(08-13-2013 01:49 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As with most aspects of life, the political ramifications of college athletics can not be ignored.

Does anyone really think that the Senators from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, etc. will sit idly by if their state flagship schools are relegated to a lower division?

The Mountain West has more "Senate votes" than any conference not named B1G or SEC. Big Sky and America East are right up there with the American. I just don't see the Mountain West being left out of any Division 4. And I don't see a total breakaway being feasible unless it includes more of the flagship schools from states not in P5 conferences.

How many senate votes do all of the P5 conference states have compared to the Mountain West conference?

It really is a moot question, because the politicans will never get involved in this.

Politics will definitely get involved. Think Baylor/Ann Richards.

And it is not just the MW states. You have Big Sky states. Summit League states. America East States. P5 barely controls 50% of states. And that is not allowing for states like Arkansas - where ASU has some sway.

(08-13-2013 02:25 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  This is exactly what we need, politicians and the government deciding who plays college football at the highest level.

Here’s an idea, how about all the TV and bowl money, ticket sale revenue along with the equipment sponsorship money from companies like Nike and Under Armour, merchandising and booster donations all goes into a pot managed by the government, and then they can distribute it evenly to each school that plays football. This way all the schools will be on a level playing field and we can find out who the best team REALLY is!

This country was built on competition. Universities have a decision to make, invest in their programs based on ROI or not. Unfortunately in life some will win and some wont.

And the P5 are trying to limit the competition...

What kind of legislative solution are we even talking about here?

You pull tax exempt from athletics departments and it only affects a handful of schools who report profits. Those schools could just move the numbers around so they show a loss or a very small profit.

You pull tax exempt from all universities as a whole and well... That's just a non-starter. No university president is going to support pulling tax exempt from their own school.

(08-13-2013 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:05 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:49 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yes but sports competition is supposed to be based on how good you are in sports, not in business. That's how it is in most college sports. Olympic stars don't win a gold medal because they got the most lucrative endorsements. And it isn't just the 60 richest countries that get to participate.

The fact that football is different doesn't make it right.

That’s very true, but the vast difference between college football (and basketball) and all the other sports is these are the only 2 that add money to the bottom line of the balance sheet, all the rest take it away.

College football and basketball are a business, hence the desire to cheat. You don’t see too many schools going on probation for a recruiting violation for a field hockey player signing. It shouldn't be a business, but sadly it is.

And that's what I'm saying. The split is based on money, and not related to the competition. Also, how many football programs actually make money? From all I've heard, not many. So in many cases football is no different than the other sports.

I guess that’s why I don’t get pissed off about it, because I understand its business. At the end of the day my University Temple is either going to decide that the returns (not only revenue but exposure and perception as a national university, ect) are worth the investment to get to the criteria the P5 decides is the “minimum requirements” (I’m sure it will be stipends, athletic budget minimum, facilities, attendance, hopefully an academic component and so on), or it’s not worth it. Personally I hope they do decide to invest because I feel it’s in the best interest of Temple, but it’s not something I have a say in.

Even if you spent more it wouldn't be enough. You STILL aren't in a P5 conference, so you're out of luck. And spending more won't magically increase attendance. And what's wrong with your facilities now that make them unsuitable?

Specifically in Temples case I don’t think anything internally would hold them back if they made the decision to move forward. Home games at Lincoln Financial Field, a major renovation of the football practice facility just last season, and a brand new state of the art basketball facility opened last year also. Academics are good, they sponsor something like 22 sports already, and even the attendance has been on a (slow but) steady rise over the last few seasons.

Personally I see this being a major shake out if it happens, maybe even the opportunity to spur further realignment. They throw around the 60 – 70 schools number, 5 conferences with 14 teams in each works out to 70. The core of the P5 conferences would remain the same, but maybe the new addition schools would fill in the gaps to get to 14.

It wouldn't be a matter of Temple wanting to make the commitment to hit the P5 standards, I feel pretty comfortable that they would, I think it would more come down to does a P5 conference want Temple? Who knows?

(08-13-2013 03:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:25 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  This is exactly what we need, politicians and the government deciding who plays college football at the highest level.

Here’s an idea, how about all the TV and bowl money, ticket sale revenue along with the equipment sponsorship money from companies like Nike and Under Armour, merchandising and booster donations all goes into a pot managed by the government, and then they can distribute it evenly to each school that plays football. This way all the schools will be on a level playing field and we can find out who the best team REALLY is!

This country was built on competition. Universities have a decision to make, invest in their programs based on ROI or not. Unfortunately in life some will win and some wont.

And the P5 are trying to limit the competition...

That idea IS about limiting the competition...by the G5.

Oh what? Nobody cares about our school so we cant make enough money to compete with the big schools? We'll just take away their money and give it to ourselves so they can't compete at a higher level than we can!

(08-13-2013 03:53 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:05 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:49 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  That’s very true, but the vast difference between college football (and basketball) and all the other sports is these are the only 2 that add money to the bottom line of the balance sheet, all the rest take it away.

College football and basketball are a business, hence the desire to cheat. You don’t see too many schools going on probation for a recruiting violation for a field hockey player signing. It shouldn't be a business, but sadly it is.

And that's what I'm saying. The split is based on money, and not related to the competition. Also, how many football programs actually make money? From all I've heard, not many. So in many cases football is no different than the other sports.

I guess that’s why I don’t get pissed off about it, because I understand its business. At the end of the day my University Temple is either going to decide that the returns (not only revenue but exposure and perception as a national university, ect) are worth the investment to get to the criteria the P5 decides is the “minimum requirements” (I’m sure it will be stipends, athletic budget minimum, facilities, attendance, hopefully an academic component and so on), or it’s not worth it. Personally I hope they do decide to invest because I feel it’s in the best interest of Temple, but it’s not something I have a say in.

Even if you spent more it wouldn't be enough. You STILL aren't in a P5 conference, so you're out of luck. And spending more won't magically increase attendance. And what's wrong with your facilities now that make them unsuitable?

Specifically in Temples case I don’t think anything internally would hold them back if they made the decision to move forward. Home games at Lincoln Financial Field, a major renovation of the football practice facility just last season, and a brand new state of the art basketball facility opened last year also. Academics are good, they sponsor something like 22 sports already, and even the attendance has been on a (slow but) steady rise over the last few seasons.

Personally I see this being a major shake out if it happens, maybe even the opportunity to spur further realignment. They throw around the 60 – 70 schools number, 5 conferences with 14 teams in each works out to 70. The core of the P5 conferences would remain the same, but maybe the new addition schools would fill in the gaps to get to 14.

It wouldn't be a matter of Temple wanting to make the commitment to hit the P5 standards, I feel pretty comfortable that they would, I think it would more come down to does a P5 conference want Temple? Who knows?

Would Temple be comfortable in a "second tier" football situation if the AAC made the cut in all other sports?

(08-13-2013 03:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:25 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  This is exactly what we need, politicians and the government deciding who plays college football at the highest level.

Here’s an idea, how about all the TV and bowl money, ticket sale revenue along with the equipment sponsorship money from companies like Nike and Under Armour, merchandising and booster donations all goes into a pot managed by the government, and then they can distribute it evenly to each school that plays football. This way all the schools will be on a level playing field and we can find out who the best team REALLY is!

This country was built on competition. Universities have a decision to make, invest in their programs based on ROI or not. Unfortunately in life some will win and some wont.

And the P5 are trying to limit the competition...

How are they doing that?

At the end of the day if your school doesn’t like its position in the college football landscape they are free to take the lead of BYU, Notre Dame, Army and Navy. Go independent. Do what ND did last year, run the table and play in the national championship game. BYU has been ranked numerous times as an independent. Control your own TV rights, there is nothing holding anyone back.

(08-13-2013 03:59 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:53 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:05 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  And that's what I'm saying. The split is based on money, and not related to the competition. Also, how many football programs actually make money? From all I've heard, not many. So in many cases football is no different than the other sports.

I guess that’s why I don’t get pissed off about it, because I understand its business. At the end of the day my University Temple is either going to decide that the returns (not only revenue but exposure and perception as a national university, ect) are worth the investment to get to the criteria the P5 decides is the “minimum requirements” (I’m sure it will be stipends, athletic budget minimum, facilities, attendance, hopefully an academic component and so on), or it’s not worth it. Personally I hope they do decide to invest because I feel it’s in the best interest of Temple, but it’s not something I have a say in.

Even if you spent more it wouldn't be enough. You STILL aren't in a P5 conference, so you're out of luck. And spending more won't magically increase attendance. And what's wrong with your facilities now that make them unsuitable?

Specifically in Temples case I don’t think anything internally would hold them back if they made the decision to move forward. Home games at Lincoln Financial Field, a major renovation of the football practice facility just last season, and a brand new state of the art basketball facility opened last year also. Academics are good, they sponsor something like 22 sports already, and even the attendance has been on a (slow but) steady rise over the last few seasons.

Personally I see this being a major shake out if it happens, maybe even the opportunity to spur further realignment. They throw around the 60 – 70 schools number, 5 conferences with 14 teams in each works out to 70. The core of the P5 conferences would remain the same, but maybe the new addition schools would fill in the gaps to get to 14.

It wouldn't be a matter of Temple wanting to make the commitment to hit the P5 standards, I feel pretty comfortable that they would, I think it would more come down to does a P5 conference want Temple? Who knows?

Would Temple be comfortable in a "second tier" football situation if the AAC made the cut in all other sports?

Definitely not, but unless they went independent they wouldn't have much of a choice. I'm not saying its right, all i'm saying is you cant legislate "fairness".

(08-13-2013 03:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:49 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As with most aspects of life, the political ramifications of college athletics can not be ignored.

Does anyone really think that the Senators from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, etc. will sit idly by if their state flagship schools are relegated to a lower division?

The Mountain West has more "Senate votes" than any conference not named B1G or SEC. Big Sky and America East are right up there with the American. I just don't see the Mountain West being left out of any Division 4. And I don't see a total breakaway being feasible unless it includes more of the flagship schools from states not in P5 conferences.

How many senate votes do all of the P5 conference states have compared to the Mountain West conference?

It really is a moot question, because the politicans will never get involved in this.

Politics will definitely get involved. Think Baylor/Ann Richards.

And it is not just the MW states. You have Big Sky states. Summit League states. America East States. P5 barely controls 50% of states. And that is not allowing for states like Arkansas - where ASU has some sway.

And they don't have to do anything other than threaten to drag all the presidents into hearings.

That's why I think a P5 split won't happen. They might allow all of FBS. They might allow AACk! and MWC or some combination of the two while leaving out CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt. But its not going to be just 5 conferences.

The CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt don't have many flagships. MAC-just Buffalo and UMass and both are new to FBS and both are drwafed athletically by private schools-SU and BC. In CUSA, none of the schools except maybe La Tech are higher than #3 among public schools in the state and only Rice is AAU. In Sun Belt only partial members Idaho and NMSU are flagships and other than that only in LA and AR do they have any argument that they might have the #2 school. In ID and NM they have the distant #2 school in athletics. So there wouldn't be as much political pressure if those 3 got left out. And also, only La-La and NMSU from the Sun Belt and UTEP, Rice, USM from CUSA were I-A before 1989. The MAC has a little more longevity in the top division with 7 who were members in the 60s and 10 who were members before 1987.

This whole thread sounds like wishful thinking.

(08-13-2013 03:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 02:25 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  This is exactly what we need, politicians and the government deciding who plays college football at the highest level.

Here’s an idea, how about all the TV and bowl money, ticket sale revenue along with the equipment sponsorship money from companies like Nike and Under Armour, merchandising and booster donations all goes into a pot managed by the government, and then they can distribute it evenly to each school that plays football. This way all the schools will be on a level playing field and we can find out who the best team REALLY is!

This country was built on competition. Universities have a decision to make, invest in their programs based on ROI or not. Unfortunately in life some will win and some wont.

And the P5 are trying to limit the competition...

That idea IS about limiting the competition...by the G5.

Oh what? Nobody cares about our school so we cant make enough money to compete with the big schools? We'll just take away their money and give it to ourselves so they can't compete at a higher level than we can!

The CFP payment to the G5 is a simple agreement. Take our money so we can create a post-season event that restricts access. It is quite possible over the life of the CFP agreement that there will be more than one season where a G5 is excluded in favor of a lesser ranked P5. It happened several times in the BCS.

No one forced the P5 to cut the G5 a check, it was a pure and simple business decision. It provides insulation from anti-competitive behavior claims. The P5 believe that is worth roughly $90 million a year.

There isn't a lot of relevance to argue how long a school has been FBS.

Wal-Mart is 51 years old, it took 25 years to become the largest retailer, displacing Sears, a company formed in 1891. Apple caught Exxon despite a 90 year head start.

Boise State didn't enter the NCAA until 1969, didn't join FCS until 1978. Under the doctrine of "always been here" Boise doesn't get to play.

(08-13-2013 04:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There isn't a lot of relevance to argue how long a school has been FBS.

Wal-Mart is 51 years old, it took 25 years to become the largest retailer, displacing Sears, a company formed in 1891. Apple caught Exxon despite a 90 year head start.

Boise State didn't enter the NCAA until 1969, didn't join FCS until 1978. Under the doctrine of "always been here" Boise doesn't get to play.

It does to fan support and national recognition. If Boise had 5 straight losing seasons, no one would pay any attention to them again. Marshall got some notice with their QBs and Randy Moss. But not anymore.

(08-13-2013 04:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 04:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There isn't a lot of relevance to argue how long a school has been FBS.

Wal-Mart is 51 years old, it took 25 years to become the largest retailer, displacing Sears, a company formed in 1891. Apple caught Exxon despite a 90 year head start.

Boise State didn't enter the NCAA until 1969, didn't join FCS until 1978. Under the doctrine of "always been here" Boise doesn't get to play.

It does to fan support and national recognition. If Boise had 5 straight losing seasons, no one would pay any attention to them again. Marshall got some notice with their QBs and Randy Moss. But not anymore.

True to a point since they lack the welfare system powers like Minnesota participate in.

(08-13-2013 03:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:49 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As with most aspects of life, the political ramifications of college athletics can not be ignored.

Does anyone really think that the Senators from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, etc. will sit idly by if their state flagship schools are relegated to a lower division?

The Mountain West has more "Senate votes" than any conference not named B1G or SEC. Big Sky and America East are right up there with the American. I just don't see the Mountain West being left out of any Division 4. And I don't see a total breakaway being feasible unless it includes more of the flagship schools from states not in P5 conferences.

How many senate votes do all of the P5 conference states have compared to the Mountain West conference?

It really is a moot question, because the politicans will never get involved in this.

Politics will definitely get involved. Think Baylor/Ann Richards.

And it is not just the MW states. You have Big Sky states. Summit League states. America East States. P5 barely controls 50% of states. And that is not allowing for states like Arkansas - where ASU has some sway.

Baylor/Richards was totally different than exxpecting the congress of the US to get involved in this can of worms......not very likely to happen.

In Arkansas ASU has NO say.....the razorbacks control the state legislature and everything else.

(08-13-2013 04:44 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:49 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As with most aspects of life, the political ramifications of college athletics can not be ignored.

Does anyone really think that the Senators from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, etc. will sit idly by if their state flagship schools are relegated to a lower division?

The Mountain West has more "Senate votes" than any conference not named B1G or SEC. Big Sky and America East are right up there with the American. I just don't see the Mountain West being left out of any Division 4. And I don't see a total breakaway being feasible unless it includes more of the flagship schools from states not in P5 conferences.

How many senate votes do all of the P5 conference states have compared to the Mountain West conference?

It really is a moot question, because the politicans will never get involved in this.

Politics will definitely get involved. Think Baylor/Ann Richards.

And it is not just the MW states. You have Big Sky states. Summit League states. America East States. P5 barely controls 50% of states. And that is not allowing for states like Arkansas - where ASU has some sway.

Baylor/Richards was totally different than exxpecting the congress of the US to get involved in this can of worms......not very likely to happen.

In Arkansas ASU has NO say.....the razorbacks control the state legislature and everything else.

They've gotten involved before. Utah Senators made a big stink a few years ago. And now, guess who's in the big boy club.

Connecticut likes to sue people. If UConn is excluded from the highest level in whatever the final configuration is, you can definitely expect a lawsuit. Considering that we meet any financial guidelines that could be arbitrarily imposed upon us and that our attendence and stadium size is comparable to quite a few P5 schools, I'd think we have a good case. Not to mention that if this is not just about football, we have a few national championships and have clearly demonstrated a commitment to our athletic programs. It is what it is. UConn has a lot more in common with P5 schools than the G5, and that is not intended as an insult to our G5 comrades.

(08-13-2013 04:44 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:49 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As with most aspects of life, the political ramifications of college athletics can not be ignored.

Does anyone really think that the Senators from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, etc. will sit idly by if their state flagship schools are relegated to a lower division?

The Mountain West has more "Senate votes" than any conference not named B1G or SEC. Big Sky and America East are right up there with the American. I just don't see the Mountain West being left out of any Division 4. And I don't see a total breakaway being feasible unless it includes more of the flagship schools from states not in P5 conferences.

How many senate votes do all of the P5 conference states have compared to the Mountain West conference?

It really is a moot question, because the politicans will never get involved in this.

Politics will definitely get involved. Think Baylor/Ann Richards.

And it is not just the MW states. You have Big Sky states. Summit League states. America East States. P5 barely controls 50% of states. And that is not allowing for states like Arkansas - where ASU has some sway.

Baylor/Richards was totally different than exxpecting the congress of the US to get involved in this can of worms......not very likely to happen.

In Arkansas ASU has NO say.....the razorbacks control the state legislature and everything else.

Governor might disagree. Ask Crump about the grilling UA got when they brought their bond issue in for legislative approval.

(08-13-2013 04:16 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  This whole thread sounds like wishful thinking.

Exactly.....Best post in this thread

(08-13-2013 04:47 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  Connecticut likes to sue people. If UConn is excluded from the highest level in whatever the final configuration is, you can definitely expect a lawsuit. Considering that we meet any financial guidelines that could be arbitrarily imposed upon us and that our attendence and stadium size is comparable to quite a few P5 schools, I'd think we have a good case.

Another great example. The whole of New England would be shutout, except for private BC.




Six states. 12 Senators.