HD article on the G5

[Herdstruck]

Chuck Landon: G5 schools soon must face reality





Feb. 22, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

















The Group of Five conferences need to face reality.


Not sooner.


Not later.


Now.


The reality is the G5 leagues and their 60 members can't compete in an
arms race with the Power Five conferences. That has become increasingly
obvious during both groups' first year of existence.


Except, it seems, to the G5 conferences.


The American Athletic, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American and
Sun Belt refuse to admit the entire landscape of collegiate football has
suffered an earthquake of such magnitude, it was off the Saban Scale.


And guess who found themselves on the wrong side of the fault line?


The G5 leagues, of course.


It was the Power Five's plan all along. And the G5 athletic directors
unwittingly aided and abetted their plan by signing off on autonomy.


That led to the P5 representation voting 79-1 to adopt the full cost of
attendance scholarship allotment during the NCAA's annual convention in
January.


Most of the 65 Power Five athletic departments can afford to add this
new expenditure to their annual budgets. The problem is the Group of
Five conferences stubbornly cling to the absurd notion their members
also can fund the cost of attendance allotment.


They can't.


At least, most of the G5 members can't. The evidence is in the USA
Today newspaper's database that shows all 55 public schools' athletic
departments in the G5 operated at deficits during the 2012-13 school
year.


And, now, these red-ink ridden athletic departments that are heavily
subsidized by revenue from student fees are going to come up with
$700,000 to $1 million of additional money to fund the cost of
attendance allotments?


How?


Is the money just going to drop out of the sky?


If so, let me grab a bucket.


The problem appears to be the American Athletic Conference. For some
reason it still believes it could join the P5 cartel. So, the AAC
definitely is going to fund the cost of attendance allotments.


But that's easier for the AAC because it's the biggest of the G5
leagues with an average enrollment of 38,747 among its eight public
universities. The AAC has five of the six biggest schools in the G5,
enrollment-wise.


That's a huge factor because of student fees revenue.


Welcome to the crux of the matter.


It impacts Marshall, in particular. Although MU's athletic department
estimates it will cost $700,000 for the cost of attendance, there's no
known source of funding. Ticket sales and C-USA revenue didn't keep MU
out of the red in past years, so they aren't viable revenue streams.


Neither are student fees.


That's because of the Group of Five's 55 public universities, only two schools have smaller enrollments than Marshall.


Just two.


Only Louisiana Tech (11,271) and Louisiana-Monroe (8,632) have less students than MU's 12,350.


That is very relevant.


Compare the student fees UCF reaps from its 60,810 enrollment compared
to Marshall's at 12,350. That's why MU is falling farther and farther
behind.


The USA Today database shows Marshall was in the black during 2006-2011
with a subsidy of only 45.5 percent. But in 2012-13, MU's athletic
department was in deficit despite a heightened subsidy rate of 52.42
percent.


Nobody needs to ask that other Chuck named Schwab if the cost of
attendance is a bad idea for the Group of Five, in general, and
Marshall, in particular.


It's obvious.


The G5 is trying to live a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget.


It can't cash a reality check.


Chuck Landon is a sports columnist for The Herald-Dispatch. Contact him at clandon@herald-dispatch.com.


I copied and pasted the article because the HD can suck it for charging people.

So what's the consensus on this? I know it was brought up earlier but I don't think it was discussed in depth.

Obviously this will mean Marshall is going to have to force itself to expand their student body.
Rumor has it that the Riverfront property is also being looked at by Marshall and the city...possibly an expansion of the campus could be there with dorms, if so, great, make room.I think several schools are going to crumble from this. I think Marshall will barely survive, and if it has success, will actually do alright from this.
But other schools like the majority of the MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, and some of the Mountain West...are going to suffer. I think this is going to be the weeding out process for the majority of the schools and some will fold and step down to a lower division...which is fine.

 

[Gochneaur645]

I see Chuck Landon and stop reading.

 

[houston_herd_fan]

It would most likely take about a 15 to 20 million dollar endowment set up just for this specific need to cover that 700k expenditure. If interest on the dollars was static probably a little less, but always have to have a an extra balance to cover shortfall years.

 

[ohio herd]

It may be that the writing is already on the wall but I say we continue to make the best decisions for Marshall and let the chips fall where they may. I am not convinced the sky has fallen because it is in the best interest of the P5 cartel to keep the G5 around.

 

[oldeherd]

As it has been noted on here in previous posts, MU's greatest problem in this scenario is the fact that its enrollment has either been static or declined in nearly a decade and a half- -when Wade Gilley left MU in 2000 its total enrollment was over 16,000, including about 2000 in the Community College, now a separate entity. As Chuck's article indicated, enrollment now around 13,000, or less. Any real growth has come in the medical/professional/graduate areas. Undergraduate enrollment growth is the area where MU really needs to concentrate.

This fact plus the fact that Huntington has probably lost another 10,000+ people in the same time period helps explain why MU attendance has also flatlined, so to speak. Heck, during my undergrad. days, when D. D'Antoni, Redd, Stone, Allen, Davidson, et.al., were in their heyday, MU average 6350 a game in a sold out Memorial Field House. Now, a half century later, the Herd draws 4000-5000 per game in a half empty Henderson Century. THIS FACT ALONE REPRESENTS A SOURCE OF LOST (AND POTENTIAL) REVENUE WHICH COULD BE USED FOR THE ADDITIONAL ATHLETIC EXPENDITURE DISCUSSED IN CHUCK'S ARTICLE.

I don't really know what potential source of Funds could be utilized for any athletic and other development projects on the ACF site(s). Maybe that is something that Mayor Williams and the MU administration will have to figure out. I do know that Huntington has potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of needed upgrades in its sewer and storm sewer systems; upgrades which are essential if the city is to reverse it population trends and grow new businesses. I also know that the MARSHALL 10 year Capital Plan, approved in 2013 (see www.marshall.edu/mplan) details over $400 million in capital renovations and new projects, including athletic projects (new baseball park, upgrades to Henderson Center, Gullickson Hall, improvements at Edwards Stadium, etc). Implementation of this plan, to the fullest extent possible, within the 10 year proposed period, will be vital in achieving any significant enrollment growth that MU desires and desperately needs. Marshall will need to convince the state to allow it to issue the necessary bonds to fund most of said projects. That's where Herd fans, alums, and Huntington area leaders, etc., will need to unite in support of such action. As of now, while WVU's administration has apparently a blank check when it comes to issuing bonds (its bonding authority), MU's administration and Board of Governors does NOT HAVE similar authority.

 

[bbneutralfan]

One thing that the Marshall administration needs to avoid at all costs is attaching the needed $700,000 additional funds to student tuition. That will only hurt hundreds of cash strapped families who many already struggle to pay tuition costs. No easy solution to this problem. Big Green never seems to grow in leaps and bounds nor does the M Club. Hard to figure why the M Club does not grow. They need to find a way to get current athletes who will be graduating to join. Anyway I'm sure MH and the administration are looking at the way to come up with the additional funds for this. Not sure how much private money will be available for this. It will take a convincing sales pitch IMO.

 

[Herd Fever]

Marshall tuition is cheaper then most schools, and I think it's another excuse people say. As an out of state student, Marshall was a cheaper option to me then most schools in NY and most out of state students would say the same about schools in there states. There is a reason why kids from Northern states flock schools in the south and it's not just about the weather.

 

[Herdstruck]

I think if we did this we'd have to have a separate bank account for a large sum of money that Marshall wouldn't actually touch, but the interest each year, would pay for the funds needed. I'd guess at around $3,000,000 you'd need about 5% interest rate (which you might get, considering it is a bit high but for 'university purposes' you may slither by) to really cover everything.

While $3 million doesn't sound like much (it isn't by most university standards however for us, rather tough) I think it could be done. I also think it would be done by raising student fees until that number is reached, then the fees go back down again.

Hell, if we made every student pay an additional $100.00, they could join the Big Green, we'd raise $1.3 million in a single year, and they'd get BG perks for their level of support. In about 3 years we'd have the money needed...possibly even grown through sports success...the sky's the limit at that point.

 

[herdit44]

Originally posted by Herdstruck:

Hell, if we made every student pay an additional $100.00, they could join the Big Green, we'd raise $1.3 million in a single year, and they'd get BG perks for their level of support. In about 3 years we'd have the money needed...possibly even grown through sports success...the sky's the limit at that point.

That becomes a super tricky situation.

 

[SquireJack]

Like Chucky or not, it is difficult to dispute the financial facts he cites in this article and the future which an inevitable split from the P-5 schools portends for the G-5 member institutions. He also shows why the AAC is perhaps the only G-5 conference with a membership that can compete over the transition phase and perhaps eventually elevate itself to become the P-6 in 5 to 10 years. Worse, though, is the fact that assuming that is the end-game goal of the AAC, their members surely must realize that they can'g afford to invite any schools to join which are smaller and/or poorer than the ones already in that conference without putting their precarious status at greater risk. For them, it is a question of being relegated to permanent "second-tier" status with the remaining G-5 schools, or trying to gain acceptance as the last of the "big boy" leagues.

Marshall unfortunately is too small (students), badly located, and insufficiently supported (as the second state university in a poor state) to deal with the "arms race" that Chuck describes. But the problems is larger than Marshall itself, per se. West Virginia has been steadily losing population for 75 years, especially in and around Huntington and south of U.S. Route 60. Charleston has also lost population but, as the Capitol city, greater Charleston has state government and attendant jobs (banking, medical and legal sectors, in particular) that protect it against much more population retrenchment. The northern and eastern portions of WV (Morgantown, Clarksburg, Fairmont, Martinsburg areas) are the only ones showing growth, and those areas are WVU's natural territory. WV has among the lowest percentage of working adults, among the highest levels of families on various forms of public or government assistance, and highest percentage of government vs. private-sector jobs, in the country. As residents, we all know this already. The question is: What does this mean?

IMHO, the state will (and probbably should) shed another 250,000 people before the population can reach an equilibrium. A generation of older baby boomers will have to die in place for that to happen, as awful as that is to say, enabling the State to shed the costs of providing services to a large group of financially unproductive citizens. In many areas of tbe State, particularly in southen WV, people stay in their "home place" because, however modest it may be, they own it and would rather stay there on disability, workers comp, or welfare than give up the benefits and move in search of better opportunities. I don't blame them; few in that circumstance have either the education or transferrable skills to find good jobs elsewhere. But until those citizens' expenses are gradually eliminated from the State's tax structure, young people will keep moving out of state to find good jobs and enticing places to live. My own kids are examples of that. As a business owner with hundreds of employees, here and in neighboring states, we see this (and struggle with) this issue all the time.

Marshall needs to focus on maintaining its status as an alternative to WVU for college students seeking an affordable basic public undergraduate university education. This will be a great challenge, I think, inasmuch as Marshall's natural student recruitment "footprint" overlaps the areas of the State which are hardest-hit in terms of dying industries and population losses. It needs to continue to recruit Kanawha county hard, but even there Marshall will be competing with not only WVU but also UK, VaTech, several Ohio schools, etc. So Marshall will have to decide whether it wants to spend scarce State funding on improving its academic profile, improving faculty salaries, new degree programs, increasing enrollment, athletics, etc. It can't do all of those things simultaneously if it hopes to do any of them effectively. Choices must be made.

These will be tough choices. I feel for the MU Administration. Realistically, it is hard to see how MU positions itself to compete, financially, relative to the other public G-5 schools based on the facts that the article recites. As a state resident, I want to see Marshall succeed but it will need to decide what it wants to be. Many years ago, the University of Chicago withdrew from the Big 10 in athletics after deciding that it didn't want to spend it's considerable resources on sports. U of Chicago is but one such example; there are many others. Marshall (among other similar schools) is facing a similar crossroads with far less money to spend. Frankly this is very sad.

 

[Herdstruck]

You do realize this affects wvu as well...right?

Wvu needs couch change to keep up with Kansas State and Iowa State in terms of financial resources.

Thing is...in 10 years there will be an entirely new level of college football with about 16 schools with enough financial resources to sustain themselves. This does not include wvu...and despite what one may want to think about boosters...a school like TCU had 7 alumni BUY A NEW STADIUM. Something wvu wishes it could do.
Marshall may find a way to pay off their players...certainly not with the ease Alabama could but nor could wvu.
Not to mention wvu would spend over a million in travel costs alone. Combined with the hefty sums of money spent on assistants and head coaches...$2 million per football and basketball coach with an additional 2 million for assistants...in each sport. Then another lets say 5 million for coaches and assistants and whatnot...youre already at $13 million out of the near $25 million given. Oh and you lose revenue for everything and barely break even on football which wont last when you continue to lose. Then you are paying players...on top of it all...
AND you are on probation so you can't afford to be as dirty as usual.

Again...this happens while Texas writes a check with no sweat and earns $85 million in football revenue ALONE!

I do like how you try to pass off your posts as something sympathetic towards the state as a whole then say wvu is going to make it.

In the end...in a decade when the new Division of football is being played...and the Vanderbilts...UVA...Dukes...Indianas...Baylors, etc, are playing one another...I will leave a beer for you to drink when wvu ends up in the AAC with Marshal for the annual Coal Bowl game..because we would be conference mates.

Come to think of it...Id say wvu's situation is far more damaging...considering Marshall may never have a shot at an elite conference and wvu spends money and sells their souls only to end up in the same level their supposed 'irrelevant' in state peer is...ignored by the very same people they tried to become...scratching their heads as their schedule comes out with Iowa State and Marshall as part of their away games in a 12 game schedule wondering what purpose they serve in life.


Marshall may not fare well in this but dont act like wvu has it easy either.

 

[SquireJack]

Herdstruck - I assume your post is in response to mine, although you don't say that expressly. If it is, I appreciate your viewpoint and the reasons for your opinions. However, nowhere in my post did I make any statements about WVU and it's relative athletic costs. You may be right; I don't know. I was commenting on the HD article which pertains to the G-5 situation and Marshall's position in all this. And I'm not a "WVU guy" no matter how many times people want to say that. I have two degrees from UK. I was born, raised and (other than my 7 college years) have lived in WV for all of my 57 years. I support both WVU and Marshall as a proud West Virginian.

My references in my post to WVU related to it's current enrollment, and its natural in-state recruitment "footprint" as compared to Marshall's. To the extent that higher enrollments relate to revenues, student fees, fans and TV "eyeballs" for a school's athletics, then by inference WVU is better situated that Marshall. But your point is equally true: While Marshall can't compete on equal footing with WVU on those measures, neither can WVU compete equally with Texas - and I certainly never said any such thing.

Anyway, I personally regret the current direction of "top-tier" college sports. While I hate what is happening, that doesn't change the inevitable. All schools will face (to some degree) the same "either-or" decisions that I described. Very few will be able to do everything well. But the ones with a seat at the P-5 table are certainly better-off, at least right now, than the ones (like MU) that have already builtexpensive physical facilities to compete at the top levels, bond debt-wise, and now the landscape is undergoing a seismic shift which is out of their control.

 

[alphasig1053]

Its short sighted to think that just being a P5 school is going to be enough to compete going forward.

 

[SquireJack]

I agree, as far as that goes. But I disagree with those who believe that college athletics are destined to consist of 12 to 16 universities that can separate themselves into essentially a "super group" of P-5 schools, and I say that even though my own alma mater (UK) would fall in such a group by virtue of its combined basketball and SEC-football revenues. So personally speaking, my school isn't "at risk". But college athletics is unlike the pros, which are big-city based teams comprised of the best players in the world.

College athletics are simply different. They are driven much more by state-based allegiances, especially for each State's "Namesake U." That model won't work, IMHO, in the collegiate sports world. There aren't enough Texas-type schools to generate enough games and enough national interest to support the network TV packaages. So even if Texas, Alabama, OSU, Michigan, FSU, Notre Dame, etc., wanted it, they need to keep the likes of Utah, Ole Miss, K-State, Ga Tech, and WVU's of the P-5 world reasonably successful and essentially financially stable. The basic conference system exists for largely that reason (although academic initiatives among conference members are much more important that we fans realize).

Anyway, there may be some existing schools in the P-5 conferences that, over time, are asked to leave (like When Temple was removed from the old Big East for competitive and fan support reasons). But those things are rare. The only time it has really happened on a lRger scale was the implosion of the old Southwest Conference, which occurred because there were about 4 schools (Rice, SMU, Houston, and TCU) that were holding the rest of the conference back. Since "kicking them out" wasn't a viable option, the conference disbanded and then reformed as the Big 12.

So while things could certainly change, I think we are actually in a period of relative stability in terms of schools switching conferences. Notre Dame, BYU, Cincy and possibly Boise are the remaining "wild cards" that could affect that. Otherwise, the most likely scenario is the the current P-5 "haves" will continue to separate themselves from the G-5's, except that the AAC will work diligently to try and posture itself for inhsion in the "top tier". I don't think they will succeed but they are the only other conference positioned to make the financial case, assuming the facts as related in the HD article that started this thread are true. But as I've said before, I hope my prediction proves wrong, because it's damaging college sports IMO.

 

[GringoEd]

What financial impact will a Freshman Ineligible Rule have on the cost of participating in collegiate athletics? Will it add at least 20 more football scholarships to each program?

 

[alphasig1053]

UK is a basketball school in a football conference. They are far from one the financial powerhouses in college sports. I never said that the elite teams are going to break away from the rest of the P5 schools. They will just find ways to keep more of the pie and the wvus of the world will smile and be happy with the scraps. Kind of like they do in the recruiting world of today.

 

[Herdstruck]

Be ready to off yourself in a decade or so.

College sports is running itself into the ground and wvu is standing at the curtain separating first class from coach...hoping for an open seat.

The AAC is a joke. The schools in that conference have ZERO history in terms of major football programs. Boise has more relevance than any of them...and guess what?
Boise isn't going to be invited anywhere anytime soon. They have a horrendously low endowment, their fan support is limited, their stadium is tiny, and overall academics are barely par.
They'd never be invited to the Pac-12 for those reasons. At least Utah had market appeal and Salt Lake City...along with recent BCS wins.

BYU won't go anywhere. They're the little version of Notre Dame.

You'd also better pray the Pac-12 doesn't try to court Texas...the Big 12 currently is at their mercy, and they know it. But the appeal for a 16 team Superconference is also not out of the picture.
In that case, Texas bolts...so does Oklahoma, Okie State and one other Texas school.

ACC picks up Navy (who could easily leave the AAC, they have the money) even sign UConn and/or Army.

SEC takes Kansas State and Baylor.

Big Ten takes Iowa State and Kansas (AAU accreditation and if you think that doesn't matter? Ask Rutgers and Maryland how the hell they got in).

Little wvu is left in the dust with several others in the conference of misfit schools.

The New Division or just 4 Superconferences...whichever one...will obviously pay a million or so for a sacrificial lamb like wvu or ECU to play...even if the conferences remain the same, the mega powers will split off and form their own...and they will market games against one another...which will (according to them) attract more money.
Texas will play Alabama in the regular season...that is going to give them more money than having to play a coat tail riding program like wvu...who hardly has a presence in marketing (Pitt gives wvu the finger and pulls their broadcasting because the ACC is more lucrative in markets) and leaves them buried.

In either case, wvu, Marshall, and others...are on the same trek.

 

[bbneutralfan]

Herdstruck posted "Boise isn't going to be invited anywhere anytime soon. They have a horrendously low endowment, their fan support is limited, their stadium is tiny, and overall academics are barely par." Lets look at that.
Endowment - Boise State University 2014 - $95,665,945.00
Marshall University 2014 - $92,500,000.00 (a difference of $3,165,945.00)
Stadium - Boise's Albertson's Stadium - Seats 36,387
Marshall's Joan C. Edwards Stadium - Seats 38,227 (a difference of 1,840 seats)
Academics - Boise State enrollment - 19,026 and ranked 63rd best in West Region
Marshall enrollment - 9,756 and ranked 46th best in South Region
So Herdstruck how can you make such a critical statement/s about Boise State compared with Marshall? You need to do a little more research. We all want to believe that our university is better and for our size we are. But in terms of endowment, enrollment, and average football attendance which, by the way, Boise averaged 34,366 (2014) compared to Marshall at 24,896 (2014). I dont think you have a very good argument in comparing the two universities.

 

[bklyneer]

Herdstruck, I "kind of" agree with your major premises. Those being a) the AAC is a joke of a conference, b) the B12 is the most vulnerable of all the P5 conferences, c) Boise is never getting an invite into a major conference, d) the B12 is at the mercy of UT

I disagree with some of your smaller points;

1) UT going to the PAC with OU, OSU, and TT - if the PAC was willing to do that it would have already been done. Texas proposed this idea and the PAC countered with only UT and either OU or OSU. They have no interest in taking 2 Texas schools and certainly not 2 Oklahoma schools. It decreases the value of their TV deals.

2) MD and Rutgers got into the B10 because of a) media markets, and b) academic research facilities. It has nothing to do with AAU accreditation. Nebraska is not an AAU member and in fact was in the process of having that accreditation stripped from them as they were being voted on for inclusion into the B10 and did nothing to try and prevent it. Everyone knew it was happening and nobody cared. The research facilities issue is real but the AAU thing is nonsense. Also, in terms of media markets, they (RU and UMD) represent the largest media markets the B10 could add outside of Fla, Texas, and CA.

3) The SEC will not take KState and Baylor. If the SEC is going to take anyone they are taking schools from the ACC such as UNC/NCState and UVA/VT. If the B12 falls apart these 2 schools will be sitting at the kids table with WVU trying to figure out what to do next.

4) BYU might join a conference eventually as a football member only. So maybe the ACC as a half partner with ND or the B12 if they use this as a way to try to sweeten the pot for UT because this would increase the value of the B12 TV deal.

 

[pdbailey]

Originally posted by GringoEd:
What financial impact will a Freshman Ineligible Rule have on the cost of participating in collegiate athletics? Will it add at least 20 more football scholarships to each program?

No, the scholarship limit will stay at 85 or there will be a major lawsuit. The reduction from 100 scholarships to 85 scholarships had the purpose of increasing competition, and a move in the other direction won't be allowed per federal antitrust laws. Hell, a couple of years ago there was talk of reducing scholarship levels to 80 per school, so I just don't see the P5 being allowed to pull a system change that woul damage the competitive level of 50%+ of the schools. I even believe there would be P5 schools that would protest such as move. Keep in mind that schools can only dress around 60-65 players for road games so i don't see a Freshman inelgibility rule leading to the need to increase scholarship limits, and the rules that would be the most damaging to G5 schools would be an increase in the initial counter rule, which is at 25, as an increase there would severely damage the recruiting classes of most G5 schools.

 

[Herdstruck]

You're up first bb...

If you read what I wrote, you'd see I wasn't comparing Boise to Marshall...I was comparing Boise to the only P-5 conference they could join, the Pac-12...and because of what I just stated, they're dead in the water in even trying.

The only thing Boise really had us in was attendance in football...considering Boise is 214,000 people, it SHOULD be higher...and a mere 36,000 is pitiful compared to the rest of the conference.

My argument works when comparing Boise to the Pac-12. When comparing them to Marshall? No. As stated, both are about the same...but Marshall has more flexibility in where it could POSSIBLY go. Boise had the choice for the old Big East and wisely declined it.Geographically it was just awful for them.

Marshall's options are geographically more friendly...and...in a perfect storm of a world...could end up in the ACC (it's HIGHLY unlikely at this point but if Marshall somehow just exploded in everything...it COULD happen) while moving to the AAC first then up another conference to a P-5 one.
Boise simply isn't going to have that ability because the only one they'd be able to join is just too far out of reach for them.

 

[Herdstruck]

bklyneer,

A deal was made to SPECIFICALLY keep the 4 major Big-12 teams in the conference...Texas, OU, OSU, TTX. A&M already peaced out and left.
The mere fact that those 4 were specifically contracted to stay, tells me, they were approached by the Pac-12.
Of course, it's speculation but one could say that there's some merit to that. Why not lock up all of the conference? Baylor wasn't included in that nor was Iowa State or Kansas?


There had also been talks of those 4 going...with, likely, UT wanting to keep their Longhorn network contract and exclusively for themselves...the rest would get the Pac-12 package. I guess this didn't happen.
If we're looking at markets, you'd have some pretty big areas from those schools including the entire goddamn state of Oklahoma...with as loyal a following as they have, it's a tempting offer.

I disagree that the SEC wouldn't take K-State and Baylor. I think they would. This is just debatable by opinion. BU/KSU vs. UVA/VT or UNC/NC State...ANY of those would be good for the SEC.

Oh and wvu is screwed...the ACC wouldn't let them in due to academics and overall reputation of their fanbase...considering VT, BC, Pitt, and Louisville are in there now...and Syracuse...many of their former mates who had to endure wvu's presence...yeah, no way. Plus they'd be short handed politically...that the ACC is heavily rooted politically. The SEC already rejected them for academics already...which is pretty bad when Ole Miss and Mississippi State, also Tennessee say, "you're too dumb to join our conference MORANS!" (Yes, I spelled it like they would).
Good luck losers.

I don't think BYU would join a conference. It's too risky for them because Mormons don't play sports on Sundays...they also don't drink soda and think about aliens or some crap. The Big-12 would have to shift their entire athletic schedule around a single school...I don't think it'd be worth it.
However, they are about the best bet to actually get an invite so it's really tough to say.


AAU actually HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GETTING INTO THE BIG 10. Look it up, the Chancellor of Nebraska even said, "Had we not been in the AAU, we wouldn't have gotten invited to the Big 10."
Yes, Nebraska wasn't in the AAU when invited, but they had been. Their removal was in part due to not having an on-campus medical facility. However, the fact they were in it...gave them the green light.

By the way...ACADEMIC RESEARCH FACILITIES ARE AAU ACCREDITATION!!! AAU is basically ALL the major research universities in America and Canada!
Yes, Rutgers and Maryland are huge TV markets, won't argue with you there, but had they not been AAU, they wouldn't be invited. It's the only real and major way to get into that conference since (minus Nebraska) every single school in the Big 10 is a member of AAU.
That (to me) is why Notre Dame isn't in the Big 10. Oh sure, they could go the Nebraska route and get an exception...but not likely since Notre Dame has never been a part of it. Delany even said, "It's not THE end all be all...but it's a very important factor."

That's why KU and Iowa State would be asked first...both are AAU.

Yes, Nebraska's inclusion was met with criticism by some Big-10 members...but the majority felt otherwise to let them in. I doubt they're going to do that again, for anyone, ever.

 

[GreenDuke]

Just a comment about one point. If un-cheat ever leaves the ACC it will not be without Duke. They are a package and I can confidently tell you that the conversation with the sec has already taken place. Don't see it happening

 

[Herd Fever]

UT, TT, Oklahoma, and OSU will eventually end up in the Pac-12 sooner then later. The only thing that would block this move is the political power Baylor has in the state of Texas. Plus these schools can afford to buy out their grant in rights agreement for the Pac-12

Kansas and Iowa State will eventually end up in the Big XII for the Big10 since they are essentially basketball school

Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, and WVU will be left in a state of flux similar to how Rice, SMU, Houston, and TCU(again) was left in 1993. The Pac-12 schools don't want private religious schools. And Kansas State and WVU has no appeal. The only logical thing that could happen is if the ACC loses a member or 2 (probably VT and/or NC STATE) and WVU and UCONN/CINCY finally end up in the ACC by default. SEC isn't looking to add schools in state they already have a presence, that's why Florida State and Clemson didn't get the call that they deserve.

 

[bklyneer]

Wow... there is a lot there. I will try to go in order.

The deal was made by the Texas and Oklahoma respective BOGs. UT was told that they are not allowed to leave without TT and OU was told they are not allowed to leave without OSU. UT and OU were willing to move to the PAC but the PAC said no to the little brother schools. That is the reason why BU ot TCU were not included in the deal, because they are not governed by the same boards so they dont care about them.

The reason why the PAC didn't want OSU along with OU is because you would have the whole "goddamn" state of Oklahoma by just adding OU. Therefore OSU adds nothing (with regards to $$).

The SEC has repeatedly stated that they are only interested in adding the flagship schools of states that would add to their geographic footprint. This would certainly exclude BU since they already have A&M. It would also make KState less attractive since Kansas is thought to be the power school. This is less clear then the BU thing but I would think that the SEC could do better anyway.

I agree WVU is screwed in any P4 reconfiguration (unless they all go to 16... then they MIGHT make it in) but not for the reason you state. WVU will not get into the SEC but it has nothing to do with academics. WVU is in the same academic grouping as MSU, Miss, and Arkansas. WVU is rated higher than Missouri and they just gained entrance into the SEC. The SEC is not exactly known as a collection of great academic schools. On the other hand, academics would be a concern for the ACC... though they did just invite UofL which is rated about the same as WVU. Honestly, all the academic stuff is BS that University Pres are dishing out to people. The only conference that cares at all about this is the B10 and that is only with regard to research facilities not student SAT scores.

If BYU joins as a football member only they wont have to play on Sunday. This was discussed as they lobbied for inclusion into the B12. They tried to convince ND to join as the other half member but they wanted to go to the ACC instead and the B12 wasn't keen on the half member idea at the time.

Back to the AAU thing... just because all the research universities are AAU accredited doesn't mean that you have to be AAU accredited to be a research university. And if that is really what the Nebraska president said, that doesn't even make sense. They were invited because even though they were not an AAU school then they were at one time in the past and that is good enough? That is ridiculous. Again, I will go back to my earlier point of, besides from the B10 caring about research facilities, none of these decisions are made based on academics as measured by some 18-year-olds SAT scores.

 

[jocktalker]

There is no anti-trust threat if P5 schools want to increase scholarships as long as G5 schools are given the same opportunity and we both know G5 schools couldn't foot the bill. The only potential problem to increase schollys for P5 schools is the subsequent costs associated with Title IX

 

[Herd Fever]

The P5 can't increase the scholarship limit anyway without approval from all schools in the division.

The NCAA still controls scholarship limits and eligibility

 

[pdbailey]

Originally posted by jocktalker:
There is no anti-trust threat if P5 schools want to increase scholarships as long as G5 schools are given the same opportunity and we both know G5 schools couldn't foot the bill. The only potential problem to increase schollys for P5 schools is the subsequent costs associated with Title IX

It would be considered an antitrust violation as the purpose is to decrease competition. The smaller schools would have a case. There also isn't a need to increase scholarship levels anyway, as you get 100 new counters every 4 years, so all you need to do is have an 85% retention rate to stay full, and when you consider that a lot of players would be playing 5-yrs under the proposed rule change, then you will have 125 for 5 years, so you would have 40 cuts to work with over a 5 year period. In other words, there isn't any reason to increase scholarship levels unless the intent is to put the mid-majors out of business.

 

[alphasig1053]

Did the eerdiot just say that WVU's ranked above Missouri in academics?

 

[bklyneer]

Actually you are correct. I misspoke. I was only thinking of the three programs that I work with the most (Behavioral Psych, Communication, and Pharmacy). Overall, Missouri is rated higher at #99 vs. #168.



This post was edited on 2/26 6:53 AM by bklyneer

This post was edited on 2/26 7:07 AM by bklyneer

 

[BT4373]

There is a lot of that (misspoke) going around up at Morgen Town.