(04-22-2014 04:20 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 04:03 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I'm talking about a society that believes in freedom of association. No one tells the NFL "You HAVE to accept a new franchise in Los Angeles or else!"
The NFL is a private club that can do what it wants. So is the NCAA. And if you have to be explained why they'd rather lose their less profitable member rather than their most valuable member deciding to leave because the less valuable member is angry over the more valuable member getting better treatment...dont know what to tell you.

You're talking about COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS not some blood sport.

I see that you have contracted the same disease which now infects the NCAA headquarters; you/they appear to have symptoms of all seven of them.

Truth be told, the high end schools would prefer some of the bottom feeders of the P5 to be in another division, as well. Do you know why Florida makes $129 million instead of $139 million a year? Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools. Why does Washington make $85 million instead of $88 million? Washington State.

As others have pointed out, there is a clear revenue divide between the schools around the 40's in revenue, then again around the 70's. Those 40 +/- top schools gross over $70 million, which means they are still highly profitable without their conference TV check. Those P5 schools in the less than 70 to 50 million range or not much different than the high level G5 schools except for that conference TV check.

If the big boys truly had their way in a vacuum with no political/PR nightmares, the top tier would be somewhere south of 50 schools. To say that it is an illness for Michigan/Florida/Ohio State/Texas to not want more G5 additions is missing the point; if they are paying attention to the numbers (which they are), they don't want they lowest schools in their conferences, either.

Except that is looking solely at conference revenue. Remember the big banana is self-generated revenue and the branding attached to Ole Miss, Miss St, and Vandy makes games against them more valuable even though Florida will prevail against them more often than not. Likewise Washington State's remote location means they aren't bleeding off much of Washington's weekly ticket revenue but because of the branding attached to Washington State and their proximity for one game every other year, Washington State holds value for Washington.

(04-22-2014 04:10 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:57 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Lawsuits are always an option, but they don't always win or acheive the desired outcome. The legal argument is that once these restrictions have passed and the groups have had time to choose to implement them (or not), there will come a time when not implementing some of those restrictions will lead to those institutions (who chose not to implement) deciding the cost of implementation is less than the benefit of sticking around. Then the time will come when the P5 won't want to be playing with those who aren't following the same rules. That's the key difference here. With the 1A/1AA split, the rules came up out of thin air and all at once. Here, the rules will have been implemented and choices will have already been made.

Right. That's why you iron out the rules before they get implemented.
I don't think any of the G5 mind the student athlete rules that are being adopted. The problem is, the P5 is taking this opportunity to add ever more onerous constraints on to the G5 as a whole. It's as if this satisfies some sadistic need these P5 administrators possess.

Really? How exactly is anything currently proposed more onerous on the G5?

4-2-1

For those wondering, the 50 or so schools that would be the preferred tier 1 makeup for the big dog schools would at least be the following:

(13) Over $100 million in revenue: Texas, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, LSU, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Iowa, Penn State, Auburn

(9) Over $90 million in revenue: Arkansas, Minnesota, Georgia, Southern Cal, Louisville, Kansas, California, Stanford, South Carolina

(7) Over $80 million in revenue: Florida State, Nebraska, Kentucky, Washington, Virginia, UCLA, Oregon

(14) Over $70 million in revenue: Michigan State, Texas A&M, Baylor, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Duke, Syracuse, Indiana, Purdue, NC State, TCU, Rutgers, Missouri

That is 43 schools. Any schools not in that list would have needed to get their "intangibles" list ready for presentation and explain why they cannot manage $70 million in athletic revenues despite all of the luxuries afforded them by P5 inclusion. Connecticut, on the other hand, would be kindly questioned about how they are grossing $63 million with no P5 affiliation and are outperforming 11 schools currently in a P5.

I'd welcome government regulation into college athletics at this point. The majority of these institutions are public and these are people's tax dollars we are playing with. Some states should not be able to conspire against other states who have invested the same amounts into their public institutions in order to compete at a certain level.

(04-22-2014 04:30 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 04:10 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:57 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Lawsuits are always an option, but they don't always win or acheive the desired outcome. The legal argument is that once these restrictions have passed and the groups have had time to choose to implement them (or not), there will come a time when not implementing some of those restrictions will lead to those institutions (who chose not to implement) deciding the cost of implementation is less than the benefit of sticking around. Then the time will come when the P5 won't want to be playing with those who aren't following the same rules. That's the key difference here. With the 1A/1AA split, the rules came up out of thin air and all at once. Here, the rules will have been implemented and choices will have already been made.

Right. That's why you iron out the rules before they get implemented.
I don't think any of the G5 mind the student athlete rules that are being adopted. The problem is, the P5 is taking this opportunity to add ever more onerous constraints on to the G5 as a whole. It's as if this satisfies some sadistic need these P5 administrators possess.

Really? How exactly is anything currently proposed more onerous on the G5?

4-2-1

As compared to the current 3-1.5-1.14?

Ok...let's make sure we get this right...

In August, the NCAA is going to let the P5 make their own rules and, therefore, let them create a division the NCAA will have separate rules for. Got that. But there will be no rules, yet....so really nothing changed except who is voting.

In January the rules are expected to be about done....then the NCAA will likely figure out a schedule to implement them.

Its at that point the American (and I assume the Big East, A-10, MWC and maybe CUSA or more)...will step up and say that their schools are also going to be abiding by the rules created by the P5. BYU as well.

I'm not sure I see the problem....except that the P5 centric media is clueless about how to deduce a situation and instead glosses over a subject with quotes and leaves so many questions out there....that well you'll need to come back and read some more as we freaking spoon feed you information.

Media writers think fans are idiots (and unfortunately so many are).

(04-22-2014 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 12:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  If I were a school like Wyoming, Idaho, or Tulsa, etc., I would much rather let the big schools/conferences play their own level of sports. G schools would have a much more competitive division playing schools their own size/budget. A championship is a championship, and Idaho should not have to compete against Alabama to win one...

There are very few sports fans beyond this message board that have the slightest idea who won the FCS championship last year. Virtually no one watched the FCS championship game. My guess is 10 times as many people typically watch the crappiest "Who-Gives_A-Crap Bowl" in Random City USA than will ever watch an FCS championship game. The G5 teams know sliding down a level means obscurity. In the final analysis, sports teams are the public face of the school and the marketing arm of the university. Obscurity is not the goal here.

And what bowl did Houston play in this past season? It will never change for you in the existing format... The only chance the G5 will ever compete annually with the P5 on the field, is if the football scholarships are reduced by a significant amount over the present allotment. Even with this, how do compete financially with P5 schools signing these obscene TV deals? How about stadiums that seat 65-115 thousand fans at say $75 a ticket? (conservatively) Like everything else, there will be an ever-increasing gap in the profits and investments. Might as well fix it now.

It doesn't matter. Winning a championship in your new FCS will bring the schools significantly less publicity and recognition than coming in #31 in FBS and playing is the Miami Bowl vs the 13th place SEC team. I don't control what the population cares about---I just know whats important to them. FCS is irrelevant and unwatched. Yes, the toilet bowl is irrelevant as well, but its still FBS football and will be watched by far more people even if it just a pleasaant diversion while fans wait for the main event (CFP). The truth is, many bowls (even many of the more well known P5 bowls) are being seen as not much better than the crappie bowls the AAC schools are herded to. With the playoffs, that perception will become even more real.

Actually, if the G5 and the top 3 FCS conferences were to combine for a playoff, there still will be an audience. There are quite a few State landgrant instiutions in the G5 and FCS and in good population and increasing population areas.There still will be a market for that division. Will it be less of an audience than the P5, yes, but once the P5 treat the athletes as semi-pro, that'll turn some of the viewers elsewhere.
I'm not advocating the G5 split on its own but if it did occur there still would be a market and there are lot of people who live, work and went to G5 schools and in some states more so than P5 insitutions.

What I see more or less happening is the FBS division splitting off on its own. P5 and G5 need each other both for scheduling and to host tournaments on their own. Having only 65 schools isn't quite enough to host tourneys in all the other sports but with the G5 combined there are.
I'm sure if there was a big worry regarding this, I think I would hear more from the MW commissioner.
Right now, the biggest issue coming forth is the overturning the 'employee' status of the athlete. Because as of now, they are consider employees until it gets overturned by the NLRB or taken all the way to the Supreme Court.

(04-22-2014 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 04:20 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 04:03 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I'm talking about a society that believes in freedom of association. No one tells the NFL "You HAVE to accept a new franchise in Los Angeles or else!"
The NFL is a private club that can do what it wants. So is the NCAA. And if you have to be explained why they'd rather lose their less profitable member rather than their most valuable member deciding to leave because the less valuable member is angry over the more valuable member getting better treatment...dont know what to tell you.

You're talking about COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS not some blood sport.

I see that you have contracted the same disease which now infects the NCAA headquarters; you/they appear to have symptoms of all seven of them.

Truth be told, the high end schools would prefer some of the bottom feeders of the P5 to be in another division, as well. Do you know why Florida makes $129 million instead of $139 million a year? Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools. Why does Washington make $85 million instead of $88 million? Washington State.

As others have pointed out, there is a clear revenue divide between the schools around the 40's in revenue, then again around the 70's. Those 40 +/- top schools gross over $70 million, which means they are still highly profitable without their conference TV check. Those P5 schools in the less than 70 to 50 million range or not much different than the high level G5 schools except for that conference TV check.

If the big boys truly had their way in a vacuum with no political/PR nightmares, the top tier would be somewhere south of 50 schools. To say that it is an illness for Michigan/Florida/Ohio State/Texas to not want more G5 additions is missing the point; if they are paying attention to the numbers (which they are), they don't want they lowest schools in their conferences, either.

Except that is looking solely at conference revenue. Remember the big banana is self-generated revenue and the branding attached to Ole Miss, Miss St, and Vandy makes games against them more valuable even though Florida will prevail against them more often than not. Likewise Washington State's remote location means they aren't bleeding off much of Washington's weekly ticket revenue but because of the branding attached to Washington State and their proximity for one game every other year, Washington State holds value for Washington.

True, some of the low revenue performing P5's do hold branding value, but it is limited in the same sense as UNLV or Navy. Many schools have intrigue in their region or against a few of the big dogs, but that does not mean they add overall value to the entire league. Would Washington still want to play Washington State if they were in different tiers? Probably. Is it any skin off of Florida, or even Arizona's, back for Washington State to be competing in the same tier with San Diego State, UNLV, and BYU, which is what their revenue minus the PAC contract is worth? I am not saying at all that that next down tier is still not very valuable and profitable... we are still talking multi-millionaire dollar brands here.

I hate to make the cliche comparison, but this reminds me of the Hall of Fame talk that comes up every year. Some schools produce Hall of Fame revenues; others are in the Hall of very, very good. Among the thousands of universities and colleges that play athletics, less than 50 produce $70 million or more in revenue. Heck, school #29 (Oregon) does not even gross half the amount of Texas. It only takes another 40 schools for that divide to grow to schools that produce only half of that ($35 million). There is a divide, and nobody likes it when they are just on the outside looking in.

(04-22-2014 04:31 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I'd welcome government regulation into college athletics at this point. The majority of these institutions are public and these are people's tax dollars we are playing with. Some states should not be able to conspire against other states who have invested the same amounts into their public institutions in order to compete at a certain level.

That's the point... the schools at the top of the revenue pyramid are self financed or could very easily become that way if necessary. Our knucklehead politicians have enough things to screw up without becoming involved in college athletics.

(04-22-2014 04:20 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Truth be told, the high end schools would prefer some of the bottom feeders of the P5 to be in another division, as well. Do you know why Florida makes $129 million instead of $139 million a year? Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools. Why does Washington make $85 million instead of $88 million? Washington State.

As others have pointed out, there is a clear revenue divide between the schools around the 40's in revenue, then again around the 70's. Those 40 +/- top schools gross over $70 million, which means they are still highly profitable without their conference TV check. Those P5 schools in the less than 70 to 50 million range or not much different than the high level G5 schools except for that conference TV check.

If the big boys truly had their way in a vacuum with no political/PR nightmares, the top tier would be somewhere south of 50 schools. To say that it is an illness for Michigan/Florida/Ohio State/Texas to not want more G5 additions is missing the point; if they are paying attention to the numbers (which they are), they don't want they lowest schools in their conferences, either.

Where was Florida St. in the 70's? University of Miami in '79 nearly voted football out of existence because they were losing so much money. These schools I'm sure are in your top 50 today, however, they were next to nothing 30 years ago. There are countless schools that have come and gone from prominence and yet what these proposals aim to do is close the door tight on future movement. Artificially constraints are what this country has fought against for over 200 years. To codify this so that the few will have no competition, esp. in a collegiate environment, is setting very bad precendece from what I can tell.

(04-22-2014 04:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:24 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:57 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  1. You already control the playoff tournament as-is. The selection committee - as it's currently set up - will set up four P5 schools to play against each other. There's no need to split if that were the #1 reason.

2. What happens when BYU or Cincy or Boise State or any other G5 school is able to show their books and demonstrate that they are able and willing to play by the P5's rules? This is the "antitrust" problem.

3. Explain how scheduling is going to work.

4. How does this benefit the bottom half of the P5? Even if they make $5m more, Texas will make $15m more from this arrangement. They'll win fewer games a year and could suffer as a result. You are going to turn haves into have-nots.

1) This way all 5 P5 champs get bids and so do other deserving (SEC) teams all without having to worry about the G5 demanding AQs and wild card for their teams. The point of a P5 only subdivision is a P5 only playoff.

2) Not going to be an issue. The NCAA has already set a precedent of membership by invitation only for the FBS division. No one has cried foul or tried to sue the NCAA over it. It will be the same "by invitation only" setup.

3) Same as it does now. FBS and FCS schedule each other all the time and allow the games to count for bowl eligibility. P5 will continue to schedule G5 and FCS and count them toward bowl eligibility. Some might refuse to play, but most wont because they need the cash.

4) See above. Dont get caught up in Saban's "we'll only play each other nonsense..cuz no, thats not happening. The lower P5 will do what they do now and schedule 3-4 lowly G5/FCS teams to boost their winning and try to get bowl eligible.

The problem with point #2 is that the schools themselves decided what level at which they would chose to compete. They either upgraded facilities or dropped down a division. It was a voluntary decision made by the schools on the basis of economics or institutional preference. I might also add that the last time this occurred---there were not nearly as many lawyers around. We live in a much more litigious society today. What worked 35 years ago during the D1 A/AA split might not go so smoothly today.

There is nothing they can sue over. The NCAA is not the US Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. It is a private club with voluntary membership. If anyone, FCS, G5 or P5 don't like the NCAA's decisions, they are free to leave. And ultimately, the NCAA is much more ready to kick out the G5 members than it is to lose the P5's business.

You might want to review case law and get back to us on that.

There are a lot of trade association cases (which is what the NCAA or a successor body would be) and the courts have typically viewed exclusion of hopeful members rather skeptically. Heck the NCAA tried to argue in one of the Tarkanian cases that if UNLV didn't like their rules they didn't have to be a member and that got clapped like a mosquito because the court held there was no suitable substitute for membership.

Yeah. We might not win. But there would be plenty for the courts to spend some time looking at.

The fact that we jumped through hoops, spent tons of money, changed scheduling all in good faith to get into the highest level....and then get excluded for obviously self-serving reasons. Would be worth a look.

(04-22-2014 04:42 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 04:20 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Truth be told, the high end schools would prefer some of the bottom feeders of the P5 to be in another division, as well. Do you know why Florida makes $129 million instead of $139 million a year? Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools. Why does Washington make $85 million instead of $88 million? Washington State.

As others have pointed out, there is a clear revenue divide between the schools around the 40's in revenue, then again around the 70's. Those 40 +/- top schools gross over $70 million, which means they are still highly profitable without their conference TV check. Those P5 schools in the less than 70 to 50 million range or not much different than the high level G5 schools except for that conference TV check.

If the big boys truly had their way in a vacuum with no political/PR nightmares, the top tier would be somewhere south of 50 schools. To say that it is an illness for Michigan/Florida/Ohio State/Texas to not want more G5 additions is missing the point; if they are paying attention to the numbers (which they are), they don't want they lowest schools in their conferences, either.

Where was Florida St. in the 70's? University of Miami in '79 nearly voted football out of existence because they were losing so much money. These schools I'm sure are in your top 50 today, however, they were next to nothing 30 years ago. There are countless schools that have come and gone from prominence and yet what these proposals aim to do is close the door tight on future movement. Artificially constraints are what this country has fought against for over 200 years. To codify this so that the few will have no competition, esp. in a collegiate environment, is setting very bad precendece from what I can tell.

Dead on.

(04-22-2014 02:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:44 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  They will be powerless to stop it.

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-split.htm

Read this.

Federal judges are rarely powerless to stop things. They are also don't always believe rationalizations. "Good of the athlete" may not fly if the judge thinks that is just a skirt to hide under...which it is.

Schools, in good faith, went to considerable expense to meet rather arbitrary requirements to enter FBS. They built additional seats, diverted funds, gave up home games for neutral sites to meet attendance requirements.

And now, for the "good of the athlete" you want to create new stricter arbitrary requirements?

No, we'll sue before getting forced down by moving target requirements for reasons everyone knows are fake.

Federal Judges are appointed by organizations that are heavily corporately influenced and the judges themselves likely graduated from a P5 or Ivy school. Elected judges won't buck the majority of voters who will likely be P5 alumni. And like I told you before there will be entry standards. It will be up to the schools to attain them. There will be no law suit.

And as far as the 8 team playoff that some are touting, I'll believe it when I see it. I think the P5 will pare down to a P4 within two years of separation and that any additional playoff rounds will be played internally of the conferences and the championship round will be the 4 conference champs. Each conference pockets more of what they earn and share less that way. It also guarantees the networks that all 4 regions of the country will be watching through the semi finals.

(04-22-2014 02:06 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  If you're the AAC, what do you do?

There are two so-so options:

1. Get out the dagger and start backstabbing the G5 in an attempt to allow "willing and able" G5 programs to join as independents/small conferences. These teams/conferences would NOT have immediate playoff access, however.

2. Take the top hoops leagues + most of G5 and break into your own subdivision away from both the P5 and lower half of D1. I think that you could get MOST - but not all - schools on board for this.

#2 would look like this:

Division I: P4/5 + ND (65 or so all-sports)
Division II: G4/5 + BYU + WCC + Big East + A10 + Ivy (90-100 olympics, 50 or so football)
Division III: Bottom 1/2 of Division I (170+ all-sports)
Division IV: Current Div II
Division V: Current Div III

Other than pulling out of the NCAA altogether, there's little the G5 can do. It would be an extreme move by the G5 but imagine this scenario

1) Pulling out of the NCAA. If they want to downgrade us, we'll just not play in their league anymore.
2) Refusing to allow any member of the new association to schedule any P5 team except via a home and home or a legitimate neutral site for a one-off game.
3) Start paying players. Allow immediate transfer eligibility for transfers from other schools. Raise the scholarship limit. The P5 really can't start a pay war because the top schools in P5 have so much more than the lower schools in P5. This would terrify the Wake Forests, the Rutgers, etc.
4) Try to get the A-10, Big East, and WCC to join them in the new association, arguing that there will be little that even the Big East can do to influence the NCAA of P5's only.
5) Start a football playoff with 16 teams, a 12 game regular season, and a CCG. Remember, no stupid NCAA to worry about.
6) Lock down conference realignment so if or when a new merger happens, there aren't as many issues with too many teams.

Even then, I don't know if that will work immediately. Nor do I think that the G5 would stick to the plan. But if they could, here's what that would do.

1) It would seriously damage the college football product for many P5 teams as well as their profitability.

2) It would cost the G5 teams too, especially in the form of the loss of payday games.

3) If the G5 were damaged, it would cause real issues for ESPN and the Networks. Huge holes in the coverage map for the networks. And if ESPN isn't going to pay and promote G5, then we just pull all the content out and move elsewhere.

(04-22-2014 03:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:24 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:57 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The one and only point of a P5 subdivision is control of its own playoff tournament.

It will be an 8 team tournament with each P5 champ getting an AQ bid and the rest being wild cards going to P5 teams who had a great 1-2 loss season but didn't necessarily win their conference or are P5 indys like I imagine ND and maybe BYU will be.

1. You already control the playoff tournament as-is. The selection committee - as it's currently set up - will set up four P5 schools to play against each other. There's no need to split if that were the #1 reason.

2. What happens when BYU or Cincy or Boise State or any other G5 school is able to show their books and demonstrate that they are able and willing to play by the P5's rules? This is the "antitrust" problem.

3. Explain how scheduling is going to work.

4. How does this benefit the bottom half of the P5? Even if they make $5m more, Texas will make $15m more from this arrangement. They'll win fewer games a year and could suffer as a result. You are going to turn haves into have-nots.

1) This way all 5 P5 champs get bids and so do other deserving (SEC) teams all without having to worry about the G5 demanding AQs and wild card for their teams. The point of a P5 only subdivision is a P5 only playoff.

2) Not going to be an issue. The NCAA has already set a precedent of membership by invitation only for the FBS division. No one has cried foul or tried to sue the NCAA over it. It will be the same "by invitation only" setup.

3) Same as it does now. FBS and FCS schedule each other all the time and allow the games to count for bowl eligibility. P5 will continue to schedule G5 and FCS and count them toward bowl eligibility. Some might refuse to play, but most wont because they need the cash.

4) See above. Dont get caught up in Saban's "we'll only play each other nonsense..cuz no, thats not happening. The lower P5 will do what they do now and schedule 3-4 lowly G5/FCS teams to boost their winning and try to get bowl eligible.

The problem with point #2 is that the schools themselves decided what level at which they would chose to compete. They either upgraded facilities or dropped down a division. It was a voluntary decision made by the schools on the basis of economics or institutional preference. I might also add that the last time this occurred---there were not nearly as many lawyers around. We live in a much more litigious society today. What worked 35 years ago during the D1 A/AA split might not go so smoothly today.

There is nothing they can sue over. The NCAA is not the US Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. It is a private club with voluntary membership. If anyone, FCS, G5 or P5 don't like the NCAA's decisions, they are free to leave. And ultimately, the NCAA is much more ready to kick out the G5 members than it is to lose the P5's business.

You can sue anyone. Playing football is voluntary as is the school one chooses to attend. Last time I checked, the P5 was being sued by athletes who volunteered to attend and signed a contract that spelled out exactly what the terms of their scholarship was. You can sue anyone....and win. Besides, in this case, the P5 have signed a 12 year CFP contract with the G5. So, yes, there would be ample grounds upon which to sue.

(04-22-2014 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remember the big banana is self-generated revenue and the branding attached to Ole Miss, Miss St, and Vandy makes games against them more valuable even though Florida will prevail against them more often than not. Likewise Washington State's remote location means they aren't bleeding off much of Washington's weekly ticket revenue but because of the branding attached to Washington State and their proximity for one game every other year, Washington State holds value for Washington.

That comment just underscores their vulnerability. How valuable would a Vandy at Florida FB game be if Vandy was not in the SEC? About as valuable as a Florida game against former SEC member Tulane. Or about as valuable as a Washington State at Arizona State game would be if Wazzu was not in the Pac.

For something you are all so absolutely sure cannot happen, you're really, really sensitive about it...why is that?

(04-22-2014 04:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 04:30 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 04:10 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:57 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Lawsuits are always an option, but they don't always win or acheive the desired outcome. The legal argument is that once these restrictions have passed and the groups have had time to choose to implement them (or not), there will come a time when not implementing some of those restrictions will lead to those institutions (who chose not to implement) deciding the cost of implementation is less than the benefit of sticking around. Then the time will come when the P5 won't want to be playing with those who aren't following the same rules. That's the key difference here. With the 1A/1AA split, the rules came up out of thin air and all at once. Here, the rules will have been implemented and choices will have already been made.

Right. That's why you iron out the rules before they get implemented.
I don't think any of the G5 mind the student athlete rules that are being adopted. The problem is, the P5 is taking this opportunity to add ever more onerous constraints on to the G5 as a whole. It's as if this satisfies some sadistic need these P5 administrators possess.

Really? How exactly is anything currently proposed more onerous on the G5?

4-2-1

As compared to the current 3-1.5-1.14?

Isnt 4-2-1 either the same or an improvement?

(04-22-2014 05:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:44 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  They will be powerless to stop it.

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-split.htm

Read this.

Federal judges are rarely powerless to stop things. They are also don't always believe rationalizations. "Good of the athlete" may not fly if the judge thinks that is just a skirt to hide under...which it is.

Schools, in good faith, went to considerable expense to meet rather arbitrary requirements to enter FBS. They built additional seats, diverted funds, gave up home games for neutral sites to meet attendance requirements.

And now, for the "good of the athlete" you want to create new stricter arbitrary requirements?

No, we'll sue before getting forced down by moving target requirements for reasons everyone knows are fake.

Federal Judges are appointed by organizations that are heavily corporately influenced and the judges themselves likely graduated from a P5 or Ivy school. Elected judges won't buck the majority of voters who will likely be P5 alumni. And like I told you before there will be entry standards. It will be up to the schools to attain them. There will be no law suit.

And as far as the 8 team playoff that some are touting, I'll believe it when I see it. I think the P5 will pare down to a P4 within two years of separation and that any additional playoff rounds will be played internally of the conferences and the championship round will be the 4 conference champs. Each conference pockets more of what they earn and share less that way. It also guarantees the networks that all 4 regions of the country will be watching through the semi finals.

Imagine a P5 without G5 games. Sure, they'll try to back fill those games with FCS teams like Elon and Wofford, but....

Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Kansas, Iowa State, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Kentucky West Virginia, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia, NC State, Maryland, Rutgers, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Minnesota, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado, and Utah would all have serious and persistent competitiveness issues with losing records virtually every year. It won't be pretty for those teams. Especially if the P5 matches the G5's plan to start paying players. Those teams can't keep up with Alabama and Ohio State.

Most years, by the fourth week of the season, the season will be effectively over for all of New England, New York, and the entire Rocky Mountain region. One competitive team in the North of Blacksburg and East of Columbus (Penn State). Four to six teams for the entire Western USA. None between Austin/Lincoln and the West Coast.

And that Alamo Bowl between a 3 win Texas Tech and a 2 win Cal team is going to be epic.

(04-22-2014 04:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 12:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  If I were a school like Wyoming, Idaho, or Tulsa, etc., I would much rather let the big schools/conferences play their own level of sports. G schools would have a much more competitive division playing schools their own size/budget. A championship is a championship, and Idaho should not have to compete against Alabama to win one...

There are very few sports fans beyond this message board that have the slightest idea who won the FCS championship last year. Virtually no one watched the FCS championship game. My guess is 10 times as many people typically watch the crappiest "Who-Gives_A-Crap Bowl" in Random City USA than will ever watch an FCS championship game. The G5 teams know sliding down a level means obscurity. In the final analysis, sports teams are the public face of the school and the marketing arm of the university. Obscurity is not the goal here.

And what bowl did Houston play in this past season? It will never change for you in the existing format... The only chance the G5 will ever compete annually with the P5 on the field, is if the football scholarships are reduced by a significant amount over the present allotment. Even with this, how do compete financially with P5 schools signing these obscene TV deals? How about stadiums that seat 65-115 thousand fans at say $75 a ticket? (conservatively) Like everything else, there will be an ever-increasing gap in the profits and investments. Might as well fix it now.

It doesn't matter. Winning a championship in your new FCS will bring the schools significantly less publicity and recognition than coming in #31 in FBS and playing is the Miami Bowl vs the 13th place SEC team. I don't control what the population cares about---I just know whats important to them. FCS is irrelevant and unwatched. Yes, the toilet bowl is irrelevant as well, but its still FBS football and will be watched by far more people even if it just a pleasaant diversion while fans wait for the main event (CFP). The truth is, many bowls (even many of the more well known P5 bowls) are being seen as not much better than the crappie bowls the AAC schools are herded to. With the playoffs, that perception will become even more real.

Actually, if the G5 and the top 3 FCS conferences were to combine for a playoff, there still will be an audience. There are quite a few State landgrant instiutions in the G5 and FCS and in good population and increasing population areas.There still will be a market for that division. Will it be less of an audience than the P5, yes, but once the P5 treat the athletes as semi-pro, that'll turn some of the viewers elsewhere.
I'm not advocating the G5 split on its own but if it did occur there still would be a market and there are lot of people who live, work and went to G5 schools and in some states more so than P5 insitutions.

What I see more or less happening is the FBS division splitting off on its own. P5 and G5 need each other both for scheduling and to host tournaments on their own. Having only 65 schools isn't quite enough to host tourneys in all the other sports but with the G5 combined there are.
I'm sure if there was a big worry regarding this, I think I would hear more from the MW commissioner.
Right now, the biggest issue coming forth is the overturning the 'employee' status of the athlete. Because as of now, they are consider employees until it gets overturned by the NLRB or taken all the way to the Supreme Court.

I agree that splitting off FBS (or most of it) from the rest of D-1 makes the most sense as an upper division. I completely disagree with the idea of a G-5 division playoff would have any more value than the current FCS p[layoff. And the idea of adding some FCS to the G5 just makes the whole proposal horribly worse. I'd just walk away from the whole mess and start concentrating on local pro sports. I'd swear off college all together if my schools was demoted into such a tar pit.