(08-11-2014 02:46 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

I think giving up all together. FCS is a money drain with virtual no revenue stream for almost all the schools. You could name the exceptions on one hand, and have fingers left over.




Fire June


.

(08-11-2014 03:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:46 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

I think giving up all together. FCS is a money drain with virtual no revenue stream for almost all the schools. You could name the exceptions on one hand, and have fingers left over.




Fire June


.

So by give up we're saying drop football a la Pacific or UT-Arlington. I dont think it will come to that.

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

Regarding the football facility, I'll believe it when I see it. The legacy of these things is that everyone has "a stadium plan" but at some point it always collapses, usually over the need for taxpayer funds at some point in the process.

(08-11-2014 03:24 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:46 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

I think giving up all together. FCS is a money drain with virtual no revenue stream for almost all the schools. You could name the exceptions on one hand, and have fingers left over.




Fire June


.

So by give up we're saying drop football a la Pacific or UT-Arlington. I dont think it will come to that.

It is a decision each school will make on its own. GSU may decide to hang in there. Who knows?



Fire June




.

(08-11-2014 03:28 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:24 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:46 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

I think giving up all together. FCS is a money drain with virtual no revenue stream for almost all the schools. You could name the exceptions on one hand, and have fingers left over.




Fire June


.

So by give up we're saying drop football a la Pacific or UT-Arlington. I dont think it will come to that.

It is a decision each school will make on its own. GSU may decide to hang in there. Who knows?



Fire June




.

We are growing and building, not contracting.

Really other than payday games there is less impact than people think. You will be getting the same players next February that you got this February.

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

If you haven't noticed, sticking tax payers with $100M tabs for sports projects isn't exactly popular these days.

Good luck....

(08-11-2014 03:27 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

Regarding the football facility, I'll believe it when I see it. The legacy of these things is that everyone has "a stadium plan" but at some point it always collapses, usually over the need for taxpayer funds at some point in the process.

So, I live in that neighborhood. The GSU plan is the only viable plan. The other plans are pretty bad (gambling, industrial park) and would never get approved. The mayor wants this plan because it does what nobody has been able to do for 50 years. It puts foot traffic (students, faculty and staff) in the area that draws retail, residential condos etc. The athletic facilities are just part of the plan. Also, President Becker who is media averse wouldn't be on television, radio and in the papers regarding "the plan" if there were a chance it wasn't a done deal. The great part is that unlike Tulane, we are building somewhere where nobody currently wants to live.

Fight back!

https://twitter.com/BreezeAlcorn/status/...3270770688

We people of influence from our respective universities to band together to help us create one strong and collective voice. What the 'P5' is doing is un-American (pun intended). It really does run counter to antitrust laws and if we just give up then we've already chosen our fate. I think Aresco is preparing for war and this is a cause worth fighting for IMO.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Law-F...83?fref=ts

(08-11-2014 03:24 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:46 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

I think giving up all together. FCS is a money drain with virtual no revenue stream for almost all the schools. You could name the exceptions on one hand, and have fingers left over.




Fire June


.

So by give up we're saying drop football a la Pacific or UT-Arlington. I dont think it will come to that.

I think FCS is an option a quite a few teams. While not the being payday of being FBS. There are quite a few schools that have added football at all levels including FCS. FGSU is now considering added FCS football with there great growth of students and basketball success. The only thing about the FCS level is that you can have anywhere from 0 to 63 schollies and still compete for a championship.

(08-11-2014 03:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:04 PM)DrBox Wrote:  this is what makes it so difficult, at least for message board posters. You don't know which of those schools has real strength. The only ones I trust are SDSU and Boise, and the AAC is not exactly happy with Boise's conduct.

If there ever is western expansion by the AAC, I think it'll be BYU and 2 or 3 other schools chosen mainly on the basis of "who-does-BYU-want." For now I would guess San Diego State and UNLV will be two of them, and that Boise State will be excluded.

But anyway, that's a few years away, if it ever happens at all.

I find it funny that a Tulane fan thinks he can take shots at Boise. Boise has had a football stadium (38,000) and a nice big basketball arena for awhile now and success in both sports--tremendous success in football BTW. They have near sell outs in both sports and have had a bowl game that's attracted ACC and Big 12 teams to it. They play on ESPN almost every game. They are now light years ahead of you. You guys had your first winning record in football in almost 20 years last year, built a cheap 22,000 stadium and have a 3,000 average attendance in basketball and suddenly you think your hot sh!t.

Gee BillyBobby, what the F are you saying?

First of all, he didn't take a shot a Boise St. He simply stated a well known fact that the AAC Commissioners office and admin is not happy with how Boise St. tried to hold the AAC hostage and backed away from a previously accepted offer to join the Big East. They then held the MWC hostage and re-joined it but kept their own television rights.

I'm so glad that the Boise St folks have someone like you, BillyBobby to police boards like this for them. Great job. Probably more exciting than watching fish eat flies.

(08-11-2014 03:38 PM)panama Wrote:  So, I live in that neighborhood. The GSU plan is the only viable plan. The other plans are pretty bad (gambling, industrial park) and would never get approved. The mayor wants this plan because it does what nobody has been able to do for 50 years. It puts foot traffic (students, faculty and staff) in the area that draws retail, residential condos etc. The athletic facilities are just part of the plan. Also, President Becker who is media averse wouldn't be on television, radio and in the papers regarding "the plan" if there were a chance it wasn't a done deal. The great part is that unlike Tulane, we are building somewhere where nobody currently wants to live.

So, you live in the ghetto, and applaud the fact that GSU wants to build where nobody else wants to live?

(08-11-2014 03:58 PM)DfromCT Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:38 PM)panama Wrote:  So, I live in that neighborhood. The GSU plan is the only viable plan. The other plans are pretty bad (gambling, industrial park) and would never get approved. The mayor wants this plan because it does what nobody has been able to do for 50 years. It puts foot traffic (students, faculty and staff) in the area that draws retail, residential condos etc. The athletic facilities are just part of the plan. Also, President Becker who is media averse wouldn't be on television, radio and in the papers regarding "the plan" if there were a chance it wasn't a done deal. The great part is that unlike Tulane, we are building somewhere where nobody currently wants to live.

So, you live in the ghetto, and applaud the fact that GSU wants to build where nobody else wants to live?

I live in the city. The particular area where Turner Field is located is boxed in by the State Capitol complex and I-20 to the north, I-75/85 to the west, Grant Park to the east and Peopelstown to the South There are acres and acres of surface parking lots all around and no restaurants or retail. Its no worse than a little place called Atlantic Station which was a brown field. So I think we will do just fine. This Atlanta, not CT. We cough up developments over breakfast.

(08-11-2014 03:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:46 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

I think giving up all together. FCS is a money drain with virtual no revenue stream for almost all the schools. You could name the exceptions on one hand, and have fingers left over.




Fire June


.

That definition is important, because giving up altogether would seem to mean that a school's conference revenue is to small to continue; and that school can no longer get body bag games to make money. It goes without saying that those same teams probably are not getting enough fans in the stand to offset their losses.

I don't see the MAC schools going anywhere, because they are already use to not having fans and television/conference revenue. I can't see the B10 giving up on playing MAC teams either, because the MAC teams are the only chance that some B10 teams have of getting victories. So MAC teams are kind of protected or insulated by this P5 autonomy/don't play G5 stuff.

Some CUSA and some Sun Belt schools need body bag games, so quite a few of them might end up biting the bullet if the P5 schools in their geographic areas (B12/SEC/ACC) end up dropping them. The CUSA/Sun Belt crowd might end up fighting with the MAC to be the B10's patsies.

(08-11-2014 03:41 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  Fight back!

https://twitter.com/BreezeAlcorn/status/...3270770688

We people of influence from our respective universities to band together to help us create one strong and collective voice. What the 'P5' is doing is un-American (pun intended). It really does run counter to antitrust laws and if we just give up then we've already chosen our fate. I think Aresco is preparing for war and this is a cause worth fighting for IMO.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Law-F...83?fref=ts

"The autonomy push by "p5" conferences is exactly the type of anti-competitive activity that US antitrust law was created to combat. Helping support the student athlete is merely the pretext being used to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots."

"If the endorsement passes a 60-day comment period, the so-called Big 5 — the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Pacific-12, the Big Ten and the Big 12 — will receive the power to raise the value of scholarships, improve health insurance, allow players to consult agents and more."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/sports...69505&_r=1

(08-11-2014 03:33 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

If you haven't noticed, sticking tax payers with $100M tabs for sports projects isn't exactly popular these days.

Good luck....

Good lord. Really Georgia state?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-11-2014 10:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  In the coming years there will be some schools that just throw in the towel and concede that they can't keep up. Who are they? What happens then? Do conferences shed them? What does the reshuffle look like?

USF will bow out pretty quickly. They just need to give up and drop football.

(08-11-2014 04:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Good lord. Really Georgia state?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Getting back to the topic....There could be some really surprises once the labor issues (unions) are resolved through the courts. If Union representation is upheld, you could see several "Rich 5" schools drop down by choice.

(08-11-2014 03:33 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

If you haven't noticed, sticking tax payers with $100M tabs for sports projects isn't exactly popular these days.

Good luck....

No taxpayer money. $300M investment.

(08-11-2014 04:50 PM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  Getting back to the topic....There could be some really surprises once the labor issues (unions) are resolved through the courts. If Union representation is upheld, you could see several "Rich 5" schools drop down by choice.

It really doesnt seem like that's the way this going especially with the idea of money being held in a trust until after they graduate. It seems like the idea is that CFB is not the NFL but not an internship where your likeness and intellectual property and freedom to market yourself is owned by the school either. I think its going to shocking (or maybe not) when in 3 years the landscape has not changed much and we are paying full cost of attendance.