That is the scuttlebutt. BIG 12, ACC, SEC, B1G, and PAC 12 would all leave. That would screw BYU. Utah would probably get Troy Hinds if it happened sooner rather than later.
That is the scuttlebutt. BIG 12, ACC, SEC, B1G, and PAC 12 would all leave. That would screw BYU. Utah would probably get Troy Hinds if it happened sooner rather than later.
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
I am confused... is this a legit rumor?Originally Posted by Dawminator
If you believe Utezone...who was early on the PAC12 thing. And to be clear it is just listed as a distinct possibility at this point
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
I couldn't find it on Utezone.com (But I have a hard time navigating there forums on my ipad. Do you have a link? Sorry for the hassle, but this interests me. I'm curious about the motives behind such a move.
I don't see it happening. Nor do I necessarily think it would be a good thing if it did.
http://utah.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?f...d=1141&style=2
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
Thank you for the link, however, I just realized that the reason I cannot find what you are talking about is that I am not a member of that forum.
I love Utezone, and would highly recommend it. Dan, and Tom for that matter, are very well plugged in. They are right significantly more than they are right. To be clear they are not saying this is going to happen, but just that it could which would be very interesting. I would have very mixed feelings about it. Utah would for sure be top dog in the state, but it would come at the expense of some of my family members teams (USU and BYU) which does cause me some bad feelings.
On the plus side, I do think it would cause a decent amount of parity among the power conference schools that left. Teams like BYU, BSU, etc. would not be taking as many decent recruits like Troy Hinds, Tanner Mangum, or Kyle Van Noy for that matter, who would likely opt to play for a school at the highest level of college football.
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
It won't happen for at least 12 years.
BUT, I think all the Big 5 only playing Big 5 teams is because they will use the next 12 years to see if breaking off will be profitable or not. They could essentially play only each other look at the money.
I think in 12 years the Big 5 will break off, pay their players and leave the NCAA. They probably dissolve the ACC or Big 12, and spread those teams out into 4 conferences with two divisions each. The conference championship is round one, then you are left with the top 4 teams in the country. Each conference plays 9 conference games and three OOC games against the other three conferences.
A few thoughts:
- I just don't see it happening. It seems like a boondogle of lawsuits waiting to happen.
- Who is the "they" that would break up and redistribute the B12 and ACC schools? Don't you think those conferences and the school presidents would have something to say about that? I don't see the other four conferences having the ability to break the others up. If the B12 and ACC are still intact at this time, they'll remain so and this brave new world will have to be forged with a minimum of five conferences.
- If it happened, I could still see the MWC and AAC making the cut. Not because they deserve it, but:
1) the PAC would still need a regional conference to schedule. Otherwise all of our teams are going to the Central time zone for the nearest road trip. I can see L. Scott making a case that the MWC needs to be brought along in this plan. That seems like a reasonable concession for the eastern conferences to make to get this to happen.
2) Wouldn't it be easier for seven conferences to stand against three instead of five standing up against five? Politically speaking, that is? It's like having a super-majority in the US Senate. It's far easier to move things along eith 2/3 of the vote than barely half. So imagine that the Big 5 decide to break away, they decide to bring the MWC and possibly the AAC with them but tell the SBC, MAC, and CUSA "Thanks for playing. Keep the change," and move on. What choice would those three conferences have? Who would fight for them? No one who matters. But if one half of the FBC is trying to secede from the other half, it just seems messier and gives more votes to the NCAA to stop it from happening.
Eh, I'm just guessing here. It's a fun topic anyway.
Under current case law, at least as I understand it, it is unlikely the courts would rule any break off as a violation of anti-trust law. I can't think of any other reason why breaking off would be a legal issue apart from Sherman Act concerns. More experienced legal minds could tell me I'm wrong. So my semi-educated opinion is if they breakaway, and I think they will, there will be nothing short of some political movement to stop them, aka legislative action (would legislatures in CA, OR, WA, AZ, CO, OK, TX, LA, AL, AK, FL, SC, NC, GA, KY, VA, WV, TN, MI, MS, NY, NJ, OH, PA, WI, MN, IA, IN, MA, MD, really take action that would hurt the states flagship school(s) in those states? Doubtful. Notice I didn't include Utah...).
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
Yes, they will.
"You can whip me. You can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
Great post, but, to be blunt, you're nuts if you think Larry Scott and the P12 would want the MWC along for the ride. We'd be looking at a scenario where the P12 would control the entire Western US for college football. Tons of fans of MWC teams would start following P12 teams, and no P12 team would ever lose a recruit to a MWC team.
As for the Big 3 pushing the issue with the ACC and B12, I could see a scenario where the Big 3 told the teams in those conferences that there was only room for one more, 16-team conference, so they should come up with something palatable. Basically the same as the Joker breaking a pool cue and leaving the two gang bangers to fight it out (am I remembering that scene correctly?). You would basically have the elite-ish teams in the 2 conferences (Texas, OU, Kansas, FSU, UNC, UVa, GaTech, maybe WVU) either jump ship for one of the Big 3 conferences, or essentially come together and fight over which of the leftovers from the two conferences would get to come along. If, for example, Texas and Oklahoma told UNC and Virginia that they were starting a conference and had Kansas, FSU and GaTech on board, you can rest assured that UNC and UVa would climb on board.
Last edited by Scratch; 06-14-2013 at 05:28 PM.
Why not? Who is left on the outside looking in that would add enough to justify their inclusion?
There are still teams that have no business playing at this level. (I understand that UTAH is not yet up to the task because we have a lot of catching up to do to get to this level, across the board, but what is Duke or Wake Forest or Purdue excuses?)
"You can whip me. You can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
You're probably right about the MWC thing. I was thinking more of the negative side and odd logistics of being this lone conference way out on the west coast and the PAC wanting *some* regional (yet arguably credible) punching bag. But there's a whole other side I didn't consider that you outlined.
As for the Big 3 vs the B12 and ACC, I still don't see it. The B12 and ACC know they could call that bluff, right? The other three wouldn't go anywhere without them. For the foreseeable future it's going to be the Big Five. The way we get to four power conferences IMO, is the UT-and-buddies-to-the-PAC plan, which wouldn't make sense for a few more years, if ever. For better or worse, I don't see the ACC breaking up now. And if the 'Horns and friends don't go to the PAC, I don't see the PAC expanding beyond 12. Why would we? The PAC also knows we're not going to be left behind in any new plan and that no one can force them to add anyone they don't want.
It's partially about who's in and who's out but also about college ball making one more giant leap toward being a pro league. Paying players? Ugh.
And for me personally, I still like the tradition and regionalism of college sports. Personally, I'd like to see a *little* more equity and profit sharing across the board in the FBS level. At what point can or should the FBS/NCAA look at the whole as a league? I hate that they don't do this much at all. For sure, there needs to be more culling of the herd. The SBC, MAC have no business in the FBS. The others, I think they have paid enough into the system so to speak that they shouldn't just get tossed to the heap like yesterdays trash. *Some* of what keeps them down is the system -- not that they inherently suck. I think there are programs in the MWC and AAC that should be able to make a go of it in a restructured FBS.
We agree on that. I like the MWC too and would like to see them included. My reasons for this are more about nostalgia. I miss my old neighbors, and the new ones seem a bit stand off-ish. As for the demise of the pure college game, we can have a moment of silence to memoialize it, but that path seems inevitable.
"You can whip me. You can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
I think we are assuming it is going to be a four conference split. I see no reason why it couldn't be a five conference split. PAC 12, B1G, Big 12, ACC, and the SEC. For football you could do an 8 team playoff where every conference champ was guaranteed and then three wild cards. I think we have been told four superconferences so much that we assume that is the only possibility. If they were to break away, there are so many things they could do.
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
I totally agree with this. I just don't see the superconference thing happening. Now, the five Powers breaking away? Yeah, very possible; probable even.
Four conferences and 8 divisions is perfect. You have your conference championships in early December and then a 4-team playoff to start the new year. And no one who can't win an 8-team division deserves a shot at the title.
If it's going to 4, I could see the B1G and the new conference that is cobbled together focusing on the eastern teams. If they are going to put pressure on the P12 to become the P16, I could see a compromise where the P12 insists on getting its hands on some more attractive midwestern teams.
If things blow up, I could see either the Texas or Oklahoma teams going to the P12 rather than a B12-ACC hybrid, or I could see a few teams like Nebraska, Kansas, maybe Iowa or at least ISU, or something like that. That would also allow the B1G and the 4th conference to focus on some of the bigger eastern markets.
I think it could go to five conferences like this:
PAC(16) +Nebraska, +Kansas, +Oklahoma, +Texas
B1G(16) -Nebraska, +UVA, +UNC, +ND
SEC(16) +VT, +NC State
ACC(10) -VT, -NC State, -UNC, -UVA
BigXii(10) -Kansas, -Oklahoma, -Texas, +Cincinnati, +UCONN, +BYU/Houston
ACC and BigXii will be separate conference but their champs will play for the fourth playoff spot.
I really don't like the idea of the power conferences breaking away from the NCAA simply because I don't trust the would-be power brokers (think SEC, Texas, Ohio State, USC, etc) making rules and regulations that make sense or create an even playing field. The NCAA sucks but this is a case of preferring to deal with the devil I know than the one that could be much worse. It seems likely to me that in the break-away scenario the SEC would make sure everything favors the SEC. Also, in this scenario Utah is back to being the little guy and I'm not sure anyone is sticking up for the little guy in that world.
Do not underestimate the power of the scholarly regional accrediting bodies to prevent this from happening as long as the students are enrolled in classes. All are beholden to the Sith Lords of Academia.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
How is this different than now? Still, I totally agree with what you say about the Devil we know.
Exactly. The BCS was created by then SEC commissioner Roy Kramer and the SEC has benefited disproportionately from his creation - think 2011 when Alabama played in the fake championship game despite not only not winning the SEC title, but they didn't even win their division.
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
Of course the theoretical championship model could be a lot cleaner, but even that is based on a lot of assumptions about the number of conferences and programs in this theoretical splits and the willingness of said conferences and programs to allow for an even playing field. Even if this revolution resulted in a super clean 4 conference league there are still things like recruiting and media regulation that would likely largely be defined by those with the biggest bank accounts.
If the super elite programs want to break away from the NCAA it is so they can be free of restriction. As they write the new rules they aren't going to be concerned about giving Utah, Vanderbilt and Northwestern a fair shake. Hey, Ohio State and Texas want 120 scholarships. Yeehaw! The SEC wants to keep a disproportionate amount of revenue. Giddyup! USC wants it to be legal to provide "escorts" and servants to players. Huzzah! The regulation (or lack thereof) will almost certainly be geared to favor the biggest of the big dogs in this league. We already kind of have that with the NCAA but this will be no holds barred. And it won't be conducive to a program like Utah competing with those with the deepest pockets.
And heaven help us if the powers decide to move to a pay for play model without limits on spending, bringing a system where programs basically bid on players like unrestricted free agents.
The one thing that I can see that would prevent this is that this sort of move could endanger the tax exempt status of schools (and this is supposition on my part, I don't claim to have the law on my side here). This falls more in line with how businesses operate. And make no doubt, college sports are a business, but they enjoy this tax exempt status. The huge donations made by boosters also have a tax exemption. Take that away, and you would see less money coming to the schools from boosters.
"You can do a lot in a lifetime, if you don't burn out too fast. You can make the most of the distance. First, you need endurance. First, you've got to last." - Neil Pert
Game, set, match. Without the guarantee of tax-exempt status, any talk of breakaway from the NCAA is premature. The NCAA has lobbyists, too, and I'm guessing there are senators and congressmen who claim as their alma mater a school outside all projected 16-team superconference models.
TV contracts alone will stop anything like this from happening for a long, long time. For example, CBS signed a 14 year deal in 2010 with the NCAA for basketball rights. So right off the bat you're looking at 2024 as the earliest for a change in the college sports landscape.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote