(08-08-2014 02:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  Atlanta writer pointed out the "high revenue group" is anything but homogenous. Suggested this was really like Yosemite Sam given a new batch of dynamite. Just hope he doesn't blow himself up.

That would never happen. He's not Wile E. Coyote, ya know

(08-08-2014 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And too, ZW, there is no real leverage over the PAC since they only lease their product. If the networks want it all they have to do is pay the Big 12 to do it. With the Big 12 they have some leverage.

However I caution that with autonomy things could change. Increase roster size and set payouts and we could see reductions instead of an increase to the size of the P5.

I haven't seen anyone with any authority promoting increasing the scholarship limits (except for tinkering with non-revs where women's sports have much larger numbers than men's-letting the schools do their own Title IX balancing instead of the NCAA doing it for them). Now I've seen some fears that autonomy would allow the P5 to do it, but not P5 people saying they wanted that.

Have you heard anything?

Dan Mullen of Miss St. has the talking points on that one Bullet.

Interesting. Mississippi St. would probably get killed by higher scholarship limits. Their whole playing time roster would be on the bench at LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and Georgia.

Or you could see it as Mullen wanting to separate himself from a lower bottom. Or you could consider where he said it, at ESPN's coaches meeting, and wonder why when networks are acquiring all of the P5 content they desire they would seek to expand the gap between the P5 and most of the lower tier schools by having a coach introduce a concept that if enacted would truly deplete the athletic talent pool of that lower tier? It sure would give the networks more of an excuse not to have to televise as many of those games which would incrementally reduce overhead invested in inventory.

He said it to ESPN? He might have been blowing smoke, like all those coaches who told ESPN they want to play an all-P5 schedule and then went into the next room to make sure their AD has locked up future home games against Presbyterian and Idaho.

(08-08-2014 03:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  I haven't seen anyone with any authority promoting increasing the scholarship limits (except for tinkering with non-revs where women's sports have much larger numbers than men's-letting the schools do their own Title IX balancing instead of the NCAA doing it for them). Now I've seen some fears that autonomy would allow the P5 to do it, but not P5 people saying they wanted that.

Have you heard anything?

Dan Mullen of Miss St. has the talking points on that one Bullet.

Interesting. Mississippi St. would probably get killed by higher scholarship limits. Their whole playing time roster would be on the bench at LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and Georgia.

Or you could see it as Mullen wanting to separate himself from a lower bottom. Or you could consider where he said it, at ESPN's coaches meeting, and wonder why when networks are acquiring all of the P5 content they desire they would seek to expand the gap between the P5 and most of the lower tier schools by having a coach introduce a concept that if enacted would truly deplete the athletic talent pool of that lower tier? It sure would give the networks more of an excuse not to have to televise as many of those games which would incrementally reduce overhead invested in inventory.

He said it to ESPN? He might have been blowing smoke, like all those coaches who told ESPN they want to play an all-P5 schedule and then went into the next room to make sure their AD has locked up future home games against Presbyterian and Idaho.

Yeah, those schedules are every bit as much the coach's schedules as the ADs.

(08-08-2014 03:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  He said it to ESPN? He might have been blowing smoke, like all those coaches who told ESPN they want to play an all-P5 schedule and then went into the next room to make sure their AD has locked up future home games against Presbyterian and Idaho.

Or like games against Sacramento State and Grambling. Sorry, couldn't resist.

(08-08-2014 04:28 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 03:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  He said it to ESPN? He might have been blowing smoke, like all those coaches who told ESPN they want to play an all-P5 schedule and then went into the next room to make sure their AD has locked up future home games against Presbyterian and Idaho.

Or like games against Sacramento State and Grambling. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I used Presby as an example b/c Cal scheduled them a few years ago. I'd rather Cal play no FCS teams. Needless to say, I don't get to make those decisions.