The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

This violates the 11th Commandment: "Every move in conference realignment shall result in UConn being kicked in the nuts."

Not sure what you mean. They used to say bad things about Northwestern...but they started winning.

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

If you're talking about programs that have a legitimate shot at the national championship in a given year, that number is much less than 32.

And we had regional conferences with 9-10 teams that provided intriguing match ups. That cat is out of the bag however.

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

There are certainly "bottom half" P5 schools that provide a lot of value. For instance, it's easy to say that Michigan and Ohio State don't "need" the bottom dwellers in the Big Ten, but their respective home states have very low population growth compared to Indiana and Minnesota (and newcomers New Jersey and Maryland) while Chicago is the league's most important market. Michigan and Ohio State need long-term access to all of those areas (whether it's for TV purposes or recruiting) occupied by the "bottom half". The Pac-12, SEC and ACC all have similar setups - USC, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, etc. might all be very valuable, but many of the lower tier schools are still bringing *something* of value to the table in the form of TV markets, favorable demographics, academics, top tier basketball, etc. There is actually very little true deadweight within those leagues where they don't fit any of those categories.

The one exception is the Big 12. Their most valuable market, highest profile national program, top recruiting area and best academic school is all wrapped into one: the University of Texas. With the exception of Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball, there is quite a bit of financial deadweight in that conference. That's why UT has such outsized power and the Big 12 is by far the most unstable P5 conference.

The top 20 - 32 FB schools LIKE associating with the lower 32 - 44 schools - at least in 4 of the 5 P5 conferences. The first rule is that like minded schools want to be together. The next tier is how much money they can make together.

(12-16-2014 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

There are certainly "bottom half" P5 schools that provide a lot of value. For instance, it's easy to say that Michigan and Ohio State don't "need" the bottom dwellers in the Big Ten, but their respective home states have very low population growth compared to Indiana and Minnesota (and newcomers New Jersey and Maryland) while Chicago is the league's most important market. Michigan and Ohio State need long-term access to all of those areas (whether it's for TV purposes or recruiting) occupied by the "bottom half". The Pac-12, SEC and ACC all have similar setups - USC, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, etc. might all be very valuable, but many of the lower tier schools are still bringing *something* of value to the table in the form of TV markets, favorable demographics, academics, top tier basketball, etc. There is actually very little true deadweight within those leagues where they don't fit any of those categories.

The one exception is the Big 12. Their most valuable market, highest profile national program, top recruiting area and best academic school is all wrapped into one: the University of Texas. With the exception of Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball, there is quite a bit of financial deadweight in that conference. That's why UT has such outsized power and the Big 12 is by far the most unstable P5 conference.

+3 Well said, Frank!

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5.

that is completely false.

(12-16-2014 08:31 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

This violates the 11th Commandment: "Every move in conference realignment shall result in UConn being kicked in the nuts."

I like this commandment

I think someone is trying to get everyone riled up.

(12-16-2014 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

There are certainly "bottom half" P5 schools that provide a lot of value. For instance, it's easy to say that Michigan and Ohio State don't "need" the bottom dwellers in the Big Ten, but their respective home states have very low population growth compared to Indiana and Minnesota (and newcomers New Jersey and Maryland) while Chicago is the league's most important market. Michigan and Ohio State need long-term access to all of those areas (whether it's for TV purposes or recruiting) occupied by the "bottom half". The Pac-12, SEC and ACC all have similar setups - USC, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, etc. might all be very valuable, but many of the lower tier schools are still bringing *something* of value to the table in the form of TV markets, favorable demographics, academics, top tier basketball, etc. There is actually very little true deadweight within those leagues where they don't fit any of those categories.

The one exception is the Big 12. Their most valuable market, highest profile national program, top recruiting area and best academic school is all wrapped into one: the University of Texas. With the exception of Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball, there is quite a bit of financial deadweight in that conference. That's why UT has such outsized power and the Big 12 is by far the most unstable P5 conference.

I agree with your whole post. However, I would argue that there are other teams that the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC would not really miss:

Washington State - Doesn't deliver any markets not currently delivered by Washington. Main campus is under 20,000 students. Also the trio of Oregon, OSU, and WSU are way behind the rest of the PAC academically.

Wake Forest - Smallest P5 school, in a state that already has 3 schools in the same conference.

Mississippi State / Ole Miss and Indiana / Purdue - Only one from each pair is needed for their conference to carry their small states. The problem is that in each pair, it's not clear which one is weaker (Ole Miss has historically had a better football program, but MSU is a bigger school; Purdue is closer to Chicago and better academically, while IU has a better basketball program). The only advantage to hanging onto the pair is to prevent another "major" conference from picking up the one that's left behind.

These schools certainly "deserve" to compete at the top levels, but then again so does most of the AAC and MWC. I'm just saying they wouldn't be missed.

(12-16-2014 12:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

There are certainly "bottom half" P5 schools that provide a lot of value. For instance, it's easy to say that Michigan and Ohio State don't "need" the bottom dwellers in the Big Ten, but their respective home states have very low population growth compared to Indiana and Minnesota (and newcomers New Jersey and Maryland) while Chicago is the league's most important market. Michigan and Ohio State need long-term access to all of those areas (whether it's for TV purposes or recruiting) occupied by the "bottom half". The Pac-12, SEC and ACC all have similar setups - USC, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, etc. might all be very valuable, but many of the lower tier schools are still bringing *something* of value to the table in the form of TV markets, favorable demographics, academics, top tier basketball, etc. There is actually very little true deadweight within those leagues where they don't fit any of those categories.

The one exception is the Big 12. Their most valuable market, highest profile national program, top recruiting area and best academic school is all wrapped into one: the University of Texas. With the exception of Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball, there is quite a bit of financial deadweight in that conference. That's why UT has such outsized power and the Big 12 is by far the most unstable P5 conference.

I agree with your whole post. However, I would argue that there are other teams that the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC would not really miss:

Washington State - Doesn't deliver any markets not currently delivered by Washington. Main campus is under 20,000 students. Also the trio of Oregon, OSU, and WSU are way behind the rest of the PAC academically.

Wake Forest - Smallest P5 school, in a state that already has 3 schools in the same conference.

Mississippi State / Ole Miss and Indiana / Purdue - Only one from each pair is needed for their conference to carry their small states. The problem is that in each pair, it's not clear which one is weaker (Ole Miss has historically had a better football program, but MSU is a bigger school; Purdue is closer to Chicago and better academically, while IU has a better basketball program). The only advantage to hanging onto the pair is to prevent another "major" conference from picking up the one that's left behind.

These schools certainly "deserve" to compete at the top levels, but then again so does most of the AAC and MWC. I'm just saying they wouldn't be missed.

i'd say the pac-12 gets a pass largely because they don't really have an abundance of quality schools to choose from. I consider OSU, UO, & WSU before Phil Knight arrived to be among the weakest of the current P5. But Uncle Phil did wonders for Oregon turning them into an elite program and is starting to build up WSU & OSU now.

(12-16-2014 12:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think someone is trying to get everyone riled up.

Kettle says "oh, hello pot!"

(12-16-2014 10:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Not sure what you mean. They used to say bad things about Northwestern...but they started winning.

And TCU.
And Kansas State.
And Wake Forest (until they won the ACC football 2 years in a row).
And South Carolina.
And California.
And Colorado.
And...

I looked at the NFL because it is a smaller scale and seemed easier to calculate. There are 15 teams with >.500 win percentages.

New England is 11-3 (.786). They are 6-2 (.750) against teams that are >.500.
Denver is 11-3 (.786). They are 7-2 (.778) against teams that are >.500.

Playing teams that are .500 or less only slightly improved their win percentage.

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

Already done. It is called the NFL.

(12-16-2014 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

There are certainly "bottom half" P5 schools that provide a lot of value. For instance, it's easy to say that Michigan and Ohio State don't "need" the bottom dwellers in the Big Ten, but their respective home states have very low population growth compared to Indiana and Minnesota (and newcomers New Jersey and Maryland) while Chicago is the league's most important market. Michigan and Ohio State need long-term access to all of those areas (whether it's for TV purposes or recruiting) occupied by the "bottom half". The Pac-12, SEC and ACC all have similar setups - USC, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, etc. might all be very valuable, but many of the lower tier schools are still bringing *something* of value to the table in the form of TV markets, favorable demographics, academics, top tier basketball, etc. There is actually very little true deadweight within those leagues where they don't fit any of those categories.

The one exception is the Big 12. Their most valuable market, highest profile national program, top recruiting area and best academic school is all wrapped into one: the University of Texas. With the exception of Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball, there is quite a bit of financial deadweight in that conference. That's why UT has such outsized power and the Big 12 is by far the most unstable P5 conference

You gone and done it now. Buck, The Dude and MHver will be along shortly to begin your immediate reeducation.
CJ

The top-25 wouldn't be real interesting anymore...

If the P5 becomes a P4 that is going to reduce their ranks to about 58 schools.

B1G (Kansas, UConn)
PAC (Texas, TT, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St)

Those moves right there and the B12 becoming a G5 conference would slightly reduce the ranks of power conference schools overall.

B1G 16
PAC 16
SEC 14
ACC 14

That is down to 60 schools and you'll have little argument that anyone from outside of the that 60 deserves to be in there over anyone inside sans maybe Wake Forest.

The Big 37

West Division-8
USC, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, Colorado

North Division-10
Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, ILL, Indy, Mich, Ohio St, Notre Dame

South Division-11
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Ark, Mizzou, LSU, Bama, Tenn, KY

East Division-8
Georgia, Florida, Flor St, Clemson, UNC, Va, MD, Penn St