(08-15-2014 04:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  LOL, ok so we shouldn't do it or we'll be sorry!

It's not the financial ruin your programs would be facing, its OUR best interests you're looking out for and most concerned for!

Good to know!

We are looking out for y'all . Don't you know that what affects Texas A&M will also have an impact on UC Santa Barbara or other non-football universities?

(08-14-2014 11:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The G5 may live and die yelling "we're all equal members of FBS!"

But that doesn't make it true.

FBS is two seperate subdivisions that only stay together in name for the convinience of both sides.

Don't think I have heard any G5 Conference, except maybe the AAC, say they are equal to any of the P5's.

They are FBS Conferences.

Lots of teams in the G5 Conference think they are better than many teams in the P5.

(08-15-2014 11:11 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 09:20 PM)Galleyrat Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 08:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 08:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 04:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  LOL, ok so we shouldn't do it or we'll be sorry!

It's not the financial ruin your programs would be facing, its OUR best interests you're looking out for and most concerned for!

Good to know!

For the record, a split would basically destroy the economic value of the non-P5 athletic programs. The loss of March MAdness would be an economic hit to the P5 programs--its P5 replacement would probably not generate as much revenue for the P5 as the current tournament does.

That said, I'm not sure why exactly the P5 is supposed to split. Autonomy lets them set whatever rules they prefer, while keeping the benefits of the NCAA Tournament and games against the rest of Division I.

The P5 clearly have (a) the right to split away from the G5 if they want to, and (b) would prefer not to, otherwise they would have done it. They understand the value of the all-comers NCAA basketball tournament, and also the value of continuing to regularly play G5 schools.

Not that they would never break away. There is a critical mass of autonomy that they want or else they will. But so far, it appears that they are going to get that critical mass through the regular channels and there will be no split.

I hope they get to that critical mass. Two years ago I would have never said that. I want to see it happen. I think it might be good for the non "p5" programs that CAN keep up. Do it.

I think it would force the Current G5 leagues to work together. That would be a great thing for all 5 leagues. Currently, we're too busy trying to prove which leagues and teams are best, but if the P5 split and cut that guaranteed bowl slot out, there would be no choice for the teams that chose to stay at this level to get together and redesign things.

Financially speaking, G5 teams are used to surviving on small TV contracts and with little exposure. There is a good chance that the smart ones would do very well in a split. Probably do better than several of the lower tier P5 schools truthfully.

There is only one specific thing I can think of that the G5 could work together on and that is creating a series of high end high payout bowls. Instead, they created low end low pay out bowls--which is just the opposite of what the G5 needs. The G5 needs at least 5 quality post season slots for the individual champs of each G5 conference. Right now, there is only one decent G5 destination (the access bowl).

Beyond that, I cant think of a single thing the G5 could realistically accomplish and realistically all agree on. The value of the G5 working together for most purposes is overstated because the G5 individually or collectively, simply have little power or leverage over the P5.

(08-14-2014 09:51 PM)wh49er Wrote:  Non-football schools and non-FBS schools shouldn't have any say so in what FBS schools are doing. The problem is the Cartel 5 has taken ball and ran with this thought process by trying to suppress the rest of the FBS conferences.

Not the problem, a problem! Why not let each NCAA member have a say on the governance of the organization? Football is corrupting athletics, and the big schools and conferences have prostituted themselves in shameless pursuit of the almighty dollar. Bring back one platoon football, reduce the number of football scholarships and require equal revenue sharing by all NCAA member schools (regardless of division or football participation).

(08-19-2014 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 11:11 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 09:20 PM)Galleyrat Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 08:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 08:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  For the record, a split would basically destroy the economic value of the non-P5 athletic programs. The loss of March MAdness would be an economic hit to the P5 programs--its P5 replacement would probably not generate as much revenue for the P5 as the current tournament does.

That said, I'm not sure why exactly the P5 is supposed to split. Autonomy lets them set whatever rules they prefer, while keeping the benefits of the NCAA Tournament and games against the rest of Division I.

The P5 clearly have (a) the right to split away from the G5 if they want to, and (b) would prefer not to, otherwise they would have done it. They understand the value of the all-comers NCAA basketball tournament, and also the value of continuing to regularly play G5 schools.

Not that they would never break away. There is a critical mass of autonomy that they want or else they will. But so far, it appears that they are going to get that critical mass through the regular channels and there will be no split.

I hope they get to that critical mass. Two years ago I would have never said that. I want to see it happen. I think it might be good for the non "p5" programs that CAN keep up. Do it.

I think it would force the Current G5 leagues to work together. That would be a great thing for all 5 leagues. Currently, we're too busy trying to prove which leagues and teams are best, but if the P5 split and cut that guaranteed bowl slot out, there would be no choice for the teams that chose to stay at this level to get together and redesign things.

Financially speaking, G5 teams are used to surviving on small TV contracts and with little exposure. There is a good chance that the smart ones would do very well in a split. Probably do better than several of the lower tier P5 schools truthfully.

There is only one specific thing I can think of that the G5 could work together on and that is creating a series of high end high payout bowls. Instead, they created low end low pay out bowls--which is just the opposite of what the G5 needs. The G5 needs at least 5 quality post season slots for the individual champs of each G5 conference. Right now, there is only one decent G5 destination (the access bowl).

Beyond that, I cant think of a single thing the G5 could realistically accomplish and realistically all agree on. The value of the G5 working together for most purposes is overstated because the G5 individually or collectively, simply have little power or leverage over the P5.

All we need is one high paying bowl for the highest rated G5 schools not in the access slot or playoff to play one another. I've said repeatedly that I would prefer that the AAC champ or runner up play a 1 or 2 loss team from the MWC than a 6 loss team from the P5.

(08-15-2014 04:26 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Then I ask you counselor: what exact argument are you making? Because none of that has anything to do with the P5 separating into a different subdivision.

Sorry, should have been more succinct.

I'm not making any argument - simply reading through these posts and noting the lack of respect shown by many people (including you) w/r/t athletic programs that have had historical and/or present success, but happen to have been left out of the "Profit 5" because they weren't lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Some hubris is all that I ask for..."There but for the grace of God go I." Any schools can be left out in the cold at anytime, and the ones that would form any "D4" are simply lucky.

My stated example was that TAMU's football/basketball programs were by no means dominant in the B12, but TAMU was invited to the SEC because of the enormous fan base, ability to fill a 90k stadium, great history and great potential. Not taking anything away from those accomplishments, and in fact I wish my alma mater would try to emulate those traits (as much as we can, that is).

But the specifics behind many "Profit 5" invitations are hardly based off of some huge continued success on the gridiron/court/etc. Rutgers is terrible at everything. They were invited to the B1G for one reason -NY television market. Same can be said for Maryland and the Md/DC/Va markets.

(08-20-2014 09:27 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 04:26 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Then I ask you counselor: what exact argument are you making? Because none of that has anything to do with the P5 separating into a different subdivision.

Sorry, should have been more succinct.

I'm not making any argument - simply reading through these posts and noting the lack of respect shown by many people (including you) w/r/t athletic programs that have had historical and/or present success, but happen to have been left out of the "Profit 5" because they weren't lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Some hubris is all that I ask for..."There but for the grace of God go I." Any schools can be left out in the cold at anytime, and the ones that would form any "D4" are simply lucky.

My stated example was that TAMU's football/basketball programs were by no means dominant in the B12 ...

Two points:

1) You seem to be under the impression that being "dominant" on the football field or basketball court is a more legitimate or morally defensible reason for being in a P5 conference than other reasons like size of fan base (e.g., TAMU) or ability to tap a big market (e.g., Rutgers).

But to me that just isn't defensible. Being a "Power" Conference isn't about results on the field, it is about fan interest, locally and nationwide. It's that fan interest that makes it worth it to a TV network to pay a conference $20m per school per year as opposed to $1m per school per year. That's it.

For example, the B1G hasn't won a national title in football or basketball in more than a decade, but they are expected to sign a massive TV deal in 2016 anyway. That's because despite the lack of success, the fans keep filling the stadiums and keep watching on TV, hence their games are valuable platforms for advertisers. There won't be any clause in their new deal that says "if B1G doesn't win a title in football in the first 5 years of the contract, the TV network can re-open the deal to negotiate the money downwards".

But, there very well might be a clause that says "if (big name) schools like Michigan or Ohio State leave the conference, the TV network can renegotiate ...".

2) While your "not lucky enough" claim about some schools not being in the P5 has merit for ... some schools, it doesn't have merit for SMU.

(08-20-2014 05:31 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 09:51 PM)wh49er Wrote:  Non-football schools and non-FBS schools shouldn't have any say so in what FBS schools are doing. The problem is the Cartel 5 has taken ball and ran with this thought process by trying to suppress the rest of the FBS conferences.

Not the problem, a problem! Why not let each NCAA member have a say on the governance of the organization? Football is corrupting athletics, and the big schools and conferences have prostituted themselves in shameless pursuit of the almighty dollar. Bring back one platoon football, reduce the number of football scholarships and require equal revenue sharing by all NCAA member schools (regardless of division or football participation).

You might as well ask the average guy to start to liking 300 pound ugly chicks more than 110 pound gorgeous chicks. Good luck with that.

(08-19-2014 11:00 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The G5 may live and die yelling "we're all equal members of FBS!"

But that doesn't make it true.

FBS is two seperate subdivisions that only stay together in name for the convinience of both sides.

Don't think I have heard any G5 Conference, except maybe the AAC, say they are equal to any of the P5's.

They are FBS Conferences.

Lots of teams in the G5 Conference think they are better than many teams in the P5.

I don't know about football as much, but the A-10 is as good or better than a lot of the P5 in basketball. Ask Coach K about the butt-kicking his precious All Cupcakes Conference took from the league he took shots at.

(08-20-2014 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 09:27 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 04:26 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Then I ask you counselor: what exact argument are you making? Because none of that has anything to do with the P5 separating into a different subdivision.

Sorry, should have been more succinct.

I'm not making any argument - simply reading through these posts and noting the lack of respect shown by many people (including you) w/r/t athletic programs that have had historical and/or present success, but happen to have been left out of the "Profit 5" because they weren't lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Some hubris is all that I ask for..."There but for the grace of God go I." Any schools can be left out in the cold at anytime, and the ones that would form any "D4" are simply lucky.

My stated example was that TAMU's football/basketball programs were by no means dominant in the B12 ...

Two points:

1) While your "not lucky enough" claim about some schools not being in the P5 has merit for ... some schools, it doesn't have merit for SMU. SMU is on the outs because of the massive 1980s cheating scandal. That crushed your football brand and you've never recovered from it. And that was SMU's fault.

2) You seem to be under the impression that being "dominant" on the football field or basketball court is a more legitimate or morally defensible reason for being in a P5 conference than other reasons like size of fan base (e.g., TAMU) or ability to tap a big market (e.g., Rutgers).

But to me that just isn't defensible. Being a "Power" Conference isn't about results on the field, it is about fan interest, locally and nationwide.

I never once mentioned my alma mater, except to say I wish we could emulate the success of other programs. That was it. Once again, Quo is using a straw man argument and putting words in people's mouths that they did not directly state. This is why I usually ignore your posts, but for some reason this one showed up.

Now let's take a look at the bolded portion of your post. And then let us think about Wake Forest, among many many other "P5" schools that I can name. Attendance at Wake (announced) hovers annually around 26-30k. That is ANNOUNCED attendance, which we all know does not reflect actual fans in the stands.

And now tell me, again, what the fan interest, locally and nationwide, is with Wake Forest.

I rest my case.

(08-15-2014 08:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 08:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 04:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  LOL, ok so we shouldn't do it or we'll be sorry!

It's not the financial ruin your programs would be facing, its OUR best interests you're looking out for and most concerned for!

Good to know!

For the record, a split would basically destroy the economic value of the non-P5 athletic programs. The loss of March MAdness would be an economic hit to the P5 programs--its P5 replacement would probably not generate as much revenue for the P5 as the current tournament does.

That said, I'm not sure why exactly the P5 is supposed to split. Autonomy lets them set whatever rules they prefer, while keeping the benefits of the NCAA Tournament and games against the rest of Division I.

The P5 clearly have (a) the right to split away from the G5 if they want to, and (b) would prefer not to, otherwise they would have done it. They understand the value of the all-comers NCAA basketball tournament, and also the value of continuing to regularly play G5 schools.

Not that they would never break away. There is a critical mass of autonomy that they want or else they will. But so far, it appears that they are going to get that critical mass through the regular channels and there will be no split.

Who says they can't still play NCAA (and NAIA) schools under a new governing body? And who says they can't create an NIT-like tournament where they rule the roost but could still invite a few top notch NCAA schools just to give it that Cinderella and variety filled feel? As I stated elsewhere, you don't bite the hand that feeds you and that's what some mid-majors would be doing by challenging the P5. Obviously not all P5 programs are created equal but there are a handful that everyone else relies upon.

(08-20-2014 09:27 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  But the specifics behind many "Profit 5" invitations are hardly based off of some huge continued success on the gridiron/court/etc. Rutgers is terrible at everything. They were invited to the B1G for one reason -NY television market. Same can be said for Maryland and the Md/DC/Va markets.

I beg your pardon, Rutgers is good at women's basketball (not trying to be funny).

(08-15-2014 01:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The Big 10 had made noise about no longer playing FCS and if they make it a rule and try to enforce they will be probably lose an illegal boycott anti-trust lawsuit.

But otherwise please resume the my school is awesome masturabation.

Lol "his" school. T shirt fans are the most vocal about splits.

Ad hominem attacks: a clear sign that the other side is losing the argument.

(08-20-2014 10:42 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 09:27 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 04:26 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Then I ask you counselor: what exact argument are you making? Because none of that has anything to do with the P5 separating into a different subdivision.

Sorry, should have been more succinct.

I'm not making any argument - simply reading through these posts and noting the lack of respect shown by many people (including you) w/r/t athletic programs that have had historical and/or present success, but happen to have been left out of the "Profit 5" because they weren't lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Some hubris is all that I ask for..."There but for the grace of God go I." Any schools can be left out in the cold at anytime, and the ones that would form any "D4" are simply lucky.

My stated example was that TAMU's football/basketball programs were by no means dominant in the B12 ...

Two points:

1) While your "not lucky enough" claim about some schools not being in the P5 has merit for ... some schools, it doesn't have merit for SMU. SMU is on the outs because of the massive 1980s cheating scandal. That crushed your football brand and you've never recovered from it. And that was SMU's fault.

2) You seem to be under the impression that being "dominant" on the football field or basketball court is a more legitimate or morally defensible reason for being in a P5 conference than other reasons like size of fan base (e.g., TAMU) or ability to tap a big market (e.g., Rutgers).

But to me that just isn't defensible. Being a "Power" Conference isn't about results on the field, it is about fan interest, locally and nationwide.

I never once mentioned my alma mater, except to say I wish we could emulate the success of other programs. That was it. Once again, Quo is using a straw man argument and putting words in people's mouths that they did not directly state. This is why I usually ignore your posts, but for some reason this one showed up.

Now let's take a look at the bolded portion of your post. And then let us think about Wake Forest, among many many other "P5" schools that I can name. Attendance at Wake (announced) hovers annually around 26-30k. That is ANNOUNCED attendance, which we all know does not reflect actual fans in the stands.

And now tell me, again, what the fan interest, locally and nationwide, is with Wake Forest.

I rest my case.

Such ownage.

(08-20-2014 12:24 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Ad hominem attacks: a clear sign that the other side is losing the argument.

No man I don't think you realize how arrogant you sound for someone who does not even have a degree from an SEC school.

For the record I support a split as long as it's done the correct way. A concept you seem to not understand is that there has to be a top, middle, and bottom in FBS. Think about it, if you yank away the G5 who does Texam A&M and the rest of the SEC play in non conference?

Everyone in the country will not be able to schedule Duke and Wake Forest. As a Bama fan I flipping love that we have some big games coming up like I already got my tickets and room for the USC game next year. But it would be a disaster if we had to play four teams like USC along with the SEC gauntlet. And as a whole it only hurts the SEC when teams like Vandy and Kentucky start 0-3 or even when teams like Georgia lose OOC games.

And what good would it be for the SEC if Miss State, Ole Miss, Georgia, Kentucky, Vandy were the ones scheduling teams like FSU, USC, and Oregon? The middle class of football would completely collapse without the G5.

Like I said I support a split as long as a criteria is made. And anyone who meets it is allowed to join.

^

As I said, whether in a new organization or in a newly created division, they would not have to stop scheduling schools outside the governing structure.

Of course they wouldn't...but now someone will say "yeah well we'll boycott if that happens"

They refuse to accept that most FCS and G5 programs are not unified in action and more importantly, would not pass up the money and exposure from playing those games and instead, insist that the P5 will be forced to play only other P5 teams. Would UCF/USF sit there and watch FAU/FIU get millions of dollars and tons of exposure from agreeing to play UF/FSU/UM while they play other FCS/G5 times in silence, nobody paying any attention to them at all? They can say "yes we would" for pride purposes on a message board, but their ADs will not.

Why?

They HAVE to make that argument because if MSU or Vandy can still schedule 3-4 FCS/G5 teams then they have no reason to feel threatened by separation and would push FOR it and the G5 loses their only potential ally against it.