(02-01-2016 02:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:32 AM)colohank Wrote:  If I were a Rutgers fan, I'd also be against elevating any G5 teams to a mythical P4 alignment. I mean, why add to the already long list of schools that could kick Rutgers' ass in football and basketball?

Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

Absolutely. Cincy fans are well aware of that slight and also of Rutgers' utter lack of athletic prowess, which is why your hubris as regards the P5/G5 divide is so pathetic. Tell us, what's it like to be a perennial laughing-stock?

We're laughing all the way to the bank. Now tell us what it's like to be a laughing stock that gets no money.

(02-01-2016 12:40 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:32 AM)colohank Wrote:  If I were a Rutgers fan, I'd also be against elevating any G5 teams to a mythical P4 alignment. I mean, why add to the already long list of schools that could kick Rutgers' ass in football and basketball?

Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

From a strictly fan standpoint, I'd much rather be in UC's position right now than Rutgers. It's a lot more fun to see your team win then constantly get their teeth kicked in.

Monetarily, it's a different story, but nothing in RU's history suggests that will ever amount to much.

From a fans stand point i'd rather my team play against top notch competition and lose than playing and beating lesser competition.

(02-01-2016 02:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 12:40 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:32 AM)colohank Wrote:  If I were a Rutgers fan, I'd also be against elevating any G5 teams to a mythical P4 alignment. I mean, why add to the already long list of schools that could kick Rutgers' ass in football and basketball?

Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

From a strictly fan standpoint, I'd much rather be in UC's position right now than Rutgers. It's a lot more fun to see your team win then constantly get their teeth kicked in.

Monetarily, it's a different story, but nothing in RU's history suggests that will ever amount to much.

From a fans stand point i'd rather my team play against top notch competition and lose than playing and beating lesser competition.

Fresno State is calling you on the phone.

(02-01-2016 02:45 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 02:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 12:40 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

From a strictly fan standpoint, I'd much rather be in UC's position right now than Rutgers. It's a lot more fun to see your team win then constantly get their teeth kicked in.

Monetarily, it's a different story, but nothing in RU's history suggests that will ever amount to much.

From a fans stand point i'd rather my team play against top notch competition and lose than playing and beating lesser competition.

Fresno State is calling you on the phone.

This makes zero sense.

Perimeter, going from P5 to P4 while maintaining the same number of teams (65, including Notre Dame) obviously isn't going to increase revenue for the CFP or increase revenue per school. It will however technically increase revenue per conference (four share of the 80% instead of five).

And it allows there to be four P bids for four CFP slots, rather than five for four.

Every conference needs to get something they want in order to take some body they don't want

PAC --》Tex, TT, KSU, OkSt
BIG 10 --》Kan, ISU
ACC --》WV, Bay
SEC --》 Ok, TCU

Iowa St wouldn't be the end of the world, but I want to keep Purdue in the West.

So either add UConn instead of ISU or add UConn and another Eastern school as 17 & 18.

Goofus: Why would they take Baylor, given it would put Baylor "on an island"?

(02-01-2016 02:59 PM)goofus Wrote:  Every conference needs to get something they want in order to take some body they don't want

PAC --》Tex, TT, KSU, OkSt
BIG 10 --》Kan, ISU
ACC --》WV, Bay
SEC --》 Ok, TCU

I want WVU in the ACC, but the conference, as a whole, doesn't. And nobody wants Baylor in the ACC.

(02-01-2016 02:59 PM)goofus Wrote:  Every conference needs to get something they want in order to take some body they don't want

PAC --》Tex, TT, KSU, OkSt
BIG 10 --》Kan, ISU
ACC --》WV, Bay
SEC --》 Ok, TCU

Except the B1G doesn't want nor will it take ISU. They are the ones with power and they will take whomever they want.

The ACC fans will say "so and so will NEVER leave" which is funny coming from them. In realignment the stronger conferences have the pull. The money gap will get the better of the ACC.

(02-01-2016 03:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 02:59 PM)goofus Wrote:  Every conference needs to get something they want in order to take some body they don't want

PAC --》Tex, TT, KSU, OkSt
BIG 10 --》Kan, ISU
ACC --》WV, Bay
SEC --》 Ok, TCU

I want WVU in the ACC, but the conference, as a whole, doesn't. And nobody wants Baylor in the ACC.

The ACC will take the deal because the end result will be the elimination of the Big 12 and 1 less power conference. Sure they don't want WV and Baylor but somebody has to take them.

Baylor and WV will take the deal because the alternative is joining a G5 conference like the AAC.

Kick out the ACC.

/thread

(02-01-2016 02:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 12:40 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:32 AM)colohank Wrote:  If I were a Rutgers fan, I'd also be against elevating any G5 teams to a mythical P4 alignment. I mean, why add to the already long list of schools that could kick Rutgers' ass in football and basketball?

Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

From a strictly fan standpoint, I'd much rather be in UC's position right now than Rutgers. It's a lot more fun to see your team win then constantly get their teeth kicked in.

Monetarily, it's a different story, but nothing in RU's history suggests that will ever amount to much.

From a fans stand point i'd rather my team play against top notch competition and lose than playing and beating lesser competition.

That's obvious.

(02-01-2016 03:58 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 02:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 12:40 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

From a strictly fan standpoint, I'd much rather be in UC's position right now than Rutgers. It's a lot more fun to see your team win then constantly get their teeth kicked in.

Monetarily, it's a different story, but nothing in RU's history suggests that will ever amount to much.

From a fans stand point i'd rather my team play against top notch competition and lose than playing and beating lesser competition.

That's obvious.

Yeah, I mean when you root for Rutgers, what choice do you have?

SEC- Oklahoma & Oklahoma St.
BIG- Kansas & TCU
ACC- ND & WV
PAC- Texas, TT, Kansas St & Iowa St

No G5 additions & every P4 gets a brand. Each P4 has 16 teams. Baylor is left out, the only downside.

Big 10 will not take TCU.
Notre Dame would prefer Navy over West Virginia. That is the game they want to keep.
PAC 12 will balk at Iowa State and Kansas State.

I like that the G5 lock-out initiative is led by "new money" P5 members.

(02-01-2016 06:10 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I like that the G5 lock-out initiative is led by "new money" P5 members.

In fairness, I get it coming from a Rutgers fan. When you are literally the worst athletic department in the country its understandable for your fans to think no one is going to be called up because they are just so used to being in last.

(02-01-2016 05:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 10 will not take TCU.
Notre Dame would prefer Navy over West Virginia. That is the game they want to keep.
PAC 12 will balk at Iowa State and Kansas State.

It's the OP rules & NAVY wouldn't want the ACC or any power conference. Their own restrictions put them at a disadvantage. They have a far more noble mission than preparing kids for football.

I say we should just shutdown those parasitic welfare recipient G5 schools who shouldn't have athletic programs to begin with. Old money is what I say, why don't those losers realize they don't deserve to share the tv spotlight with the P5 Giants?!