(08-07-2014 02:09 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 01:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:14 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 06:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This "$20 million gap" between schools like Wake Forest and Houston only applies to sports. People keep forgetting that sports is only a minor part of a university's budget. Many bigger G5 schools have billion-dollar budgets.

I think what you'll end up seeing is that bigger G5 schools will continue to spend similar to smaller P5 schools on sports. They'll just subsidize the athletic department from the rest of their budget, chalk it up as an advertising expense, and call it a day.

However, this will only make sense for the bigger G5 schools. I have a hard time seeing a school like Tulsa (with the smallest enrollment in D-1A) justifying a $10 million subsidy to their athletic department.

I feel the same way. UC has a budget over a billion dollars and a large endowment too. What will end up happening is that burden will be placed on the students and fans with increased tuition, ticket prices, and donation requirements. That really isn't any different than the burden placed on people at schools like Ohio State, Notre Dame, or Michigan.

But the $64 question is, "can the fans and students bear that burden"? That is problematic given the smaller fan bases of G5 schools.

For most schools it won't be the "fans and students." It will be the faculty and staff that bear the burdens. Lower salaries, higher workloads.

UC won't have a problem. $10 million either way has little impact on a billion dollar budget. USF, Rice, UConn, Buffalo, and others also won't have much of a problem.

But I have a hard time seeing the Presidents of Arkansas State or Eastern Michigan trying to justify that burden. Not only are they less equiped to bear the costs, but they get a lower benefit for the expenditure (the benefit is televised games - essentially a 3-hour TV advertisement for the school).

Comparing us to Eastern Michigan is fighting words. One is a football school that averages 26,000 fans and has a growing budget and has increased ticket sales and giving for the last 5 years. The other is a basketball school that averages 9K at football games and barely manages to make ends meet on the field.

Truth is...our administration has already said we will make it work, and we've already begun the push to increase giving to cover the costs needed. Dropping down here would be a program killer. No one in their right mind would try it.

You're giving EMU way too much credit. They don't come close to 9K in football attendance, and just because they are clearly not a football school that doesn't mean they are a basketball school either. Their hoops are as weak as their football. I have to assume that somebody in the MAC knows where some NCAA bodies are buried in order to keep UMU in the FBS.

(08-07-2014 01:57 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 01:37 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 01:13 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  wake me up when basketball is affected

While I appreciate that basketball means more to you personally, these decisions are being based almost entirely with football in mind. However, basketball and basketball schools outside of the P5 will most certainly be affected. I predict that within the next 10 years, a number of non-P5 schools will 1) drop in classification, 2) cease attempts to improve their football conference home or 3) de-emphasize athletics. The money gap is about to get huge.

There is a very vocal crowd that thinks that kids getting tennis, track, and volleyball scholarships should get the same benefits as the kids getting football scholarships.

So this will affect basketball because soon P5 basketball players will be getting cost of attendance. It's a foregone conclusion that the Big East will ante up - the question is who else will join them.

Totally agree. And what about baseball players, many of whom only get a partial scholarship. This is about to get very expensive and if you aren't part of the P5, there is a legitimate question as to how much is too much to spend to be one of the best of the second tier.

Take Southern Miss for example. They have zero chance at a P5 invitation -- they weren't even asked to come along with the rest of their relatives to the AAC. Their budget was stretched to its limits prior to its becoming entrenched at the second level, so how will they afford to pay full cost of attendance for football, much less the secondary sports?

At some point, remaining solvent will take precedence over pride at some of these schools, especially those who have been Division I, but have had budgets under $30 million. The Cincinnati's and Houston's of the G5 can still spend in hopes of an invitation to the party, but the bottom half could be in real trouble. Right now, I'd have to say that anyone other than BYU that's not in the AAC should be thinking about options. No Sunbelt, MAC or CUSA school has a realistic shot at a P5 bid and I would include the MW as well, though I know that some would disagree. Any school in the AAC that's outside of the top 50-60 in athletic budgets can probably forget about it too.

IMHO, 98% of the G5 has just been relegated to 1-AA status.

(08-07-2014 01:37 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 01:13 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  wake me up when basketball is affected

While I appreciate that basketball means more to you personally, these decisions are being based almost entirely with football in mind. However, basketball and basketball schools outside of the P5 will most certainly be affected. I predict that within the next 10 years, a number of non-P5 schools will 1) drop in classification, 2) cease attempts to improve their football conference home or 3) de-emphasize athletics. The money gap is about to get huge.

The Big West may be one of the few non p5 conferences who actually benefit from this. We're about as low on the totem pole as you can get (maybe not even a part of the pole) so there's not much for us to lose. OTOH, if as you predict some schools "drop in classification" then it could mean a Fresno State, SDSU or someone else may drop into our laps. Ironically, the "bus league" may become enticing for western schools looking to cut costs.

Looks like the Distinguished Gentleman from Utah is not done looking into cfb..

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) issued a statement Thursday saying the NCAA's new model may warrant Congressional review from the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member.

“The NCAA should be responsible for promoting fair competition among its participating institutions and their student athletes,” Hatch said. “I am concerned that today's actions could create an uneven playing field that may prevent some institutions from being able to compete fairly with other schools that have superior resources to pay for student athletes. I also worry about how this decision will affect a school's Title IX requirements and whether this consolidation of power will restrict competition and warrant antitrust scrutiny.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...5-autonomy

(08-07-2014 03:54 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Looks like the Distinguished Gentleman from Utah is not done looking into cfb..

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) issued a statement Thursday saying the NCAA's new model may warrant Congressional review from the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member.

“The NCAA should be responsible for promoting fair competition among its participating institutions and their student athletes,” Hatch said. “I am concerned that today's actions could create an uneven playing field that may prevent some institutions from being able to compete fairly with other schools that have superior resources to pay for student athletes. I also worry about how this decision will affect a school's Title IX requirements and whether this consolidation of power will restrict competition and warrant antitrust scrutiny.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...5-autonomy

He's just posturing for the Mormon constituency who will be ticked if B.Y.U. gets left out. No big deal here, just politics in action, which I will admit is unusual considering their inaction on so many important issues.

"on the other hand, said the ACC is working on a need-based proposal to put forward for the other conferences to consider."

This need based proposal is heavily influenced by the Knight Commission.
I would look for this proposal to be a real attempt at reform. I would also look for a proposal where no player would have to go hungry on the weekends, but nobody will be getting paid any sort of salary either.

(08-07-2014 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  He's just posturing for the Mormon constituency who will be ticked if B.Y.U. gets left out. No big deal here, just politics in action, which I will admit is unusual considering their inaction on so many important issues.

Of course, I don't think BYU will get left out. I believe the Big XII will be under pressure from the rest of the P5 to expand and take four to accommodate the remaining schools before the door is shut for the foreseeable future. If they add BYU, Cincinnati, UConn and (surprise) UNLV, all of the schools with budgets greater than $60 million would be provided for. Of course, I think it would be stupid to add those particular schools (except Cincy), but I do believe that athletics budgets will be the determining factor to any additions to the P5. If you haven't been spending the cash, they probably aren't going to ask you to join the club.

(08-07-2014 04:35 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  He's just posturing for the Mormon constituency who will be ticked if B.Y.U. gets left out. No big deal here, just politics in action, which I will admit is unusual considering their inaction on so many important issues.

Of course, I don't think BYU will get left out. I believe the Big XII will be under pressure from the rest of the P5 to expand and take four to accommodate the remaining schools before the door is shut for the foreseeable future. If they add BYU, Cincinnati, UConn and (surprise) UNLV, all of the schools with budgets greater than $60 million would be provided for. Of course, I think it would be stupid to add those particular schools (except Cincy), but I do believe that athletics budgets will be the determining factor to any additions to the P5. If you haven't been spending the cash, they probably aren't going to ask you to join the club.

If you are going to " force " a P5 to take BYU and UNLV, why not "force" the pac-12 ?

Then you can "force" the big 12 to take Cincy, Uconn, UCF, USF and then everybody is at 14 teams.

(08-07-2014 03:54 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Looks like the Distinguished Gentleman from Utah is not done looking into cfb..

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) issued a statement Thursday saying the NCAA's new model may warrant Congressional review from the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member.

“The NCAA should be responsible for promoting fair competition among its participating institutions and their student athletes,” Hatch said. “I am concerned that today's actions could create an uneven playing field that may prevent some institutions from being able to compete fairly with other schools that have superior resources to pay for student athletes. I also worry about how this decision will affect a school's Title IX requirements and whether this consolidation of power will restrict competition and warrant antitrust scrutiny.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...5-autonomy

The distinguished believer in "small government" and "getting government out of the way of free markets" now wants to get the feds all up in everyone's face.

I don't think they will be forced to take anyone, but with the Big XII still at 10 and a number of schools spending in excess of $60 million, there could be pressure put on them to put the final touches on who will be in or out. Pressure also doesn't have to be negative pressure either. The conference could be given some incentives to add some schools to bring about some closure. Networks love brand certainty.

(08-07-2014 04:49 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I don't think they will be forced to take anyone, but with the Big XII still at 10 and a number of schools spending in excess of $60 million, there could be pressure put on them to put the final touches on who will be in or out. Pressure also doesn't have to be negative pressure either. The conference could be given some incentives to add some schools to bring about some closure. Networks love brand certainty.

And too, ZW, there is no real leverage over the PAC since they only lease their product. If the networks want it all they have to do is pay the Big 12 to do it. With the Big 12 they have some leverage.

However I caution that with autonomy things could change. Increase roster size and set payouts and we could see reductions instead of an increase to the size of the P5.

One of the next things that the P5 will try to bring under the umbrella of Autonomy is recruiting rules. There is still plenty of debate going on at the P5 level on this subject but they all want it controlled by themselves and eventually it is going to go from being Big Business to being Gargantuan Business and I stress "business" more so than just expanded coaching staff.

(08-07-2014 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:58 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interestings, now we are seeing what many of us have long said---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. There is not even full agreement within the P5 on issues where everyone thinks the P5 are in lock-step---for instance---full cost of attendance.



[/i]



http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../13674765/

The BCS is in agreement on all the basic issue/issues that really matter. All other issues are periphery issues that don't amount to a hill of beans.

By that same criteria, the G5 are in perfect alignment. Heck,by that measure, the P5 and G5 are in alignment compared to the rest of D1. The devil is always in the details.

No, NonBCS is not in perfect alignment. Probably best to say they are in no alignment whatsoever because they are not organized under one umbrella making decisions and speaking with one voice as the BCS is currently doing.

(08-08-2014 11:57 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:58 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interestings, now we are seeing what many of us have long said---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. There is not even full agreement within the P5 on issues where everyone thinks the P5 are in lock-step---for instance---full cost of attendance.



[/i]



http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../13674765/

The BCS is in agreement on all the basic issue/issues that really matter. All other issues are periphery issues that don't amount to a hill of beans.

By that same criteria, the G5 are in perfect alignment. Heck,by that measure, the P5 and G5 are in alignment compared to the rest of D1. The devil is always in the details.

No, NonBCS is not in perfect alignment. Probably best to say they are in no alignment whatsoever because they are not organized under one umbrella making decisions and speaking with one voice as the BCS is currently doing.

You really don't like that P5 label, do you? Since there's no BCS anymore, would you like to suggest a different alternative? The P5 already floated HRG (higher resource group) without a hint of irony, but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

(08-08-2014 11:57 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:58 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interestings, now we are seeing what many of us have long said---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. There is not even full agreement within the P5 on issues where everyone thinks the P5 are in lock-step---for instance---full cost of attendance.



[/i]



http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../13674765/

The BCS is in agreement on all the basic issue/issues that really matter. All other issues are periphery issues that don't amount to a hill of beans.

By that same criteria, the G5 are in perfect alignment. Heck,by that measure, the P5 and G5 are in alignment compared to the rest of D1. The devil is always in the details.

No, NonBCS is not in perfect alignment. Probably best to say they are in no alignment whatsoever because they are not organized under one umbrella making decisions and speaking with one voice as the BCS is currently doing.

It wouldn't matter if they did speak with one voice. Ut would be like all the third world nations speaking with one voice. It wouldn't matter. The G5 have no leverage when the P5 are discussing not even playing the G5 anymore. Best to just go along with want they want and hope for the best at this point.

(08-07-2014 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:49 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I don't think they will be forced to take anyone, but with the Big XII still at 10 and a number of schools spending in excess of $60 million, there could be pressure put on them to put the final touches on who will be in or out. Pressure also doesn't have to be negative pressure either. The conference could be given some incentives to add some schools to bring about some closure. Networks love brand certainty.

And too, ZW, there is no real leverage over the PAC since they only lease their product. If the networks want it all they have to do is pay the Big 12 to do it. With the Big 12 they have some leverage.

However I caution that with autonomy things could change. Increase roster size and set payouts and we could see reductions instead of an increase to the size of the P5.

I haven't seen anyone with any authority promoting increasing the scholarship limits (except for tinkering with non-revs where women's sports have much larger numbers than men's-letting the schools do their own Title IX balancing instead of the NCAA doing it for them). Now I've seen some fears that autonomy would allow the P5 to do it, but not P5 people saying they wanted that.

Have you heard anything?

(08-08-2014 12:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 11:57 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:58 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interestings, now we are seeing what many of us have long said---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. There is not even full agreement within the P5 on issues where everyone thinks the P5 are in lock-step---for instance---full cost of attendance.



[/i]



http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../13674765/

The BCS is in agreement on all the basic issue/issues that really matter. All other issues are periphery issues that don't amount to a hill of beans.

By that same criteria, the G5 are in perfect alignment. Heck,by that measure, the P5 and G5 are in alignment compared to the rest of D1. The devil is always in the details.

No, NonBCS is not in perfect alignment. Probably best to say they are in no alignment whatsoever because they are not organized under one umbrella making decisions and speaking with one voice as the BCS is currently doing.

You really don't like that P5 label, do you? Since there's no BCS anymore, would you like to suggest a different alternative? The P5 already floated HRG (higher resource group) without a hint of irony, but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

I think P5 and BCS create perceptual distinctions that are big enough already in reality. I liked the "higher resource group" or "high revenue group." That's uncatchy enough that it might not be used much. People might just talk about individual conferences instead of groups.

Atlanta writer pointed out the "high revenue group" is anything but homogenous. Suggested this was really like Yosemite Sam given a new batch of dynamite. Just hope he doesn't blow himself up.

(08-08-2014 02:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:49 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I don't think they will be forced to take anyone, but with the Big XII still at 10 and a number of schools spending in excess of $60 million, there could be pressure put on them to put the final touches on who will be in or out. Pressure also doesn't have to be negative pressure either. The conference could be given some incentives to add some schools to bring about some closure. Networks love brand certainty.

And too, ZW, there is no real leverage over the PAC since they only lease their product. If the networks want it all they have to do is pay the Big 12 to do it. With the Big 12 they have some leverage.

However I caution that with autonomy things could change. Increase roster size and set payouts and we could see reductions instead of an increase to the size of the P5.

I haven't seen anyone with any authority promoting increasing the scholarship limits (except for tinkering with non-revs where women's sports have much larger numbers than men's-letting the schools do their own Title IX balancing instead of the NCAA doing it for them). Now I've seen some fears that autonomy would allow the P5 to do it, but not P5 people saying they wanted that.

Have you heard anything?

Dan Mullen of Miss St. has the talking points on that one Bullet.

(08-08-2014 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:49 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I don't think they will be forced to take anyone, but with the Big XII still at 10 and a number of schools spending in excess of $60 million, there could be pressure put on them to put the final touches on who will be in or out. Pressure also doesn't have to be negative pressure either. The conference could be given some incentives to add some schools to bring about some closure. Networks love brand certainty.

And too, ZW, there is no real leverage over the PAC since they only lease their product. If the networks want it all they have to do is pay the Big 12 to do it. With the Big 12 they have some leverage.

However I caution that with autonomy things could change. Increase roster size and set payouts and we could see reductions instead of an increase to the size of the P5.

I haven't seen anyone with any authority promoting increasing the scholarship limits (except for tinkering with non-revs where women's sports have much larger numbers than men's-letting the schools do their own Title IX balancing instead of the NCAA doing it for them). Now I've seen some fears that autonomy would allow the P5 to do it, but not P5 people saying they wanted that.

Have you heard anything?

Dan Mullen of Miss St. has the talking points on that one Bullet.

Interesting. Mississippi St. would probably get killed by higher scholarship limits. Their whole playing time roster would be on the bench at LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and Georgia.

(08-08-2014 02:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 02:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:49 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I don't think they will be forced to take anyone, but with the Big XII still at 10 and a number of schools spending in excess of $60 million, there could be pressure put on them to put the final touches on who will be in or out. Pressure also doesn't have to be negative pressure either. The conference could be given some incentives to add some schools to bring about some closure. Networks love brand certainty.

And too, ZW, there is no real leverage over the PAC since they only lease their product. If the networks want it all they have to do is pay the Big 12 to do it. With the Big 12 they have some leverage.

However I caution that with autonomy things could change. Increase roster size and set payouts and we could see reductions instead of an increase to the size of the P5.

I haven't seen anyone with any authority promoting increasing the scholarship limits (except for tinkering with non-revs where women's sports have much larger numbers than men's-letting the schools do their own Title IX balancing instead of the NCAA doing it for them). Now I've seen some fears that autonomy would allow the P5 to do it, but not P5 people saying they wanted that.

Have you heard anything?

Dan Mullen of Miss St. has the talking points on that one Bullet.

Interesting. Mississippi St. would probably get killed by higher scholarship limits. Their whole playing time roster would be on the bench at LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and Georgia.

Or you could see it as Mullen wanting to separate himself from a lower bottom. Or you could consider where he said it, at ESPN's coaches meeting, and wonder why when networks are acquiring all of the P5 content they desire they would seek to expand the gap between the P5 and most of the lower tier schools by having a coach introduce a concept that if enacted would truly deplete the athletic talent pool of that lower tier? It sure would give the networks more of an excuse not to have to televise as many of those games which would incrementally reduce overhead invested in inventory.