Do you guys actually WANT your schools to separate from us, the unwashed masses?

Please G5 guys, don't screw this poll up if you can help it.

No, not schools like your ECU. Perhaps it is that personal opinion of mine that lends my judgement in believing we will see a conference of such schools in the top division when it is all said and done.

Plenty of folks think you will be left behind but I don't see it happening. I have my reasons for that belief too that cannot be attributed simply to personal bias.

Tulane comes first with me, so I admit my non-P5 bias. But I have been rooting for Georgia longer than any other team and I never wish ill on the Dawgs unless they are playing Tulane (which hasn't happened in football since 1985).

So as a Georgia fan, no I do not want to see the "top" division restricted to "60-to-70" members as some AD recently said (was that the Missouri AD?).

Personally, I think the "top" division should have about 90-95 teams. Bare-minimum of 80 in any case, no more than 105 in any case.

(08-26-2013 05:43 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Do you guys actually WANT your schools to separate from us, the unwashed masses?

Please G5 guys, don't screw this poll up if you can help it.

It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. Do I want to separate from all of the G5 schools? No. Do I want to separate from schools who have no business in FBS like Idaho, Georgia State, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, etc.? Yes I do.

Do I want to separate from the DI in name only schools who are only here fo the March Madness paycheck? Yes I do.

(08-26-2013 06:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 05:43 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Do you guys actually WANT your schools to separate from us, the unwashed masses?

Please G5 guys, don't screw this poll up if you can help it.

It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. Do I want to separate from all of the G5 schools? No. Do I want to separate from schools who have no business in FBS like Idaho, Georgia State, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, etc.? Yes I do.

Do I want to separate from the DI in name only schools who are only here fo the March Madness paycheck? Yes I do.

I can go with this.

I think there is already a separation. We might as well formalize it.

(08-26-2013 06:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. Do I want to separate from all of the G5 schools? No. Do I want to separate from schools who have no business in FBS like Idaho, Georgia State, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, etc.? Yes I do.

Do I want to separate from the DI in name only schools who are only here fo the March Madness paycheck? Yes I do.

Then let's establish some neutral criteria -- in terms of budget, # of scholarships, # of coaches/employees, size/quality of facilities, season-tickets sold, (and $-value of those tickets), attendance, endowment, enrollment, etc. -- that any school can either choose to "match" (and be included), or not-match and be excluded.

(08-26-2013 06:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 05:43 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Do you guys actually WANT your schools to separate from us, the unwashed masses?

Please G5 guys, don't screw this poll up if you can help it.

It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. Do I want to separate from all of the G5 schools? No. Do I want to separate from schools who have no business in FBS like Idaho, Georgia State, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, etc.? Yes I do.

Do I want to separate from the DI in name only schools who are only here fo the March Madness paycheck? Yes I do.

This

I voted yes. I would prefer an upper tier of 72 schools inclusive of the better G5 programs, but that was not an option. It is absolute insanity that those at the top echelon of the sport are outvoted on business matters that by schools who will never be faced with the complexity and intricacies of a Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, or Southern California. Maybe it could be inclusive up to 80, but there is a very clear break in per school investment in athletics between #71 & #72.

The scope, the earning potential, the numbers of sports involved, the number of fans, the state of the art in facilities, and the size of the budgets all indicated the sincere need for a distinction between levels of programs.

(08-26-2013 06:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 06:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. Do I want to separate from all of the G5 schools? No. Do I want to separate from schools who have no business in FBS like Idaho, Georgia State, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, etc.? Yes I do.

Do I want to separate from the DI in name only schools who are only here fo the March Madness paycheck? Yes I do.

Then let's establish some neutral criteria -- in terms of budget, # of scholarships, # of coaches/employees, size/quality of facilities, season-tickets sold, (and $-value of those tickets), attendance, endowment, enrollment, etc. -- that any school can either choose to "match" (and be included), or not-match and be excluded.

Sure, but you'd have to accept that standards will only be for those that want to join and won't apply retroactively to any P5 member.

IOW, if the standard is 40k attendance, it won't apply to Duke or WF. Call that unfair if you want but P5 conferences already have their tickets.

65 schools, tops.

I would prefer 64.

ACC = 14 teams
B12 = 10 teams
B10 = 14 teams
SEC = 14 teams
PAC12 = 12 teams

BYU and Notre Dame will be included. That's 66 teams.

To this group, I would expect that at least 16 teams from the AAC and the MWC will be joining in on the fun. You will probably see the MWC schools join the AAC schools. The MWC would leave behind Wyoming, Utah State, SJSU and either Nevada or UNM. I'm willing to bet that Nevada would be the one left out.

This giant 20-team super conference will be in D4. It will also be a very, very good conference that will compete with the ACC and the Pac12 most years.

I didn't vote because it would depend on the nature of the separation. I'm not against the idea of a semi-separate division that's there mostly so the power schools can make rules that make sense at their level, but don't make sense for most in division 1 or even 1-A.

That would only be for rule making purposes though and really probably only apply to a few issues here and there. Bowls, games played, etc would all continue as is.

That said, the result I think is most likely is that the power conference commissioners get a lot of concessions from the rest of division 1 on rules and nothing changes.

I'm comfortable with about 80 Football schools at the top level and about double that with Basketball. You need a turnstile 25k average in Football and 4k in Basktball

(08-26-2013 09:49 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I'm comfortable with about 80 Football schools at the top level and about double that with Basketball. You need a turnstile 25k average in Football and 4k in Basktball

That's fair.

I do think that there should be multiple criteria (I listed a kind of "rough draft" of what those criteria might be above), and I think that if a school exceeds some or most of the criteria, they should be allowed to come up short (but at least reasonably close) in a few other criteria.

i want to see the g5/p5 rivalries be kept and i think that if you are a major rival of a p5 school then you should have a guaranteed spot. i also think the schools who have been at the highest level of football for a long time should be grandfathered in.

the biggest issue i have with this proposed split has to do with temple, utah st. & uconn. its nearly unanimous on this board that uconn and temple should be among the first schools in. but nobody wants usu

temple joined the top cfb division in 1971, and its 10 years removed from being 1 vote shy of disbanding their FB team. they dont have a major rivalry with any p5 school

uconn joined the top cfb division in 2000. they are not rivaled with any p5 team either. they come from a region that cant even support syracuse & bc recruiting wise and their addition is only going to water down northeast FB even more.

why these two schools get first dibs while utah st is the last school mentioned is beyond me.

utah state joined the top cfb division in the 1930s. they have a rivalry with utah which is one of the oldest football rivalries and one with byu as well. everyone keeps mentioning a bunch of east coast schools but its the western schools like colorado, colorado state, wyoming, new mexico, new mexico state, utah, utah state, idaho, arizona, washington state, & byu that have all the history. and i really hope that for cfb's sake these rivalries are kept.

i dont feel that uconn & temple are deserving of a d4 bid yet because they have not proven themselves as viable football schools long term. we have no idea of the future of these two programs considering where they were not too long ago. with new mexico & utah state we know that while they are terrible football schools they are schools that have been at the highest level of sports for 70-80 years and have no plans of ending that. temple has shown mixed signs of wether it intends to be a fb school or not. uconn looks to be solidly committed to FB for the time being. but i have a hard time investing in a FB program thats so new to d1.

no disrespect to uconn but their program could disappear tomorrow and nothing in cfb will change. no one in the east is attached to uconn. heck syracuse & BC will applaud it. take colorado state, or utah state out of the picture and there will be some pretty big shockwaves in the west.

(08-26-2013 05:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, not schools like your ECU. Perhaps it is that personal opinion of mine that lends my judgement in believing we will see a conference of such schools in the top division when it is all said and done.

Plenty of folks think you will be left behind but I don't see it happening. I have my reasons for that belief too that cannot be attributed simply to personal bias.

This

Schools like ECU, UCF, Fresno, USF, Cincinnati, etc are great because they have decent fanbases and their schools commit to football.

Schools that average 15-20k a game suck and shouldn't be allowed in the same division. JMO

(08-26-2013 06:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 06:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. Do I want to separate from all of the G5 schools? No. Do I want to separate from schools who have no business in FBS like Idaho, Georgia State, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, etc.? Yes I do.

Do I want to separate from the DI in name only schools who are only here fo the March Madness paycheck? Yes I do.

Then let's establish some neutral criteria -- in terms of budget, # of scholarships, # of coaches/employees, size/quality of facilities, season-tickets sold, (and $-value of those tickets), attendance, endowment, enrollment, etc. -- that any school can either choose to "match" (and be included), or not-match and be excluded.

Average 30k a game of real attendance.

Must use at least 80 scholarships and pay 5000 a year stipends

(08-26-2013 10:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i want to see the g5/p5 rivalries be kept and i think that if you are a major rival of a p5 school then you should have a guaranteed spot. i also think the schools who have been at the highest level of football for a long time should be grandfathered in.

the biggest issue i have with this proposed split has to do with temple, utah st. & uconn. its nearly unanimous on this board that uconn and temple should be among the first schools in. but nobody wants usu

temple joined the top cfb division in 1971, and its 10 years removed from being 1 vote shy of disbanding their FB team. they dont have a major rivalry with any p5 school

uconn joined the top cfb division in 2000. they are not rivaled with any p5 team either. they come from a region that cant even support syracuse & bc recruiting wise and their addition is only going to water down northeast FB even more.

why these two schools get first dibs while utah st is the last school mentioned is beyond me.

utah state joined the top cfb division in the 1930s. they have a rivalry with utah which is one of the oldest football rivalries and one with byu as well. everyone keeps mentioning a bunch of east coast schools but its the western schools like colorado, colorado state, wyoming, new mexico, new mexico state, utah, utah state, idaho, arizona, washington state, & byu that have all the history. and i really hope that for cfb's sake these rivalries are kept.

i dont feel that uconn & temple are deserving of a d4 bid yet because they have not proven themselves as viable football schools long term. we have no idea of the future of these two programs considering where they were not too long ago. with new mexico & utah state we know that while they are terrible football schools they are schools that have been at the highest level of sports for 70-80 years and have no plans of ending that. temple has shown mixed signs of wether it intends to be a fb school or not. uconn looks to be solidly committed to FB for the time being. but i have a hard time investing in a FB program thats so new to d1.

no disrespect to uconn but their program could disappear tomorrow and nothing in cfb will change. no one in the east is attached to uconn. heck syracuse & BC will applaud it. take colorado state, or utah state out of the picture and there will be some pretty big shockwaves in the west.

Fear not about UConn. No state is investing as heavily in their flagship school as Connecticut is with UConn. Academically and athletically, UConn will be fine.

I think we're on the B1G's radar, but it's likely we'll be in the AAC for a while and we'll be ok. We're not going to die on the vine.