Would you rather be a yearly contender in the G5 or yearly bottom feeder of the P5?

Bottom feeder. You can do something about the bottom feeder situation. Your just stuck being irrelevant in the G5.

Since each of the P5 share revenue evenly, at least for now, I'd go that route in a heartbeat.

I mean, even Duke can be good with the right resources.

A bottom dwelling P5 team having a 12-0 year is far more likely to get a shot at a title than a G5 team with the same record. So, P5 scrub.

The money is too great to want to be in a G5 over a P5 regardless of the situation.

Depends on what your goals are. If you just want to win championships, the answer is neither. You might as well play in the FCS. But most schools aren't in it for the championships. They are in it for the marketing value. Football is viewed as the portal to the admissions office. For the Wake Forests of the world, there's a lot more value in losing to Florida State than beating Tulane. That's just as true for schools like Memphis.

(02-18-2014 05:09 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Would you rather be a yearly contender in the G5 or yearly bottom feeder of the P5?

That's actually a tough question.

The impulse is give me the money because it is soooo much better but the reality is the shared conference money (which is much more than just TV money) still isn't close to half of the operating income of the top P5 programs. Donations and ticket sales income that isn't shared (except for minor share of tickets in the B1G) is where the game is won and lost.

The new lucky school given this mythical golden ticket is not going to be financially competitive with the other members of the conference, you won't have the name recognition that will allow you to recruit toe-to-toe year in and out with the league's elite schools.

I think there is some real value inherent in being a winner and more importantly, while it isn't for everyone, there is value in being an unrespected winner. Played correctly you can develop a highly dedicated fan base that has a chip on its shoulder expecting its success to be dismissed and treating every TV talking head slight as a rally to the cause.

We get no respect and we don't have the big conference silverspoon to eat off can actually help drive ticket sales and donations and help you build a valuable TV property while you play 8 more manageable league opponents.

Sometimes its better to think like a pirate.

I think during the BCS era, it is arguable that a yearly contender was better. I know I never had so much fun as a fan as the last decade and wouldn't have traded spaces with anyone at any school. In the playoff era, with the revenue gap now 3 times or more than what was already a big gap in the BCS era, I'm not sure if it isn't better to be positioned for the future financially. And as Baylor and Duke have proven, no one is always going to be a bottom feeder. The big years may be fewer and farther between, but they will come.

(02-18-2014 05:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think during the BCS era, it is arguable that a yearly contender was better. I know I never had so much fun as a fan as the last decade and wouldn't have traded spaces with anyone at any school. In the playoff era, with the revenue gap now 3 times or more than what was already a big gap in the BCS era, I'm not sure if it isn't better to be positioned for the future financially. And as Baylor and Duke have proven, no one is always going to be a bottom feeder. The big years may be fewer and farther between, but they will come.

But the premise of the question is yearly bottom feeder.

You can't go Captain Kirk and reprogram the scenario at the academy.

Well if there is 100% chance that you'll always be a contender in G5 or a bottomfeeder in P5 I'd take the G5. I'd love watching ECU have UCF's 2013 season every year for the rest of my life vs. watching Purdue's 2013 last season.

If there was a chance of moving out of the cellar I'd take the P5.

Absolutely a bottom feeder P5. Even a bottom feeding P5 can outspend any G5 except maybe Boise & BYU for any coach it wants to turn it's program around.

In some conferences the distance between bottomfeeder and division winner isn't that great. Duke afterall won their division this past season. I'd much rather be Minnesota in the Big 10 West where I can be 9-3 and play for a conference title than be NIU where 1 loss puts you out of the running for an Access Bowl.

(02-18-2014 06:07 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Absolutely a bottom feeder P5. Even a bottom feeding P5 can outspend any G5 except maybe Boise & BYU for any coach it wants to turn it's program around.

In some conferences the distance between bottomfeeder and division winner isn't that great. Duke afterall won their division this past season. I'd much rather be Minnesota in the Big 10 West where I can be 9-3 and play for a conference title than be NIU where 1 loss puts you out of the running for an Access Bowl.

But the premise is you stay a bottom feeder, not you start a bottom feeder and then sim city build your way to greatness.

(02-18-2014 06:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 05:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think during the BCS era, it is arguable that a yearly contender was better. I know I never had so much fun as a fan as the last decade and wouldn't have traded spaces with anyone at any school. In the playoff era, with the revenue gap now 3 times or more than what was already a big gap in the BCS era, I'm not sure if it isn't better to be positioned for the future financially. And as Baylor and Duke have proven, no one is always going to be a bottom feeder. The big years may be fewer and farther between, but they will come.

But the premise of the question is yearly bottom feeder.

You can't go Captain Kirk and reprogram the scenario at the academy.

The OP didn't use the word "forever". And the point of Baylor and Duke (and Northwestern and K-State before them) is that even being a "perennial" bottom feeder doesn't have to be forever.

On top of that, unless football is the only sport you care about, your varsity sports across the board are far and away better off in a P5 conference. Look at the P5 teams with bottom-feeder football who have excelled and even won titles in men's hoops.

I voted with my heart, not my head but I will say I enjoy the lot in (football) life that NIU has built for itself; NIU will never, ever be invited to the P5 so why sweat the details? Contend in the G5, beat up the bottom feeder P5 on a pretty consistent basis, and be mostly competitive but lose to the elite P5 with an upset now and then.

As the haves separate from the have-nots with even more division than in years past, it is going to be ugly, really ugly, to be a bottom feeder P5 or G5 with consistent 3 and whatever records.

(02-18-2014 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  Depends on what your goals are. If you just want to win championships, the answer is neither. You might as well play in the FCS. But most schools aren't in it for the championships. They are in it for the marketing value. Football is viewed as the portal to the admissions office. For the Wake Forests of the world, there's a lot more value in losing to Florida State than beating Tulane. That's just as true for schools like Memphis.

This is an astute insight. And I believe it is 100% correct.

However, your conclusion from the insight is wrong. Let me ask you this: who has gotten more positive publicity from their football programs over the past 10 years: Washington State or Boise State? Indiana or Cincinnati? Colorado or Utah? Mississippi State or TCU?

The answer is obvious: there is a lot more publicity in being the successful underdog. The media LOVES underdog stories.

(02-18-2014 06:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 06:07 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Absolutely a bottom feeder P5. Even a bottom feeding P5 can outspend any G5 except maybe Boise & BYU for any coach it wants to turn it's program around.

In some conferences the distance between bottomfeeder and division winner isn't that great. Duke afterall won their division this past season. I'd much rather be Minnesota in the Big 10 West where I can be 9-3 and play for a conference title than be NIU where 1 loss puts you out of the running for an Access Bowl.

But the premise is you stay a bottom feeder, not you start a bottom feeder and then sim city build your way to greatness.

To be fair, the premise is based upon your interpretation of a bottom feeder. Bottom feeders have good years, just not very often---hence they earn the reputation as a bottom feeder. The word is a generality--a broad brush so to speak. Bottom feeders suffer through long periods of futility with the occasional great season. Some even change their stripes completely if they get the right coach (see Baylor for instance).

(02-18-2014 07:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  As the haves separate from the have-nots with even more division than in years past, it is going to be ugly, really ugly, to be a bottom feeder P5 or G5 with consistent 3 and whatever records.

The impact of TV dollars shifting the playing field more toward the P5 is overstated.

Some of the top level programs like a Texas or Oklahoma for example just from having a National Title season could be subject to a boost of 25 million of revenue in that particular season. Relatively an extra 15 million dollars a year in TV cash is significant but it doesn't change the calculus for those schools.

The next example is Rutgers in the B1G. They'll take that additional 15 million dollars in TV money to pay off debts first, then as they get the right coaches in place escalate football and basketball coaching salaries into the 4 million range. Who is that going to hurt? That is going to hurt Penn State because now they have a major competitor in their recruiting backyard.

A school like Purdue which doesn't have a lot of recruiting upside and is paying their coach 1.5 million per year I don't see them wanting to get into the arms race and instead taking that extra 15 million (which for them is significant) and putting into facilities (which for them are weak). If they can catch lightening in a bottle with a coach like Vanderbilt did with James Franklin then maybe they'll try to get the guy more in line with the other B1G coaches.

The #1 resource to look at is the coaching salary which the second tier power conference teams are going to always exert downward pressure. Some of the G5's are some of the more guilty ones here because with an average salary of 800,000 its forcing the bottom P5's to double that amount. Then schools like Cincinnati and UCF have their coaches so high that nobody in the top tier would consider them. You would have 5 million to steal them and only Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama are paying that high and wouldn't consider them A list enough for those jobs anyways.

For a G5 if you get the salary up to about 1.5 million you've essentially taken the coach off the market unless you have somebody phenomenal which Boise State did with Chris Petersen that a program with top tier potential (Washington) was willing to double for. I can't think of another coach among the G5 that the P5 would be that interested in.

I would rather be UCF than Duke. I would rather be NIU than Minnesota. I would rather be ULaLa than Iowa State. I would rather be Fresno than Wake Forest. I would rather be Houston than Vanderbilt. I would rather have my nuts removed with a chainsaw than be Ole Miss or Mississippi State. Vanderbilt and Duke have had great years, but history shows us the cellar is where they'll be most of the time. Pecking orders are set in stone in the P5 conferences, not so much in the G5.

I think I would take being like Iowa State over Arkansas State or Northern Illinois. Sorry stAte fans.

(02-18-2014 07:23 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  Depends on what your goals are. If you just want to win championships, the answer is neither. You might as well play in the FCS. But most schools aren't in it for the championships. They are in it for the marketing value. Football is viewed as the portal to the admissions office. For the Wake Forests of the world, there's a lot more value in losing to Florida State than beating Tulane. That's just as true for schools like Memphis.

This is an astute insight. And I believe it is 100% correct.

However, your conclusion from the insight is wrong. Let me ask you this: who has gotten more positive publicity from their football programs over the past 10 years: Washington State or Boise State? Indiana or Cincinnati? Colorado or Utah? Mississippi State or TCU?

The answer is obvious: there is a lot more publicity in being the successful underdog. The media LOVES underdog stories.

Indiana or Cincinnati? Ask your basketball coach if he'd rather be in the Big Ten or the AAC. Then ask Indiana's coach. I bet they'll give you the same answer.