Saturday: A New World Order

3 hours ago, Texas fan in Georgia said:

Imagine how yormark is feeling 😂

Agony?

1 hour ago, cmk4pres said:

They already don't really attend class. A lot players do online classes. 
 

Sankey is so far ahead of the NCAA it's crazy. 

It’s still class, eventually that won’t be required anymore than an office worker in the administration building. 

3 hours ago, Texas fan in Georgia said:

Imagine how yormark is feeling 😂

If he was doing his job and wanted to be a leader, he would be thinking about the same thing for basketball.

As Ray said, a lot of very smart people making some great points on this topic. I have no idea what is going to happen and I don’t have really any new points to add. But what I would like to see is:

1. some control over NIL…full transparency, multiple year contracts where there are penalties for student if he changes schools

2. I would prefer the 48 team model

3. preserve the regional rivals (UT vs A&M, UT vs OK)

4. Real rules and the power to enforce them (Harbaugh’s cheating at Mich for example) 

Those are some thought off the top of my head. Far smarter people than me have already made many good suggestions and I am sure this debate, which has been needed for years, is just getting started.

I've geeked out on this topic before. 64 teams allows for more regionality but you're splitting the pot more of course. I like 64 b/c you'll get classic rivalry games that I love between some teams that would be left out of 48. That said I'm fine with 48 as long as it happens. If they want to expand beyond 48 in the future it's always a possibility. Harder to shrink than grow. 

I would like to see one commissioner over the new league and equal revenue sharing from a jointly negotiated TV deal with the networks. No more looking over the fence at the neighbor's new stuff. I'd also like to see a scheduling agreement that eliminates or limits games against non-league opponents. 

If done correctly it could be incredibly exciting.

19 minutes ago, Robert Gilbert said:

As Ray said, a lot of very smart people making some great points on this topic. I have no idea what is going to happen and I don’t have really any new points to add. But what I would like to see is:

1. some control over NIL…full transparency, multiple year contracts where there are penalties for student if he changes schools

2. I would prefer the 48 team model

3. preserve the regional rivals (UT vs A&M, UT vs OK)

4. Real rules and the power to enforce them (Harbaugh’s cheating at Mich for example) 

Those are some thought off the top of my head. Far smarter people than me have already made many good suggestions and I am sure this debate, which has been needed for years, is just getting started.

1. I agree, but there should never be a cap.

2. I like a bigger field. 64 at the least.

3. It wouldn't be college sports without rivalries.

4. 100%

5. Do not use the NFL as a model! They suck.

1 hour ago, dentonhorn said:

It’s still class, eventually that won’t be required anymore than an office worker in the administration building. 

Ahh, so the players are essentially just employees. Clearly, many (I suspect even “most”) will want the education piece, and even with the acknowledgment this is a massive business and the NCAA is likely left out, the university presidents will fight this concept. But it’s a legitimate idea to argue, and one more puzzle piece to solve.

Above, John Moore talked about the 64 vs 48 decision.

Two things:

1. I believe it’s going to be about money. What’s the number that extracts the most amount of money for teams. Do those teams get compensated equally, or are their tiers - first 16, second 16, third 16 and fourth 16? Or first 32 and second 32?

2. He also said it would be harder to shrink than grow. I agree with that ideology completely.

So what is the sweet spot - as it relates to the amount of teams - for money?

2 minutes ago, Bobby Burton said:

Above, John Moore talked about the 64 vs 48 decision.

Two things:

1. I believe it’s going to be about money. What’s the number that extracts the most amount of money for teams. Do those teams get compensated equally, or are their tiers - first 16, second 16, third 16 and fourth 16? Or first 32 and second 32?

2. He also said it would be harder to shrink than grow. I agree with that ideology completely.

So what is the sweet spot - as it relates to the amount of teams - for money?

Wow, tiers within a conference! That would be crazy to navigate.

What about a form of “eat what you kill?”

Your share of the payout is determined by your TV ratings, bowl share, playoff appearances, etc. Yes, this means traditional powers like Ohio State, Georgia, Alabama, Michigan, Texas, etc. probably make more than the “others,” but if the others rise (it can be done, look at Colorado), their share increases. 

This would seem merit-based.

Just food for thought, I’m sure there are many pitfalls ahead with such a concept.

1 hour ago, Bobby Burton said:

Above, John Moore talked about the 64 vs 48 decision.

Two things:

1. I believe it’s going to be about money. What’s the number that extracts the most amount of money for teams. Do those teams get compensated equally, or are their tiers - first 16, second 16, third 16 and fourth 16? Or first 32 and second 32?

2. He also said it would be harder to shrink than grow. I agree with that ideology completely.

So what is the sweet spot - as it relates to the amount of teams - for money?

64 does give the league, which I'll call Prestige Worldwide, a greater opportunity to make Basketball, Baseball and Olympic Sports part of the equation and potential revenue generators. A larger number, 64 in this case, would potentially allow a for complete breakaway across most, if not all, Athletic Department sports. 

Would the schools that are in the 48 accommodate some lesser football schools and less TV revenue from football to bring in 16 more schools that would open up TV revenue in other areas that wouldn't exist at 48? I don't think so personally based on historical decision-making but it would be my preference. 

3 hours ago, Baron said:

1. I agree, but there should never be a cap.

2. I like a bigger field. 64 at the least.

3. It wouldn't be college sports without rivalries.

4. 100%

5. Do not use the NFL as a model! They suck.

1. I agree, no cap for any player. Let them earn what they can. 
2. Two thoughts. Are there 64 teams that are good enough to be apart of a new ‘super conference’? For example should teams like Rutgers or  
     Boston College be apart of this? The more teams the less money to be distributed per team. 
3. Exactly

4. Real punishments for real infractions. 
5. Something unique needs to be created that will keep the traditions, pageantry, and excitement of college football. 

1 hour ago, Robert Gilbert said:

1. I agree, no cap for any player. Let them earn what they can. 
2. Two thoughts. Are there 64 teams that are good enough to be apart of a new ‘super conference’? For example should teams like Rutgers or  
     Boston College be apart of this? The more teams the less money to be distributed per team. 
3. Exactly

4. Real punishments for real infractions. 
5. Something unique needs to be created that will keep the traditions, pageantry, and excitement of college football. 

I would think that #5 folds right into #2. As I said before, the panorama of college football needs to stay. UT vs. Colorado St. or UT vs Rutgers needs to be a viable future.

8 hours ago, Glass Joe said:

The TV partners will want all TV markets to have some competitive balance, ...

I assure you the networks only look at demographic profiles and audience numbers.  The networks care nothing about competitive balance between any particular teams as long as the audience numbers are sufficiently high.

7 hours ago, Robert Gilbert said:

As Ray said, a lot of very smart people making some great points on this topic. I have no idea what is going to happen and I don’t have really any new points to add. But what I would like to see is:

1. some control over NIL…full transparency, multiple year contracts where there are penalties for student if he changes schools

2. I would prefer the 48 team model

3. preserve the regional rivals (UT vs A&M, UT vs OK)

4. Real rules and the power to enforce them (Harbaugh’s cheating at Mich for example) 

Those are some thought off the top of my head. Far smarter people than me have already made many good suggestions and I am sure this debate, which has been needed for years, is just getting started.

1. I believe is DOA. It’s  illegal to tie NIL to a school. Buyer beware 

2. 48 is enough. Might be too much

3. no comment

4. real enforcement is needed, but it’s the schools that have helped push the NCAA to its current state. There is a great YouTube series on the Ole Miss sanctions and how they got the punishment lowered (spoiler alert: They threatened to turn on the SEC West). 

5. Portal needs to be fixed. Unlimited transfers is insane. Schools are making a commitment also. I think signing with a school should come with a 2 year commitment. 

I personally think you go to 40 teams. 20 in each conference.

Heather Dinich made a good point this morning about the SEC and B1G commissioners meeting. She said it that the commissioners don't really have the appetite to move away from the NCAA on a lot of key issues because of the amount of litigation currently facing the NCAA. They like the fact that there is that buffer, and even if the SEC and B1G broke away to start a new football only division, the litigation would follow.