(01-19-2014 05:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  They may try but that's where I think the G5 will draw the line. It's noteworthy that the MWC commissioner's response to the proposed governance change was to point out the scholarship limit is staying the same. If the P5 tries to gain a further competitive advantage by jacking up the scholarship limit, the G5 may opt for the nuclear response: outright refusal to play the P5 in football, coupled with establishment of its own NCAA-sanctioned playoff and legal action to bar the CFP from being labeled the national championship of college football.

To expand on something I said in another thread: There is no movement to expand the FB scholarship limit. It wouldn't win a majority vote of P5 schools even if they could impose it unilaterally.

Why? Look at it from the perspective of any P5 FB team outside of the USC/Ohio State/Alabama/Texas "king" level. Say you are the AD or FB coach at Georgia Tech or Syracuse, and you're looking at a proposal to increase FB scholarships from 85 to 105.

On the one hand, you could use the extra scholarships to get more players who might have gone to MAC or AAC teams. On the other hand, Florida State and the top SEC teams can use those extra 20 spots to take players who could have started at Georgia Tech or Syracuse. In effect, you might lose 20 3-star kids, and replace them plus fill the 20 new spots with 40 2-star and 1-star players. That is not a good deal.

And we haven't yet mentioned that adding 20 FB scholarships means that you have to start and maintain 2 new women's varsity sports to satisfy Title IX. All of that is an addition to overhead without adding new revenue, because those extra 20 FB scholarships won't sell more football tickets or get you more TV money from ESPN.

Out of 65 P5 teams, I'd guess at least 45 no votes on a hypothetical proposal to add 20 more FB scholarships. So, of all the possibilities that might keep a G5 FB coach awake at night, this should never be one of them.

(01-20-2014 05:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  They may try but that's where I think the G5 will draw the line. It's noteworthy that the MWC commissioner's response to the proposed governance change was to point out the scholarship limit is staying the same. If the P5 tries to gain a further competitive advantage by jacking up the scholarship limit, the G5 may opt for the nuclear response: outright refusal to play the P5 in football, coupled with establishment of its own NCAA-sanctioned playoff and legal action to bar the CFP from being labeled the national championship of college football.

To expand on something I said in another thread: There is no movement to expand the FB scholarship limit. It wouldn't win a majority vote of P5 schools even if they could impose it unilaterally.

Why? Look at it from the perspective of any P5 FB team outside of the USC/Ohio State/Alabama/Texas "king" level. Say you are the AD or FB coach at Georgia Tech or Syracuse, and you're looking at a proposal to increase FB scholarships from 85 to 105.

On the one hand, you could use the extra scholarships to get more players who might have gone to MAC or AAC teams. On the other hand, Florida State and the top SEC teams can use those extra 20 spots to take players who could have started at Georgia Tech or Syracuse. In effect, you might lose 20 3-star kids, and replace them plus fill the 20 new spots with 40 2-star and 1-star players. That is not a good deal.

And we haven't yet mentioned that adding 20 FB scholarships means that you have to start and maintain 2 new women's varsity sports to satisfy Title IX. All of that is an addition to overhead without adding new revenue, because those extra 20 FB scholarships won't sell more football tickets or get you more TV money from ESPN.

Out of 65 P5 teams, I'd guess at least 45 no votes on a hypothetical proposal to add 20 more FB scholarships. So, of all the possibilities that might keep a G5 FB coach awake at night, this should never be one of them.

Makes sense. And that's a considerably more on-point response to goodknightfl's post than mine. I think the whole autonomy/D4/breakaway discussion has me hung up on power politics theory and Cold War analogies. It must come from having been an International Affairs major during the Reagan years.

(01-20-2014 05:59 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 05:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  They may try but that's where I think the G5 will draw the line. It's noteworthy that the MWC commissioner's response to the proposed governance change was to point out the scholarship limit is staying the same. If the P5 tries to gain a further competitive advantage by jacking up the scholarship limit, the G5 may opt for the nuclear response: outright refusal to play the P5 in football, coupled with establishment of its own NCAA-sanctioned playoff and legal action to bar the CFP from being labeled the national championship of college football.

To expand on something I said in another thread: There is no movement to expand the FB scholarship limit. It wouldn't win a majority vote of P5 schools even if they could impose it unilaterally.

Why? Look at it from the perspective of any P5 FB team outside of the USC/Ohio State/Alabama/Texas "king" level. Say you are the AD or FB coach at Georgia Tech or Syracuse, and you're looking at a proposal to increase FB scholarships from 85 to 105.

On the one hand, you could use the extra scholarships to get more players who might have gone to MAC or AAC teams. On the other hand, Florida State and the top SEC teams can use those extra 20 spots to take players who could have started at Georgia Tech or Syracuse. In effect, you might lose 20 3-star kids, and replace them plus fill the 20 new spots with 40 2-star and 1-star players. That is not a good deal.

And we haven't yet mentioned that adding 20 FB scholarships means that you have to start and maintain 2 new women's varsity sports to satisfy Title IX. All of that is an addition to overhead without adding new revenue, because those extra 20 FB scholarships won't sell more football tickets or get you more TV money from ESPN.

Out of 65 P5 teams, I'd guess at least 45 no votes on a hypothetical proposal to add 20 more FB scholarships. So, of all the possibilities that might keep a G5 FB coach awake at night, this should never be one of them.

Makes sense. And that's a considerably more on-point response to goodknightfl's post than mine. I think the whole autonomy/D4/breakaway discussion has me hung up on power politics theory and Cold War analogies. It must come from having been an International Affairs major during the Reagan years.

Meanwhile, us third world/FCS + non-football D1 members can only look on. Nobody at the top wants to be associated with us.