Lifted from a Saturday Live thread on the Dose, but perhaps a discussion we should continue, or at least make sure it isn't buried/lost:
39. dcfbguy1 Says: October 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm e
Thanks guys, sounds good... Looks like the Statesmen are looking more at a ECAC bowl bid and will only get in the playoffs if they are lucky... Division 3 is ever expanding... With 230+ schools, do you think more teams should be let in the playoffs or is it fine as is? I see many good teams stuck in tough conferences not getting in this year... The OAC, Empire 8 and NJAC are all very deep conferences...
40. Ralph Turner Says: October 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm e
dcfbguy1,
I think there are several points implicit in your previous post.
The NCAA is now funding one playoff spot for every 6.5 participating schools up to bracket limits such as 32 in football and 64 in hoops. The net ratio of schools to playoff bids in D-III football now is ~ 230 schools for 32 bids or 1:7.19. If the NCAA funded one bid for each 6.5 schools, we would have a 35-team playoff. This 35-team bracket moves the playoffs to 6 weeks, something no one is espousing. In that 35-team bracket we would roughly see 22 Pool A bids to the AQ conferences, 4 Pool B bids to the at-large and 9 Pool C bids. Hobart would have a better chance at the Pool C bid, about which you speak.
Part of the debate on the D-III/D-IV split is philosophical in nature. If the D-IV's want to take their football and play elsewhere, well they are of sufficient legislative competency to move those initiatives thru the NCAA. They say that D-III is getting too big. They have highlighted philosophical differences about red-shirting and off-season activities as a reason to split D-III.
If those ~110 schools want to move to D-IV, and play in a 16-team/4-week football championship, then that leaves some room for the remaining 120-130 football schools to have a longer playoff that might invite 18-20 schools.
The D-III/D-IV issue will be coming to a vote in the next 1-2 years. We can watch that.
41. Pat Coleman Says: October 7th, 2007 at 5:29 pm e
Yes, unfortunately, we're never going to get more than 32 football teams in. We were lucky to get it expanded up from 16, as there were many schools that resisted adding another weekend to the bracket.
42. RunFerrum Says: October 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm e
I have a few questions,
1: Has any at-large team ever won it all?
2: Has any team seeded in the bottom half, ever won it all?
The reason I say this - is that if only the the teams slotted in the top half win it all and only teams that earned their bids win it all then what is the real purpose of expansion? Making teams feel good about themselves?
43. Gordon Says: October 11th, 2007 at 10:17 pm e
In 2004 Linfield was an at-large team in the respect that the NWC did not have an AQ. The Wildcats won the title. They played another at-large team, Mary Hardin-Baylor, in the Stagg Bowl after the Crusaders beat Mount Union in Alliance. UMHB probably does not make the tournament in a smaller bracket that year and proved they were very worthy of the playoff opportunity.
If you consider Pool B to be at-large teams, then you can also put Pacific Lutheran (1999) on the list of national champions.
Other at-large teams who won their regional bracket (national semifinalists):
2006: St. John Fisher, Wesley (Pool B)
2005: Wesley (Pool B)
2004: Mary Hardin-Baylor, Linfield (Pool B)
2003: RPI (Pool B)
2002: John Carroll
2001: Pacific Lutheran (Pool B)
I may be forgetting one or two.
44. D3Keith Says: October 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am e
PLU was a seven-seed the year they won.
Both UMHB and PLU played five road games on the way to Salem. (Actually, four; five includiing Salem)
The purpose of expansion was/is access.
Previously, under the 16 team system, four playoff teams came from each region based solely on the committee's rankings. In 1998, Trinity (Texas), Catholic, Western Maryland, Lycoming and Emory & Henry all went undefeated, and it was up to the committee to vote on which of those teams was not deserving of a playoff spot. A lose-lose situation.
The automatic qualifier system gives each team a direct, understandable route to the postseason, and therefore the championship, each season. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs can point to which games it didn't win to explain why it didn't get in, as opposed to a committee's opinion.
Why should the past results of who has won determine who has a chance? If a Muncie would beat a Milan (or whichever) 99 times out of 100, who's to say we shouldn't play the game? The "100th" ends up a great moment.
Division III is saying everyone has a chance. What they do with that chance is completely unrelated to the fact they always will have a chance.
32 is fine by me. I don't think byes work well in football (or in any tournament), so keep it at 32!
32 is perfect. Can't go anymore than 32 because the season would really get too long.
I also like the balance between the AQ's and at-large bids. We all know that some of the conferences with AQ's aren't really in the top 32 in the nation and will most likely get blasted in Round 1, but those teams deserve the shot at shocking the world and upsetting one of the big boys. Reserving a few Pool C bids for the 2nd place teams in the killer conferences (OAC and WIAC) makes the lesser AQ's acceptable in my book.
I would love to see D1 use the BCS formula to select the teams for an 8 team playoff. The 6 AQ qualifiers and then 2 at-large picks. That would be fun!
I agree that you can't move to a 6 week playoff. The only way I can see getting more teams an opportunity to play more games would be to set something up like the ECAC has across the rest of the country. This would be tough to do consistently everywhere, but it could be fun to have "bowl games" between the top, non playoff teams. In some ways it wouldn't mean much, but I would like to go if my team went and I can't imagine that the players wouldn't want one more game. For example, in the west, there could be three games between the top non payoff teams from the NWC-SCIAC, MIAC-WIAC, IIAC-MWC. The second two games could even be seeded each year to allow different matchups. You could have 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, except that you would like to give the top seeds the home games. In any case, this won't happen, partially due to $$, but it would be fun.
I have heard only a little bit about this DIII DIV issue. Does anyone know which conferences would opt into which division? I can made some educated guesses, but is this information that has been published somewhere?
I believe it's mostly speculation, but it's being discussed from time to time on General Division III Issues, Future of Division III.
Not sure if anyone has made a list of the actual split, but we can probably come up with an educated guess.
Re: this subject, I don't think anyone wants to go longer than five weeks for a playoff.
I guess the will it stay that way, and the why it is the way it is, are the questions people want to talk more about.
The more bowls idea is interesting.
A split would be voted on in January 2009. Schools would have the ability to choose which group they want to be in after that. I'd have to think 2011 is the earliest a split could be implemented.
.. and '11 might be difficult given the number of schools that schedule more than a year in advance. Gonna be interesting if it happens, no doubt about it.
Quote from: smedindy on October 12, 2007, 11:56:56 AM
32 is fine by me. I don't think byes work well in football (or in any tournament), so keep it at 32!
I'm not against byes, but to have 6 teams play while 29 stay at home a week is a bit much. The lowest number I would want to jump to would be 48. Expanding the playoffs really isn't an issue AFAIC until the numbers warrant about that many teams.
And as somebody else said, we could be split into separate divisions by that point.
Reposted from Top 25 rankings:
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 17, 2007, 09:14:26 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 17, 2007, 05:20:15 PM
Quote from: billrt66 on October 17, 2007, 05:17:33 PM
All of this points to the need for an expanded field of teams.....32 just simply isn't enough when you have as many automatic qualifiers from conferences. Last year only 8 at large teams?? There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....it would just help to end the arguements over lack of common opponent data. Obviously D III schools don't travel across country during the season, and in an expanded field there might be more travel but it is an opportunity to ignite fan bases that have traditionally not had to travel....could wake up a sleeping giant in terms of renewed interest for all programs!
Really?! No impact?
The move from 28 teams to 32 made a lot of sense and had very little impact...but I don't know how you just slip another week in there without anyone noticing.
Win your conference and there isn't a problem. Pretty simple, really.
More opinion:
Quote from: d-train on October 18, 2007, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: sju56321 on October 18, 2007, 10:30:11 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 17, 2007, 11:15:11 PM
If you go to 40 then you have those byes. 32 is perfect for D-3. The playoffs are the right length, too.
Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?
Um...no. Your own Johnnies made it all the way to the Stagg Bowl as a 7 seed the very next year (2000). UMHB (in 2004) was a lower seed as well.
32 is just fine. I think you get the right team every time.
Easy for an MUC fan to say! ;D
Though I agree.
Frankly, I think 32 is a lot. I would not be in favor of any more than 32. I kind of liked the 28 team field.
Quote from: DuffMan on October 22, 2007, 11:46:47 AM
Frankly, I think 32 is a lot. I would not be in favor of any more than 32. I kind of liked the 28 team field.
I had a few problems with the 28 team field. I don't like the bye week. It can be helpful, but it can also hamper a team that is really starting to build momentum. It also meant that some very good 1 loss teams, teams that lost to top 15 schools, were left out in the cold. (no I'm not bitter 8)) 32 lets more in and means everybody plays their way to the next game.
Quote from: mhb8904 on October 22, 2007, 11:58:30 AM
Quote from: DuffMan on October 22, 2007, 11:46:47 AM
Frankly, I think 32 is a lot. I would not be in favor of any more than 32. I kind of liked the 28 team field.
I had a few problems with the 28 team field. I don't like the bye week. It can be helpful, but it can also hamper a team that is really starting to build momentum. It also meant that some very good 1 loss teams, teams that lost to top 15 schools, were left out in the cold. (no I'm not bitter 8)) 32 lets more in and means everybody plays their way to the next game.
I'd agree with you there, that three second-chance teams (Pool C) was too few. But teams lost to top 15 (or 25) schools last year, the conference champs by a TD, one in overtime, AND finished 9-1 and still missed.
So some years there are 34 deserving teams ... we're never going to have enough spot. But I don't think there's any sentiment for the tournament lasting longer than five weeks, so it's sort of just a theoretical question anyway.
So at what point (not considering length of the play-offs) does it become too many teams? We're looking at roughly 13% of teams making the playoffs right now. Does that seem like too few or too many? I think some of the "specialness" of the playoffs is that there's not a lot of players that can say they've been a part of it. I'd hate to see the pride and mystique diluted.
Actually the NCAA (D-3) expanded the playoff ratio in almost all sports from 1:7.5 to 1:6.5 (up to bracket limits of 32 and 64 depending on the sport) roughly about 2 years ago. That was what prompted the expansion of the football brackets from 28 to 32.
In the "Future of Division III" study document and proposed legislation, there have been calls to shorten the season by 10% and possibly eliminate the national playoffs. Other factors noted in the "Future of D-III" is that the division is growing so big that the playoff brackets cannot handle the playoff ratio that is desired. The proponents of the de-emphasized role of athletics are counting on the MIAC to join them in the new division. In a letter back to the NCAA, the MIAC actually said "Whoa, are you so sure that this is a good thing?"
I have not seen any calls to return or restrict the funding for a playoff ratio to a smaller playoff field.
However, I speak for the consensus of D-3 schools that we will accept a voluntary position by St John's to forgo any post-season play, so as to keep the pride and mystique in the playoff experience. ;D
Sarcasm noted.
Just one guys feelings. :P
With an expanded D-3 membership comes expanded playoffs. "The good old days" were rather unfair, when a 10-0 team could be excluded from the playoffs by a vindictive opposing coach.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2007, 06:58:41 PM
However, I speak for the consensus of D-3 schools that we will accept a voluntary position by St John's to forgo any post-season play, so as to keep the pride and mystique in the playoff experience. ;D
So when does the petition to get Mount Union to join arms with SJU get passed around the nation?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2007, 06:58:41 PM
In the "Future of Division III" study document and proposed legislation, there have been calls to shorten the season by 10% and possibly eliminate the national playoffs. Other factors noted in the "Future of D-III" is that the division is growing so big that the playoff brackets cannot handle the playoff ratio that is desired. The proponents of the de-emphasized role of athletics are counting on the MIAC to join them in the new division. In a letter back to the NCAA, the MIAC actually said "Whoa, are you so sure that this is a good thing?"
That would really suck if they eliminated the playoffs. You figure that teams aspire to some sort of worthwhile venture in football and to take away the possiblity of a national championship would be counter to everything the sport stands for. We already have enough complaints about the bowl system for 1A schools. Imagine if we took those away!
IMHO, the 32 team field is just about the right size for the number of schools. 15 games is what it takes a team to win the DIII national championship, 2 more than a 1A school to win the BCS (or just 1 more for some conferences with championships).
I guess I'm looking at it from a fan's point of view, but to take away a national championship would be to delegitamize DIII football as a whole. It might as well be highschool football with state championships....Oh, never mind, there wouldn't be a championship at all. Just a black void at the end of the season. >:(
-Ski
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2007, 06:58:41 PM
Other factors noted in the "Future of D-III" is that the division is growing so big that the playoff brackets cannot handle the playoff ratio that is desired.
What about the creation of a divisional system that allows the movement of teams between divisions, the same sort of system used in the UK? Instead of basing teams on school size, base them on ability. For example, the top 3 teams in DIII would move up to DII at the end of the season and vice versa. You can create 5 divisions, spreading out DII, DIII teams out and shortening the playoffs for each division. Just a thought.
I know that both UWW and MU could very well move up to DII without a problem!!!
-Ski
Too difficult to make happen, you get into Scholarship issues and all that other fun garbage. Plus you have other programs that would be on a different level and the NCAA has eliminated that from all but a handful of programs that are grandfathered in.
Quote from: Teamski on November 02, 2007, 04:14:55 PM
I know that both UWW and MU could very well move up to DII without a problem!!!
UWW lost to a very mediocre to poor Saint Cloud State team this year.
Right, but they have come a long way since then. They would smoke them now.
Quote from: Teamski on November 02, 2007, 04:14:55 PM
Instead of basing teams on school size, base them on ability.
Teams aren't split up by school size now, either.
Quote from: Teamski on November 02, 2007, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2007, 06:58:41 PM
Other factors noted in the "Future of D-III" is that the division is growing so big that the playoff brackets cannot handle the playoff ratio that is desired.
What about the creation of a divisional system that allows the movement of teams between divisions, the same sort of system used in the UK? Instead of basing teams on school size, base them on ability. For example, the top 3 teams in DIII would move up to DII at the end of the season and vice versa. You can create 5 divisions, spreading out DII, DIII teams out and shortening the playoffs for each division. Just a thought.
I know that both UWW and MU could very well move up to DII without a problem!!!
-Ski
Some D-3 schools are larger than D-1 schools, so it's not size. It's an institutional decision if they really want to feed the scholarship money machine. Plus there are many other sports to think of in this decision as well, not just football. Mt. Union in D-2 football, fine. But Mt. Union as a D-2 in other sports - not so good.
Plus, Mt. Union would have to restructure their fundraising and their endowment to support even limited scholarships. They don't pull in a huge amount of unrestricted dollars ($1 million annual fund) and their endowment is only $130 million. While that may seem a lot to some D-3 schools, to compete for students in a highly competitive Ohio market and maintain a modicum of competitiveness in D-2 would require an outlay of funds that they may not have at their disposal now.
UWW is a state school, and has typical state school funding issues I assume. They don't have very robust fundraising nor endowment. So they're at the mercy of the state if they want to change their athletic paradigm.
So it's just not that simple.
Gotcha. I didn't know when scholarships kicked in. Thanks for the education! I am indeed a newbie! ;)
-Ski
Quote from: janesvilleflash on November 02, 2007, 06:50:22 PM
Right, but they have come a long way since then. They would smoke them now.
Well, as long as we're just making totally unsubstantiated claims, UW-Stout 56, UWW-7. :D
WW 24 Stout 0
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2007, 09:51:30 AM
With an expanded D-3 membership comes expanded playoffs. "The good old days" were rather unfair, when a 10-0 team could be excluded from the playoffs by a vindictive opposing coach.
Story please.
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2007, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Teamski on November 02, 2007, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2007, 06:58:41 PM
Other factors noted in the "Future of D-III" is that the division is growing so big that the playoff brackets cannot handle the playoff ratio that is desired.
What about the creation of a divisional system that allows the movement of teams between divisions, the same sort of system used in the UK? Instead of basing teams on school size, base them on ability. For example, the top 3 teams in DIII would move up to DII at the end of the season and vice versa. You can create 5 divisions, spreading out DII, DIII teams out and shortening the playoffs for each division. Just a thought.
I know that both UWW and MU could very well move up to DII without a problem!!!
-Ski
Some D-3 schools are larger than D-1 schools, so it's not size. It's an institutional decision if they really want to feed the scholarship money machine. Plus there are many other sports to think of in this decision as well, not just football. Mt. Union in D-2 football, fine. But Mt. Union as a D-2 in other sports - not so good.
Plus, Mt. Union would have to restructure their fundraising and their endowment to support even limited scholarships. They don't pull in a huge amount of unrestricted dollars ($1 million annual fund) and their endowment is only $130 million. While that may seem a lot to some D-3 schools, to compete for students in a highly competitive Ohio market and maintain a modicum of competitiveness in D-2 would require an outlay of funds that they may not have at their disposal now.
UWW is a state school, and has typical state school funding issues I assume. They don't have very robust fundraising nor endowment. So they're at the mercy of the state if they want to change their athletic paradigm.
So it's just not that simple.
Really good post about some of the overlooked reasons.
Another is, in D2, in Ohio ... who would they play? They'd have to join the PSAC or GLIAC or something.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2007, 01:23:00 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2007, 09:51:30 AM
With an expanded D-3 membership comes expanded playoffs. "The good old days" were rather unfair, when a 10-0 team could be excluded from the playoffs by a vindictive opposing coach.
Story please.
1982 - Wabash 10-0 and left out of the playoffs. The coaches voted for the playoff teams then. From what I heard one of the coaches Wabash played was on the list and thought that Wabash didn't beat Illinois Wesleyan by enough points. Of course, it was sandwiched between Dayton and DPU, so yeah, it was a trap game. Ah, well.
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2007, 08:14:33 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2007, 01:23:00 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2007, 09:51:30 AM
With an expanded D-3 membership comes expanded playoffs. "The good old days" were rather unfair, when a 10-0 team could be excluded from the playoffs by a vindictive opposing coach.
Story please.
1982 - Wabash 10-0 and left out of the playoffs. The coaches voted for the playoff teams then. From what I heard one of the coaches Wabash played was on the list and thought that Wabash didn't beat Illinois Wesleyan by enough points. Of course, it was sandwiched between Dayton and DPU, so yeah, it was a trap game. Ah, well.
82? An eight-team field. I'll have to look at the records of the teams who made it in the book I have at home, but this was a weird group with West Georgia and Wagner and Bishop???
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1982.htm
Wow. Bishop is probably Bishop College, in south Dallas. Bishop was an HBCU that eventually went bankrupt and closed. Its campus is now the home of NAIA Paul Quinn College, which gave up football this year. (Howard Payne played Paul Quinn in 2006.)
I have no idea where to find those archives on the internet. They are probably on microfiche in the bowels of the Dallas Morning News.
Just in reading the past post 32 is the latest number up from 16.. Seems enough until some mambe bambe's _itch and grind to the NCAA and they either split up Div III and/or add another round and week to it all. Let's hope not.
Nothing is as constant as change...but somethings are better left along. I think this one is.
Here's a good place to add playoff discussion:
Quote from: K-Mack on January 07, 2008, 10:22:28 PM
Yet another well-argued point for the playoffs vs. the BCS. The Washington Post (full disclosure: Where I now work) wrote a story talking to Appalachian State and their AD who used to be at N.C. State asking if the playoff system that works at a sports-happy Appy State could work in I-A.
Division I-AA Shows Argument For Playoffs Isn't All Academic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602034.html)
I'm sure there are several other threads where this would fit.
Quote from: K-Mack on January 08, 2008, 08:00:42 PM
Georgia Prez giving more love to the I-A playoff idea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010802988.html?nav=hcmoduletmv).
The thought's been raised, in the wake of Ohio State's consecutive title game drubbings, that 3rd week of Nov. until late in the 1st week of Jan. is too long between games. :light bulb:
Ralph, knew about Paul Quinn, but all the Bishop stuff was pretty interesting. +1
Quote"This would involve only four schools, and only two into the second week," he said. "To answer concerns about the wear-and-tear on the student-athletes, I would consider returning the regular season to an 11-game schedule."
Whoa, what, and get rid of all that 12th-game money? I thought the Georgia Prez had a shot in hell before I read that.
I make the same point when people say the D3 season last 5 extra weeks ... for two schools. For the vast majority of us, there is little or no change.
On the Future of D-III message board is the discussion about the Presidential White Paper that is background material for the January 2009 Convention. I am posting the pdf link for serious fans, alumni and even members of your respective alma mater's board of trustees to review. The quoted paragraph is from Issue 8.
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DIII_MC_PC/Misc/White_papers/content.pdf
QuoteDivision III Bylaw 18.01.1 presents the purpose of NCAA Championships: "NCAA
championships are intended to provide national-level competition among the best eligible
student-athletes and teams of member institution." Additionally, Article 2.15 contains the
guiding principle of postseason competition: "The conditions under which postseason
competition occurs shall be controlled to assure that the benefits inherent in such competition
flow fairly to all participants, to prevent unjustified intrusion on the time student-athletes devote
to their academic programs."
Enjoy the "read"! :)
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10767521/a-primer-new-college-football-playoff
This video upsets me to the fullest, it is hard to fathom that many people fail to realize that "College Football" already has and for years had a playoff and the fact that Division I football is just starting to say the CFB now has a playoff is a slap in the face to the other divisions. I don't know how many of you feel about the subject, but when the "Power 5" conference tells the NCAA that they are considering leaving, I think this move is predicated on the fear that Division I-FBS is actually moving to a legit playoff in the near future with more than 4 teams and that each conference would be represented and that these top schools will eventually lose to these smaller schools in the playoffs and that these high school athletes will eventually see that you don't have to the "Top Schools" to win a national championship. Then schools will have to elaborate on education, facilities, and such.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on July 24, 2014, 11:04:19 AM
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10767521/a-primer-new-college-football-playoff
This video upsets me to the fullest, it is hard to fathom that many people fail to realize that "College Football" already has and for years had a playoff and the fact that Division I football is just starting to say the CFB now has a playoff is a slap in the face to the other divisions. I don't know how many of you feel about the subject, but when the "Power 5" conference tells the NCAA that they are considering leaving, I think this move is predicated on the fear that Division I-FBS is actually moving to a legit playoff in the near future with more than 4 teams and that each conference would be represented and that these top schools will eventually lose to these smaller schools in the playoffs and that these high school athletes will eventually see that you don't have to the "Top Schools" to win a national championship. Then schools will have to elaborate on education, facilities, and such.
I think they are aware that other divisions have playoffs. ESPN broadcasts parts of all of those tournaments. But in the broad, national conversation that an outlet like ESPN has to have, "college football" is FBS...because that's where the eyeballs are on their network for 12 hours every fall Saturday. It's a shorthand and, yes it is a bit dismissive, but I've accepted it as the norm. I don't need Herbstreit to remind everybody that Division III has a playoff to validate my experience with small college football.
As for the big 5 schools forming their own association...that we should be afraid of, especially if that association is all-inclusive and not just a football thing. If those leagues pick up their basketballs and go away, WE lose our national tournament subsidy. That would be a problem for those of us that have come to love our national championship tournaments at this level. I think the idea of those leagues leaving has a little to do with escaping the NCAA's ludicrous oversight, maybe a little to do with not wanting to lose in a tournament to Boise St., but mostly about chopping out half of the people that they have to share money with. Same giant pot of money, half the teams. That's mostly what it is about.
Quote from: wally_wabash on July 24, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
As for the big 5 schools forming their own association...that we should be afraid of, especially if that association is all-inclusive and not just a football thing. If those leagues pick up their basketballs and go away, WE lose our national tournament subsidy. That would be a problem for those of us that have come to love our national championship tournaments at this level. I think the idea of those leagues leaving has a little to do with escaping the NCAA's ludicrous oversight, maybe a little to do with not wanting to lose in a tournament to Boise St., but mostly about chopping out half of the people that they have to share money with. Same giant pot of money, half the teams. That's mostly what it is about.
I can't see them the big 5 leaving the NCAA. Their revenues are rising dramatically as a part of the NCAA. Minnesota has gone from $50 Million in 2005 to $100 Million last year. There is no way FBS would start a full NCAA sponsored championship. Bowl games plus the new title game are here to stay.