Talk of a Division IV? No matter what, current structure must change

[CsquaredCC]

Did you miss the thread where we posted the comps on Arkansas and CU?

btw -- damn, dude. You have a ridiculous midlands & south bias in your opinion on this. No USC even? South Carolina in there but not UCLA? No Penn State?

It will have nothing to do with historical relevance. True "pay to play" will be about alumni support and revenue to pay college athletes in a professional style manner. I would structure it like this eventually if I were one of the "Big Boys"

BLUE DIVISION
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Oregon
USC
UCLA

BLOOD DIVISION
Texas
Texas A&M
Florida State
Florida
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Tennessee

Eight division games. 4 cross-over games. Top 2 from each division qualify for a four team playoff. That television deal could start to approach NFL-type numbers.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Did you miss the thread where we posted the comps on Arkansas and CU?

btw -- damn, dude. You have a ridiculous midlands & south bias in your opinion on this. No USC even? South Carolina in there but not UCLA? No Penn State?

I must have missed the Arkansas v. CU thread. USA Today shows Arkansas with $100+ million in revenue and CU with @$60 million in revenue. Pretty big difference.

So you're saying I missed a few teams from the "Hyper-elite" category? I cannot disagree with your analysis. There are a lot of "have's" in the proposed Div. IV teams. CU is not one of them.

 

[Quattro]

Too few of them??

There are only 64 teams in the "Power 5" conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12). I'll add in Notre Dame to bring it to 65 teams.

Of that group - I would consider the following to be "hyper-elite":

Texas
Ohio State
Michigan
Alabama
Florida
Texas A&M
LSU
Oklahoma
Auburn
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Florida State
Arkansas
Iowa
Oregon
Michigan State
Georgia
South Carolina
Washington
Nebraska

That's 1/3 of the teams in the "Division IV" who are "hyper elite".

On top of that, there are probably quite a few more who could easily be considered "elite".

So what was your criteria for your list?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

So what was your criteria for your list?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Revenue.

 

[Buffnik]

btw, if there was ever a further paring down of D1 (whatever we want to call the highest level), it's going to be driven by money.

What drives money is media revenue.

That's driven by home market and by national market prestige.

It doesn't matter to the powers that be at UT or USC whether a program has rabid fans that donate heavily and show up 30k strong paid attendees for a spring game. What matters to them is whether that program brings an important media market and national tv rating, because that is what determines whether UT makes additional money.

The teams that have the most to worry about are the ones that don't command their home state in a state that doesn't mean as much as a bigger market state. From that standpoint, Syracuse is actually better positioned than Auburn or Michigan State. CU has nothing to worry about.

When I talk about hyper-elites, there are fewer than 10 that move the national needle in any significant way even when they're having a mediocre season. Alabama's not even one of those.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

btw, if there was ever a further paring down of D1 (whatever we want to call the highest level), it's going to be driven by money.

What drives money is media revenue.

That's driven by home market and by national market prestige.

It doesn't matter to the powers that be at UT or USC whether a program has rabid fans that donate heavily and show up 30k strong paid attendees for a spring game. What matters to them is whether that program brings an important media market and national tv rating, because that is what determines whether UT makes additional money.

The teams that have the most to worry about are the ones that don't command their home state in a state that doesn't mean as much as a bigger market state. From that standpoint, Syracuse is actually better positioned than Auburn or Michigan State. CU has nothing to worry about.

When I talk about hyper-elites, there are fewer than 10 that move the national needle in any significant way even when they're having a mediocre season. Alabama's not even one of those.

But your proposed Div. IV is going to change the rules. The teams in that division are going to want to pay players. The teams with the revenue are going to be the teams capable of paying players. If Alabama, Auburn, etc. can pay more - they are going to get better players.

It is all probably a moot point anyway, I think it is doubtful that such a system would survive antitrust, Title IX, etc.

 

[hokiehead]

It's a lot easier to schedule a 12 game football season without non BCS schools in it than it would be to schedule a 30 game basketball season without those same schools. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, we and Utah are the only BCS schools in this time zone. If we can't schedule non BCS schools for basketball games, we are in a serious quandry.

If this is easy, I wish my teams would do it. I can't remember any of the teams I follow: Virginia Tech, Wisconsin or CU, ever having a year without a non-BCS team on the schedule. Instead they pad their non-conf schedule with non-BCS teams that will agree for 2:1's or in some cases not even have the audacity to expect the BCS team to visit their ****ty campus.

Can anyone find any team's schedule which consists solely of BCS teams? Has it ever happened, even once?

yes, I realize you said "easier", not "easy", but you gave me a spring board from which to launch a mini-rant.

 

[Buffnik]

If this is easy, I wish my teams would do it. I can't remember any of the teams I follow: Virginia Tech, Wisconsin or CU, ever having a year without a non-BCS team on the schedule. Instead they pad their non-conf schedule with non-BCS teams that will agree for 2:1's or in some cases not even have the audacity to expect the BCS team to visit their ****ty campus.

Can anyone find any team's schedule which consists solely of BCS teams? Has it ever happened, even once?

yes, I realize you said "easier", not "easy", but you gave me a spring board from which to launch a mini-rant.

CU used to be a program that didn't dick around with auto-win schedule fillers. Check out the 1990-1991 CU schedule.

 

[hokiehead]

CU used to be a program that didn't dick around with auto-win schedule fillers. Check out the 1990-1991 CU schedule.

Wow, you got me. I love that 1990 schedule: the only non-BCS team is Notre Dame! For 1991 it was Wyoming and 1992 was CSU (both completely understandable) -- that McCartney guy wasn't afraid to schedule real teams!

Clarification: the ND game was the bowl, so the 1990 schedule was 100% BCS teams.

 

[sackman]

As I said, I accept where this is going, but I don't have to like it. I don't like the fact that we have to build a $150MM facility just to make up for ground lost over the last 15 years. I don't like the general direction that college athletics has taken. This is just one in a long line of steps that have been taken away from true amateur sports. I don't like that, but I know there isn't anything that I can do about it. If it ever gets too bad, I'll simply find something else to occupy my time.

 

[CUFan]

As I said, I accept where this is going, but I don't have to like it. I don't like the fact that we have to build a $150MM facility just to make up for ground lost over the last 15 years. I don't like the general direction that college athletics has taken. This is just one in a long line of steps that have been taken away from true amateur sports. I don't like that, but I know there isn't anything that I can do about it. If it ever gets too bad, I'll simply find something else to occupy my time.

+1. I think the direction college football and basketball have gone blows. This new division step is just another crappy one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BuffWarHog]

Big fan of the "DON'T LIKE". Mostly for the loss of amateurism and where it will leave CU if this starts become an accepted practice. People are too quick to jump on band wagons these days - labeling Oregon as a "hyper-elite" blue blood whatever or Michigan State and Wisconsin which are 7 and 8 spots below CU in all-time wins or Washington and Florida which are only 1 and 2 ahead - and dropping teams by the wayside because they aren't "currently" top 25. This whole thing is crap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CVBuff]

The current model for college football is very lucrative. I think there is too much money involved to drastically change to a narrow elite conference that morphs into a minor league for the NFL. I don't like watching minor league baseball, or WNBA, or the B league in basketball, and neither does most of America. If the P5, and particularly the elite of the P5, move too far from the current successful formula, college football will likely stop widely entertaining. I watch college football in part to see Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, and all the so called elites get beat by other good teams. If that stops happening, I won't watch anything but my own CU. The national appeal will disappear. Hopefully the powers that be recognize where a lot of the current success comes from: great athletes and a large number of viable underdogs.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I am starting to wonder about this as well. It will be interesting to see where things go after these current television deals expire. Are the "hyper-elites" as they have been called going to want to further consolidate their earning potential? That certainly seems to be the trend. Does USC really need a conference that includes Washington State or Oregon State taking an equal cut of the money? I am beginning to think this is all leading to some form of contraction which eventually ends up at a place where you are left with semi-pro style conferences. Those programs that have the alumni and resources to pay to play will survive. Those that don't will fall out of the "club".

The leadership at Texas likes to ask questions like this. They continually fail to learn that supporting a conference is in their own best interest.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

The leadership at Texas likes to ask questions like this. They continually fail to learn that supporting a conference is in their own best interest.

Texas had revenue of @$170 million last year. Texas does what is best for Texas. Luckily for them, "doing what is best for Texas" is also in the best interest of Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, etc.

 

[sackman]

Texas had revenue of @$170 million last year. Texas does what is best for Texas. Luckily for them, "doing what is best for Texas" is also in the best interest of Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, etc.

Thanks for that info, Mr. Dodds. We don't happen to agree.

Signed, CU, NU, MU, and A&M.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Texas had revenue of @$170 million last year. Texas does what is best for Texas. Luckily for them, "doing what is best for Texas" is also in the best interest of Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, etc.

You have a strange way of thinking on this matter. I haven't seen much evidence that Texas-centrism has really benefitted its conference mates. You have to remember, the power structure favored the north division when Texas arrived. I've had Texas fans explain to me that the rest of the conference is lucky that they get to play a conference championship in Texas every year.

There are some elite teams that understand that a fair, competitive conference is healthy for college football which is, in turn, healthy for their team. I don't believe that Texas is one of those teams, and while there is some benefit to the Iowa States of this world, I think you overstate it.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Thanks for that info, Mr. Dodds. We don't happen to agree.

Signed, CU, NU, MU, and A&M.

Of course. CU, NU, Mizzou, and A&M had places to turn. KU, KSU, Iowa State, Tech, etc. do not.

If in the years to come college football continues to move to a "haves" and a "have nots" league - where do you think Iowa State, KSU, KU, Tech, etc. will wind up? It behooves them to grovel at the feet of Texas if they want to continue receiving their $20+ million payday.

The "haves" will always want the ability to play the "have nots" in order to keep their records unblemished. Texas is happy to keep ISU, KSU, KU, Tech, etc. in their league because it makes it that much easier to win.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Of course. CU, NU, Mizzou, and A&M had places to turn. KU, KSU, Iowa State, Tech, etc. do not.

If in the years to come college football continues to move to a "haves" and a "have nots" league - where do you think Iowa State, KSU, KU, Tech, etc. will wind up? It behooves them to grovel at the feet of Texas if they want to continue receiving their $20+ million payday.

The "haves" will always want the ability to play the "have nots" in order to keep their records unblemished. Texas is happy to keep ISU, KSU, KU, Tech, etc. in their league because it makes it that much easier to win.

Thank you for stating my point. A healthy conference is a service to the game. A conference with two good teams is not, a point to which Texas seems unaware.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

You have a strange way of thinking on this matter. I haven't seen much evidence that Texas-centrism has really benefitted its conference mates. You have to remember, the power structure favored the north division when Texas arrived. I've had Texas fans explain to me that the rest of the conference is lucky that they get to play a conference championship in Texas every year.

There are some elite teams that understand that a fair, competitive conference is healthy for college football which is, in turn, healthy for their team. I don't believe that Texas is one of those teams, and while there is some benefit to the Iowa States of this world, I think you overstate it.

You haven't seen much evidence?

The Big 12 TV contract - before CU and Nebraska left - was bringing in about $10 million per year per team.

The Big 12 TV contract - today - paid each member team (except WVU and TCU) $22 million.

You think anyone in the current Big 12 is sad that CU, Nebraska, Mizzou, and A&M left? There is certainly some disappointment at the loss of great rivalry games - but no one in the Big 12 is bemoaning the loss of those teams.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Thank you for stating my point. A healthy conference is a service to the game. A conference with two good teams is not, a point to which Texas seems unaware.

That is Orr's opinion. Texas and Oklahoma and most of the teams in the Big 12 have a different opinion.

 

[Uncle Ken]

You haven't seen much evidence?

The Big 12 TV contract - before CU and Nebraska left - was bringing in about $10 million per year per team.

The Big 12 TV contract - today - paid each member team (except WVU and TCU) $22 million.

You think anyone in the current Big 12 is sad that CU, Nebraska, Mizzou, and A&M left? There is certainly some disappointment at the loss of great rivalry games - but no one in the Big 12 is bemoaning the loss of those teams.

I see a conference that has a diminishing trajectory on the college football landscape. Indeed, I believe it has already started (for the record, I was rooting hard for OU against 'Bama this year).

The teams you mention are getting paid on average with the rest of college football, but have limited recruiting options.

KSU exists as a program because of one man. That won't last. And maybe one of those schools will field a decent team every year or two. But the gap between the haves and have-nots is too vast in that conference, and there are way too many have nots with not a lot of recruiting options.

You sound like Dylan in his brilliant song "Don't think twice" when he tries to console himself that his loss is no big deal through false bravado. The truth of the matter is, that the Big XII needs another elite team (nebraska) and another next-tier team that good be a power house at any given time (Mizzou, aTm and Colorado) to promote credibility. Baylor may step and fill the role of aTm, we'll see. And I see WVU and Colorado as very similar in their histories and overall capacity. But in my opinion the Big XII needs more.

 

[Uncle Ken]

That is Orr's opinion. Texas and Oklahoma and most of the teams in the Big 12 have a different opinion.

I think I was clear that it was my point. I'm sorry if you felt I implied it was anything more than my opinion.

We'll follow the progress of the Big XII over the course of the next decade, but as a football conference my prediction is that it will sink lower than the Big 10 in the quality of its product.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I see a conference that has a diminishing trajectory on the college football landscape. Indeed, I believe it has already started (for the record, I was rooting hard for OU against 'Bama this year).

The teams you mention are getting paid on average with the rest of college football, but have limited recruiting options.

KSU exists as a program because of one man. That won't last. And maybe one of those schools will field a decent team every year or two. But the gap between the haves and have-nots is too vast in that conference, and there are way too many have nots with not a lot of recruiting options.

You sound like Dylan in his brilliant song "Don't think twice" when he tries to console himself that his loss is no big deal through false bravado. The truth of the matter is, that the Big XII needs another elite team (nebraska) and another next-tier team that good be a power house at any given time (Mizzou, aTm and Colorado) to promote credibility. Baylor may step and fill the role of aTm, we'll see. And I see WVU and Colorado as very similar in their histories and overall capacity. But in my opinion the Big XII needs more.

Why does the Big XII need more elite teams? If you look over the history of the Big 6, Big 7 and the Big 8 (history dating back to 1900's) the conference has historically had two elite teams. For the vast majority of that time - the two elite teams were Oklahoma and Nebraska. During the 85+ years before Texas joined the league - either Oklahoma or Nebraska won 74 of the conference titles, including 58 outright titles (almost 70%!).

Since Texas joined the conference in 1996 - Oklahoma and Nebraska continued to dominate the conference. From 1996 - 2010, Oklahoma and Nebraska won their respective divisions 14 times, and either Oklahoma or Nebraska won the Big 12 conference championship 9 times (out of 15). Texas won the conference 3 times, Colorado once, KSU once, and A&M once. Kansas, Iowa State, Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State never even played in the conference championship. Mizzou played twice.

Can't the same be said of Colorado re: "existing because of one man?" Take away the great years Bill McCartney had from 1989-1994 and there's nothing exceptional about Colorado football. Sure, some very nice years, with 8+ wins, occasionally 9, and even 10 once. But nothing exceptional.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Why does the Big XII need more elite teams? If you look over the history of the Big 6, Big 7 and the Big 8 (history dating back to 1900's) the conference has historically had two elite teams. For the vast majority of that time - the two elite teams were Oklahoma and Nebraska. During the 85+ years before Texas joined the league - either Oklahoma or Nebraska won 74 of the conference titles, including 58 outright titles (almost 70%!).

Since Texas joined the conference in 1996 - Oklahoma and Nebraska continued to dominate the conference. From 1996 - 2010, Oklahoma and Nebraska won their respective divisions 14 times, and either Oklahoma or Nebraska won the Big 12 conference championship 9 times (out of 15). Texas won the conference 3 times, Colorado once, KSU once, and A&M once. Kansas, Iowa State, Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State never even played in the conference championship. Mizzou played twice.

Can't the same be said of Colorado re: "existing because of one man?" Take away the great years Bill McCartney had from 1989-1994 and there's nothing exceptional about Colorado football. Sure, some very nice years, with 8+ wins, occasionally 9, and even 10 once. But nothing exceptional.

You made this about CU, not me. Note that I lumped CU in with Mizzou and aTm, but I don't categorize them with KSU as you do.

CU has won a conference championship in football every decade since the 40s. I'm pretty sure Coach Mac wasn't there the entire time, so your argument falls a little flat to my way of thinking.

I'm not sure how many teams the Big XII has now (is it really 12? I think it might be), but I'm pretty sure it's more than 8. Typically the Big 8 had two elite teams and one or two good teams. Keeping in mind that in 1995 it placed 50% of its entire conference in the final AP top 10 (none named Oklahoma), a remarkable achievement.

I don't think I have to point out that two elite teams in a field of something larger than eight constitutes a lower percentage overall, but I will if necessary.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

You made this about CU, not me. Note that I lumped CU in with Mizzou and aTm, but I don't categorize them with KSU as you do.

CU has won a conference championship in football every decade since the 40s. I'm pretty sure Coach Mac wasn't there the entire time, so your argument falls a little flat to my way of thinking.

I'm not sure how many teams the Big XII has now (is it really 12? I think it might be), but I'm pretty sure it's more than 8. Typically the Big 8 had two elite teams and one or two good teams. Keeping in mind that in 1995 it placed 50% of its entire conference in the final AP top 10 (none named Oklahoma), a remarkable achievement.

I don't think I have to point out that two elite teams in a field of something larger than eight constitutes a lower percentage overall, but I will if necessary.

Let's see what happens in the next few years. I'll wager the Big 12 sends teams to the NCAA playoff more often than the Pac 12 does.

 

[Quattro]

Let's see what happens in the next few years. I'll wager the Big 12 sends teams to the NCAA playoff more often than the Pac 12 does.

Edit: Does the Big 12 play 9 conference games?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Uncle Ken]

Let's see what happens in the next few years. I'll wager the Big 12 sends teams to the NCAA playoff more often than the Pac 12 does.

I'm in wait and see mode with you.

Keep in mind that the Big 10 seemed to send a lot of teams to the National Championship in those years following 2005 (which I view as the beginning of the decline of that conference), and I'm not sure that it helped their conference overall. In fact, I'd argue that it highlighted the overall weakness of the conference which I suspect was one of many contributing factors in its march to mediocrity (again, my opinion if it was unclear).

 

[hokiehead]

You sound like Dylan in his brilliant song "Don't think twice" when he tries to console himself that his loss is no big deal through false bravado. The truth of the matter is, that the Big XII needs another elite team (nebraska) and another next-tier team that good be a power house at any given time (Mizzou, aTm and Colorado) to promote credibility. Baylor may step and fill the role of aTm, we'll see. And I see WVU and Colorado as very similar in their histories and overall capacity. But in my opinion the Big XII needs more.

rep for the Dylan reference

 

[Uncle Ken]

rep for the Dylan reference

Well now that the rep is delivered I can confess that I prefer Waylon Jennings' version.