http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...aa-reforms
Quote:"I want to see the best teams play," Brown said. "I think it's best for fans, best for coaches and best for players. I want to see us have to play good teams to be the best team."
Brown said the five conferences would make enough money from the future playoff -- published reports indicated ESPN paid $5.64 billion or $470 million annually in a 12-year deal that runs through the 2025 regular season -- to finance the lower leagues.
"My thought would be to take the group of teams that has it all and let them play it out," Brown said. "You have the NFL of college football. You'll make enough money out of it to make the next group. You can make it really exciting and fun for them, but let them play within their own element. Let them play at their own level. Don't try to make something out of something you don't have. Then you'll have the last group and you can make it a great little league. They can enjoy it.
"We're going to make enough money that we can pay for all of it," Brown said. "[You'll have] the Super Bowl league and then a really good league that has teams that are fun and then the guys that can't afford it. It's kind of what we've done, but we've been BCS and non-BCS and money and no money. I do think this time we need to get it right. We didn't get it right last time."
I hate to admit this, but 'ol butterteeth has a point.
Quote:Brown...said college football's big five conferences might even need to relegate some of their own programs that aren't financially able to keep up with the rest.
Well at least he's not afraid to weed out the lower sections of the P5. However, that might just be too broad a brush to paint. No way the SEC is dumping Vandy or the B1G Minnesota, or even the PAC with Wazzu.
(07-24-2013 02:39 PM)LSUtah Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to admit this, but 'ol butterteeth has a point.
What does George O'Leary have to do with this? Was he quoted?
Someone open up a window and let out some of the condescension. That said, I think he has a point.
If they carry along the Wake Forests and the Minnesotas and the Iowa States...they will likely rise up above the teams they currently "rank" among. If you call a pauper a prince long enough, he'll start acting and looking a bit more like a prince.
That's not fair to the teams just on the outside looking in--like UConn and Cincy--but you have to draw the line somehow.
Maybe Mack is ready to jettison the other 8 teams in the Big 12...just keep OU and UT.
Wasn't that the promise made when I-A and I-AA split? Was it kept?
So the P5 would gladly subsidize teams they don't play when they balk at doing it for teams they do play?
I ain't that dumb...again.
I think it would be reasonable to fund the left behind division at a slight increase to what the FCS gets, maybe a 10% bump.
(07-24-2013 02:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't that the promise made when I-A and I-AA split? Was it kept?
So the P5 would gladly subsidize teams they don't play when they balk at doing it for teams they do play?
I ain't that dumb...again.
Winner winner chicken dinner
(07-24-2013 02:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't that the promise made when I-A and I-AA split? Was it kept?
So the P5 would gladly subsidize teams they don't play when they balk at doing it for teams they do play?
I ain't that dumb...again.
But FBS does subsidize FCS. They contribute a couple of million to FCS from the BCS payout as well as all the "guarantee" games.
(07-24-2013 02:41 PM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Brown...said college football's big five conferences might even need to relegate some of their own programs that aren't financially able to keep up with the rest.
Well at least he's not afraid to weed out the lower sections of the P5. However, that might just be too broad a brush to paint. No way the SEC is dumping Vandy or the B1G Minnesota, or even the PAC with Wazzu.
Mack's idea is even less workable than the idea that the top-5 leagues would only play football games against each other.
If you don't play any games against "non-contract" teams, you eliminate any hope that the bottom third of the "contract" leagues can ever get to .500 overall.
If you eliminate two or three teams from of each of the "contract" leagues, and the 50-55 remaining teams play only games against each other, then many of the remaining teams just become bottom feeders. Those programs aren't going to vote for their own doom.
Sorry, Mack. There is no way that path will ever be taken.
Mack take a leap.
Actually he needs to practice being as inane as Lou Holtz and Lee Corso with a hairbrush in front of a mirror because he isn't likely to be coaching in the NFL of college football in 2014 whether he wants to or not.
Athletic departments at the level of Texas are having a hard time thinking up things to spend their money on.
The last five years Texas with enough money that God asks for loans, is 47-18 (0.7231) the last five years. But if you just count the games against the NFL of college football they are only 33-18 (0.6471). Based on that winning percentage would Mack still be coaching right now at Texas if he had gone 42-23 the last five years?
(07-24-2013 02:39 PM)LSUtah Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to admit this, but 'ol butterteeth has a point.
Except, you know, nobody is forcing the "haves" to play the "have nots" right now..
(07-24-2013 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...aa-reforms
Quote:"I want to see the best teams play," Brown said. "I think it's best for fans, best for coaches and best for players. I want to see us have to play good teams to be the best team."
Brown said the five conferences would make enough money from the future playoff -- published reports indicated ESPN paid $5.64 billion or $470 million annually in a 12-year deal that runs through the 2025 regular season -- to finance the lower leagues.
"My thought would be to take the group of teams that has it all and let them play it out," Brown said. "You have the NFL of college football. [You'll make enough money out of it to make the next group. You can make it really exciting and fun for them, but let them play within their own element. Let them play at their own level. Don't try to make something out of something you don't have. Then you'll have the last group and you can make it a great little league. They can enjoy it.
"We're going to make enough money that we can pay for all of it," Brown said. "[You'll have] the Super Bowl league and then a really good league that has teams that are fun and then the guys that can't afford it. It's kind of what we've done, but we've been BCS and non-BCS and money and no money. I do think this time we need to get it right. We didn't get it right last time."
"Let them play at their own level" -- Then why have you scheduled the following multiple teams in the last 5 years-
New Mexico State, Wyoming, New Mexico, Rice, Florida Atlantic, Louisiana-Monroe, UTEP?
MackDaddy loves those easy OOC games because it "10 wins is our standard" and they can't get there without these games.
The one thing that I do not understand about the whole split is the thought process. They want to cut the G5 out because they "dont spend enough" "cant compete" but there will always be bottom feeders of any league they create. Other wise every team would go between 7-5 and 5-7. So how long after the split occurs, if it occurs, do they decide to cut the new bottom feeders from their league?
(07-24-2013 03:54 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]So the guy who chickened out of a game at Hawaii now only wants to play "the best teams"?
http://a.espncdn.com/ncf/columns/wacnote...24000.html
What he really wants is to eliminate the possibility of Texas being shown up by any of us children of a lesser god.
Last time we played 'em all we got was a lousy apology from the Big XII telling us that the onfield official got it wrong and we did recover that onside kick and the replay official was wrong to not review it. 21-13 Texas.
(07-24-2013 03:41 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote: [ -> ]The one thing that I do not understand about the whole split is the thought process. They want to cut the G5 out because they "dont spend enough" "cant compete" but there will always be bottom feeders of any league they create. Other wise every team would go between 7-5 and 5-7. So how long after the split occurs, if it occurs, do they decide to cut the new bottom feeders from their league?
Exactly, but I don't think many schools' fan bases care if they are bottom feeders as long as they are entertaining to watch and have a decent run every so often. The association with the best and most competitive schools is what most of them want. How many programs historically go ape-@#*% crazy if they are not competing for a conference/national title in November every year? 20 or so? USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, FSU, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska. Maybe Wisconsin, TAMU, Ok State and Va Tech more recently and Penn State after this purgatory is over.
The point is that if this new division/association forms, they are going to have to de-emphasize bowls or change the entry requirements. Otherwise, coaches and AD's will never get behind it.
(07-24-2013 02:41 PM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Brown...said college football's big five conferences might even need to relegate some of their own programs that aren't financially able to keep up with the rest.
Well at least he's not afraid to weed out the lower sections of the P5. However, that might just be too broad a brush to paint. No way the SEC is dumping Vandy or the B1G Minnesota, or even the PAC with Wazzu.
I would say some Big 12 programs qualify for that distinction too. That makes it all the more amusing.
(07-24-2013 04:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2013 02:41 PM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Brown...said college football's big five conferences might even need to relegate some of their own programs that aren't financially able to keep up with the rest.
Well at least he's not afraid to weed out the lower sections of the P5. However, that might just be too broad a brush to paint. No way the SEC is dumping Vandy or the B1G Minnesota, or even the PAC with Wazzu.
I would say some Big 12 programs qualify for that distinction too. That makes it all the more amusing.
Competitively, the Big 10 has more of those-and the ACC and the SEC. Financially the Big 10 and SEC only have 1 weak link.