(01-17-2014 09:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  But you're already a second class school.

So was ULM when they beat Arkansas and Georgia Southern when they beat Florida. Depending on what your definition of second-class is.

We are willing to play on a tilted playing field....Being excluded from the playing field is another matter.

What are your hopes for Idaho? That we all get downgraded together?

I'd like Idaho to either commit to investing in FBS level facilities, or give up and go back to the FCS. The university just raised $250 million in private donations, and none of it is going to significant athletic projects. Oh yeah, and the AD needs to go.

(01-17-2014 09:17 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:15 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:05 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  This is a far better way to do it. I'm tired of people pretending that all FBS schools are the same. A lot people has a false sense of pride as a G5 school.

Like Idaho?

No delusions here.

Pitiful.

We have never been satisfied. We were with Henderson, Harding, and Southern Arkansas and not very good. But we left them behind. Were independent and not that great. Ended up in the Southland with McNeese, Lamar, UTA, etc. and ended up leaving them behind and moving to FBS. Spent our time in transition hell. It took decades but here we are. We're now to the point where we are winning bowl games at the highest level of the sport and making progress. We have never been much for knowing our place. We don't think we're done.

Boise doesn't appear to accept it's place as permanent either. It may take decades but it looks like maybe they want to get somewhere. Maybe that is part of Idaho's problem.

They may formally exclude the G5 from competing for a national title at the highest level or competing in a BCS Bowl but forming a second tier playoff for all those who fail to make the big dance could be exciting. As long as we field the same number of scholarships, when we play them, it will be equal from a depth standpoint. They will NEVER remove the G5 from the schedule. Stipends are nice but we've never competed with the G5 for talent anyway. FCS has the lure of a championship, AS WELL AS, the hope of making it to the next level. The G5 already enjoys the environment, only without the hope of a national title. Certainly not me but a surprising number of GS fans were against the move to FBS due to the zero possibility of earning a national title. If the P5 begin paying athletes then we will likely be forced to create a separate league. GS loses nothing in the move and we have a brand new stadium and facilities, and much larger budget to compete at a much higher level with a much smaller group of like minded universities. Several new very large cities are now invested in the league with major tv market potential. What's not to like? Just keeping it positive.

(01-17-2014 10:04 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  They may formally exclude the G5 from competing for a national title at the highest level or competing in a BCS Bowl but forming a second tier playoff for all those who fail to make the big dance could be exciting. As long as we field the same number of scholarships, when we play them, it will be equal from a depth standpoint. They will NEVER remove the G5 from the schedule. Stipends are nice but we've never competed with the G5 for talent anyway. FCS has the lure of a championship, AS WELL AS, the hope of making it to the next level. The G5 already enjoys the environment, only without the hope of a national title. Certainly not me but a surprising number of GS fans were against the move to FBS due to the zero possibility of earning a national title. If the P5 begin paying athletes then we will likely be forced to create a separate league. GS loses nothing in the move and we have a brand new stadium and facilities, and much larger budget to compete at a much higher level with a much smaller group of like minded universities. Several new very large cities are now invested in the league with major tv market potential. What's not to like? Just keeping it positive.

*cough* FCS mindset *cough*

(01-17-2014 09:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  But you're already a second class school.

So was ULM when they beat Arkansas and Georgia Southern when they beat Florida. Depending on what your definition of second-class is.

We are willing to play on a tilted playing field....Being excluded from the playing field is another matter.

What are your hopes for Idaho? That we all get downgraded together?

Not trying to pick a fight, but one win in 10 years doesn't make You guys or Ga Southern equal to those guys. Try playing an entire SEC schedule and get back with me. Reality sets in when you look at budgets. Arkansas' 2012 revenue was just south of $100 million, Arkansas State's barely topped $15 million. I realize I'm in the minority, but I don't see this as anything other than a reality check. How many guys did The Red Wolves out recruit the Razorbacks for, in any sport. I don't care that App isn't on par with the BCS schools. That doesn't feed my ego. I am perfectly happy seeing App play high quality football with peer schools. I was fortunate enough to be there for the Michigan win. It was an epic moment in sports. I also am honest enough to understand it was a once in lifetime happening. I'm just thankful App made the move when they did. Call me crazy, but I just don't see the college athletic world coming to an end because of this.

(01-18-2014 12:22 AM)Wild Bill Kelso Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  But you're already a second class school.

So was ULM when they beat Arkansas and Georgia Southern when they beat Florida. Depending on what your definition of second-class is.

We are willing to play on a tilted playing field....Being excluded from the playing field is another matter.

What are your hopes for Idaho? That we all get downgraded together?

Not trying to pick a fight, but one win in 10 years doesn't make You guys or Ga Southern equal to those guys. Try playing an entire SEC schedule and get back with me. Reality sets in when you look at budgets. Arkansas' 2012 revenue was just south of $100 million, Arkansas State's barely topped $15 million. I realize I'm in the minority, but I don't see this as anything other than a reality check. How many guys did The Red Wolves out recruit the Razorbacks for, in any sport. I don't care that App isn't on par with the BCS schools. That doesn't feed my ego. I am perfectly happy seeing App play high quality football with peer schools. I was fortunate enough to be there for the Michigan win. It was an epic moment in sports. I also am honest enough to understand it was a once in lifetime happening. I'm just thankful App made the move when they did. Call me crazy, but I just don't see the college athletic world coming to an end because of this.

I think you missed the point. Obviously the playing field is incredibly tilted against us, but that isn't 2nd class citizen status because we have the opportunity to knock them off of their pedestal and change our fortunes over time if we are determined enough. We have the same number of scholarships and we if do a bang up job we can field a team that is competitive with them on any given day.

What we have here though are proposals that can change us to a different field entirely. A world where Boise simply cannot under any circumstances upset their protected monopoly or intrude on their private revenue stream....and where they can still govern Boise and set rules for it.

Our Idaho friend doesn't seem to mind having his school's current status becoming institutionalized. I have a problem with it because my school has never been satisfied with running in place.

In our current world, UCF can go from nothing, to Conference USA, to AAC, and perhaps have a shot at a P5 conference in the future, or helping its own conference move into their ranks over time. These proposals are for the purpose of trying to make that impossible.

A professional sports league where half the members have no salary cap and the other members have a salary cap. That is ludicrous. Then add to that the idea that the first half, can vote on stuff affecting the second, but not vice-versa. Nobody should be willing to accept that.

(01-18-2014 12:22 AM)Wild Bill Kelso Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  But you're already a second class school.

So was ULM when they beat Arkansas and Georgia Southern when they beat Florida. Depending on what your definition of second-class is.

We are willing to play on a tilted playing field....Being excluded from the playing field is another matter.

What are your hopes for Idaho? That we all get downgraded together?

Not trying to pick a fight, but one win in 10 years doesn't make You guys or Ga Southern equal to those guys. Try playing an entire SEC schedule and get back with me. Reality sets in when you look at budgets. Arkansas' 2012 revenue was just south of $100 million, Arkansas State's barely topped $15 million. I realize I'm in the minority, but I don't see this as anything other than a reality check. How many guys did The Red Wolves out recruit the Razorbacks for, in any sport. I don't care that App isn't on par with the BCS schools. That doesn't feed my ego. I am perfectly happy seeing App play high quality football with peer schools. I was fortunate enough to be there for the Michigan win. It was an epic moment in sports. I also am honest enough to understand it was a once in lifetime happening. I'm just thankful App made the move when they did. Call me crazy, but I just don't see the college athletic world coming to an end because of this.

Its more about the opportunity to compete. An opportunity to be the Central Florida that gets a shot at taking down a top dog in a major bowl. An opportunity like a TCU/Boise situation a few years ago when either one stood a legit shot at making the national title game at the end of the year.

Those opportunities would disappear with a D4 split. They would somehow be able to make the rules for us, and we would have little say about it.

Coming from FCS, I can understand how much better the G5 looks to playing teams like Elon Weekly, but for many of us, part of the reason we left FCS so long ago was the opportunity to play with the big teams, and at least level the playing field somewhat.

Under the current system, ASU stands an outside shot at beating out an Arkansas for a kid. Its happened before...might this year. Under a proposed system where Arkansas could pay all of its players, and we couldn't? Heck, forget ever competing with Arkansas, we wouldn't be able to compete with the Kentucky's of the world, P5 teams we do beat out for recruits at a fairly regular rate.

Chiefsfan and Ark30inf are totally correct.
But what can we do? It's a frustrating feeling.

(01-18-2014 01:22 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Chiefsfan and Ark30inf are totally correct.
But what can we do? It's a frustrating feeling.

Either A: Call their bluff and threaten to refuse to schedule any games against P5 programs.

B: Come up with whatever funds we need to be able to qualify to compete at that level.

C: File an Anti-trust lawsuit.


I expect most schools will go for option B, meaning you'll see SBC and CUSA schools attempting to significantly raise their athletic budgets in a matter of years to keep up with the new standards. You can be darn sure that no AD of a current G5 school is going to actually pitch playing at a different level than the P5 schools to its fan base.

(01-18-2014 01:30 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 01:22 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Chiefsfan and Ark30inf are totally correct.
But what can we do? It's a frustrating feeling.

Either A: Call their bluff and threaten to refuse to schedule any games against P5 programs.

B: Come up with whatever funds we need to be able to qualify to compete at that level.

C: File an Anti-trust lawsuit.


I expect most schools will go for option B, meaning you'll see SBC and CUSA schools attempting to significantly raise their athletic budgets in a matter of years to keep up with the new standards. You can be darn sure that no AD of a current G5 school is going to actually pitch playing at a different level than the P5 schools to its fan base.

The problem with option B is that the P-5 can vote to increase the athletic budget requirements any time they want to. If they don't get the separation that they want after the initial requirement, they'll simply raise it until they do. None of us can keep up with P-5 spending. Those P-5 conferences do not intend to be governed by our votes any longer and they will do whatever it takes to see to it that they completely castrate us. It's over boys. We'll survive at a lower level, but any hope of a UCF type season for any of us will vanish.

I vote C, time to challenge this partially public-funded football oligarchy in court.

(01-18-2014 06:45 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 01:30 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 01:22 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Chiefsfan and Ark30inf are totally correct.
But what can we do? It's a frustrating feeling.

Either A: Call their bluff and threaten to refuse to schedule any games against P5 programs.

B: Come up with whatever funds we need to be able to qualify to compete at that level.

C: File an Anti-trust lawsuit.


I expect most schools will go for option B, meaning you'll see SBC and CUSA schools attempting to significantly raise their athletic budgets in a matter of years to keep up with the new standards. You can be darn sure that no AD of a current G5 school is going to actually pitch playing at a different level than the P5 schools to its fan base.

The problem with option B is that the P-5 can vote to increase the athletic budget requirements any time they want to. If they don't get the separation that they want after the initial requirement, they'll simply raise it until they do. None of us can keep up with P-5 spending. Those P-5 conferences do not intend to be governed by our votes any longer and they will do whatever it takes to see to it that they completely castrate us. It's over boys. We'll survive at a lower level, but any hope of a UCF type season for any of us will vanish.

The list of inequities grows larger every year between the haves and the have nots. Billion $ stadiums, multi million $ coaches salaries, FOC's that look more like cathedrals, threats of confinement or being left out. All this and the talent gap grows less every year. One more stupid rule or hurdle created by a minority of selfish universities will do little to keep the pie from continuing to grow. Our schools are growing and our alumni are committed more and more. As population grows so grows college football. We'll be fine. No, we'll prosper, despite the constant money grabbing.

It was mentioned a few pages back in this post thread but the real issue is cost. With states decreasing funding to universities the way many of these schools will increase their budgets is by upping student fees. Attending college is already ridiculously expensive and will just become more so with the increased athletic budgets. There are to many schools out there that don't make a profit for their programs and this will make it worse. Also, if you pay football players, you have to pay basketball players, men and women, baseball and softball, track, golf, tennis, volleyball, soccer. Athletic budgets will soar, yet revenues for schools like Vandy will not increase.

The issue comes to the NFL rule of having to be three years removed from high school before being eligible. Forcing prospects to go to college, that is the minor league of the NFL. I see it more as a collusion with the NCAA and the NFL over the athlete then a P5 collusion over G5. If there were a minor league for the NFL that allowed players to go to immediately after high school a lot of this would go away.

This will end badly for college sports, there are to many example of a good product being tampered with and the end result is that product changes so much that it is now unrecognizable and losses it's market place. This will happen with college sports, take my word for it.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't like this any more that you guys. I understand the anxiety this is causing. What I really don't like is the possibility those leagues can legislate for the rest of us. That, imo, is a bargaining chip our conferences must use to gain some / any concessions. Like it or not paying players is going to happen and we all had just better get ready for that. G5 schools don't go head to head for P5 football recruits in most cases and it will have a minimal affect. My concern is the other sports. Unfortunately they have the gold and are making the rules.

(01-18-2014 08:42 AM)Usajags Wrote:  It was mentioned a few pages back in this post thread but the real issue is cost. With states decreasing funding to universities the way many of these schools will increase their budgets is by upping student fees. Attending college is already ridiculously expensive and will just become more so with the increased athletic budgets. There are to many schools out there that don't make a profit for their programs and this will make it worse. Also, if you pay football players, you have to pay basketball players, men and women, baseball and softball, track, golf, tennis, volleyball, soccer. Athletic budgets will soar, yet revenues for schools like Vandy will not increase.

The issue comes to the NFL rule of having to be three years removed from high school before being eligible. Forcing prospects to go to college, that is the minor league of the NFL. I see it more as a collusion with the NCAA and the NFL over the athlete then a P5 collusion over G5. If there were a minor league for the NFL that allowed players to go to immediately after high school a lot of this would go away.

This will end badly for college sports, there are to many example of a good product being tampered with and the end result is that product changes so much that it is now unrecognizable and losses it's market place. This will happen with college sports, take my word for it.

I don't think the NFL is colluding, they just know they have a sweet deal where colleges spend all this money developing talent and turning kids into ready made stars without the NFL spending a dime. Rather than all these changes, I say let kids sign with pro teams while still college eligible and have the pro team pay this "stipend".

Option A is the only one that will work.

B works until the goal line is moved.

C doesn't work as they have the resources to fight for a long time.

(01-18-2014 08:42 AM)Usajags Wrote:  It was mentioned a few pages back in this post thread but the real issue is cost. With states decreasing funding to universities the way many of these schools will increase their budgets is by upping student fees. Attending college is already ridiculously expensive and will just become more so with the increased athletic budgets. There are to many schools out there that don't make a profit for their programs and this will make it worse. Also, if you pay football players, you have to pay basketball players, men and women, baseball and softball, track, golf, tennis, volleyball, soccer. Athletic budgets will soar, yet revenues for schools like Vandy will not increase.

The issue comes to the NFL rule of having to be three years removed from high school before being eligible. Forcing prospects to go to college, that is the minor league of the NFL. I see it more as a collusion with the NCAA and the NFL over the athlete then a P5 collusion over G5. If there were a minor league for the NFL that allowed players to go to immediately after high school a lot of this would go away.

This will end badly for college sports, there are to many example of a good product being tampered with and the end result is that product changes so much that it is now unrecognizable and losses it's market place. This will happen with college sports, take my word for it.

State budgets and higher Ed funding are in serious decline, and that is the 800 lb Gorilla nobody wants to talk about.

Lawsuit?

Is there a difference in this move and the restrictions on universities' ability to move from FCS to FBS? If the current situation is legal I would assume this move would be legal?

(01-18-2014 10:04 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Lawsuit?

Is there a difference in this move and the restrictions on universities' ability to move from FCS to FBS? If the current situation is legal I would assume this move would be legal?

They cant arbitrarily say though that X School cant play in the P5. They can set requirements that a school must reach, but if the school reaches that, they have to allow them in.

You say only 30M in Athletic Budget beyond this point? Okay...well what happens if a school like Texas State simply raises their athletic budget to 30M...do they get a Big 12 invite then?

Setting requirements is not illegal...but what you cant do is tell a school who fulfills those requirements they cant play. That's the primary reason I don't think there will be a true split. I think most P5 schools know that if they tried to shut the G5 out in a split, most would simply do what they need to do to reach that number. You also cant continually raise the bar because lower tier P5 schools wouldn't be able to keep up with all of those standards.

(01-18-2014 10:21 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-18-2014 10:04 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Lawsuit?

Is there a difference in this move and the restrictions on universities' ability to move from FCS to FBS? If the current situation is legal I would assume this move would be legal?

They cant arbitrarily say though that X School cant play in the P5. They can set requirements that a school must reach, but if the school reaches that, they have to allow them in.

You say only 30M in Athletic Budget beyond this point? Okay...well what happens if a school like Texas State simply raises their athletic budget to 30M...do they get a Big 12 invite then?

Setting requirements is not illegal...but what you cant do is tell a school who fulfills those requirements they cant play. That's the primary reason I don't think there will be a true split. I think most P5 schools know that if they tried to shut the G5 out in a split, most would simply do what they need to do to reach that number. You also cant continually raise the bar because lower tier P5 schools wouldn't be able to keep up with all of those standards.

They really dont need to tell you that, that's where they win...that's why they're doing it on a conference level to begin with. If you aren't in one of those conferences you can do what you want but if they don't schedule you then you don't matter. And no lawsuit is going to make them put you on the schedule either.