allow it. And it's too huge a risk to revenue with the high odds of experiencing a bad spell versus what they have with their current conferences. Those bad spells kill attendance and donations.

 

[CsquaredCC]

You are kidding yourself if you don't think D-1 Football is "Big Business."

Its absolutely big business. Which is the point, if the BCS universities don't want to deal with the feds then they should just break away from the NCAA, form their own system and do away with all public funding for athletics and facilities.

 

[SINKRATZ]

TCU is in the Big East so they are in the BCS. As is Louisville.

Ok I'm a year behind on TCU, but the point remains - there are schools out there like Vanderbilt that are being paid because other schools in their conference are great draws. You better believe that Texas and Florida and USC and Ohio State would love it if they didn't have to share the money their programs draw with the Iowa States, Vanderbilts, Washington States and Indianas of the world.

 

[PhillyBuff]

Ok I'm a year behind on TCU, but the point remains - there are schools out there like Vanderbilt that are being paid because other schools in their conference are great draws. You better believe that Texas and Florida and USC and Ohio State would love it if they didn't have to share the money their programs draw with the Iowa States, Vanderbilts, Washington States and Indianas of the world.

You are wrong....

Each team can not be compared to a single entity in business. In fact, the business is actually football as a whole and requires more than just a few teams. You need the lesser teams to play a full schedule and the lesser teams deserve a similar amount of money that the superior teams do... why? because they both are required to be on the field for the price of the ticket along with TV.

A group of just a few teams would not create the long season and drama that makes college football...

 

[SINKRATZ]

And it relegates some of the teams to being the Bengals in prestige. No way the elites want to risk that. Look at the Big 12 move in the past year. Texas didn't want too many threats to its throne. They want to be in a situation where in most years they just need to beat Oklahoma (the other conference elite) and they will be playing in a BCS bowl, if not the title game. They need their Iowa States. The last thing the elites want is 32 teams with comparable resources beating each other up and 2/3 of them being mediocre or worse every year. The egos wouldn't allow it. And it's too huge a risk to revenue with the high odds of experiencing a bad spell versus what they have with their current conferences. Those bad spells kill attendance and donations.

From a competition standpoint I totally agree with you, Texas has the path of least resistance to a title game under the current format, but we're talking about money...huge money. The Bengals make a lot of money.

Ohio State, USC, Florida all make less money because they have to share the pot with Northwestern, Oregon State, and Vandy. They are worth more than they're getting and if they joined forces they could runaway with the media dollars.

I think the concern over attendance and donations is mitigated by the exponential increase in media revenue. A Mega conference tv network would be in demand by every market regardless if the local school was included. Florida v Texas? That has national appeal. Even in the dry spells, your attendance shouldn't be an issue since it's a lot easier to sell a home game against Michigan than Iowa State.

 

[Wyo Buff]

Its absolutely big business. Which is the point, if the BCS universities don't want to deal with the feds then they should just break away from the NCAA, form their own system and do away with all public funding for athletics and facilities.

Do you think that any of the elite programs are publically funded in the sense that they need to generate more revenue than they produce to stay in the black as a football program? I thought most elite programs, Colorado included, met their overhead and largely pay for non-revenue sports as well. I suppose you could make an argument regarding facilities but these are largely financed by private donations as well. Dal Ward did not take a cent from the State of Colorado. I think we may agree regarding this.

 

[SINKRATZ]

You are wrong....

Each team can not be compared to a single entity in business. In fact, the business is actually football as a whole and requires more than just a few teams. You need the lesser teams to play a full schedule and the lesser teams deserve a similar amount of money that the superior teams do... why? because they both are required to be on the field for the price of the ticket along with TV.

A group of just a few teams would not create the long season and drama that makes college football...

Who's talking about just a few teams? I'm talking about the top 30-35 programs in the country. You honestly don't think you would have interest or drama in that? The NFL has 32 teams and there is plenty of drama. You don't need weak teams, that's ridiculous. Sure some schools are going to lose more than they're used to now, but Texas versus Florida, or Alabama, or USC, or Oregon is a hell of a lot more interesting (read: valuable $$) than Texas versus Iowa St, or Kansas, or Oklahoma St.

 

[sackman]

The major difference is your not talking about private enterprise, your talking about amateur athletics and Universities that benefit from variety of income streams including federal funds and state tax payer dollars. If the "power universities" want to give up those sources of income and move to a "market driven" system where athletic revenues fund their institutions, more power to them. However, if your institution takes public funds, you can't turn around and piss and moan when the federal goverment wants to come in and regulate your industry.

A couple things: One, CU now receives somewhere in the area of 5% of it's total operating revenue from the State. The funding CU receives from the State is window dressing. I recently had the opportunity to talk to Phil DiStephano (CU-Boulder Chancellor) about this issue. While he had to couch his remarks discreetly, he made it clear to me that he would prefer to not get any State funding at all in return for greater autonomy. In short, CU doesn't need the measly 5% it's getting from the State. Secondly, CU receives zero funding from the Federal Government save for specific research grants. And those funds have nothing at all to do with the athletic department.

 

[PhillyBuff]

Who's talking about just a few teams? I'm talking about the top 30-35 programs in the country. You honestly don't think you would have interest or drama in that? The NFL has 32 teams and there is plenty of drama. You don't need weak teams, that's ridiculous. Sure some schools are going to lose more than they're used to now, but Texas versus Florida, or Alabama, or USC, or Oregon is a hell of a lot more interesting (read: valuable $$) than Texas versus Iowa St, or Kansas, or Oklahoma St.

That only gets you 15-16 games a week. so basically you are the NFL now... on Saturdays.... I think you just cut the TV deal in half for those teams....

 

[sackman]

Its absolutely big business. Which is the point, if the BCS universities don't want to deal with the feds then they should just break away from the NCAA, form their own system and do away with all public funding for athletics and facilities.

That's precisely the direction they're headed.