Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 9:17 AM

SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 


SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said if the Power Five conferences -- which also include the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12, the Big Ten and the Pac-12 -- don't get the flexibility needed to create their own bylaws, the next step would be to move to "Division IV."..."We want the ability to have autonomy in areas that has a nexus to the well-being of student athletes. I am somewhat optimistic it will pass, but if it doesn't, our league would certainly want to move to a Division IV. My colleagues, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be surprised if they didn't feel the same way."...

University of Florida President Bernie Machen wasn't nearly as confident about staying in Division I.

"We're in a squeeze here," Machen said. "There are now six lawsuits that name our conference in them that specifically have to do with the whole cost of attendance and stuff like that. We would like to make changes, but we can't because the NCAA doesn't allow us to. We're really caught between a rock and a hard play. [sic] We desperately would like some flexibility."

http://espn.go.com/college-foo...rovide-autonomy

Frankly, I wouldn't mind having the P5 move to their own division, if they included these criteria:

*All members must belong to a D-IV conference for football (hello, ND).

*New members must be accepted by a member conference first (the current rule for I-A).

*Member conferences must maintain an average home attendance of at least 50,000 per game annually (current I-A standard is 15,000).

*Only 1 game per year vs. a D-I school (MAC needs some games vs. B1G to survive).

It really is time to stop pretending that UM and EMU are playing at the same level.

These ARE the Good Old Days.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 5/31/2014 9:50 AM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 



OlBadger wrote: SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said if the Power Five conferences -- which also include the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12, the Big Ten and the Pac-12 -- don't get the flexibility needed to create their own bylaws, the next step would be to move to "Division IV."..."We want the ability to have autonomy in areas that has a nexus to the well-being of student athletes. I am somewhat optimistic it will pass, but if it doesn't, our league would certainly want to move to a Division IV. My colleagues, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be surprised if they didn't feel the same way."...

University of Florida President Bernie Machen wasn't nearly as confident about staying in Division I.

"We're in a squeeze here," Machen said. "There are now six lawsuits that name our conference in them that specifically have to do with the whole cost of attendance and stuff like that. We would like to make changes, but we can't because the NCAA doesn't allow us to. We're really caught between a rock and a hard play. [sic] We desperately would like some flexibility."

http://espn.go.com/college-foo...rovide-autonomy

Frankly, I wouldn't mind having the P5 move to their own division, if they included these criteria:

*All members must belong to a D-IV conference for football (hello, ND).

*New members must be accepted by a member conference first (the current rule for I-A).

*Member conferences must maintain an average home attendance of at least 50,000 per game annually (current I-A standard is 15,000).

*Only 1 game per year vs. a D-I school (MAC needs some games vs. B1G to survive).

It really is time to stop pretending that UM and EMU are playing at the same level.

Is only 1 D-1 school possible with every Power 5 school wanting to play at least 7 home games? Just asking. I could agree with 2 in a 4 game non-con schedule as long as they are D1 schools.

Last edited 5/31/2014 9:52 AM by UnknownBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 5/31/2014 12:08 PM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 


I saw a quotation in recent days from OSU's AD saying that it's getting hard to schedule 7 home games w/out a I-AA opponent, so we're likely to see more one-off neutral-site games between P5 members, mostly because that is financially better for both than a home-and-homes series.

These ARE the Good Old Days.

Last edited 5/31/2014 12:10 PM by OlBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 5/31/2014 2:13 PM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 



OlBadger wrote:

I saw a quotation in recent days from OSU's AD saying that it's getting hard to schedule 7 home games w/out a I-AA opponent, so we're likely to see more one-off neutral-site games between P5 members, mostly because that is financially better for both than a home-and-homes series.

If you can get another good team to come in when you are away, how is it financially better? For instance, if Wisconsin scheduled in 2018 Arkansas, at home, and Florida away then turned around in 2019 and played Florida at home, and Arkansas away hows that financially less attractive? I don't see it. All 3 teams get the benefit of home games against worthy opponents with large stadiums and big crowds.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 5/31/2014 3:26 PM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 



UnknownBadger wrote:

If you can get another good team to come in when you are away, how is it financially better? For instance, if Wisconsin scheduled in 2018 Arkansas, at home, and Florida away then turned around in 2019 and played Florida at home, and Arkansas away hows that financially less attractive? I don't see it. All 3 teams get the benefit of home games against worthy opponents with large stadiums and big crowds.


What you're describing not only is a home-and-home series, but two of them in the same years. This is not going to happen except in the rarest of circumstances, certainly not at UW. With 9 conference games and a virtual ban on scheduling I-AA opponents, getting games with 1 P5 and 2 other opponents is difficult enough:

"Big Ten teams will have five conference road games every other year, so to get the seven home games most need to meet budgets, all three nonleague games must be at home. 'The issue with nine is inventory,' Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said. 'You're trying to schedule all [FBS] schools. The inventory becomes questionable. People don't want to go home-and-home. You try to stay at seven games at home, it's very difficult to do that in the year that you have four Big Ten games at home. So there are some issues.' One of them is cost. 'As the supply shrinks,' Hollis said, 'those that are in the window of who you want to play have the ability to ask for more.'"

A lot more. Guarantees now run north of $1 million for games against teams that many fans really don't want to see, and more for better opponents. This is less of a problem at some places: "'We’ll net north of about $7 million off of each [home football] game,' Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com. 'That's why we can afford to pay that guarantee. If you're over 100,000 seats -- you look at Michigan, us, Penn State, Tennessee -- you have to look at their average ticket price, which is typically north of $75. Then, you're probably looking at $5-7 million that those stadiums are netting individually.'"

But Wisconsin doesn't have 100,000+ seats, and it nets more like $2.7 - 3.0 million per game, rather than $5 - 7 million . A $1 - 1.5 million payout for two or three good opponents  is much harder to sustain each year. Instead, for a neutral-site game it can get nearly what it does for a home game this year, without having to play a corresponding away game in a future year, giving up a home slot. So, from a financial point of view, neutral-site games have become a substitute for home games.

Thus, "Some schools are exploring neutral-site games, which are lucrative and have gained greater popularity in recent years. Penn State AD Dave Joyner, who will watch the Nittany Lions open the 2014 season in Ireland, said, 'It's almost like having a home game.' But Big Ten ADs also have been resistant to move games -- and the money they generate -- away from local markets. 'I don't know about the neutral-site thing,' Minnesota AD Norwood Teague said. 'We just built a stadium on campus, a beautiful new 50,000-seat facility. That was built for a purpose, and $150 million of that stadium was paid for by taxpayer dollars.'

"Hollis also has stiff-armed the neutral-site trend, but he acknowledged last week that MSU and longtime rival Notre Dame are discussing a neutral-site contest, possibly in Chicago."

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten
These ARE the Good Old Days.

Last edited 5/31/2014 3:28 PM by OlBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 5/31/2014 3:37 PM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 



OlBadger wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote:

If you can get another good team to come in when you are away, how is it financially better? For instance, if Wisconsin scheduled in 2018 Arkansas, at home, and Florida away then turned around in 2019 and played Florida at home, and Arkansas away hows that financially less attractive? I don't see it. All 3 teams get the benefit of home games against worthy opponents with large stadiums and big crowds.


What you're describing not only is a home-and-home series, but two of them in the same years. This is not going to happen except in the rarest of circumstances, certainly not at UW. With 9 conference games and a virtual ban on scheduling I-AA opponents, getting games with 1 P5 and 2 other opponents is difficult enough:

"Big Ten teams will have five conference road games every other year, so to get the seven home games most need to meet budgets, all three nonleague games must be at home. 'The issue with nine is inventory,' Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said. 'You're trying to schedule all [FBS] schools. The inventory becomes questionable. People don't want to go home-and-home. You try to stay at seven games at home, it's very difficult to do that in the year that you have four Big Ten games at home. So there are some issues.' One of them is cost. 'As the supply shrinks,' Hollis said, 'those that are in the window of who you want to play have the ability to ask for more.'"

A lot more. Guarantees now run north of $1 million for games against teams that many fans really don't want to see, and more for better opponents. This is less of a problem at some places: "'We’ll net north of about $7 million off of each [home football] game,' Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com. 'That's why we can afford to pay that guarantee. If you're over 100,000 seats -- you look at Michigan, us, Penn State, Tennessee -- you have to look at their average ticket price, which is typically north of $75. Then, you're probably looking at $5-7 million that those stadiums are netting individually.'"

But Wisconsin doesn't have 100,000+ seats, and it nets more like $2.7 - 3.0 million per game, rather than $5 - 7 million . A $1 - 1.5 million payout for two or three good opponents  is much harder to sustain each year. Instead, for a neutral-site game it can get nearly what it does for a home game this year, without having to play a corresponding away game in a future year, giving up a home slot. So, from a financial point of view, neutral-site games have become a substitute for home games.

Thus, "Some schools are exploring neutral-site games, which are lucrative and have gained greater popularity in recent years. Penn State AD Dave Joyner, who will watch the Nittany Lions open the 2014 season in Ireland, said, 'It's almost like having a home game.' But Big Ten ADs also have been resistant to move games -- and the money they generate -- away from local markets. 'I don't know about the neutral-site thing,' Minnesota AD Norwood Teague said. 'We just built a stadium on campus, a beautiful new 50,000-seat facility. That was built for a purpose, and $150 million of that stadium was paid for by taxpayer dollars.'

"Hollis also has stiff-armed the neutral-site trend, but he acknowledged last week that MSU and longtime rival Notre Dame are discussing a neutral-site contest, possibly in Chicago."

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten
This is the point I made months ago, OB, neutral sites are big time financial losses to the local community, a major contributor to the well-being of the University, and shouldn't be just shrugged off lightly. I just don't see why we'd go out of our way to prop up somebody else's community.

Last edited 5/31/2014 3:49 PM by UnknownBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 5/31/2014 9:45 PM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 



UnknownBadger wrote:
 
This is the point I made months ago, OB, neutral sites are big time financial losses to the local community, a major contributor to the well-being of the University, and shouldn't be just shrugged off lightly. I just don't see why we'd go out of our way to prop up somebody else's community.



I don't disagree, but you can't have it both ways. If you want as many home games as possible, then you can't complain about the quality of non-conference opponents. After all, every major program is trying to schedule 7 home games, and there are only so many other teams to go around. Hence, the use of the term "inventory" repeatedly in the article I lined. If you want to play the best possible non-conference schedule, you're going to have a tough time scheduling two or three of them at home every year.

Personally, I think college football belongs on college campuses. But I don't have to negotiate schedules or meet payroll, so it's easy for me to say. I can appreciate the problems facing the ADs, too.
These ARE the Good Old Days.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/1/2014 12:09 AM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 


the whole "inventory" thing is hilarious.

half of 12 is 6, so unless something disrupts the balance, then schools should on average play 6 homes games per yr.

to disrupt that balance, schools must sched lesser opponents who will make more on an away game to a major school, than for a home game, thus are willing to play at a big school without getting a return trip back.

to get to 7 home games,

if a B10 school has 5 conf home games in a said yr, then 2 of 3 non con games must be against a school that won't require a return visit to their place. 

so 2 of 3 non con games would need to be against smaller schools to make the math work in yrs where the schools has 5 B10 home games.


in yrs where the B10 school has only 4 conf home games, then either all three non con games would need to be against a smaller school, or two would need to be against a smaller school, with the "home" side of the "home and home" series with a larger non con school, falling on the yrs with 4 conf home games.

thus to get to 7 home games every yr, with a 9 game conf ached, the absolute max number of other major schools one can play in non conf, is one. (unless one could get another major to come to their place, and not get a return visit).

nothing subjective here, that's the math.

with a 9 game conf sched, if you want 7 home games every yr, then you can't play more than one major school per yr in ANY non conf season.

if you had an 8 game conf sched, like we have had, then you could play 2 other major schools every yr during non con season, and still play 7 home games every yr.

but then an 8 game conf sched won't work in a 14 school conference, if you want it to still have any semblance what so ever of still being the B10 we knew, rather than essentially 2 separate conferences. neither of which would look like the B10 any more.

hard to believe Delany and the 12 sheep have totally f'ed up such a once great conference to such a degree, and in the end will have little to nothing to show for it, other than a totally screwed up once great conference

as it is for now and the future, Wisc can only sched 1 major school as a non con opponent in any season, (and have 7 home games every yr), and on top of that, UW will only see PSU, OSU, Mich, and MSU,  half as often as they used to. (less than once every 4 yrs each on average, in Madison).


AND FOR WHAT??????

from a financial pov, they'll be lucky to ever even reach break even from expansion. (and no way to ever prove they ever did).

from a competitive pov, no way to ever reach break even there either.

a nice "lose - lose" scenario, for the legacy B10 schools.

nice job guys.  your legacy will be as the administrators that somehow screwed up something even an idiot should be able to administer without screwing up, and you will have absolutely nothing positive you can objectively point to, to ever show for doing so.




and btw, as for neutral site games,

neutral site games are an away game for both schools.  not a home game for both schools.

Last edited 6/1/2014 3:43 PM by rocknhoops

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 9:04 AM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 


Arkansas and Texas A&M are guaranteed $5 million apiece annually for their game at the JerryDome.  It's the communities that get hurt by less home games more than it is the schools.  When those hotels and restaurants fill up it brings huge sums of money into the local economy.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 5:37 PM

Re: SEC: Give us autonomy or give us D-IV 


It's impossible for me to feel sorry for Madison losing a game to a neutral site. Think of how much revenue they get for being the state capitol.
Reply | Quote