American Athletic Conference

[lostshocker]

Here is an actual realignment article. Not breaking news, just opinion, but still interesting.

In summary, the hypothesis is that a major conference break-off at the FBS football level would probably be better for pure basketball conferences than the Group of Five conferences with low-level FBS football. The key is the idea that the larger schools would make paying players a key point (for legal reasons, it would actually create money by selling player likenesses for merchandising and video games), and that the Group of Five conferences wouldn't be able to afford paying 85 football players, 15 basketball players, and the matching payments for women.

Meanwhile, the lower level basketball conferences would only need to match the payments for basketball. Without additional schools, it would be impossible to create a good college basketball tournaments, a huge loss in revenue. Also, consider that each FBS school added would divide the pot and reduce the payout for the Power 5.

Therefore, the article suggests that conferences like the new Big East and MVC would be more likely additions than the MWC or AAC. He also goes on to mention that a ten conference break away could create a clean regional match for each Power 5 conference:

B1G / Big East
ACC / A-10
Big 12 / MVC
Pac 12 / WCC
SEC / CAA (or something else)

The one that doesn't work is the CAA. I think the better addition would be a new conference with teams from a variety of conferences (Memphis, Davidson, Belmont, CofCharleston, and other more basketball centered schools throughout the SE).

Anyway, wanted to bring it to the discussion table. I think the author makes rational points, but I still think that it is more likely that the G5 conferences will tag along than basketball conferences like the MVC.

B1G commish has previously stated the Power 5 would rather stay part of the ncaa. if they break off they have to develop an ncaa-type governing body. i'm thinking the break is just a bluff to get some of the smaller schools to go along with their plans. look at how much money some of those smaller football schools will be losing if they were to break away. and i wouldn't doubt that they got together before their media days and discussed what they were going to say about conference realignment and breaking away.

[60Shock]

My dream is that one of these days/years, I'm going to open this thread and read that we have actually been invited to join a worthwhile conference. And we take it.

[shockmonster]

B1G commish has previously stated the Power 5 would rather stay part of the ncaa. if they break off they have to develop an ncaa-type governing body. i'm thinking the break is just a bluff to get some of the smaller schools to go along with their plans. look at how much money some of those smaller football schools will be losing if they were to break away. and i wouldn't doubt that they got together before their media days and discussed what they were going to say about conference realignment and breaking away.

I think that they most likely want to tweak the situation a little and therefore limit the number of teams who try to come into big time football/basketball. However, if they want to make big changes, they may as well call themselves the Collegiate Minor Leagues (CML) and break away completely.

[im4wsu]

Lots of bucks to make up for 64 or 100 schools if they breakaway. As of 8/31/2011, the NCAA financial sheet shows $569,000,000 in Net Assets and enjoyed a profit of $70,000,000 in the fiscal year. Distributions to Div 1 schools was $503,000,000. They spent another $85,000,000 on Div 1 championships and NIT tournament. $38,000,000 in management and general overhead -- Divide that among 100 schools,that is $380,000 each.

[shockmonster]

I don't think they want to make a complete break and would be content to tweak it. I think that their goal is to make fewer one and done players (and two and done, etc.).

[Shockeriffic]

I don't think they want to make a complete break and would be content to tweak it. I think that their goal is to make fewer one and done players (and two and done, etc.).

There's not much the NCAA can do about that. The NBA created one and done players when they didn't want guys to jump directly from high school. Most players are going to go to the NBA the first chance they get.

[Rlh04d]

There's not much the NCAA can do about that. The NBA created one and done players when they didn't want guys to jump directly from high school. Most players are going to go to the NBA the first chance they get.

Yep. Nothing can be done there other than getting the NBA to amend their own rules. Which would require new labor negotiations, I believe.

[Kung Wu]

There's not much the NCAA can do about that. The NBA created one and done players when they didn't want guys to jump directly from high school. Most players are going to go to the NBA the first chance they get.

Aren't colleges getting kids to go to college that wouldn't have otherwise? Why isn't that a good thing that those kids get to experience college for a year even if they don't graduate?

[pinstripers]

whoooooole lotta reasons

[Kung Wu]

whoooooole lotta reasons

Off the cuff, from the institution's perspective:

1) Pro: They get to brag about another "alum" in the pro ranks
2) Pro: They have an alum that is now in the pro ranks that may donate or make camp appearances
3) Pro: They got access to a player that they never would have gotten otherwise
4) Pro: Their graduation rate takes a hit, but it's for the "right" reason -- because somebody had a very rare and unique professional opportunity without needing a degree
5) Pro: They may have planted a seed that will get that kid to come back to college when their pro career is over -- never would have happened if the didn't attend college that one year
6) Con: I can't think of one other than graduation rate taking a hit -- but that's BS

From the player's perspective:

1) Con: They missed out on a of professional ball experience
2) Con: They missed out on getting paid a big ol' fat paycheck for a year
3) Pro: They are exposed to the college atmosphere, which may entice them to go back to school when their pro career is over
4) Pro: They have a college to identify with which could help with networking and opportunities after their pro career is done
5) Pro: They get one year to mature a bit with peers closer to their age
6) Pro: Gets one year of experience playing in a true "system"

From the NCAA's perspective:

1) Con: Graduation rates take a hit
2) Pro: More highly skilled athletes join the ranks of the league raising the level of amateur play
3) Pro: More highly skilled athletes are being exposed to college than otherwise would be
4) Con: Maybe sets an example that entices other kids to leave early for money (even if to Europe, for example)
5) Pro: More players going through the league that end up playing pro

That's all I could think up off the cuff. Seems like the pros way outweigh the cons, though I am probably missing lots of cons.

[Shockeriffic]

I think the one and done rule is better than kids going straight to the NBA for everyone involved. The NBA gets to scout potential draftees against better competition. The NCAA gets top level players to play for a year and the kids get an extra year to mature. One con is that some kids (like O.J. Mayo) will take money while they're in school and don't care what happens to their alma mater. In that case there were strong suspicions that he was getting paid before he was recruited and USC wasn't following the rules anyway.

[Kung Wu]

One con is that some kids (like O.J. Mayo) will take money while they're in school and don't care what happens to their alma mater. In that case there were strong suspicions that he was getting paid before he was recruited and USC wasn't following the rules anyway.

Ahh, yeah that's definitely a con I didn't think of. The good news about that one is that good programs won't tolerate that and bad programs will eventually get caught. So it's somewhat self-regulating. Also I suppose there are good programs that have rogue boosters that will get their school in trouble without the school being involved in any way shape or form. But that's going to be a risk with or with the one and dones.

[Rlh04d]

I'd say another con is that it furthers the idea that college athletics is all about money rather than any educational benefit. They take in one and done players that only have to go to school for the fall semester, can take the simplest classes possible to maintain eligibility, and then can skip the spring semester and leave. It's pretty clear that the role of colleges in this system isn't even attempting to maintain the facade of education anymore.

Some of your pros are definitely worth considering, and it's too early to see how many one-and-dones ever go back to college ... but I bet the number will be extremely low. I think everyone benefits but the players, and the NCAA system continues to lose all credibility as being about student athletes in the process.

The whole student athlete thing is very tongue in cheek. We know the vast majority don't care about academics and aren't learning anything, but we choose to ignore it because we enjoy the product.

[pogo]

The whole student athlete thing is very tongue in cheek. We know the vast majority don't care about academics and aren't learning anything, but we choose to ignore it because we enjoy the product.

That is a pretty pessimistic point of view and would pertain more to football and basketball at most higher profile schools. I (even though I try to see positives in things) would be really disappointed in our coaching staffs and administrations if this were the case at WSU. I am sure that there have have been perhaps more than a few that may not fit the ideal student/athlete profile but I don't believe it is as prevalent as some higher profile schools.

[Rlh04d]

That is a pretty pessimistic point of view and would pertain more to football and basketball at most higher profile schools. I (even though I try to see positives in things) would be really disappointed in our coaching staffs and administrations if this were the case at WSU. I am sure that there have have been perhaps more than a few that may not fit the ideal student/athlete profile but I don't believe it is as prevalent as some higher profile schools.

The case in point was one and done basketball players.

There's a lot of problems with the student athlete idea in general, but the one and done players take it to a new level. Although in general I think for a lot of high level football and basketball players, college is just like the baseball minor leagues with classes.

Obviously we're not part of that game. We might eventually be, though. Unfortunately, having ethics makes it hard to compete against those who don't.