Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
Author Message
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #81
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 08:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

I never said anything about a 10-12 team concept. In fact, I don't think a national 10-12 team concept is viable because it would create tremendous travel issues. My plan is a minimum of 18 teams (3 6-team divisions---eastern, central, and western). The concept would be a 8 game conference football schedule (5 in division, 3 cross-divisional). Top 2 division winner play in the CCG.

For basketball, you have a home-and-home within the division (10 games), plus 3 cross divisional games with each of the other 2 divisions (6 games--of which just 3 would be on the road). That's a 16 game conference schedule with reasonable travel. Non-revenue sports would play primarily within the division.

Such a structure gives a conference the same regional aspects you claim are so important while expanding the footprint to create a rooting interest in most any region of the country and combining more G5 fan bases (18 rather just 12) to attract a larger pool of interested viewers (which would be closer to a P5 viewer pool rather than a G5 viewer pool).

Here's the thing---the folks that keep harping on the virtues of the regional conference keep saying i's the best model----but contract earnings over the last two decades do not back it up. In 1996, CUSA teams made about 50% of what the typical P5 school earned in media. Today, CUSA teams make about 5% of what the typical P5 school earns. The G5 conferences can hang on to the past regional conference model, but its a proven loser for the G5 in the current college sports landscape. The regional model has done nothing over the past 2 decades but increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.

My feeling is---its time to try something different. Even if the national model fails, so what? We are losing ground every year under the regional model. We KNOW its not going to work. If the national model works to close the gap a bit---GREAT. If not, the national conference can separate by division and easily reconstitute itself as 3 separate regional conferences (the 3 divisions would just add a few teams to fill out their ranks). As long as 6 teams have played Olympic sports together for 6 years then they qualify for immediate NCAA auto-bids. In a worst case scenario---the members of any nautional conference will be no worse off than they are now. If the national conference works well, they may be MUCH better off than they are now. There is just nothing to lose at this point.

An 18 team model won't get you anything, because you'll have to divide the money too many ways.

The gap is a fact of life and you're not going to close it much more than it is now. The G5 have gained access and money with every iteration of the post-season system. That's something.


And if your plan doesn't work, it's not just so what. It will have screwed up perfectly good conferences for nothing.

I addressed Wedges post (see post #61). As for screwing up a "perfectly good" conference---I wouldn't be "screwing up" anything. If it was so great, schools wouldn't leave it to try something else. The reality is these "perfectly good" conferences are very likely to find themselves playing in another division at the end the current CFP contract. Anyone with vision can see that change is coming. For instance, I wouldn't expect there to be anymore FCS vs P5 games once this CFP cycle ends (that may happen well before the end of this contract).

Unless the G5 wants to be stuck playing only themselves and maybe some current FCS schools in a new college football pee-wee division---they had better figure out a way to keep up. If they try something new and it fails---well, I can live with that. Yes, we would get stuck playing a lower level---but at least we will know we tried everything and still couldn't keep up. It is what it is. What I cant support is the current strategy of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping for things to get better.

You didn't address his point. You confirmed it, actually.

There's no way an 18 team G5 would ever earn close to what you're dreaming of. Even if they were in all four timezones.


The autonomy group is not separating from FBS. Come on now ... that level of delusional fantasy is reserved only for FCS fans who want to pull the G5 down to FCS.

It certainly isn't happening any time during the CFP (the next 11 years). And it won't happen after that either.

If that's really your main concern, then rest easy my friend. Houston will be in the top sub-division of DI college football for decades to come.

As for Wedges point, I have said I wouldn't expect the new model to immediately hit the 50% of P5 value. The pay rate so simply where I see the "cap" being for its potential. It would take some time to reach that level of pay. Given that the regional model is actually generating a lower and lower percent of P5 pay, any model generating an increasing percent of P5 pay would be something to embrace. My main point in responding to Wedges point post is you need a larger conference to make football and the other Olympic sports work economically. I do think the conference set up pays 3-4 million per team immediately.

By the way, my version can't even be done until the NCAA (or autonomous 5) approves deregulation of the current FBS football divisional play rules. Under current rules, it wouldn't work.

Regarding separation, I agree it would not occur until after the current CFP agreement is done (and have said so many times). That said, separation is coming eventually (most likely a new division for the P5 and a few others within the NCAA).

Look---The real differences between D1 and D3 are financial commitment and economics. It always has been---it's the reason different divisions exist. When the financial gulf between the P5 and everyone else in D1 gets too big, it will happen. What people fail to realize is that NCAA has largely blunted the affect of this financial gulf by making rules that greatly limited how the P5's financial advantage could be used. In the past, the P5 have been largely limited to using their superior financial strength to build better facilities. Once they had built great weight rooms, indoor practice facilities, ornate locker rooms, and beautiful stadiums--the money didnt really help much any more---until now.

Current lawsuits and AUTONOMY are two factors that are significantly changing that dynamic. Look for the P5's financial advantage to begin to be used in new ways that more directly affect the product on the field. Training tables, FCOA, travel allowances for family, insurance---and more. The next item to come will be true payment to players. It will be based on schools merchandise sales. It's already been outlined by the O'Banon judges order (though her plan places the cash in a trust until graduation---her order is on hold pending further litigation). There are at least 2 more major suits that likely kick this "direct payment" can even further down the road. Unless college football gets a anti-trust exemption from congress, the game is in for significant change over the coming decade.
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2015 09:43 AM by Attackcoog.)
08-03-2015 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #82
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 09:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 08:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I never said anything about a 10-12 team concept. In fact, I don't think a national 10-12 team concept is viable because it would create tremendous travel issues. My plan is a minimum of 18 teams (3 6-team divisions---eastern, central, and western). The concept would be a 8 game conference football schedule (5 in division, 3 cross-divisional). Top 2 division winner play in the CCG.

For basketball, you have a home-and-home within the division (10 games), plus 3 cross divisional games with each of the other 2 divisions (6 games--of which just 3 would be on the road). That's a 16 game conference schedule with reasonable travel. Non-revenue sports would play primarily within the division.

Such a structure gives a conference the same regional aspects you claim are so important while expanding the footprint to create a rooting interest in most any region of the country and combining more G5 fan bases (18 rather just 12) to attract a larger pool of interested viewers (which would be closer to a P5 viewer pool rather than a G5 viewer pool).

Here's the thing---the folks that keep harping on the virtues of the regional conference keep saying i's the best model----but contract earnings over the last two decades do not back it up. In 1996, CUSA teams made about 50% of what the typical P5 school earned in media. Today, CUSA teams make about 5% of what the typical P5 school earns. The G5 conferences can hang on to the past regional conference model, but its a proven loser for the G5 in the current college sports landscape. The regional model has done nothing over the past 2 decades but increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.

My feeling is---its time to try something different. Even if the national model fails, so what? We are losing ground every year under the regional model. We KNOW its not going to work. If the national model works to close the gap a bit---GREAT. If not, the national conference can separate by division and easily reconstitute itself as 3 separate regional conferences (the 3 divisions would just add a few teams to fill out their ranks). As long as 6 teams have played Olympic sports together for 6 years then they qualify for immediate NCAA auto-bids. In a worst case scenario---the members of any national conference will be no worse off than they are now. If the national conference works well, they may be MUCH better off than they are now. There is just nothing to lose at this point.

You didn't read Wedge's post, then. An 18 team model won't get you anything, because you'll have to divide the money too many ways.

The gap is a fact of life and you're not going to close it much more than it is now. The G5 have gained access and money with every iteration of the post-season system. That's something.


And if your plan doesn't work, it's not just so what. It will have screwed up perfectly good conferences for nothing.

I addressed Wedges post (see post #61). As for screwing up a "perfectly good" conference---I wouldn't be "screwing up" anything. If it was so great, schools wouldn't leave it to try something else. The reality is these "perfectly good" conferences are very likely to find themselves playing in another division at the end the current CFP contract. Anyone with vision can see that change is coming. For instance, I wouldn't expect there to be anymore FCS vs P5 games once this CFP cycle ends (that may happen well before the end of this contract).

Unless the G5 wants to be stuck playing only themselves and maybe some current FCS schools in a new college football pee-wee division---they had better figure out a way to keep up. If they try something new and it fails---well, I can live with that. Yes, we would get stuck playing a lower level---but at least we will know we tried everything and still couldn't keep up. It is what it is. What I cant support is the current strategy of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping for things to get better.

You didn't address his point. You confirmed it, actually.

There's no way an 18 team G5 would ever earn close to what you're dreaming of. Even if they were in all four timezones.


The autonomy group is not separating from FBS. Come on now ... that level of delusional fantasy is reserved only for FCS fans who want to pull the G5 down to FCS.

It certainly isn't happening any time during the CFP (the next 11 years). And it won't happen after that either.

If that's really your main concern, then rest easy my friend. Houston will be in the top sub-division of DI college football for decades to come.

I agree it would not occur until after the current CFP agreement is done. As for Wedges point, I have said I wouldn't expect the new model to immediately hit the 50% of P5 value immediately. It would take some time. I do think the conference set up pays 3-4 million per team immediately. By the way, my version can't even be done until the NCAA (or autonomous 5) approves deregulation of the current FBS football divisional play rules.

You could have two divisions of nine. There is no rule against that. But I don't think this new formation automatically earns anything, for any of the reasons you're specifying.

And the mythical separation is not going to occur anytime in the next few decades. Stop worrying about mythology.
08-03-2015 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #83
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 09:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 08:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You didn't read Wedge's post, then. An 18 team model won't get you anything, because you'll have to divide the money too many ways.

The gap is a fact of life and you're not going to close it much more than it is now. The G5 have gained access and money with every iteration of the post-season system. That's something.


And if your plan doesn't work, it's not just so what. It will have screwed up perfectly good conferences for nothing.

I addressed Wedges post (see post #61). As for screwing up a "perfectly good" conference---I wouldn't be "screwing up" anything. If it was so great, schools wouldn't leave it to try something else. The reality is these "perfectly good" conferences are very likely to find themselves playing in another division at the end the current CFP contract. Anyone with vision can see that change is coming. For instance, I wouldn't expect there to be anymore FCS vs P5 games once this CFP cycle ends (that may happen well before the end of this contract).

Unless the G5 wants to be stuck playing only themselves and maybe some current FCS schools in a new college football pee-wee division---they had better figure out a way to keep up. If they try something new and it fails---well, I can live with that. Yes, we would get stuck playing a lower level---but at least we will know we tried everything and still couldn't keep up. It is what it is. What I cant support is the current strategy of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping for things to get better.

You didn't address his point. You confirmed it, actually.

There's no way an 18 team G5 would ever earn close to what you're dreaming of. Even if they were in all four timezones.


The autonomy group is not separating from FBS. Come on now ... that level of delusional fantasy is reserved only for FCS fans who want to pull the G5 down to FCS.

It certainly isn't happening any time during the CFP (the next 11 years). And it won't happen after that either.

If that's really your main concern, then rest easy my friend. Houston will be in the top sub-division of DI college football for decades to come.

I agree it would not occur until after the current CFP agreement is done. As for Wedges point, I have said I wouldn't expect the new model to immediately hit the 50% of P5 value immediately. It would take some time. I do think the conference set up pays 3-4 million per team immediately. By the way, my version can't even be done until the NCAA (or autonomous 5) approves deregulation of the current FBS football divisional play rules.

You could have two divisions of nine. There is no rule against that. But I don't think this new formation automatically earns anything, for any of the reasons you're specifying.

And the mythical separation is not going to occur anytime in the next few decades. Stop worrying about mythology.

I don't think it's mythology. The games economics are changing due to autonomy and lawsuits. As I stated above in more detail, the differences in the different divisions have always been based on economics. A split in D1 is inevitable. It always happens when the financial difference between members gets too large. Sometimes it happens naturally (schools give up and drop down due to resource limitations), and sometimes it is a concrete organizational change (new division, a split from the NCAA, etc). Either way, significant change is coming---likely at the end of the current CFP. Heck, with the marginalization of the G5 (really have had no real legitimate access to the playoff since the beginning of the BCS era) and the recent step toward P5 self-governance, one could argue separation has been slowly creeping forward for some time.
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2015 11:14 AM by Attackcoog.)
08-03-2015 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,101
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #84
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Heck, the marginalization of the G5 (really have had no real legitimate access to the playoff since the beginning of the BCS era) and the recent step toward P5 self-governance, one could argue separation has been slowly creeping forward for some time.
Except the greatest degree of marginalization was at the beginning of the BCS era, with no access to the BCS bowls, and then increasing access in three consecutive changes made to the system.

So the "slow creep forward" on that front consists of a big jump forward forward and a slow creep backward, away from marginalization of the Go5.
08-03-2015 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #85
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 08:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I addressed Wedges post (see post #61). As for screwing up a "perfectly good" conference---I wouldn't be "screwing up" anything. If it was so great, schools wouldn't leave it to try something else. The reality is these "perfectly good" conferences are very likely to find themselves playing in another division at the end the current CFP contract. Anyone with vision can see that change is coming. For instance, I wouldn't expect there to be anymore FCS vs P5 games once this CFP cycle ends (that may happen well before the end of this contract).

Unless the G5 wants to be stuck playing only themselves and maybe some current FCS schools in a new college football pee-wee division---they had better figure out a way to keep up. If they try something new and it fails---well, I can live with that. Yes, we would get stuck playing a lower level---but at least we will know we tried everything and still couldn't keep up. It is what it is. What I cant support is the current strategy of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping for things to get better.

You didn't address his point. You confirmed it, actually.

There's no way an 18 team G5 would ever earn close to what you're dreaming of. Even if they were in all four timezones.


The autonomy group is not separating from FBS. Come on now ... that level of delusional fantasy is reserved only for FCS fans who want to pull the G5 down to FCS.

It certainly isn't happening any time during the CFP (the next 11 years). And it won't happen after that either.

If that's really your main concern, then rest easy my friend. Houston will be in the top sub-division of DI college football for decades to come.

I agree it would not occur until after the current CFP agreement is done. As for Wedges point, I have said I wouldn't expect the new model to immediately hit the 50% of P5 value immediately. It would take some time. I do think the conference set up pays 3-4 million per team immediately. By the way, my version can't even be done until the NCAA (or autonomous 5) approves deregulation of the current FBS football divisional play rules.

You could have two divisions of nine. There is no rule against that. But I don't think this new formation automatically earns anything, for any of the reasons you're specifying.

And the mythical separation is not going to occur anytime in the next few decades. Stop worrying about mythology.

I don't think it's mythology. The games economics are changing due to autonomy and lawsuits. As I stated above in more detail, the differences in the different divisions have always been based on economics. A split in D1 is inevitable. It always happens when the financial difference between members gets too large. Sometimes it happens naturally (schools give up and drop down due to resource limitations), and sometimes it is a concrete organizational change (new division, a split from the NCAA, etc). Either way, significant change is coming---likely at the end of the current CFP. Heck, the marginalization of the G5 (really have had no real legitimate access to the playoff since the beginning of the BCS era) and the recent step toward P5 self-governance, one could argue separation has been slowly creeping forward for some time.

Sorry, but I fully disagree and find no evidence that supports your hypothesis.

G5 have only gained bowl access and money with each iteration of the major college football post-season system, starting with the BCS reforms spurred by Utah sen. Hatch.

A complete separation of P5 from G5, either with a new sub-division of NCAA DI or by breaking away from the NCAA entirely, would be a huge step backwards for the G5. So it won't happen. Still too many state schools that can call their federal representatives.

And there's nothing that can reasonably be gained from such a separation. Only potential losses and risks.
08-03-2015 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #86
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 08:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You didn't address his point. You confirmed it, actually.

There's no way an 18 team G5 would ever earn close to what you're dreaming of. Even if they were in all four timezones.


The autonomy group is not separating from FBS. Come on now ... that level of delusional fantasy is reserved only for FCS fans who want to pull the G5 down to FCS.

It certainly isn't happening any time during the CFP (the next 11 years). And it won't happen after that either.

If that's really your main concern, then rest easy my friend. Houston will be in the top sub-division of DI college football for decades to come.

I agree it would not occur until after the current CFP agreement is done. As for Wedges point, I have said I wouldn't expect the new model to immediately hit the 50% of P5 value immediately. It would take some time. I do think the conference set up pays 3-4 million per team immediately. By the way, my version can't even be done until the NCAA (or autonomous 5) approves deregulation of the current FBS football divisional play rules.

You could have two divisions of nine. There is no rule against that. But I don't think this new formation automatically earns anything, for any of the reasons you're specifying.

And the mythical separation is not going to occur anytime in the next few decades. Stop worrying about mythology.

I don't think it's mythology. The games economics are changing due to autonomy and lawsuits. As I stated above in more detail, the differences in the different divisions have always been based on economics. A split in D1 is inevitable. It always happens when the financial difference between members gets too large. Sometimes it happens naturally (schools give up and drop down due to resource limitations), and sometimes it is a concrete organizational change (new division, a split from the NCAA, etc). Either way, significant change is coming---likely at the end of the current CFP. Heck, the marginalization of the G5 (really have had no real legitimate access to the playoff since the beginning of the BCS era) and the recent step toward P5 self-governance, one could argue separation has been slowly creeping forward for some time.

Sorry, but I fully disagree and find no evidence that supports your hypothesis.

G5 have only gained bowl access and money with each iteration of the major college football post-season system, starting with the BCS reforms spurred by Utah sen. Hatch.

A complete separation of P5 from G5, either with a new sub-division of NCAA DI or by breaking away from the NCAA entirely, would be a huge step backwards for the G5. So it won't happen. Still too many state schools that can call their federal representatives.

And there's nothing that can reasonably be gained from such a separation. Only potential losses and risks.

There is nothing to gain if you look at it from the G5 side. There is from the P5 side. As far as G5 gains for access---its true they now have guaranteed access to a CFP access bowl---but its also true those extra side-show bowls have been somewhat marginalized themselves in the new 4-team playoff era. The truth is---as far as the playoff goes, the "selection committee", that has zero G5 representation, effectively blocks any G5 team from ever getting to the playoff. While it was unlikely under the BCS model, G5 teams did occasionally get high enough to possibly make a 4-team field---but that was with the BCS computers and human polls deciding the selections. Now, a small group of hand picked P5 reps decide the participants. Its already been made clear that a G5 will struggle to get into the top 15---much less the top 4--simply because their schedules will be viewed as inferior (which they are, but thats a structural fault in the system that is beyond the control of any G5 school). So I would argue the system is even more exclusive than the BCS with respect to the actual playoff.

That said---you and I simply disagree on this general topic. Nothing wrong with that. This board would be very boring if everyone agreed on everything. Good luck this season!
04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2015 11:25 AM by Attackcoog.)
08-03-2015 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #87
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I agree it would not occur until after the current CFP agreement is done. As for Wedges point, I have said I wouldn't expect the new model to immediately hit the 50% of P5 value immediately. It would take some time. I do think the conference set up pays 3-4 million per team immediately. By the way, my version can't even be done until the NCAA (or autonomous 5) approves deregulation of the current FBS football divisional play rules.

You could have two divisions of nine. There is no rule against that. But I don't think this new formation automatically earns anything, for any of the reasons you're specifying.

And the mythical separation is not going to occur anytime in the next few decades. Stop worrying about mythology.

I don't think it's mythology. The games economics are changing due to autonomy and lawsuits. As I stated above in more detail, the differences in the different divisions have always been based on economics. A split in D1 is inevitable. It always happens when the financial difference between members gets too large. Sometimes it happens naturally (schools give up and drop down due to resource limitations), and sometimes it is a concrete organizational change (new division, a split from the NCAA, etc). Either way, significant change is coming---likely at the end of the current CFP. Heck, the marginalization of the G5 (really have had no real legitimate access to the playoff since the beginning of the BCS era) and the recent step toward P5 self-governance, one could argue separation has been slowly creeping forward for some time.

Sorry, but I fully disagree and find no evidence that supports your hypothesis.

G5 have only gained bowl access and money with each iteration of the major college football post-season system, starting with the BCS reforms spurred by Utah sen. Hatch.

A complete separation of P5 from G5, either with a new sub-division of NCAA DI or by breaking away from the NCAA entirely, would be a huge step backwards for the G5. So it won't happen. Still too many state schools that can call their federal representatives.

And there's nothing that can reasonably be gained from such a separation. Only potential losses and risks.

There is nothing to gain if you look at it from the G5 side. There is from the P5 side. As far as G5 gains for access---its true they now have guaranteed access to a CFP access bowl---but its also true those extra side-show bowls have been somewhat marginalized themselves in the new 4-team playoff era. The truth is---as far as the playoff goes, the "selection committee", that has zero G5 representation effectively blocks any G5 team from ever getting the playoff. While it was unlikely under the BCS model, G5 teams did occasionally get high enough to possibly make a 4-team field---but that was with the BCS computers and human polls deciding the selections. Now, a small group of hand picked P5 reps decide the participants. A G5 will struggle to get into the top 15---much less the top 4. So I would argue the system is even more exclusive than the BCS with respect to the actual playoff.

That said---you and I simply disagree on this general topic. Nothing wrong with that. This board would be very boring if everyone agreed on everything. Good luck this season!
04-cheers

But the "playoff" in the BCS era was a two-team playoff. The G5 would never have been ranked in the top 2 by the computers. So a claim that they could've made the top four in that system is apples to oranges.

The P5 can't take the entire CFP pie for themselves. That's not on the table. So if that's your claim as motivation for separation, then you've lost that argument.
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2015 11:25 AM by MplsBison.)
08-03-2015 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #88
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 11:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You could have two divisions of nine. There is no rule against that. But I don't think this new formation automatically earns anything, for any of the reasons you're specifying.

And the mythical separation is not going to occur anytime in the next few decades. Stop worrying about mythology.

I don't think it's mythology. The games economics are changing due to autonomy and lawsuits. As I stated above in more detail, the differences in the different divisions have always been based on economics. A split in D1 is inevitable. It always happens when the financial difference between members gets too large. Sometimes it happens naturally (schools give up and drop down due to resource limitations), and sometimes it is a concrete organizational change (new division, a split from the NCAA, etc). Either way, significant change is coming---likely at the end of the current CFP. Heck, the marginalization of the G5 (really have had no real legitimate access to the playoff since the beginning of the BCS era) and the recent step toward P5 self-governance, one could argue separation has been slowly creeping forward for some time.

Sorry, but I fully disagree and find no evidence that supports your hypothesis.

G5 have only gained bowl access and money with each iteration of the major college football post-season system, starting with the BCS reforms spurred by Utah sen. Hatch.

A complete separation of P5 from G5, either with a new sub-division of NCAA DI or by breaking away from the NCAA entirely, would be a huge step backwards for the G5. So it won't happen. Still too many state schools that can call their federal representatives.

And there's nothing that can reasonably be gained from such a separation. Only potential losses and risks.

There is nothing to gain if you look at it from the G5 side. There is from the P5 side. As far as G5 gains for access---its true they now have guaranteed access to a CFP access bowl---but its also true those extra side-show bowls have been somewhat marginalized themselves in the new 4-team playoff era. The truth is---as far as the playoff goes, the "selection committee", that has zero G5 representation effectively blocks any G5 team from ever getting the playoff. While it was unlikely under the BCS model, G5 teams did occasionally get high enough to possibly make a 4-team field---but that was with the BCS computers and human polls deciding the selections. Now, a small group of hand picked P5 reps decide the participants. A G5 will struggle to get into the top 15---much less the top 4. So I would argue the system is even more exclusive than the BCS with respect to the actual playoff.

That said---you and I simply disagree on this general topic. Nothing wrong with that. This board would be very boring if everyone agreed on everything. Good luck this season!
04-cheers

But the "playoff" in the BCS era was a two-team playoff. The G5 would never have been ranked in the top 2 by the computers. So a claim that they could've made the top four in that system is apples to oranges.

The P5 can't take the entire CFP pie for themselves. That's not on the table. So if that's your claim as motivation for separation, then you've lost that argument.

G5 teams finished in the top 4 during the old BCS system. That's simply a historical fact that cant really be argued.

As far as "keeping all the CFP money" ---The P5 can do just that after the current agreement expires. The NCAA doesn't run nor does it own the CFP. The CFP is effectively owned by the P5. Even if you consider the G5 to be equity holders, the P5 can simply create a new organization that is owned by just the P5. That's what a split means. What right would the NCAA, G5, of any other organization have to the P5 playoff if they split from the NCAA? Zero. In fact, if they split, the P5 can create their own P5 basketball tournament and keep all that money as well.

That threat is all that is needed. That's why the P5 always will get what they want from the NCAA. If you are the NCAA, its better to have half a pie, a quarter of a pie, or even just 10% of a pie, than have none at all.

As this thread has devolved into just you and I going back and forth---I will move on. Like I said, we just disagree.
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2015 11:37 AM by Attackcoog.)
08-03-2015 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #89
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 11:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't think it's mythology. The games economics are changing due to autonomy and lawsuits. As I stated above in more detail, the differences in the different divisions have always been based on economics. A split in D1 is inevitable. It always happens when the financial difference between members gets too large. Sometimes it happens naturally (schools give up and drop down due to resource limitations), and sometimes it is a concrete organizational change (new division, a split from the NCAA, etc). Either way, significant change is coming---likely at the end of the current CFP. Heck, the marginalization of the G5 (really have had no real legitimate access to the playoff since the beginning of the BCS era) and the recent step toward P5 self-governance, one could argue separation has been slowly creeping forward for some time.

Sorry, but I fully disagree and find no evidence that supports your hypothesis.

G5 have only gained bowl access and money with each iteration of the major college football post-season system, starting with the BCS reforms spurred by Utah sen. Hatch.

A complete separation of P5 from G5, either with a new sub-division of NCAA DI or by breaking away from the NCAA entirely, would be a huge step backwards for the G5. So it won't happen. Still too many state schools that can call their federal representatives.

And there's nothing that can reasonably be gained from such a separation. Only potential losses and risks.

There is nothing to gain if you look at it from the G5 side. There is from the P5 side. As far as G5 gains for access---its true they now have guaranteed access to a CFP access bowl---but its also true those extra side-show bowls have been somewhat marginalized themselves in the new 4-team playoff era. The truth is---as far as the playoff goes, the "selection committee", that has zero G5 representation effectively blocks any G5 team from ever getting the playoff. While it was unlikely under the BCS model, G5 teams did occasionally get high enough to possibly make a 4-team field---but that was with the BCS computers and human polls deciding the selections. Now, a small group of hand picked P5 reps decide the participants. A G5 will struggle to get into the top 15---much less the top 4. So I would argue the system is even more exclusive than the BCS with respect to the actual playoff.

That said---you and I simply disagree on this general topic. Nothing wrong with that. This board would be very boring if everyone agreed on everything. Good luck this season!
04-cheers

But the "playoff" in the BCS era was a two-team playoff. The G5 would never have been ranked in the top 2 by the computers. So a claim that they could've made the top four in that system is apples to oranges.

The P5 can't take the entire CFP pie for themselves. That's not on the table. So if that's your claim as motivation for separation, then you've lost that argument.

They can after the current agreement expires. The NCAA doesn't run nor does it own the CFP. The CFP is effectively owned by the P5. Even if you consider the G5 to be equity holders, the P5 can simply create a new organization that is owned by just the P5. That's what a split means. What right would the NCAA, G5, of any other organization have to the P5 playoff if they split from the NCAA? Zero.

That threat is all that is needed. That's why the P5 always will get what they want from the NCAA. If you are the NCAA, its better to have half a pie, a quarter of a pie, or even just 10% of a pie, than have none at all.

The CFP isn't "owned" by anyone. The 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame are members of the organization. Each conference commissioner and ND's athletic director are the management committee. Then a president or chancellor from a school in each conference and the president of Notre Dame are the board of directors. Bill Hancock is the president.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/governance


The P5 won't split from the NCAA, because they need the NCAA for everything other than football. Way too much risk.

The G5 will sue or will have their federal reps. call for oversight of college football if the P5 threaten to form a new organization that excludes the G5.
08-03-2015 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #90
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The P5 won't split from the NCAA, because they need the NCAA for everything other than football. Way too much risk.

I don't think it would be risky at all, but it would be a massive amount of work for everyone involved, which is why it would take a lot for it to happen. The schools leaving the NCAA would have to set up a new organization to administer championships in every sport and to write and enforce whatever rules they wanted to apply to every school in the new organization. Everyone who would have to do that work (school presidents, athletic directors, other school administrators) already has a full-time job and doesn't want to add another 20-30 hours/week to whatever their workload is now.
08-03-2015 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #91
RE: Could the AAC add Boise and BYU.....
(08-03-2015 11:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The P5 won't split from the NCAA, because they need the NCAA for everything other than football. Way too much risk.

I don't think it would be risky at all, but it would be a massive amount of work for everyone involved, which is why it would take a lot for it to happen. The schools leaving the NCAA would have to set up a new organization to administer championships in every sport and to write and enforce whatever rules they wanted to apply to every school in the new organization. Everyone who would have to do that work (school presidents, athletic directors, other school administrators) already has a full-time job and doesn't want to add another 20-30 hours/week to whatever their workload is now.

There you go.

P5 leaving the NCAA is nonsense.


New sub-division for just the P5 in football only? No reason for that. Any such division would need an allowance to play the FBS teams (just the G5, in this hypothetical) to fill out schedules, anyway. And the post-season would still be the same thing, with everyone going to their respective bowl games.

What's the point? The same thing can be accomplished with everyone in FBS.
08-03-2015 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.