(01-16-2013 10:17 PM)panama Wrote:  That may happen anyway. Three conferences may become 2 before this is all done

Nope. No way the teams that have been "promoted" take a step back by agreeing to associate with the programs they just left behind. Hard sell to the fans.

This WILL break down eventually. Its inevitable. it may take 2 years or it may take 5 but this is unsustainable and more schools will be like Boise and SDSU and get a clue.

(01-16-2013 10:14 PM)panama Wrote:  If you think 8 or 9 isnt being considered then your delusional. This is still about money.

8 or 9 isn't safe in this environment, if you think it is you are delusional.

(01-16-2013 10:27 PM)panama Wrote:  This WILL break down eventually. Its inevitable. it may take 2 years or it may take 5 but this is unsustainable and more schools will be like Boise and SDSU and get a clue.

Boise and SDSU went back because the BCS went away, thus it made no sense to go to the Big East. They didn't "come to their senses"

So realizing something doesnt make sense doesnt mean you have come to your senses...

Got it.

(01-16-2013 11:04 PM)panama Wrote:  So realizing something doesnt make sense doesnt mean you have come to your senses...

Got it.

When the situation changed, it no longer made sense. If the BCS was still in place and the Big East had an auto bid then Boise and SDSU would still be in the Big East today.

So they came to their senses.

Um...yeah

I think it's less of coming to their senses as much as it was the Big East selling a bag of goods that barely existed in the first place and then they all pretty much got the rug pulled from under them. Boise and SDSU going back makes far too much sense, the arrangement they signed up for originally raised some eyebrows, but it was still mostly considered a good move for both sides. The fact of the matter is, when you take Boise and SDSU out of the equation, the MWC and Big East are pretty comparable, in this instance, I think Boise/SDSU puts whichever conference they're in over the top of the other. Nevermind the fact that the MWC is far more stable. Upward conference movement in the MWC's neighborhood is likely finished for a while, whereas the Big East is still likely to suffer further defections, so even if the Big East were still a better conference by a decent margin, it's still just a matter of time before the other shoe drops and the ACC or Big XII moves on Big East schools. The Pac 12 is likely standing pat for the foreseeable future, unless they are able to bust up the GOR in the Big XII. The Big XII in theory could take from the MWC, but they could also take from the Big East or ACC.

I could see schools going back from the Big East to C-USA or leaving C-USA for the MWC if the further moves to raid the Big East are swift, but I don't see recently departed SBC returning and I don't see a merger of the SBC and CUSA.

(01-17-2013 01:34 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I think it's less of coming to their senses as much as it was the Big East selling a bag of goods that barely existed in the first place and then they all pretty much got the rug pulled from under them. Boise and SDSU going back makes far too much sense, the arrangement they signed up for originally raised some eyebrows, but it was still mostly considered a good move for both sides. The fact of the matter is, when you take Boise and SDSU out of the equation, the MWC and Big East are pretty comparable, in this instance, I think Boise/SDSU puts whichever conference they're in over the top of the other. Nevermind the fact that the MWC is far more stable. Upward conference movement in the MWC's neighborhood is likely finished for a while, whereas the Big East is still likely to suffer further defections, so even if the Big East were still a better conference by a decent margin, it's still just a matter of time before the other shoe drops and the ACC or Big XII moves on Big East schools. The Pac 12 is likely standing pat for the foreseeable future, unless they are able to bust up the GOR in the Big XII. The Big XII in theory could take from the MWC, but they could also take from the Big East or ACC.

I could see schools going back from the Big East to C-USA or leaving C-USA for the MWC if the further moves to raid the Big East are swift, but I don't see recently departed SBC returning and I don't see a merger of the SBC and CUSA.

The only surprise to me was that Boise and SDSU were so gullible in the first place.

The league loses its best tv draws and magically is going to make more money per team simply by having more teams in more places even though none match the TV value of the departing teams?

(01-17-2013 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 01:34 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I think it's less of coming to their senses as much as it was the Big East selling a bag of goods that barely existed in the first place and then they all pretty much got the rug pulled from under them. Boise and SDSU going back makes far too much sense, the arrangement they signed up for originally raised some eyebrows, but it was still mostly considered a good move for both sides. The fact of the matter is, when you take Boise and SDSU out of the equation, the MWC and Big East are pretty comparable, in this instance, I think Boise/SDSU puts whichever conference they're in over the top of the other. Nevermind the fact that the MWC is far more stable. Upward conference movement in the MWC's neighborhood is likely finished for a while, whereas the Big East is still likely to suffer further defections, so even if the Big East were still a better conference by a decent margin, it's still just a matter of time before the other shoe drops and the ACC or Big XII moves on Big East schools. The Pac 12 is likely standing pat for the foreseeable future, unless they are able to bust up the GOR in the Big XII. The Big XII in theory could take from the MWC, but they could also take from the Big East or ACC.

I could see schools going back from the Big East to C-USA or leaving C-USA for the MWC if the further moves to raid the Big East are swift, but I don't see recently departed SBC returning and I don't see a merger of the SBC and CUSA.

The only surprise to me was that Boise and SDSU were so gullible in the first place.

The league loses its best tv draws and magically is going to make more money per team simply by having more teams in more places even though none match the TV value of the departing teams?

I thought the same thing and said as much on the Big East message board. Those fans just didn't want to realize the truth about the situation.

Sounds like their fans rather die than go backwards. Don't see anything except them staying where they are and even adding teams.

(01-16-2013 01:44 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 01:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Regarding the reclassification issue, the Big Five are allowing us to do it to ourselves. They're not going to have to send out a memo to say a reclassification is to occur.

If you look at the breakdown from the new playoff money we're going to be splitting that roughly 10 to 15% of the total pie. That means we're splitting that whether there are 60 of us or 80 of us. The only difference is we all get less money if we're splitting it between 80 schools vs. 60.

I view a split as least likely. The reclassification issue could emerge from either side. It could be the power schools feeling threatened financially due to the number of programs or it could finally come from the Gang of Five saying much like the first reclassification that we're cannibalizing ourselves. There is no reason for the power conferences to want a reclassification particularly if we continue to add more schools and make ourselves poorer while they get richer. However, when the first playoff contract is up and the complaints for an eight team playoff have grown which includes the possibility of including a non-power conference gaining increased access to that playoff and thus an increased share of the revenue that will threaten their whole premise in what they have achieved on the financial side of this.

It's at that point where FBS will likely have grown to 135 to 140 schools where one of the two sides will establish concerns about the number of schools that don't belong in FBS and will demand recount. It may take eight to 10 years to get there, but it will happen.

The money issue from the new playoff system is a bit different. Sure, the Group of 5 will get only 10-15%, but that small percentage still breaks down to more money per conference than what was received under the BCS system. The issue with that now comes down to whether the Group of 5 decides to equally share in the money, or if like dummies the Group of 5 agree to some sort of graduated split whereby payment of the take is geared to performance like under the BCS system. In any event, if you look at the SBC we were at 10 teams in 2012 under the BCS system. If we add more teams to our current and potential lineup then more than likely we will be at 10 teams. So, our percentage share as members of playoff money will be the same. However, such is not the same for the MWC, Big East, and CUSA should they decide to add more teams than they had under the BCS system. If they add more and the share of the playoff take is equal amongst the conferences, then they will realize less money per team than the other Group of 5 members. However, if they are able to employ the BCS sharing system whereby it is based on performance, then those leagues more than likely, from a realistic standpoint, will receive more playoff money than the SBC. The key for the SBC to remain afloat is to not allow the playoff money to be split unequally amongst the group of 5. Then, we all may see at least $1.4M per member for playoff money.

Point of information: These are the other potential FBS move ups within the next 10 years. No particular order.

1. Sacramento State
2. Cal Poly
3. UC Davis
4. Northern Arizona
5. Northern Iowa
6. Georgia Southern
7. Appalachian State
8. James Madison
9. Villanova
10. Florida Gulf Coast
11. North Florida
12. Kennesaw State
13. UT Arlington

That would be 137 FBS teams.

(01-18-2013 05:25 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 01:44 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 01:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Regarding the reclassification issue, the Big Five are allowing us to do it to ourselves. They're not going to have to send out a memo to say a reclassification is to occur.

If you look at the breakdown from the new playoff money we're going to be splitting that roughly 10 to 15% of the total pie. That means we're splitting that whether there are 60 of us or 80 of us. The only difference is we all get less money if we're splitting it between 80 schools vs. 60.

I view a split as least likely. The reclassification issue could emerge from either side. It could be the power schools feeling threatened financially due to the number of programs or it could finally come from the Gang of Five saying much like the first reclassification that we're cannibalizing ourselves. There is no reason for the power conferences to want a reclassification particularly if we continue to add more schools and make ourselves poorer while they get richer. However, when the first playoff contract is up and the complaints for an eight team playoff have grown which includes the possibility of including a non-power conference gaining increased access to that playoff and thus an increased share of the revenue that will threaten their whole premise in what they have achieved on the financial side of this.

It's at that point where FBS will likely have grown to 135 to 140 schools where one of the two sides will establish concerns about the number of schools that don't belong in FBS and will demand recount. It may take eight to 10 years to get there, but it will happen.

The money issue from the new playoff system is a bit different. Sure, the Group of 5 will get only 10-15%, but that small percentage still breaks down to more money per conference than what was received under the BCS system. The issue with that now comes down to whether the Group of 5 decides to equally share in the money, or if like dummies the Group of 5 agree to some sort of graduated split whereby payment of the take is geared to performance like under the BCS system. In any event, if you look at the SBC we were at 10 teams in 2012 under the BCS system. If we add more teams to our current and potential lineup then more than likely we will be at 10 teams. So, our percentage share as members of playoff money will be the same. However, such is not the same for the MWC, Big East, and CUSA should they decide to add more teams than they had under the BCS system. If they add more and the share of the playoff take is equal amongst the conferences, then they will realize less money per team than the other Group of 5 members. However, if they are able to employ the BCS sharing system whereby it is based on performance, then those leagues more than likely, from a realistic standpoint, will receive more playoff money than the SBC. The key for the SBC to remain afloat is to not allow the playoff money to be split unequally amongst the group of 5. Then, we all may see at least $1.4M per member for playoff money.

Point of information: These are the other potential FBS move ups within the next 10 years. No particular order.

1. Sacramento State
2. Cal Poly
3. UC Davis
4. Northern Arizona
5. Northern Iowa
6. Georgia Southern
7. Appalachian State
8. James Madison
9. Villanova
10. Florida Gulf Coast
11. North Florida
12. Kennesaw State
13. UT Arlington

That would be 137 FBS teams.

Jacksonville State and Liberty have already stated their desire to move to FBS. Missouri State and Delaware could also be added.

Believe ECU and Tulane knew there was the possibility of Boise and SDSU withdrawing due to the nBE losing their future BCS elite status. Was discussed. All ECU wants right now is a full acknowledgement of an all sports membership, not other options. They and a lot of the recently joining members have played each other many times in the old CUSA and feel right at home. Many of them seem to feel that if they ever have a shot of making a Power 5 conference it would be through the nBE.

(01-18-2013 09:08 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Believe ECU and Tulane knew there was the possibility of Boise and SDSU withdrawing due to the nBE losing their future BCS elite status. Was discussed. All ECU wants right now is a full acknowledgement of an all sports membership, not other options. They and a lot of the recently joining members have played each other many times in the old CUSA and feel right at home. Many of them seem to feel that if they ever have a shot of making a Power 5 conference it would be through the nBE.

If more people were aware of what ECU has done over the years they would be very impressed and see that they probably merit being in a major conference. Although basketball has never been great, they seems to be making great strides in that area. They have upgraded all of their facilities and they are first rate. Lastly, the school from an academic standpoint has improved beyond what I think anyone in the state ever imagined it would.

The rap on them has been the same that has faced Appalachian over the years........lack of media market. This issue has been misunderstood for both schools. Greenville is just as much in the Raleigh-Durham television market as it is the Greenville-New Bern-Washington market. Nearly all the cable outlets carry WRAL in Raleigh, a good many WTVD in Durham and I think the NBC affiliate that is licensed to Goldsboro as well.

They face a problem they really can't help though......schools with "directional" names seem to be deemed not worthy of major conference status.

(01-15-2013 12:21 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Every single school that moves up from this point (and really going back to about the last five or six years) increases by an order of magnitude far higher that we're all going to get our reclassification papers.

THIS.

(01-15-2013 03:31 PM)goherd17 Wrote:  SDSU is going back to MWC and the BE will take Tulsa from Conf usa and who knows if anyone else. UTEP could go to. At that point conf usa and the belt should merge at least the football playing members

AND THIS.

(01-15-2013 08:42 PM)panama Wrote:  Its not going to happen.They hold all the cards and the key to the safe.The new playoff gives them even more money. They "reclassified" the Big East down. The speculation that they will look at the bottom of the FBS as damaging to them doesnt hold water. The reality is that most people look at everything below the Big 5 as Div II as it is. I have read two of our commits/mid year signees give a reason for coming to GSU as "..and they are going Div I". I have also heard a coach say it. That is the prevailing opinion. The Big 5 have no reason to reclassify because it was already done in the court of public opinion. And remember that the last reclassification was done to appease basketball first schools who wanted to continue to play Division I basketball while playing some form of football that didnt mean competing monetarily with Notre Dame and Alabama. There isnt anything similar driving a split this time.

The Big East wasn't "reclassified" they just lost their autobid to a BCS bowl. They're still in the same upper division of football as the SEC and Sunbelt with the same amount of scholarships. NCAA will eventually give the Big 4.5 exactly what they want, an upper division of football, so they can keep the NCAA basketball tournament as well.

In my opinion, the "Upper Division" will have additional rules such as enforced attendance policies, minimum athletic budgets w/ a maximum allowed subsidy %, and probably "full cost of attendance" $$$.

(01-18-2013 10:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 08:42 PM)panama Wrote:  Its not going to happen.They hold all the cards and the key to the safe.The new playoff gives them even more money. They "reclassified" the Big East down. The speculation that they will look at the bottom of the FBS as damaging to them doesnt hold water. The reality is that most people look at everything below the Big 5 as Div II as it is. I have read two of our commits/mid year signees give a reason for coming to GSU as "..and they are going Div I". I have also heard a coach say it. That is the prevailing opinion. The Big 5 have no reason to reclassify because it was already done in the court of public opinion. And remember that the last reclassification was done to appease basketball first schools who wanted to continue to play Division I basketball while playing some form of football that didnt mean competing monetarily with Notre Dame and Alabama. There isnt anything similar driving a split this time.

The Big East wasn't "reclassified" they just lost their autobid to a BCS bowl. They're still in the same upper division of football as the SEC and Sunbelt with the same amount of scholarships. NCAA will eventually give the Big 4.5 exactly what they want, an upper division of football, so they can keep the NCAA basketball tournament as well.

In my opinion, the "Upper Division" will have additional rules such as enforced attendance policies, minimum athletic budgets w/ a maximum allowed subsidy %, and probably "full cost of attendance" $$$.

Why would the non-majors vote to be excluded again?

I don't see it happening without a fight this time. Promises were made last time that didn't pan out.

When they start paying players thousands of dollars per year most of us won't have a choice.