STOP ALL THE NONSENSE WITH ALL OF THIS CHATTER

THE FBS JUST SIGNED A 12 YEAR AGREEMENT. SO YOU CAN STOP THESE ENDLESS LISTS OF WHAT TEAMS MAKE THE CUT. AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT 12 YEARS EVERYONE THAT IS FBS TODAY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE 4 TEAM PLAYOFF.

ALL OF THIS NOISE IS TO GET FCS AND NON-Football DIV 1 Schools
Out of voting on FBS issues.



"We agreed on the system, we agreed on access, we agreed on revenue — it's a 12-year agreement," Banowsky said. "We all signed the agreement. That's glue. We're parties to the same long-term contract."


Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky doesn't foresee NCAA split


July 24, 2013|By Dieter Kurtenbach, Sun Sentinel


IRVING, Texas — Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky is calling his fellow commissioners' bluffs.

In the past few weeks commissioners of the "Big Five" conferences have publicly called for the creation of either a fourth division of the NCAA or for the power conferences to leave the NCAA outright, but Banowsky, speaking at Conference USA media day, doesn't see that happening.




Ads by Google

Ask Memorabilia AppraiserAn Appraiser Will Answer You Now! Questions Answered Every 9 Seconds. Antiques.JustAnswer.com
Teaching Certificate USCBecome a Teacher. Earn a Masters in Teaching Online at USC. rossieronline.usc.edu




"We move members around, but the Universities stay in the same place," Banowsky said. "Some get bigger, some get really big, but my sense is that fabric is there."
The reason Banowsky doesn't see the SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC leaving Conference USA and the other mid-major football conferences behind is the newly agreed upon College Football Playoff.
"We agreed on the system, we agreed on access, we agreed on revenue — it's a 12-year agreement," Banowsky said. "We all signed the agreement. That's glue. We're parties to the same long-term contract."

That's not to say that Banowsky is completely pleased with high-level college sports' governing body. Banowsky, who heads the NCAA's committee on infractions, said he has "frustration with the way the NCAA enforcement activity works."

"The reform agenda didn't accomplish what we hoped it would," he said. "I think we are all feeling frustration not being able to solve those problems."

As for Conference USA's role in future NCAA reform conversations, Banowski said "I'm pretty confident that our group will be included and our opinion will be voiced."

Contracts are made to be broken. It is the American way.

Further proof that if you type in caps your opinion is worth double.

Agreed completely with OP. They made this a long term deal on purpose. Also, very importantly, the contract has nothing to do with the NCAA. The NCAA does not run the CFP. The contract is between the conferences (and probably a few independents, definitely Notre Dame) and they are all in it. Getting out of that would be a huge headache and one easily avoidable if it was the plan given the contract was signed recently.

Even if we actually get a new division in college football and even if it is just the 5 power conferences, the practical separation between it and current I-A is going to be a lot less than between I-A and I-AA now. More likely, the realignment is wider than that and even more likely than that, the schools who had been voting down the options the power schools wanted to pursue will now go along to keep their place in the top division and checks coming.

(07-25-2013 08:45 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Contracts are made to be broken. It is the American way.

It all depends on language and how good your lawyer is.

OP,

Please rephrase your post. Feels like plagarism.

Damages would interesting. Writing a check for the distribution is one thing. How you assess the value of the 12 guaranteed CFP appearances the speculative value of potentially being top 4 and in the playoff is another matter all together.

(07-25-2013 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Damages would interesting. Writing a check for the distribution is one thing. How you assess the value of the 12 guaranteed CFP appearances the speculative value of potentially being top 4 and in the playoff is another matter all together.

They don't want all of this in a court. They really don't.

Another reason they won't arbitrarily choose who is in and who is out. It will be like the other methods they have used. They will try to price some schools out of the market.

30k stadium was a real limiter. But then they eased the options to that and we've had a flood of schools. Now they are requiring invitations to FBS, but WAC (until it died), CUSA and Sun Belt have both been generous in bringing schools up and still have room for up to 7 more. MAC has room for up to 3 more. And AAC and MWC might draw from those 3.

I think they are very serious about setting their own rules. It won't be simply going to 16 or 18 sports with a higher mandatory number of scholarships and cutting 50-100 schools out of Division I. I think we will see a new division by 2016. But what that division consists of? What financial standards they will require? Will they put teeth in their existing attendance standard? In the past 5 years there have been 7 schools who have failed the 15k test in at least 2 consecutive years and a half dozen others who seem to fail it every other year.

What the fans of the "smaller" schools need to understand is this:
1. P5 working together can get things done. NCAA is a huge bureaucracy and can't.
2. "Smaller" schools are setting rules limiting what the P5 can do because the smaller schools can't afford it and they want to handcuff the P5 so they can be more competitive. That makes no sense for the P5 to be in that type of organization.
3. Schools move into Division I to get a share of the basketball money and do nothing to "earn" it.

Those are the 3 biggest drivers. #2 has been a continuing irritant. The MWC and AAC schools generally aren't part of the problem other than being more people to get to agree.

(07-25-2013 08:42 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  ALL OF THIS NOISE IS TO GET FCS AND NON-Football DIV 1 Schools Out of voting on FBS issues.

That is the worst kept secret in college sports.

The goal is not to keep anyone out of the playoff. That would make the rich schools look greedy. The goal is to make it too expensive for smaller schools to compete. Step 1 is to not let them vote on FBS issues. Step 2 is to implement rules that make it harder for smaller schools to compete (like stadium size, stipends, number of scholarships, etc.). The problem is they have to make the rules loose enough so they can keep a few "gimme" games in the conference but tight enough so every school doesn't jump in the D1 boat.

I don't think the "Power 5" conferences/ND would break off from the "Non-Power 5" conferences and indies. I think that they as a group would break off and form an NCAA Premier Division or their own new organization. They would also likely include the Big East and perhaps the West Coast Conference.

(07-25-2013 10:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  Another reason they won't arbitrarily choose who is in and who is out. It will be like the other methods they have used. They will try to price some schools out of the market.

30k stadium was a real limiter. But then they eased the options to that and we've had a flood of schools. Now they are requiring invitations to FBS, but WAC (until it died), CUSA and Sun Belt have both been generous in bringing schools up and still have room for up to 7 more. MAC has room for up to 3 more. And AAC and MWC might draw from those 3.

I think they are very serious about setting their own rules. It won't be simply going to 16 or 18 sports with a higher mandatory number of scholarships and cutting 50-100 schools out of Division I. I think we will see a new division by 2016. But what that division consists of? What financial standards they will require? Will they put teeth in their existing attendance standard? In the past 5 years there have been 7 schools who have failed the 15k test in at least 2 consecutive years and a half dozen others who seem to fail it every other year.

Since 30k stadium was repealed who has moved up?
FIU. Pre-existing member of the Sun Belt.
FAU. Added to offset WAC raid.
Western Kentucky. Pre-existing member of the Sun Belt
South Alabama. Pre-existing member of the Sun Belt.
UMass. Added to balance Temple
Texas State. Added by WAC after raids, then by Sun Belt.
UTSA. Added by the WAC after raids, then the Sun Belt.
ODU. Added by CUSA post-raid
Charlotte. Added by CUSA post-raid
Georgia State. Added by Sun Belt post-raid.
Georgia Southern. Added by Sun Belt post-raid
Appalachian State. Added by Sun Belt post-raid.

Out of these most have 30k seats. Off the top of my head App, GaSo, ODU, UTSA would have met the old 17k attendance requirement.

It goes back to the other change. You want in, you have to have an invite. Well. They all got an invite.
FIU, USA, WKU were all getting in by operation of their conference bylaws.
UMass is the only one of the rest who wasn't a survival move.

(07-25-2013 10:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  What the fans of the "smaller" schools need to understand is this:
1. P5 working together can get things done. NCAA is a huge bureaucracy and can't.
2. "Smaller" schools are setting rules limiting what the P5 can do because the smaller schools can't afford it and they want to handcuff the P5 so they can be more competitive. That makes no sense for the P5 to be in that type of organization.
3. Schools move into Division I to get a share of the basketball money and do nothing to "earn" it.

Those are the 3 biggest drivers. #2 has been a continuing irritant. The MWC and AAC schools generally aren't part of the problem other than being more people to get to agree.

The purpose of the NCAA should be to advance all of its members, create a level playing field, and act for "the good of the game". It shouldn't be for protecting the advantaged or keeping some members in "their place".

Some schools and conferences have natural advantages. Those will never go away and a level playing field won't change them. Texas will never be threatened by UTSA.

Small schools should not expect to use the NCAA to get a free ride...but large schools should not expect protection from the threat of small schools advancing.

More "good of the game" and less "money, money, money, me, me, me". But then again this is America in 2013 so expect it to turn out poorly.

(07-25-2013 10:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  What the fans of the "smaller" schools need to understand is this:
1. P5 working together can get things done. NCAA is a huge bureaucracy and can't.
2. "Smaller" schools are setting rules limiting what the P5 can do because the smaller schools can't afford it and they want to handcuff the P5 so they can be more competitive. That makes no sense for the P5 to be in that type of organization.
3. Schools move into Division I to get a share of the basketball money and do nothing to "earn" it.

Those are the 3 biggest drivers. #2 has been a continuing irritant. The MWC and AAC schools generally aren't part of the problem other than being more people to get to agree.

When the stipend was adopted as an optional rule, the Sun Belt was the first conference in all of FBS to autorize its members to award the stipend.

As to the AAC and MWC.
MWC was the conference that grandstanded and acted as if it would not sign the last BCS deal and publicly declared everyone should sign off on their 8 team playoff.
The AAC's former CUSA members joined with the MWC at the BCS meetings to hold out against a proposal to have the two highest rated non-AQ champs each year meet on either the first or second Saturday of December to play for a guaranteed BCS slot. A deal proposed by some of the AQ. Without their agreement, the status quo was left in place.

The MWC and the AAC as the spiritual heir to the old CUSA has been far more of a hassle to the P5 than the MAC, Sun Belt, and WAC ever were.

Non-BCS schools grasping at straws.

(07-25-2013 11:18 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  What the fans of the "smaller" schools need to understand is this:
1. P5 working together can get things done. NCAA is a huge bureaucracy and can't.
2. "Smaller" schools are setting rules limiting what the P5 can do because the smaller schools can't afford it and they want to handcuff the P5 so they can be more competitive. That makes no sense for the P5 to be in that type of organization.
3. Schools move into Division I to get a share of the basketball money and do nothing to "earn" it.

Those are the 3 biggest drivers. #2 has been a continuing irritant. The MWC and AAC schools generally aren't part of the problem other than being more people to get to agree.

The purpose of the NCAA should be to advance all of its members, create a level playing field, and act for "the good of the game". It shouldn't be for protecting the advantaged or keeping some members in "their place".

Some schools and conferences have natural advantages. Those will never go away and a level playing field won't change them. Texas will never be threatened by UTSA.

Small schools should not expect to use the NCAA to get a free ride...but large schools should not expect protection from the threat of small schools advancing.

More "good of the game" and less "money, money, money, me, me, me". But then again this is America in 2013 so expect it to turn out poorly.

At some point though you end up with a top division that is so different top to bottom and with so many different needs that it doesn't make sense. Division 1 I think is at that point and I think this is probably an attempt to correct some of that without harming anyone too much (this is not going to be any kind of a full break).

Banowsky is the biggest joke for a commish in cfb..... He would not know what a clue looked like if it bit him in the rear end.....

They could still split and "allow" access under the same rules. It's all based on rankings anyway.

If no P5 schools will play you it will be real tough to get that high in the polls. An undefeated MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. will crack the Top 25 but top out around #10.

Too low to be forced into the 4 team playoff.