(06-11-2013 07:21 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  This is an usless thread. The power 5 don't want any of these schools, that is why they are where they are. Uconn and Cincy fans can fool themselves but they are not considered above the others. If they were someone would have grabbed them. All of the power 5 could grow by 2 to 6 and still have 16, none of them are interested in any of these programs. If they split they wont take anyone.

Life is not fair. Those aleady in Power 5 conferences want to enforce a deadline so those play catching up will never be able to. Basically P5 said this is the finish line and close the door. P5 will be the upper division and the others will be in the lower division. And there is no way to move upwards. Even some schools not aleady in are better than the weakest P5 schools.

By doing so, UConn and Cincinnati will gradually lose their lifeline and become weaker and weaker than Wake Forest, Boston College in not only sports (including football and basketball) but also academics. This is the conspiracy at its best.

(06-12-2013 01:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:34 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 09:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  You misunderstood. Cali has 4 P5 schools. How many more do you think tv networks will pay for at a price that meets or exceeds current revenue sharing numbers?

If the networks wanted to pay over $20 million/year each for 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th California programs, they could pay the MWC, who already has those teams.

So the marketplace will decide. Ask the question again when the MWC's TV contract expires. If that new contract sparks a major bidding war and the MWC ends up with more money than the Pac, then the answer will be yes, the TV guys have an unlimited appetite for California college football at top-dollar prices.

Nice logic except the MWC only has 3 California teams and the MWC also has the populations wastelands of Wyoming, Nevada and New Mexico.

A better measure would be what would TV pay the Big 12 to add California with 2 or 3 Cal State schools. Not that it would happen but that would be the appropriate measure.

UNLV isn't in a population wasteland, but I guess you could just replace Nevada with Idaho in your argument there.

The Big 12 was down to 8 members and needed teams less than two years ago. I'm sure they asked ESPN and Fox who would be worth the most money to add, and they asked how much ESPN/Fox would pay for 10 teams and how much more (if any) they would pay for 12, and I'm sure they asked about anyone on a long list of available schools including MWC schools.

Unfortunately for us there are no transcripts of those conversations, if there were that would be enough to keep this board going for several years.

But we know what the Big 12 ended up doing then, and we know that the Big 12 commissioner and others keep saying they'll only expand from 10 to 12 if the TV guys are willing to pay for each new school at the same per-school rate the Big 12 gets now, or more. That's what they care about.

UNLV is one city in an otherwise large state, driven Nevada much? Try the drive from Vegas to Reno and tell me what you see.

Fresno and SDSU have other problems that would keep them from the Big 12. Not the least of which is the lack of doctoral programs thanks largely to your Alma Mater. Add to that the distance and I doubt they were even in the discussion. Certainly not Fresno who was in the midst of their worst season in years and about to fire Pat.

This isn't a debate about whether Fresno or San Diego State is a viable candidate. It is a response to the point California is a saturated market. In case you haven't figured it out half the state hates Cal to the point they won't watch them on TV. That's a 17M untapped market.

BYU, Temple, and Houston were on ESPN's list of most valuable non-AQ programs remaining. Temple and Houston have a lot of potential IMO...Temple in the ACC and Houston in the Big XII.

(06-12-2013 08:10 AM)pzz189 Wrote:  BYU, Temple, and Houston were on ESPN's list of most valuable non-AQ programs remaining. Temple and Houston have a lot of potential IMO...Temple in the ACC and Houston in the Big XII.

ESPN sees through TV market shaded glasses, not really about the program.

Of course Philadelphia and Houston are appealing to ESPN

(06-12-2013 12:38 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the Mountain West and American are coming with a new division 1 subdivision, I'm not sure I see the point in a new division to begin with. The votes so far have been against allowing the school to have full cost scholarships. The threat of the power 5 leaving will probably be enough for them to get what they want. If that includes a new subdivision within division 1, it will probably a) only be the power 5, b) only be for football, c) only be for rules; teams from current FBS would still play the new subdivision and probably share the same bowl/playoff structure.

In the event that the power 5 formally leave the NCAA, then they probably will be taking most of division 1 with them, but making sure the set-up allows for the rules they want.

The P5 already receive 85-90% of all he money that Div1 football brings in. A split from the 65 or s G5 schools only nets a small amount of incremental cash and possibly damages the product by possibly alienating more than a third of the total FBS fan base. Why would the networks want a product that might have a third less viewers?

Where a huge pool of untouched money exists is in basketball which brings in nearly as much as football---but the P5 don't get nearly 90% of the income. By keeping the some or all of the G5 conferences in the new Division I and eliminating the 200-250 FCS and non-football playing members of Division I, the P5 can grab 90% of that money too. Now that kind of money grab might be worth a split.

If there's a split, some or most of FBS (mosy likely including most of the G5) would likely break away from the rest of D-1. That would give the new D1 about 126 schools to fill the 64 team bracket. Basically, the G5 would fill the Cinderella role.

(06-12-2013 12:04 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 09:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 07:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:57 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  At this juncture, UCONN and BYU are similar to the P5. Everybody else has at least one of the following that is lacking enough to not put them in as peer with the rest of the P5:

1. Academics (Boise State, Fresno State, UNLV, San Diego State, Memphis come to mind quickly)
2. Revenue generation (Nevada, Utah State, San Jose State are all at or less than $20 mil annually. That doesn't cut it.)
3. Athletics success/facilities
4. Market/following
5. Duplication of an existing or exhausted market (mainly California, Texas, Florida, and North Carolina Go5 schools)

Okay this just shows you have some work to do. California is actually on a per population basis one of the most underserved markets in the US behind the Rocky mountain states for college football. The Central Valley/ Fresno area which is 3 hours from LA or SF has no BCS or Pro team and is equivalent in Population to the state of Oklahoma.

I agree that Fresno and SDSU are not tier 1 research University and for that you can thank the UC system which has lobbied to maintain an outdated education model that prohibits the Cal State System (the largest system in the US) form offering doctoral degrees. If college football thinks it is wise to completely disenfranchise the largest education system in the US that says more about the stupidity of college football than it does about the Cal State schools. With 480,000 current students and staff the Cal State System is slightly smaller than the state of Wyoming. If graduates are counted it is a huge population to be excluded.

You misunderstood. Cali has 4 P5 schools. How many more do you think tv networks will pay for at a price that meets or exceeds current revenue sharing numbers?

Look at the logic of your statement. California has a huge population and the 4 schools are in 2 major cities a long way from other areas. You clearly show you don't understand California. Your analogy is like saying Oklahoma doesn't make sense because Texas has a team in Dallas. It is equivalent both in terms of population and distance.

Their may very well be other reasons to keep out the Cal States and I am not saying they belong or not but your reason is just plain east coast ignorance of anything past the Mississippi. Pull your head out and understand something about geography in the rest of the country.

Let me put it this way, California has 3.5x the population and 2x the land mass of Tennessee and Kentucky combined. Based on your ratio calculations Kentucky and Tennessee should have at most 2 teams. I propose we kick Kentucky out of the gang of 5 since they never do anything in football anyway and their market is pointless.

You are correct. Tennessee and Kentucky have more than enough teams in P5 for their size and population. My east coast bias prompted me to list California, Texas, Florida, and North Carolina as states with an abundant amount of P5 schools as an example. If you want me to list every other state, I will. It will be every state except Connecticut and Utah. As my original post stated, I believe that UCONN and BYU are the only schools that would add value to at least one of the existing P5 conferences. What is my logic? BYU has chosen not to play by a lot of the same rules as other P5 members, so they have not been invited or have turned down past invitations, depending on which rumors you believe. However, on paper, they are a legitimate P5 add. UCONN is also a legitimate add on paper. If rumors are to be believed, the ACC has some internal politicking and the B1G has a "wait and see" approach toward UCONN.

There has been no other school mentions by a legitimate source other than the outlandish rumor stage. Cincinnati, USF, ECU, SMU, Houston... I have not heard or seen any mention of them outside of the occasional board thread, which is usually generated by a fan of one of those schools.

You may be right. If a school on par with Cal and UCLA was located in Fresno, their may have a 5th team in California. As I outlined in my original post, some schools are not in the P5 for one reason, some for multiple reasons. As it stands, California is saturated because the only markets without TWO teams already in them are the Fresno and San Diego areas. Neither region has a legitimate school that fits all the criteria of a P5. So, you are exhausted. Cal-Davis would have a chance if they were not located so close to the Bay area, but there are already two teams well established there.

(06-12-2013 09:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:38 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the Mountain West and American are coming with a new division 1 subdivision, I'm not sure I see the point in a new division to begin with. The votes so far have been against allowing the school to have full cost scholarships. The threat of the power 5 leaving will probably be enough for them to get what they want. If that includes a new subdivision within division 1, it will probably a) only be the power 5, b) only be for football, c) only be for rules; teams from current FBS would still play the new subdivision and probably share the same bowl/playoff structure.

In the event that the power 5 formally leave the NCAA, then they probably will be taking most of division 1 with them, but making sure the set-up allows for the rules they want.

The P5 already receive 85-90% of all he money that Div1 football brings in. A split from the 65 or s G5 schools only nets a small amount of incremental cash and possibly damages the product by possibly alienating more than a third of the total FBS fan base. Why would the networks want a product that might have a third less viewers?

Where a huge pool of untouched money exists is in basketball which brings in nearly as much as football---but the P5 don't get nearly 90% of the income. By keeping the some or all of the G5 conferences in the new Division I and eliminating the 200-250 FCS and non-football playing members of Division I, the P5 can grab 90% of that money too. Now that kind of money grab might be worth a split.

If there's a split, some or most of FBS (mosy likely including most of the G5) would likely break away from the rest of D-1. That would give the new D1 about 126 schools to fill the 64 team bracket. Basically, the G5 would fill the Cinderella role.

I just don't feel like they are trying to rock the boat so much as address what are (at their level) glaring issues (students not getting enough in full scholarships has a lot more potential to embarrass them than other schools). I don't think a football break would gain/lose them much I'll admit (they bring most the money now and keep most of it so no change), but it wouldn't be about money, it would be about controlling their destiny. For basketball, even though they could definitely make more in a different format, I don't think they want to anger people by messing with the NCAA Tournament at this time. In short, this isn't about money, it's about ability to make certain choices.

(06-12-2013 09:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:38 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the Mountain West and American are coming with a new division 1 subdivision, I'm not sure I see the point in a new division to begin with. The votes so far have been against allowing the school to have full cost scholarships. The threat of the power 5 leaving will probably be enough for them to get what they want. If that includes a new subdivision within division 1, it will probably a) only be the power 5, b) only be for football, c) only be for rules; teams from current FBS would still play the new subdivision and probably share the same bowl/playoff structure.

In the event that the power 5 formally leave the NCAA, then they probably will be taking most of division 1 with them, but making sure the set-up allows for the rules they want.

The P5 already receive 85-90% of all he money that Div1 football brings in. A split from the 65 or s G5 schools only nets a small amount of incremental cash and possibly damages the product by possibly alienating more than a third of the total FBS fan base. Why would the networks want a product that might have a third less viewers?

Where a huge pool of untouched money exists is in basketball which brings in nearly as much as football---but the P5 don't get nearly 90% of the income. By keeping the some or all of the G5 conferences in the new Division I and eliminating the 200-250 FCS and non-football playing members of Division I, the P5 can grab 90% of that money too. Now that kind of money grab might be worth a split.

If there's a split, some or most of FBS (mosy likely including most of the G5) would likely break away from the rest of D-1. That would give the new D1 about 126 schools to fill the 64 team bracket. Basically, the G5 would fill the Cinderella role.

This seems to be the theme of this thread:

"I'm OK with the P5 breaking away from everybody else EXCEPT the conference my school plays in!

Despite our lack of financial appeal to anyone, we MUST be included due to the following convoluted and tortured logic that makes us believe we can somehow force the P5 to take us even though none of these factors we are counting on to save us have made any difference to our benefit before today!"

(06-12-2013 08:19 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 08:10 AM)pzz189 Wrote:  BYU, Temple, and Houston were on ESPN's list of most valuable non-AQ programs remaining. Temple and Houston have a lot of potential IMO...Temple in the ACC and Houston in the Big XII.

ESPN sees through TV market shaded glasses, not really about the program.

Of course Philadelphia and Houston are appealing to ESPN

What makes Temple so valuable? Do they get good ratings when on TV? Certainly results on the field aren't it. Or attendance.

(06-11-2013 04:39 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  In other news:

I should be a millionaire! I have much more in common with millionaires than I do with poor people.

(06-11-2013 05:51 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:55 PM)goofus Wrote:  Well, some belong with the Power 5 and some don't

Belong
BYU

Don't Belong
UNLV
New Mexico
Colorado State
Boise
Hawaii
San Diego State
UConn
Cincy
USF
UCF
Houston
Utah State
San Jose State
Fresno State
Wyoming
Nevada
Air Force
Navy
SMU
Memphis
Tulane
Temple
Tulsa

FTFY

That ECU diploma you have doesn't deserve to be on your wall.

(06-12-2013 09:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 09:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:38 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the Mountain West and American are coming with a new division 1 subdivision, I'm not sure I see the point in a new division to begin with. The votes so far have been against allowing the school to have full cost scholarships. The threat of the power 5 leaving will probably be enough for them to get what they want. If that includes a new subdivision within division 1, it will probably a) only be the power 5, b) only be for football, c) only be for rules; teams from current FBS would still play the new subdivision and probably share the same bowl/playoff structure.

In the event that the power 5 formally leave the NCAA, then they probably will be taking most of division 1 with them, but making sure the set-up allows for the rules they want.

The P5 already receive 85-90% of all he money that Div1 football brings in. A split from the 65 or s G5 schools only nets a small amount of incremental cash and possibly damages the product by possibly alienating more than a third of the total FBS fan base. Why would the networks want a product that might have a third less viewers?

Where a huge pool of untouched money exists is in basketball which brings in nearly as much as football---but the P5 don't get nearly 90% of the income. By keeping the some or all of the G5 conferences in the new Division I and eliminating the 200-250 FCS and non-football playing members of Division I, the P5 can grab 90% of that money too. Now that kind of money grab might be worth a split.

If there's a split, some or most of FBS (mosy likely including most of the G5) would likely break away from the rest of D-1. That would give the new D1 about 126 schools to fill the 64 team bracket. Basically, the G5 would fill the Cinderella role.

This seems to be the theme of this thread:

"I'm OK with the P5 breaking away from everybody else EXCEPT the conference my school plays in!

Despite our lack of financial appeal to anyone, we MUST be included due to the following convoluted and tortured logic that makes us believe we can somehow force the P5 to take us even though none of these factors we are counting on to save us have made any difference to our benefit before today!"

In this case, "tortured logic" pretty much translates to "10th Mountain cant refute it".

How much financial appeal does the G5 need to have when the 64 G5 schools in FBS only recieve 10% of the total money? The reality is that within the current compensation construct---the G5 actually pulls its own weight. The problem with the current D-1 set up is not FBS football at any level. The problem is the monetary compensation system for NCAA basketball. Thats where theres lots of money for the P-5 to grab. Currently, theres 225 FCS and non-football playing DI schools that are collecting about half that money. Thats where the opportunity is for a real boost in P5 revenue. Splitting with the G5 wont make much difference. Breaking away from those 225 FCS and non-football playing DI schools could make a huge difference.

(06-11-2013 04:55 PM)goofus Wrote:  Well, some belong with the Power 5 and some don't

Belong
BYU
UNLV
New Mexico
Colorado State
Boise
Hawaii
San Diego State
UConn
Cincy
USF
UCF
Houston

Don't Belong
Utah State
San Jose State
Fresno State
Wyoming
Nevada
Air Force
Navy
SMU
Memphis
ECU
Tulane
Temple
Tulsa

... and you used what criteria in putting together this list? Of course, I am insulted: how in the name of God can you put USF and UCF on the list of "belongs" and not ECU? Colorado State? Really????

(06-12-2013 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 09:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 09:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:38 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the Mountain West and American are coming with a new division 1 subdivision, I'm not sure I see the point in a new division to begin with. The votes so far have been against allowing the school to have full cost scholarships. The threat of the power 5 leaving will probably be enough for them to get what they want. If that includes a new subdivision within division 1, it will probably a) only be the power 5, b) only be for football, c) only be for rules; teams from current FBS would still play the new subdivision and probably share the same bowl/playoff structure.

In the event that the power 5 formally leave the NCAA, then they probably will be taking most of division 1 with them, but making sure the set-up allows for the rules they want.

The P5 already receive 85-90% of all he money that Div1 football brings in. A split from the 65 or s G5 schools only nets a small amount of incremental cash and possibly damages the product by possibly alienating more than a third of the total FBS fan base. Why would the networks want a product that might have a third less viewers?

Where a huge pool of untouched money exists is in basketball which brings in nearly as much as football---but the P5 don't get nearly 90% of the income. By keeping the some or all of the G5 conferences in the new Division I and eliminating the 200-250 FCS and non-football playing members of Division I, the P5 can grab 90% of that money too. Now that kind of money grab might be worth a split.

If there's a split, some or most of FBS (mosy likely including most of the G5) would likely break away from the rest of D-1. That would give the new D1 about 126 schools to fill the 64 team bracket. Basically, the G5 would fill the Cinderella role.

This seems to be the theme of this thread:

"I'm OK with the P5 breaking away from everybody else EXCEPT the conference my school plays in!

Despite our lack of financial appeal to anyone, we MUST be included due to the following convoluted and tortured logic that makes us believe we can somehow force the P5 to take us even though none of these factors we are counting on to save us have made any difference to our benefit before today!"

In this case, "tortured logic" pretty much translates to "10th Mountain cant refute it".

How much financial appeal does the G5 need to have when the 64 G5 schools in FBS only recieve 10% of the total money? The reality is that within the current compensation construct---the G5 actually pulls its own weight. The problem with the current D-1 set up is not FBS football at any level. The problem is the monetary compensation system for NCAA basketball. Thats where theres lots of money for the P-5 to grab. Currently, theres 225 FCS and non-football playing DI schools that are collecting about half that money. Thats where the opportunity is for a real boost in P5 revenue. Splitting with the G5 wont make much difference. Breaking away from those 225 FCS and non-football playing DI schools could make a huge difference.

None of which is any argument for taking any G5 team. You can claim people wont watch or that all of a sudden politicians will care and come running to the rescue, but those are all just hollow hopes.

(06-12-2013 10:39 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:55 PM)goofus Wrote:  Well, some belong with the Power 5 and some don't

Belong
BYU
UNLV
New Mexico
Colorado State
Boise
Hawaii
San Diego State
UConn
Cincy
USF
UCF
Houston

Don't Belong
Utah State
San Jose State
Fresno State
Wyoming
Nevada
Air Force
Navy
SMU
Memphis
ECU
Tulane
Temple
Tulsa

... and you used what criteria in putting together this list? Of course, I am insulted: how in the name of God can you put USF and UCF on the list of "belongs" and not ECU? Colorado State? Really????

One man's perception of how he sees your school insults you? You must live a brady bunch life where we all just get along. I agree that UCF and ECU are pretty much on par as a whole, but no need to attack and get all offended.

(06-12-2013 11:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 09:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 09:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 12:38 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the Mountain West and American are coming with a new division 1 subdivision, I'm not sure I see the point in a new division to begin with. The votes so far have been against allowing the school to have full cost scholarships. The threat of the power 5 leaving will probably be enough for them to get what they want. If that includes a new subdivision within division 1, it will probably a) only be the power 5, b) only be for football, c) only be for rules; teams from current FBS would still play the new subdivision and probably share the same bowl/playoff structure.

In the event that the power 5 formally leave the NCAA, then they probably will be taking most of division 1 with them, but making sure the set-up allows for the rules they want.

The P5 already receive 85-90% of all he money that Div1 football brings in. A split from the 65 or s G5 schools only nets a small amount of incremental cash and possibly damages the product by possibly alienating more than a third of the total FBS fan base. Why would the networks want a product that might have a third less viewers?

Where a huge pool of untouched money exists is in basketball which brings in nearly as much as football---but the P5 don't get nearly 90% of the income. By keeping the some or all of the G5 conferences in the new Division I and eliminating the 200-250 FCS and non-football playing members of Division I, the P5 can grab 90% of that money too. Now that kind of money grab might be worth a split.

If there's a split, some or most of FBS (mosy likely including most of the G5) would likely break away from the rest of D-1. That would give the new D1 about 126 schools to fill the 64 team bracket. Basically, the G5 would fill the Cinderella role.

This seems to be the theme of this thread:

"I'm OK with the P5 breaking away from everybody else EXCEPT the conference my school plays in!

Despite our lack of financial appeal to anyone, we MUST be included due to the following convoluted and tortured logic that makes us believe we can somehow force the P5 to take us even though none of these factors we are counting on to save us have made any difference to our benefit before today!"

In this case, "tortured logic" pretty much translates to "10th Mountain cant refute it".

How much financial appeal does the G5 need to have when the 64 G5 schools in FBS only recieve 10% of the total money? The reality is that within the current compensation construct---the G5 actually pulls its own weight. The problem with the current D-1 set up is not FBS football at any level. The problem is the monetary compensation system for NCAA basketball. Thats where theres lots of money for the P-5 to grab. Currently, theres 225 FCS and non-football playing DI schools that are collecting about half that money. Thats where the opportunity is for a real boost in P5 revenue. Splitting with the G5 wont make much difference. Breaking away from those 225 FCS and non-football playing DI schools could make a huge difference.

None of which is any argument for taking any G5 team. You can claim people wont watch or that all of a sudden politicians will care and come running to the rescue, but those are all just hollow hopes.

I didnt claim either of those (though I think both could happen). Im actually claiming that the economics dont suport cutting the G5 loose. Yes they dont bring a huge economic impact, but they also dont likley cost anymore than they bring to the table (10% of the money--heck, they probably actually contribute a more than that if we look at televison ratings). Bottom line---because the revenue sharing is so slanted in the P-5 favor, the G5 are not "taking" anything from the P5--they probably actually contribute a little to the P5.

On the other hand, the 225 FCS/non-football playing Div-I schools are getting about half the NCAA basketball money. That pool of money is actually as large or larger than the new college playoff money pool. Thats where a split could make the P-5 some money. The P-5 doesnt enjoy thier huge oversized share in basketball like they do in football. Basically, breaking off the existing FBS division from Div-I could make alot of sense. There would be a slight increase in money from breaking away from FCS---but there would be a nearly doubleing of the basketball money coming in to the P-5. Yet, with 126 schools, there would still be enough quality teams to create a credible 64 team field for a national D1 NCAA championship tournament.

somewhere there's a DIII message board where fans are arguing over which Go5 conference they should join.

every village has its idiot.

(06-12-2013 11:19 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  somewhere there's a DIII message board where fans are arguing over which Go5 conference they should join.

every village has its idiot.

(06-11-2013 04:34 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  If the Power 5 do breakaway from the other conferences the Mountain West and AAC need to come with them. We should not be stuck in the same breath as the Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. We have much more in common with the P5 conferences than the 3 conferences listed above. Discuss.

What a short memory. The whole realignment/mini playoff began because the SEC and others were angry over the fact that the Big East, whom they did not consider an equal, had a seat at the big boy table. What makes you think that they have changed their mind just because 3 of the former BE teams and the former CUSA (the AAC), along with some semi successful (Boise excluded) former WAC schools say that they belong. Living in SEC country, I can tell you that none of their fans consider there to be any difference among the non-P5 conferences. I am sure that in B1G, Big XII, ACC and Pac12 country it is the same.

(06-12-2013 11:22 AM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:34 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  If the Power 5 do breakaway from the other conferences the Mountain West and AAC need to come with them. We should not be stuck in the same breath as the Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. We have much more in common with the P5 conferences than the 3 conferences listed above. Discuss.

What a short memory. The whole realignment/mini playoff began because the SEC and others were angry over the fact that the Big East, whom they did not consider an equal, had a seat at the big boy table. What makes you think that they have changed their mind just because 3 of the former BE teams and the former CUSA (the AAC), along with some semi successful (Boise excluded) former WAC schools say that they belong. Living in SEC country, I can tell you that none of their fans consider there to be any difference among the non-P5 conferences. I am sure that in B1G, Big XII, ACC and Pac12 country it is the same.

The networks think there is a difference. Last time I looked they pay the freight and they are making the decisions.