I certainly won't watch the semi-pro P5 football. They won't get ten seconds of my viewership. If I want to watch professional sports I will watch the NFL. If I want semi-pro football I will watch Arena. I won't watch P5 BS. Hopefully those arrogant bastards will lose their tax exempt status as well since they want to pay players.

(05-11-2013 02:00 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:17 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:24 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams.

Pro sports disproves that argument. Look at the NFL. Or MLB, or the NBA. None of them have teams that play their games in Nevada, or South Dakota, or Alaska, etc. You think they won't root for other teams? Go to Vegas during basketball season and see all the local fans wearing Lakers gear. And I bet you'll find a lot of Cowboys fans in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Broncos fans in Utah, Steelers fans in West Virginia, etc. You'll find St. Louis Cardinals baseball fans in many nearby states other than Missouri. These fans don't boycott NFL, MLB, or the NBA just because there isn't a team in their own state.

Pro sports is not college sports. The people of Connecticut eagerly root for the Patriots, Giants, and Jets in the NFL without hesitation.

But if UConn is left out of a proposed exclusive NCAA FB "club", do you think UConn fans will suddenly root for Boston College or Syracuse? Not a chance in hell. They'll just tune out college football completely.

The same goes here in Texas. If SMU is left out, do you think SMU alumni will suddenly root for TCU or Baylor? eh .... no. They'll also tune out.

SMU was left out of the Big 12 more than 15 years ago. Even so, I bet that people in Texas with SMU ties, if they are college football fans, even if they were angry about SMU being left out, are watching Longhorn, Aggie, and/or Sooner games on TV, just like Western Michigan alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Spartans, Wolverines, or other Big Ten teams on TV, and Florida Atlantic alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Gators and Seminoles, even though their own alma maters are not in a "contract conference" and never will be.

Few SMU fans that I know watch Texas, Texas A&M, or Oklahoma games on TV. But if there is a complete split in FBS, I don't think any SMU fans will watch college football again. They'll occasionally go to the SMU games and then watch the Dallas Cowboys. But they won't be watching the Longhorns, Aggies, or Sooners.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. It has been my experience that the majority of all Texans are basically Longhorn fans, even a lot of fans that went to Baylor, TCU, SMU, etc. . Texan's loyalty runs deep and Texas is the flasgship school in Texas and therefore more or less represents all Texans. When Texas won their latest National Championship, it was unbelieveable the number of people wearing Texas gear.

I'd guess that SMU fans will root for SMU football in its new league...one where an actual championship might be possible.

They'll also be casually interested in what's happening in the p5 football league...maybe to root against big=bad-Texas or maybe to root for them or for Nebraska or for LSU or whomever.

To claim some blatant "boycott" of p5 football isn't realistic. Maybe a few die-hards will take that line. But not the majority. I'm a casual NFL fan...I prefer the college game...but I don't boycott the NFL. It's just not my top choice. Group of 5 teams will prefer their new league...but won't fully boycott the Power 5.

(05-10-2013 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  More off-season silly talk. I guess Saban got bored with sniping back and forth with Stoops.

This is the part that proves this is silly talk:

Quote:Saban, whose schedule last year included Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic and Western Carolina

Saban's schedule. He's been there for several years. It's not somebody else's schedule. He's not a first-year coach who inherited a schedule he didn't like from a previous regime. So call us back when Alabama's non-con schedule is, say, West Virginia, Florida State, and North Carolina, instead of Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic, and Western Carolina.

North Carolina?

No, he can talk in a year when his non-conference is Ohio State, Notre Dame, and USC. And when he doesn't play teams in his own conference that finish with records that aren't embarrassing.

For Saban's idea to ever work, I think we'd need to see some changes:
1) a rule mandating a minimum number of away games (6) and a maximum number of home games (7).
2) change the number of games in the regular season to 13 games
3) go with Dabo Swinney's suggestion of turning the Spring Game into a real exhibition game vs. another school (perhaps an FCS).

So what you'd end up with is a standardized schedule like this:
Spring Game vs. FCS team (exhibition, doesn't count toward regular season record)
Opener vs. Mid-Major
6 Home games vs. P5 teams
6 Away games vs. P5 teams
=====================
8 marketable home games
13 games that "count"

(05-13-2013 04:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  For Saban's idea to ever work, I think we'd need to see some changes:
1) a rule mandating a minimum number of away games (6) and a maximum number of home games (7).
2) change the number of games in the regular season to 13 games
3) go with Dabo Swinney's suggestion of turning the Spring Game into a real exhibition game vs. another school (perhaps an FCS).

So what you'd end up with is a standardized schedule like this:
Spring Game vs. FCS team (exhibition, doesn't count toward regular season record)
Opener vs. Mid-Major
6 Home games vs. P5 teams
6 Away games vs. P5 teams
=====================
8 marketable home games
13 games that "count"

I totally agree about the Spring Game Exhibition that would be awesome, and if they wanted to limit it then they could rule that it must be a FCS program within the state to limit the travel budget. These FCS programs are not going to see million dollar payouts for these exhibition games so I think a instate FCS program would make the best option IMO. Other than I totally agree about the Spring game should be against another team.

(05-13-2013 06:35 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  they could rule that it must be a FCS program within the state to limit the travel budget.

The Arkansas Razorbacks would have to cancel spring games because they will never play an in-state program of any sort whatsoever.

(05-13-2013 03:16 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I'd guess that SMU fans will root for SMU football in its new league...one where an actual championship might be possible.

They'll also be casually interested in what's happening in the p5 football league...maybe to root against big=bad-Texas or maybe to root for them or for Nebraska or for LSU or whomever.

To claim some blatant "boycott" of p5 football isn't realistic. Maybe a few die-hards will take that line. But not the majority. I'm a casual NFL fan...I prefer the college game...but I don't boycott the NFL. It's just not my top choice. Group of 5 teams will prefer their new league...but won't fully boycott the Power 5.

They don't have to. What we are saying is 65 tema fanbases as a whole are being eliminated. Most of these people will be angry to an extent.

1). Some will simply walk away from the college game (including their own team).

2). Some will continue to support thier own team, but lose interest in the P5 since it has no relevance to thier team. Some will still watch P5 football--just much less often.

3). Some will have unchanged viewing habits.

4). The most damaging one will be the one that actively campaign against the advertisers of P5 games. They will write the advertisers, explain thier positions, and indicate they will no longer purchase the products of any company advertising P5 football. Advertisers purchase tv time to marginally increase sales--the last thing they want is to purchase time and actually degrade thier sales. Corporate America has plenty of advertising options--they don't have to advertise in a place that might hurt sales. If this option becomes an ORGANIZED movement rather than a just a random smattering of grass roots individuals, then the P5 breakaway could be significantly harmed to the point where it's not profitable to break away.

Not only that, such an organized movement would quickly gain significant public support and in turn, legislative support. Remeber, as popular as college fotball is, the majority of the country doesnt care. Women, casual fans, and fans of smaller teams will all be tend to be supprtive of the schools being demosted. Since fair play always plays well with the American public, the P5 probably don't want congress involved. The P5 already has the playing field slanted hugely in thier current direction, legislation can only hurt the P5 current position.

The truth is, I just don't see tv allowing a straight split. You literally would have entire states that have no FBS representation. You have nearly half the fanbases in FBS football eliminated. The Saban idea is too extreme and too drastic for tv to buy into it. On the other hand, Cutting FBS to 80-100 teams gets back to the historical size of the top level of college football and leaves room for most of the best known mid major brands, allows inclusion of the service acadamies, preserves coverage for every state in country, includes most every large mid-major that can make a good argument for inclusion, and minimizes the potential degradation of the potential viewing audience (since only the 25 smallest fan bases would be eliminated).

(05-13-2013 07:09 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 06:35 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  they could rule that it must be a FCS program within the state to limit the travel budget.

The Arkansas Razorbacks would have to cancel spring games because they will never play an in-state program of any sort whatsoever.

You never know.
Dean Smith would never play any school located in North Carolina that was not in the ACC. That situation lasted for as long as Smith was the coach. When Carolina got a coaching change the Tar Heels started playing in-state schools.

Since SOS is going to be part of the process in the selection of the playoff contenders, I could see a move towards stronger schedules. Removing most schools that aren't among the P5 conferences from the schedule would benefit that. Although I'd think the better programs among the Go5 would still be able to schedule some of the P5 schools, unless there's a total split...

Years ago when the "kickoff classics" were all the rage (and teams normally played 11 games), a writer (Sporting News maybe?), suggested that everyone be allowed to play a kickoff classic and his rules for the games were:

1. Teams could not host anyone rated below them the prior year.
2. Neutral sites could only be used if they were not in the home state of the visiting team or within 150 miles of the visiting team unless the site was closer to the host team.
3. The visiting team would take 65% of gate receipts and 75% of TV.

He had a vision of forcing top teams to not camp out at home and create early season drama where favored teams would be on the road.

Fun idea but we all know that one never got serious consideration.

(05-13-2013 06:35 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 04:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  For Saban's idea to ever work, I think we'd need to see some changes:
1) a rule mandating a minimum number of away games (6) and a maximum number of home games (7).
2) change the number of games in the regular season to 13 games
3) go with Dabo Swinney's suggestion of turning the Spring Game into a real exhibition game vs. another school (perhaps an FCS).

So what you'd end up with is a standardized schedule like this:
Spring Game vs. FCS team (exhibition, doesn't count toward regular season record)
Opener vs. Mid-Major
6 Home games vs. P5 teams
6 Away games vs. P5 teams
=====================
8 marketable home games
13 games that "count"

I totally agree about the Spring Game Exhibition that would be awesome, and if they wanted to limit it then they could rule that it must be a FCS program within the state to limit the travel budget. These FCS programs are not going to see million dollar payouts for these exhibition games so I think a instate FCS program would make the best option IMO. Other than I totally agree about the Spring game should be against another team.

I completely agree the idea and would hope UB could make a game against Stony Brook a regular thing as a spring or summer tuneup..

Aside form that I don't agree with the Mandate at 7... The most you can conceivably do is eight now so make that the MAX.. Nobody will force Alabama to play WKU and FIU in the same season, thats on them.

(05-11-2013 02:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC does NOT deserve to be included.

Neither does the MWC or SBC or any of the others.

As for the "we won't watch" we that's your loss.

Look at Montana and Delaware.

They aren't whining and crying that they aren't in the ACC or PAC (anymore)

Their fans aren't saying they won't support them if they aren't in the same playoff subdivision as Bama and Michigan are.

I'm going to say this as nicely as possible, go **** yourself. What do 2 schools that have been FCS the entire history of FCS have anything to do with schools like ECU, Houston, SMU, etc that never played a second of FCS football and have always been at the highest division? Who the **** are you to think you get to decide who "deserves" anything? What exactly have any schools that have been at the Division 1A/FBS level for it's entire existence done to no longer "deserve" to be at that level? You are a gigantic piece of trash.

(05-13-2013 10:55 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 02:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC does NOT deserve to be included.

Neither does the MWC or SBC or any of the others.

As for the "we won't watch" we that's your loss.

Look at Montana and Delaware.

They aren't whining and crying that they aren't in the ACC or PAC (anymore)

Their fans aren't saying they won't support them if they aren't in the same playoff subdivision as Bama and Michigan are.

I'm going to say this as nicely as possible, go **** yourself. What do 2 schools that have been FCS the entire history of FCS have anything to do with schools like ECU, Houston, SMU, etc that never played a second of FCS football and have always been at the highest division? Who the **** are you to think you get to decide who "deserves" anything? What exactly have any schools that have been at the Division 1A/FBS level for it's entire existence done to no longer "deserve" to be at that level? You are a gigantic piece of trash.

AAC-UConn just moved up from FCS about 10 years ago. ECU moved up in the 80s. Cincinnati was FCS for 1 season in 1982 and, I believe, was lower level 60 years ago. USF and UCF didn't have programs 25 years ago.
CUSA-UTSA and ODU didn't have programs 5 years ago. FAU, FIU, UAB have programs that are less than 20 years old. WKU moved up less than 5 years ago. UNT, Marshall and MTSU moved up in the mid-90s. USM was division II about 50 years ago. La Tech moved up in the 80s. UNCC still doesn't have a program. Rice and UTEP are the only ones who have been in the top division always with their program.
Sun Belt-Lousiana Lafayette is the only one who has been in Division I for an extended time (ASU moved up in late 80s, rest are much more recent).

There are a lot of schools in FBS that haven't been around for a long time.

(05-13-2013 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 10:55 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 02:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC does NOT deserve to be included.

Neither does the MWC or SBC or any of the others.

As for the "we won't watch" we that's your loss.

Look at Montana and Delaware.

They aren't whining and crying that they aren't in the ACC or PAC (anymore)

Their fans aren't saying they won't support them if they aren't in the same playoff subdivision as Bama and Michigan are.

I'm going to say this as nicely as possible, go **** yourself. What do 2 schools that have been FCS the entire history of FCS have anything to do with schools like ECU, Houston, SMU, etc that never played a second of FCS football and have always been at the highest division? Who the **** are you to think you get to decide who "deserves" anything? What exactly have any schools that have been at the Division 1A/FBS level for it's entire existence done to no longer "deserve" to be at that level? You are a gigantic piece of trash.

AAC-UConn just moved up from FCS about 10 years ago. ECU moved up in the 80s. Cincinnati was FCS for 1 season in 1982 and, I believe, was lower level 60 years ago. USF and UCF didn't have programs 25 years ago.
CUSA-UTSA and ODU didn't have programs 5 years ago. FAU, FIU, UAB have programs that are less than 20 years old. WKU moved up less than 5 years ago. UNT, Marshall and MTSU moved up in the mid-90s. USM was division II about 50 years ago. La Tech moved up in the 80s. UNCC still doesn't have a program. Rice and UTEP are the only ones who have been in the top division always with their program.
Sun Belt-Lousiana Lafayette is the only one who has been in Division I for an extended time (ASU moved up in late 80s, rest are much more recent).

There are a lot of schools in FBS that haven't been around for a long time.

ECU didn't "move up" in the 80's. When D1 split into 1A and 1AA ECU left the SOCON which was going to go 1AA and went independent to stay 1A. ECU never played a second of 1AA/FCS football. Yeah a lot of schools have come up in in not too distant past, but why should that have anything to do with whether schools that have always been Division 1A are allowed to stay at the highest division if they meet all the qualifications? Now if like the last time there were split qualifications were set that schools/leagues had to meet or they couldn't stay up like number of sports sponsored, attendance, ability to pay the stipend, or whatever that would be 1 thing. I'd be fine with that because for the standards to be set where ECU couldn't make them it would eliminate a good number of current contract conference teams.

(05-11-2013 03:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 02:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC does NOT deserve to be included.

Neither does the MWC or SBC or any of the others.

As for the "we won't watch" we that's your loss.

Look at Montana and Delaware.

They aren't whining and crying that they aren't in the ACC or PAC (anymore)

Their fans aren't saying they won't support them if they aren't in the same playoff subdivision as Bama and Michigan are.

As an alum & fan of both UConn & SMU, I currently follow all of college football. If my schools are left out completely, I'll still follow those football programs, but I'll never watch college football again on TV. I have better things to do than watch South Carolina vs. Iowa State, or Syracuse vs. Minnesota. If I feel the need to watch football, I'll watch the NFL.

The thought that they can split FBS and suddenly turn: 1) ECU fans into UNC fans, 2) Memphis fans into Tennessee fans, and 3) UConn fans into Boston College fans, is just foolish. It's pure idiocy. Millions of people will just walk away.

Am I being clear on this subject? I hope this is penetrating some of the more dense skulls on this board.

I doubt that it is. They're too close to the money to step back and understand what would happen. It's like buying that stock and it goes up a bunch and you're just waiting for it to go up a little bit more....and then it tanks. And you never get that money back.

To think you can try something like this, and if it doesn't work, try something else, is foolish. People that lose interest will take a long time to come back, if they ever do. Took a long time for baseball to recover, and it still isn't what it used to be. I never went back just because of the strike a couple decades ago. I found other things to do. Especially when college football is already losing fans across the country. They just can't afford it.

(05-13-2013 08:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 02:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC does NOT deserve to be included.

Neither does the MWC or SBC or any of the others.

As for the "we won't watch" we that's your loss.

Look at Montana and Delaware.

They aren't whining and crying that they aren't in the ACC or PAC (anymore)

Their fans aren't saying they won't support them if they aren't in the same playoff subdivision as Bama and Michigan are.

As an alum & fan of both UConn & SMU, I currently follow all of college football. If my schools are left out completely, I'll still follow those football programs, but I'll never watch college football again on TV. I have better things to do than watch South Carolina vs. Iowa State, or Syracuse vs. Minnesota. If I feel the need to watch football, I'll watch the NFL.

The thought that they can split FBS and suddenly turn: 1) ECU fans into UNC fans, 2) Memphis fans into Tennessee fans, and 3) UConn fans into Boston College fans, is just foolish. It's pure idiocy. Millions of people will just walk away.

Am I being clear on this subject? I hope this is penetrating some of the more dense skulls on this board.

I doubt that it is. They're too close to the money to step back and understand what would happen. It's like buying that stock and it goes up a bunch and you're just waiting for it to go up a little bit more....and then it tanks. And you never get that money back.

To think you can try something like this, and if it doesn't work, try something else, is foolish. People that lose interest will take a long time to come back, if they ever do. Took a long time for baseball to recover, and it still isn't what it used to be. I never went back just because of the strike a couple decades ago. I found other things to do. Especially when college football is already losing fans across the country. They just can't afford it.

I refuse to watch the NBA after their strike a few years ago. I doubt I will ever go back. Same thing will happen if there is a split. If I want to watch football Ill turn to NBCSN and watch Army play with tune in the MAC digital network and watch fellow conference schools play.

(05-13-2013 08:33 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 08:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 02:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC does NOT deserve to be included.

Neither does the MWC or SBC or any of the others.

As for the "we won't watch" we that's your loss.

Look at Montana and Delaware.

They aren't whining and crying that they aren't in the ACC or PAC (anymore)

Their fans aren't saying they won't support them if they aren't in the same playoff subdivision as Bama and Michigan are.

As an alum & fan of both UConn & SMU, I currently follow all of college football. If my schools are left out completely, I'll still follow those football programs, but I'll never watch college football again on TV. I have better things to do than watch South Carolina vs. Iowa State, or Syracuse vs. Minnesota. If I feel the need to watch football, I'll watch the NFL.

The thought that they can split FBS and suddenly turn: 1) ECU fans into UNC fans, 2) Memphis fans into Tennessee fans, and 3) UConn fans into Boston College fans, is just foolish. It's pure idiocy. Millions of people will just walk away.

Am I being clear on this subject? I hope this is penetrating some of the more dense skulls on this board.

I doubt that it is. They're too close to the money to step back and understand what would happen. It's like buying that stock and it goes up a bunch and you're just waiting for it to go up a little bit more....and then it tanks. And you never get that money back.

To think you can try something like this, and if it doesn't work, try something else, is foolish. People that lose interest will take a long time to come back, if they ever do. Took a long time for baseball to recover, and it still isn't what it used to be. I never went back just because of the strike a couple decades ago. I found other things to do. Especially when college football is already losing fans across the country. They just can't afford it.

I refuse to watch the NBA after their strike a few years ago. I doubt I will ever go back. Same thing will happen if there is a split. If I want to watch football Ill turn to NBCSN and watch Army play with tune in the MAC digital network and watch fellow conference schools play.

Same here. I like watching us play Toledo and WMU, they're usually good games. Playing Kent State last year was intriguing to see if we could stop Dri Archer. They're better than teams like Indiana and Kansas and Northwestern. They just don't get the attention. And they play games ON THE ROAD! Imagine that.