Autonomy for those powerful conferences could widen an already large gap between them and the less powerful conferences when it comes to acquiring talent and revenue. It may not immediately transform the competition, however.

"If autonomy is successful there is no question that it is a de facto Division IV, but it stays within Division I," Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby told The Associated Press last month. "It keeps us participating in championships. It keeps us all playing by the same set of rules."



http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/...&referrer=

This writer is pushing the "Big Five" term instead of "Power Five".I'm sure those conferences find that term more to their liking.The word big is less "threatening" than power.
YES.I think the labeling,phraseology,etc. DO matter.Marketing simply proves out.
Maybe the other five should at least unite on a label of their own before they get "saddled" with a less desirable one.Do the research and come up with a word that is positive and fan friendly-sympathetic.
Names matter.Millions are spent on product name branding.
It should be something that is aggressive and challenging to the other five.Something that portrays striving for equalness

(06-07-2014 04:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Autonomy for those powerful conferences could widen an already large gap between them and the less powerful conferences when it comes to acquiring talent and revenue. It may not immediately transform the competition, however.

"If autonomy is successful there is no question that it is a de facto Division IV, but it stays within Division I," Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby told The Associated Press last month. "It keeps us participating in championships. It keeps us all playing by the same set of rules."



http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/...&referrer=

What complete and utter bull$hit was this just uttered by Bowlsby?

(06-07-2014 06:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 04:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Autonomy for those powerful conferences could widen an already large gap between them and the less powerful conferences when it comes to acquiring talent and revenue. It may not immediately transform the competition, however.

"If autonomy is successful there is no question that it is a de facto Division IV, but it stays within Division I," Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby told The Associated Press last month. "It keeps us participating in championships. It keeps us all playing by the same set of rules."



http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/...&referrer=

What complete and utter bull$hit was this just uttered by Bowlsby?

Apparently so. I thought that was the most interesting line in the story. The article does a fairly decent job of laying out the general situation to the more casual fan who, lets face it, is not really paying attention to this stuff.

(06-07-2014 06:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 04:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Autonomy for those powerful conferences could widen an already large gap between them and the less powerful conferences when it comes to acquiring talent and revenue. It may not immediately transform the competition, however.

"If autonomy is successful there is no question that it is a de facto Division IV, but it stays within Division I," Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby told The Associated Press last month. "It keeps us participating in championships. It keeps us all playing by the same set of rules."



http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/...&referrer=

What complete and utter bull$hit was this just uttered by Bowlsby?

It thought the whole point of autonomy was that the P5 wouldn't be playing by the same rules as everyone else. They want to pay stipends and other benefits to the athletes that the rest of Division 1 was against.

(06-07-2014 09:52 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 06:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 04:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Autonomy for those powerful conferences could widen an already large gap between them and the less powerful conferences when it comes to acquiring talent and revenue. It may not immediately transform the competition, however.

"If autonomy is successful there is no question that it is a de facto Division IV, but it stays within Division I," Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby told The Associated Press last month. "It keeps us participating in championships. It keeps us all playing by the same set of rules."



http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/...&referrer=

What complete and utter bull$hit was this just uttered by Bowlsby?

It thought the whole point of autonomy was that the P5 wouldn't be playing by the same rules as everyone else. They want to pay stipends and other benefits to the athletes that the rest of Division 1 was against.

Exactly......

No G5 conference has come out against stipends.Some can still not see this fact.
Most on this board know this but here it is again for emphasis:
P5 schools=FBS
G5 schools=FBS
FCS schools
non-football Div. I schools

These different groups{ALL within Div. I} have different agendas and much different abilities due to budgets,etc..

G5 schools are willing to conform to a Vast majority(if not all) of the reforms proposed by the P5.Period.
G5 should not be thrown in with these other groups as not willing or "able" to agree with P5.

(06-07-2014 11:55 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  No G5 conference has come out against stipends.Some can still not see this fact.
Most on this board know this but here it is again for emphasis:
P5 schools=FBS
G5 schools=FBS
FCS schools
non-football Div. I schools

These different groups{ALL within Div. I} have different agendas and much different abilities due to budgets,etc..

G5 schools are willing to conform to a Vast majority(if not all) of the reforms proposed by the P5.Period.
G5 should not be thrown in with these other groups as not willing or "able" to agree with P5.

This. No G5 school is going to willingly put themselves behind the P5. They're still competing in some manner for the same talent and money. FCS schools are already out of the game and they're the ones who have a problem with what the P5 want.

(06-08-2014 12:02 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 11:55 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  No G5 conference has come out against stipends.Some can still not see this fact.
Most on this board know this but here it is again for emphasis:
P5 schools=FBS
G5 schools=FBS
FCS schools
non-football Div. I schools

These different groups{ALL within Div. I} have different agendas and much different abilities due to budgets,etc..

G5 schools are willing to conform to a Vast majority(if not all) of the reforms proposed by the P5.Period.
G5 should not be thrown in with these other groups as not willing or "able" to agree with P5.

This. No G5 school is going to willingly put themselves behind the P5. They're still competing in some manner for the same talent and money. FCS schools are already out of the game and they're the ones who have a problem with what the P5 want.

Maybe they will compromise and let the FCS schools vote together with weighted voting for the P5. That seems like a good compromise.