(04-24-2013 09:11 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 09:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Which is why the P5 will demand its own subdivision for football.

That way it can expand to 8 without having to give a slot to MAC or SBC champ.

Pretty easy solution. Just seed the top 8 teams in the CFP poll and use the BCS bowls. No need to breakaway. The P5 already gets everything they want and then some from TV, NCAA, t-shirt fans, media, etc. I mean, they've got every conceivable advantage out there. Jeez.

No need to give a slot to the AAC or SBC champ either. It's only a quirk of the NCAA that they've let "Division 1" become so big and conferences of such huge disparities in fan bas size and financial commitment being lumped together. Forming a new subdivision corrects that quirk.

Besides, do you really think the power conferences are going to give the G5 the opportunity to go to recruits and say "we go to the playoffs more often than the P5 schools in this state because their conferences are harder to win! Why not sign up with us instead."

Not gonna happen.

Don't believe the Power 5 will ever break entirely from the rest of the FBS schools. Too much money at stake, and to regulate too many schools, especially big schools in the MWC, AAC, MAC, Conference USA, Sunbelt, etc. just risks alienating too many fans. The NCAA Tournament is a great example of why you provide an illusion of a chance to get to the dance.

You are correct, no need to break away from the NCAA, just get the NCAA to let the P5 be their own subdivision for football.

The P5 get to keep all their money for football and the NCAA gets to keep its tournament cash

If the playoffs were 8 teams you could give an AQ to the top 5 conferences and then have the other 3 be the top remaining ranked teams, or something like that. It's very unlikely a MAC or Sunbelt team would ever get in the top 8. I think Miami at #10 was the highest I've ever seen, in 2003. Less than ideal for me as an NIU fan but as a college football fan, I'd like to see the top 8 get a chance, especially when most top teams don't play each other, and you really have no idea who is better than who, despite all the pundits who claim they know. I would be more interested in watching those games than what they have now.

(04-23-2013 10:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Except HS football divides itself into subdivisions based on size and commitment. FBS doesn't right now and insists that conferences struggling to put 30k in the stands are equal to conferences with multiple schools selling out 100k stadiums.

The only things that determine what NCAA classification a university is in is the amount of scholarships they cover, the amount of sports they participate in, and having an average attendance of 15,000, either paid or actual, every other year. And as long as schools in the G5 maintain the FBS requirements, they should have equal access to the championship system. Everything else is extraneous.

Any attempt to actively demote the G5 out of the highest level of NCAA competition and legitimate the current unofficial caste system will lead to lawsuits I'm not sure the P5 leagues can win.

(04-24-2013 10:23 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You are correct, no need to break away from the NCAA, just get the NCAA to let the P5 be their own subdivision for football.

The P5 get to keep all their money for football and the NCAA gets to keep its tournament cash

TV doesnt want that. If you split off the Power-5 then 64 or so school fan bases dissappear from the TV ratings. Given that the FBS ratings are already falling, why would TV want to alienate nearly half the college football fan base? The quick answer is they dont want to do that. A system where the non-AQ still has a chance to make the playoff (even if its a farce and is virtually just thoretical in nature) allows the networks to continue to hold onto non-AQ viewers who "think" they are actually part of the system. I do expect that another freeze on FCS move ups is coming and there may even be some moderate culling of the herd like happened before. I could see something that results in a 80-100 school top level of football. Even this is somewhat risky and may cost some viewers. Any larger cutting almost certainly risks significant declines in veiwership.

(04-24-2013 10:47 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the playoffs were 8 teams you could give an AQ to the top 5 conferences and then have the other 3 be the top remaining ranked teams, or something like that. It's very unlikely a MAC or Sunbelt team would ever get in the top 8. I think Miami at #10 was the highest I've ever seen, in 2003. Less than ideal for me as an NIU fan but as a college football fan, I'd like to see the top 8 get a chance, especially when most top teams don't play each other, and you really have no idea who is better than who, despite all the pundits who claim they know. I would be more interested in watching those games than what they have now.

Marshall finished at #10 with a pretty weak schedule in 1999. With a better OOC, they might have cracked the top 8.

(04-24-2013 10:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:23 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You are correct, no need to break away from the NCAA, just get the NCAA to let the P5 be their own subdivision for football.

The P5 get to keep all their money for football and the NCAA gets to keep its tournament cash

TV doesnt want that. If you split off the Power-5 then 64 or so school fan bases dissappear from the TV ratings. Given that the FBS ratings are already falling, why would TV want to alienate nearly half the college football fan base? The quick answer is they dont want to do that. A system where the non-AQ still has a chance to make the playoff (even if its a farce and is virtually just thoretical in nature) allows the networks to continue to hold onto non-AQ viewers who "think" they are actually part of the system. I do expect that another freeze on move ups is coming. Surprisingly, it may be the non-AQ's who push for it once the Sunbelt is set.

I don't know...the MAC might look to add someone from FCS depending on what happens with UMass. But I agree, TV would not want to alienate so many fanbases.

(04-23-2013 11:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 07:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I don't think the playoff needs to include 20 teams but it should have at least 8 teams.

8 is probably the most ideal IMO. Not too watered down but gives every team with a legit claim a shot at it.

So this is the acronym we need to get used to...CFP?

Personally, I like 12 with the top 4 seeds earning 1st round byes. That emphasizes the conference championships, especially for the top four leagues. I agree the current (2014) system isn't a true playoff but maybe one day. Just hope my Pirates aren't left out in the cold as far as access goes. The door is pretty close to shut as it is now.

(04-24-2013 10:58 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:47 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the playoffs were 8 teams you could give an AQ to the top 5 conferences and then have the other 3 be the top remaining ranked teams, or something like that. It's very unlikely a MAC or Sunbelt team would ever get in the top 8. I think Miami at #10 was the highest I've ever seen, in 2003. Less than ideal for me as an NIU fan but as a college football fan, I'd like to see the top 8 get a chance, especially when most top teams don't play each other, and you really have no idea who is better than who, despite all the pundits who claim they know. I would be more interested in watching those games than what they have now.

Marshall finished at #10 with a pretty weak schedule in 1999. With a better OOC, they might have cracked the top 8.

But they still wouldn't have been in, at #10, and with a better OOC would they still have had the same record? That's an IF that you couldn't really assume. And that was 13 years ago. It would be an extremely rare occurrence - especially when GO5 teams almost always have to play their tougher OOC games on the road.

You seem to think that the G5 represents this huge fan base that TV can't afford to lose...when in fact the reason they are the G5 is because their fanbases don't move the TV needle to bein with.

All the eyeballs that matter are already watching the P5

(04-24-2013 11:04 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You seem to think that the G5 represents this huge fan base that TV can't afford to lose...when in fact the reason they are the G5 is because their fanbases don't move the TV needle to bein with.

All the eyeballs that matter are already watching the P5

The truth lies somewhere in between. There are a few G5 schools that should move up and a few P5 schools that should be moved down. It'll never happen, but it's the plain truth and I doubt any fan would argue against that. Fans don't make the decisions though.

(04-24-2013 11:08 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 11:04 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You seem to think that the G5 represents this huge fan base that TV can't afford to lose...when in fact the reason they are the G5 is because their fanbases don't move the TV needle to bein with.

All the eyeballs that matter are already watching the P5

The truth lies somewhere in between. There are a few G5 schools that should move up and a few P5 schools that should be moved down. It'll never happen, but it's the plain truth and I doubt any fan would argue against that. Fans don't make the decisions though.

None of the individual G5 schools would move the needle (maybe ECU) but if you lose 60 of them it certainly does.

True, but you won't convince the P5 to take the entire AAC because ECU has attendance that would be average in the PAC.

(04-24-2013 11:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  True, but you won't convince the P5 to take the entire AAC because ECU has attendance that would be average in the PAC.

Agreed

(04-24-2013 11:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  True, but you won't convince the P5 to take the entire AAC because ECU has attendance that would be average in the PAC.

They dont need to. They just need to cull FBS down to closer to its historical average of 80-100 schools. At that number there are enough FBS schools representeing enough fan bases and geographic areas that there likely is little issue with the TV viewing audiences. Basically, your just resetting the top level of college football back to where its generally always been. How you trim the size--either by cutting whole conferences or just by cuttting certain schools individually is another issue. However, at 80-100 schools, I suspect most every AAC school would make the cut.

You still haven't given any real reason other than "I don't want to be left out".

The AAC has nothing the P5 need. Besides ECU, its fan bases are tiny and its TV appeal is extremely limited which is why it got nothing but a pittance for its contract on the open market.

You can not honestly argue that the AAC would be a contributor if allowed in the new subdivision.

(04-24-2013 08:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You still haven't given any real reason other than "I don't want to be left out".

The AAC has nothing the P5 need. Besides ECU, its fan bases are tiny and its TV appeal is extremely limited which is why it got nothing but a pittance for its contract on the open market.

You can not honestly argue that the AAC would be a contributor if allowed in the new subdivision.

I didn't say anything about "don't want to be left out." I said the P5 has everything they need and don't need to split.

And you, t-shirt fan, still haven't given a legitimate reason why the P5 SHOULD break away. Like I said, they've got all the money, power, majority of fans, and pretty much every other conceivable advantage. We operate on roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of the so called Power 5 confernce budgets. So what else is left that the P5 needs? Please enlighten me.

These "they' gonna leave" theories lack something.

A REASON TO DO IT

So they can have all the money?

The group of five revenue is a whopping $1.32 million per Rich 5 school.

"Officially" the group of five receive 27% of the revenue, but that is because the three contract bowls aren't counted in the split. The net CFP revenue is expected to be about $320 million with CFP paying 27% to the group of five that's $86.5 but if you add the contract bowl distribution to the CFP, the share set aside for the group of five is a bit over 15%. The same amount the non-AQ receives when there is a buster.

Now consider the NCAA. In 2011-12 the NCAA generated just shy of $872 million. Of that 40% was skimmed off by the NCAA to operate and to put on the 88 or so championships, that was $348.8 million. Start doling out money from all the funds to all the conferences and you quickly see the Rich 5 get about 40% of what is left or about 25% of the gross revenue of the NCAA. In other words the Rich 5 share of the NCAA's wealth is on a par with the G5's share of the CFP.

Yet all the talk keeps coming back to having to share football money. If the Rich 5 took as much of the basketball money as they take in football it would be about 20% more than their share of the CFP. Now you are talking real money.

When you boil it down, roughly 15% is a decent investment.
1. It helps keep DOJ and Congress from investigating you.
2. It keeps 65ish schools from asking them to investigate or ask why you need to receive Federal money for student grants or guaranteed loans when you could offset part of that with your excessive athletic spending.
3. It avoids some pressure to get the IRS involved.
4. It gives you some poor schools to point to as being in danger of bankruptcy if the Teamsters try to get the players certified as a union and gives you allies who are in poor compared to you to lobby to prevent it.
5. It gives you a stable of opponents who cannot afford to keep up with you but can be touted as being same division opponents.
6. It gives you a stable of rising coaches who can be hired who have experience running a program yet are affordable to hire away.
7. It gives you some insulation with the accrediting agencies that have twice threatened to pull accreditation of "out of control" athletic programs. The more schools spending big, the more likely it is deemed an acceptable practice.
8. It avoids internal state political issues.

That 15% is a cheap investment to avoid a lot of hassle.

That's $40 million each for Big 10, Pac-12, SEC, Big XII and $27.5 million for ACC

What is the advantage? Why do this?

To expand the playoff but only within the P5.

A 4 team model is fine, but better money is at 8 teams or maybe even 12 with play in games.

If you don't split from the current D1 then you will have the MAC and SBC and CUSA champs all whining for auto bids that take away slots from the P5 and in fact help level the recruiting playing field by saying "you have a better chance of going to the playoff with us thanks to our autobid"

So, if you control the system....why would you ever make it easier for your competitor to gain ground you?

Why not make a new subdivision within the NCAA so you cant be sued where you can have an expanded playoff and all the participants are from your leagues?

Right now, there are 5 P5 leagues and only 4 playoff spots. Under my model, everyone in the P5 is happy because each league gets an autobid plus 3 to 5 wildcards spots for their other teams.

It makes perfect sense for the P5 to want this. (I have no clue if it will ever actually happen, by it makes absolute sense for the P5 to try and make it so)