Perhaps Broo's info is solid, but, to me, he jumped the shark the day he mentioned that UC should either play in the MAC, or the AAC (or BE depending on time frame) ought to expand with MAC schools.

(05-02-2016 12:24 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  Perhaps Broo's info is solid, but, to me, he jumped the shark the day he mentioned that UC should either play in the MAC, or the AAC (or BE depending on time frame) ought to expand with MAC schools.

In hindsight, with as far off the radar as the AAC is and given how little money the media rights deal has generated, I'm not certain it would've mattered if they expanded with MAC schools.

Probably would've saved the AD money traveling the non-revenue teams.

(05-02-2016 12:54 PM)#41 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 12:24 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  Perhaps Broo's info is solid, but, to me, he jumped the shark the day he mentioned that UC should either play in the MAC, or the AAC (or BE depending on time frame) ought to expand with MAC schools.

In hindsight, with as far off the radar as the AAC is and given how little money the media rights deal has generated, I'm not certain it would've mattered if they expanded with MAC schools.

Probably would've saved the AD money traveling the non-revenue teams.

That actually may be what we're left with having to do, if UC is left out for too long. I don't buy the fantasyland scenario that the AAC is going to get some huge bump in pay, regardless how their sports are doing.

(05-02-2016 01:09 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 12:54 PM)#41 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 12:24 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  Perhaps Broo's info is solid, but, to me, he jumped the shark the day he mentioned that UC should either play in the MAC, or the AAC (or BE depending on time frame) ought to expand with MAC schools.

In hindsight, with as far off the radar as the AAC is and given how little money the media rights deal has generated, I'm not certain it would've mattered if they expanded with MAC schools.

Probably would've saved the AD money traveling the non-revenue teams.

That actually may be what we're left with having to do, if UC is left out for too long. I don't buy the fantasyland scenario that the AAC is going to get some huge bump in pay, regardless how their sports are doing.

ESPN has the AAC right where they want them. Why offer the conference significantly more money? The AAC can go find an upstart cable network (with no viewers) for a few dollars more, losing what notoriety the league has gained with nationwide coverage of last year's football success and UCONN's recent men's and current women's basketball championships.

There is only one long-term solution for UC to optimize athletic success and it won't be in the G5.

If you had me lay money, I'd bet that in ~20 years that there won't be a G-5. It'll be the "Power" conferences and everyone else competing at the non-scholarship level in football. The EMU "open letter" was the first salvo in all this, but I doubt very much that it'll be the last.

I think there will still be scholarships in the lower level but I do agree that there will be another division. Sort of a FBS, FBS-AA, and FCS tiered system with different rules where applicable. The G5 will be in that middle division.

May happen a lot sooner than 20 years, though.

(05-02-2016 03:26 PM)#41 Wrote:  If you had me lay money, I'd bet that in ~20 years that there won't be a G-5. It'll be the "Power" conferences and everyone else competing at the non-scholarship level in football. The EMU "open letter" was the first salvo in all this, but I doubt very much that it'll be the last.

Oh, the EMU "open letter" is not the first salvo... Idaho just announced their decision to drop to FCS, the AD at Hawai'i has pondered the future of that school's FB program, and they are not alone.

When your choices are 9 figure capital improvement projects and an upside down balance sheet just for the chance to stay marginally relevant in the middle of the 127 team pack or what Idaho just did, its a no-brainer. Lots more schools should probably consider it.

(05-02-2016 04:07 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  When your choices are 9 figure capital improvement projects and an upside down balance sheet just for the chance to stay marginally relevant in the middle of the 127 team pack or what Idaho just did, its a no-brainer. Lots more schools should probably consider it.

Sad, but true. College football will end up like the airline industry. Maybe 20 teams at the top and eventually they'll phase out the lesser opponents one by one. Once the kill the G5 does anyone really believe conferences like the PAC 12 or ACC will want to subsidize Wash St or Wake?

(05-01-2016 08:22 PM)#41 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 12:41 PM)True Bearcat Wrote:  Did he bash Cincinnati like he usually does? Ken Broo is a clown.

This board thinks every radio / TV personality is a clown who doesn't cover UC properly.

My thinking that he is a clown comes from when the Cyclones returned from the dead. He said it would never work, and Nederlander should fold the team and save the city the embarrassment of another failed hockey team. So in 2010 in front of then the largest hockey crowd in USBA history I asked him if they should fold the team now. He walked away from me.

(05-02-2016 03:26 PM)#41 Wrote:  If you had me lay money, I'd bet that in ~20 years that there won't be a G-5. It'll be the "Power" conferences and everyone else competing at the non-scholarship level in football. The EMU "open letter" was the first salvo in all this, but I doubt very much that it'll be the last.

I bet it won't be that long. ESPN and the P5 won't be able to wait 20 years - ESPN already has money issues. They would like to consolidate and pare down how many teams they need to cover primarily.

(05-02-2016 09:14 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 03:26 PM)#41 Wrote:  If you had me lay money, I'd bet that in ~20 years that there won't be a G-5. It'll be the "Power" conferences and everyone else competing at the non-scholarship level in football. The EMU "open letter" was the first salvo in all this, but I doubt very much that it'll be the last.

I bet it won't be that long. ESPN and the P5 won't be able to wait 20 years - ESPN already has money issues. They would like to consolidate and pare down how many teams they need to cover primarily.

They basically only cover teams that financially benefit them anyway. Not much needs to change on that front.

(05-02-2016 09:31 AM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 11:01 PM)#41 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 09:22 PM)InspectorHound Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 08:22 PM)#41 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 12:41 PM)True Bearcat Wrote:  Did he bash Cincinnati like he usually does? Ken Broo is a clown.

This board thinks every radio / TV personality is a clown who doesn't cover UC properly.

I don't think anyone here has ever bashed Vogel or Popovich. Broo deserves all the flack he gets.

I've seen both bashed. I've even seen Mo Egger, biggest UC supporter in the local media, bashed on this board.

I would guess that the amount of times Broo is bashed on here, dwarfs such instances of Vogel, Popovich, and Mo, combined.

Broo just doesn't know anything about college sports. He talks about what he knows and makes up the rest. This is the reason he failed in Tulsa and had to come back to Cincy. He knows Reds and Bungles and this is what he is qualified to talk about. I also think he was initially hard on the Cyclones and UC b/c Cincy is small market. Reds and Bungles need all the dollars they can get to compete with the big boys of pro-sports. Minor league hockey, soccer and UC sports takes away from that pie.

Broo talking expansion again, thinks he has been on the forefront of this. Nothing new, interview discussed how Texas will decide what happens and their president will be the most powerful in room at the end of the month.

(05-08-2016 09:42 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Broo talking expansion again, thinks he has been on the forefront of this. Nothing new, interview discussed how Texas will decide what happens and their president will be the most powerful in room at the end of the month.

He was talking about when UC went to the big east it was great for bball but did not do that much for football. Could have not been more wrong.
He was accurate with other stuff and then had Jake Trotter of ESPN on.

(05-08-2016 09:42 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Broo talking expansion again, thinks he has been on the forefront of this. Nothing new, interview discussed how Texas will decide what happens and their president will be the most powerful in room at the end of the month.

In fairness to Broo he is the only one on radio talking about expansion locally:

Lance- Reds, Bengals and more Reds
Mo- Reds, Bengals and more Reds and Bengals
Rocky- Bengals, NFL and Donald Trump
Chic Ludwig- Reds, Bengals and Ohio State football

(05-08-2016 10:25 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 09:42 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Broo talking expansion again, thinks he has been on the forefront of this. Nothing new, interview discussed how Texas will decide what happens and their president will be the most powerful in room at the end of the month.

In fairness to Broo he is the only one on radio talking about expansion locally:

Lance- Reds, Bengals and more Reds
Mo- Reds, Bengals and more Reds and Bengals
Rocky- Bengals, NFL and Donald Trump
Chic Ludwig- Reds, Bengals and Ohio State football

Agreed

Yes I listened to him some this morning. He lined up the guy from ESPN and he is talking about it, so I give credit to Broo for doing that.

I agree that Broo is limited in his knowledge of realignment, but at least he tries.

Yes. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Broo, at least he's discussing it.