(06-04-2014 03:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 02:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  And some of those "new" to FBS schools were actually in the prior equivalent of FBS but got moved when the NCAA voted to change the criteria and gave no advance warning nor opportunity adjust. Most of those schools accepted the transition because of promises made about post-season access, scheduling FBS, media access and saw those promises not kept before they began slogging back to FBS.

I don't think that applies to anyone except the Southland schools and North Texas was the most recent of those to move up-in 1995.

App State and 1997 move-up Idaho

The Big Sky wasn't moved down in 82. The Southern was, although I didn't remember that App St. was a member then (they were).

(06-04-2014 03:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 02:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  And some of those "new" to FBS schools were actually in the prior equivalent of FBS but got moved when the NCAA voted to change the criteria and gave no advance warning nor opportunity adjust. Most of those schools accepted the transition because of promises made about post-season access, scheduling FBS, media access and saw those promises not kept before they began slogging back to FBS.

I don't think that applies to anyone except the Southland schools and North Texas was the most recent of those to move up-in 1995.

App State and 1997 move-up Idaho

The Big Sky wasn't moved down in 82. The Southern was, although I didn't remember that App St. was a member then (they were).

AFAIU, Idaho was moved down in the formation of I-AA in 1978, so they weren't there to be moved down in 1982. But they have a long football history, and it was basically the same effect ... previously they had been playing in the official top tier of college FB, and in 1978, they were playing in the second tier.

The attempt was made in 1982 to move the MAC schools down, but they challenged the move and finally won, so the move down was un-happened (though AFAIU the record books were not rewritten to reflect the reversal of the NCAA relegation, I guess because the NCAA are petty little children that way).

"pre-existing conditions" is a term insurance providers invented to justify dropping or denying people from coverage so insurance companies could enhance their profitability. And yet the term was used so often that we all became familiar with it and over time accepted the cruel and unfair use of it as normal. A 3 year old child gets denied health care coverage? We just shrug our shoulders and say "what can you do, he had a pre-existing condition". The insurance companies had successfully indoctrinated their customers into believing that this was a real and normal thing and we should just accept the fact that the profit of insurance companies is more important than people's health.

This is what the "P5" has done by normalizing the terms P5 and G5. FBS is ONE subdivision, these classifications of "haves and "have nots" is just a means to justify and normalize blatant discrimination. Over the course of the 12 year contract between ESPN and FBS (that's all of FBS), the "P5" will receive $900m MORE in revenue than the G5, and we all just nod our heads and say "oh, that seems fair". Because it totally makes since that Wake Forrest should get 3X what Boise State gets from 2014-2026 because they joined the right conference in 1953. It makes total sense.

There is no P5, there is only FBS.

Ohio states's of the world have 90% of the power-But not good enough-must have 95-100 % control !!! Pathetic.

" absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

(06-04-2014 04:29 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  "pre-existing conditions" is a term insurance providers invented to justify dropping or denying people from coverage so insurance companies could enhance their profitability. And yet the term was used so often that we all became familiar with it and over time accepted the cruel and unfair use of it as normal. A 3 year old child gets denied health care coverage? We just shrug our shoulders and say "what can you do, he had a pre-existing condition". The insurance companies had successfully indoctrinated their customers into believing that this was a real and normal thing and we should just accept the fact that the profit of insurance companies is more important than people's health.

This is what the "P5" has done by normalizing the terms P5 and G5. FBS is ONE subdivision, these classifications of "haves and "have nots" is just a means to justify and normalize blatant discrimination. Over the course of the 12 year contract between ESPN and FBS (that's all of FBS), the "P5" will receive $900m MORE in revenue than the G5, and we all just nod our heads and say "oh, that seems fair". Because it totally makes since that Wake Forrest should get 3X what Boise State gets from 2014-2026 because they joined the right conference in 1953. It makes total sense.

There is no P5, there is only FBS.

Don't get me wrong.

I don't have a problem with the CFP structure. It's not what Sun Belt and ACC put forward which IMHO was a superior plan (1-4 in the playoff, no "contract" bowls per se, but the committee would take teams 5-20 put them in "affilliated bowls" who could bid to be in the playoff rotation and the committee would have as a ground rule, respecting historic bowl alliances, so Rose would stay B10-P12, best available SEC to Sugar, best available ACC to Orange. No cap on any conference's participation, it would be a true made for TV that guaranteed the 16 highest rated teams not in the playoffs would be in the 8 premier bowls).

I'm more than willing to ride out the current CFP unless the committee is faced with a G5 that is top 4 in the AP and coaches poll and doesn't select them or the two major polls rate one G5 champ two or more spots over another champ and the committee takes the lower ranked and cites SOS. Situations like that will cloud the integrity of the process.

Even in the field of autonomy I don't have a lot of heartburn, but if they were to adopt the last proposal that leaked which grants voting majority to FBS as a whole, I question why autonomy makes sense. I cannot think of a single NCAA vote that ever saw the six AQ leagues unanimous that didn't win the support of the rest of FBS.

My personal hunch is that Delany and Slive both have other things in mind where there isn't unanimity. Since they both squealed about the ubergroup's one-school, one-vote provision requiring a high super-majority, my hunch is both have something they are afraid wouldn't pass on a conference vote even in the P5 or would be tabled because some of the conferences would be divided evenly or very narrowly, but think that if it went to a school vote within the 65 it could garner 33 to 35 votes.

I've watched these two for years and honestly if there were something that the 28 SEC and Big 10 schools agreed on by a wide margin, it is very unlikely that it wouldn't carry two more of the P5 leagues.

I'd just about bet that what each has in mind is different.

Photo from their last meeting.

(06-04-2014 04:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Ohio states's of the world have 90% of the power-But not good enough-must have 95-100 % control !!! Pathetic.

I think it is more sinister than that. As I state in what is now the post prior to this, I think the one-school, one-vote within the 65 is designed to put control in the hands of 33 to 35 schools outside of the conference structure by enabling the passage of legislation that would probably fail on a conference by conference vote.

The Wake Forests and Northwesterns and Mississippi States are getting sold out and don't seem to realize it.

(06-04-2014 04:19 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 02:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  And some of those "new" to FBS schools were actually in the prior equivalent of FBS but got moved when the NCAA voted to change the criteria and gave no advance warning nor opportunity adjust. Most of those schools accepted the transition because of promises made about post-season access, scheduling FBS, media access and saw those promises not kept before they began slogging back to FBS.

I don't think that applies to anyone except the Southland schools and North Texas was the most recent of those to move up-in 1995.

App State and 1997 move-up Idaho

The Big Sky wasn't moved down in 82. The Southern was, although I didn't remember that App St. was a member then (they were).

AFAIU, Idaho was moved down in the formation of I-AA in 1978, so they weren't there to be moved down in 1982. But they have a long football history, and it was basically the same effect ... previously they had been playing in the official top tier of college FB, and in 1978, they were playing in the second tier.

The attempt was made in 1982 to move the MAC schools down, but they challenged the move and finally won, so the move down was un-happened (though AFAIU the record books were not rewritten to reflect the reversal of the NCAA relegation, I guess because the NCAA are petty little children that way).

In 1982 they moved down about 40 schools with the MAC schools and Cincinnati getting brought back up. NCAA record book still shows those schools going down for 1 year. I figured that change is what you were talking about. Ivy, Southern, most of MAC, most of Missouri Valley, Southland and some indies moved down then.

(06-04-2014 04:29 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  This is what the "P5" has done by normalizing the terms P5 and G5.

Though its not a case of setting up the terms and using the terms to lay the groundwork for what they were doing, because they negotiated the terms of the CFP and Contract/Access bowl system first, guaranteeing a spot in one of the six big bowls for five conference champions, and for five other conferences a spot for one out of five champions ... before sports reporters uttered the phrase.

Up here in Portage County, Ohio, our Golden Flashes suffered an unjustified (and later reversed) relegation to I-AA in the 80's, largely excluded from the BCS system as it was designed in the 90's, given a slender reed of a chance from the BCS BCS buster rule changes of last decade (which we came within a whisker of grabbing a few years back), and now if they are the conference champions and best of the five Go5 conference champions are guaranteed a spot no matter how unfairly the polls always treat all of the Go5 schools.

For those who follow schools that fell from the old Big East falling out of the BCS AQ heavens down here to Go5 earth, it may feel like the P5 is ratcheting up their oppression of the non-power conferences in FBS, but that oppression has been there for decades and was worse twenty years ago than it is today.

Refusing to have terms to talk about the discrimination between FBS Haves and FBS Have-Nots that is built into the Contract/Access Bowl system isn't going to end the discrimination.

(06-04-2014 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  In 1982 they moved down about 40 schools with the MAC schools and Cincinnati getting brought back up. NCAA record book still shows those schools going down for 1 year.

Sure it does, because the NCAA are like a bunch of petulant children sometimes about admitting when they were found to do something wrong. While they were forced to reverse the relegation of the MAC schools (IIRC, on due process grounds), they never bothered to correct the record book.

I believe that arkstfan was wrong in detail but had the right general point about when Idaho was pushed into I-AA, its just that they were pushed into I-AA on formation in the late 70's rather than in the NCAA's panic 1982 reaction to the loss of college FB TV rights.

Well, the AD at Arizona State was on sports radio today talking about this subject. He spoke about Slive and Delaney using the angle of breaking away in order to attain autonomy. He hopes and doesn't think that breaking away or forming a new division will be necessary but that folks should take the talk of autonomy very seriously because everyone in the P5 are serious about it.

As I have said, August is the time and the summer is when the gamesmanship will happen. Well it is June so no surprise we are seeing some hardball being played. After all, it IS Slive's turn. Every commissioner is seemingly being allowed their turn in the spotlight. They don't seem weaker than the other four that way AND no one of them takes all the heat.

This is a reason NOT to shrink FBS-
The cost of buy games is going up because there are only so many teams available-supply and demand:
http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/art...g/16595095

(06-04-2014 05:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My personal hunch is that Delany and Slive both have other things in mind where there isn't unanimity. Since they both squealed about the ubergroup's one-school, one-vote provision requiring a high super-majority, my hunch is both have something they are afraid wouldn't pass on a conference vote even in the P5 or would be tabled because some of the conferences would be divided evenly or very narrowly, but think that if it went to a school vote within the 65 it could garner 33 to 35 votes.

The fight is over what seems a narrow difference between a 67% super-majority and a 60% super-majority ... but the flip side of that is looking out for your own conference's interests when a proposal that doesn't benefit you has three conferences backing it. And look at the different pairs of conferences and how many votes that an alliance of two can deploy to block something:

60% super-majority: 41% needed to block
66% super-majority: 34% needed to block

43%: Big10 & SEC, Big10 & ACC, SEC & ACC
42%: Notre Dame &: Pac12 & Big10, Pac12 & SEC, Pac12 & ACC
40%: Pac12 & Big10, Pac12 & SEC, Pac12 & ACC
36%: Big12 & SEC, Big12 & Big10, Big12 & ACC
34%: Big12 & Pac12

With 66%, any pair can veto if they vote party line. With 60%, any pair of the Big10, SEC or ACC, or else one of those plus the ACC and Notre Dame.

And if the Big12 added two teams, it levels things between the Big12 and Pac12,

42% ~ Big10 & SEC, Big10 & ACC, SEC & ACC

41%: Notre Dame &: Pac12 & Big10; Pac12 & SEC; Pac12 & ACC; Big12 & SEC; Big12 & Big10; Big12 & ACC

39%: Pac12 & Big10; Pac12 & SEC; Pac12 & ACC; Big12 & SEC; Big12 & Big10; Big12 & ACC

36%: Big12 & Pac12

Quote: I've watched these two for years and honestly if there were something that the 28 SEC and Big 10 schools agreed on by a wide margin, it is very unlikely that it wouldn't carry two more of the P5 leagues.

But by the same token there are lot of things that one wants that the other would want to block, so the ability to block something one of those two wants to block and the other wants to push does come into it.

(06-05-2014 10:14 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 05:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My personal hunch is that Delany and Slive both have other things in mind where there isn't unanimity. Since they both squealed about the ubergroup's one-school, one-vote provision requiring a high super-majority, my hunch is both have something they are afraid wouldn't pass on a conference vote even in the P5 or would be tabled because some of the conferences would be divided evenly or very narrowly, but think that if it went to a school vote within the 65 it could garner 33 to 35 votes.

The fight is over what seems a narrow difference between a 67% super-majority and a 60% super-majority ... but the flip side of that is looking out for your own conference's interests when a proposal that doesn't benefit you has three conferences backing it. And look at the different pairs of conferences and how many votes that an alliance of two can deploy to block something:

60% super-majority: 41% needed to block
66% super-majority: 34% needed to block

43%: Big10 & SEC, Big10 & ACC, SEC & ACC
42%: Notre Dame &: Pac12 & Big10, Pac12 & SEC, Pac12 & ACC
40%: Pac12 & Big10, Pac12 & SEC, Pac12 & ACC
36%: Big12 & SEC, Big12 & Big10, Big12 & ACC
34%: Big12 & Pac12

With 66%, any pair can veto if they vote party line. With 60%, any pair of the Big10, SEC or ACC, or else one of those plus the ACC and Notre Dame.

And if the Big12 added two teams, it levels things between the Big12 and Pac12,

42% ~ Big10 & SEC, Big10 & ACC, SEC & ACC

41%: Notre Dame &: Pac12 & Big10; Pac12 & SEC; Pac12 & ACC; Big12 & SEC; Big12 & Big10; Big12 & ACC

39%: Pac12 & Big10; Pac12 & SEC; Pac12 & ACC; Big12 & SEC; Big12 & Big10; Big12 & ACC

36%: Big12 & Pac12

Quote: I've watched these two for years and honestly if there were something that the 28 SEC and Big 10 schools agreed on by a wide margin, it is very unlikely that it wouldn't carry two more of the P5 leagues.

But by the same token there are lot of things that one wants that the other would want to block, so the ability to block something one of those two wants to block and the other wants to push does come into it.

Actually I think the bigger fight (not that they don't care about the 2/3) is over the 4/5 of the conferences vs. the 3/5 of the conferences. Theoretically you could have as few as 13 schools block legislation (6/10 Big 12 and 7/12 Pac 12).

(06-04-2014 05:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Ohio states's of the world have 90% of the power-But not good enough-must have 95-100 % control !!! Pathetic.

I think it is more sinister than that. As I state in what is now the post prior to this, I think the one-school, one-vote within the 65 is designed to put control in the hands of 33 to 35 schools outside of the conference structure by enabling the passage of legislation that would probably fail on a conference by conference vote.

The Wake Forests and Northwesterns and Mississippi States are getting sold out and don't seem to realize it.

They realize it. It's no coincidence that the weak-sauce version of "autonomy" was proposed by an NCAA committee chaired by the president of Wake Forest.

(06-04-2014 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is a reason NOT to shrink FBS-
The cost of buy games is going up because there are only so many teams available-supply and demand:
http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/art...g/16595095

Rutgers has to toss $800,000.00 to Tulane AND must surrender an away game as well...

...wow. Tulane really took advantage of Rutgers there.

(06-03-2014 05:55 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  What this will do is fix the mess that the WAC, Conference USA and Sunbelt created by calling up every directional FCS school with a heartbeat over the last 10 years, and making the playing field level again.

It's amazing how people can type this drivel with a straight face and actually believe it.

The playing field isn't level because the conferences with all the power (the P5) have intentionally rigged the system to make it imbalanced. Period, end of discussion.

(06-05-2014 10:23 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 05:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Ohio states's of the world have 90% of the power-But not good enough-must have 95-100 % control !!! Pathetic.

I think it is more sinister than that. As I state in what is now the post prior to this, I think the one-school, one-vote within the 65 is designed to put control in the hands of 33 to 35 schools outside of the conference structure by enabling the passage of legislation that would probably fail on a conference by conference vote.

The Wake Forests and Northwesterns and Mississippi States are getting sold out and don't seem to realize it.

They realize it. It's no coincidence that the weak-sauce version of "autonomy" was proposed by an NCAA committee chaired by the president of Wake Forest.

Yep.... and Cal is going to get bent over just like Wake Forest, Northwestern, and Mississippi State. The top programs of the P5 are going to turn on the weaker P5 programs next after screwing over the G5. Give greedy pigs like Slive an inch and before long, they'll take a mile.

(06-05-2014 10:36 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is a reason NOT to shrink FBS-
The cost of buy games is going up because there are only so many teams available-supply and demand:
http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/art...g/16595095

Rutgers has to toss $800,000.00 to Tulane AND must surrender an away game as well...

...wow. Tulane really took advantage of Rutgers there.

The visiting team gets paid in each game of that 2-1. Kind of. ^_^

Tulane @Rutgers, 2010, Tulane got $750,000 (and the win)
Rutgers @Tulane, 2012, Rutgers got $50,000 (and the win)
Tulane @ Rutgers, 2014, Tulane gets $800,000 (and will get the win as well if the pattern repeats).

(06-04-2014 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is a reason NOT to shrink FBS-
The cost of buy games is going up because there are only so many teams available-supply and demand:
http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/art...g/16595095

Its also why the no-FCS rule in the Big Ten (which may be more on the order of a strong suggestion) is synchronized with the expansion to 9 conference games.