(08-28-2014 07:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The G5 long term is doomed. They will become the new 1aa. There may well be another 4 to 10 schools who will move up before the paint drys.

The p5 is also setting up its own demise, The Wash state, TCU, Vandys, and Pitts of the world will be nothing but cannon fodder for the 10 to 20 schools that will emerge as the dominate powers. In the long run TV will drop for everyone as only games involving those 10 to 20 schools will be of interest. No one will be interested in watching 2, 3 or 4 win schools playing each other.
TV will pay a premium for the 20, treat the rest like they do the gang now, and the gang won't be treated at all, much like FCS today.

Attendance at all levels will continue to decline, as young fans don't attend games as much now. and that won't change as they age.

College sports are either at, or very close to their peak right now.

I agree.

In addition, moving the NCAA men's basketball championship game to TBS (?) is another example of what I think will be reducing the interest in college sports.

(08-27-2014 11:19 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 08:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 08:09 PM)MJG Wrote:  A backlash is inevitable especially if the right schools are threatened.

I would think as costs rise some cost savings measures will be taken. These measures would be optional and make it harder to compete. Kinda like the current proposals you can match but you don't have to.

So a possible compromise say a new limit of 95 scholarships with a lower minimum of 75.

The P5 gains Nothing with a separation.
Continued domination is better more domination is desired.
The G5 even benefit as a whole with this setup.

The AAC will expand to 20 schools, it will get four divisions just like the 4 major conferences of 16 teams. It will be heavily regional but have enough games between it's different divisions in order to tie together it's SoS. It will also get a Conference Tournament just like the four Major conferences and with the rising competition for live sports, it will get it's tournament on tv for a solid price. It will be THE source of most Cinderella teams in the future expanded College Playoff. The Networks love Cinderella's so the existence of such will be assured once they move past the four team Playoff.

It is inevitable, the slippery slope is still quite slippery.

OK I will play. I think what you are suggesting would probably look like this:

Northeast
Connecticut
Army
Temple
Navy
Cincinnati

Southeast
East Carolina
Central Florida
South Florida
Memphis
Tulane

Southwest
Tulsa
SMU
Houston
Colorado State
Air Force

Rocky Mountain
New Mexico
BYU
Boise State
UNLV
San Diego State

Those are nice Groups of Five. I like the symmetry of having groups of five within the Gof5. It's a nice touch.

(08-28-2014 07:41 AM)chess Wrote:  I agree.

In addition, moving the NCAA men's basketball championship game to TBS (?) is another example of what I think will be reducing the interest in college sports.

You mean like how the BCS moved to cable a few years ago, and saw viewership increase? Or how the tournament viewership has steadily increased since it was moved to cable?

Really for most, there is so little difference between a basic cable channel and an over the air channel, it makes more sense to move many events to cable where the stations can get a dual revenue stream (and thus pay more for it). Some will tell you they have a hard time finding games (regular season) on OTA stations because they are not grouped with the sports stations. It's less about them being less popular, and more about the fact that the people who are more likely to watch sports on a regular basis, by and large have cable anyway, and thus it is to their benefit to go to those who will pay the most (cable stations) as they leverage the sports into higher subscriber fees, in a way the OTA networks cannot (they have a much harder time charging high retransmission fees since they use federal airwaves for free).

(08-28-2014 05:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 08:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Raising the scholarship limit by something like 10 scholarships is such a big deal that they cannot do the same with some women's sport? I am not saying it will be 10 but folks like you Miko are acting like this has to be a massive expansion of scholarships. My point is that it is more propaganda than anything else. It doesn't have to be a massive expansion.

Cut the theatrics. It is a joke at this point.

The problem is that it all adds up. If you factor in the possibility that the FB and MBB as offering "student athletes" the full cost of attendance, then the same has to be offered to the female sports to make it equivalent. Then add 10 more scholarships on top of that - using your words. But why stop at 95? Why not go to 100, or 110? It's a dumb idea. I love seeing ideas thrown out in a vacuum, without thinking thru the ramifications of how it will affect everything else.

I'm all for blowing up college athletics anyways. When half of the kids playing FB and BB probably can't spell "university", or can barely read on an 8th grade level (or worse) then something is terribly wrong with college athletics.

No, you making this response was a dumb idea Miko. If they decide to add 10 more scholarships in an effort to shore up enough good will to expand college football conference postseasons then they would do it once and that is it. Where you get off with this dumb ass idea of why not raise it more and more? Because they would be raising it as little as possible and only once. You are the idiot that came up with raising it more and more and all this ramification mumbo jumbo. Don't put that **** on anyone else but yourself.

I thought about it plenty, stop making straw men and then telling yourself that you are so damn smart for manufacturing it.

(08-28-2014 07:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 11:19 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 08:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 08:09 PM)MJG Wrote:  A backlash is inevitable especially if the right schools are threatened.

I would think as costs rise some cost savings measures will be taken. These measures would be optional and make it harder to compete. Kinda like the current proposals you can match but you don't have to.

So a possible compromise say a new limit of 95 scholarships with a lower minimum of 75.

The P5 gains Nothing with a separation.
Continued domination is better more domination is desired.
The G5 even benefit as a whole with this setup.

The AAC will expand to 20 schools, it will get four divisions just like the 4 major conferences of 16 teams. It will be heavily regional but have enough games between it's different divisions in order to tie together it's SoS. It will also get a Conference Tournament just like the four Major conferences and with the rising competition for live sports, it will get it's tournament on tv for a solid price. It will be THE source of most Cinderella teams in the future expanded College Playoff. The Networks love Cinderella's so the existence of such will be assured once they move past the four team Playoff.

It is inevitable, the slippery slope is still quite slippery.

OK I will play. I think what you are suggesting would probably look like this:

Northeast
Connecticut
Army
Temple
Navy
Cincinnati

Southeast
East Carolina
Central Florida
South Florida
Memphis
Tulane

Southwest
Tulsa
SMU
Houston
Colorado State
Air Force

Rocky Mountain
New Mexico
BYU
Boise State
UNLV
San Diego State

Those are nice Groups of Five. I like the symmetry of having groups of five within the Gof5. It's a nice touch.

It is about regionalism and keeping costs down as well.

With groups of five you have four division games a year and then one game against every other division so that it ties everybody together for strength of schedule. That keeps cross country travel to a minimum and maintains the strongest bonds with the schools that are the closest geographically.

It is a great set up for any schools involved in it. I have serious doubts though that the academies would be involved.

(08-28-2014 08:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, you making this response was a dumb idea Miko. If they decide to add 10 more scholarships in an effort to shore up enough good will to expand college football conference postseasons then they would do it once and that is it. Where you get off with this dumb ass idea of why not raise it more and more? Because they would be raising it as little as possible and only once.

I am not Miko's biggest fan, but you calling him an idiot is hilarious. You were the one who tried to make the case that teams beign fearful of adding more scholarships was a defeatist attitude and would not affect the ability of other teams to compete, until a dozen posters called you out on it.

(08-28-2014 08:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 08:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, you making this response was a dumb idea Miko. If they decide to add 10 more scholarships in an effort to shore up enough good will to expand college football conference postseasons then they would do it once and that is it. Where you get off with this dumb ass idea of why not raise it more and more? Because they would be raising it as little as possible and only once.

I am not Miko's biggest fan, but you calling him an idiot is hilarious. You were the one who tried to make the case that teams beign fearful of adding more scholarships was a defeatist attitude and would not affect the ability of other teams to compete, until a dozen posters called you out on it.

Actually the defeatist attitude comment I made was about a different topic entirely. Do try to keep up if you are going to attempt to insult me Corbett.

He is being an idiot because the whole idea that adding 10 scholarships means it is inevitable that they add 20 or 30 is contradictory to the point he is trying to make that for every 10 male scholarships they add they will have to create 10 female scholarships. That right there is extremely limiting and thus makes him out to be contradicting himself.

That is idiotic and you defending it by using my words in a different thread and trying to fasten them to this conversation, that is idiotic too.

Like I said, try to keep up and cut the straw man tactics. It is pathetic.

And a dozen huh? Funny. Most of them couldn't even comprehend why I was saying it would happen. Raising scholarships for competition sake? That is just simpleminded thinking at it's core. As I said, it is all about PROPAGANDA used show the schools are thinking about protecting the health of the student athletes.

If folks want to create other arguments by attaching straw man statements to me that I never made, well you go ahead and cheerlead them for being idiots. Well done.

(08-28-2014 08:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Actually the defeatist attitude comment I made was about a different topic entirely. Do try to keep up if you are going to attempt to insult me Corbett.

You can call it what you want. I "kept up." I just saw you change your tune and your story. It is the same thing Quo Vadis called you out on on that ridiculous thread you two keep hurling shit at each other on each other. Call it what you want, but your premise is flawed, no matter how many times you change it to try and make it right.

And for the record, Miko who has a history of posting some outlandish shit himself, his comments were on the money on this.

(08-27-2014 11:50 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I agree, but having Army, Navy and Air Force gives the conference a lot of goodwill, and all are national favorites, coupled with BYU that has a huge following national, equals a lot of TVs.

But how does the conference proposed above benefit the SA's? Personally I think the schools listed are definitely teams that share a mutual interest in playing each other. But if the dream is that Army, Navy and AFA can be used to elevate the conference to a P5+1 is a non-starter for the SA's.

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

It is as though some think this is happening because schools are trying to find ways to spend more money than they have to.

Now to be fair there probably are *some* schools that would like to raise the limits. 10-12 schools who would benefit. But even among the P5, for reasons listed above, most would not be in favor, cost aside.

(08-28-2014 07:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The G5 long term is doomed. They will become the new 1aa. There may well be another 4 to 10 schools who will move up before the paint drys.

The p5 is also setting up its own demise, The Wash state, TCU, Vandys, and Pitts of the world will be nothing but cannon fodder for the 10 to 20 schools that will emerge as the dominate powers. In the long run TV will drop for everyone as only games involving those 10 to 20 schools will be of interest. No one will be interested in watching 2, 3 or 4 win schools playing each other.
TV will pay a premium for the 20, treat the rest like they do the gang now, and the gang won't be treated at all, much like FCS today.

Attendance at all levels will continue to decline, as young fans don't attend games as much now. and that won't change as they age.

College sports are either at, or very close to their peak right now.

Agree,

1) ACC adds 1 more, depending on what Notre Dame does.
2) The Big 10 adds 2 more.
3) Pac 12 adds 2 more.
4) SEC adds none
5) Big 12 adds 4 more.

(08-28-2014 09:03 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 08:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Actually the defeatist attitude comment I made was about a different topic entirely. Do try to keep up if you are going to attempt to insult me Corbett.

You can call it what you want. I "kept up." I just saw you change your tune and your story. It is the same thing Quo Vadis called you out on on that ridiculous thread you two keep hurling shit at each other on each other. Call it what you want, but your premise is flawed, no matter how many times you change it to try and make it right.

And for the record, Miko who has a history of posting some outlandish shit himself, his comments were on the money on this.

No, raising the scholarship limit once does not predicate that further raises are going to happen. Saying such is the case while at the same time saying that it is next to impossible to raise limits due to Title IX is absolutely ridiculous because it is contradictory.

Keep trying. If my commentary with Quo was ridiculous, it was because I was constantly having to set it straight what I was actually putting forward. He likes to create strawmen, to create his "opponent's" story with a faulty premise of his own for himself to debate against. If you are unable to see that then that is your problem not mine.

(08-28-2014 09:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

First off, what is under the directives of Autonomy is not set in stone. It can be changed and will be added to in the future, in my opinion. Why bother fighting for scholarship limits the first time? You get the foundation of autonomy passed first and then you begin pushing for more gradually. It would be rather unintelligent to push for everything all at once.

Now, I am going to ask you to stop paying attention to these folks whom seem to have an agenda of muddying my statements with false straw men statements that they attribute to me.

What I am saying is likely is a token gesture of scholarship increase. At most I could see 10 scholarships happening for football. That means you add a couple female golf scholarships, a couple volleyball scholarships, a couple scholarships for the training staff, another basketball scholarship, etc. You nickel and dime it through various female sports so that the cost really isn't that much at all.

What is at stake for them is getting enough good PR to expand conference post seasons. That really doesn't take all that much, it just takes properly timed public statements and releases of these changes.

(08-28-2014 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 09:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

First off, what is under the directives of Autonomy is not set in stone. It can be changed and will be added to in the future, in my opinion. Why bother fighting for scholarship limits the first time? You get the foundation of autonomy passed first and then you begin pushing for more gradually. It would be rather unintelligent to push for everything all at once.

Now, I am going to ask you to stop paying attention to these folks whom seem to have an agenda of muddying my statements with false straw men statements that they attribute to me.

What I am saying is likely is a token gesture of scholarship increase. At most I could see 10 scholarships happening for football. That means you add a couple female golf scholarships, a couple volleyball scholarships, a couple scholarships for the training staff, another basketball scholarship, etc. You nickel and dime it through various female sports so that the cost really isn't that much at all.

What is at stake for them is getting enough good PR to expand conference post seasons. That really doesn't take all that much, it just takes properly timed public statements and releases of these changes.

What's the point with all this? NFL teams only have 53 players. Div 1 football has 85 and already plays less games. Since the "student athletes" are grown adults, what's the difference? It's not physical limitations, the alleged issue is academics. LOL, like the "student athletes" get much out of their college educations anyways. The real issue is compensation. If the players are paid for playing more games, the players would be all for it. The admins won't want to, so they cloak themselves in the academic argument. That's why this won't happen.

Back to the extra money with the scholarship bump is real. You think it's just token money, but it's not. Factor in the whole cost of attending and then factor in how schools will have to offer equivalent compensation for other sports. Again, it won't happen.

(08-28-2014 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 09:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

First off, what is under the directives of Autonomy is not set in stone. It can be changed and will be added to in the future, in my opinion. Why bother fighting for scholarship limits the first time? You get the foundation of autonomy passed first and then you begin pushing for more gradually. It would be rather unintelligent to push for everything all at once.

Now, I am going to ask you to stop paying attention to these folks whom seem to have an agenda of muddying my statements with false straw men statements that they attribute to me.

What I am saying is likely is a token gesture of scholarship increase. At most I could see 10 scholarships happening for football. That means you add a couple female golf scholarships, a couple volleyball scholarships, a couple scholarships for the training staff, another basketball scholarship, etc. You nickel and dime it through various female sports so that the cost really isn't that much at all.

What is at stake for them is getting enough good PR to expand conference post seasons. That really doesn't take all that much, it just takes properly timed public statements and releases of these changes.

In bold, that's truly rich... LOL!

(08-28-2014 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 09:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

First off, what is under the directives of Autonomy is not set in stone. It can be changed and will be added to in the future, in my opinion. Why bother fighting for scholarship limits the first time? You get the foundation of autonomy passed first and then you begin pushing for more gradually. It would be rather unintelligent to push for everything all at once.

Now, I am going to ask you to stop paying attention to these folks whom seem to have an agenda of muddying my statements with false straw men statements that they attribute to me.

What I am saying is likely is a token gesture of scholarship increase. At most I could see 10 scholarships happening for football. That means you add a couple female golf scholarships, a couple volleyball scholarships, a couple scholarships for the training staff, another basketball scholarship, etc. You nickel and dime it through various female sports so that the cost really isn't that much at all.

What is at stake for them is getting enough good PR to expand conference post seasons. That really doesn't take all that much, it just takes properly timed public statements and releases of these changes.

In bold, that's truly rich... LOL!

It's true. You said that Title IX makes it nearly impossible to add on any scholarships at all and yet......you go on and say that if ANY scholarships are added that somehow it will become a slippery slope and they will keep adding them?

You don't bother to explain this massive contradiction that you are putting forward. You hardly have a position of being able to say any point of mine is rich.

Why should you be paid attention to when you cant even maintain a single position?

(08-28-2014 07:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 09:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

First off, what is under the directives of Autonomy is not set in stone. It can be changed and will be added to in the future, in my opinion. Why bother fighting for scholarship limits the first time? You get the foundation of autonomy passed first and then you begin pushing for more gradually. It would be rather unintelligent to push for everything all at once.

Now, I am going to ask you to stop paying attention to these folks whom seem to have an agenda of muddying my statements with false straw men statements that they attribute to me.

What I am saying is likely is a token gesture of scholarship increase. At most I could see 10 scholarships happening for football. That means you add a couple female golf scholarships, a couple volleyball scholarships, a couple scholarships for the training staff, another basketball scholarship, etc. You nickel and dime it through various female sports so that the cost really isn't that much at all.

What is at stake for them is getting enough good PR to expand conference post seasons. That really doesn't take all that much, it just takes properly timed public statements and releases of these changes.

What's the point with all this? NFL teams only have 53 players. Div 1 football has 85 and already plays less games. Since the "student athletes" are grown adults, what's the difference? It's not physical limitations, the alleged issue is academics. LOL, like the "student athletes" get much out of their college educations anyways. The real issue is compensation. If the players are paid for playing more games, the players would be all for it. The admins won't want to, so they cloak themselves in the academic argument. That's why this won't happen.

Back to the extra money with the scholarship bump is real. You think it's just token money, but it's not. Factor in the whole cost of attending and then factor in how schools will have to offer equivalent compensation for other sports. Again, it won't happen.

That is fine, at least this is a decent opposition statement. You have moved on from making contradicting statements. That is a start.

What does need to happen is more propaganda before they add on more games. You say it wont be scholarships and it will be more money given to existing athletes? Perhaps. I think the Academia will prefer including more people instead of paying the existing people more.

We will see.

(08-28-2014 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 09:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

First off, what is under the directives of Autonomy is not set in stone. It can be changed and will be added to in the future, in my opinion. Why bother fighting for scholarship limits the first time? You get the foundation of autonomy passed first and then you begin pushing for more gradually. It would be rather unintelligent to push for everything all at once.

Now, I am going to ask you to stop paying attention to these folks whom seem to have an agenda of muddying my statements with false straw men statements that they attribute to me.

What I am saying is likely is a token gesture of scholarship increase. At most I could see 10 scholarships happening for football. That means you add a couple female golf scholarships, a couple volleyball scholarships, a couple scholarships for the training staff, another basketball scholarship, etc. You nickel and dime it through various female sports so that the cost really isn't that much at all.

What is at stake for them is getting enough good PR to expand conference post seasons. That really doesn't take all that much, it just takes properly timed public statements and releases of these changes.

True that changes to areas of autonomy can be added, but it's not easy. It still requires that 12 of the 20 members of the BoD vote for such a move - of which the P5 only have 5 votes, maybe 7 if they get support from the non-affiliated members of the BoD. They would still need support from those outside of the P5 to make that happen, and I just don't see that.

Plus, as I stated, they explicitly left it as a matter NOT subject to weighted voting within FBS. They would need support from outside the P5 to make it happen, and that is VERY doubtful.

I'm not saying it won't ever happen, but given the administrative constraints and the additional costs I think there will be more that oppose such a move (even in the P5) than would support it. And it certainly won't be a move made after this season as you suggested.

(08-28-2014 07:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 09:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eventually, the Majors are going to raise the amount of scholarships they can offer. That will end up being a dividing line.

In order to expand conference postseasons, they are going to need some countering propaganda. Being able to say that they have more players to field will definitely help with explaining how they can make some teams play even longer seasons. More players means more substituting and thus the proposed theory that it means less injuries. Whether or not that is the truth wont matter as much as whether or not enough people buy it to keep the grumbling to a minimum.

Scholarship limits are going to be a big deal at the end of this season.

Hmmm.. I don't think so. The new governance structure specifically left scholarship limits out of autonomy and made it an issue subject to non-weighted voting within FBS. The P5 could support such a measure, but they would need at least one G5 conference to go along with it. Combine that with the extra costs of unlimited meals, stipends, additional staff, additional recruiting costs, additional travel costs for recruits' and players' families, and I get the feeling that scholarship limits are going to stay where they are. There are going to be enough additional costs to give heartburn to many P5 athletic departments, so adding additional scholarships (and a proportional amount of women's sports/scholarships to support the increase) is probably asking too much.

First off, what is under the directives of Autonomy is not set in stone. It can be changed and will be added to in the future, in my opinion. Why bother fighting for scholarship limits the first time? You get the foundation of autonomy passed first and then you begin pushing for more gradually. It would be rather unintelligent to push for everything all at once.

Now, I am going to ask you to stop paying attention to these folks whom seem to have an agenda of muddying my statements with false straw men statements that they attribute to me.

What I am saying is likely is a token gesture of scholarship increase. At most I could see 10 scholarships happening for football. That means you add a couple female golf scholarships, a couple volleyball scholarships, a couple scholarships for the training staff, another basketball scholarship, etc. You nickel and dime it through various female sports so that the cost really isn't that much at all.

What is at stake for them is getting enough good PR to expand conference post seasons. That really doesn't take all that much, it just takes properly timed public statements and releases of these changes.

What's the point with all this? NFL teams only have 53 players. Div 1 football has 85 and already plays less games. Since the "student athletes" are grown adults, what's the difference? It's not physical limitations, the alleged issue is academics. LOL, like the "student athletes" get much out of their college educations anyways. The real issue is compensation. If the players are paid for playing more games, the players would be all for it. The admins won't want to, so they cloak themselves in the academic argument. That's why this won't happen.

Back to the extra money with the scholarship bump is real. You think it's just token money, but it's not. Factor in the whole cost of attending and then factor in how schools will have to offer equivalent compensation for other sports. Again, it won't happen.

I actually hope most student athletes get something out of their education; not many will be getting paid for play after.