Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    December 28, 1999
    Posts
    7,959
    VT would get more money to pour into athletics as would the other 60-80 schools. I am not seeing a positive gain competitively or fan-wise but I am may be missing something. Well, if a 8 team or 16 team playoff came about because of it, I would be in favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    The million or so dollars the stipend would cost is less than what can be gained from VT not having to share with Radford, Ferrum, App. St., etc... That is if they break entirely away from the NCAA.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    Yep, ND's best move is to drag their feet. They won't be allowed to hold this up for long though. Eventually, as Spurrier mentioned, when the conference commissioners are meeting somebody is going to look over at Swarbrick and ask "why are you here?" The SEC and B1G don't want ND having such representation and other privileges. Those days are numbered.
    They other conference commissioners will probably start saying something like "You're a member of the ACC for all other sports, so the ACC Commissioner can represent your interests here too. You don't need to be at this table any longer. Goodbye."

  3. #13
    Femoyer Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 20, 2003
    Location
    Glen Allen, VA
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    I can agree with him on some of that. Why does LSU only sponsor 16 sports? Shouldn't they be relegated to the little league? Maybe the new division should require sponsorship of minimum of 22 varsity sports.
    There would have to be a minimum scholarship requirement (for the 22 varsity sports) to go with it.

  4. #14
    Calamitous's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 14, 2004
    Posts
    864

    Currently, 23 FBS schools have a minimum of 22 sports

    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    I can agree with him on some of that. Why does LSU only sponsor 16 sports? Shouldn't they be relegated to the little league? Maybe the new division should require sponsorship of minimum of 22 varsity sports.
    Your comment may have been TIC, but it interested me enough to do a little research.

    Below is how the FCS conferences, along with the Ivy League, break down in terms of schools having a minimum of 22 sports:

    B1G = 10 out of 14 qualify
    ACC = 5 out of 14
    AAC = 3 out of 14
    PAC = 2 out of 12
    Independents = 1 out of 3
    MWC = 1 out of 12
    SEC = 0 out of 14
    Big XII = 0 out of 10
    MAC = 0 out of 13
    Sun Belt = 0 out of 12
    CUSA = 0 out of 12
    Ivy = 8 out of 8 (not FCS, but interesting to note)

    Schools on the bubble (20 to 21 sports) are Duke, Arizona State, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky and UCLA. If those schools added 1 to 2 more sports, 23 schools gets bumped up to 30 schools. The ACC schools left behind would be Syracuse(18), Pitt(17), Louisville(21), Tech(18), Duke(20), Wake(16), Clemson(16), GT(16), FSU(18) and Miami(16).

    I can't help but to notice the football power conferences (SEC, Big XII and PAC) have low overall sport numbers. Maybe the B1G and ACC are too watered down to be good in football.

    Maybe the Ivy League schools can move up to the FBS level

    Edit: These numbers are simply based on looking at AD websites' sports listed. Some websites lump co-ed sports together such as swimming, diving, cross country, etc. as pointed out by RJHokie. Some schools may have more teams than accounted for in the list above. Had to throw in a disclaimer
    Last edited by Calamitous; Sun Aug 18 2013 at 11:54 AM.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    December 15, 1999
    Posts
    553
    it depends on what you consider the number of sports/teams. VT has stated over the years that it has 21 sports teams. If you go to Hokiesports.com the number of current sports listed in the "Sports" dropdown does equal 18 (excluding women's golf). However, to arrive at the way they count the total number of "sports" is you have to add women's cross country, women's swimming and women's diving, thus adding three more to get to 21. With women's golf it will be 22.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    June 05, 2003
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Calamitous View Post
    Your comment may have been TIC, but it interested me enough to do a little research.

    Below is how the FCS conferences, along with the Ivy League, break down in terms of schools having a minimum of 22 sports:

    B1G = 10 out of 14 qualify
    ACC = 5 out of 14
    AAC = 3 out of 14
    PAC = 2 out of 12
    Independents = 1 out of 3
    MWC = 1 out of 12
    SEC = 0 out of 14
    Big XII = 0 out of 10
    MAC = 0 out of 13
    Sun Belt = 0 out of 12
    CUSA = 0 out of 12
    Ivy = 8 out of 8 (not FCS, but interesting to note)

    Schools on the bubble (20 to 21 sports) are Duke, Arizona State, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky and UCLA. If those schools added 1 to 2 more sports, 23 schools gets bumped up to 30 schools. The ACC schools left behind would be Syracuse(18), Pitt(17), Louisville(21), Tech(18), Duke(20), Wake(16), Clemson(16), GT(16), FSU(18) and Miami(16).

    I can't help but to notice the football power conferences (SEC, Big XII and PAC) have low overall sport numbers. Maybe the B1G and ACC are too watered down to be good in football.

    Maybe the Ivy League schools can move up to the FBS level
    Interesting research. It illustrates Jack Swarbrick's point. Part of the reason that the power 5 are discussing Division 4 is to separate the wealthier athletic departments from the rest. The minimum number of sports to be considered Division 1 is 14 sports with 7 or 8 being women's. I arbitrarily chose 22. It could be 20. The point was that it would be a higher division, so the 14 should be increased. Having a wealthy conference like the SEC or Big XII not participate fully should be corrected. They can afford to correct it.

    We will have some ACC schools like those mentioned struggle to do it. I don't know if Miami, Wake Forest, Clemson, or Georgia Tech can afford it. The rest are close enough to get there.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Calamitous View Post
    Your comment may have been TIC, but it interested me enough to do a little research.

    Below is how the FCS conferences, along with the Ivy League, break down in terms of schools having a minimum of 22 sports:

    B1G = 10 out of 14 qualify
    ACC = 5 out of 14
    AAC = 3 out of 14
    PAC = 2 out of 12
    Independents = 1 out of 3
    MWC = 1 out of 12
    SEC = 0 out of 14
    Big XII = 0 out of 10
    MAC = 0 out of 13
    Sun Belt = 0 out of 12
    CUSA = 0 out of 12
    Ivy = 8 out of 8 (not FCS, but interesting to note)

    Schools on the bubble (20 to 21 sports) are Duke, Arizona State, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky and UCLA. If those schools added 1 to 2 more sports, 23 schools gets bumped up to 30 schools. The ACC schools left behind would be Syracuse(18), Pitt(17), Louisville(21), Tech(18), Duke(20), Wake(16), Clemson(16), GT(16), FSU(18) and Miami(16).

    I can't help but to notice the football power conferences (SEC, Big XII and PAC) have low overall sport numbers. Maybe the B1G and ACC are too watered down to be good in football.

    Maybe the Ivy League schools can move up to the FBS level
    Would love to see what this list looked like before Title IX. Are some schools funding the least number of sports required to satisfy $$$ distribution.

  8. #18
    Calamitous's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 14, 2004
    Posts
    864

    RJHokie brings up a good point below....

    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    Interesting research. It illustrates Jack Swarbrick's point. Part of the reason that the power 5 are discussing Division 4 is to separate the wealthier athletic departments from the rest. The minimum number of sports to be considered Division 1 is 14 sports with 7 or 8 being women's. I arbitrarily chose 22. It could be 20. The point was that it would be a higher division, so the 14 should be increased. Having a wealthy conference like the SEC or Big XII not participate fully should be corrected. They can afford to correct it.

    We will have some ACC schools like those mentioned struggle to do it. I don't know if Miami, Wake Forest, Clemson, or Georgia Tech can afford it. The rest are close enough to get there.
    My quick "research" is skewed by the fact that there are many sports lumped in the co-ed category on some university websites like swimming, cross country, etc. So Tech, Duke, Cuse and a few others may be over the hump or very very close to 20/22 teams. By that same token, the number of schools might increase from 23 to 57 (close to the current 65 BCS members) who qualify for at least 20/22 overall collegiate sports, but more accurate data is needed to support actual numbers.

    I'd like to see the SEC and Big XII power football schools devote more money to other olympic sports. I wonder if there is a direct correlation between football success when you field fewer overall sports? Ohio State seems to be the only power football school to defy this correlation (unless we still consider Michigan, Nebraska and PSU power football schools). There are also schools are close to 20/22 like FSU, UGa, OU and USC that fit the bill too.

    On a separate note, Swarbrick is setting the stage to justify ND independence (shocking I know). If Swarbrick is intent on calling out Bama, UF, LSU, Texas, aTm, etc.; I think the other 54 power conference schools (excluding B12 schools and ND) should call out ND/Swarbrick and the Big XII on the unfairness of not playing in a football championship game. If Swarbrick convinces the NCAA (or whoever the ruling power is) to make sweeping changes across the collegiate landscape to add more sports, the other power 54 schools need to convince the NCAA that a Championship game and conference affiliation is 100% necessary to qualify for the big game in football. This is why I'm very uncomfortable with ND as a partial member of the ACC. I thought Tech had gotten away from this disease when they left the Big East. Yes, ND's partial affiliation may be good in terms of bringing the conference some exposure, but Swarbrick is simply using the ACC as a loophole to get in the game via partial membership and obligating ND to 5 ACC games per year. I think ND will again make this all work in their favor as they have in the past. Even the SEC schools will see it "their way" after ND makes their pitch.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    The million or so dollars the stipend would cost is less than what can be gained from VT not having to share with Radford, Ferrum, App. St., etc... That is if they break entirely away from the NCAA.
    I continue to believe that the stipend will exceed $1 million by miles. The major conferences want to squeeze-out the lesser programs. And just where does all of this additional revenue come from? TV contracts, ticket sales, logo sales, subsidies from the school...these don't necessarily grow just because we're in a new division. The eventual playoff will surely earn carloads of money, but the spoils may not trickle down to every school. For all we know, that jackpot may belong to playoff participants, only. And if there is a new agency involved in place of the NCAA, they will likely take their considerable funding from playoff revenue.

    Take a look at the athletic department funding at some Div I schools:

    [URL="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1"]


    MidAmerican is clearly the worst, but C-USA is also very bad. The former Big East (football) schools are not fiscal giants, either. I think we can safely anticipate that few, if any, of these programs will be able to stay afloat in a new, big-money division.


    MID AMER:2011 REV SUBSIDY SBSDY%

    Akron $25 $19 75.7%
    Ball State $20 $14 72.6%
    Bowling Green $20 $12 63.8%
    Buffalo $26 $20 79.4%
    Cent Michigan $23 $16 70.7%
    E Michigan $27 $22 82.1%
    Kent State $21 $16 77.9%
    Miami Ohio $26 $18 68.0%
    N Illinois $24 $16 69.3%
    Ohio $25 $19 76.9%
    Toledo $19 $10 52.0%
    W Michigan $25 $18 72.6%

  10. #20

    Join Date
    June 05, 2003
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Calamitous View Post
    My quick "research" is skewed by the fact that there are many sports lumped in the co-ed category on some university websites like swimming, cross country, etc. So Tech, Duke, Cuse and a few others may be over the hump or very very close to 20/22 teams. By that same token, the number of schools might increase from 23 to 57 (close to the current 65 BCS members) who qualify for at least 20/22 overall collegiate sports, but more accurate data is needed to support actual numbers.

    I'd like to see the SEC and Big XII power football schools devote more money to other olympic sports. I wonder if there is a direct correlation between football success when you field fewer overall sports? Ohio State seems to be the only power football school to defy this correlation (unless we still consider Michigan, Nebraska and PSU power football schools). There are also schools are close to 20/22 like FSU, UGa, OU and USC that fit the bill too.

    On a separate note, Swarbrick is setting the stage to justify ND independence (shocking I know). If Swarbrick is intent on calling out Bama, UF, LSU, Texas, aTm, etc.; I think the other 54 power conference schools (excluding B12 schools and ND) should call out ND/Swarbrick and the Big XII on the unfairness of not playing in a football championship game. If Swarbrick convinces the NCAA (or whoever the ruling power is) to make sweeping changes across the collegiate landscape to add more sports, the other power 54 schools need to convince the NCAA that a Championship game and conference affiliation is 100% necessary to qualify for the big game in football. This is why I'm very uncomfortable with ND as a partial member of the ACC. I thought Tech had gotten away from this disease when they left the Big East. Yes, ND's partial affiliation may be good in terms of bringing the conference some exposure, but Swarbrick is simply using the ACC as a loophole to get in the game via partial membership and obligating ND to 5 ACC games per year. I think ND will again make this all work in their favor as they have in the past. Even the SEC schools will see it "their way" after ND makes their pitch.
    I hope that this Division 4 situation does both of what you suggest. I hope it encourages Notre Dame to join the ACC in order to meet a Conference Football Championship Game requirement for the BCS playoff. I also hope it encourages the SEC, Big XII, and PAC 12 to get above 20/22 sports. Kentucky might be a bad example because they field 21 sports, but they pay a basketball coach $7 million per year. That's ridiculous. The SEC schools have the money to add the sports.

    I don't mind the Notre Dame arrangement because they will be playing ACC games, and to the average fan out there it's going to look like they are an ACC school. That wasn't the case with the Big East. They have also helped the ACC already get a bigger payout from ESPN. I just don't like the effect of having a 14 team league has on playing opposite Division teams. I don't want Notre Dame to keep the ACC in a holding pattern for too long. 16 teams is a better number for scheduling reasons.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •