P5 conferences seeking more autonomy-ESPN

Quote:Everybody seems to understand what the high-budget schools need, and there's an increasing recognition of what the small-budget schools need. I think they're going to wind up in a pretty amicable place without anybody having to do threats or innuendos. -- NCAA president Mark Emmert

Basically, the P5 conferences want the power to run athletics under a different set of rules than the G5 conferences, essentially creating a permanent division between the two, which IMHO would be just another another nail in the coffin that the playoff system that starts next year begins.

By first devaluing what a "BCS" bowl is and then guaranteeing that a G5 team will be included, then setting up the new power paradigm (the 4 team playoff) that will always exclude the G5 almost by definition, the separation of the two parts of BCS football becomes written in stone. The G5 conferences have effectively been ghettoized in terms of money, perception, and access.

They have created a barrier that G5 teams cannot cross, essentially neutralizing what Boise St. did over a period of years and what any G5 team who has a great season can do. Those games that are now available to the (committee-decided) "best" G5 team are no longer the top rung of college football, like the Orange Bowl last year was. They are secondary. The playoff is the real game in town. All that is left are consolation prizes.

Ah, yes. Casino capitalism at its best.

OK Im reading this and not seeing the word "P5 conferences" from anyone but the author...

*IF* you look at this through the lens of the P5/G5 it makes sense
*IF* you look at this through the lens of the FBS/Non FBS it makes sense

The author did a damn clumsy job of getting one of the conference commissioners he talked to (the Sun Belt and CUSA) to express what side of the tracks they are in in this discussion.

To me it looked like Benson was talking about the non fbs conferences versus the fbs conferences...

The Article Wrote:The non-FBS conferences "have mobilized, and rightfully so," Benson said. "I think everyone wants to protect their turf and wants to protect their future."

Sourcing myself here

http://www.ubbullrun.com/2013/7/30/45653...on-members

Quote:From a governance perspective 160 schools, who are all spending 20 million over per year, represent similar interest in terms of stipends, spending, and growth. The angst of the Big conferences is not aimed at Toledo or Buffalo who spend 25 million a year rather it's aimed squarely at the MEAC schools and other bargain basement conferences.

(12-12-2013 10:27 AM)axeme Wrote:  P5 conferences seeking more autonomy-ESPN

Quote:Everybody seems to understand what the high-budget schools need, and there's an increasing recognition of what the small-budget schools need. I think they're going to wind up in a pretty amicable place without anybody having to do threats or innuendos. -- NCAA president Mark Emmert

Basically, the P5 conferences want the power to run athletics under a different set of rules than the G5 conferences, ...

Actually, going on the numbers and details in that article, what the P5 conference want is the power to run athletics under a difference set of rules than the 220 FCS & non-FB Division 1 schools ~ that was what knocked down the Division1-wide stipend, after all.

Whether the Go5 is in or out is one of the questions that is on the bargaining table as we speak. Obviously the P5 will start from a position that they should be in a division all of their own, so that they can keep the upgrade of the whole FBS with weighted votes for the P5 in their back pocket as a "compromise" position.

In the second of the two, under weighted votes, it wouldn't be surprising if stipends to be mandatory rather than optional as proposed two years ago for all of Division 1, in an effort to raise the cost of shifting divisions, and quite possibly encourage some schools at the bottom of the FBS status pole to drop down a division.

(12-12-2013 10:41 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  OK Im reading this and not seeing the word "P5 conferences" from anyone but the author...

Because there are people keeping the question of the final dividing line open ... and, indeed, people working to keep the question of the final dividing line open.

Quote: To me it looked like Benson was talking about the non fbs conferences versus the fbs conferences...

And the Go5 schools will have the primary bargaining position that FBS should all stay together, so its up to the P5 to see how many votes they can muster among the FCS schools and non-FB Div1 schools in support of either plan. If there's enough votes to get the P5 alone against Go5 opposition, they could go with that, if there's enough votes to get the FBS all-together including Go5 support, then they'll go with that.

Also note that there are real reasons for the P5 to want to go to all-FBS together, including political cover and legal cover, which are the same kind of reasons the Go5 used to get their "best of the Go5" inclusion in the Access Bowls system, and which the Go5 conferences will be using to try to persuade the P5 to go for upgrading the FBS to a division rather than the AQ's alone.

Is it really worth paying stipends that most of us can't afford, in an effort to try to compete with the big boys? It would be an effort in futility for the non P5 league members. We all can compete for the prettiest turd. I admire FCS, they don't want to or have to deal with this crap and they seem quite content.

(12-12-2013 11:21 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  Is it really worth paying stipends that most of us can't afford, in an effort to try to compete with the big boys? It would be an effort in futility for the non P5 league members. We all can compete for the prettiest turd. I admire FCS, they don't want to or have to deal with this crap and they seem quite content.

but then why do so many fcs teams want to jump up to fbs?

The article could be read either way. The douche in the ESPN video brought up the whole "could the P5" just walk away stuff. Why not just split FCS from the rest of us, and then make stipends a per-school choice?

(12-12-2013 11:21 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  Is it really worth paying stipends that most of us can't afford, in an effort to try to compete with the big boys? It would be an effort in futility for the non P5 league members. We all can compete for the prettiest turd. I admire FCS, they don't want to or have to deal with this crap and they seem quite content.

I remember someone on the NIU board mentioning that the extra money for us from the playoff more than covered the stipend payouts.

When and if stipends are employed, the day of the presidents being the CEO of the university is over. There is virtually no support for stipends amongst the presidents nationally. In fact, I will predict that stipends to athletes will not pass on any level due to public perception, and more importantly, legal issues. With the make up of the courts today, I do not see mens' FB and mens' BB getting stipends at the exclusion of all other sports. This would of course include the band, dancing girls, cheerleaders; etc. Title IX will play heavily in this decision. Yes, there are about a dozen programs that could support stipends to their entire athletic participants number, but that will be at the expense of the athletic donations to the libraries and academic activities. Even the money saturated programs in the B1G and SEC will find opposition from the "have not" members of their own conference. The stipend issue, IMO, is a ploy by the P5 to get the G5 to separate voluntarily from fear, and to quiet the "pay us athletes" crowd for the time being.

Another simple question should be ask. If a university adopts "pay to play", are the payroll receivers employes? If they are, then the entire relationship between the former "students" and school now changes and will have the issues of insurance, social security, unions, unemployment, and a whole stinking mess of other dealings. Do university administrators really want to tread here? Beyond the AD's, I doubt it.

(12-12-2013 11:12 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Also note that there are real reasons for the P5 to want to go to all-FBS together, including political cover and legal cover, which are the same kind of reasons the Go5 used to get their "best of the Go5" inclusion in the Access Bowls system, and which the Go5 conferences will be using to try to persuade the P5 to go for upgrading the FBS to a division rather than the AQ's alone.

Politics is one reason but sacrificial lambs for the lower rung p5 teams (who need to play EMU for six wins) and money home crowds for the powerful team (Ohio State makes 5 million per home game)..

Going to quote myself a lot today..

http://www.ubbullrun.com/2013/7/27/45619...ull-run-on

Quote:The important thing from a Buffalo fan's view is that when all is said and done, there will be somewhere between forty and 60 mid major football teams. That means Buffalo and the MAC will likely get swept along with the current.

Why? because as much as Nick Saban loves to go on about how his team has to slum it by playing the little sisters of the poor he wants eight home games a year. Urban Myer might want to badmouth the lower conferences but Ohio State is making five million dollars a home game before expenses.

In a world with no garbage men, no shoe shine boys, no "have nots" the rich will eventually starve and live in squalor. If you kick out the riff raff than your middle class becomes the new riff raff. The presidents and directors of AQ teams know this to be true, especially the schools who struggle at football. Indiana does not want to be college footballs next EMU.

The power programs need us for money and the lesser AQ football programs need us so they can crank out the occasional 7 win season. It's really that simple.

(12-12-2013 11:37 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 11:21 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  Is it really worth paying stipends that most of us can't afford, in an effort to try to compete with the big boys? It would be an effort in futility for the non P5 league members. We all can compete for the prettiest turd. I admire FCS, they don't want to or have to deal with this crap and they seem quite content.

but then why do so many fcs teams want to jump up to fbs?

I don't think they will now. In the past, there was a monetary and notoriety incentive. If this goes through, the door is basically shut for them. Marshall can't do it. We're a small public school with very little state funding compared to other schools and small endowment.

(12-12-2013 04:30 PM)SVHerd Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 11:37 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 11:21 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  Is it really worth paying stipends that most of us can't afford, in an effort to try to compete with the big boys? It would be an effort in futility for the non P5 league members. We all can compete for the prettiest turd. I admire FCS, they don't want to or have to deal with this crap and they seem quite content.

but then why do so many fcs teams want to jump up to fbs?

I don't think they will now. In the past, there was a monetary and notoriety incentive. If this goes through, the door is basically shut for them. Marshall can't do it. We're a small public school with very little state funding compared to other schools and small endowment.

FCS schools are moving up because they see the window to FBS closing. There is significant concern that once this D4 thing works out, the divide between FBS and FCS would be gigantic and leave it almost impossible for FCS schools to ever be seen as anything more than a lower division school.

That means that the top schools. The App States, The JMU's, and the Georgia Southern and ODU's of the world are going to make the jump now because waiting could mean being left on the other side of the fence.

No matter how much Nick Saban likes to posture about the P5's breaking away, and no matter how much ESPN and CBS want to listen, it wont happen. The Wake Forrest's and Purdue's of the world would fall flat in football if they were forced to schedule two extra games against P5 schools on the year. Suddenly they become the have not's in their very own league.

The other point is that no matter how much the P5's want to use the stipend to get schools to drop, it wont happen. Is there any single school in the MAC, SBC, or CUSA that would actually voluntarily drop back to FCS rather than paying a stipend? You try being the AD and President that have to explain that to your alums...

Its always been the fantasy of the 1% to live in a world where the 99% doesn't exist.

So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Not to mention that only a hand full of FBS G5 schools opposed the stipend the last time around.. Make no mistake for Football and hoops schools will find the money..

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

Sure, they'll still play the G5 schools to get their home games, AND they'll get their win tally to make the alumni happy.

This is win-win for them all the way around.

I admit I don't see the reason for jumping from FCS to FBS, since it seems as though the G5 and FCS will re-merge in short order.

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

Sure, they'll still play the G5 schools to get their home games, AND they'll get their win tally to make the alumni happy.

This is win-win for them all the way around.

I admit I don't see the reason for jumping from FCS to FBS, since it seems as though the G5 and FCS will re-merge in short order.

That wont happen without a ton of lawsuits, and most likely several complaints to congress. The P5 prefers the status quo because the G5 schools will give them what they want for the most part, and no one from congress gets hurt by it.

If you try and split, suddenly the service academies get left out, and multiple states with no P5 schools essentially become states without a D1 football program. Then you're going to get congress interested, and your inviting schools like Boise to sue for access.

There is a reason that it was the P5 commissioners who went along with the current plan to grant access to 1 G5 school per year. They need us. They'll set a stipend up, hope a few G5 schools will choose to drop down, they'll find out that none will, and the status quo will continue as is.

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

You're assuming NIU wont implement stipends... For football and hoops I think the middies will put stipends in for the revenue sports and any title IX needed to offset that.

(12-13-2013 02:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

You're assuming NIU wont implement stipends... For football and hoops I think the middies will put stipends in for the revenue sports and any title IX needed to offset that.

So to this point, the bigger question is what MAC teams won't pony up for a stipend, if any. The P5 seems content gradually raising the cost to doing business and if a program becomes a casualty of the system they won't shed a tear or slow the train down.

I for one think if there is a significant rise in the cost to doing business, MAC programs will be right in the cross-hairs. Other G5 programs are slowly increasing the gap in the pay scale relative to the MAC which puts this league in the uneviable bottom.

(12-13-2013 02:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

You're assuming NIU wont implement stipends... For football and hoops I think the middies will put stipends in for the revenue sports and any title IX needed to offset that.

Unfortunately, I think the more likely response will be for schools to cut sports, especially if the revenue-sharing lawsuit -- remember that? --turns out in favor of the plaintiffs.