(12-06-2023 11:50 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 08:56 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 08:22 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This proposal will get altered as it works through the NCAA before being passed. But, it is clear that the ability to spend is how the haves will eliminate the have-nots from being part of this new subdivision, which is what I've been expecting.

We know that the SEC, B1G, Big12, and ACC.... if they don't go the way of the PAC, will all make the cut. But, will the AAC? Or will a combination of AAC and MWC programs have an airport meeting and gain a place in this proposed subdivision? This thing could go a few different ways.

By my calculations UNT would have to funnel around $8 million a year just to pay all of our athletes and meet the standards of this proposed subdivision. Of course there will be other mandates, like services, and academic benefits that will also increase expenses for our athletic department. But having said that, I feel like North Texas could afford the expense. The Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex is still exploding economically and in population, and the University of North Texas enrollment is growing and flush with cash. How many other AAC programs could afford to be a part of this proposed subdivision?

UNT barely raised $100,000 for NIL but can afford the $8,000,000 amount. Sure.

The estimated $8 million per year would be the absolute bare minimum that allows you to "opt in." There is, in fact, no limit on how much a school could set aside for each of the athletes. But the bare minimum that 'buys you a ticket into a club that you can't afford to be in' is $30,000 per year per athlete for half your athletes and this includes women's programs. I would bet a lot of folks in this forum are in denial.

Thinking about the costs of opting in are 1 side of the equation, but you have to be in denial to not think about the costs of opting out. Do you think ESPN would be required to honor the AAC's TV deal if the league opted out of the top division of athletics? I kinda doubt it, and right there you just automatically cost yourself as an OG member more than the minimum cost of paying this. Then do you think Memphis could maintain even half of corporate and individual donations they currently receive as a member of FCS 2.0?

Just the name recognition and advertising value of college athletics is worth 8 million dollars a year for a university at the current AAC level.

(12-06-2023 12:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:08 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well okay let's pretend that ECU, for an example, has the extra $8 million to pay out each year. They opt in paying the minimum amount. So what does that get them? Big 10 schools will be getting close to 100 million dollars each. Do you think you'll be competing with big 10 schools for players? Or sec schools? Note that this estimated 8 million is the minimum. ECU is not going to look any better compared to P4 schools then it does now. Now do that 8 million year after year after year and see where your program lands. You'll be bled dry without some income source that doesn't exist now.

Okay yes, all of that is true, you are essentially paying 6-8 million a year to keep the status quo. Where do you think the ECU program lands if you willingly opt into joining FCS 2.0? Option 1 is bled dry over time and option 2 is instant death.

Are you actually advocating for Memphis to willingly drop?

No I'm not advocating for Memphis to "willingly drop." I am saying that Memphis likely can't afford the extra $8 million a year, year after year, and essentially get no benefit from it other than a vote at the table that sets the opt-in rules. The schools with the money will still get the players they want and the schools without the money will get the players that the 'moneyed' schools don't want. So Memphis will pay money it can't afford to essentially stay where it's at. With the clear divisions between schools with money and schools without money only enhanced by wasting 8 million every year.

(12-06-2023 12:21 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:08 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well okay let's pretend that ECU, for an example, has the extra $8 million to pay out each year. They opt in paying the minimum amount. So what does that get them? Big 10 schools will be getting close to 100 million dollars each. Do you think you'll be competing with big 10 schools for players? Or sec schools? Note that this estimated 8 million is the minimum. ECU is not going to look any better compared to P4 schools then it does now. Now do that 8 million year after year after year and see where your program lands. You'll be bled dry without some income source that doesn't exist now.

Okay yes, all of that is true, you are essentially paying 6-8 million a year to keep the status quo. Where do you think the ECU program lands if you willingly opt into joining FCS 2.0? Option 1 is bled dry over time and option 2 is instant death.

Are you actually advocating for Memphis to willingly drop?

No I'm not advocating for Memphis to "willingly drop." I am saying that Memphis likely can't afford the extra $8 million a year, year after year, and essentially get no benefit from it other than a vote at the table that sets the opt-in rules. The schools with the money will still get the players they want and the schools without the money will get the players that the 'moneyed' schools don't want. So Memphis will pay money it can't afford to essentially stay where it's at. With the clear divisions between schools with money and schools without money only enhanced by wasting 8 million every year.

Okay, so yes we agree it would suck and we also agree that you have to do it because option 2 is the death of your athletic program.

Okay that's fine.... if ECU can afford it and are willing then knock yourselves out. But I think the point of all of this is to allow the P4 schools to make their own rules, that is, pay the players as much as they think they're worth and otherwise create the rules they want to apply to themselves. In other words create even further separation from the rest of us. That includes an ECU where that 8 million *every year* will likely buy a few wins against other G5 type schools. It ain't going to buy you anything else and you'll still be hanging around with the rest of us .... waiting and hoping with every realignment for that golden ticket that never comes.

And by the way opting in or not doesn't destroy your program. You'll just be in that much larger class of schools that opted out. You'll be operating in that universe which is kind of what we're doing now anyway just not as formalized.

(12-06-2023 12:42 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  And by the way opting in or not doesn't destroy your program. You'll just be in that much larger class of schools that opted out. You'll be operating in that universe which is kind of what we're doing now anyway just not as formalized.

What is the current interest level and support for FCS football? How often do you see regular season FCS football on TV? How many FCS programs have 30-40k fans in the stands for games? Make no mistake that's the option you choose if you opt out. Also, if 40 or so current FBS programs opted out that means you are now ahead of them on the pecking order for players, same as pretty much any FBS program is ahead of FCS programs for players because they are at the "top level."

True, if you put away $30,000 for male **and** female athletes every year,.. or $120,000 over each of their 4 year stay.. you will be ahead of the poor schools that don't do it. But likely no one else. And like I said if ECU can afford that kind of money to gain that kind of benefit then good for you guys. And one other point. This isn't a proposal coming from the P4 schools. This is a proposal coming from the NCAA itself which likely means the P4 schools may be able to negotiate something even better. It's also a way, or rather an attempt, for the NCAA to save itself from the lawsuits coming down the legal pipeline. If most g5s are required to pay players then I see a lot of those schools dropping a lot of their athletic programs. That is, the NCAA will have nothing to oversee when the dust settles. The mega money schools certainly won't have to listen to them.

NCAA president said the buy-in would cost about 12 to 15 million a year. Then he says this...

100-ish schools. If he's just talking about football playing schools

69 P4 Schools
14 AAC Schools
12 MWC Schools
UCONN
Liberty

That put us at 97 schools.

I would assume that if basketball schools come along you'd add:

10 more Big East Schools
Gonzaga
Wichita State
Unknown number of A-10, MVC, and additional WCC schools.

(12-06-2023 03:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  100-ish schools. If he's just talking about football playing schools

69 P4 Schools
14 AAC Schools
12 MWC Schools
UCONN
Liberty

That put us at 97 schools.

I would assume that if basketball schools come along you'd add:

10 more Big East Schools
Gonzaga
Wichita State
Unknown number of A-10, MVC, and additional WCC schools.

You must be out of your mind.

I don't think it will really change anything in the long run. The top schools will still get the top kids coming out of HS, but it is not like there are any more of them than their were before. The end mix will be similar to what it is now.

The transfer portal probably changes things more, because the guys that break out at the lower levels have a chance to go to a big name school later. But the flip side is that some of the guys who don't work out at the big schools can switch to a lower level school and get a shot to play.

The number of kids coming out of HS and the number of spots stays the same and long term I don't think this will impact the mix of players per institution at all. That does not mean that there will not be winners and losers out of all this, just that it will not be all gloom and doom either.

Now the service academies are at a distinct disadvantage because they cannot really get transfers or pay NIL. Something there will probably have to give for us to continue to compete, but it will require some budge in Congress for NIL as that is currently prohibited for service members as the law is currently.

I saw a tweet saying the average university has 400 student athletes. Paying half of them $30k would be $6 million but for arguments sake let’s bump it up to $7 million.

ECU made $8.3 million last year from the conference distributions. This money can be used to pay the athletes in this new proposal correct? If so you pay the $7 million, have $1.3 left over and you haven’t even tapped in to your NIL and other contributions.

On the flip side, we willfully accept our demotion into division 2. The AAC payout almost assuredly drops significantly and ECU most likely decides we need a more regional conference and opts to join the sunbelt. Goes from making $8.3 to 1.4 (believe that’s correct) in the SBC and takes a $7 mil pay cut anyway. This also doesn’t even take into account how much we’d lose from diminished fan support at the d2 level. How does that make sense? What am I missing?

(12-06-2023 03:39 PM)Vonz90 Wrote:  I don't think it will really change anything in the long run. The top schools will still get the top kids coming out of HS, but it is not like there are any more of them than their were before. The end mix will be similar to what it is now.

The transfer portal probably changes things more, because the guys that break out at the lower levels have a chance to go to a big name school later. But the flip side is that some of the guys who don't work out at the big schools can switch to a lower level school and get a shot to play.

The number of kids coming out of HS and the number of spots stays the same and long term I don't think this will impact the mix of players per institution at all. That does not mean that there will not be winners and losers out of all this, just that it will not be all gloom and doom either.

Now the service academies are at a distinct disadvantage because they cannot really get transfers or pay NIL. Something there will probably have to give for us to continue to compete, but it will require some budge in Congress for NIL as that is currently prohibited for service members as the law is currently.

Sort of my thinking also. If you truly have 100 schools that 'opt in' out of 133 what changes for those g5s that opt in? With a talent continuing to go to the top schools and or the schools that can pay the most. So you slice off 30 schools who opt out. Big deal. And who says everyone in the ACC or Mountain West goes along with this. Sounds more like each school decides on its own but maybe I miss something.

(12-06-2023 04:35 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 03:39 PM)Vonz90 Wrote:  I don't think it will really change anything in the long run. The top schools will still get the top kids coming out of HS, but it is not like there are any more of them than their were before. The end mix will be similar to what it is now.

The transfer portal probably changes things more, because the guys that break out at the lower levels have a chance to go to a big name school later. But the flip side is that some of the guys who don't work out at the big schools can switch to a lower level school and get a shot to play.

The number of kids coming out of HS and the number of spots stays the same and long term I don't think this will impact the mix of players per institution at all. That does not mean that there will not be winners and losers out of all this, just that it will not be all gloom and doom either.

Now the service academies are at a distinct disadvantage because they cannot really get transfers or pay NIL. Something there will probably have to give for us to continue to compete, but it will require some budge in Congress for NIL as that is currently prohibited for service members as the law is currently.

Sort of my thinking also. If you truly have 100 schools that 'opt in' out of 133 what changes for those g5s that opt in? With a talent continuing to go to the top schools and or the schools that can pay the most. So you slice off 30 schools who opt out. Big deal. And who says everyone in the ACC or Mountain West goes along with this. Sounds more like each school decides on its own but maybe I miss something.

Its not 100 of 133. It's 100 of all D1 (think Big East, A10, WCC, MVC, etc.).

I'm not sure if that number will come out 100ish or not.

69 P4
14 AAC
11 BE

That is 94 right there. BE for basketball and the AAC has a minimum requirement for budgets already in place.

I suspect others will want to opt-in beyond this in G5 and basketball conferences.

Number will probably be closer to 150.

(12-06-2023 12:08 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well okay let's pretend that ECU, for an example, has the extra $8 million to pay out each year. They opt in paying the minimum amount. So what does that get them? Big 10 schools will be getting close to 100 million dollars each. Do you think you'll be competing with big 10 schools for players? Or sec schools? Note that this estimated 8 million is the minimum. Do you think these schools will be paying the minimum for players they want? ECU is not going to look any better compared to P4 schools then it does now. Now do that 8 million year after year after year and see where your program lands. You'll be bled dry without some income source that doesn't exist now. Oh, and you'll probably be able to beat Charlotte for those opt-in years...for what it's worth...

clt says charlotte and ecu will get some $ when NC finally gets online betting up and running

If this "subdivision" pays players, it will have to pay ALL PLAYERS, ALL SPORTS under title 9. Will they simply become employees? Will they be covered by collective bargaining agreements, join unions, be able to strike? I guess this will end college sports eventually.

(12-06-2023 03:24 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 03:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  100-ish schools. If he's just talking about football playing schools

69 P4 Schools
14 AAC Schools
12 MWC Schools
UCONN
Liberty

That put us at 97 schools.

I would assume that if basketball schools come along you'd add:

10 more Big East Schools
Gonzaga
Wichita State
Unknown number of A-10, MVC, and additional WCC schools.

You must be out of your mind.

Why? According to ncaa president baker he expects 100-ish football programs to opt in. That would look something like above.

(12-06-2023 06:25 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  I'm not sure if that number will come out 100ish or not.

69 P4
14 AAC
11 BE

That is 94 right there. BE for basketball and the AAC has a minimum requirement for budgets already in place.

I suspect others will want to opt-in beyond this in G5 and basketball conferences.

Number will probably be closer to 150.

I thin Dellinger assumed it was 100 football playing schools.

(12-06-2023 12:14 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:50 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 08:56 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 08:22 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This proposal will get altered as it works through the NCAA before being passed. But, it is clear that the ability to spend is how the haves will eliminate the have-nots from being part of this new subdivision, which is what I've been expecting.

We know that the SEC, B1G, Big12, and ACC.... if they don't go the way of the PAC, will all make the cut. But, will the AAC? Or will a combination of AAC and MWC programs have an airport meeting and gain a place in this proposed subdivision? This thing could go a few different ways.

By my calculations UNT would have to funnel around $8 million a year just to pay all of our athletes and meet the standards of this proposed subdivision. Of course there will be other mandates, like services, and academic benefits that will also increase expenses for our athletic department. But having said that, I feel like North Texas could afford the expense. The Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex is still exploding economically and in population, and the University of North Texas enrollment is growing and flush with cash. How many other AAC programs could afford to be a part of this proposed subdivision?

UNT barely raised $100,000 for NIL but can afford the $8,000,000 amount. Sure.

The estimated $8 million per year would be the absolute bare minimum that allows you to "opt in." There is, in fact, no limit on how much a school could set aside for each of the athletes. But the bare minimum that 'buys you a ticket into a club that you can't afford to be in' is $30,000 per year per athlete for half your athletes and this includes women's programs. I would bet a lot of folks in this forum are in denial.

Thinking about the costs of opting in are 1 side of the equation, but you have to be in denial to not think about the costs of opting out. Do you think ESPN would be required to honor the AAC's TV deal if the league opted out of the top division of athletics? I kinda doubt it, and right there you just automatically cost yourself as an OG member more than the minimum cost of paying this. Then do you think Memphis could maintain even half of corporate and individual donations they currently receive as a member of FCS 2.0?

Just the name recognition and advertising value of college athletics is worth 8 million dollars a year for a university at the current AAC level.

Yep. Memphis admin has been waiting for this to happen ever since they got passed up the last time. In fact, before that, even.

Our bigger donors became discouraged, but this will perk them up. Now we need the city council to keep thier mitts off the stadium deal.

(12-06-2023 12:14 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:50 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 08:56 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 08:22 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This proposal will get altered as it works through the NCAA before being passed. But, it is clear that the ability to spend is how the haves will eliminate the have-nots from being part of this new subdivision, which is what I've been expecting.

We know that the SEC, B1G, Big12, and ACC.... if they don't go the way of the PAC, will all make the cut. But, will the AAC? Or will a combination of AAC and MWC programs have an airport meeting and gain a place in this proposed subdivision? This thing could go a few different ways.

By my calculations UNT would have to funnel around $8 million a year just to pay all of our athletes and meet the standards of this proposed subdivision. Of course there will be other mandates, like services, and academic benefits that will also increase expenses for our athletic department. But having said that, I feel like North Texas could afford the expense. The Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex is still exploding economically and in population, and the University of North Texas enrollment is growing and flush with cash. How many other AAC programs could afford to be a part of this proposed subdivision?

UNT barely raised $100,000 for NIL but can afford the $8,000,000 amount. Sure.

The estimated $8 million per year would be the absolute bare minimum that allows you to "opt in." There is, in fact, no limit on how much a school could set aside for each of the athletes. But the bare minimum that 'buys you a ticket into a club that you can't afford to be in' is $30,000 per year per athlete for half your athletes and this includes women's programs. I would bet a lot of folks in this forum are in denial.

Thinking about the costs of opting in are 1 side of the equation, but you have to be in denial to not think about the costs of opting out. Do you think ESPN would be required to honor the AAC's TV deal if the league opted out of the top division of athletics? I kinda doubt it, and right there you just automatically cost yourself as an OG member more than the minimum cost of paying this. Then do you think Memphis could maintain even half of corporate and individual donations they currently receive as a member of FCS 2.0?

Just the name recognition and advertising value of college athletics is worth 8 million dollars a year for a university at the current AAC level.

Exactly. The big issue I see is if you are forced to go indy, you might not be eligible for a playoff spot.

I don't see the entire AAC jumping in, so the G5 interlopers may have to conference together, or just go indy.