Notre Dame to Big 10?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

For one thing, that'd save them the trouble of adminstering bowling, volleyball (and hockey) etc. and let them concentrate on football.

Think outside of the NCAA structures:
You assume the Super-Conferences Association for Money (SCAM) would require schools to have 16 sports.

What if they decided to focus solely on revenue sports. What if they only require FB and M/WBB.

 

[JohnN]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

I think all of this super conference forming is about getting a national football tournament where they don't have to share revenue with all 200 or something NCAA schools. They'll maintain the NCAA for everything else, but add a football national title game.

The four big conference champions play in a bowl game as a semi-final and then the two bowl winners play a national championship game a week later. Lots of money for the four mega-conferences and no revenue sharing with Grambling or Seattle Pacific.

That's why there hasn't been an NCAA Football tournament. No one wants to share the money.

 

[unofan]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Do you think ESPN/TNT/CBS gives all that money to the NCAA so they can broadcast Directional School U vs Sisters of the Poor? The power football schools would be happy to sign a contract for a national tournament featuring their schools - and only their schools. The NCAA can run a national tournament for the other 250 Division I schools and be paid accordingly. Again, more money for the powers to divide among a much smaller pool of teams. The TV deal wouldn't be as big, but they'd have to split it with a lot fewer schools.

If the big schools stop padding their records with wins over Directional School U, though, will they remain ratings grabbers?

Right now, a bottom tier BCS school normally still goes 6-6/7-5 in football or 17-14, 18-15 in basketball. Will they still draw 50,000 people if they go 2-10 every year since they now play Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Rutgers instead of Nothern Iowa, Wyoming, and Appalachian State?

 

[CLS]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Think outside of the NCAA structures:
You assume the Super-Conferences Association for Money (SCAM) would require schools to have 16 sports.

What if they decided to focus solely on revenue sports. What if they only require FB and M/WBB.

Changing conferences doesn't make them immune from Title IX. And even as it is, the schools don't have the non-revenue sports because thE NCAA requires them to. So there's no more reason for them to have the non-revenue sports now then there would be after SCAM.

 

[unofan]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Changing conferences doesn't make them immune from Title IX. And even as it is, the schools don't have the non-revenue sports because thE NCAA requires them to. So there's no more reason for them to have the non-revenue sports now then there would be after SCAM.

Actually, you have to have a minimum of 12 or 14 sports to be a part of Division I. I could look it up in a second, but the ncaa website is blocked here at work. (so is www.uscho.com, but not board.uscho.com)

 

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

but the ncaa website is blocked here at work. (so is www.uscho.com, but not board.uscho.com)

Good work!!

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Actually, you have to have a minimum of 12 or 14 sports to be a part of Division I. I could look it up in a second, but the ncaa website is blocked here at work. (so is www.uscho.com, but not board.uscho.com)

14 for Division I with no FB or FCS FB; 16 for Division I with FBS FB.
(Source: 2009-10 NCAA Manual)

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Changing conferences doesn't make them immune from Title IX. And even as it is, the schools don't have the non-revenue sports because thE NCAA requires them to. So there's no more reason for them to have the non-revenue sports now then there would be after SCAM.

There's an angle that I hadn't considered. Then again, some of these schools have pushed in the past for their cheer and dance teams to be considered "sports" under Title IX.

They keep those around to put on the sidelines of FB and BB games.

 

[CLS]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Actually, you have to have a minimum of 12 or 14 sports to be a part of Division I. I could look it up in a second, but the ncaa website is blocked here at work. (so is www.uscho.com, but not board.uscho.com)

OK, thanks wasn't aware of that, but it's understandable. Cutting non-revenue sports would still be a Title IX problem though, and I suspect that cutting all non-revenue sports would be too crass even for SCAM schools. Also, some normally non-revenue sports (e.g. wrestling at Iowa and -- the obligatory D1 hockey reference -- hockey at Michigan, Minny, etc.) actually have some status and may make money at some schools.

If the big schools stop padding their records with wins over Directional School U, though, will they remain ratings grabbers?

Right now, a bottom tier BCS school normally still goes 6-6/7-5 in football or 17-14, 18-15 in basketball. Will they still draw 50,000 people if they go 2-10 every year since they now play Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Rutgers instead of Nothern Iowa, Wyoming, and Appalachian State?

Why couldn't they continue to pad their non-conference schedule with Louisiana-Monroe, Middle Tennessee and Wofford? In fact, that might be another reason to stay in the NCAA.

 

[unofan]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

There's an angle that I hadn't considered. Then again, some of these schools have pushed in the past for their cheer and dance teams to be considered "sports" under Title IX.

They keep those around to put on the sidelines of FB and BB games.

Cheerleading is deemed a sport by most if not all high school athletic associations/boards.

A stupid one, yes, and medically more dangerous than just about any real sport this side of gymnastics (assuming the state allows tumbling/aerial moves and not simply cheering), but a sport nonetheless.

 

[unofan]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Why couldn't they continue to pad their non-conference schedule with Louisiana-Monroe, Middle Tennessee and Wofford? In fact, that might be another reason to stay in the NCAA.

I'm saying if they leave the NCAA.

As to the non-revenue sports, I could see them keeping enough female ones for Title IX purposes, then dropping the rest, with a few exceptions like Iowa wrestling.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

If the big schools stop padding their records with wins over Directional School U, though, will they remain ratings grabbers?

Right now, a bottom tier BCS school normally still goes 6-6/7-5 in football or 17-14, 18-15 in basketball. Will they still draw 50,000 people if they go 2-10 every year since they now play Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Rutgers instead of Nothern Iowa, Wyoming, and Appalachian State?

They might still schedule teams from outside their new structure. Or the conference powers might float them so they have someone to play. I swear the Sun Belt Conference only exists to be a punching bag for the SEC. The Big (?) has the MAC, the Big East has Conference-USA and the new Pac-16 has the WAC/MWC. I would say the ACC has the CAA, but they got their collective asses handed to them

Or they might keep it in the family, and have three or four non-conference games a year against other members of the mega-conferences. There are enough weak sisters in the football world to keep people happy (hello Duke). Just as there are enough weak sisters in hoops (hello SEC).

 

[CHFAN222]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

This talk of leaving the NCAA is silly and is not going to happen. Even if it did they would keep most of the non revenue sports. I mean look at Ohio St they have over 30 varsity sports.

 

[Happy]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

OK, thanks wasn't aware of that, but it's understandable. Cutting non-revenue sports would still be a Title IX problem though, and I suspect that cutting all non-revenue sports would be too crass even for SCAM schools. Also, some normally non-revenue sports (e.g. wrestling at Iowa and -- the obligatory D1 hockey reference -- hockey at Michigan, Minny, etc.) actually have some status and may make money at some schools.


Why couldn't they continue to pad their non-conference schedule with Louisiana-Monroe, Middle Tennessee and Wofford? In fact, that might be another reason to stay in the NCAA.

I don't know about out East, but there is no way the public Big Ten schools would cut most non-revenue sports. they might back off a little, but to think these big state schools don't have a swim team, or play volleyball, etc is stupid.

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

I'm saying if they leave the NCAA.

There's still nothing stopping them, short of the NCAA declaring in its by-laws that its teams may not schedule games against teams from outside the NCAA (or they can even mention the hypothetical Super-NCAA by name).

The Super-NCAA can invent its own by-laws, and define their own scheduling and postseason restrictions. My guess is if they do, they'll curiously be just strict enough to allow the same current level of cupcake feeding that the teams currently engage in.

 

[Patman]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Why not? The lion's share of the NCAA's money comes from the hoops tournament and regular season, and TV networks aren't shelling out all that dough for the small schools. Sure, it's a nice story on opening weekend when Cinderella upsets someone, but if she stays too long at the ball she causes problems...primarily, weaker TV numbers. The football schools could have their own national tournament and the NCAA can have the leftover carcass of ~250 teams that no one really cares about. They might get a smaller pie, but they're splitting it a lot fewer ways.

the NCAA was running tournaments long before this... what you'd probably see is that some of the tournaments get scaled back. If there's a split off they'll still organize under some banner... and its not like this new "super college" organization is going to be all chummy with the olympic sports and what not.

 

[Patman]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

I agree the ACC will do what its best for them, but taking UConn is not best for them. I really wish the ACC would go all out to get Syracuse like they originally wanted. Trust me, suing the good ole boys of the ACC is not to give them any inkling to take on UConn.

I think taking UConn could create a New England college football market much more than it exists today. Its INCREDIBLY clear that both schools (UConn and BC) hate each other and people feed off of that animosity and interest.

Getting the two schools to play each other will do great things for the profile of either of them... but I gather that BC thinks they stand well enough on their own. Likewise, the lawsuit hurts UConn amongst those university administrators who were around for that whole process.

 

[CHFAN222]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Do you think ESPN/TNT/CBS gives all that money to the NCAA so they can broadcast Directional School U vs Sisters of the Poor? The power football schools would be happy to sign a contract for a national tournament featuring their schools - and only their schools. The NCAA can run a national tournament for the other 250 Division I schools and be paid accordingly. Again, more money for the powers to divide among a much smaller pool of teams. The TV deal wouldn't be as big, but they'd have to split it with a lot fewer schools.

I disagree with that. Everybody loves an underdog. I guarantee you that ratings are much higher in the years with more upsets than the years with a lack of them. In years where only the big time schools win than mostly alumni and hardcore college bball fans which watch the games. If you have underdog stories they will draw in a lot more of the casual fans. I mean when George Mason had that amazing run a few years back it definitely helped to boost ratings.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

I disagree with that. Everybody loves an underdog. I guarantee you that ratings are much higher in the years with more upsets than the years with a lack of them. In years where only the big time schools win than mostly alumni and hardcore college bball fans which watch the games. If you have underdog stories they will draw in a lot more of the casual fans. I mean when George Mason had that amazing run a few years back it definitely helped to boost ratings.

Uh...no. The ratings for the 2006 tournament were the lowest for the decade.

Ratings for the Final Four actually went down in 2006 when George Mason was in, down by nearly 6 million viewers from the previous year, when perennial powerhouse North Carolina was in the championship game. In fact, ratings always seem to rise when powerhouse teams are in the final four, and especially if they make it to the championship game.

The Championship Game's highest ratings ever were in 1979 when a Magic Johnson led Michigan State team faced off with Larry Bird's undefeated Indiana State, and the second highest rated game was in 1992, when Duke repeated as national champion. There is the old saying that America loves an underdog, but the television ratings don't seem to support that theory.

 

[Happy]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Uh...no. The ratings for the 2006 tournament were the lowest for the decade.

You can't use facts like that on the internet, he guaranteed it.