(05-28-2014 02:11 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 03:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC head coaches' comedy hour gets even better:

Mark Richt says he wants to keep playing FCS teams -- but not because he wants easy games on his schedule, he just wants to help the little guys with their budgets!

Quote:Georgia coach Mark Richt supports playing FCS teams, citing his work as a member of the American Football Coaches Association board of trustees and his interaction with FCS coaches.

“What I'm learning is if we as BCS teams -- or whatever you want to call us these days -- if we don't have those games with the FCS schools, a lot of them have a very difficult time making their budgets,” Richt said. “I think college football is too important at all levels to hurt them by setting criteria that would not allow you to play them.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...opponents-

Laugh all you want, but it is a big reason both Clemson and South Carolina play an in-state FCS school every year. It wasn't always that way, until a couple lawmakers pointed out that instead of paying the Eastern Michigans and Utah States of the world to come in for a game we could by rule play an in-state school, which are usually pretty good at the FCS level, and keep the money in-state. We have both played an in-state school every year since, and from what I have been told will play one every year as long as they count towards bowl eligibility.

Clemson must have been feeling extra generous in 2008 & 2013 when they played South Carolina State AND Citadel.

2008 was the result of La Tech buying out a series (where the 2008 game was scheduled to be in Shreveport BTW) at the last minute to add a home and home with Army. We added SC State to fill the gap after exhausting all other avenues.

FWIW Georgia Tech also had two FCS games that year for the same reason except it was Army who bought them out.

2013 was the result of our stupid conference flip-flopping on the 9th ACC game. SC State was eager to fill the slot after we exhausted all other avenues. We originally had a MAC school in their slot, but had to buy them out to maintain the UGA and South Carolina games and a 9th ACC game.

This is like the 1% demanding their Bush tax cuts be extended or they won't "create jobs". It's nothing but a bluff to make it look like even being caught in the same stadium as a non P5 is gracious.

Here's the math- a P5 school like Ohio State schedules 3 buyout games vs G5 and FCS teams, and 1 home-and-home game with a low level P5 (Cal, Miami, etc) every year for their non conference schedule. This gives them 7/8 home games over a 2 year cycle, and as close as you can get to having 8/8 guaranteed wins. Last year Ohio State averaged $5.2m/game in ticket revenue alone. With their current model that's $36.4m in ticket revenue evey 2 years for OOC games, minus $1m or less for each of the 6 buyout games, and travel expenses for the one P5 home and home game. $36.4m- $6m= $30.4m- 1 travel game expenses every two years.

Compare that with the P5 only model- Now its only 4 home games every two years, or $20.8m in ticket revenue. Immediately that's a loss of $9.6m in ticket revenue plus the travel expenses for THREE road games, every two years. I'm guessing the numbers would be very similar for Alabama. Not to mention the effect of potential future earnings when you replace 6 easily winnable and 2 probably winnable games with 8 competitive games. The amount of losses is guaranteed to go up. Now you've got a bunch of angry bandwagon fans who are upset that their team is 2-2 or 1-3 in September. It would be a disaster on multiple fronts.

The P5 needs the G5 just like the 1% needs the middle class.

The G5 teams are easily replace by FCS teams in the schedule.

(05-28-2014 07:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 teams are easily replace by FCS teams in the schedule.

But only one counts toward bowl eligibility (and AFAIR, only if it pays out 88%+ of its maximum FTE scholarships).

When the Big Ten moves to 9 conference games in 2016, and 1 OOC P5 school (which means 5 homes games from those 10 games every year), then as the FCS games phase out ... they'll mostly end up playing 2 Go5 buy games each. So in the end the Big Ten games against the Go5 stay pretty much the same (except pretty much locking out the occasional 2-1 and 3-1 scheduling in favor of pure buy games), while the extra Big Ten game replaces an FCS game for most schools, which will be seen as a substantial upgrade in BTN inventory.

(05-28-2014 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 08:28 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  2014 Alabama Non-Conference Schedule:
West Virginia @Georgia Dome
FAU @Alabama
USM @Alabama
Western Carolina @Alabama (Homecoming)

I believe Alabama, in addition to gate receipts, makes a bunch off parking too. An Alabama fan posted that....I think???

Nick should start working on his own AD. Alabama not only schedules FCS schools, they schedule schools like Georgia State in its very 1st year of football.

That was done as a favor to former Alabama coach Bill Curry so that Georgia State could have a money game. Mind you I'm defending their usual OOC schedule, but the request for the game you cite came from Curry who coached Georgia State in their first year or two.

We sent letters to about 30 schools for future games. Alabama called Curry and said sure. November 2010. Curry was shocked and said no way, maybe 2012 or 2013. Bama said it was their only opening for years, take it or leave it. Curry said let me call you back, He called Dr Patton and had a conversation and Dr Patton said, do it. So Bama doesnt do anyone favors. The house never loses.

(05-29-2014 12:57 PM)panama Wrote:  We sent letters to about 30 schools for future games. Alabama called Curry and said sure. November 2010. Curry was shocked and said no way, maybe 2012 or 2013. Bama said it was their only opening for years, take it or leave it. Curry said let me call you back, He called Dr Patton and had a conversation and Dr Patton said, do it. So Bama doesnt do anyone favors. The house never loses.

True that. It certainly seems that the top 20-30 schools negotiate with the schools they see as their peers, with confidence that they can build a schedule in line with their strategy around the outcomes of that negotiation.

What I am about to say I don't expect many on this board to believe, but I am going to say it once anyway.

So far the coaches and A.D.'s have been used as balloon floaters. They are taking concepts that have either already been planned and adopted and are floating the ideas for public consumption to desensitize the public to changes that will be coming in the future, essentially taking steam off the kettle, or they are floating ideas yet to be adopted to vet them for potential backlash, or to hear the public criticism that sometimes reveals flaws in the concept.

For 3 years we heard that the new upper tier would consist of between 60-70 schools (Saban, Alvarez, Dodds, and many more spoke of it). Now everyone says 65. That means some structure issues have been decided. Chiefly it means that any 3 conference structures have been ruled out and that the final configuration will be either the P5 we currently have or that no more change will occur than would be necessary to move to a P4. It also means that (other than Union and stipend issues causing someone, however unlikely to bow out) we are set at 65.

Two years ago Clemson's Dabo started talking about actually playing a real team for the Spring game. About the same time Nick Saban started the mantra of only playing other P5 schools. These multi million dollar coaches don't shoot from the hip as much as many think. They have talking points that are approved by their conferences and cache with their public.

The networks have wanted more and more content value. I believe we are headed to playing a 12 game P5 schedule with 6 home and 6 away. I also believe the compromise will be the moving of the Spring game to mid or late August as a true preseason game which can be against an in state FCS or FBS lower tier program and will essentially become the 7th home game for all P5 programs. That will permit each season ticket book to contain 7 home dates and please local merchants which is important in many small college towns. It also delivers what the networks want. These coaches are merely preparing a more peaceful transition to that model which has already been agreed upon at the upper echelon level of planning, even though the inception date has yet to be decided or announced.

I would also bet on an early signing date to alleviate the stress that many coaches face in the Spring. An early signing date coupled with the move of the Spring game will go along way to relieving a bit of the stress that coaches face year round. It is in their self interest to do so.

For at least 3 years, perhaps 4, coaches and A.D.'s have been speaking and so far most of what they have speculated about has come true in one form or another. When they say this stuff listen to them. But remember this, it all starts with the networks. Sure coaches would love to keep FCS and FBS games that give them a great shot at a 6-6 or 7-5 season, a bowl game, and an excuse to keep their job. So the coaches aren't behind this. Commissioners like having multiple bowl teams for their conference's image so they aren't behind this. A.D.'s like having 7 and sometimes 8 home games so they aren't behind this. It is only the networks and their desire to increase advertising rates through more content (helmet matches) that is driving this. It is their money that is paying for it. But to maintain the appearance of not controlling the industry it falls upon the coaches and A.D.'s to float the concepts that will be becoming reality in the not too distant future.

The real culprits behind realignment, an upper tier, and any or all changes that are coming are the networks. Everyone else just plays their part to pick up the paycheck. But other than the cash, not much of this change is really in the self interest of anyone other than the networks.

(05-29-2014 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What I am about to say I don't expect many on this board to believe, but I am going to say it once anyway.

So far the coaches and A.D.'s have been used as balloon floaters. They are taking concepts that have either already been planned and adopted and are floating the ideas for public consumption to desensitize the public to changes that will be coming in the future, essentially taking steam off the kettle, or they are floating ideas yet to be adopted to vet them for potential backlash, or to hear the public criticism that sometimes reveals flaws in the concept.

For 3 years we heard that the new upper tier would consist of between 60-70 schools (Saban, Alvarez, Dodds, and many more spoke of it). Now everyone says 65. That means some structure issues have been decided. Chiefly it means that any 3 conference structures have been ruled out and that the final configuration will be either the P5 we currently have or that no more change will occur than would be necessary to move to a P4. It also means that (other than Union and stipend issues causing someone, however unlikely to bow out) we are set at 65.

Two years ago Clemson's Dabo started talking about actually playing a real team for the Spring game. About the same time Nick Saban started the mantra of only playing other P5 schools. These multi million dollar coaches don't shoot from the hip as much as many think. They have talking points that are approved by their conferences and cache with their public.

The networks have wanted more and more content value. I believe we are headed to playing a 12 game P5 schedule with 6 home and 6 away. I also believe the compromise will be the moving of the Spring game to mid or late August as a true preseason game which can be against an in state FCS or FBS lower tier program and will essentially become the 7th home game for all P5 programs. That will permit each season ticket book to contain 7 home dates and please local merchants which is important in many small college towns. It also delivers what the networks want. These coaches are merely preparing a more peaceful transition to that model which has already been agreed upon at the upper echelon level of planning, even though the inception date has yet to be decided or announced.

I would also bet on an early signing date to alleviate the stress that many coaches face in the Spring. An early signing date coupled with the move of the Spring game will go along way to relieving a bit of the stress that coaches face year round. It is in their self interest to do so.

For at least 3 years, perhaps 4, coaches and A.D.'s have been speaking and so far most of what they have speculated about has come true in one form or another. When they say this stuff listen to them. But remember this, it all starts with the networks. Sure coaches would love to keep FCS and FBS games that give them a great shot at a 6-6 or 7-5 season, a bowl game, and an excuse to keep their job. So the coaches aren't behind this. Commissioners like having multiple bowl teams for their conference's image so they aren't behind this. A.D.'s like having 7 and sometimes 8 home games so they aren't behind this. It is only the networks and their desire to increase advertising rates through more content (helmet matches) that is driving this. It is their money that is paying for it. But to maintain the appearance of not controlling the industry it falls upon the coaches and A.D.'s to float the concepts that will be becoming reality in the not too distant future.

The real culprits behind realignment, an upper tier, and any or all changes that are coming are the networks. Everyone else just plays their part to pick up the paycheck. But other than the cash, not much of this change is really in the self interest of anyone other than the networks.

Agree that the networks are behind a push for upper level schools to play one another.

Many G5 fans and FCS fans don't like it, but college football viewership is being spread thinner and thinner. People aren't turning on tv's to watch lots of these pre season type matchups with P5 vs. G5 or fcs games. The networks and major conferences need to boost viewership
and fans at the games (empty stadiums don't look good on tv after all) and to do that--you've got to have matchups people want to watch in person and even more importantly on tv.

As a fan of an FCS team, this depresses me, but I kinda expected it to happen eventually. If my schools stays at the FCS level, we'll essentially be Division 3 in a few years and I can't imagine people will keep turning out to games like they do now (which is impressive for an FCS team).

I do wonder what will happen to the lower tier of P5 teams who will likely be in a cycle of 3-9 or 4-8 seasons. Schools like Maryland, Rutgers, TCU...they all struggle with attendance as it is. Is the money from the revenue sharing/tv contracts going to be enough for them? I don't care who you play, if the team/school you like is reguarly churning out 1-11 or 0-12 seasons, fans are going to lose interest.

(05-27-2014 07:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Hey Foley - FCS schools are D-1

Beautiful GIFs!

(05-28-2014 03:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC head coaches' comedy hour gets even better:

Mark Richt says he wants to keep playing FCS teams -- but not because he wants easy games on his schedule, he just wants to help the little guys with their budgets!

Quote:Georgia coach Mark Richt supports playing FCS teams, citing his work as a member of the American Football Coaches Association board of trustees and his interaction with FCS coaches.

“What I'm learning is if we as BCS teams -- or whatever you want to call us these days -- if we don't have those games with the FCS schools, a lot of them have a very difficult time making their budgets,” Richt said. “I think college football is too important at all levels to hurt them by setting criteria that would not allow you to play them.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...opponents-

Laugh all you want, but it is a big reason both Clemson and South Carolina play an in-state FCS school every year. It wasn't always that way, until a couple lawmakers pointed out that instead of paying the Eastern Michigans and Utah States of the world to come in for a game we could by rule play an in-state school, which are usually pretty good at the FCS level, and keep the money in-state. We have both played an in-state school every year since, and from what I have been told will play one every year as long as they count towards bowl eligibility.

That is one of the reasons Arizona's BOR requires ASU and UA to play NAU every other year (NAU has an opt out) as long as ASU and UA play FCS schools.

They can pay NAU $550K vs $1M or so for a lower out of state FBS school, plus the NAU game sells more tickets, with a good portion of NAU's alums and roster from Phoenix and Tucson.

Keeps the money in-state, and provides a better gate at less cost.

(05-28-2014 11:05 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 10:24 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 10:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 09:03 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  That is just stupid.

Its far from stupid. It lets Saban give an answer to people hounding him about those schools on the schedule, which answer amounts to, "I'm all for playing just power conference schools, you go talk the AD into doing that", knowing that the AD won't consider doing that at all ... and, indeed, if the AD was interested in moving that direction, he could well go to 10 P5 games per year, no FCS schools at all, and still have seven homes games ... but not seven home games and one marquee neutral site game.

It is lip service and that is stupid.

Not only that but who are the idiots hounding the coach about the schedule instead of the AD?

You don't think a coach with the power that Saban does has no say in the schedule?

(05-29-2014 02:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  You don't think a coach with the power that Saban does has no say in the schedule?

Not to the extent of being able to dictate the overall scheduling strategy. Within the general framework of the scheduling strategy they are pursuing, I am sure he has plenty of influence on which if the many contracts that are available to Bama are actually signed.

~~~~~~~~~~~

(05-29-2014 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What I am about to say I don't expect many on this board to believe, but I am going to say it once anyway.

So far the coaches and A.D.'s have been used as balloon floaters. They are taking concepts that have either already been planned and adopted and are floating the ideas for public consumption to desensitize the public to changes that will be coming in the future, essentially taking steam off the kettle, or they are floating ideas yet to be adopted to vet them for potential backlash, or to hear the public criticism that sometimes reveals flaws in the concept.

... About the same time Nick Saban started the mantra of only playing other P5 schools. These multi million dollar coaches don't shoot from the hip as much as many think. They have talking points that are approved by their conferences and cache with their public.

Note that however much Nick Saban pushing the talking point is an indication that it is an option being pushed by some interests does not mean that there is even a majority of stakeholders in P5 conferences who are in line behind that position, as some of the qualifiers in the above already indicate.

It is, to be sure, a talking point that finds favor among the main sports infotainment providers, and a winning coach from an entrenched brand name program promoting it is surely in line with someone's interests. But what the media networks would prefer if they could re-arrange college sports for free, and what they are willing to pay enough hard money for to be sure to win a political fight, may well be two different things.

Given that its so far removed from what the schools choose to do when left to their own account, it could easily be an ambit claim from that side of the tug of war, in which case the most likely outcome would fall somewhere short of that, and the ambit claim would in part serve as saber rattling to keep the Go5 in line and voting for proposals that do not see them entirely frozen out when the lines are drawn.

And it could, indeed, be a result of not having enough influence at present to see it through, as part of an effort to see whether they can drum up some more support for the position.

SEC football teams will compete in 112 games this fall- 56 conference games and 56 non conference games. Here's a breakdown of the competition by conference and classification-

P5- 65 games (58%)
- 56 SEC
- 4 Big XII
- 3 ACC
- 2 B1G

Non P5- 47 games (42%)
- 14 FCS
- 11 SBC
- 9 CUSA
- 5 MAC
- 5 AAC
- 3 MWC

The SEC is currently only playing 16% of their non conference games against other P5 teams and they want us to believe that they are serious about taking that up to 100%? It's so absurd its comical.

What would happen if the P5 and G5 actually split? The G5 would go on virtually unchanged, it's not like they've been getting rich and famous under the current structure. But the P5 would absolutely crumble. They need us more than we need them. Don't let them fool you.

(05-30-2014 12:22 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  SEC football teams will compete in 112 games this fall- 56 conference games and 56 non conference games. Here's a breakdown of the competition by conference and classification-

P5- 65 games (58%)
- 56 SEC
- 4 Big XII
- 3 ACC
- 2 B1G

Non P5- 47 games (42%)
- 14 FCS
- 11 SBC
- 9 CUSA
- 5 MAC
- 5 AAC
- 3 MWC

The SEC is currently only playing 16% of their non conference games against other P5 teams and they want us to believe that they are serious about taking that up to 100%? It's so absurd its comical.

What would happen if the P5 and G5 actually split? The G5 would go on virtually unchanged, it's not like they've been getting rich and famous under the current structure. But the P5 would absolutely crumble. They need us more than we need them. Don't let them fool you.

Saban realizes that not playing FCS, which many FBS programs say they want to stop playing, is not realistic, much less not playing G5's.

Regarding playing FCS teams:

"I don't know that we have a choice sometimes," Saban said. "We can't just call people up and say, `We want to have a game.' It's not like setting up a golf game. I call up three of my buddies and say you guys want to play and you play Sunday morning. Then everybody says, `Yeah, I can play.' You ever try to schedule a game? Do you know what goes into that? It's very difficult to do home-and-home with quality teams. To be honest with you, you almost have to buy games to get people to play you.

"Outside of the neutral-site game we do and our conference games, we struggle to schedule three other games."

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ms1-052714

Bottom line, Sabin has a problem scheduling, that would be made easier if teams from the P5 would them and they will not. The coaches at many, maybe most P5 teams need those OC games against non P5's to have a chance at a winning record, and playing nothing but P5 programs would get them fired, so it will never happen.

In the SEC playing 9 SEC teams would get coaches fired so it did not happen.

(05-28-2014 02:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 10:24 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 10:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 09:03 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  That is just stupid.

Its far from stupid. It lets Saban give an answer to people hounding him about those schools on the schedule, which answer amounts to, "I'm all for playing just power conference schools, you go talk the AD into doing that", knowing that the AD won't consider doing that at all ... and, indeed, if the AD was interested in moving that direction, he could well go to 10 P5 games per year, no FCS schools at all, and still have seven homes games ... but not seven home games and one marquee neutral site game.

It is lip service and that is stupid.

Ah, so you are using "stupid" to mean "I don't like that he does that".

In the ordinary meaning of "stupid", its far from stupid ... in his circumstances, giving lip service to the idea of an all-P5 schedule for Bama seems reasonably intelligent.

Actually disingenuous is the proper word.

Bama could easily afford to give up a buy game if he'd give up his last raise, that's not happening so where else are they cutting the two million or so needed? Probably no where.

Truth is, Bama is so in love with him right now, he could probably let his wife tell one of her friends that Nick wants to leave to go to go a school that will schedule properly and within an hour two it will be all over the Bama boards with fans demanding that they schedule properly.

Nick ain't throwing his weight behind this, Nick is running a PR campaign to be more popular and likeable so he can get top dollar as an analyst in a few more years. He's already gone for coaching to improve his TV presence.

(05-28-2014 07:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  This is like the 1% demanding their Bush tax cuts be extended or they won't "create jobs". It's nothing but a bluff to make it look like even being caught in the same stadium as a non P5 is gracious.

Here's the math- a P5 school like Ohio State schedules 3 buyout games vs G5 and FCS teams, and 1 home-and-home game with a low level P5 (Cal, Miami, etc) every year for their non conference schedule. This gives them 7/8 home games over a 2 year cycle, and as close as you can get to having 8/8 guaranteed wins. Last year Ohio State averaged $5.2m/game in ticket revenue alone. With their current model that's $36.4m in ticket revenue evey 2 years for OOC games, minus $1m or less for each of the 6 buyout games, and travel expenses for the one P5 home and home game. $36.4m- $6m= $30.4m- 1 travel game expenses every two years.

Compare that with the P5 only model- Now its only 4 home games every two years, or $20.8m in ticket revenue. Immediately that's a loss of $9.6m in ticket revenue plus the travel expenses for THREE road games, every two years. I'm guessing the numbers would be very similar for Alabama. Not to mention the effect of potential future earnings when you replace 6 easily winnable and 2 probably winnable games with 8 competitive games. The amount of losses is guaranteed to go up. Now you've got a bunch of angry bandwagon fans who are upset that their team is 2-2 or 1-3 in September. It would be a disaster on multiple fronts.

The P5 needs the G5 just like the 1% needs the middle class.

Remember also that the powers that be in college athletics despise using computer rankings that account for margin of victory because they do not want to create an incentive to run up the score. The small sample size of FCS likely results in those results being discarded or a built-in penalty factor attached.

So most likely in whatever tool the committee uses to help them evaluate strength of schedule, guess who becomes highly valuable? The top 3 or 4 teams out of each G5 league.

You get a team you should beat (if you are in the 30% to 40% of a P5 league, your odds of beating a top G5 are pretty good, especially at home or a neutral site) that will have a lot of FBS wins and boost your strength of schedule.

If the committee holds to form with every other selection committee, they are going to have tools like that to use and smart players will play to the system.

In another 10 years you could see gaps arising within the G5 leagues as the top teams will command prime dollars for a non-returned game and will be able to command more home/home and 2 for 1 contracts from people looking to game the system.

I don't blame Saban for being a tyrant; but do you really want him setting policy?

(05-30-2014 08:59 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  I don't blame Saban for being a tyrant; but do you really want him setting policy?

I'm not sure we want anyone left setting policy. When you have administrators talking about being willing to cross over the line into pro sports, this ***** may not be worth saving because they aren't thinking about what will happen when the IRS and the employment law bar comes swooping in and if they aren't thinking about that, there is no hope.

(05-30-2014 12:22 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  SEC football teams will compete in 112 games this fall- 56 conference games and 56 non conference games. Here's a breakdown of the competition by conference and classification-

P5- 65 games (58%)
- 56 SEC
- 4 Big XII
- 3 ACC
- 2 B1G

Non P5- 47 games (42%)
- 14 FCS
- 11 SBC
- 9 CUSA
- 5 MAC
- 5 AAC
- 3 MWC

The SEC is currently only playing 16% of their non conference games against other P5 teams and they want us to believe that they are serious about taking that up to 100%? It's so absurd its comical.

They're already unable to do that...

Alabama is having problems filling their 2015 schedule.