(05-01-2019 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 08:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2019 07:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Screw the G5. If they have a school among the top three at large, then fine. Otherwise the top one still gets the NY6 consolation game.

Fair by what standard? If you invest 1/3rd less than P5, and most G5 schools invest less than 1/2 of the typical P5, never mind the elite 20 programs seriously in the hunt for a playoff berth, then you deserve no better than a 2/3 shot at best.

You may be winning poker at the $20 minimum table, but that doesn't get you an invite to $500 minimum table.

With that argument, the G5 schools are investing more of their own money than any of the P5. The P5 is investing donor and ESPN dollars.

Hogwash! Every G5 school is subsidized by 25% or more for football. They aren't investing their own money. They are investing taxpayers money.

Well its the taxpayer money they could be spending on the school instead of the football team.

The P5 is not spending significant school money on the team.

So saying the G5 isn't investing, is hogwash in regards to most of the G5.

The public is being forced to invest in a product that is not supporting itself Bullet. Your original inference left out the fact that everyone of those schools was being at least 1/4 subsidized and many of them much much more. At a time when revenue for the public infrastructure is at a premium to acquire this is plain and simple waste in a effort to make smaller schools seem larger than they are, alumni donors more important than they are, and to continue pork barrel local spending on pet projects within regions of states is the work of lousy state representatives.

Quite frankly if an Athletic Department can't operate in the black then the product they offer is a luxury that the citizens who fund that state school can't afford. Where does it say in our Constitution that every state university or college is entitled to football whether their alumni support it or not?

Part of the problem that nobody wants discuss with regard to the FBS is just how many schools are trying to play the sports card to keep enrollment up when market forces say they should reduce tuition, increase enrollment, and offer a better product for the job market in order to attract students and stay in business. If their sports programs need subsidizing those programs quite frankly need to be reduced or eliminated. It's nothing more than market forces at work.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I'm just calling bs on someone else's claim that G5 aren't trying, when its tougher for them than for more established (or luckier-see Wake Forest) programs which have a strong alumni donor base.