Quote:"there will be striking differences between the 65 largest schools and the more than 280 others in Division I"

Just noticed this wording in the AP story. Not exactly correct if one goes by the normal measure of school size, enrollment.

(08-08-2014 07:18 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

Quote:"there will be striking differences between the 65 largest schools and the more than 280 others in Division I"

Just noticed this wording in the AP story. Not exactly correct if one goes by the normal measure of school size, enrollment.

I'm thinking fanbase, football revenue, or TV revenue.

I just got back from an 8-day vacation to Northern California in which I was able to tour both Cal and Stanford. Trust me, there already is a world of difference in athletic facilities among those schools and Rice (although everyone knows that already). A shame really because Rice and Cal are similar in campus size, and Stanford - despite its massive footprint - isn't more striking of a campus than Rice outside of its amazing athletic facilities.

I am not sure this will make much difference actually. The majors are already sort of lording things over the rest and tolerating them in order to have some easy games every year. Sort of like UT vs Rice. UT projects the image of being the nice guy when they play Rice but that only holds as long as Rice doesn't ever really threaten them on the field. I'd love to see how the Whorns might respond to a truly competitive Rice team, year in and out. I'd bet we wouldn't be on their schedule for a long while. So now the majors collude to ensure the votes go their way meanwhile the others are looking out only for their own special interests. This new thing is just a way of institutionalizing the current system, 'seems to me.

(08-13-2014 11:06 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  I am not sure this will make much difference actually. The majors are already sort of lording things over the rest and tolerating them in order to have some easy games every year. Sort of like UT vs Rice. UT projects the image of being the nice guy when they play Rice but that only holds as long as Rice doesn't ever really threaten them on the field. I'd love to see how the Whorns might respond to a truly competitive Rice team, year in and out. I'd bet we wouldn't be on their schedule for a long while. So now the majors collude to ensure the votes go their way meanwhile the others are looking out only for their own special interests. This new thing is just a way of institutionalizing the current system, 'seems to me.

I have always said that the end of the swc was due a lot to UT no longer being dominant

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/sports...-news&_r=0

That story mentions two possible rule changes. One would be lifting football scholarships from 85 to 95. I'm okay with that even though it would hurt Rice and others quite a bit.

But the immediate transfer rule should be something the have-nots fight tooth and nail to avoid. That would create a situation where the Christian Covingtons of the world would immediately be able to transfer if they wanted to and basically eliminate the need for the top 5 conferences to have to actually be able to judge future talent potential at all. In fact, I think the non power conferences should fight together and offer a compromise where they would be in favor of the 95 man scholarship limit (and non power 5 stay at 85), but strive for a reverse transfer situation where you sit out a year if you go from non power 5 to power 5 and are immediately eligible the other way around (similar to what happens now if a Rice player transfers to say Sam Houston State).

My thought is there is still enough of an uncertainty in college football recruiting that a lot of high school phenoms peter out by the time they get to college, whereas others only blossom once they hit college. So we can still find those diamonds in the rough and etch out a decent team if we are working hard in the recruiting process.

(08-14-2014 07:34 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  That story mentions two possible rule changes. One would be lifting football scholarships from 85 to 95. I'm okay with that even though it would hurt Rice and others quite a bit.

But the immediate transfer rule should be something the have-nots fight tooth and nail to avoid. That would create a situation where the Christian Covingtons of the world would immediately be able to transfer if they wanted to and basically eliminate the need for the top 5 conferences to have to actually be able to judge future talent potential at all. In fact, I think the non power conferences should fight together and offer a compromise where they would be in favor of the 95 man scholarship limit (and non power 5 stay at 85), but strive for a reverse transfer situation where you sit out a year if you go from non power 5 to power 5 and are immediately eligible the other way around (similar to what happens now if a Rice player transfers to say Sam Houston State).

My thought is there is still enough of an uncertainty in college football recruiting that a lot of high school phenoms peter out by the time they get to college, whereas others only blossom once they hit college. So we can still find those diamonds in the rough and etch out a decent team if we are working hard in the recruiting process.

I'm pretty sure the number of scholarships offered is not something the Power 5 can change via autonomy.

I'm not sure what benefit we would gain by offering to stay at 85 if the Power 5 somehow got the limit to 95. We would just be adding to the de facto divide between us, further creating a level between top level FBS and FCS.

I believe there may be a virtually unused tool to fight the immediate transfer rule, if it should become a reality - 4-year scholarships. U$C (the western, not eastern variety) said earlier this summer they were going there for at least football. Not sure how these would be written - do you have to pay back if you leave before the 4 years are up (a la military academies) in return for the longer guarantee?

Lots of questions, but the tinder box isn't dry in fighting against these proposals.

(08-14-2014 11:25 AM)gsloth Wrote:  Lots of questions, but the tinder box isn't dry in fighting against these proposals.

Isn't a tinder box supposed to be kept dry?

You're right - I blew my metaphor. I meant empty, not dry.

The biggest thing empty may be my brain, I guess.

(08-14-2014 01:44 PM)gsloth Wrote:  You're right - I blew my metaphor. I meant empty, not dry.

The biggest thing empty may be my brain, I guess.

I know that sometimes my own well just runs bare...