NoDak,

Read it and weep: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/governance


Latah,

The autonomy structure was setup by the NCAA for the P5 to pass legislation in a "quick lane", without getting blocked by the rest of the DI membership. It's for things that are optional, like Full Cost of Attendance scholarships. No one is required to implement them, but the P5 wanted them.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP. The CFP is just an organization that runs the playoff in coordination with six of the largest bowl games. It's owned by the 10 conferences, equally. And it's the conferences that have a vote, not each individual member school. It has a TV contract, and it has rules about how the money is distributed to each conference. Each of the 10 conferences gets an equal vote on those rules. If the WAC suddenly came up to FBS, it would be expected that the CFP would make room at the table for the new FBS conference. Not required, but it would be very odd if they didn't.

Much easier to just prevent there from being a new FBS conference.

I know that the conferences vote, but I thought that on virtually everything each P5 conference gets 2 votes while each G5 gets 1. I'm almost positive that's right on anything consequential, and it's common sense -- why would the SEC get itself into a situation where anything it wanted to do could be blocked by CUSA and the Sun Belt?

(10-14-2016 03:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  NoDak,

Read it and weep: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/governance


Latah,

The autonomy structure was setup by the NCAA for the P5 to pass legislation in a "quick lane", without getting blocked by the rest of the DI membership. It's for things that are optional, like Full Cost of Attendance scholarships. No one is required to implement them, but the P5 wanted them.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP. The CFP is just an organization that runs the playoff in coordination with six of the largest bowl games. It's owned by the 10 conferences, equally. And it's the conferences that have a vote, not each individual member school. It has a TV contract, and it has rules about how the money is distributed to each conference. Each of the 10 conferences gets an equal vote on those rules. If the WAC suddenly came up to FBS, it would be expected that the CFP would make room at the table for the new FBS conference. Not required, but it would be very odd if they didn't.

Much easier to just prevent there from being a new FBS conference.

The idea that the G5 has as much influence on the CFP as the P5 is laughable. The money says the P5 owns it and the G5 is just along for the crumbs.

Sorry, it's the fact. No amount of denying it will change that.

I've laid my argument down. Show me your hand.

Latah,

You're thinking NCAA. You need to set that aside. The CFP has nothing to do with the NCAA. Nor do any of the bowl games, for that matter.

(10-14-2016 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Latah,

You're thinking NCAA. You need to set that aside. The CFP has nothing to do with the NCAA. Nor do any of the bowl games, for that matter.

I don't believe that. I don't believe the SEC, B10, B12, ACC and PAC12, while holding all of the cards, put themselves into a structure where they can be stopped from making any major decisions by a coalition of the AAC, MWC, MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt. That's crazy.

And why would the P5 count more within the NCAA than within the CFP? None of that makes any sense.

By the way, NMSU only has 3 games for 2018. Looks like there are no schools available. Guess how hard it would be for Idaho.

NMSU may not have a FBS schedule which may force them to FCS.

(10-14-2016 02:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:38 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:34 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I wish Idaho would at least try independence. It makes no sense not to. If it's a failure after 2-3 years then you drop down and I'm sure the Big Sky would still be waiting with open arms.

Yep. And then you wouldn't have the booster revolt we have now. Try it and it doesn't work, then what can we say?

I might have a different view on this if we weren't finally fielding a competitive FBS team and if Petrino hadn't built a program with a bit of a foundation out of the rubble left by the sudden WAC dissolution and indifferent previous HC. Just see what happens for a couple years and worst case, we're in the same position we're in right now.

Exactly. Exhaust all avenues. Like you or someone said earlier, it wouldn't have been too difficult to put together an independent schedule

I dont think a school with a 19.2 million FBS athletic budget has the money to exhaust all avenues...
Only one FBS school which is Lousiana Monore has a smaller budget...
There are only a handful of FBS schools with budgets within 10 million more than Idaho and they dont have to fly from one end of the country and back...
FBS football is not cheap and if you cant compete financialy any sucess you have will be fleeting at best...
If Petrino were to have a breakout year almost every school in the country can afford to pay more and hire him away...

The article also fails to mention expenses and only two Big Sky schools receive millions more in subsudies (aka losses) than Idaho those being NAU and Sac State which have to fly everywhere...
Most Big Sky schools receive a million or even a couple million less in subsudies...
Even a handful of bus rides for a 100+ person football traveling squad can save buckets full of money...

Idaho has had 20 years or so to adjust and make it at the FBS level but at some point you simply have to say we are what we are...

(10-14-2016 03:27 PM)00yyz Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:38 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:34 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I wish Idaho would at least try independence. It makes no sense not to. If it's a failure after 2-3 years then you drop down and I'm sure the Big Sky would still be waiting with open arms.

Yep. And then you wouldn't have the booster revolt we have now. Try it and it doesn't work, then what can we say?

I might have a different view on this if we weren't finally fielding a competitive FBS team and if Petrino hadn't built a program with a bit of a foundation out of the rubble left by the sudden WAC dissolution and indifferent previous HC. Just see what happens for a couple years and worst case, we're in the same position we're in right now.

Exactly. Exhaust all avenues. Like you or someone said earlier, it wouldn't have been too difficult to put together an independent schedule

I dont think a school with a 19.2 million FBS athletic budget has the money to exhaust all avenues...
Only one FBS school which is Lousiana Monore has a smaller budget...
There are only a handful of FBS schools with budgets within 10 million more than Idaho and they dont have to fly from one end of the country and back...
FBS football is not cheap and if you cant compete financialy any sucess you have will be fleeting at best...
If Petrino were to have a breakout year almost every school in the country can afford to pay more and hire him away...

The article also fails to mention expenses and only two Big Sky schools receive millions more in subsudies (aka losses) than Idaho those being NAU and Sac State which have to fly everywhere...
Most Big Sky schools receive a million or even a couple million less in subsudies...
Even a handful of bus rides for a 100+ person football traveling squad can save buckets full of money...

Idaho has had 20 years or so to adjust and make it at the FBS level but at some point you simply have to say we are what we are...

This would make sense if indy cost more than FCS. By Staben's own admission, it doesn't. 1-2 more P5 games than we're playing right now more than covers the cost. So what's the problem with 2 years of indy?

(10-14-2016 03:21 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  By the way, NMSU only has 3 games for 2018. Looks like there are no schools available. Guess how hard it would be for Idaho.

NMSU may not have a FBS schedule which may force them to FCS.

That makes me wonder if they will truly stay FBS...
Can NMSU afford to pay a team to go to Las Cruses for a one and done??
What value do other schools see in playing a home and home vs NMSU??
The name on the jersey NMSU does not exactly sell tickets...

(10-14-2016 03:33 PM)00yyz Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:21 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  By the way, NMSU only has 3 games for 2018. Looks like there are no schools available. Guess how hard it would be for Idaho.

NMSU may not have a FBS schedule which may force them to FCS.

That makes me wonder if they will truly stay FBS...
Can NMSU afford to pay a team to go to Las Cruses for a one and done??
What value do other schools see in playing a home and home vs NMSU??
The name on the jersey NMSU does not exactly sell tickets...

You guys are awesome. You have zero knowledge of how many games NMSU actually has. I'm sure they'll announce a schedule when it's finished. That's how they and Idaho both did it in 2013. But don't let that stop you from indulging in your assumptions.

(10-14-2016 03:32 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:27 PM)00yyz Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:38 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:34 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I wish Idaho would at least try independence. It makes no sense not to. If it's a failure after 2-3 years then you drop down and I'm sure the Big Sky would still be waiting with open arms.

Yep. And then you wouldn't have the booster revolt we have now. Try it and it doesn't work, then what can we say?

I might have a different view on this if we weren't finally fielding a competitive FBS team and if Petrino hadn't built a program with a bit of a foundation out of the rubble left by the sudden WAC dissolution and indifferent previous HC. Just see what happens for a couple years and worst case, we're in the same position we're in right now.

Exactly. Exhaust all avenues. Like you or someone said earlier, it wouldn't have been too difficult to put together an independent schedule

I dont think a school with a 19.2 million FBS athletic budget has the money to exhaust all avenues...
Only one FBS school which is Lousiana Monore has a smaller budget...
There are only a handful of FBS schools with budgets within 10 million more than Idaho and they dont have to fly from one end of the country and back...
FBS football is not cheap and if you cant compete financialy any sucess you have will be fleeting at best...
If Petrino were to have a breakout year almost every school in the country can afford to pay more and hire him away...

The article also fails to mention expenses and only two Big Sky schools receive millions more in subsudies (aka losses) than Idaho those being NAU and Sac State which have to fly everywhere...
Most Big Sky schools receive a million or even a couple million less in subsudies...
Even a handful of bus rides for a 100+ person football traveling squad can save buckets full of money...

Idaho has had 20 years or so to adjust and make it at the FBS level but at some point you simply have to say we are what we are...

This would make sense if indy cost more than FCS. By Staben's own admission, it doesn't. 1-2 more P5 games than we're playing right now more than covers the cost. So what's the problem with 2 years of indy?

NMSU said the same thing and since then has not added one single game to their indy schedule that has been made public...
NMSU even said FBS indy would be 1 to 2 million cheaper than FCS which I think is wishful thinking if not fraudulent...

(10-14-2016 02:54 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:38 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:25 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Big Sky officials and Montana journalists have tweeted it out like it was official. Inform us if you have inside info.

https://twitter.com/SkylineSportsMT/stat...6228679680

Your last sentence made me laugh.

This is a contrived issue that is meant to give certain AD's and Presidents an issue to rebel against the Big Sky.

So why are Big Sky AD's telling LIES? Already gave my explanation. Give yours.

I did. I think they will go to a 12 game schedule.

(10-14-2016 03:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:33 PM)00yyz Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:21 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  By the way, NMSU only has 3 games for 2018. Looks like there are no schools available. Guess how hard it would be for Idaho.

NMSU may not have a FBS schedule which may force them to FCS.

That makes me wonder if they will truly stay FBS...
Can NMSU afford to pay a team to go to Las Cruses for a one and done??
What value do other schools see in playing a home and home vs NMSU??
The name on the jersey NMSU does not exactly sell tickets...

You guys are awesome. You have zero knowledge of how many games NMSU actually has. I'm sure they'll announce a schedule when it's finished. That's how they and Idaho both did it in 2013. But don't let that stop you from indulging in your assumptions.

Its good to be awsome...
And this whole entire board is pretty much made up of zero knowedge and assumptions...
For all I know NMSU is simply awaiting to announce the new WAC FBS conference schedule...

Tex,

Well, if the MWC blackball non-conf games against Idaho and NM St ... yeah, it could be tough!

Keep that boot on the throat.

Latah,

Those questions are fine to ask. But I've given you the answer. The fact of the matter is that the CFP owned and managed with 11 equal shares. Each FBS conference + Notre Dame has an equal share.

I know what you're thinking: that's impossible because with "equal clout" the G5 would've given themselves half the money. But see, you're wrong. The reason the CFP structure ended up the way it is now is due to the fact that the G5 knew their place in the pecking order and didn't get too greedy. They negotiated an increase in benefits over what they got from the last BCS iteration, but they didn't try to go for something stupid, like asking for equal money with the P5.

Realize this: there was a big negotiation and process to go from the BCS to the CFP. All of it was discussed, debated, and agreed to. So there's your control. If the P5 didn't like what they were seeing, they wouldn't have agreed to it in the first place. But they did agree to it, because the G5 didn't get greedy and do something stupid.


That's the best I can do. You're well within your right to not believe something posted on an internet message board. But I've also given the link confirming what I say is true.

(10-14-2016 02:03 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 01:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 01:07 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  If nobody wants it. Why are the presidents even considering voting on it?

The want to concoct a mini crisis, which will precipitate two FCS leagues. Don't know who "voted" it in, but it's official for the 2020 season.

The WAC will take six Big Sky teams as well as Wichita St football and UTRGV and the Big Sky will get GCU, UVU, Bake, and Seattle in return. The two FCS leagues will have at least one crossover game.

It's not official. The presidents haven't voted on it yet. I see no reason for anybody to want a 9 game conference schedule unless the BSC asks the NCAA for a permanent 12 game schedule.

The Ohio Valley and Southland conferences proposed the option of an FCS permanent 12 game schedule this year in June so that has already been done. The proposal needs a favorable vote. The Southland already plays a nine game conference schedule. The 2016 season is the second one for the SLC.

http://www.espn.com/espn/wire?section=ncf&id=16074005

Here's a link to a Q&A concerning the proposal by the Southland Conference commissioner.
http://southland.org/news/2016/7/26/FB_0726165753.aspx

And one last thing, because I know you're thinking: yeah ok, but if they have equal shares then why don't they just vote to give themselves half the money now.

It doesn't work that way. The money and the contracts with the networks are locked in, for 12 years.


Really, the CFP doesn't do much. It figures out which teams go to which bowls, and it cuts checks to conferences at the end of the year. It's really not setting many other rules than that.

(10-14-2016 03:42 PM)00yyz Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:33 PM)00yyz Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:21 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  By the way, NMSU only has 3 games for 2018. Looks like there are no schools available. Guess how hard it would be for Idaho.

NMSU may not have a FBS schedule which may force them to FCS.

That makes me wonder if they will truly stay FBS...
Can NMSU afford to pay a team to go to Las Cruses for a one and done??
What value do other schools see in playing a home and home vs NMSU??
The name on the jersey NMSU does not exactly sell tickets...

You guys are awesome. You have zero knowledge of how many games NMSU actually has. I'm sure they'll announce a schedule when it's finished. That's how they and Idaho both did it in 2013. But don't let that stop you from indulging in your assumptions.

Its good to be awsome...
And this whole entire board is pretty much made up of zero knowedge and assumptions...
For all I know NMSU is simply awaiting to announce the new WAC FBS conference schedule...

NMSU seems to be waiting to see what happens in realignment before announcing future schedules. Mochia said he has has been working on schedule and it was close during the early summer, and that he hoped to announce by the first game. I'm pretty confident that the flux in realignment has been the major factor in not publicly announcing what has already been negotiated.
This is putting together my inferences from what was said rather than a direct statement, but it makes sense to wait.