(07-22-2013 11:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  Bowlsby's comments about Northern Iowa being different from Texas (Bowlsby was once at Iowa) gives some hint. They don't seem interested in keeping good basketball leagues like the MVC and A-10 around. Its not like they want to simply get rid of the bottom 10-12 conferences of the 31 or 32 in Division I (which I think they should-those have no business there).

It doesn't sound like they want to break away. It sounds like they want the ability to demote some schools out of FBS.

(07-22-2013 11:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think there is a real concern about too many teams in the playoffs diluting their regular season revenues. But control is the unspoken reason. The presidents control 100% of their regular season revenues.

Yes, this is a critical point, too. They don't want to see what happened to college basketball regular season revenue to occur with college football.

(07-22-2013 11:38 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  Bowlsby's comments about Northern Iowa being different from Texas (Bowlsby was once at Iowa) gives some hint. They don't seem interested in keeping good basketball leagues like the MVC and A-10 around. Its not like they want to simply get rid of the bottom 10-12 conferences of the 31 or 32 in Division I (which I think they should-those have no business there).

It doesn't sound like they want to break away. It sounds like they want the ability to demote some schools out of FBS.

They say that to make it sound "nice", but I believe we all know full well that the recent entrants into FBS do NOT want to drop back to FCS.

So, the end result will be:

a) A new football subdivision, or

b) A scenario that I semi-jokingly stated a few days ago -- the P5 leagues leaving and taking the Big East and WCC with 'em to form a new NCAA classification of sorts.

I vote for "b"

(07-22-2013 10:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:35 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  John Swofford today is indicating that there could be a vote on the creation of a "super division" as soon as January:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...n/2574369/

I'm still not seeing what additional fans or money this creates to offset the loss of college football fans from the old G5 schools. Are they that indifferent to the interest level in the sport as a whole? It seems like that would affect them... and for what?

A couple of things:

(1) Yes, they are indifferent to the G5 in a similar way as, say, Major League Baseball franchises are indifferent to the business concerns of minor league baseball franchises. The MLB clubs need the minor league teams to exist in order to develop their prospects, but they see the fandom for MLB as at a completely different level than the fandom for minor league baseball. The power conferences (and to be honest, the free market via TV network contracts) see it the same way compared to the Group of Five conferences.

(2) Think about an 8-team football playoff that the power conferences can run at the "Super FBS" level without any Group of Five "riff raff" and imagine the revenue that it would generate without little risk of diluting their regular season football revenue in the way that the NCAA Tournament has diluted regular season basketball revenue. The resistance to a playoff in college football has had a lot less to do with consternation with a playoff itself and much more to do with what percentage (not just sheer dollars) the power conferences would receive from such playoff. If you allow them to have a playoff without having to invite anyone from the Group of Five leagues, I think you'll see that playoff happen sooner rather than later.

Regarding point 1, of course they're at a different level of fandom, but there is undoubtedly some spill-over affect. As a Cincy fan, I'm watching other college games from the P5 on Saturdays that I would never watch if it were another division of college football. In your analogy, MLB can do whatever they want because they are the top pro league. College football will never be the NFL. It's more like separating AA (G5) from AAA (P5). The problem is that AA fans follow AA because it's their league and MLB. They don't follow AAA. Right now G5 fans follow college football in general and help ratings of P5 games.

Point 2 is so digusting (I'm sure true though) that I really don't want to comment. That paragraph alone is what puts college football somewhere between WWE and boxing for credibility.

(07-22-2013 11:06 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:57 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Just go already.

I would prefer 3 divisions (where there are currently two) over the G5 schools being booted back to FCS.

There are literally zero difference between those 2 options.

You don't think so? Even schools like UAB, FAU, & ULM have a recruiting edge over teams like the Campbell Camels and Chattanooga.

Yeah sure they do, but in the end if the G5 is kicked out of the highest level for all intents and purposes they all got demoted to FCS. Sure those schools would still have recruiting edges over those others, but it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

(07-22-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:06 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:57 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Just go already.

I would prefer 3 divisions (where there are currently two) over the G5 schools being booted back to FCS.

There are literally zero difference between those 2 options.

You don't think so? Even schools like UAB, FAU, & ULM have a recruiting edge over teams like the Campbell Camels and Chattanooga.

Yeah sure they do, but in the end if the G5 is kicked out of the highest level for all intents and purposes they all got demoted to FCS. Sure those schools would still have recruiting edges over those others, but it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Depends on what you do with it. Right now the P5 have enormous influence over the other schools and have a lot of influence over how things are run....regardless of how much they complain about not having enough power.

If they take their balls and go home then they lose ALL influence over what the non-P5 schools do. The G5 and lower divisions won't give a flip about what the P5 want them to do any more. In fact they'll want to do the opposite.

The non-P5 will have to completely switch over to a mindset of competing with the P5. They won't win...but they CAN carve out a larger and more profitable niche than they have now if they played their cards right.

With the P5 gone the rest would have to restructure college football to have the best shot to capture fans from the P5 semi-pro league.

Frankly, I don't think the P5 want to lose the influence and control they have right now over the other schools. They wouldn't be able to threaten and bluster to herd the sheep like they are right this instant.

You never know what the future holds, you don't know what the legal framework will end up being for a semi-pro breakaway. You don't know what new technologies you'll have or what societal changes you'll have. It is better to maintain your influence over the entire college sports world rather than throw it away for a few more bucks and to avoid the Boise. At one point the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA Tourney....things change. You want to be in position to control all the players.

Just remember.

In negotiating you typically ask for more than you want so when you compromise you can compromise at the level you want.

Back at least as early as 1975 the biggies were already saber-rattling about what was then dubbed Division IV. It would have been around 100 schools out of the then 250ish in Division I.

By 1978 a compromise is reached. Division I would be split into I-A and I-AA.

The cry is taken up again and in 1981 the compromise is reached more schools get pushed into I-AA and once again the split has nothing to do with football.

Sure they might say the hell with it and slice it down to 65 schools but I continue to think it unlikely. Too many states with "top division" programs will no longer be in the mix. It won't take 24 hours for the first G5 school to file suit in Federal Court alleging a Sherman violation pointing out the general skepticism of the courts to reduced competition and in this instance the removal of access for 60ish schools.

Far more likely this is the opening offer and the compromise line sits somewhere else.
1. Restructuring governance won't be negotiable. There will be something done to assure the 65 control the division.
2. Making life too expensive for marginal programs is fairly probable.

I doubt the 65 care at all about whether the G5 are in or out. The only reason for them to be in is scheduling and nuisance factor if the 65 bail.

They will get their revamp.

(07-22-2013 01:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:06 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:57 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Just go already.

I would prefer 3 divisions (where there are currently two) over the G5 schools being booted back to FCS.

There are literally zero difference between those 2 options.

You don't think so? Even schools like UAB, FAU, & ULM have a recruiting edge over teams like the Campbell Camels and Chattanooga.

Yeah sure they do, but in the end if the G5 is kicked out of the highest level for all intents and purposes they all got demoted to FCS. Sure those schools would still have recruiting edges over those others, but it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Depends on what you do with it. Right now the P5 have enormous influence over the other schools and have a lot of influence over how things are run....regardless of how much they complain about not having enough power.

If they take their balls and go home then they lose ALL influence over what the non-P5 schools do. The G5 and lower divisions won't give a flip about what the P5 want them to do any more. In fact they'll want to do the opposite.

The non-P5 will have to completely switch over to a mindset of competing with the P5. They won't win...but they CAN carve out a larger and more profitable niche than they have now if they played their cards right.

With the P5 gone the rest would have to restructure college football to have the best shot to capture fans from the P5 semi-pro league.

Frankly, I don't think the P5 want to lose the influence and control they have right now over the other schools. They wouldn't be able to threaten and bluster to herd the sheep like they are right this instant.

You never know what the future holds, you don't know what the legal framework will end up being for a semi-pro breakaway. You don't know what new technologies you'll have or what societal changes you'll have. It is better to maintain your influence over the entire college sports world rather than throw it away for a few more bucks and to avoid the Boise. At one point the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA Tourney....things change. You want to be in position to control all the players.

No what they want is not a complete break away. They want their own new subdivision of the NCAA to be formed. That's the worst possible option for the G5 because they get to remain in power and control the rules and everything else of the G5 without having to share the money or access with the G5. The G5 needs to do everything in their power to either force them to completely break away or include them. A complete break away is horrible no doubt, but as you said the schools left behind could change the rules in ways that would maybe not allow them to be competitive but to do things differently that some people might appreciate more.

(07-22-2013 01:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:06 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:57 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Just go already.

I would prefer 3 divisions (where there are currently two) over the G5 schools being booted back to FCS.

There are literally zero difference between those 2 options.

You don't think so? Even schools like UAB, FAU, & ULM have a recruiting edge over teams like the Campbell Camels and Chattanooga.

Yeah sure they do, but in the end if the G5 is kicked out of the highest level for all intents and purposes they all got demoted to FCS. Sure those schools would still have recruiting edges over those others, but it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Depends on what you do with it. Right now the P5 have enormous influence over the other schools and have a lot of influence over how things are run....regardless of how much they complain about not having enough power.

If they take their balls and go home then they lose ALL influence over what the non-P5 schools do. The G5 and lower divisions won't give a flip about what the P5 want them to do any more. In fact they'll want to do the opposite.

The non-P5 will have to completely switch over to a mindset of competing with the P5. They won't win...but they CAN carve out a larger and more profitable niche than they have now if they played their cards right.

With the P5 gone the rest would have to restructure college football to have the best shot to capture fans from the P5 semi-pro league.

Frankly, I don't think the P5 want to lose the influence and control they have right now over the other schools. They wouldn't be able to threaten and bluster to herd the sheep like they are right this instant.

You never know what the future holds, you don't know what the legal framework will end up being for a semi-pro breakaway. You don't know what new technologies you'll have or what societal changes you'll have. It is better to maintain your influence over the entire college sports world rather than throw it away for a few more bucks and to avoid the Boise. At one point the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA Tourney....things change. You want to be in position to control all the players.

That's an interesting perspective. Control certainly is important to the power conferences, so I can see your logic.

However, what exactly is it that the G5 can realistically threaten or put into place that would theoretically be more profitable if the P5 completely split off? The only thing that would truly be competitive is if the G5 actually started explicitly paying players, which seems to go against the fact that a lot of the smaller conferences don't even want to cover the cost of attendance and that's a major reason why the P5 want to split off. A G5 football playoff would be about as relevant as the FCS playoff in the national consciousness, so it's also not about structuring a postseason format that Americans generally like more (as it doesn't matter what that postseason looks like if the teams that they deem to be important aren't involved). I'm just not seeing any leverage from the G5 here - the main thing that could viably allow the G5 to compete for P5 talent is to provide more financial resources to players, which is exactly what they're fighting against.

(07-22-2013 01:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's an interesting perspective. Control certainly is important to the power conferences, so I can see your logic.

However, what exactly is it that the G5 can realistically threaten or put into place that would theoretically be more profitable if the P5 completely split off? The only thing that would truly be competitive is if the G5 actually started explicitly paying players, which seems to go against the fact that a lot of the smaller conferences don't even want to cover the cost of attendance and that's a major reason why the P5 want to split off. A G5 football playoff would be about as relevant as the FCS playoff in the national consciousness, so it's also not about structuring a postseason format that Americans generally like more (as it doesn't matter what that postseason looks like if the teams that they deem to be important aren't involved). I'm just not seeing any leverage from the G5 here - the main thing that could viably allow the G5 to compete for P5 talent is to provide more financial resources to players, which is exactly what they're fighting against.

I'd suggest the G5 could completely drop the charade of academic standards for players. There are countless number of really good players who just can't handle a college workload and that ends their playing careers. If the G5 were willing to rethink the entire paradigm and maybe come up with something like an associates degree track for football players who just can't cut it academically at the college level they could maybe shift the talent level a little. Maybe another thing they could do if the P5 completely separated is play football in the spring. Competing head to head with the P5 wouldn't work but if they went with the USFL model and just completely flipped the seasons around and played football in the spring that could work. There are things that could be done to at least give the G5 schools a fighting chance with a complete split, but if the new subdivision is formed the top football schools in the G5 are dead.

(07-22-2013 01:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:06 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 11:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There are literally zero difference between those 2 options.

You don't think so? Even schools like UAB, FAU, & ULM have a recruiting edge over teams like the Campbell Camels and Chattanooga.

Yeah sure they do, but in the end if the G5 is kicked out of the highest level for all intents and purposes they all got demoted to FCS. Sure those schools would still have recruiting edges over those others, but it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Depends on what you do with it. Right now the P5 have enormous influence over the other schools and have a lot of influence over how things are run....regardless of how much they complain about not having enough power.

If they take their balls and go home then they lose ALL influence over what the non-P5 schools do. The G5 and lower divisions won't give a flip about what the P5 want them to do any more. In fact they'll want to do the opposite.

The non-P5 will have to completely switch over to a mindset of competing with the P5. They won't win...but they CAN carve out a larger and more profitable niche than they have now if they played their cards right.

With the P5 gone the rest would have to restructure college football to have the best shot to capture fans from the P5 semi-pro league.

Frankly, I don't think the P5 want to lose the influence and control they have right now over the other schools. They wouldn't be able to threaten and bluster to herd the sheep like they are right this instant.

You never know what the future holds, you don't know what the legal framework will end up being for a semi-pro breakaway. You don't know what new technologies you'll have or what societal changes you'll have. It is better to maintain your influence over the entire college sports world rather than throw it away for a few more bucks and to avoid the Boise. At one point the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA Tourney....things change. You want to be in position to control all the players.

That's an interesting perspective. Control certainly is important to the power conferences, so I can see your logic.

However, what exactly is it that the G5 can realistically threaten or put into place that would theoretically be more profitable if the P5 completely split off? The only thing that would truly be competitive is if the G5 actually started explicitly paying players, which seems to go against the fact that a lot of the smaller conferences don't even want to cover the cost of attendance and that's a major reason why the P5 want to split off. A G5 football playoff would be about as relevant as the FCS playoff in the national consciousness, so it's also not about structuring a postseason format that Americans generally like more (as it doesn't matter what that postseason looks like if the teams that they deem to be important aren't involved). I'm just not seeing any leverage from the G5 here - the main thing that could viably allow the G5 to compete for P5 talent is to provide more financial resources to players, which is exactly what they're fighting against.

I don't think the G5 is the big road block to stipends. The reality is the G5 is supportive of the stipends. It's FCS and non-football schools, who make up the majority of D1, that are the major stumbling block.

The G5 might repeal rules such as the one requiring the sponsorship of 16 sports and require only three Division I male sports (ie football, basketball and one other). That would make Title IX compliance simpler freeing up dollars.

The G5 would almost certainly allow for a free transfer from P5 schools.

(07-22-2013 01:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's an interesting perspective. Control certainly is important to the power conferences, so I can see your logic.

However, what exactly is it that the G5 can realistically threaten or put into place that would theoretically be more profitable if the P5 completely split off? The only thing that would truly be competitive is if the G5 actually started explicitly paying players, which seems to go against the fact that a lot of the smaller conferences don't even want to cover the cost of attendance and that's a major reason why the P5 want to split off. A G5 football playoff would be about as relevant as the FCS playoff in the national consciousness, so it's also not about structuring a postseason format that Americans generally like more (as it doesn't matter what that postseason looks like if the teams that they deem to be important aren't involved). I'm just not seeing any leverage from the G5 here - the main thing that could viably allow the G5 to compete for P5 talent is to provide more financial resources to players, which is exactly what they're fighting against.

I'd suggest the G5 could completely drop the charade of academic standards for players. There are countless number of really good players who just can't handle a college workload and that ends their playing careers. If the G5 were willing to rethink the entire paradigm and maybe come up with something like an associates degree track for football players who just can't cut it academically at the college level they could maybe shift the talent level a little. Maybe another thing they could do if the P5 completely separated is play football in the spring. Competing head to head with the P5 wouldn't work but if they went with the USFL model and just completely flipped the seasons around and played football in the spring that could work. There are things that could be done to at least give the G5 schools a fighting chance with a complete split, but if the new subdivision is formed the top football schools in the G5 are dead.

I think a significant lowering of academic standards would be really tough for university presidents to swallow (especially when you've got schools like Rice, UConn and Tulane still in the non-power 5 ranks), but the spring football concept actually makes a lot of sense as an alternative. That is at least a differentiator at the college level. The main obstacle there is how to attract pro prospect-types since the NFL Draft is in April and those players want to spend several months preparing for it (which would be impossible if games are still going on at that time). Still, that's an interesting idea.

(07-22-2013 01:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 01:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's an interesting perspective. Control certainly is important to the power conferences, so I can see your logic.

However, what exactly is it that the G5 can realistically threaten or put into place that would theoretically be more profitable if the P5 completely split off? The only thing that would truly be competitive is if the G5 actually started explicitly paying players, which seems to go against the fact that a lot of the smaller conferences don't even want to cover the cost of attendance and that's a major reason why the P5 want to split off. A G5 football playoff would be about as relevant as the FCS playoff in the national consciousness, so it's also not about structuring a postseason format that Americans generally like more (as it doesn't matter what that postseason looks like if the teams that they deem to be important aren't involved). I'm just not seeing any leverage from the G5 here - the main thing that could viably allow the G5 to compete for P5 talent is to provide more financial resources to players, which is exactly what they're fighting against.

I'd suggest the G5 could completely drop the charade of academic standards for players. There are countless number of really good players who just can't handle a college workload and that ends their playing careers. If the G5 were willing to rethink the entire paradigm and maybe come up with something like an associates degree track for football players who just can't cut it academically at the college level they could maybe shift the talent level a little. Maybe another thing they could do if the P5 completely separated is play football in the spring. Competing head to head with the P5 wouldn't work but if they went with the USFL model and just completely flipped the seasons around and played football in the spring that could work. There are things that could be done to at least give the G5 schools a fighting chance with a complete split, but if the new subdivision is formed the top football schools in the G5 are dead.

I think a significant lowering of academic standards would be really tough for university presidents to swallow (especially when you've got schools like Rice, UConn and Tulane still in the non-power 5 ranks), but the spring football concept actually makes a lot of sense as an alternative. That is at least a differentiator at the college level. The main obstacle there is how to attract pro prospect-types since the NFL Draft is in April and those players want to spend several months preparing for it (which would be impossible if games are still going on at that time). Still, that's an interesting idea.

I'm sure there's any number of other things that could be done to at least give the G5 a shot at remaining semi relevant in a full split. What's very clear though is that a new division kills any hope of G5's being relevant in football. So I hope the G5 schools are willing to fight this to the point of either forcing them to form their own new organization or giving them a path to stay at the top level.

I'm a huge college football fan. But if this comes to pass - I would follow my team and my conference only. I would never watch a P5 game.

Yes, I am only one person. But there are many fans of other schools that feel the same way. P5 would lose an awful lot of their audience (IMHO). I'd guess up to 33%. In reality, you are talking about losing the fans of Cincy, UConn, USF, ECU, UCF, UH, Boise St., Temple, Memphis, Fresno St, SDSU, SMU, Navy, Air Force, not to mention the MAC and CUSA/SunBelt.

Maybe that is worth it to the P5. Seems stupid to me though, to basically exclude a large chunk of your current audience.

Theoretically the non-P5 could negotiate TV deals collectively.

Top G5 teams might be more appealing for TV since a lot of P5 schools would not be padding their records any more and would look comparatively worse.

This also brings up bowls. With a P5 complete split the P5 would not be able to fill all slots and some bowls would have to go with G5 or die. G5 could focus on bowls or focus on a playoff. Most bowls might not survive a split.

If G5 schools are relegated to a lower division & cut completely out of the P5 Bowl scene then I would favor a playoff. At that point we might as well.

(07-22-2013 01:56 PM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I'm a huge college football fan. But if this comes to pass - I would follow my team and my conference only. I would never watch a P5 game.

Yes, I am only one person. But there are many fans of other schools that feel the same way. P5 would lose an awful lot of their audience (IMHO). I'd guess up to 33%. In reality, you are talking about losing the fans of Cincy, UConn, USF, ECU, UCF, UH, Boise St., Temple, Memphis, Fresno St, SDSU, SMU, Navy, Air Force, not to mention the MAC and CUSA/SunBelt.

Maybe that is worth it to the P5. Seems stupid to me though, to basically exclude a large chunk of your current audience.

This was basically my point as well. I just don't see the upside to throwing away that portion of the audience. There is no way I would turn around and watch the teams that essentially threw my school out of D1. They're severely underestimating the bitterness factor here, but that's not surprising considering the blind arrogance they've operated with all along.

(07-22-2013 01:59 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  If G5 schools are relegated to a lower division & cut completely out of the P5 Bowl scene then I would favor a playoff. At that point we might as well.

The mid and lower bowls need to be worried about where this will end up.

I doubt you would see academic standards lowered.

But on the other hand you might see a repeal of the 4 to play 5 rule making it 5 to play 5 or making 5 to play 5 conditioned on meeting targets of graduation. Roster limit might go to 115 and maybe end the head count practice allowing coaches to split some of the scholarships.

A full shift to spring would be rather difficult. First of all merely by breaking away, the P5 aren't going to stop scheduling the G5 and the G5 have some contracts where P5 travel to them that they would likely want to enforce.

What you might see instead is a split season.

Play 6 games between Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Then play 1 or 2 neutral site "bowl" games in December/January located most in domes and warm weather sites around the dates when the P5 isn't playing generally, which is from the day after the first Saturday in December to Christmas Day and then filling in spots between January 2 and the day before the CFP title game. All G5 bowl games last year drew between 1.3 million viewers and 3.3 million. Then another 6 games between March 1 and the third Saturday in April. After the NFL draft another series of bowl games or a playoff without the drafted player or signed free agents.