“I consider this period of time one of the historic moments that all of us are witnesses to — an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete rather than the so-called level playing field,” Slive said. “I don’t know how this comes out, but I’m optimistic the evolution will continue.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...caa-moment

The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are only about 20 G5 schools that will be able to afford this. Will be interesting to see what happens among those.

(05-27-2014 12:42 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  There are only about 20 G5 schools that will be able to afford this. Will be interesting to see what happens among those.

How do you figure that?

Of the few stipend proposals that have actually been committed to paper, all cost less than the increase in revenue from the CFP.

(05-27-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.

[quote=

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.
[/quote]

It should be set as all the needed conference realignment has been accomplished. The last piece was ND aligning with the ACC. Now it's the 65 and all the rest (mid-majors and Div IAA, which are becoming indistinguishable).

(05-27-2014 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:42 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  There are only about 20 G5 schools that will be able to afford this. Will be interesting to see what happens among those.

How do you figure that?

Of the few stipend proposals that have actually been committed to paper, all cost less than the increase in revenue from the CFP.

Rectal pluck.

(05-27-2014 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.

Yep and I hope they push hard and get what is needed, a total breakaway.

(05-27-2014 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.

Really?

I guess I missed their declaration of secession. All I see is they want freedom from the rabble in decision making and have told everyone follow if you want to and can and they've as yet uttered not a single proposal that the G5 cannot afford to keep pace with.

(05-27-2014 02:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.

Yep and I hope they push hard and get what is needed, a total breakaway.

"Hear! Hear!" & "So let it be written. So let it be done!"

(05-27-2014 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yep and I hope they push hard and get what is needed, a total breakaway.

"Hear! Hear!" & "So let it be written. So let it be done!"
[/quote]

What a shock; the have's are in total agreement.

(05-27-2014 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.

Really?

I guess I missed their declaration of secession. All I see is they want freedom from the rabble in decision making and have told everyone follow if you want to and can and they've as yet uttered not a single proposal that the G5 cannot afford to keep pace with.

You jumped the shark a bit there. While I would love a total breakaway the statement about the "65" is what they keep referring to as the distinct upper tier grouping.

(05-27-2014 02:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.

Yep and I hope they push hard and get what is needed, a total breakaway.

Push hard? lol. Against what? All they have to do is send a letter and be gone.

You act as if the evil G5 is actively preventing them from "being FREE!".

(05-27-2014 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  The only people who ever seek a level playing field are the ones currently occupying the lower ground. As soon as they turn the tide, and gain the high ground, they seek a competitive status quo. That's true whether it's sports or politics.

That's actually not true, at least in pro sports. When the Redskins and Giants were out-earning everyone with their local TV deals (Redskins were syndicated throughout much of the south) they agreed to give up the higher ground for the long-term health of the league and in the long-run came out better but that wasn't a given. The same has happened in other pro sports but that was the most dramatic example.

The same could happen in college

But it would have to be something smaller than a 350 member Division I and larger than the P5 leagues. The first because the improved health of the enterprise would be too nominal to matter, the second because it would need to be larger to avoid anti-trust issues that would arise if the five biggest forces in the marketplace combined.

I personally doubt you can hit the sweet spot of balance required to make it worthwhile.

There are currently 5 conference commissioners and their combined pool of attorneys who disagree with your assessment as they are about to give it a good old fashioned try. They once spoke in terms of "between 60 to 70 schools". Lately regardless of which conference representative is doing the speaking they say "65". I think the number is set.

Really?

I guess I missed their declaration of secession. All I see is they want freedom from the rabble in decision making and have told everyone follow if you want to and can and they've as yet uttered not a single proposal that the G5 cannot afford to keep pace with.

You jumped the shark a bit there. While I would love a total breakaway the statement about the "65" is what they keep referring to as the distinct upper tier grouping.

If you aren't talking breakaway or the creation of different division, "the 65" doesn't have a great deal of significance. They can pass rules that others can follow?

Big deal. When someone walks into your business says the cost of operation will increase by $650,000 but your operating revenue will increase by a minimum of $1 million, and many of your competitors will have an increase in operating expense without the operating revenue increase shake his hand and thank him for visiting.

(05-27-2014 12:42 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  There are only about 20 G5 schools that will be able to afford this. Will be interesting to see what happens among those.

There may be a few more than that but 20 is the likely number that makes it through.

(05-26-2014 08:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The important part isn't the..." an evolutionary change where we put the student-athletes first and we build our philosophies on the student-athlete" but instead the important part is the..."rather than the so-called level playing field".

I even told you guys that the Majors would use a scapegoat to be politically correct in everything they are going to do. I said it was going to be about "doing the right thing for the students."

Slive doesn't bother beating around the bush and keeping everyone guessing, like some other Commish's. He is quite blatent and quite in your face with this.

August is getting closer and closer.

You know the secret H1? Slive was really Ole Miss's Colonel Reb before politics and cultural sensitivities forced his resignation. He is an in your face guy...

(05-27-2014 12:42 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  There are only about 20 G5 schools that will be able to afford this. Will be interesting to see what happens among those.

That's based on an assumption about what "this" entails. If its referring to the proposals already out there, given the extra CFP revenue coming, if a conference were allowed to set up an opt-in, the majority of the MAC would opt-in. And it seems likely that if it was all-in or all-out, in the end all 12 MAC schools would be all-in.

If its referring to some supposed next move after the current P5 deregulation effort, then since its pretty much purely speculative, you could probably fabricate a speculative scenario where it would be 20, or 40, or 60. It surely couldn't be much less than 20, or else it would draw too much blood from the smaller budget schools among the P5.