08-17-2022, 06:00 PM
Outside Topic College football might leave NCAA
08-17-2022, 07:33 PM
Might help us in the Directors' Cup by removing FB as one of the mandatory sports in the scoring system?
08-17-2022, 08:06 PM
I don’t think football is a mandatory sport. Basketball (m and w), volleyball (w) and baseball I think are the mandatory sports.
BC
BC
I don’t think football is a mandatory sport. Basketball (m and w), volleyball (w) and baseball I think are the mandatory sports.
BC
BC
08-17-2022, 09:12 PM
Here’s the ESPN article…
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ources-say
One quote that made me really sad, but came at absolutely no surprise…
Well, at least we know what the soul of college football is worth.
BC
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ources-say
One quote that made me really sad, but came at absolutely no surprise…
Quote: A source told ESPN that the general feel among the presidents and chancellors on the call was that the college sports leaders have left too much money on the table by not implementing a new playoff before 2026, perhaps as much as a half-billion dollars.
Well, at least we know what the soul of college football is worth.
BC
Here’s the ESPN article…
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ources-say
One quote that made me really sad, but came at absolutely no surprise…
Well, at least we know what the soul of college football is worth.
BC
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ources-say
One quote that made me really sad, but came at absolutely no surprise…
Quote: A source told ESPN that the general feel among the presidents and chancellors on the call was that the college sports leaders have left too much money on the table by not implementing a new playoff before 2026, perhaps as much as a half-billion dollars.
Well, at least we know what the soul of college football is worth.
BC
08-17-2022, 09:35 PM
The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
08-18-2022, 04:09 AM
The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.
The NCAA can't control the post season when it doesn't own or have purview over the events that are essential to the post-season structure. This writing has been on the wall for a long time. The NCAA needed to find a way to wrest control away from the bowl games, but it didn't have the financial clout, imagination, vision, or drive to compete with them. The NCAA needed to offer conferences money to not participate in bowl games and develop its own post season but did not.
It's just pathetic that the NCAA let these bowl shakedown operations (and that's what they are for those who own and profit from them) take away the asset it has with the most potential value, and the sport that was the basis of its founding.
It's a really odd situation because many of the same people making decisions about the NCAA as members who need it for other sports are also the same ones wanting to take the highest level of football away from it.
The NCAA can't control the post season when it doesn't own or have purview over the events that are essential to the post-season structure. This writing has been on the wall for a long time. The NCAA needed to find a way to wrest control away from the bowl games, but it didn't have the financial clout, imagination, vision, or drive to compete with them. The NCAA needed to offer conferences money to not participate in bowl games and develop its own post season but did not.
It's just pathetic that the NCAA let these bowl shakedown operations (and that's what they are for those who own and profit from them) take away the asset it has with the most potential value, and the sport that was the basis of its founding.
It's a really odd situation because many of the same people making decisions about the NCAA as members who need it for other sports are also the same ones wanting to take the highest level of football away from it.
The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.
The NCAA can't control the post season when it doesn't own or have purview over the events that are essential to the post-season structure. This writing has been on the wall for a long time. The NCAA needed to find a way to wrest control away from the bowl games, but it didn't have the financial clout, imagination, vision, or drive to compete with them. The NCAA needed to offer conferences money to not participate in bowl games and develop its own post season but did not.
It's just pathetic that the NCAA let these bowl shakedown operations (and that's what they are for those who own and profit from them) take away the asset it has with the most potential value, and the sport that was the basis of its founding.
It's a really odd situation because many of the same people making decisions about the NCAA as members who need it for other sports are also the same ones wanting to take the highest level of football away from it.
The NCAA can't control the post season when it doesn't own or have purview over the events that are essential to the post-season structure. This writing has been on the wall for a long time. The NCAA needed to find a way to wrest control away from the bowl games, but it didn't have the financial clout, imagination, vision, or drive to compete with them. The NCAA needed to offer conferences money to not participate in bowl games and develop its own post season but did not.
It's just pathetic that the NCAA let these bowl shakedown operations (and that's what they are for those who own and profit from them) take away the asset it has with the most potential value, and the sport that was the basis of its founding.
It's a really odd situation because many of the same people making decisions about the NCAA as members who need it for other sports are also the same ones wanting to take the highest level of football away from it.
08-18-2022, 04:52 AM
(08-17-2022, 09:35 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
Except that isn't really an issue because they don't have the football equivalent of March Madness. While smaller schools might dream about getting some slice of that potential revenue, they clearly don't have the clout to get it.
The NCAA doesn't do much in football other than setting rules, both playing rules and eligibility rules. But rules are set by division, and almost everyone in Division 1A (actually FBS now) is also represented in the CFP.
I do agree that the overall motivation would seem to be to cut out the unworthy from the pot of gold.
Not sure what the Group of 5 presidents are thinking, maybe just trying to hold their tongue and praying they'll get into a better conference.
Another set of motivations are the Power 5 seeing this is a route to cutting out the Group of 5, and the SEC/Big Ten seeing this as a route for cutting out everyone else.
(08-17-2022, 09:35 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
Except that isn't really an issue because they don't have the football equivalent of March Madness. While smaller schools might dream about getting some slice of that potential revenue, they clearly don't have the clout to get it.
The NCAA doesn't do much in football other than setting rules, both playing rules and eligibility rules. But rules are set by division, and almost everyone in Division 1A (actually FBS now) is also represented in the CFP.
I do agree that the overall motivation would seem to be to cut out the unworthy from the pot of gold.
Not sure what the Group of 5 presidents are thinking, maybe just trying to hold their tongue and praying they'll get into a better conference.
Another set of motivations are the Power 5 seeing this is a route to cutting out the Group of 5, and the SEC/Big Ten seeing this as a route for cutting out everyone else.
08-18-2022, 07:12 AM
I have always thought that the Mayan (or maybe Aztec) athletic system was fantastic. Losing captain gets offed. The American sporting television audience would eat it up. Greatest ratings idea ever. But don’t let the bastards at ESPN get involved. Put it on the cooking channel.
I have always thought that the Mayan (or maybe Aztec) athletic system was fantastic. Losing captain gets offed. The American sporting television audience would eat it up. Greatest ratings idea ever. But don’t let the bastards at ESPN get involved. Put it on the cooking channel.
08-18-2022, 07:42 AM
(08-18-2022, 04:09 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.
The NCAA can't control the post season when it doesn't own or have purview over the events that are essential to the post-season structure. This writing has been on the wall for a long time. The NCAA needed to find a way to wrest control away from the bowl games, but it didn't have the financial clout, imagination, vision, or drive to compete with them. The NCAA needed to offer conferences money to not participate in bowl games and develop its own post season but did not.
It's just pathetic that the NCAA let these bowl shakedown operations (and that's what they are for those who own and profit from them) take away the asset it has with the most potential value, and the sport that was the basis of its founding.
It's a really odd situation because many of the same people making decisions about the NCAA as members who need it for other sports are also the same ones wanting to take the highest level of football away from it.
on bowl games
- most appear to be breakeven at best for the teams
- the big draw for many teams seems to be two weeks of extra practice leading up to their bowl game
- if teams were allowed to either go to a bowl and get two weeks of extra practice or just have two weeks of extra practice I wonder how many would opt for the later
of course ESPN "needs" the games as programming in Dec, but maybe if the teams could get their extra practice ESPN would have to pay more for the games so the games could pay the schools more to get them to attend...
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(08-18-2022, 04:09 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.
The NCAA can't control the post season when it doesn't own or have purview over the events that are essential to the post-season structure. This writing has been on the wall for a long time. The NCAA needed to find a way to wrest control away from the bowl games, but it didn't have the financial clout, imagination, vision, or drive to compete with them. The NCAA needed to offer conferences money to not participate in bowl games and develop its own post season but did not.
It's just pathetic that the NCAA let these bowl shakedown operations (and that's what they are for those who own and profit from them) take away the asset it has with the most potential value, and the sport that was the basis of its founding.
It's a really odd situation because many of the same people making decisions about the NCAA as members who need it for other sports are also the same ones wanting to take the highest level of football away from it.
on bowl games
- most appear to be breakeven at best for the teams
- the big draw for many teams seems to be two weeks of extra practice leading up to their bowl game
- if teams were allowed to either go to a bowl and get two weeks of extra practice or just have two weeks of extra practice I wonder how many would opt for the later
of course ESPN "needs" the games as programming in Dec, but maybe if the teams could get their extra practice ESPN would have to pay more for the games so the games could pay the schools more to get them to attend...
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
08-18-2022, 11:03 AM
FBS is almost independent of the NCAA now. College football is run by the conferences, ESPN and Fox with some influence from the College Football Playoff committee.
What would it mean for the FBS to leave the NCAA? The NCAA currently sets and nominally enforces rules for eligibility. The NCAA set and doesn't really enforce the NIL rules. It organizes committees of coaches to tweak the rules of competition. It sanctions bowl games. Conferences can organize themselves to do all of this. I don't think this would be a radical change.
What would it mean for the FBS to leave the NCAA? The NCAA currently sets and nominally enforces rules for eligibility. The NCAA set and doesn't really enforce the NIL rules. It organizes committees of coaches to tweak the rules of competition. It sanctions bowl games. Conferences can organize themselves to do all of this. I don't think this would be a radical change.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
FBS is almost independent of the NCAA now. College football is run by the conferences, ESPN and Fox with some influence from the College Football Playoff committee.
What would it mean for the FBS to leave the NCAA? The NCAA currently sets and nominally enforces rules for eligibility. The NCAA set and doesn't really enforce the NIL rules. It organizes committees of coaches to tweak the rules of competition. It sanctions bowl games. Conferences can organize themselves to do all of this. I don't think this would be a radical change.
What would it mean for the FBS to leave the NCAA? The NCAA currently sets and nominally enforces rules for eligibility. The NCAA set and doesn't really enforce the NIL rules. It organizes committees of coaches to tweak the rules of competition. It sanctions bowl games. Conferences can organize themselves to do all of this. I don't think this would be a radical change.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
08-18-2022, 11:53 AM
Bowl games were never created to benefit college football. They were created to benefit their owners and partners. Nobody was looking out for the interest of college football as an NCAA sport, not even the NCAA, and the NCAA allowed others to have their way with it.
The NCAA could have allowed extra practices for teams that didn't participate in the post season.
The NCAA could have created its own playoff.
I used to love bowl games, until I learned how they work, and the absurd amount of influence they wielded over major college football.
The NCAA could have allowed extra practices for teams that didn't participate in the post season.
The NCAA could have created its own playoff.
I used to love bowl games, until I learned how they work, and the absurd amount of influence they wielded over major college football.
Bowl games were never created to benefit college football. They were created to benefit their owners and partners. Nobody was looking out for the interest of college football as an NCAA sport, not even the NCAA, and the NCAA allowed others to have their way with it.
The NCAA could have allowed extra practices for teams that didn't participate in the post season.
The NCAA could have created its own playoff.
I used to love bowl games, until I learned how they work, and the absurd amount of influence they wielded over major college football.
The NCAA could have allowed extra practices for teams that didn't participate in the post season.
The NCAA could have created its own playoff.
I used to love bowl games, until I learned how they work, and the absurd amount of influence they wielded over major college football.
(08-17-2022, 09:35 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
Excellent. TYVM.
(08-18-2022, 07:12 AM)Phogge Wrote: I have always thought that the Mayan (or maybe Aztec) athletic system was fantastic. Losing captain gets offed. The American sporting television audience would eat it up. Greatest ratings idea ever. But don’t let the bastards at ESPN get involved. Put it on the cooking channel.
A+
(08-17-2022, 09:35 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
Excellent. TYVM.
(08-18-2022, 07:12 AM)Phogge Wrote: I have always thought that the Mayan (or maybe Aztec) athletic system was fantastic. Losing captain gets offed. The American sporting television audience would eat it up. Greatest ratings idea ever. But don’t let the bastards at ESPN get involved. Put it on the cooking channel.
A+
08-18-2022, 08:47 PM
I don’t know that turning college football into a revenue maximizing organization is what’s best for college football, either.
The bowl games were a corrupt system, but college football could have put an end to bowl game expansion if it wanted to. It also doesn’t have to expand the playoffs. It doesn’t have to make the season 17 games long for some unfortunate players.
The fable didn’t end well for the goose who laid the golden eggs either.
BC
The bowl games were a corrupt system, but college football could have put an end to bowl game expansion if it wanted to. It also doesn’t have to expand the playoffs. It doesn’t have to make the season 17 games long for some unfortunate players.
The fable didn’t end well for the goose who laid the golden eggs either.
BC
I don’t know that turning college football into a revenue maximizing organization is what’s best for college football, either.
The bowl games were a corrupt system, but college football could have put an end to bowl game expansion if it wanted to. It also doesn’t have to expand the playoffs. It doesn’t have to make the season 17 games long for some unfortunate players.
The fable didn’t end well for the goose who laid the golden eggs either.
BC
The bowl games were a corrupt system, but college football could have put an end to bowl game expansion if it wanted to. It also doesn’t have to expand the playoffs. It doesn’t have to make the season 17 games long for some unfortunate players.
The fable didn’t end well for the goose who laid the golden eggs either.
BC
08-19-2022, 10:17 AM
(08-18-2022, 07:42 AM)82lsju Wrote: on bowl games
- most appear to be breakeven at best for the teams
- the big draw for many teams seems to be two weeks of extra practice leading up to their bowl game
- if teams were allowed to either go to a bowl and get two weeks of extra practice or just have two weeks of extra practice I wonder how many would opt for the later
While it generally seems appropriate that all teams should have the same amount of practice time, I don't think that's quite the main draw for most teams going to minor bowls.
I think the attraction is:
1. Turning down a bowl game tends to cause howling of rabid fans, that no AD wants to deal with.
(Those howls are despite he fact that after somewhat disappointing seasons, those same fans tend to post on fan web sites that they should turn down any bowl invitation.)
2. ADs get to tell their fans they had a great season, because they went to a bowl game.
3. Coaches get to keep their job by pointing out they took their team to a bowl game.
(08-18-2022, 07:42 AM)82lsju Wrote: on bowl games
- most appear to be breakeven at best for the teams
- the big draw for many teams seems to be two weeks of extra practice leading up to their bowl game
- if teams were allowed to either go to a bowl and get two weeks of extra practice or just have two weeks of extra practice I wonder how many would opt for the later
While it generally seems appropriate that all teams should have the same amount of practice time, I don't think that's quite the main draw for most teams going to minor bowls.
I think the attraction is:
1. Turning down a bowl game tends to cause howling of rabid fans, that no AD wants to deal with.
(Those howls are despite he fact that after somewhat disappointing seasons, those same fans tend to post on fan web sites that they should turn down any bowl invitation.)
2. ADs get to tell their fans they had a great season, because they went to a bowl game.
3. Coaches get to keep their job by pointing out they took their team to a bowl game.
08-19-2022, 11:04 AM
(08-19-2022, 10:17 AM)CTcard Wrote: I think the attraction is:While I think all of the above are true, we currently live in a society where "participation awards" abound. College players came to expect that more than just the conference champion deserved some "respect". It sounded good for a while, but now even the athletes realize that the CheezeIt bowl is not respect. It is another opportunity to get hurt playing a game nobody cares about (or watches) and where victory is meaningless. The majority of the appeal games like the Rose Bowl have revolves around their exclusivity. Ask Kal about that. For quite a while, the illusion of exclusivity applied to the minor bowl games, but now every team (even Kal) has been to one of these bowls and realizes it isn't the real deal.
1. Turning down a bowl game tends to cause howling of rabid fans, that no AD wants to deal with.
(Those howls are despite he fact that after somewhat disappointing seasons, those same fans tend to post on fan web sites that they should turn down any bowl invitation.)
2. ADs get to tell their fans they had a great season, because they went to a bowl game.
3. Coaches get to keep their job by pointing out they took their team to a bowl game.
These games are going away on their own to some extent. I don't see the minor bowls as "players" going forward. The few "major" bowls still have a seat at the table/money trough. I have no idea how easy it may or may not be to exclude them going forward, but for sure it is easier now than it was 30 years ago. Whether that is "better" for college football is arguable. Personally, I preferred the system where only the conference champions played in the affiliated bowls and the public accepted the idea that the national championship was inherently "mythical". Today, it still is equally mythical but we accept the illusion that it isn't.
(08-19-2022, 10:17 AM)CTcard Wrote: I think the attraction is:While I think all of the above are true, we currently live in a society where "participation awards" abound. College players came to expect that more than just the conference champion deserved some "respect". It sounded good for a while, but now even the athletes realize that the CheezeIt bowl is not respect. It is another opportunity to get hurt playing a game nobody cares about (or watches) and where victory is meaningless. The majority of the appeal games like the Rose Bowl have revolves around their exclusivity. Ask Kal about that. For quite a while, the illusion of exclusivity applied to the minor bowl games, but now every team (even Kal) has been to one of these bowls and realizes it isn't the real deal.
1. Turning down a bowl game tends to cause howling of rabid fans, that no AD wants to deal with.
(Those howls are despite he fact that after somewhat disappointing seasons, those same fans tend to post on fan web sites that they should turn down any bowl invitation.)
2. ADs get to tell their fans they had a great season, because they went to a bowl game.
3. Coaches get to keep their job by pointing out they took their team to a bowl game.
These games are going away on their own to some extent. I don't see the minor bowls as "players" going forward. The few "major" bowls still have a seat at the table/money trough. I have no idea how easy it may or may not be to exclude them going forward, but for sure it is easier now than it was 30 years ago. Whether that is "better" for college football is arguable. Personally, I preferred the system where only the conference champions played in the affiliated bowls and the public accepted the idea that the national championship was inherently "mythical". Today, it still is equally mythical but we accept the illusion that it isn't.
08-19-2022, 05:06 PM
(08-18-2022, 04:09 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.Given that, have they ever looked at just having the 2 top-ranked teams play for a national championship after the regular bowl season is done? Just designate the pool of bowl games that the two teams will be selected from (presumably all with late Dec./Jan 1st dates) and make the selection the evening of Jan 1st. The teams in the championship would play the same # of post-season games as now and it would greatly expand the universe of compelling bowl games.
(08-18-2022, 04:09 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.Given that, have they ever looked at just having the 2 top-ranked teams play for a national championship after the regular bowl season is done? Just designate the pool of bowl games that the two teams will be selected from (presumably all with late Dec./Jan 1st dates) and make the selection the evening of Jan 1st. The teams in the championship would play the same # of post-season games as now and it would greatly expand the universe of compelling bowl games.
08-21-2022, 07:36 AM
(08-19-2022, 05:06 PM)OCcardinal Wrote:(08-18-2022, 04:09 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.Given that, have they ever looked at just having the 2 top-ranked teams play for a national championship after the regular bowl season is done? Just designate the pool of bowl games that the two teams will be selected from (presumably all with late Dec./Jan 1st dates) and make the selection the evening of Jan 1st. The teams in the championship would play the same # of post-season games as now and it would greatly expand the universe of compelling bowl games.
The time for considering something like this was decades ago, before the BCS, before the 4 team CFP, but even so, this model enriches bowl games, not the NCAA.
(08-19-2022, 05:06 PM)OCcardinal Wrote:(08-18-2022, 04:09 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The real reason the NCAA has not been able to control "D1A" football playoffs, AKA FBS, is because the powers that be couldn't wean themselves off the bowl game system. They still can't. The latest talk about expanded playoffs still has them being played at bowl venues, not campuses themselves as it should be.Given that, have they ever looked at just having the 2 top-ranked teams play for a national championship after the regular bowl season is done? Just designate the pool of bowl games that the two teams will be selected from (presumably all with late Dec./Jan 1st dates) and make the selection the evening of Jan 1st. The teams in the championship would play the same # of post-season games as now and it would greatly expand the universe of compelling bowl games.
The time for considering something like this was decades ago, before the BCS, before the 4 team CFP, but even so, this model enriches bowl games, not the NCAA.
08-21-2022, 11:08 AM
(08-18-2022, 04:52 AM)CTcard Wrote:(08-17-2022, 09:35 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
Except that isn't really an issue because they don't have the football equivalent of March Madness. While smaller schools might dream about getting some slice of that potential revenue, they clearly don't have the clout to get it.
The NCAA doesn't do much in football other than setting rules, both playing rules and eligibility rules. But rules are set by division, and almost everyone in Division 1A (actually FBS now) is also represented in the CFP.
I do agree that the overall motivation would seem to be to cut out the unworthy from the pot of gold.
Not sure what the Group of 5 presidents are thinking, maybe just trying to hold their tongue and praying they'll get into a better conference.
Another set of motivations are the Power 5 seeing this is a route to cutting out the Group of 5, and the SEC/Big Ten seeing this as a route for cutting out everyone else.
As I understand it, March Madness is the NCAA’s primary reason to exist at this point…..
(08-18-2022, 04:52 AM)CTcard Wrote:(08-17-2022, 09:35 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The sport wouldn't need to leave the NCAA to institute a new playoff system. The NCAA runs football playoffs at three other levels already. The issue has always been that the big football schools don't want to share tournament money with the rest. They don't want a football equivalent of March Madness.
Except that isn't really an issue because they don't have the football equivalent of March Madness. While smaller schools might dream about getting some slice of that potential revenue, they clearly don't have the clout to get it.
The NCAA doesn't do much in football other than setting rules, both playing rules and eligibility rules. But rules are set by division, and almost everyone in Division 1A (actually FBS now) is also represented in the CFP.
I do agree that the overall motivation would seem to be to cut out the unworthy from the pot of gold.
Not sure what the Group of 5 presidents are thinking, maybe just trying to hold their tongue and praying they'll get into a better conference.
Another set of motivations are the Power 5 seeing this is a route to cutting out the Group of 5, and the SEC/Big Ten seeing this as a route for cutting out everyone else.
As I understand it, March Madness is the NCAA’s primary reason to exist at this point…..
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »