(08-26-2013 06:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 05:43 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Do you guys actually WANT your schools to separate from us, the unwashed masses?

Please G5 guys, don't screw this poll up if you can help it.

It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. Do I want to separate from all of the G5 schools? No. Do I want to separate from schools who have no business in FBS like Idaho, Georgia State, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, etc.? Yes I do.

Do I want to separate from the DI in name only schools who are only here fo the March Madness paycheck? Yes I do.

Good answer. I'd agree with you, even as a so-called G5 fan.

(08-26-2013 10:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Must use at least 80 scholarships and pay 5000 a year stipends

In all the years that some form of football has been a college sport in America (Princeton and Rutgers first played each other in 1869), financial wages (provided to the athletes by the schools) have never been a regular or commonly-accepted part of the athletic experience.

If such payments are going to be a part of that experience in the future, schools ought to have the opportunity to phase that new and unexpected cost into their budgets over a period of several years without suffering the penalty of being relegated into a lower competitive classification.

Yes. Separate with 66 schools including BYU. If the Big 12 does expand with BYU and drafts Boise St or Cincinnati, the number goes up. They can still play some games against the little guys.

I am not in favor of an arbitrary number of schools in the upper division. Set a set of criteria for the upper level and those schools who choose to meet that criteria can come on board.

This would necessitate the formation of a 6th conference to collect the P5 schools that make the cut. Either that or allow them to move up a fb only independent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Criteria I would be on board with:

-Sponsor 20 Varsity Sports
-Budget of min. 25 Million
-Football Stadium Size 30K (don't care about attendance though, # of butts in seats does not make a champion, but at least with a stadium size commitment, the institution is making the effort)
-Another $$XX amount of fee required by member institutions to pay that goes into an escrow account to grow funds and for use as marketing for the group and licensing to promote the new structure.

I am sure there could be other requirements, but you lay these out to ALL the current FBS schools to decide who can afford and want to be a part. Those that wish to pass, will join the FCS institutions.

Basketball and the other sports go on as usual.

(08-27-2013 08:00 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Yes. Separate with 66 schools including BYU. If the Big 12 does expand with BYU and drafts Boise St or Cincinnati, the number goes up. They can still play some games against the little guys.

I say no. If the schools want to do it right and separate, then have the "balls" to agree to no more games against FCS. The whole mantra has been for quality games against quality opponents "for the fans". Then dump the FCS games!

(08-26-2013 10:35 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 10:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i want to see the g5/p5 rivalries be kept and i think that if you are a major rival of a p5 school then you should have a guaranteed spot. i also think the schools who have been at the highest level of football for a long time should be grandfathered in.

the biggest issue i have with this proposed split has to do with temple, utah st. & uconn. its nearly unanimous on this board that uconn and temple should be among the first schools in. but nobody wants usu

temple joined the top cfb division in 1971, and its 10 years removed from being 1 vote shy of disbanding their FB team. they dont have a major rivalry with any p5 school

uconn joined the top cfb division in 2000. they are not rivaled with any p5 team either. they come from a region that cant even support syracuse & bc recruiting wise and their addition is only going to water down northeast FB even more.

why these two schools get first dibs while utah st is the last school mentioned is beyond me.

utah state joined the top cfb division in the 1930s. they have a rivalry with utah which is one of the oldest football rivalries and one with byu as well. everyone keeps mentioning a bunch of east coast schools but its the western schools like colorado, colorado state, wyoming, new mexico, new mexico state, utah, utah state, idaho, arizona, washington state, & byu that have all the history. and i really hope that for cfb's sake these rivalries are kept.

i dont feel that uconn & temple are deserving of a d4 bid yet because they have not proven themselves as viable football schools long term. we have no idea of the future of these two programs considering where they were not too long ago. with new mexico & utah state we know that while they are terrible football schools they are schools that have been at the highest level of sports for 70-80 years and have no plans of ending that. temple has shown mixed signs of wether it intends to be a fb school or not. uconn looks to be solidly committed to FB for the time being. but i have a hard time investing in a FB program thats so new to d1.

no disrespect to uconn but their program could disappear tomorrow and nothing in cfb will change. no one in the east is attached to uconn. heck syracuse & BC will applaud it. take colorado state, or utah state out of the picture and there will be some pretty big shockwaves in the west.

Fear not about UConn. No state is investing as heavily in their flagship school as Connecticut is with UConn. Academically and athletically, UConn will be fine.

I think we're on the B1G's radar, but it's likely we'll be in the AAC for a while and we'll be ok. We're not going to die on the vine.

it doesnt matter how much you spend in uconn, northeast football is 10x harder to build a decent program than anywhere else. uconn has a 100+ year old rivalry with umass, are a bb school first with big east ties. im not trying to be mean but culturally speaking uconn needs to align with umass & FCS schools like villanova, georgetown, & especially stoney brook. i would love to see an SB uconn rivalry because of the traditional territorial feud over long island. the point is that uconn can be a very successful g5/FCS school and align with schools that it actually has history with. them as a p5/d4 school just doesnt seem like a move that works with them. i just dont see them ever being competitive and who are they gonna play? ECU? memphis? smu?

I'm not in favor of leaving schools from the AAC, MWC behind. As well as USM and La Tech. These programs have shown their worth. Many had just gotten a ticket to a power 6 AQ conference only to have it yanked away. A few were already in a power 6 conference and missed the lifeboat out. The other 2 have a long track record of running successful football programs and deserve a shot. I think some should be pulled up into the P5 through expansion and the rest merged from AAC, MWC as a 6th conference in the mix. Everyone at around 16 schools each. Pods within each conference would allow all schools in the conference to face each other in a shorter time. 6 Schools for the championship. 2 wild card teams if needed for 8 with next best records over all.

I voted no. That said, if the G5 represent an entire voting block (and I recognize that they aren't) then the question is really about which is more important; money or access. Because it appears as if the P5 are disinclined to offer both.

(08-27-2013 11:45 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I voted no. That said, if the G5 represent an entire voting block (and I recognize that they aren't) then the question is really about which is more important; money or access. Because it appears as if the P5 are disinclined to offer both.

If they offered some access, plus a small share of the money, that's enough for the G5. Right now the G5 doesn't get a lot. If the P5 doesn't want to share any money, then there's no point in providing access either, as it would be a sham.