Yes there are a litany of things that make just walking away from the NCAA difficult including tax exemption, non profit, and potential title IX issues. Even if you don't understand that it is the membership that runs the organization, which most including some participating in this conversation don't get, there are other things you can point to that makes disbanding the NCAA problematic. The NCAA isn't some outside agency that the schools don't see eye to eye with, these guys are the ones making the decisions. Fans think these presidents and ADs care about the same stuff that they do.
No one is going to break away from the NCAA and form a new organization. I'm not sure why that's still a topic of discussion for some fans.
New NCAA division? Maybe. But it has to be set on criteria that schools
elect to participate in rather than being relegated to a lower division. That's too messy and will cause too many political issues by those left behind.
The two biggest issues that I've seen regarding breakaway are a cost of attendance stipend, which a ton of schools can find a way to fund. The second, and much more difficult option is to require schools to fund a certain number (and type) of sports.
We may have linked this months ago, but John Infante had a really great article on it.
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/07/24/what-sports-would-division-x-sponsor.htmThe most glaring observation from these numbers is that a full breakaway from the NCAA in all sports of just these 65 schools is untenable. The Pac-12 is very proud of its many and varied NCAA championship teams. Wrestling has a long and storied tradition in the Big 12. And the ACC and Big Ten have made significant investments in growing new revenue sports like men's lacrosse and ice hockey. It is hard to imagine them throwing all that away.
Going back to Bubba Cunningham's 24-sport minimum, we can also start to see which sports schools would add. Men's soccer, wrestling, women's lacrosse, and women's gymnastics would be priorities because the facilities likely already exist on every campus. If women's swimming was made a required core sport, add men's swimming to that list.
The loss of regional flavor and some of the sports facing extinction at the highest level are not givens though. Certainly a new, small division will have to have more nationwide sport offerings (or simply have smaller athletic departments). But if two of three conferences feel strongly about a sport, like say the Big 12 and SEC throwing their weight behind equestrian, it could be given a chance to then grow from there, like equestrian establishing a foothold in California or with ag schools in the Big Ten.
Infante goes further and says that if you add about 5 basketball-centric conferences along with the Power 5 conferences, you probably have enough for a robust division where you can pretty much have your cake and eat it, too.
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/07/25/basketball-conferences-make-best-partners-for-power-5.htmSo, the thought would be that for each power 5 conference, you'd get a corresponding basketball conference to go with it:
There has been as much or more movement, raiding and re-raiding, below the FBS level that simply using revenue distribution numbers is too blunt an instrument. Basketball prowess will be the big driver though. Massaging it a bit for geography, we get this set of conferences:
- Big East
- Atlantic-10
- Missouri Valley
- West Coast Conference
- Colonial
Not only are you getting most of the best basketball programs below the FBS level, but you also have rough geographic pairs:
- Big Ten/Big East
- ACC/A-10
- Big 12/Valley
- Pac-12/WCC
- SEC/CAA
The most problematic is probably the CAA, which has been picked apart repeatedly by the A-10 over the last couple of years. It also does not stretch as far west as the SEC, and runs far into the Northeast. Of all the areas, this one looks most ripe for creating a new conference, say a Super SoCon, picking off the best basketball schools throughout the Southeast.
Now Division X is really getting somewhere. Without spreading football revenue any further, this plan would add many name-brand basketball programs, bring the sheer numbers up far enough to justify a 64-team tournament, and boost the sponsorship of some non-revenue sports. The lack of FBS football also means that these conferences might be in a better position to agree to some of the demands of the Power 5. It is easier to get behind a stipend or full cost-of-attendance scholarships when you are not starting with 85 football players. Not to mention this preserves some of the character of college sports, especially the allure of the Cinderella mid-major.
The obvious problem is what do you do with the American, Mountain West, MAC, etc. Maybe you just add a couple of other corresponding basketball conferences (i.e. WCC, Big West, etc.). I don't know.
Anyway, food for thought.
