(05-31-2013 08:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 07:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 06:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its going to happen eventually. A P5 FB division within the NCAA is the best compromise.

It's going to happen and no whining from the G5 is going to stop it.

Right now there is pretty sharp divide between the conferences that average 50K+ in attendance (The P5) and the ones that average less than 30K (everybody else)

Ok sure lets make the dividing line 50k in attendance. Not to mention there's at least a dozen P5 that don't average 50k.

Conference average, not individual school average.

That's still a third of the college football fanbase. As long as third of the fanbase continues to buy tires, auto parts, and every other product advertised on FBS telecasts then no split will happen. Big Daddy Warbucks pays the freight and in this case, that's the tv networks. The networks have ZERO vested interest in a split that will alienate 30-40% of thier viewers. There's absolutely no upside for the networks and the networks call the shots. Your clearly not paying attention--every realignment decision is driven by who adds value to a conference. So suddenly, a major college decision is going to be made to eliminate a third of the viewing audience?

The P5 split talk is simply a way for the P5 to get the stipend they want. Nothing more.

This problem that has been brought up several times.What happens to the p5 conference members that do not play football at a level comparable to most of their conference? Including these schools would start the lawsuits. Would conferences expel schools like Kentucky to get what they want?

(05-31-2013 08:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 07:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 06:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its going to happen eventually. A P5 FB division within the NCAA is the best compromise.

It's going to happen and no whining from the G5 is going to stop it.

Right now there is pretty sharp divide between the conferences that average 50K+ in attendance (The P5) and the ones that average less than 30K (everybody else)

Ok sure lets make the dividing line 50k in attendance. Not to mention there's at least a dozen P5 that don't average 50k.

Conference average, not individual school average.

Ok then what's stopping ECU from going independent again and playing at the top level? Is ND going to be allowed to be independent but no one else?

(05-31-2013 09:14 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 08:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 07:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 06:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its going to happen eventually. A P5 FB division within the NCAA is the best compromise.

It's going to happen and no whining from the G5 is going to stop it.

Right now there is pretty sharp divide between the conferences that average 50K+ in attendance (The P5) and the ones that average less than 30K (everybody else)

Ok sure lets make the dividing line 50k in attendance. Not to mention there's at least a dozen P5 that don't average 50k.

Conference average, not individual school average.

Ok then what's stopping ECU from going independent again and playing at the top level? Is ND going to be allowed to be independent but no one else?

That's a good point. Sounds like a very sound basis for a lawsuit. ND would probably try to join a conference but a court would probably see this as manipulative.

Might as well just let them break away and scrap all conferences. Set up a promotion and demotion system like English Premier League soccer and the worst 3 teams in the P5 get demoted and the best 3 from the best of the rest get promoted.

I'm not a fan of this movement, but in reality it is just another step based on economics and evolution. The P5 want to be able to provide additional funds for the college athlete, the G5 cannot afford to. I do not see an additional division (if it occurs) having a huge impact on college football with the exception that it would likely eliminate FBS vs FCS gamedays, and that is a good thing (unless you are a fan of an FCS school). This could limit the number of G5 schools a P5 program could schedule in a year to be bowl eligible, but if no FCS schools are scheduled, it would in effect increase demand for G5 to play P5.

(05-31-2013 09:13 AM)redfan Wrote:  This problem that has been brought up several times.What happens to the p5 conference members that do not play football at a level comparable to most of their conference? Including these schools would start the lawsuits. Would conferences expel schools like Kentucky to get what they want?

It is about $$$, not competition. Kentucky brings money, as does Kansas. Kentucky football brings in more money that their basketball program.

(05-31-2013 06:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its going to happen eventually. A P5 FB division within the NCAA is the best compromise.

It's going to happen and no whining from the G5 is going to stop it.

Right now there is pretty sharp divide between the conferences that average 50K+ in attendance (The P5) and the ones that average less than 30K (everybody else)

Agreed., and the new P5 media contracts/conference networks are only going to make the divide even greater. The interesting thing is that this (if it happens) makes room for either more consolidation (P4) or another conference (P6). 5 just does not work well for a playoff.

What happens to programs like BYU, Boise State, Air Force, UCONN, etc? A best of the rest conference gets a P6 entry? Or maybe the G5 gets at "at large" birth in the playoff? (That would actually be cool).

(05-31-2013 09:26 AM)bearcatfan1211 Wrote:  Might as well just let them break away and scrap all conferences. Set up a promotion and demotion system like English Premier League soccer and the worst 3 teams in the P5 get demoted and the best 3 from the best of the rest get promoted.

That would not remove enough of the undeserving teams. It looks like any direction that they try to go with this is going to open a Pandora's box. Even if they were to completely withdraw there is a certainty of political,economic and legal problems. Another problem may be the unintentional consequences of such an action.

(05-31-2013 09:48 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:13 AM)redfan Wrote:  This problem that has been brought up several times.What happens to the p5 conference members that do not play football at a level comparable to most of their conference? Including these schools would start the lawsuits. Would conferences expel schools like Kentucky to get what they want?

It is about $$$, not competition. Kentucky brings money, as does Kansas. Kentucky football brings in more money that their basketball program.

True, but the argument in court would not be about money.

(05-31-2013 09:23 AM)redfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:14 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 08:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 07:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 06:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its going to happen eventually. A P5 FB division within the NCAA is the best compromise.

It's going to happen and no whining from the G5 is going to stop it.

Right now there is pretty sharp divide between the conferences that average 50K+ in attendance (The P5) and the ones that average less than 30K (everybody else)

Ok sure lets make the dividing line 50k in attendance. Not to mention there's at least a dozen P5 that don't average 50k.

Conference average, not individual school average.

Ok then what's stopping ECU from going independent again and playing at the top level? Is ND going to be allowed to be independent but no one else?

That's a good point. Sounds like a very sound basis for a lawsuit. ND would probably try to join a conference but a court would probably see this as manipulative.

The way D1 split last time was standards were set that you had to meet and if your conference wanted to meet them they could or if not they dropped. Individual schools in conferences that wanted to meet the standards but their conferences didn't could go independent. ECU wanted to stay D1, but the SOCON didn't so ECU went independent. If the split this time is set up any differently it's going to get nasty. Now you could easily set standards that would get rid of 40 or more of the G5 schools, but there are not standards that all of the P5 schools could meet that schools like ECU and others at the top of the G5 wouldn't meet.

The stipend is an excuse. For what I have no idea. The reality is that the P5 schools are not in solidarity on the stipend issue. There were P5 schools that helped shoot it down. It wasn't just the rest of D1. It's really laughable that they are claiming this as the issue that is driving the wedge, when it really isn't.

The P5 already have the lion's share of the revenue, have the majority of power within the NCAA structure, and have successfully scapegoated the NCAA into being the perceived evil of college athletics (when it really and truly is the universities themselves). If they want to breakaway, fine. Let them. But at least be honest with those intentions. What purpose does a breakaway really serve?

More money? Not that much more really.

More power? Hardly.

More prestige? Doubtful.

(05-31-2013 07:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 08:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Sadly, I think some degree of separation will happen. But there will be a huge overlap with at least a dozen (probably many more) "D super 1" programs not as good as a dozen "best of the rest" programs.

Again, another reason the G5 should have killed off the Sun Belt while they had a chance. And CUSA should not have added FCS schools. Better chance to get in a football Division I-A.

Although a football only division would seem likely, it doesn't solve the stipend issue for the rest of the sports. Maybe the new Division "I-A" sets its own rules, but participates in NCAA championships with the rest of Division I except for football.

And I agree that it won't be just the 5 contract conferences. They will have political difficulties leaving behind schools like BYU, UConn, Houston and many of the MWC schools. P5 + MWC + AACK! is more likely.

Your complaint about the Sun Belt should be directed at the other G5 conferences, who ended up drawing up a revenue sharing agreement that forced the Belt to take more moveups. It would have been better had the CUSA and SBC simply merged. But La Tech won't play n the same conference with ULM. And USM doesn't want to play with USA/Troy.

In this current environment, the Belt may have to keep on adding FCS moveups so long as the Wright Waters ESPN contract provides incentives for Belt teams to leave. And if that causes more risk to the Sun Belt and CUSA and the MAC and the AAC/MWC as far as relegation goes, that's everyone else's problem.

By the way, the Belt wasn't the worst conferene in football product OR attendence last year. And they might not be last this year in either. And CUSA has 3 moveups on board. One of whom has never played a down of college football. And F_U isn't going to help CUSA's attendence records. Tulane and Memphis aren't burnin' it up either in the AAC.

Its going to be hard to figure out a way to kick the Belt out based upon attendence or football product unless they kick others out too. Unless they simply say "we're going to just kick the Belt out". That's unlikely. I guess its possible.

By the way, why would the SEC want to change anything?

(05-31-2013 10:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 07:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 08:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Sadly, I think some degree of separation will happen. But there will be a huge overlap with at least a dozen (probably many more) "D super 1" programs not as good as a dozen "best of the rest" programs.

Again, another reason the G5 should have killed off the Sun Belt while they had a chance. And CUSA should not have added FCS schools. Better chance to get in a football Division I-A.

Although a football only division would seem likely, it doesn't solve the stipend issue for the rest of the sports. Maybe the new Division "I-A" sets its own rules, but participates in NCAA championships with the rest of Division I except for football.

And I agree that it won't be just the 5 contract conferences. They will have political difficulties leaving behind schools like BYU, UConn, Houston and many of the MWC schools. P5 + MWC + AACK! is more likely.

Your complaint about the Sun Belt should be directed at the other G5 conferences, who ended up drawing up a revenue sharing agreement that forced the Belt to take more moveups. It would have been better had the CUSA and SBC simply merged. But La Tech won't play n the same conference with ULM. And USM doesn't want to play with USA/Troy.

In this current environment, the Belt may have to keep on adding FCS moveups so long as the Wright Waters ESPN contract provides incentives for Belt teams to leave. And if that causes more risk to the Sun Belt and CUSA and the MAC and the AAC/MWC as far as relegation goes, that's everyone else's problem.

By the way, the Belt wasn't the worst conferene in football product OR attendence last year. And they might not be last this year in either. And CUSA has 3 moveups on board. One of whom has never played a down of college football. And F_U isn't going to help CUSA's attendence records. Tulane and Memphis aren't burnin' it up either in the AAC.

Its going to be hard to figure out a way to kick the Belt out based upon attendence or football product unless they kick others out too. Unless they simply say "we're going to just kick the Belt out". That's unlikely. I guess its possible.

By the way, why would the SEC want to change anything?

what would this do to programs like indiana, minnesota, who lose to local MAC teams and sometimes FCS teams. When lower tier super d-1 are playing only super d-1 teams they are going to get pumbled. (which i will be glad to see)

(05-31-2013 09:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The way D1 split last time was standards were set that you had to meet and if your conference wanted to meet them they could or if not they dropped. Individual schools in conferences that wanted to meet the standards but their conferences didn't could go independent.

The big boys don't want to set minimum standards now, they want new rules that will loosen some of the restrictions on themselves (for better or worse). Fewer restrictions on recruiting. Fewer bullsheet NCAA rules like the one that allowed schools to give a recruit a plain bagel but not a bagel with peanut butter on it. Fewer restrictions on the number of coaches and paid staff members, including this idea about a full-time staff of recruiters in addition to the coaching staff. Increasing the number of football scholarships -- actually that's one area where they might also set a minimum, e.g., a FBS football team would be required to offer at least 85 full scholarships. (The current maximum is 85.)

IMO, the big boys' overall goal is to make top-level CFB more expensive. It's possible that would cause many current FBS schools to reassess whether they want to spend that much money to muddle along at the middle or bottom of one of the "non-contract" leagues. So the big boys might get whatever benefits they think they'll get out of "thinning the herd" without having to forcibly remove any school from FBS.

(05-31-2013 08:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 07:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 06:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its going to happen eventually. A P5 FB division within the NCAA is the best compromise.

It's going to happen and no whining from the G5 is going to stop it.

Right now there is pretty sharp divide between the conferences that average 50K+ in attendance (The P5) and the ones that average less than 30K (everybody else)

Ok sure lets make the dividing line 50k in attendance. Not to mention there's at least a dozen P5 that don't average 50k.

Conference average, not individual school average.

Well then the ACC wouldn't make the cut and some years the Pac 12 would be cutting it pretty close.

(05-31-2013 09:13 AM)redfan Wrote:  This problem that has been brought up several times.What happens to the p5 conference members that do not play football at a level comparable to most of their conference? Including these schools would start the lawsuits. Would conferences expel schools like Kentucky to get what they want?

Kentucky is top 25 in attendance in football as well as top 5 in basketball. They typically beat schools like Oregon, West Virginia and North Carolina in attendance.

(05-31-2013 10:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The way D1 split last time was standards were set that you had to meet and if your conference wanted to meet them they could or if not they dropped. Individual schools in conferences that wanted to meet the standards but their conferences didn't could go independent.

The big boys don't want to set minimum standards now, they want new rules that will loosen some of the restrictions on themselves (for better or worse). Fewer restrictions on recruiting. Fewer bullsheet NCAA rules like the one that allowed schools to give a recruit a plain bagel but not a bagel with peanut butter on it. Fewer restrictions on the number of coaches and paid staff members, including this idea about a full-time staff of recruiters in addition to the coaching staff. Increasing the number of football scholarships -- actually that's one area where they might also set a minimum, e.g., a FBS football team would be required to offer at least 85 full scholarships. (The current maximum is 85.)

IMO, the big boys' overall goal is to make top-level CFB more expensive. It's possible that would cause many current FBS schools to reassess whether they want to spend that much money to muddle along at the middle or bottom of one of the "non-contract" leagues. So the big boys might get whatever benefits they think they'll get out of "thinning the herd" without having to forcibly remove any school from FBS.

We are actually talking about the same thing. That if there is a split in the future it will be voluntary just like last time. That schools and conferences will have to decide if they have the financial ability to do the types of things you listed. Yes the goal is the make top level football more expensive, but to make it so expensive that no current G5 schools could do it would probably eliminate the bottom of the P5 as well.

(05-31-2013 10:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 07:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 08:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Sadly, I think some degree of separation will happen. But there will be a huge overlap with at least a dozen (probably many more) "D super 1" programs not as good as a dozen "best of the rest" programs.

Again, another reason the G5 should have killed off the Sun Belt while they had a chance. And CUSA should not have added FCS schools. Better chance to get in a football Division I-A.

Although a football only division would seem likely, it doesn't solve the stipend issue for the rest of the sports. Maybe the new Division "I-A" sets its own rules, but participates in NCAA championships with the rest of Division I except for football.

And I agree that it won't be just the 5 contract conferences. They will have political difficulties leaving behind schools like BYU, UConn, Houston and many of the MWC schools. P5 + MWC + AACK! is more likely.

Your complaint about the Sun Belt should be directed at the other G5 conferences, who ended up drawing up a revenue sharing agreement that forced the Belt to take more moveups. It would have been better had the CUSA and SBC simply merged. But La Tech won't play n the same conference with ULM. And USM doesn't want to play with USA/Troy.

In this current environment, the Belt may have to keep on adding FCS moveups so long as the Wright Waters ESPN contract provides incentives for Belt teams to leave. And if that causes more risk to the Sun Belt and CUSA and the MAC and the AAC/MWC as far as relegation goes, that's everyone else's problem.

By the way, the Belt wasn't the worst conferene in football product OR attendence last year. And they might not be last this year in either. And CUSA has 3 moveups on board. One of whom has never played a down of college football. And F_U isn't going to help CUSA's attendence records. Tulane and Memphis aren't burnin' it up either in the AAC.

Its going to be hard to figure out a way to kick the Belt out based upon attendence or football product unless they kick others out too. Unless they simply say "we're going to just kick the Belt out". That's unlikely. I guess its possible.

By the way, why would the SEC want to change anything?

It will be hard for the p5 to get rid of "outside" teams without getting rid of "inside" teams. Low level p5 teams,in name only, should be nervous about this. They could be the sacrificial lambs left behind. The good bball, poor fball p5 schools are at more risk than they believe to be.

(05-31-2013 10:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The way D1 split last time was standards were set that you had to meet and if your conference wanted to meet them they could or if not they dropped. Individual schools in conferences that wanted to meet the standards but their conferences didn't could go independent.

The big boys don't want to set minimum standards now, they want new rules that will loosen some of the restrictions on themselves (for better or worse). Fewer restrictions on recruiting. Fewer bullsheet NCAA rules like the one that allowed schools to give a recruit a plain bagel but not a bagel with peanut butter on it. Fewer restrictions on the number of coaches and paid staff members, including this idea about a full-time staff of recruiters in addition to the coaching staff. Increasing the number of football scholarships -- actually that's one area where they might also set a minimum, e.g., a FBS football team would be required to offer at least 85 full scholarships. (The current maximum is 85.)

IMO, the big boys' overall goal is to make top-level CFB more expensive. It's possible that would cause many current FBS schools to reassess whether they want to spend that much money to muddle along at the middle or bottom of one of the "non-contract" leagues. So the big boys might get whatever benefits they think they'll get out of "thinning the herd" without having to forcibly remove any school from FBS.

I think their goals are two:
1) Set their own rules;
2) Thin Division I, especially for basketball, not so much for football. But football is where they can draw a cleaner break.

I don't think there's much interest in increasing football scholarships beyond the current 85. They don't need more players and don't need the Title IX headaches.