(10-24-2016 09:55 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 08:13 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Or until the G5 start complaining that it isn't fair the P5 get autobids and demand all G5 get an autobid too.

Though to be clear, I don't believe in Autobids for anyone even in an 8 team playoff. Winning your conference should be a bonus but not a gurantee

Completely agree. The best eight teams should qualify regardless if they win their CCG or not.

The problem with not having autobids is that it makes what happens on the field formally irrelevant - team A could win all its games but if a panel of judges think they are the #9 team (assuming an 8 team playoff), no dice.

So it makes sense to have autobids for the P5 conferences, then have 3 at-large slots open to accommodate the top G5 team and/or other teams that would seem to obviously be in the top 8 despite not winning their conference (e.g., Alabama in 2011).

(10-24-2016 09:45 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  "In releasing its sales pitch to the Big 12, UConn showed an athletic budget of nearly $80 million a year, the most of non-Power 5 schools. The school showed $27 million in subsidies in 2014, $28 million in 2015 and estimates of $35.2 million in 2016 and $39.2 million in 2017. Much of the money will come from student fees. Good grief. Those numbers are either the best argument to drop football and join the Big East or attack on all fronts to infiltrate the Power 5 structure. I vote the latter course for the next few years."

This is not specific to UConn, but there in lies the inevitable ever-expanding bubble that, in theory, will eventually burst. You can only raise student fees and costs so much so to a point where you eventually start losing students because going to the university becomes too expensive. UConn (and Cincinnati and USF) had some extra cash these past few years thanks to the Big East war chest and severance package. That will soon dry up (I believe next year).

I'm not sure of what the answer to this question is, but at what point does that benefit no longer meet the cost and expense? There is a lot of non-tangible profit in college athletics - it is a marketing, branding and exposure tool that is not easily quantifiable in numbers. However, when it is clear that a school is shelling out mass amounts of money and resources to a product that A.) hasn't been getting the desired results on the field against other similar competition since the program was elevated to FBS and B.) isn't good enough to propel it into a power conference, at what point does the institution wave the white flag and pull the plug on those resources?

For the sake of the fellow UConn fans on this board, I truly hope that they never have to see the answer to that question (and one day soon get into a power conference), but there is a very real long-term problem for the future of UConn football.

I wouldn't use UCONN as the performance example for my argument related to FB revenues (for BB UConn would be the poster child) but there are a number of schools in the P5 who are not as good as a number of G5 schools year in, year out in FB or BB over a long course of years & yet those perennial cellar dwellers in each of the power conferences continue to benefit from P5 $$ simply because they are there, adding nothing beyond a guaranteed P5 win for the P5 elite. This argument of "not good enough" is hollow. There are a number of worthy G5 competitors & the issue is that the P5 conferences don't play them with regularity or want them in their conferences because they are afraid with equal resources those G5 competitors can prove themselves worthy to be there by the objective competition on the field & on the court. Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition. And they certainly don't want the association that would cause the P5 to have to share the resources. The NCAA BB tourney shows virtually every year that a non-P5 school can win or make at least the final 16 schools. And a similar broadened FB playoff would likely show the same thing (if that broadened field included several G5 schools rather than some arbitrary & subjective means to insure P5 preeminence). But of course the P5 want to use other means when the objective means of performance doesn't prove their dominance to at least support the assertion by whatever subjective criteria is required to avoid direct, repeated & regular on the field competition where revenue would go to the top performers. Other subjective means are then employed such as endowment totals, academic rankings etc where those making the judgements define the criteria used & make the judgments too - whatever it takes to muddy the objective criteria of head to head competition & from that determine who are the real power performers - and God forbid, determine the financial rewards for that performance.

(10-25-2016 08:06 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition.

What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:06 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition.

What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years. But that isn't the point, if you don't like the inclusion of Memphis that's OK too, but doesn't negate the reality of the P5 club........and BTW, look back in several more years and you will see the Memphis performance to which you reference was just a cycle down. Even ND has had down cycles over the years with a lot better resources.

(10-25-2016 08:19 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:06 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition.

What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years.

I just went back to 1980 - pretty far back. Over that long term time, you've basically sucked. Since that year, you have lost at least NINE games in a season 12 times. You've won at least 9 games in a season all of 3 times, and two of those were the last two years!

Come on man.

(10-25-2016 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:19 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:06 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition.

What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years.

I just went back to 1980 - pretty far back. Over that long term time, you've basically sucked. Since that year, you have lost at least NINE games in a season 12 times. You've won at least 9 games in a season all of 3 times, and two of those were the last two years!

Come on man.

My point has nothing to do with Memphis really but I can see a USF guy whose team has never won at anything wanting to deflect from the point of the discussion & major on the minor. Again forget Memphis if you don't like their inclusion even though Memphis had over 200 wins before USF even knew how to spell football.

(10-25-2016 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:19 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:06 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition.

What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years.

I just went back to 1980 - pretty far back. Over that long term time, you've basically sucked. Since that year, you have lost at least NINE games in a season 12 times. You've won at least 9 games in a season all of 3 times, and two of those were the last two years!

Come on man.

I have to agree.

Memphis
2002 3-9
2003 9-4
2004 8-4
2005 7-5
2006 2-10
2007 7-6
2008 6-7
2009 2-10
2010 1-11
2011 2-10
2012 4-8
2013 3-9
2014 10-3
2015 9-4
2016 5-2

(10-24-2016 08:59 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 07:25 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:00 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:24 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:14 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  If the public has made it clear that they want to see P5 programming, why is it that UConn's FB, MBB, and WBB is played across ESPN and ESPN2 tenfold that of schools like Wake Forest and BC and double that of many other P5 schools.

Does ESPN not care about its ratings?

To claim ESPN has helped UConn is offensively wrong. They have done nothing to help their state university, nor were they expected to.

So 1980-2003 didn't happen?

Holy cow, if you're going to go into prehistory then acknowledge that UConn helped ESPN in the most profound way possible. ESPN was created by UConn people to show UConn sports 24/7. That was its origin. The fact that another sports channel would have been created to dominate the scene IF UConn peeps didn't create ESPN is about as relevant as your point about ESPN and the Big East. The fact remains, one of the big reasons why the Big East became ESPN's initial brand is because UConn was in it and because ESPN was originally created in the late 1970s to show UConn sports.

Okay so much to make of this word salad. 30 years ago isn't prehistory. The Big East didn't become ESPN's initial brand because of UConn. The Big East became the brand because of Georgetown, Syracuse, St. John's, Villanova and BC. Once again, UConn struggled for the entirety of the 1980's failing to make the NCAA's that entire decade. I don't know how you can say with a straight face that UConn is the reason the Big East became ESPN's initial brand. The Hoyas/Redmen 1985 Sweater game was the highest rated regular season basketball game maybe to this day and if not then for at least 20 years and ESPN was the one airing it. Games like that made ESPN, not UConn.

I know you think the world revolves around Storrs but it really doesn't.

We went through this a couple of weeks ago.

1. UConn did not struggle its first 3 years.

Secondly, you play dense because you don't want to admit facts. And the facts are, ESPN started as the UConn channel. It was started by UConn people to show UConn sports 24/7. When it picked up the Big East in 1979, it went from showing UConn to showing the Big East.

This is FACT.

Even if I agree that theu didn't struggle the first three years does that erase the next 7? Also by didn't struggle you mean middle of the pack a few times?

ESPN was in a trailer when the Big East signed a deal with them. UConn didn't make ESPN. UConn and the Whalers were all they could get prior to the Big East. So the Big East made ESPN.

I might play dense but at least im not actually dense.

(10-25-2016 09:00 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:19 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:06 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition.

What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years.

I just went back to 1980 - pretty far back. Over that long term time, you've basically sucked. Since that year, you have lost at least NINE games in a season 12 times. You've won at least 9 games in a season all of 3 times, and two of those were the last two years!

Come on man.

I have to agree.

Memphis
2002 3-9
2003 9-4
2004 8-4
2005 7-5
2006 2-10
2007 7-6
2008 6-7
2009 2-10
2010 1-11
2011 2-10
2012 4-8
2013 3-9
2014 10-3
2015 9-4
2016 5-2

You have to go back farther, but the time did exist in the 50s-70s when Memphis competed with everybody, and was quite successful, beating all but one SEC team, + USC, etc. But most of that time, bowl games were scarce, mostly went to conference champs, and for 25 years, Memphis was not in a conference in football.

Should that guarantee Memphis anything in football? Of course not, but it does belie the fact that we cannot compete with the big boys. We had a bad 6 year stretch shown above, which was the last 2 years of Tommy West (after he had a heart attack and stopped recruiting), 2 years of Larry Porter (our version of UL's Kragthorpe), and the first 2 years of Fuente rebuilding the team.

Plus, football suffered b/c Calipari convinced our admin and boosters to pour all our effort into basketball. Good short term, bad long term. That direction has now been corrected, and we are striving to be good in both.

Memphis is certainly competitive with all those other teams mentioned above now, and has the admin and booster commitment to continue. We are never going to be a top SEC team, but hell, the majority of the P5 teams won't be, either.

(10-25-2016 09:22 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 09:00 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:19 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years.

I just went back to 1980 - pretty far back. Over that long term time, you've basically sucked. Since that year, you have lost at least NINE games in a season 12 times. You've won at least 9 games in a season all of 3 times, and two of those were the last two years!

Come on man.

I have to agree.

Memphis
2002 3-9
2003 9-4
2004 8-4
2005 7-5
2006 2-10
2007 7-6
2008 6-7
2009 2-10
2010 1-11
2011 2-10
2012 4-8
2013 3-9
2014 10-3
2015 9-4
2016 5-2

You have to go back farther, but the time did exist in the 50s-70s when Memphis competed with everybody, and was quite successful, beating all but one SEC team, + USC, etc. But most of that time, bowl games were scarce, mostly went to conference champs, and for 25 years, Memphis was not in a conference in football.

I looked at the historical records, and between 1960 and 1979, you guys were 10-26 against SEC teams, with the great bulk of those games against Ole Miss and Mississippi State. Is that competing effectively? I don't know.

In the 1970s, your overall record was 60-48, basically an average record of 6-5, and that was against a typical schedule that featured about 3-4 games against weak Power conference teams each year.

A typical year was 1977. You guys went 6-5 that year, and your key games were losses to 5-6 Ole Miss, 4-7 Tennessee, and 10-2 independent FSU, and a win over 5-6 Mississippi State.

I mean, come on.

(10-25-2016 08:56 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:19 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:06 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Schools like UH, BYU, Cincy, Memphis, BSU, Navy & a doz others have shown for long periods over multiple years they can compete but the fact is that the P5 don't want more competition.

What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years.

I just went back to 1980 - pretty far back. Over that long term time, you've basically sucked. Since that year, you have lost at least NINE games in a season 12 times. You've won at least 9 games in a season all of 3 times, and two of those were the last two years!

Come on man.

My point has nothing to do with Memphis really but I can see a USF guy whose team has never won at anything wanting to deflect from the point of the discussion & major on the minor. Again forget Memphis if you don't like their inclusion even though Memphis had over 200 wins before USF even knew how to spell football.

Ah - the old "deflection" argument. An internet favorite go to response when one's ox has just been gored. I'm not a USF guy. I just trust actual data instead of my faulty memory. Here's some actual data.

Over the past 40 seasons, Memphis' football team has a win % of .398 (counting ties as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss). They have had 13 winning seasons, 25 losing seasons and 2 break even seasons.

They won 7 or more games 7 times (assuming they do so this year). They lost 7 or more games 20 times in those 40 years.

While it is true that your argument is the same if you exclude Memphis, the reality is that for all but a handful of G5 teams, fans' memory of their past successes is usually rosier than actual data would show. And what records they have were largely compiled against G5 level competition. Given the historic win% of power conference teams vs G5 level teams, it is reasonable to conclude that very few G5 schools would have winning records in a power conference.

That's not to say they would be embarrassed in a power conference any more than the schools that historically perform in the bottom half of theirs. So simple winning percentages aren't the main reason schools associate with one another in conferences. If your school doesn't satisfy enough of the other reasons schools choose to associate, you probably won't be invited to join them. That may be disappointing for the schools that are left out, but there's a lot more to it than greed or conspiracies. History and geography matter.

(10-24-2016 11:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 09:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 09:12 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 08:26 AM)westwolf Wrote:  http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-husk...olumn.html

Grow up, CT

Think about that. Gov. Malloy doesn't have to jump ugly in public, but a strong message of cooperation should be clear. You want tax breaks from the state? Give the state flagship university some breaks.


Wow. How banana-republic corrupt should we ask ESPN to be?

Well they are corrupt we already know that. The Gov and the legislature should have put that pressure on ESPN a long time ago when there actually were openings. Now the problem is leagues aren't really looking to expand. They should have pulled that card when the ACC was in full raid mode.

What is your definition of corrupt? That they don't do what you would like them to do? That they make business decisions designed to benefit their stakeholders? That they pay more to the conferences that they think will make them more profitable?

College football is a business. The entertainment business, to be more precise. In that business, the stars get paid more than the rest of the cast, because the public has made clear that's who they want to see perform.

In other businesses, some brands are perceived to be better than others in ways that consumers value. Mercedes can charge more for their cars because of their perceived superiority. Should governments step in and insist that consumers pay as much for a Chevy or a Kia because that's "fairer" to all the competitors in the auto industry?

UConn is a Johnny-come-lately to big time sports, especially football. ESPN has helped them get as far as they have. But it's not ESPN's job to subsidize them just so they can play on a bigger stage than they played in before the Big East was formed.

There is UConn's problem in one sentence. UConn should have invested in football decades ago, but didn't. Failure to do so haunts them today.

Well, that is undeniably true. While other programs in a similar situation were investing in their football programs, Connecticut was investing that money in it's women's basketball program. It was a an unorthodox choice by them and they are paying for it now.

(10-25-2016 10:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 09:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 09:12 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  Think about that. Gov. Malloy doesn't have to jump ugly in public, but a strong message of cooperation should be clear. You want tax breaks from the state? Give the state flagship university some breaks.


Wow. How banana-republic corrupt should we ask ESPN to be?

Well they are corrupt we already know that. The Gov and the legislature should have put that pressure on ESPN a long time ago when there actually were openings. Now the problem is leagues aren't really looking to expand. They should have pulled that card when the ACC was in full raid mode.

What is your definition of corrupt? That they don't do what you would like them to do? That they make business decisions designed to benefit their stakeholders? That they pay more to the conferences that they think will make them more profitable?

College football is a business. The entertainment business, to be more precise. In that business, the stars get paid more than the rest of the cast, because the public has made clear that's who they want to see perform.

In other businesses, some brands are perceived to be better than others in ways that consumers value. Mercedes can charge more for their cars because of their perceived superiority. Should governments step in and insist that consumers pay as much for a Chevy or a Kia because that's "fairer" to all the competitors in the auto industry?

UConn is a Johnny-come-lately to big time sports, especially football. ESPN has helped them get as far as they have. But it's not ESPN's job to subsidize them just so they can play on a bigger stage than they played in before the Big East was formed.

There is UConn's problem in one sentence. UConn should have invested in football decades ago, but didn't. Failure to do so haunts them today.

Well, that is undeniably true. While other programs in a similar situation were investing in their football programs, Connecticut was investing that money in it's women's basketball program. It was a an unorthodox choice by them and they are paying for it now.

Haha. UConn wasn't really "investing" in women's basketball. It sort of just happened. However, at least UConn has championship men's and women's basketball teams. What has Pitt invested in that is national championship material?
<crickets>

I wonder when the senate calls in the CEOs of both ESPN and Fox and call in all of the leaders of the Big 12? They might call in the NCAA as well. They could faced anti-trust on the NCAA and the P5 part for not including other schools which includes G5, FCS, D2, D3 and nAIA schools. And they could look into interference by the Networks on how they disrupt and destroy conferences. The politicians could forced all the conference, Longhorns and other tv contracts void and null because what happened to the SWC, WAC, MVC, Big 12, Big East and others. Some cases that could go against the networks and the P5 is why several G5 schools have a much better tv ratings than several P5 schools?

(10-25-2016 09:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:56 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:19 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What? Memphis has had two pretty good football years the past two but before that you were terrible. You've never proven over any length of time that you can compete at a high level in football.

How old are you qv? Take a look at the record long term & who Memphis has beat of the years.

I just went back to 1980 - pretty far back. Over that long term time, you've basically sucked. Since that year, you have lost at least NINE games in a season 12 times. You've won at least 9 games in a season all of 3 times, and two of those were the last two years!

Come on man.

My point has nothing to do with Memphis really but I can see a USF guy whose team has never won at anything wanting to deflect from the point of the discussion & major on the minor. Again forget Memphis if you don't like their inclusion even though Memphis had over 200 wins before USF even knew how to spell football.

Ah - the old "deflection" argument. An internet favorite go to response when one's ox has just been gored. I'm not a USF guy. I just trust actual data instead of my faulty memory. Here's some actual data.

Over the past 40 seasons, Memphis' football team has a win % of .398 (counting ties as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss). They have had 13 winning seasons, 25 losing seasons and 2 break even seasons.

They won 7 or more games 7 times (assuming they do so this year). They lost 7 or more games 20 times in those 40 years.

While it is true that your argument is the same if you exclude Memphis, the reality is that for all but a handful of G5 teams, fans' memory of their past successes is usually rosier than actual data would show. And what records they have were largely compiled against G5 level competition. Given the historic win% of power conference teams vs G5 level teams, it is reasonable to conclude that very few G5 schools would have winning records in a power conference.

That's not to say they would be embarrassed in a power conference any more than the schools that historically perform in the bottom half of theirs. So simple winning percentages aren't the main reason schools associate with one another in conferences. If your school doesn't satisfy enough of the other reasons schools choose to associate, you probably won't be invited to join them. That may be disappointing for the schools that are left out, but there's a lot more to it than greed or conspiracies. History and geography matter.

The point is there are many P5 schools that get the financial benefits while providing little competition or even the effort to compete, providing only the benefit to their P5 club members of an easy P5 win. Further if a number of G5 schools received those benefits they very well might compete consistently at the highest levels. And the P5 knows this and makes every effort to preclude the access opportunities for these G5 schools to objectively show their abilities to compete on the FB field. When G5 schools do play P5 programs it is always with the inherit disadvantages of not having the benefits of club membership. The NCAA BB tourney is objective proof positive of G5 schools ability to compete even with the financial advantages of P5 $$ because they have comparative access to demonstrate their relative parity.

(10-24-2016 04:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 03:51 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:12 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  The thing that should happen is an
Equal shot to the playoff system
And then revenue would take care of itself
Who would watch the 8 divisions of NFL
Football if only 4 of the divisions have a chance
For the post season

FBS football is the only sport on any level that is like that
The cartel saw Bosie State getting
too popular and knocking off big
Programs so they fixed that with the
New playoff system

All collegiate sports except FBS schools have the same path to the playoffs.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CSNbbs mobile app

FIFY.

Well, that's just not true. Both Alabama and South Alabama have the same path to the playoffs - get ranked in the top 4 by the CFP committee.

Uh huh.

(10-25-2016 10:43 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 10:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 09:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Well they are corrupt we already know that. The Gov and the legislature should have put that pressure on ESPN a long time ago when there actually were openings. Now the problem is leagues aren't really looking to expand. They should have pulled that card when the ACC was in full raid mode.

What is your definition of corrupt? That they don't do what you would like them to do? That they make business decisions designed to benefit their stakeholders? That they pay more to the conferences that they think will make them more profitable?

College football is a business. The entertainment business, to be more precise. In that business, the stars get paid more than the rest of the cast, because the public has made clear that's who they want to see perform.

In other businesses, some brands are perceived to be better than others in ways that consumers value. Mercedes can charge more for their cars because of their perceived superiority. Should governments step in and insist that consumers pay as much for a Chevy or a Kia because that's "fairer" to all the competitors in the auto industry?

UConn is a Johnny-come-lately to big time sports, especially football. ESPN has helped them get as far as they have. But it's not ESPN's job to subsidize them just so they can play on a bigger stage than they played in before the Big East was formed.

There is UConn's problem in one sentence. UConn should have invested in football decades ago, but didn't. Failure to do so haunts them today.

Well, that is undeniably true. While other programs in a similar situation were investing in their football programs, Connecticut was investing that money in it's women's basketball program. It was a an unorthodox choice by them and they are paying for it now.

Haha. UConn wasn't really "investing" in women's basketball. It sort of just happened. However, at least UConn has championship men's and women's basketball teams. What has Pitt invested in that is national championship material?
<crickets>

They invested in Football long before UConn did and they have always been part of the football power structure. Now UConn has won national titles in both mens and womens basketball but Geno will retire soon and what he's done will never be repeated. He's the John Wooden of womens BBall. The mens program is about to be drowned by the football anchor. Ollie won a title with Calhouns players and has performed well in the AAC tournament they have struggled in the conference regular season. SMU losing Larry Brown will hurt the conferences RPI as the years go forward which in turn will hurt UConn if they continue to finish in the middle of the pack of the AAC. I don't see the AAC being able to keep up financially in BBall with the ACC, Big East, Big Ten and even the SEC. Those surrounding conferences will always get first crack at recruits and coaches over the AAC schools.

Call this trolling but it's the truth. If UConn stays the course they are in for a long tough uncertain road ahead.

(10-25-2016 11:04 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  The NCAA BB tourney is objective proof positive of G5 schools ability to compete even with the financial advantages of P5 $$ because they have comparative access to demonstrate their relative parity.

Well, if we count the Big East as a "power" basketball conference, and I think we should, then in the past 50 years there have only been 3 hoops national champs that haven't come from a "power" league - Marquette in 1977, UNLV in 1990, and UConn in 2014.

And UConn really did come from a Power league, because the AAC that year still had Louisville, who hadn't yet joined the ACC. The AAC was still a "BCS-AQ" league that season, still part of the club.

So really, just two non-power champs in the past 50 years, and none in the past 1/4 century.

(10-25-2016 11:07 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 04:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 03:51 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 02:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:12 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  The thing that should happen is an
Equal shot to the playoff system
And then revenue would take care of itself
Who would watch the 8 divisions of NFL
Football if only 4 of the divisions have a chance
For the post season

FBS football is the only sport on any level that is like that
The cartel saw Bosie State getting
too popular and knocking off big
Programs so they fixed that with the
New playoff system

All collegiate sports except FBS schools have the same path to the playoffs.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CSNbbs mobile app

FIFY.

Well, that's just not true. Both Alabama and South Alabama have the same path to the playoffs - get ranked in the top 4 by the CFP committee.

Uh huh.

Well whether you accept it or not, it is true. USA and Alabama have the exact same formal path to the playoffs.

(10-25-2016 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 11:04 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  The NCAA BB tourney is objective proof positive of G5 schools ability to compete even with the financial advantages of P5 $$ because they have comparative access to demonstrate their relative parity.

Well, if we count the Big East as a "power" basketball conference, and I think we should, then in the past 50 years there have only been 3 hoops national champs that haven't come from a "power" league - Marquette in 1977, UNLV in 1990, and UConn in 2014.

And UConn really did come from a Power league, because the AAC that year still had Louisville, who hadn't yet joined the ACC. The AAC was still a "BCS-AQ" league that season, still part of the club.

So really, just two non-power champs in the past 50 years, and none in the past 1/4 century.

50 years ago would be 1966 so I think we should include another non-power league school that won a national championship and that would be Texas Western (now UTEP). I'll soon have to give up the 50 year inclusion but not just yet.