NCAA Board Gives More Power to the "Big 5"

[IdaGriz01]

I don't think it's struggling FCS programs that need the payday. Rather, it's struggling athletic departments.

Exactly

Ditto on the “Exactly.”

The “big boys,” even with their new four-team playoff, are not really creating a new revenue stream. Or at least not a big new revenue stream (a few bowls will be “re-configured,” not replaced). But they are, I think, going to produce a more attractive product. And, IMHO, the secondary effect will be that, inevitably, the “rich get richer.” So, one way or another, marginal programs -- G5 and FCS -- will get squeezed financially.

Here’s my thinking:
Many non-B5 team could be hurt as the big conferences focus more on SOS. Certainly, B5 games against FCS opponents are likely to be a thing of the past, across the board. But that will also hold for really bad G5 programs. Sure, scheduling a football game with NMSU is pretty much a guaranteed win, but it would be a kick in the croakies for your SOS.

Still, no matter what they say, the W-L record is going to matter a lot. So the mid-tier (competitive) G5 teams could actually benefit. The big boys will still feel like they can manage a win against them -- especially if it’s a home game for them -- and it won’t hurt their SOS too much. It might actually help, given that even the B5 conferences have some really bad teams.

Plus, as pointed out earlier, the Bowls are not going away. Except for the very top-tier bowls, SOS doesn’t mean diddly-squat. Even the W-L record does not seem to matter that much, as long as the team is “bowl eligible.” It’s all about the draw -- both in the stadium and how attractive the match-up looks for TV.

So “decent” G5 programs will, I think, still schedule FCS games. But then it gets complicated. Unless a G5 team has a large base of fans who will show up, even for a “glorified scrimmage,” poor FCS programs will not be scheduled. I was going to make a stronger point here, but clearly some fan bases only want to see a win -- otherwise, how would ISU manage to land two body-bag (should really be called “money-bag”) games? But, generally, the season-ticket holders are going to bitch if you schedule too many garbage games.

So, overall, I think only the better FCS teams will have the opportunity for these matchups. Which has always been true, to some extent. That’s also why I don’t really think that this change will have that much of an impact on FCS football ... in the (relatively) near term.

However, I do think the overall effect will be to “raise the bar” across the board. While it is not a totally “zero-sum” situation, as the B5 and better G5 conferences/teams suck up more sports dollars, the crumbs available for financially-marginal programs will shrink.

Eventually, the administration/legislatures will get the message: The “name recognition” provided by a D-I football team, unless it is pretty successful, is not worth the cost. Dropping football avoids that expense, and you can’t ignore the huge Title IX impact: Those 65 (or 85) football scholarships no longer have to be balanced by female team(s) that bring in zero revenue.

The “kicker,” of course, is basketball. Vastly less expensive to run that football, it can get your name out there ... at least during “March Madness.” But you cannot participate in March Madness unless you retain your D-I status. So I think that this change will, once it shakes out, force some marginal football programs to either drop to non-scholarship status or be eliminated entirely. Then schools that want to remain at Division I will need to start/elevate another sport (bringing back wrestling would be nice, and relatively cheap).

(I will leave the impact on “drop down” athletes for another thread/post.)

 

[IdaGriz01]

I don't think it's struggling FCS programs that need the payday. Rather, it's struggling athletic departments.

Exactly

Ditto on the “Exactly.”

The “big boys,” even with their new four-team playoff, are not really creating a new revenue stream. Or at least not a big new revenue stream (a few bowls will be “re-configured,” not replaced). But they are, I think, going to produce a more attractive product. And, IMHO, the secondary effect will be that, inevitably, the “rich get richer.” So, one way or another, marginal programs -- G5 and FCS -- will get squeezed financially.

Here’s my thinking:
Many non-B5 team could be hurt as the big conferences focus more on SOS. Certainly, B5 games against FCS opponents are likely to be a thing of the past, across the board. But that will also hold for really bad G5 programs. Sure, scheduling a football game with NMSU is pretty much a guaranteed win, but it would be a kick in the croakies for your SOS.

Still, no matter what they say, the W-L record is going to matter a lot. So the mid-tier (competitive) G5 teams could actually benefit. The big boys will still feel like they can manage a win against a "patsy" -- especially if it’s a home game for them -- and it won’t hurt their SOS too much. It might actually help, given that even the B5 conferences have some really bad teams.

Plus, as pointed out earlier, the Bowls are not going away. Except for the very top-tier bowls, SOS doesn’t mean diddly-squat. Even the W-L record does not seem to matter that much, as long as the team is “bowl eligible.” It’s all about the draw -- both in the stadium and how attractive the match-up looks for TV.

So “decent” G5 programs will, I think, still schedule FCS games. But then it gets complicated. Unless a G5 team has a large base of fans who will show up, even for a “glorified scrimmage,” poor FCS programs will not be scheduled. I was going to make a stronger point here, but clearly some fan bases only want to see a win -- otherwise, how would ISU manage to land two body-bag (should really be called “money-bag”) games? But, generally, the season-ticket holders are going to bitch if you schedule too many garbage games.

So, overall, I think only the better FCS teams will have the opportunity for these matchups. Which has always been true, to some extent. That’s also why I don’t really think that this change will have that much of an impact on FCS football ... in the (relatively) near term.

However, I do think the overall effect will be to “raise the bar” across the board. While it is not a totally “zero-sum” situation, as the B5 and better G5 conferences/teams suck up more sports dollars, the crumbs available for financially-marginal programs will shrink.

Eventually, the administration/legislatures will get the message: The “name recognition” provided by a D-I football team, unless it is pretty successful, is not worth the cost. Dropping football avoids that expense, and you can’t ignore the huge Title IX impact: Those 65 (or 85) football scholarships no longer have to be balanced by female team(s) that bring in zero revenue.

The “kicker,” of course, is basketball. Vastly less expensive to run than football, it can get your name out there ... at least during “March Madness.” But you cannot participate in March Madness unless you retain your D-I status. So I think that this change will, once it shakes out, force some marginal football programs to either drop to non-scholarship status or be eliminated entirely. Then schools that want to remain at Division I will need to start/elevate another sport (bringing back wrestling would be nice, and relatively cheap).

(I will leave the impact on “drop down” athletes for another thread/post.)

 

[George Ferguson]

THE MOUNTAIN WEST DOESN'T WANT MONTANA

 

[PlayerRep]

I don't think it's struggling FCS programs that need the payday. Rather, it's struggling athletic departments.

Exactly

Ditto on the “Exactly.”

The “big boys,” even with their new four-team playoff, are not really creating a new revenue stream. Or at least not a big new revenue stream (a few bowls will be “re-configured,” not replaced). But they are, I think, going to produce a more attractive product. And, IMHO, the secondary effect will be that, inevitably, the “rich get richer.” So, one way or another, marginal programs -- G5 and FCS -- will get squeezed financially.

[I agree with most of what you said, but why do you think FCS will get squeezed financially, other than the impact of possibly fewer FBS money games?]

Here’s my thinking:
Many non-B5 team could be hurt as the big conferences focus more on SOS. Certainly, B5 games against FCS opponents are likely to be a thing of the past, across the board. [This may turn out to be true, but that is not assured.] But that will also hold for really bad G5 programs. Sure, scheduling a football game with NMSU is pretty much a guaranteed win, but it would be a kick in the croakies for your SOS.

[Probably true, but winning will still be more important than SOS, in my view. And SOS is really only going to come into play for the top teams that have a chance at the playoffs. The other B5 schools won't be as concerned with SOS. Also, all teams will have to be able to schedule games when they have open weekends. I'm not sure it's feasible for say even the top 75 teams to just play each other. Schedules aren't easy to put together.]

Still, no matter what they say, the W-L record is going to matter a lot. So the mid-tier (competitive) G5 teams could actually benefit. The big boys will still feel like they can manage a win against them -- especially if it’s a home game for them -- and it won’t hurt their SOS too much. It might actually help, given that even the B5 conferences have some really bad teams.

[Agreed.]

Plus, as pointed out earlier, the Bowls are not going away. Except for the very top-tier bowls, SOS doesn’t mean diddly-squat. Even the W-L record does not seem to matter that much, as long as the team is “bowl eligible.” It’s all about the draw -- both in the stadium and how attractive the match-up looks for TV.

[Agreed.]

So “decent” G5 programs will, I think, still schedule FCS games. [Agreed.] But then it gets complicated. Unless a G5 team has a large base of fans who will show up, even for a “glorified scrimmage,” poor FCS programs will not be scheduled. I was going to make a stronger point here, but clearly some fan bases only want to see a win -- otherwise, how would ISU manage to land two body-bag (should really be called “money-bag”) games? But, generally, the season-ticket holders are going to bitch if you schedule too many garbage games.

[I still think these games will be scheduled, due to the low cost of bringing in a non-top FCS and the difficulty in finding someone to play on certain weekend. And, again, I don't think this level of FBS teams will care about SOS. Yes, some fans will complain, just like they do now.]

So, overall, I think only the better FCS teams will have the opportunity for these matchups. Which has always been true, to some extent. [I still think non-top FCS teams will have opportunity too, and I think they have that opportunity today. It will depend on how many FCS games end up being played, of course.] That’s also why I don’t really think that this change will have that much of an impact on FCS football ... in the (relatively) near term.

However, I do think the overall effect will be to “raise the bar” across the board. While it is not a totally “zero-sum” situation, as the B5 and better G5 conferences/teams suck up more sports dollars, the crumbs available for financially-marginal programs will shrink.

[Generally agree, but the only potential revenue loss I see are fewer FCS games. People will still come to see their FCS team, as they do now. Tv revenue is very small, and I don't see that going away.]

Eventually, the administration/legislatures will get the message: The “name recognition” provided by a D-I football team, unless it is pretty successful, is not worth the cost. Dropping football avoids that expense, and you can’t ignore the huge Title IX impact: Those 65 (or 85) football scholarships no longer have to be balanced by female team(s) that bring in zero revenue.

[Agreed.]

The “kicker,” of course, is basketball. Vastly less expensive to run that football, it can get your name out there ... at least during “March Madness.” But you cannot participate in March Madness unless you retain your D-I status. So I think that this change will, once it shakes out, force some marginal football programs to either drop to non-scholarship status or be eliminated entirely. Then schools that want to remain at Division I will need to start/elevate another sport (bringing back wrestling would be nice, and relatively cheap).

[Interesting point. You may be correct.]

(I will leave the impact on “drop down” athletes for another thread/post.)

Idaho, I am going to try to respond to some of your points (and others') above, and asked some questions. I liked your analysis. Hopefully, the format will be somewhat understandable. I am putting my comments in brackets. Not able to figure out how to make them bold.