(07-19-2021 09:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would think the Big East schools should be rich enough to give scholarships to all athletes along with the P5's. On the other hand, could the MAC schools?

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

(07-19-2021 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Wow. The knives are out and disdain of Emmert is becoming even more transparent. The fact that both Sankey (SEC) and Bowlsby (B12) are making their grievances public is amazing. They are not going to let Emmert win the public relations war and have oversized influence over college athletics.

Emmert has been masterful in maintaining power…for himself and the NCAA. IMO, Sankey makes a great point when he points out that Alabama and Binghamton athletics share the same NCAA governance requirements for D1 scholarships, yet the financials of the athletic departments are wildly different. SUNY schools can barely afford D1 (https://www.uticaod.com/news/20200316/despite-losing-millions-suny-continues-to-invest-in-athletics) while the Crimson Tide wants/needs to provide more scholarships.

(07-19-2021 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

Agreed. The Tide schedule that way because they are competing for playoff spots against other teams that schedule that way. Saban has said he wants tougher schedules, but Alabama isn't going to hurt its playoff prospects by being the only team that schedules 11 or 12 P5 opponents. No other playoff contender is going to unilaterally toughen up its schedules, either.

(07-19-2021 11:51 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

Agreed. The Tide schedule that way because they are competing for playoff spots against other teams that schedule that way. Saban has said he wants tougher schedules, but Alabama isn't going to hurt its playoff prospects by being the only team that schedules 11 or 12 P5 opponents. No other playoff contender is going to unilaterally toughen up its schedules, either.

Alabama is obviously the greatest college football program in the history of this fabulous sport.

With that said, your comment is complete BS as far as I'm concerned. Why do you conveniently jump over 10 P5 games to 11 and 12? All BIG schools will play 10 P5 games in 2021 except for Indiana and Purdue is playing 11. That 2021 Alabama schedule is complete crap and the fans, I would hope, are demanding better!?!?!

I'm sure there are Big 12, ACC, PAC and other SEC schools playing 10 or more P5 games, I never looked into it.

Alabama's home games 2021:
Mercer
Southern Miss
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
New Mexico State
Auburn

If I'm a fan down there, that's not very attractive. I can't even imagine the abuse tOSU would take up here with those OOC games, ridiculous!

(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Wow. The knives are out and disdain of Emmert is becoming even more transparent. The fact that both Sankey (SEC) and Bowlsby (B12) are making their grievances public is amazing. They are not going to let Emmert win the public relations war and have oversized influence over college athletics.

Emmert has been masterful in maintaining power…for himself and the NCAA. IMO, Sankey makes a great point when he points out that Alabama and Binghamton athletics share the same NCAA governance requirements for D1 scholarships, yet the financials of the athletic departments are wildly different. SUNY schools can barely afford D1 (https://www.uticaod.com/news/20200316/despite-losing-millions-suny-continues-to-invest-in-athletics) while the Crimson Tide wants/needs to provide more scholarships.

Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I don't think low-income schools should be protected this way, at the expense of athletes. If a school doesn't have the money to compete fully at the highest level, they should drop down divisions or something. Athletes shouldn't suffer to boost them.

(07-19-2021 12:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Wow. The knives are out and disdain of Emmert is becoming even more transparent. The fact that both Sankey (SEC) and Bowlsby (B12) are making their grievances public is amazing. They are not going to let Emmert win the public relations war and have oversized influence over college athletics.

Emmert has been masterful in maintaining power…for himself and the NCAA. IMO, Sankey makes a great point when he points out that Alabama and Binghamton athletics share the same NCAA governance requirements for D1 scholarships, yet the financials of the athletic departments are wildly different. SUNY schools can barely afford D1 (https://www.uticaod.com/news/20200316/despite-losing-millions-suny-continues-to-invest-in-athletics) while the Crimson Tide wants/needs to provide more scholarships.

Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I don't think low-income schools should be protected this way, at the expense of athletes. If a school doesn't have the money to compete fully at the highest level, they should drop down divisions or something. Athletes shouldn't suffer to boost them.

It’s not a simple argument to communicate to the general public. The A5 schools want/need to offer all full scholarships and more scholarships in certain sports. From the A5 perspective, Title IX may actually be helping their business model (relative to other D1 universities).

(07-19-2021 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That goes to my point in another thread: the power universities legitimately have zero problem with Title IX. It's a total red herring for fans and, regardless of what people think, it's the law and, if anything, it has a lot more strength today in the public realm than it did when it was first passed nearly 5 decades ago.

(07-19-2021 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 12:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Wow. The knives are out and disdain of Emmert is becoming even more transparent. The fact that both Sankey (SEC) and Bowlsby (B12) are making their grievances public is amazing. They are not going to let Emmert win the public relations war and have oversized influence over college athletics.

Emmert has been masterful in maintaining power…for himself and the NCAA. IMO, Sankey makes a great point when he points out that Alabama and Binghamton athletics share the same NCAA governance requirements for D1 scholarships, yet the financials of the athletic departments are wildly different. SUNY schools can barely afford D1 (https://www.uticaod.com/news/20200316/despite-losing-millions-suny-continues-to-invest-in-athletics) while the Crimson Tide wants/needs to provide more scholarships.

Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I don't think low-income schools should be protected this way, at the expense of athletes. If a school doesn't have the money to compete fully at the highest level, they should drop down divisions or something. Athletes shouldn't suffer to boost them.

It’s not a simple argument to communicate to the general public. The A5 schools want/need to offer all full scholarships and more scholarships in certain sports. From the A5 perspective, Title IX may actually be helping their business model (relative to other D1 universities).

It's fascinating since it flies in the face of a lot of heartburn over how non-revenue sports were supposedly in danger with deregulation, NLI, etc. About half of this article was spent on how the P5 actually *wants* to spend more on non-revenue sports but can't due to NCAA scholarship limits.

That goes to my point in another thread: the power universities legitimately have zero problem with Title IX. It's a total red herring for fans and, regardless of what people think, it's the law and, if anything, it has a lot more strength today in the public realm than it did when it was first passed nearly 5 decades ago.

(07-19-2021 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 12:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Wow. The knives are out and disdain of Emmert is becoming even more transparent. The fact that both Sankey (SEC) and Bowlsby (B12) are making their grievances public is amazing. They are not going to let Emmert win the public relations war and have oversized influence over college athletics.

Emmert has been masterful in maintaining power…for himself and the NCAA. IMO, Sankey makes a great point when he points out that Alabama and Binghamton athletics share the same NCAA governance requirements for D1 scholarships, yet the financials of the athletic departments are wildly different. SUNY schools can barely afford D1 (https://www.uticaod.com/news/20200316/despite-losing-millions-suny-continues-to-invest-in-athletics) while the Crimson Tide wants/needs to provide more scholarships.

Yes, Sankey makes the good point that the "inclusive" structure of D1 is actually hurting athletes. More of them could be getting scholarships now because at least some P5 are willing to offer more, but the constraints, which are basically in place to protect the low-income schools ability to compete at D1, are preventing that.

I don't think low-income schools should be protected this way, at the expense of athletes. If a school doesn't have the money to compete fully at the highest level, they should drop down divisions or something. Athletes shouldn't suffer to boost them.

It’s not a simple argument to communicate to the general public. The A5 schools want/need to offer all full scholarships and more scholarships in certain sports. From the A5 perspective, Title IX may actually be helping their business model (relative to other D1 universities).

It's fascinating since it flies in the face of a lot of heartburn over how non-revenue sports were supposedly in danger with deregulation, NLI, etc. About half of this article was spent on how the P5 actually *wants* to spend more on non-revenue sports but can't due to NCAA scholarship limits.

That goes to my point in another thread: the power universities legitimately have zero problem with Title IX. It's a total red herring for fans and, regardless of what people think, it's the law and, if anything, it has a lot more strength today in the public realm than it did when it was first passed nearly 5 decades ago.

(07-19-2021 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 11:51 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

Agreed. The Tide schedule that way because they are competing for playoff spots against other teams that schedule that way. Saban has said he wants tougher schedules, but Alabama isn't going to hurt its playoff prospects by being the only team that schedules 11 or 12 P5 opponents. No other playoff contender is going to unilaterally toughen up its schedules, either.

Alabama is obviously the greatest college football program in the history of this fabulous sport.

With that said, your comment is complete BS as far as I'm concerned. Why do you conveniently jump over 10 P5 games to 11 and 12? All BIG schools will play 10 P5 games in 2021 except for Indiana and Purdue is playing 11. That 2021 Alabama schedule is complete crap and the fans, I would hope, are demanding better!?!?!

I'm sure there are Big 12, ACC, PAC and other SEC schools playing 10 or more P5 games, I never looked into it.

Alabama's home games 2021:
Mercer
Southern Miss
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
New Mexico State
Auburn

If I'm a fan down there, that's not very attractive. I can't even imagine the abuse tOSU would take up here with those OOC games, ridiculous!

Well, if I'm a Tide fan (and I'm decidedly NOT, but if) and I look at that schedule, what I see is home games vs

Ole Miss ....... a traditional rival coached by Lane Kiffin for extra spice.

Tennessee .... Another rival.

LSU ............. Another rival.

Auburn ........ Auburn.

So that's four very attractive games to me. Now, does this mean I think every game will be great? Of course not. Realistically, we will probably clobber Tennessee and Ole Miss. We might clobber Auburn and LSU too, but those are wild-cards. But that's fine! I like seeing my Tide clobber rivals, I'm not looking to have my heart stop every Saturday, LOL.

True, the games vs Mercer, NM State and USM are weak sauce. But still, why would I complain? I want us to win the SEC and CFP titles, and you can't do that getting beat up every week playing good teams. You need breathers, and these are the breathers.

Plus, to me, every home game is basically an "event". There's only 7 times out of 365 days that my beloved Tide take the field at home. So why wouldn't I want to be there for any of them?

I would personally have zero complaints.

(07-19-2021 11:51 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Well, you play the hand you are currently dealt because that's the reality right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't interested in changing the rules of the game..

Agreed. The Tide schedule that way because they are competing for playoff spots against other teams that schedule that way. Saban has said he wants tougher schedules, but Alabama isn't going to hurt its playoff prospects by being the only team that schedules 11 or 12 P5 opponents. No other playoff contender is going to unilaterally toughen up its schedules, either.

Alabama is obviously the greatest college football program in the history of this fabulous sport.

With that said, your comment is complete BS as far as I'm concerned. Why do you conveniently jump over 10 P5 games to 11 and 12? All BIG schools will play 10 P5 games in 2021 except for Indiana and Purdue is playing 11. That 2021 Alabama schedule is complete crap and the fans, I would hope, are demanding better!?!?!

I'm sure there are Big 12, ACC, PAC and other SEC schools playing 10 or more P5 games, I never looked into it.

Alabama's home games 2021:
Mercer
Southern Miss
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
New Mexico State
Auburn

If I'm a fan down there, that's not very attractive. I can't even imagine the abuse tOSU would take up here with those OOC games, ridiculous!