Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

It's summer, so it's time to discuss CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT some more. Only this time I would like to keep this thread centered on the idea of Division 4 and what that could mean to us. The attached from a local Jacksonville sportswriter got this going for me:

http://jacksonville.com/sports/columnists/gene-frenette/2014-06-03/story/gene-frenette-slive-sec-can-make-life-tough-ncaa

Key excerpt:

It’s not that the SEC wants to totally separate itself from the NCAA, it just wants to control the business of football. Ultimately, that’s going to happen in ways bigger than just the four-team playoff that kicks off next season.

I believe Slive’s salvo at the SEC spring meetings is a precursor to this eventual bombshell: four 16-team super conferences, with the championship game of each league being a de facto national quarterfinal. In effect, it’s an 8-team playoff that could begin once the next Big Ten television contract starts in 2017-18.

Anyone who thinks conference realignment has settled down is naïve about where the money train is headed. The SEC, Big Ten and Pac-12 represents a three-headed monster, and it’s a question of whether the Big 12 or ACC gets cherry-picked more to become that fourth wheel.

We’ve already seen the eyes of the Big Three flirting in varying degrees with Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. So how long before the SEC or Big Ten start courting a North Carolina/Duke combo or maybe the Miami television market to fill a 16-team dance card?

No matter what ACC commissioner John Swofford thinks, his league isn’t entirely safe from this game of musical chairs. The ACC has only four schools with the resources to be consistently competitive in football (FSU, Miami, Clemson and Virginia Tech), and none of them have much cache in basketball.

Rest assured, a lot of athletic directors in the ACC and Big 12 are nervous about being left behind in the next round of conference shakeups.

At some point, the Big Ten, SEC or Pac-12 is going to expand again, and it’s pretty obvious which schools make the most attractive targets. That’s why Slive is making his pitch now for autonomy from the have-not leagues.

As shared on XAVIERHOOPS:

IMHO, all of this, the entirety of it (4 x 16) is simply too logical and too elegant a solution to pass up. I'm using "elegant" here in the sense of the symmetry it provides: 4 by 16 with each 16 providing 2 divisions of 8. He's absolutely right to state what is obvious: it offers up a de facto 8 team play-off, with the championship of each league being a de facto national quarterfinal. This has nothing to do with dominance by one conference at this point (SEC), especially if all 4 go to 16 to balance out some of the strength across the board.

So, if I'm in the ACC or Big XII, IT AIN'T OVER YET.

If I'm a Univ. of Cincinnati Board of Trustee Member, what on God's green earth allowed me to get talked into signing off on a stadium renovation for Nippert?

UCONN? Damn.

And it is about football.

I believe Xavier basketball and the Big East will be fine long-term in all this.

AND, all this, IMHO, is exactly why the Presidents held off on expansion. Remember that Val Ackerman has a close relationship with Jim Delaney. The Presidents have their own relationships with other Presidents. I suspect chatter over a cocktail here and there between different players has put us - the Big East - in a firm holding position with respect to expansion. Why not, assuming you assume/see the following:

Long-term agreement with Fox covers the period in which further movement towards a Division 4 or Division 4-like result will occur.
Fox will continue to build its product.
The Big East BRAND plays big in all this; it has the cache to attract certain key additions based on them being excluded from the D4 Fraternity. The Big East, especially doing things like what it did with the B1G challenge, is here to stay and stay well.
Along with the brand comes the MSG agreement.
I flat out believe that the Big East will begin to more consistently get at least 4 teams to the NCAA Tournament year in and year out and through much better footing (i.e. not last minute, barely-in scenarios).
i see DePaul eventually becoming a force in this conference when that new facility comes online. They'll eventually come back online through good hires.

Overall, the Big East has the luxury of position, money and time to watch what transpires from here. You can begin to see why the Gonzaga AD wanted in.

I don't buy the idea of 4X16 anytime in the next decade. The two most vulnerable leagues among the Power 5 for being raided are the ACC and the Big 12, but they are absolutely, positively locked down with a grant of media rights that goes for the next ten or twelve years. So, if the Big Ten added UNC and Kansas, none of those teams' home games could appear on the BTN or fall under the Big Ten's ESPN or Fox packages until the mid to late 2020's. They would be all but worthless to the Big Ten. Likewise, UNC and Kansas would no longer receive media money for their home games because those rights have been granted to their current conferences. They would lose hundreds of millions by moving to anogher league and have no abiligy to gain it back. It is very different from an exit fee, where Maryland can recoup losses by making more money in the Big Ten. Schools that leave a league with a GOR have no ability to do that.

All bets are off after those GOR's expire in a decade or more. Until then, I think it's silly trying to forecast what conferences could do that long from now. There are just too many variables.

As for Division 4, I'm not as 100% certain it wont happen, but i have serious doubts. The Power Five would face so much public scrutiny and potentially Congressional hearings for anti-competitive behavior if they did so. They would clearly be putting their tax exemot status on the line. I think D4 is just saber rattling, but largely an empty threat.

The GOR is more vulnerable than you think.

XU Dash, here are my thoughts on the 4x16 for what they're worth.

1. Agree that the Big East is in a strong position.

2. I see the ACC as being in a strong position because they will eventually be home to Notre Dame football - especially if 4x16 becomes inevitable. Add them to Miami, FSU, VPI, Louisville, etc and this is a strong football conference most of the time.

3. The 4x16 looks good on paper, but what Slive is avoiding is that none of these schools can be forced into a neatly contrived 4 superconferences. See Texas.

4. Too many members of the big 3 are not that good and are not deserving, leaving more competitive programs on the outside.

5. A fixed group of 4 superconferences is too rigid a format, leaving no room for outsiders to get in and insiders to be left out. Historically programs rise and fall. Before 1980, Miami was nothing, but they them won 5 titles in the next 20 years to become what they are today. USC was up, then down, then up. Into the 1960s, Minnesota was one of premier programs in the country. 5 titles? Not much since. Army, Navy, Ivies, etc.

5. Football people like Slive are idiots.

Bill Marsh wrote:The GOR is more vulnerable than you think.

thoroughly explained here:

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footba ... hts-010313

grant of rights will have no impact on expansion. Big East is not going to be impacted by this unless by some odd chance the ACC becomes a loser in the whole process. I don't believe consolidation is done and the B1G is the reason why I don't believe it's done. The B1G seems pretty clear in their vision - expand into major markets within a reasonable geographic footprint with schools of like qualities.

Bill Marsh wrote:The GOR is more vulnerable than you think.

Exactly.

I commend Swofford for how he's navigated all this for the benefit of his league. The GOR approach was necessary and creative, given the ACC's circumstances at the time.

Not that Frenette knows everything that is going to happen or that his article is the hard and true roadmap for what is going to happen, but it does make sense, and it is a fact that the B1G, SEC and PACxx are driving the bus. I refer back to this excerpt:

I believe Slive’s salvo at the SEC spring meetings is a precursor to this eventual bombshell: four 16-team super conferences, with the championship game of each league being a de facto national quarterfinal. In effect, it’s an 8-team playoff that could begin once the next Big Ten television contract starts in 2017-18.

Anyone who thinks conference realignment has settled down is naïve about where the money train is headed. The SEC, Big Ten and Pac-12 represents a three-headed monster, and it’s a question of whether the Big 12 or ACC gets cherry-picked more to become that fourth wheel.

It isn't about the ACC's GOR, it's more about what the big three conferences do with their TV agreements and what can ultimately be accomplished financially (i.e. with a TV money grab) by going to the 4 x 16 format. GOR's can be negotiated "in" and negotiated "out" and otherwise "transferred over." The 3 power conferences need 8 teams to round themselves out to 16 team conferences. Assuming both the ACC and Big lose 4 teams each to the Big 3, and assuming ND bites the bullet - is essentially forced to bite the bullet - and joins the B1G, the remaining schools of the ACC and Big12 would form the 4th conference.

At the end of the day, there will most likely be more money in this for the existing ACC and Big12 schools, more than what they enjoy now. I don't deny that all this will cause extraordinary upheaval and angst. Brands destroyed. Traditions shattered. All in the name of money and marketing. But it's coming.

BTW, if you're keeping track of the math, a school gets left behind under this scenario (i.e. ND joining the B1G versus being allowed to remain independent (which seems virtually impossible under a 4 x 16 format)). On that note, let us prepare to welcome Boston College to the Big East! Consider that tongue in cheek until all this stuff moves down the road a little farther.

Bill Marsh wrote:XU Dash, here are my thoughts on the 4x16 for what they're worth.

1. Agree that the Big East is in a strong position.

2. I see the ACC as being in a strong position because they will eventually be home to Notre Dame football - especially if 4x16 becomes inevitable. Add them to Miami, FSU, VPI, Louisville, etc and this is a strong football conference most of the time.

3. The 4x16 looks good on paper, but what Slive is avoiding is that none of these schools can be forced into a neatly contrived 4 superconferences. See Texas.

4. Too many members of the big 3 are not that good and are not deserving, leaving more competitive programs on the outside.

5. A fixed group of 4 superconferences is too rigid a format, leaving no room for outsiders to get in and insiders to be left out. Historically programs rise and fall. Before 1980, Miami was nothing, but they them won 5 titles in the next 20 years to become what they are today. USC was up, then down, then up. Into the 1960s, Minnesota was one of premier programs in the country. 5 titles? Not much since. Army, Navy, Ivies, etc.

5. Football people like Slive are idiots.

Bill,

We agree on #1.

Re #2, I agree that the ACC strengthens its position as the surviving 4th conference should ND opt to join the ACC for all sports. I simply don't believe that is a lock. ND was going to join the B1G before its alumni base threw a massive tantrum. I believe ND will join the B1G should it be forced to join a conference, as it has much more in common geographically and in traditional match-ups with the B1G than with the ACC (save for its longstanding duals with PITT).

Re #3, I couldn't agree with you more, but I don't think any of them give a sh!t about geography.

Re #4, I couldn't agree with you more again, but this is more about the "lucky sperm pool" - are you already in the club or not - than which programs are more deserving presently, or whenever "presently" matters.

Re #5, this is being pursued for the Big3. You are fairly taking the position that the deserving should have a shot. I read your comment and thought about Boise State all those years, as just one example. These guys don't care about that notion. They know they have enough cream at the top of each of the four conferences to stimulate massive television ratings. They know that each week in the regular season poses a threat to the favored teams attempting to navigate their way to their division titles and then their conference titles in order to make the promised land of the four.

Re #5(.2), people like us think people like Slive are idiots. People like Slive's bosses and fans from schools like Ohio State, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Texas, UCLA, etc., etc. probably don't mind him all that much.

I go back to what concerns me most: the continued safety of the NCAA Basketball Tournament as it exists and our - Big East - ability to compete in it at the highest level. I've always thought these guys were solving for football and I'm now more confident than ever of believing that. Moreover, in my opinion only, this makes it very clear to me why the Presidents are sitting tight at 10 for now.

Xudash wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:The GOR is more vulnerable than you think.

Exactly.

I commend Swofford for how he's navigated all this for the benefit of his

It isn't about the ACC's GOR, it's more about what the big three conferences do with their TV agreements and what can ultimately be accomplished financially (i.e. with a TV money grab) by going to the 4 x 16 format. GOR's can be negotiated "in" and negotiated "out" and otherwise "transferred over." The 3 power conferences need 8 teams to round themselves out to 16 team conferences. Assuming both the ACC and Big lose 4 teams each to the Big 3, and assuming ND bites the bullet - is essentially forced to bite the bullet - and joins the B1G, the remaining schools of the ACC and Big12 would form the 4th conference.

At the end of the day, there will most likely be more money in this for the existing ACC and Big12 schools, more than what they enjoy now. I don't deny that all this will cause extraordinary upheaval and angst. Brands destroyed. Traditions shattered. All in the name of money and marketing. But it's coming.

BTW, if you're keeping track of the math, a school gets left behind under this scenario (i.e. ND joining the B1G versus being allowed to remain independent (which seems virtually impossible under a 4 x 16 format)). On that note, let us prepare to welcome Boston College to the Big East! Consider that tongue in cheek until all this stuff moves down the road a little farther.

XU Dash, I see it a little differently than you do although I agree with the general direction you outlined. I'm probably wrong, but just to fuel the discussion, here's my 2 cents.

1. Notre Dame doesn't want to go to the B1G and there's nothing anyone can do to compel that. They've made it clear that the ACC is the home. They want and where their football program will land if circumstances require that.

2. The PAC-12 has the biggest problem because they've run out of viable programs to get them to 16. Texas. Is the key. They don't seem willing to budge and it's unclear if the PAC-12would even want them any more. All of this could be easily done if we were just outlining regions for a conference, but conference affiliation involve a finances and concessions are required. Texas doesn't seem willing to make them.

3. Even if Texas is willing. To make the necessary concessions for conference affiliation, no one is conceding them to the PAC-12. The B1G wants them. So does the ACC. With such competition, the SEC would probably compete for them as well. If they choose someone other than the PAC, the west coast problem still exists.

4. As neat as this is as a playoff format, it excludes everyone else,essentially forming a monopoly. If a 50,000 student university from a big state like UCF goes undefeated, they're really going to exclude them? That's what 4x16 requires. They've met all the requirements for D-1 and by that time fill a 100,000 seat stadium but they're excluded? I'd love to see that lawsuit.

Bill Marsh wrote:

Xudash wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:The GOR is more vulnerable than you think.

Exactly.

I commend Swofford for how he's navigated all this for the benefit of his

It isn't about the ACC's GOR, it's more about what the big three conferences do with their TV agreements and what can ultimately be accomplished financially (i.e. with a TV money grab) by going to the 4 x 16 format. GOR's can be negotiated "in" and negotiated "out" and otherwise "transferred over." The 3 power conferences need 8 teams to round themselves out to 16 team conferences. Assuming both the ACC and Big lose 4 teams each to the Big 3, and assuming ND bites the bullet - is essentially forced to bite the bullet - and joins the B1G, the remaining schools of the ACC and Big12 would form the 4th conference.

At the end of the day, there will most likely be more money in this for the existing ACC and Big12 schools, more than what they enjoy now. I don't deny that all this will cause extraordinary upheaval and angst. Brands destroyed. Traditions shattered. All in the name of money and marketing. But it's coming.

BTW, if you're keeping track of the math, a school gets left behind under this scenario (i.e. ND joining the B1G versus being allowed to remain independent (which seems virtually impossible under a 4 x 16 format)). On that note, let us prepare to welcome Boston College to the Big East! Consider that tongue in cheek until all this stuff moves down the road a little farther.

XU Dash, I see it a little differently than you do although I agree with the general direction you outlined. I'm probably wrong, but just to fuel the discussion, here's my 2 cents.

1. Notre Dame doesn't want to go to the B1G and there's nothing anyone can do to compel that. They've made it clear that the ACC is the home. They want and where their football program will land if circumstances require that.

2. The PAC-12 has the biggest problem because they've run out of viable programs to get them to 16. Texas. Is the key. They don't seem willing to budge and it's unclear if the PAC-12would even want them any more. All of this could be easily done if we were just outlining regions for a conference, but conference affiliation involve a finances and concessions are required. Texas doesn't seem willing to make them.

3. Even if Texas is willing. To make the necessary concessions for conference affiliation, no one is conceding them to the PAC-12. The B1G wants them. So does the ACC. With such competition, the SEC would probably compete for them as well. If they choose someone other than the PAC, the west coast problem still exists.

4. As neat as this is as a playoff format, it excludes everyone else,essentially forming a monopoly. If a 50,000 student university from a big state like UCF goes undefeated, they're really going to exclude them? That's what 4x16 requires. They've met all the requirements for D-1 and by that time fill a 100,000 seat stadium but they're excluded? I'd love to see that lawsuit.

Bill, you would be surprised to know that you may be a little off on the Notre Dame thing. Firstly, separate ND into two factions: the administration and the alumni. The latter group is noisy about independence. Let's just say that the former group has a firmer grasp on where things are headed. They have not made it "clear" that the ACC is a permanent solution for them, trust me.

I believe you are absolutely spot on about the Pacific Coast Conference and its geographic challenges. Then again, one could argue that it is presently geographically challenged, sending teams from Washington to Arizona and Colorado to California, etc. Obviously, Texas, OU and OSU would extend the map further, but they're going to find a way to figure this out IF the money makes sense. Also and importantly, remember that the law of diminishing returns will come into play in one respect, especially with respect to Texas and the SEC. The SEC simply doesn't need to load up for the purpose of strengthening its football product at this point. It already is somewhat out of control in that regard. It would do well to lock up Duke and UNC as a package, as an example of shoring up its basketball product. The ACC can want Texas all day long, but it will be humiliated by the rejection: the ACC can't offer anything that Texas can't already achieve now, or certainly with the PAC.

I can't argue against your exclusion point. What you state is fact. But from where I sit here in Northeast Florida, and using this state as an example, the University of Florida could care less about UCF or USF's football aspirations, because the Gators already could care less about Miami or the 'noles. Right or wrong, there is no doubt that teams that caught on lately and that want to be players are going to get burned or pushed aside in this deal. I think about UCONN with respect to your point. I think about the University of Cincinnati's BoT who are allowing UC to push ahead with an $80 million renovation of Nippert Stadium that will add some boxes, nice popcorn stands, lighting and landscaping to that stadium, while keeping its capacity at around 40k. I honestly believe it will be a beautiful setting, and it also will be irrelevant.

It is a fact that Slive made those comments publicly. He sits in a position where he holds a Royal Flush in spades; he doesn't have to gamble or bluff. The only way 4 x 16 is avoided, and probably only for a while, is if Emmert completely capitulates on the autonomy demands within the existing framework. Doing that will have the de facto effect of driving a larger wedge between the haves and havenots in football anyway. This isn't over for football. Thankfully, I like where we sit for basketball.

I realize that 4 x 16 is a football construct...but I think the endgame is it kills the basketball tournament.

Reason is this: Once those 64 (65 with ND) get going with what they have in place, they will not care to lose the smaller schools out of March Madness. 32 teams of the 64/5 for men's basketball will be fine with them. Even with the proud histories of some of the schools left out, the football schools are going to want total control of everything. The Big East and everyone under it is in trouble if this ever comes to pass. Which tournament is the casual fan (where advertising money is made) going to watch? The one with Duke, Kansas, UK, and UNC or Georgetown, Marquette, Gonzaga, and VCU? I don't think the networks are paying anything of substance for a tournament without the state schools.

I hate the very existence of college football anymore because it has taken over sports in general, and will further erode all other sports. I agree with Dash that this uncertainty is why the Big East stopped at 10 teams and will never expand past it. If D4 takes off, we're all in trouble. If D4 is a disaster, the Big East will already have the 10 they want. I think the best-case scenario for basketball schools is for D4 to not happen...but it seems that it could be on the horizon.

Some commentators have stated that the "split" will see the football schools taking some of the basketball only conferences in order to keep the NCAA Tournament. That's the dream all of us who root for schools without football have to hold onto. The schools in the Big East (and a few others) are good enough in basketball to be legitimate contenders...if the state schools want to open up the field to those schools.

Good luck to you all.