I've been trying to figure out what the purpose of creating a new division for the P5 plus a few friends, and conclude that there is no good reason for doing so.

The P5 wants to control the revenues generated by college football. But they already to this. The P5 are getting the lion's share of the College Football Playoff revenues, all of the revenue from the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls, the best of the remaining bowls, and TV contracts that dwarf anything that any of the G5 conferences are able to command. The P5 dominate bids to the NCAA tournament. What else could the P5 want?

I believe that if the G5, or a portion of the G5, are relegated to a lower division, their school and conferences specific revenue streams will be hurt. They won't be able to sell tickets or their TV rights for as much money because they will be second division. This won't help the P5, only hurt the G5. Further, it will reduce the value of games that the P5 does play against G5 schools, since they will not be as attractive as opponents.

My guess is that the the P5's real motivation is to ensure that they don't have to share money from a future playoff system that has yet to be created. In all other sports, qualification for the NCAA tournament is open to all conferences that are part of the division with a minimum number of schools. If FBS were to implement an NCAA tournament today, 10 conferences would qualify, and all would receive full financial shares for each school participating. Creating a new division limits the qualifiers to the P5 plus up to one or two others (MWC and American?).

I submit that this issue could be more fairly addressed by implementing more demanding requirements for automatic qualification to the FBS NCAA tournament - minimum attendance, minimum number of sports sponsorships, minimum number of scholarships funded, minimum dollar value of scholarships awarded - that exceed the ordinary threshholds imposed by the NCAA for its championships. Set automatic qualification at a level that only the P5 can meet, but reserve one slot for the G5 - hmm, just like the College Football Playoff.

Demoting the G5 serves no current purpose. It is bad for the sport. The P5 and G5 have a deal in place with the CFP for 12 years. Let it play out. If the playoffs are to be expanded in the future, deal with it then, just as they have in creating the CFP.

(08-26-2013 09:58 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I've been trying to figure out what the purpose of creating a new division for the P5 plus a few friends, and conclude that there is no good reason for doing so.

The P5 wants to control the revenues generated by college football. But they already to this. The P5 are getting the lion's share of the College Football Playoff revenues, all of the revenue from the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls, the best of the remaining bowls, and TV contracts that dwarf anything that any of the G5 conferences are able to command. The P5 dominate bids to the NCAA tournament. What else could the P5 want?

I believe that if the G5, or a portion of the G5, are relegated to a lower division, their school and conferences specific revenue streams will be hurt. They won't be able to sell tickets or their TV rights for as much money because they will be second division. This won't help the P5, only hurt the G5. Further, it will reduce the value of games that the P5 does play against G5 schools, since they will not be as attractive as opponents.

My guess is that the the P5's real motivation is to ensure that they don't have to share money from a future playoff system that has yet to be created. In all other sports, qualification for the NCAA tournament is open to all conferences that are part of the division with a minimum number of schools. If FBS were to implement an NCAA tournament today, 10 conferences would qualify, and all would receive full financial shares for each school participating. Creating a new division limits the qualifiers to the P5 plus up to one or two others (MWC and American?).

I submit that this issue could be more fairly addressed by implementing more demanding requirements for automatic qualification to the FBS NCAA tournament - minimum attendance, minimum number of sports sponsorships, minimum number of scholarships funded, minimum dollar value of scholarships awarded - that exceed the ordinary threshholds imposed by the NCAA for its championships. Set automatic qualification at a level that only the P5 can meet, but reserve one slot for the G5 - hmm, just like the College Football Playoff.

Demoting the G5 serves no current purpose. It is bad for the sport. The P5 and G5 have a deal in place with the CFP for 12 years. Let it play out. If the playoffs are to be expanded in the future, deal with it then, just as they have in creating the CFP.

A potential 8-team playoff is what I believe is the long-term purpose, too. What I disagree is that it serves no purpose if that's the end goal. It makes *perfect* sense if you're a power conference (even if it isn't necessarily fair). More money for all has never been the M.O. for the power schools - *relative* power has been just as important. People can argue whether that's fair or the right thing to do, but that's how the power players have been operating for a long time.

(08-26-2013 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 09:58 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I've been trying to figure out what the purpose of creating a new division for the P5 plus a few friends, and conclude that there is no good reason for doing so.

The P5 wants to control the revenues generated by college football. But they already to this. The P5 are getting the lion's share of the College Football Playoff revenues, all of the revenue from the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls, the best of the remaining bowls, and TV contracts that dwarf anything that any of the G5 conferences are able to command. The P5 dominate bids to the NCAA tournament. What else could the P5 want?

I believe that if the G5, or a portion of the G5, are relegated to a lower division, their school and conferences specific revenue streams will be hurt. They won't be able to sell tickets or their TV rights for as much money because they will be second division. This won't help the P5, only hurt the G5. Further, it will reduce the value of games that the P5 does play against G5 schools, since they will not be as attractive as opponents.

My guess is that the the P5's real motivation is to ensure that they don't have to share money from a future playoff system that has yet to be created. In all other sports, qualification for the NCAA tournament is open to all conferences that are part of the division with a minimum number of schools. If FBS were to implement an NCAA tournament today, 10 conferences would qualify, and all would receive full financial shares for each school participating. Creating a new division limits the qualifiers to the P5 plus up to one or two others (MWC and American?).

I submit that this issue could be more fairly addressed by implementing more demanding requirements for automatic qualification to the FBS NCAA tournament - minimum attendance, minimum number of sports sponsorships, minimum number of scholarships funded, minimum dollar value of scholarships awarded - that exceed the ordinary threshholds imposed by the NCAA for its championships. Set automatic qualification at a level that only the P5 can meet, but reserve one slot for the G5 - hmm, just like the College Football Playoff.

Demoting the G5 serves no current purpose. It is bad for the sport. The P5 and G5 have a deal in place with the CFP for 12 years. Let it play out. If the playoffs are to be expanded in the future, deal with it then, just as they have in creating the CFP.

A potential 8-team playoff is what I believe is the long-term purpose, too. What I disagree is that it serves no purpose if that's the end goal. It makes *perfect* sense if you're a power conference (even if it isn't necessarily fair). More money for all has never been the M.O. for the power schools - *relative* power has been just as important. People can argue whether that's fair or the right thing to do, but that's how the power players have been operating for a long time.

That's assuming the P5 would get more money. They'd be splitting up playoff money between fewer schools, but they'd lose viewers. Lots of them.

(08-26-2013 11:09 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 09:58 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I've been trying to figure out what the purpose of creating a new division for the P5 plus a few friends, and conclude that there is no good reason for doing so.

The P5 wants to control the revenues generated by college football. But they already to this. The P5 are getting the lion's share of the College Football Playoff revenues, all of the revenue from the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls, the best of the remaining bowls, and TV contracts that dwarf anything that any of the G5 conferences are able to command. The P5 dominate bids to the NCAA tournament. What else could the P5 want?

I believe that if the G5, or a portion of the G5, are relegated to a lower division, their school and conferences specific revenue streams will be hurt. They won't be able to sell tickets or their TV rights for as much money because they will be second division. This won't help the P5, only hurt the G5. Further, it will reduce the value of games that the P5 does play against G5 schools, since they will not be as attractive as opponents.

My guess is that the the P5's real motivation is to ensure that they don't have to share money from a future playoff system that has yet to be created. In all other sports, qualification for the NCAA tournament is open to all conferences that are part of the division with a minimum number of schools. If FBS were to implement an NCAA tournament today, 10 conferences would qualify, and all would receive full financial shares for each school participating. Creating a new division limits the qualifiers to the P5 plus up to one or two others (MWC and American?).

I submit that this issue could be more fairly addressed by implementing more demanding requirements for automatic qualification to the FBS NCAA tournament - minimum attendance, minimum number of sports sponsorships, minimum number of scholarships funded, minimum dollar value of scholarships awarded - that exceed the ordinary threshholds imposed by the NCAA for its championships. Set automatic qualification at a level that only the P5 can meet, but reserve one slot for the G5 - hmm, just like the College Football Playoff.

Demoting the G5 serves no current purpose. It is bad for the sport. The P5 and G5 have a deal in place with the CFP for 12 years. Let it play out. If the playoffs are to be expanded in the future, deal with it then, just as they have in creating the CFP.

A potential 8-team playoff is what I believe is the long-term purpose, too. What I disagree is that it serves no purpose if that's the end goal. It makes *perfect* sense if you're a power conference (even if it isn't necessarily fair). More money for all has never been the M.O. for the power schools - *relative* power has been just as important. People can argue whether that's fair or the right thing to do, but that's how the power players have been operating for a long time.

That's assuming the P5 would get more money. They'd be splitting up playoff money between fewer schools, but they'd lose viewers. Lots of them.

If there is one thing that television in the last 30 years has proven it is that we have a nation of full of people who have nothing better to do than to watch crap on TV. TV is a bigger wasteland today than it has ever been. There are a few well written interesting programs on, a very few. There are a few really good documentaries and investigative journalism programs on, but even fewer than the well written prime time shows. Then there is sports (which in season and during normal hours are not reruns).
My point is that you are wrong in your assessment of the loss of viewers for a more limited upper tier package of college football. With larger P5 conferences and fewer cup cake games the interest for those fans will actually be higher for a higher number of games each week. And then there are those who will watch simply because most sporting events are at least fresh and something they can talk about with their buddies at work. If you assume that there are 20 programs across the nation that feel strongly they should be included in the upper division and aren't, and that those programs average 25,000 in attendance between them, and if you assume a very high 50% of them will follow through on their anger by not watching upper tier college football, and then if you break them down by region then you are talking about 125,000 people per region that may not watch. Statistically that's nothing. So good luck, because the networks involved won't care.

The whole D1-A/D1-B format discussed could make some sense because that would reduce the amount of schools in D1 back down to 170 or so making recruiting more competitive.

D1-A
B1G
ACC
PAC
SEC
B12
AAC/MWC (cream)

D1-B
BE
WCC
A10
MAC
SBC
AAC/MWC (leftovers)
CUSA

If the cutoff for D1-A is a budget of 40 million, I think schools in the MAC and SBC would accept D1-B placement because the basketball tournament is going to be super lucrative AND they wouldn't be forced to have to ramp up facilities or budget.

Once the new structure is in place hold out like Delaware to the MAC and James Madison to the SBC will be compelled to make moves to stay at the top level for other sports.

The power group picked the dollar figure they would share in the BCS and they initially did that without even inviting the non-power group to the table.

They later beefed that number up and brought them to the table.

With the CFP, they literally walked into the room and told the G5 what the number was they would get. There was no haggling or bargaining. They put a number on the table and the conversation was over.

I don't see an 8 team playoff changing that MO.

All that happens with an 8 team playoff is the P5 get an auto berth. There are three at-large. They tell the G5 if you want to play in it, win your conference and finish 8 or better or if they are feeling generous, 10 or better. They will announce a figure which will likely be a smaller percentage than the current share but a greater dollar figure and the conversation will end.

That's how this has mostly played out all along.

ESPN makes a nice ROI on Sun Belt and MAC football filling Tuesdays and Wednesdays and they obviously like the small time bowl biz increasing their ownership by about 50%. ESPN isn't whispering in their ear to get them to cut people out because ESPN doesn't want it to happen.

Fox currently holds no top tier rights other than CUSA. Fox isn't going to be clamoring for a lot of their P5 v G5 content they get stuck with essentially becoming FBS vs. FCS.

There simply isn't a big win play here.

(08-26-2013 11:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The whole D1-A/D1-B format discussed could make some sense because that would reduce the amount of schools in D1 back down to 170 or so making recruiting more competitive.

D1-A
B1G
ACC
PAC
SEC
B12
AAC/MWC (cream)

D1-B
BE
WCC
A10
MAC
SBC
AAC/MWC (leftovers)
CUSA

If the cutoff for D1-A is a budget of 40 million, I think schools in the MAC and SBC would accept D1-B placement because the basketball tournament is going to be super lucrative AND they wouldn't be forced to have to ramp up facilities or budget.

Once the new structure is in place hold out like Delaware to the MAC and James Madison to the SBC will be compelled to make moves to stay at the top level for other sports.

Nope they will cook the books and show a $40 million budget.

(08-26-2013 11:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The whole D1-A/D1-B format discussed could make some sense because that would reduce the amount of schools in D1 back down to 170 or so making recruiting more competitive.

D1-A
B1G
ACC
PAC
SEC
B12
AAC/MWC (cream)

D1-B
BE
WCC
A10
MAC
SBC
AAC/MWC (leftovers)
CUSA

If the cutoff for D1-A is a budget of 40 million, I think schools in the MAC and SBC would accept D1-B placement because the basketball tournament is going to be super lucrative AND they wouldn't be forced to have to ramp up facilities or budget.

Once the new structure is in place hold out like Delaware to the MAC and James Madison to the SBC will be compelled to make moves to stay at the top level for other sports.

I like your thought process. It would be tempting to throw the MVC, BSC, and BW into div 1-B too, but then div 1 would be too big, so I guess your cut-off makes sense.

(08-26-2013 12:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The power group picked the dollar figure they would share in the BCS and they initially did that without even inviting the non-power group to the table.

They later beefed that number up and brought them to the table.

With the CFP, they literally walked into the room and told the G5 what the number was they would get. There was no haggling or bargaining. They put a number on the table and the conversation was over.

I don't see an 8 team playoff changing that MO.

All that happens with an 8 team playoff is the P5 get an auto berth. There are three at-large. They tell the G5 if you want to play in it, win your conference and finish 8 or better or if they are feeling generous, 10 or better. They will announce a figure which will likely be a smaller percentage than the current share but a greater dollar figure and the conversation will end.

That's how this has mostly played out all along.

ESPN makes a nice ROI on Sun Belt and MAC football filling Tuesdays and Wednesdays and they obviously like the small time bowl biz increasing their ownership by about 50%. ESPN isn't whispering in their ear to get them to cut people out because ESPN doesn't want it to happen.

Fox currently holds no top tier rights other than CUSA. Fox isn't going to be clamoring for a lot of their P5 v G5 content they get stuck with essentially becoming FBS vs. FCS.

There simply isn't a big win play here.

This is my take also. The CFP will expand to eight teams sooner than later, and the debate will be around qualification. I don't see a new division being created that formally excludes any FBS conferences from participation, but I do see most of the P5 advocating the 5/3 arrangement which will effectively leave out the G5 teams. The question in my mind is how hard will the G5 fight for just taking the top 8, regardless of conference affiliation, and whether any P5 schools or conferences will side with them. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

(08-26-2013 11:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The whole D1-A/D1-B format discussed could make some sense because that would reduce the amount of schools in D1 back down to 170 or so making recruiting more competitive.

D1-A
B1G
ACC
PAC
SEC
B12
AAC/MWC (cream)

D1-B
BE
WCC
A10
MAC
SBC
AAC/MWC (leftovers)
CUSA

If the cutoff for D1-A is a budget of 40 million, I think schools in the MAC and SBC would accept D1-B placement because the basketball tournament is going to be super lucrative AND they wouldn't be forced to have to ramp up facilities or budget.

Once the new structure is in place hold out like Delaware to the MAC and James Madison to the SBC will be compelled to make moves to stay at the top level for other sports.

Big 12 and rest have to add 15 more to get to 16 each.
That will come from AAC/MWC. The rest of those will merge.

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Maybe I'm not understanding your proposal clearly, but how do "conference semi-finals" address the problem of there being 5 "power" conferences but only 4 playoff berths? To me that will be the driver to 8 teams (along with the bigger TV payoff).

I thought the reason for a possible new division is the FBS schools resent rules and limits imposed on them by the FCS and non-football schools. If there is a new division, I wouldn't be surprised if all the FBS schools were included.

(08-26-2013 12:59 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Maybe I'm not understanding your proposal clearly, but how do "conference semi-finals" address the problem of there being 5 "power" conferences but only 4 playoff berths? To me that will be the driver to 8 teams (along with the bigger TV payoff).

I think the next step is the P5 merging. They would have a division with regional divisions roughly based on the current conferences. You would advance NFL style through regional championships and wild cards to the final four.

The only sport that conferences make much sense for right now is basketball. Every other sport is giving up something to fit the conference system. That is why I think they will merge.

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Four team conference playoffs? Or are you talking about what we already have with everyone except B12 and SBC?

(08-26-2013 01:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Four team conference playoffs? Or are you talking about what we already have with everyone except B12 and SBC?

Let's say the B12 and ACC merged or some combination of the PAC 12, B1G, or SEC merged.

All it takes is getting from the divisions we have now into regional pods. So right now we will have two divisions of 6, six divisions of 7, one division of 10 and two independents (I assume BYU will make it). So the one that really sticks out is the division of 10. We could make it something like the champs of 11 divisions of 6 and the 5 best runners up (you could let a G5 representative into one of the slots) play to determine the 8 teams that will play for "conference/regional" championships and advance to the 4 team playoff.

There are a lot of ways to slice it.

The basic premise is that a conference that has two teams play for one championship has one game to sell. A conference that has four teams play semis and a championship sells three games. There is no reason to give those games away to a playoff that has to be shared.

(08-26-2013 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 11:09 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 09:58 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I've been trying to figure out what the purpose of creating a new division for the P5 plus a few friends, and conclude that there is no good reason for doing so.

The P5 wants to control the revenues generated by college football. But they already to this. The P5 are getting the lion's share of the College Football Playoff revenues, all of the revenue from the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls, the best of the remaining bowls, and TV contracts that dwarf anything that any of the G5 conferences are able to command. The P5 dominate bids to the NCAA tournament. What else could the P5 want?

I believe that if the G5, or a portion of the G5, are relegated to a lower division, their school and conferences specific revenue streams will be hurt. They won't be able to sell tickets or their TV rights for as much money because they will be second division. This won't help the P5, only hurt the G5. Further, it will reduce the value of games that the P5 does play against G5 schools, since they will not be as attractive as opponents.

My guess is that the the P5's real motivation is to ensure that they don't have to share money from a future playoff system that has yet to be created. In all other sports, qualification for the NCAA tournament is open to all conferences that are part of the division with a minimum number of schools. If FBS were to implement an NCAA tournament today, 10 conferences would qualify, and all would receive full financial shares for each school participating. Creating a new division limits the qualifiers to the P5 plus up to one or two others (MWC and American?).

I submit that this issue could be more fairly addressed by implementing more demanding requirements for automatic qualification to the FBS NCAA tournament - minimum attendance, minimum number of sports sponsorships, minimum number of scholarships funded, minimum dollar value of scholarships awarded - that exceed the ordinary threshholds imposed by the NCAA for its championships. Set automatic qualification at a level that only the P5 can meet, but reserve one slot for the G5 - hmm, just like the College Football Playoff.

Demoting the G5 serves no current purpose. It is bad for the sport. The P5 and G5 have a deal in place with the CFP for 12 years. Let it play out. If the playoffs are to be expanded in the future, deal with it then, just as they have in creating the CFP.

A potential 8-team playoff is what I believe is the long-term purpose, too. What I disagree is that it serves no purpose if that's the end goal. It makes *perfect* sense if you're a power conference (even if it isn't necessarily fair). More money for all has never been the M.O. for the power schools - *relative* power has been just as important. People can argue whether that's fair or the right thing to do, but that's how the power players have been operating for a long time.

That's assuming the P5 would get more money. They'd be splitting up playoff money between fewer schools, but they'd lose viewers. Lots of them.

If there is one thing that television in the last 30 years has proven it is that we have a nation of full of people who have nothing better to do than to watch crap on TV. TV is a bigger wasteland today than it has ever been. There are a few well written interesting programs on, a very few. There are a few really good documentaries and investigative journalism programs on, but even fewer than the well written prime time shows. Then there is sports (which in season and during normal hours are not reruns).
My point is that you are wrong in your assessment of the loss of viewers for a more limited upper tier package of college football. With larger P5 conferences and fewer cup cake games the interest for those fans will actually be higher for a higher number of games each week. And then there are those who will watch simply because most sporting events are at least fresh and something they can talk about with their buddies at work. If you assume that there are 20 programs across the nation that feel strongly they should be included in the upper division and aren't, and that those programs average 25,000 in attendance between them, and if you assume a very high 50% of them will follow through on their anger by not watching upper tier college football, and then if you break them down by region then you are talking about 125,000 people per region that may not watch. Statistically that's nothing. So good luck, because the networks involved won't care.

You are talking about close to 60 programs not 20. Everybody currently in G5 is going to feel they should be in the top division. And there are plenty of people who watch games on TV but don't go to the games. So the attendance number would only be a fraction of the actual number.

(08-26-2013 01:05 PM)lew240z Wrote:  I thought the reason for a possible new division is the FBS schools resent rules and limits imposed on them by the FCS and non-football schools. If there is a new division, I wouldn't be surprised if all the FBS schools were included.

A lot less legal exposure that way.

Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

I definitely think that's a primary motivation. If it could be worked out (either through a new division/breakaway or just through some sort of agreement after a lot of saber rattling) do you think it will stop there, or will that just be the stopping point to 16, even if it remains limited to "power" conferences?