After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that. Our shear size is also impacting that. Dr Hitt hasn't pushed that button because he is playing nice to get into the p5. However I will tell you in this state he has a pretty big reach. I am sure some of our compatriots can say the same. This whole thing is teetering on some shady business practices and anticompetitive behavior. The more separation there is and the less parity there is state legislatures will start putting pressure on for inclusion as they seek to lift some of the expenses. The higher end g5s are playing nice for now but I wouldn't back them in a corner. Many still hold influential seats in the NCAA. If they split they will watch a lot of perks go down the drain and costs go up. Tx is a microcosm of this. Do we want to irk the roost in the b12 and give up a little power or go all in elsewhere and be on a level playing field. I am betting on the former.

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that. Our shear size is also impacting that. Dr Hitt hasn't pushed that button because he is playing nice to get into the p5. However I will tell you in this state he has a pretty big reach. I am sure some of our compatriots can say the same. This whole thing is teetering on some shady business practices and anticompetitive behavior. The more separation there is and the less parity there is state legislatures will start putting pressure on for inclusion as they seek to lift some of the expenses. The higher end g5s are playing nice for now but I wouldn't back them in a corner. Many still hold influential seats in the NCAA. If they split they will watch a lot of perks go down the drain and costs go up. Tx is a microcosm of this. Do we want to irk the roost in the b12 and give up a little power or go all in elsewhere and be on a level playing field. I am betting on the former.

The G5 has already to agreed to the limited voting stature of 2 votes for football issues compared to 4 votes with the P5.

Its weird how everything has gone down because from 2010-12 there was a lot of realignment giving some of the have not's finally a shot like Utah and TCU in power conferences and concluding with a revamped post season and a guaranteed autobid. Then the non-CFP bowls started signing and P5's changed their attitude.

Something happened in August 2012 that changed the course of history. It became apparent the Big East was not going to make it as a power conference. Notre Dame jumps ship to the ACC which pushes toward a GOR. B1G sweeps in and picks up Maryland and Rutgers. BE basketball schools separate from the AAC. Bowl agreements are signed with the AAC on the outside. The Big East question as to whether they belonged with the major conferences ceased to be a question. The restructuring of the NCAA governance model was a reaction to realignment. A chance to put everyone in their proper place.

The unintended consequence is a super top heavy FBS which all that matters are who are the Top 4 strongest teams every week and which 800 pound Gorilla is working its way up the ladder for a shot at it. If not in contention for the 4 team playoff existence in the CFP Top 25 is considered minor in of itself and not discussed on the playoff show. The traditional meaning of a Top 25 ranking has been surgically removed. Its now just a flop of schools to sort through for those promising 800 pound Gorillas that could be in the Top 4 with a conference championship.

(11-09-2014 11:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that. Our shear size is also impacting that. Dr Hitt hasn't pushed that button because he is playing nice to get into the p5. However I will tell you in this state he has a pretty big reach. I am sure some of our compatriots can say the same. This whole thing is teetering on some shady business practices and anticompetitive behavior. The more separation there is and the less parity there is state legislatures will start putting pressure on for inclusion as they seek to lift some of the expenses. The higher end g5s are playing nice for now but I wouldn't back them in a corner. Many still hold influential seats in the NCAA. If they split they will watch a lot of perks go down the drain and costs go up. Tx is a microcosm of this. Do we want to irk the roost in the b12 and give up a little power or go all in elsewhere and be on a level playing field. I am betting on the former.

The G5 has already to agreed to the limited voting stature of 2 votes for football issues compared to 4 votes with the P5.

Its weird how everything has gone down because from 2010-12 there was a lot of realignment giving some of the have not's finally a shot like Utah and TCU in power conferences and concluding with a revamped post season and a guaranteed autobid. Then the non-CFP bowls started signing and P5's changed their attitude.

Something happened in August 2012 that changed the course of history. It became apparent the Big East was not going to make it as a power conference. Notre Dame jumps ship to the ACC which pushes toward a GOR. B1G sweeps in and picks up Maryland and Rutgers. BE basketball schools separate from the AAC. Bowl agreements are signed with the AAC on the outside. The Big East question as to whether they belonged with the major conferences ceased to be a question. The restructuring of the NCAA governance model was a reaction to realignment. A chance to put everyone in their proper place.

The unintended consequence is a super top heavy FBS which all that matters are who are the Top 4 strongest teams every week and which 800 pound Gorilla is working its way up the ladder for a shot at it. If not in contention for the 4 team playoff existence in the CFP Top 25 is considered minor in of itself and not discussed on the playoff show. The traditional meaning of a Top 25 ranking has been surgically removed. Its now just a flop of schools to sort through for those promising 800 pound Gorillas that could be in the Top 4 with a conference championship.

I agree for the most part but I think it was very deliberate. I think this was TVs way of maintaining separation and consolidating power. At the time a school even mentioned this in a national newspaper. Additionally from a business perspective, if everything is moving ala carte why not consolidate brands and sell the sports as a package so that you can sell your product to niche buyers who will give up more opportunity cost as they are vested in their region. Also fox has the nfl and espns dollars are being stretched thin by the exponential cost of cfb contracts. Why not consolidate the most valuable brands in less conferences and shed the dead weight. It's easier to bid higher with less mouths to feed. When the b12 survived it put a wrench in the plans (fox had interests in the b12) so it killed the beast instead. Remember the big east consolidation plan if the PAC 16 worked out? IMO the cost for cfb became higher and the network was hedging. The big east implosion was the result. I may be barking up the wrong tree but reading the tea leaves from a business perspective and the comments from schools regarding realignment movement it seems to support the hypothesis

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

You don't push on the b12 you push on other state schools. Baylor and a few others have done the same thing. No one wants government involved or looking at cfb. There has even been some noise on the congressional level. There are ways to get it done. Again it's about making enough noise ala Oren Hatch

Fwiw I think Judy has lots of buttons she could push as well.

(11-06-2014 05:26 PM)chess Wrote:  When the NCAA divided into D1A and D1AA, ECU choose to play D1A with schools like Miami(FL), West Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Syracuse, Penn State, and Boston College- all of which were independents. ECU could have joined schools like William & Mary, James Madison, Richmond, etc... and played D1AA. ECU is not going to choose a course of action that would kill the program.

Yep if a day comes that ECU willingly drops I will willingly stop spending money on ECU.

(11-10-2014 08:56 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

You don't push on the b12 you push on other state schools. Baylor and a few others have done the same thing. No one wants government involved or looking at cfb.

Look, I'm in favor of USF getting into a P5 by any means necessary. But do I think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Florida or FSU would use their political capital in the ACC or SEC to try and gain membership for UCF or USF? Something they almost surely do not want?

No I do not.

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

In Texas, a simple scheduling requirement for the state schools would go a LONG way in helping out the non-power state schools. It wouldn't affect Baylor, TCU, Rice, or SMU. But getting regular games for UTEP, UTSA, Texas St, and Houston vs Texas A&M, Texas, and Texas Tech would be a boon for those G5 programs and it wouldn't cost the bigger schools anything. Plus, frankly, it would be a good thing for the state of Texas. If the requirement simply said Texas, A&M, and Tech each had to play two G5 state schools each year on a rotating basis---that would be 6 interesting rivalry games between state schools every year split between the 4 state G5 schools. That would form the backbone of a pretty interesting schedule for the G5 in state schools and it would eventually end up being pretty fun games for the states power schools as well.

I think something like that is possible. What's unlikely is using state pressure to get G5 schools into power conferences. I just don't see how that can happen.

(11-10-2014 12:50 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 11:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that. Our shear size is also impacting that. Dr Hitt hasn't pushed that button because he is playing nice to get into the p5. However I will tell you in this state he has a pretty big reach. I am sure some of our compatriots can say the same. This whole thing is teetering on some shady business practices and anticompetitive behavior. The more separation there is and the less parity there is state legislatures will start putting pressure on for inclusion as they seek to lift some of the expenses. The higher end g5s are playing nice for now but I wouldn't back them in a corner. Many still hold influential seats in the NCAA. If they split they will watch a lot of perks go down the drain and costs go up. Tx is a microcosm of this. Do we want to irk the roost in the b12 and give up a little power or go all in elsewhere and be on a level playing field. I am betting on the former.

The G5 has already to agreed to the limited voting stature of 2 votes for football issues compared to 4 votes with the P5.

Its weird how everything has gone down because from 2010-12 there was a lot of realignment giving some of the have not's finally a shot like Utah and TCU in power conferences and concluding with a revamped post season and a guaranteed autobid. Then the non-CFP bowls started signing and P5's changed their attitude.

Something happened in August 2012 that changed the course of history. It became apparent the Big East was not going to make it as a power conference. Notre Dame jumps ship to the ACC which pushes toward a GOR. B1G sweeps in and picks up Maryland and Rutgers. BE basketball schools separate from the AAC. Bowl agreements are signed with the AAC on the outside. The Big East question as to whether they belonged with the major conferences ceased to be a question. The restructuring of the NCAA governance model was a reaction to realignment. A chance to put everyone in their proper place.

The unintended consequence is a super top heavy FBS which all that matters are who are the Top 4 strongest teams every week and which 800 pound Gorilla is working its way up the ladder for a shot at it. If not in contention for the 4 team playoff existence in the CFP Top 25 is considered minor in of itself and not discussed on the playoff show. The traditional meaning of a Top 25 ranking has been surgically removed. Its now just a flop of schools to sort through for those promising 800 pound Gorillas that could be in the Top 4 with a conference championship.

I agree for the most part but I think it was very deliberate. I think this was TVs way of maintaining separation and consolidating power. At the time a school even mentioned this in a national newspaper. Additionally from a business perspective, if everything is moving ala carte why not consolidate brands and sell the sports as a package so that you can sell your product to niche buyers who will give up more opportunity cost as they are vested in their region. Also fox has the nfl and espns dollars are being stretched thin by the exponential cost of cfb contracts. Why not consolidate the most valuable brands in less conferences and shed the dead weight. It's easier to bid higher with less mouths to feed. When the b12 survived it put a wrench in the plans (fox had interests in the b12) so it killed the beast instead. Remember the big east consolidation plan if the PAC 16 worked out? IMO the cost for cfb became higher and the network was hedging. The big east implosion was the result. I may be barking up the wrong tree but reading the tea leaves from a business perspective and the comments from schools regarding realignment movement it seems to support the hypothesis

There is merit to what you are saying.

With the ACC and Big East TV contracts up, those conferences became nervous about their next deals and needed to expand to solidify their stock. The AAC GOR came late in the game and was helped by pulling over Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame from the Big East.

Five conferences though with one on the edge (B12) is about as small as what you can boil it down. It was an 8 conference system in the early 90's with the SWC and WAC among the bigs. SWC became extinct and the WAC was snubbed. Now the BE hybrid split. Its going to be hard to push the B12 out completely with its P5 governance status but they may be looking at 1/2 the money next time around without Texas and Oklahoma.

That is why I'm saying if the B12 is also pushed out of a contract spot that might compel a new stronger G5 (B12, AAC, MWC, CUSA, MAC) to push for 2 access bowl autobids and a larger cut of the money.

(11-10-2014 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:56 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

You don't push on the b12 you push on other state schools. Baylor and a few others have done the same thing. No one wants government involved or looking at cfb.

Look, I'm in favor of USF getting into a P5 by any means necessary. But do I think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Florida or FSU would use their political capital in the ACC or SEC to try and gain membership for UCF or USF? Something they almost surely do not want?

No I do not.

These are broader discussions than there have been in the past

(11-10-2014 11:57 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:50 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 11:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that. Our shear size is also impacting that. Dr Hitt hasn't pushed that button because he is playing nice to get into the p5. However I will tell you in this state he has a pretty big reach. I am sure some of our compatriots can say the same. This whole thing is teetering on some shady business practices and anticompetitive behavior. The more separation there is and the less parity there is state legislatures will start putting pressure on for inclusion as they seek to lift some of the expenses. The higher end g5s are playing nice for now but I wouldn't back them in a corner. Many still hold influential seats in the NCAA. If they split they will watch a lot of perks go down the drain and costs go up. Tx is a microcosm of this. Do we want to irk the roost in the b12 and give up a little power or go all in elsewhere and be on a level playing field. I am betting on the former.

The G5 has already to agreed to the limited voting stature of 2 votes for football issues compared to 4 votes with the P5.

Its weird how everything has gone down because from 2010-12 there was a lot of realignment giving some of the have not's finally a shot like Utah and TCU in power conferences and concluding with a revamped post season and a guaranteed autobid. Then the non-CFP bowls started signing and P5's changed their attitude.

Something happened in August 2012 that changed the course of history. It became apparent the Big East was not going to make it as a power conference. Notre Dame jumps ship to the ACC which pushes toward a GOR. B1G sweeps in and picks up Maryland and Rutgers. BE basketball schools separate from the AAC. Bowl agreements are signed with the AAC on the outside. The Big East question as to whether they belonged with the major conferences ceased to be a question. The restructuring of the NCAA governance model was a reaction to realignment. A chance to put everyone in their proper place.

The unintended consequence is a super top heavy FBS which all that matters are who are the Top 4 strongest teams every week and which 800 pound Gorilla is working its way up the ladder for a shot at it. If not in contention for the 4 team playoff existence in the CFP Top 25 is considered minor in of itself and not discussed on the playoff show. The traditional meaning of a Top 25 ranking has been surgically removed. Its now just a flop of schools to sort through for those promising 800 pound Gorillas that could be in the Top 4 with a conference championship.

I agree for the most part but I think it was very deliberate. I think this was TVs way of maintaining separation and consolidating power. At the time a school even mentioned this in a national newspaper. Additionally from a business perspective, if everything is moving ala carte why not consolidate brands and sell the sports as a package so that you can sell your product to niche buyers who will give up more opportunity cost as they are vested in their region. Also fox has the nfl and espns dollars are being stretched thin by the exponential cost of cfb contracts. Why not consolidate the most valuable brands in less conferences and shed the dead weight. It's easier to bid higher with less mouths to feed. When the b12 survived it put a wrench in the plans (fox had interests in the b12) so it killed the beast instead. Remember the big east consolidation plan if the PAC 16 worked out? IMO the cost for cfb became higher and the network was hedging. The big east implosion was the result. I may be barking up the wrong tree but reading the tea leaves from a business perspective and the comments from schools regarding realignment movement it seems to support the hypothesis

There is merit to what you are saying.

With the ACC and Big East TV contracts up, those conferences became nervous about their next deals and needed to expand to solidify their stock. The AAC GOR came late in the game and was helped by pulling over Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame from the Big East.

Five conferences though with one on the edge (B12) is about as small as what you can boil it down. It was an 8 conference system in the early 90's with the SWC and WAC among the bigs. SWC became extinct and the WAC was snubbed. Now the BE hybrid split. Its going to be hard to push the B12 out completely with its P5 governance status but they may be looking at 1/2 the money next time around without Texas and Oklahoma.

That is why I'm saying if the B12 is also pushed out of a contract spot that might compel a new stronger G5 (B12, AAC, MWC, CUSA, MAC) to push for 2 access bowl autobids and a larger cut of the money.

Fox will want to keep the b12 afloat even if espn turns it's back. That consolidation might drive bigger conferences like what happened with the acc and a drain on the others. Get as many properties as you can while you can. The b12s next go round won't be on a split contract because fs1 needs ratings badly

(11-10-2014 11:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

In Texas, a simple scheduling requirement for the state schools would go a LONG way in helping out the non-power state schools. It wouldn't affect Baylor, TCU, Rice, or SMU. But getting regular games for UTEP, UTSA, Texas St, and Houston vs Texas A&M, Texas, and Texas Tech would be a boon for those G5 programs and it wouldn't cost the bigger schools anything. Plus, frankly, it would be a good thing for the state of Texas. If the requirement simply said Texas, A&M, and Tech each had to play two G5 state schools each year on a rotating basis---that would be 6 interesting rivalry games between state schools every year split between the 4 state G5 schools. That would form the backbone of a pretty interesting schedule for the G5 in state schools and it would eventually end up being pretty fun games for the states power schools as well.

I think something like that is possible.

I agree this is possible. It is also possible that the P5 Texas schools would argue they need the flexibility to not play G5 to improve their strength of schedule, which would probably be a powerful argument.

Let's face it: If you are a Texas or AM fan, you don't consider Houston or SMU or UTEP to be an "interesting rival", games against them have nothing but downside potential. Beat them and everyone shrugs locally and nationally, lose and it's a big deal. So I don't think they'd agree that these games don't cost them anything.

(11-10-2014 12:44 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:56 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

You don't push on the b12 you push on other state schools. Baylor and a few others have done the same thing. No one wants government involved or looking at cfb.

Look, I'm in favor of USF getting into a P5 by any means necessary. But do I think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Florida or FSU would use their political capital in the ACC or SEC to try and gain membership for UCF or USF? Something they almost surely do not want?

No I do not.

These are broader discussions than there have been in the past

USF has grown up a lot. I remember 25 years ago we couldn't get anything out of Tallahassee, our voice went unheard. Now, on some academic issues, we have a modest voice.

But do I seriously believe that we have enough of a voice to get state legislators or the governor to put serious heat on Florida or FSU to help us? Not a chance. If P5 is going to happen, we are going to have to help ourselves, by making our football program as desirable as possible to P5 conferences.

And that's going to take some time.

(11-11-2014 09:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 11:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

In Texas, a simple scheduling requirement for the state schools would go a LONG way in helping out the non-power state schools. It wouldn't affect Baylor, TCU, Rice, or SMU. But getting regular games for UTEP, UTSA, Texas St, and Houston vs Texas A&M, Texas, and Texas Tech would be a boon for those G5 programs and it wouldn't cost the bigger schools anything. Plus, frankly, it would be a good thing for the state of Texas. If the requirement simply said Texas, A&M, and Tech each had to play two G5 state schools each year on a rotating basis---that would be 6 interesting rivalry games between state schools every year split between the 4 state G5 schools. That would form the backbone of a pretty interesting schedule for the G5 in state schools and it would eventually end up being pretty fun games for the states power schools as well.

I think something like that is possible.

I agree this is possible. It is also possible that the P5 Texas schools would argue they need the flexibility to not play G5 to improve their strength of schedule, which would probably be a powerful argument.

Let's face it: If you are a Texas or AM fan, you don't consider Houston or SMU or UTEP to be an "interesting rival", games against them have nothing but downside potential. Beat them and everyone shrugs locally and nationally, lose and it's a big deal. So I don't think they'd agree that these games don't cost them anything.

Sure, they could argue SOS.

A&M played Lamar, Rice, SMU, and UL-Monroe this year. Texas played N Texas, BYU, and UCLA this year and Tech played Central Arkansas, UTEP, and Arkansas.

So yes, they could make an SOS argument, but it would fall of deaf ears. Having 2 of the 5 Texas G5's on these schedules would make little difference in the SOS of these teams. If those teams win their conference and have 1 or less losses, they will be in the playoff----the 2 in-state G5 games wont affect that---certainly no more than the current scheduling does.

Does A&M consider Houston or UTEP a rival---probably not. But they are probably more interesting than games vs UL-Monroe or Central Arkansas. They are games the P5 wins more times that not---which is all that really matters to the P5 programs.

(11-11-2014 09:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 11:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  After reading through all of these posts there are two things happening that I didn't think would happen so quickly. 1) everyone is accepting a forced separation. 2) of this continues and the aforementioned schools aren't invited or made whole they will make noise. Some of us are big enough players to do that in our states. In UCFs case central Florida is driving the tech and medical industries for Florida. There is a lot of voting power concentrated here and UCF is driving a ton of that.

What type of effect do you think "state influence" is going to have on regional and national organizations?

E.g., if perchance the Florida legislature is upset because UCF has been relegated to low dollars and irrelevance in the AAC, and complains to the Big 12 about it, why on earth would the Big 12 care?

In Texas, a simple scheduling requirement for the state schools would go a LONG way in helping out the non-power state schools. It wouldn't affect Baylor, TCU, Rice, or SMU. But getting regular games for UTEP, UTSA, Texas St, and Houston vs Texas A&M, Texas, and Texas Tech would be a boon for those G5 programs and it wouldn't cost the bigger schools anything. Plus, frankly, it would be a good thing for the state of Texas. If the requirement simply said Texas, A&M, and Tech each had to play two G5 state schools each year on a rotating basis---that would be 6 interesting rivalry games between state schools every year split between the 4 state G5 schools. That would form the backbone of a pretty interesting schedule for the G5 in state schools and it would eventually end up being pretty fun games for the states power schools as well.

I think something like that is possible.

I agree this is possible. It is also possible that the P5 Texas schools would argue they need the flexibility to not play G5 to improve their strength of schedule, which would probably be a powerful argument.

Let's face it: If you are a Texas or AM fan, you don't consider Houston or SMU or UTEP to be an "interesting rival", games against them have nothing but downside potential. Beat them and everyone shrugs locally and nationally, lose and it's a big deal. So I don't think they'd agree that these games don't cost them anything.

I disagree with most part of this ^^^ post.

Rilvalry roots never die... Houston and SMU once shared a conference with Texas and the others, if you didn't know... Why a&m doesn't want to schedule Houston is stupid ignorant, it would become a heated college football game instantly again if ever happened... Houston and Texas had a wild crazy heated rivalry back in the SWC era and if these two programs clashed again, I assure you it would become a must see game, emedietly.

(11-11-2014 10:52 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 09:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: If you are a Texas or AM fan, you don't consider Houston or SMU or UTEP to be an "interesting rival", games against them have nothing but downside potential. Beat them and everyone shrugs locally and nationally, lose and it's a big deal. So I don't think they'd agree that these games don't cost them anything.

I disagree with most part of this ^^^ post.

Rilvalry roots never die... Houston and SMU once shared a conference with Texas and the others, if you didn't know... Why a&m doesn't want to schedule Houston is stupid ignorant, it would become a heated college football game instantly again if ever happened... Houston and Texas had a wild crazy heated rivalry back in the SWC era and if these two programs clashed again, I assure you it would become a must see game, emedietly.

Not really anything I can speak to, but if what you were saying is so true about the rivalries not dying, they'd probably still be playing each other regularly.

A requirement to play one Texas school OOC... that would certainly cost them something. You are suggesting that each Big 12 school play two of their three OOC against Texas schools: every year even. I mean, are you okay with those never having return games? Because otherwise those games aren't replacing just regular G5 games: they are also replacing home and home series versus major ones.

An encouragement to make a stronger effort to schedule Texas teams would probably go further than a requirement to play 2/3 of OOC in state, which would vastly limit their ability to schedule: I don't just mean SOS, I mean in terms of having schedule variety.

(11-13-2014 04:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:52 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 09:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: If you are a Texas or AM fan, you don't consider Houston or SMU or UTEP to be an "interesting rival", games against them have nothing but downside potential. Beat them and everyone shrugs locally and nationally, lose and it's a big deal. So I don't think they'd agree that these games don't cost them anything.

I disagree with most part of this ^^^ post.

Rilvalry roots never die... Houston and SMU once shared a conference with Texas and the others, if you didn't know... Why a&m doesn't want to schedule Houston is stupid ignorant, it would become a heated college football game instantly again if ever happened... Houston and Texas had a wild crazy heated rivalry back in the SWC era and if these two programs clashed again, I assure you it would become a must see game, emedietly.

Not really anything I can speak to, but if what you were saying is so true about the rivalries not dying, they'd probably still be playing each other regularly.

A requirement to play one Texas school OOC... that would certainly cost them something. You are suggesting that each Big 12 school play two of their three OOC against Texas schools: every year even. I mean, are you okay with those never having return games? Because otherwise those games aren't replacing just regular G5 games: they are also replacing home and home series versus major ones.

An encouragement to make a stronger effort to schedule Texas teams would probably go further than a requirement to play 2/3 of OOC in state, which would vastly limit their ability to schedule: I don't just mean SOS, I mean in terms of having schedule variety.

Trust me, it will take only one game to revive what many may think nothing is there... Now, ignoring a certain team/program b/c of fear of loosing their mojo to them is another matter.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sidetrack this thread by posting about the SWC era days.