(08-02-2013 01:08 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...mains-same

It just sounds like a continuation of journalistic fear mongering to justify the employment of realignment hacks when nothing is going on.

So far there has been no meat to the Division 4 idea. Absolutely none. No officials have talked in detail about a plan and who would or could be in or out.

Now had this conversation come up 18 months ago about a D4 before the CFP deal was signed then I would be very nervous. The CFP deal marries the G5's football division to the P5.

The best idea for the G5 is to send its champs that don't play in a CFP game to a sequence of top tier at-large bowls on Fox during the Prime Time. A nice set of bowls with G5 champions, Army and BYU would be attractive for recruiting purposes. The casual fan won't be able to distinguish the G5 major bowls from the second tier P5 games played around New Years.

(08-02-2013 06:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Notre Dame is still technically considered Independent due to lack of a proper classification. BYU is a true Independent that might be able to maintain compliance with all new rules and in turn serve as propaganda for the P5 that they do not exclude anyone including true Independents. The third may be....ahem...Texas.

If Texas ever becomes a football indy, then IMO others would follow.

If UT leaves the Big 12, why would OU want to stay? OU could easily be a football indy. The Sooners wouldn't make as much indy money as UT, but they'd make a whole lot more than BYU.

That might be the start of the next trend. De-alignment. More football indies. Once you have a critical mass (at least 7 or 8) then it becomes easier for all of them. They can schedule each other for November games if need be, they can be a pool of teams that sells itself to bowl games just like conferences do.

Agree. If there are 6-8 solid Indys, then its not as hard to be an Indy. Currently, however, the rules are certainly written to make being in a conference better than being independent. So it actually could be better to be in a small 8 team conference and have 5 OOC games. The conference could even be organized so that its just a scheduling agreement and each team has its own media agreement. That's really not all that much different than being independent with only 6-8 other independents--but it gives you better access to the playoff, the access bowls, and to bowls in general.

If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

(08-02-2013 07:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 06:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Notre Dame is still technically considered Independent due to lack of a proper classification. BYU is a true Independent that might be able to maintain compliance with all new rules and in turn serve as propaganda for the P5 that they do not exclude anyone including true Independents. The third may be....ahem...Texas.

If Texas ever becomes a football indy, then IMO others would follow.

If UT leaves the Big 12, why would OU want to stay? OU could easily be a football indy. The Sooners wouldn't make as much indy money as UT, but they'd make a whole lot more than BYU.

That might be the start of the next trend. De-alignment. More football indies. Once you have a critical mass (at least 7 or 8) then it becomes easier for all of them. They can schedule each other for November games if need be, they can be a pool of teams that sells itself to bowl games just like conferences do.

Agree. If there are 6-8 solid Indys, then its not as hard to be an Indy. Currently, however, the rules are certainly written to make being in a conference better than being independent. So it actually could be better to be in a small 8 team conference and have 5 OOC games. The conference could even be organized so that its just a scheduling agreement and each team has its own media agreement. That's really not all that much different than being independent with only 6-8 other independents--but it gives you better access to the playoff, the access bowls, and to bowls in general.

If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

The ACC is giving Notre Dame a home for all non-football sports in exchange for ND playing each ACC football team once every three years. A conference might do the same for UT. Maybe even the Big 12.

(08-02-2013 07:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 07:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

The ACC is giving Notre Dame a home for all non-football sports in exchange for ND playing each ACC football team once every three years. A conference might do the same for UT. Maybe even the Big 12.

Texas would likely have to look elsewhere. There are many conferences who would be willing to take their basketball, baseball, etc. I just don't believe the Big 12 is one of them. Why keep their other sports in conference if they pull out for football?

They don't have to have a majority to have control.

Thousands of years of world government history prove that.

Quite easy to restructure the NCAA Board. "Equity" conferences get 2 seats each (or one seat with 2 votes), FBS gets 5 seats, FCS gets 2, non football 2. Eliminate the over-ride provisions. Easy stuff

(08-02-2013 07:25 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 07:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 07:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

The ACC is giving Notre Dame a home for all non-football sports in exchange for ND playing each ACC football team once every three years. A conference might do the same for UT. Maybe even the Big 12.

Texas would likely have to look elsewhere. There are many conferences who would be willing to take their basketball, baseball, etc. I just don't believe the Big 12 is one of them. Why keep their other sports in conference if they pull out for football?

I will extend that offer on behalf of the Sun Belt and further extend to UT the right to select the site of all conference championship events.

(08-02-2013 03:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  #1. Obviously he's just thinking out loud.
#2. No one will ever test whether he is right.

I know the majority will disagree with me, but I think IF the right person were to emerge to rally the G5+BYU+Army and could somehow inject them with an AFL mindset, it could be VERY successful.

Those who disagree have looked at the evidence and made an interpretation of it that is very plausible. I think there are other interpretations to the evidence.

Argument 1. Look at FCS.
OK. FCS is cost-containment football. Fewer scholarships, less staff permitted. It was initially created to provide post-season opportunities to schools lacking post-season opportunities. It was supposed to provide TV access to schools lacking TV access.

The G5 is not FCS. The G5 will match the P5 in scholarship spending and will match in whole or in part the stipend. Either sport for sport or they will do it in football and basketball and just enough women's sports to keep the lawyers at bay. G5 teams will continue to play home and home series with P5 teams. How often do FBS travel to FCS?

The G5 may lack the money of the P5 but most G5 approach athletics with the same mindset. That's not the case with FCS.

Look at the gap in bowls
Fine. Last year there were 10 G5 v. G5 bowls. Seven were played before the first P5 v. P5 bowl. The 9th was played on December 29. The 10th was the THIRTY-FOURTH BOWL OF THE SEASON. It was played the night before the BCS title game after a full Sunday of NFL football. The worst viewership for a G5 vs. G5 was 1.3 million viewers, top was just over 3 million. Despite highly recognized names, playing on poor dates and some oddball hours there were viewers for those games even with a number of G5 schools playing P5 schools. Slotted better with more at stake than just another game, there is viewership potential.

Look at the TV gap
TV wants to maximize resources. The P5 leagues are a safe ratings project. They get the prime TV slots. The rights paid the G5 reflect the fact that TV has ample prime viewing slot inventory. G5 games are just an alternative to showing poker or infomercials or the 27th re-run of some show. The price reflects how much more valuable that content is at off-peak teams and on lesser viewed channels. The G5 could draw better ratings than they currently do if slotted into prime channels at prime viewing times, but can't reliably draw what the P5 do in those slots. If those broadcast windows were available... the G5 would be paid more to fill them but those slots aren't available.

Nobody wants to watch a "runner-up" game
Not completely true. After all 33 bowl games that weren't the BCS title game nor the historic Rose Bowl drew some pretty decent numbers. The Kentucky-Robert Morris NIT game outdrew the opening round of the NCAA.

The Battle is doing it right
You can't be an orphan asking for more gruel. You have to act like Lamar Hunt and Al Davis and go to war.

You really need the right event to take place to make it really go (more on that later) but as a friend once told me. If you know life is going to hand you lemons, don't sit back and wait. Tell everyone you are making the best pie they've ever had then make that greatly anticipated lemon pie when they arrive.

Don't sit around and create a playoff because you've been formally shunted aside. Come out swinging and do it before they get a chance to stick you.

Get your Lamar Hunt to stand at the podium in New York with the five G5 commissioners and your five boldest presidents and five boldest AD's and declare war. Announce you've signed an agreement for the NCP, the National Championship Playoff, the playoff America WANTS. You have slots reserved for every conference champion with the rest of the 16 team field filled with the best at-large teams. Stare into the cameras and tell them you've sent a copy of the agreement to the SEC, Big 10, ACC, Pac-12, and Big XII but they won't give America the playoff it wants, so you are leaving the CFP for the NCP and spots are available for them should they choose to join in.

Unveil your plan.

The 8 highest seeded teams will play the first round at home. The first round will be split over two weekends. Seeds 1-4 will play the first Saturday in December. A key date because there are a maximum of 9 P5 games that can be played that day. The SEC, ACC, P12, Big 10 title games and 5 Big XII regular season games and at most 2 of those Big XII games will have any meaning. The reward of being a top 4 seed is an extra week off if you win. The second four games featuring seeds 5-8 playing at home will be the second Saturday in December when there are no games at all played at the FBS level (Army-Navy has to move).

Second round the third Saturday in December which is usually G5 v. G5 or Pac-12 v MWC bowls. The bigs don't like playing that early in bowls. The four highest remaining seeds again playing at home.

The Saturday before New Year's Day play the neutral site semi-finals, with the championship the Saturday before the CFP title game.

College football belongs on Saturday :)

The Trigger
The perfect scenario to trigger the move? Fox failing to secure the Big 10's top tier rights. ESPN isn't going to easily allow them to get away, and if ESPN has a right of refusal it would be hard for Fox to put out a number they would pay that ESPN won't match.

That leaves Fox with a purported ESPN rival sports network that lacks top-level games in college football. While they will have some top teams they won't have first pick of games. Plus they won't have the NFL.

If you can't get the top. Create your own. Buy the G5 lock, stock and barrel. Most of the G5 deals expire at the same time as the Big 10 deal. With a little insider dealing and monkeying around, you kill and reform the American and Sun Belt and all five are locked into Fox for the regular season and post-season.

A true rival league that is getting pushed hard by a major broadcast network, a major cable sports network, a network of regional sports nets, and the owner of a major recruiting network that used to draw G5 ire when from time to time a high star player might lose a star after commiting to a G5, something unlikely to happen in Fox has a vested interest.

And if they wanted my advice, for the first four or six years. I'd play the semis at one site as a double header. Ideally I'd rotate the semi and the final between St. Louis and Indianapolis. St. Louis because its near the geographic and population center of the US, Indy because its the dome without a bowl closest to the most teams and I'd dare the NCAA Executive Director to not show up for the games there because I'd tell every reporter that would listen that the failure to appear just proves the Director is the lapdog of the money elite rather than working for the fans who want a full playoff.

I love this plan soooo much. COME ON FOX DO IT. And come on Disney give the B1G all the money. And then, I dunno, come on Mark Cuban take an interest in college sports media?

The p5 is currently trying to figure out how to push the g5 down with as little complaining as possible. The reason for a desire to have more say is to make it impossible for the g5 to stay. The reason for stipends is to out spend the g5 into bankruptcy. The possibility of Boise type school making a splash in the playoffs will disappear and g5 schools will resemble fcs schools in recruiting. This whole scenario is a power play
by the p5 to eliminate competition. To make the big pile bigger.

it might be acceptable if it included P5 teams too. yeah, basically an NIT for football. the G5 conferences could create and own it themselves. just invite the two best available P5 teams and the two best available G5 teams.

with no pretense of being anything other than an excuse for more football it would be worth watching. sell it to a sponsor, with first round games either in G5 home stadiums or small bowls in California and florida, and the final in texas. the FedEx Bowl Challenge! i'd watch it.

(08-02-2013 07:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 07:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 06:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Notre Dame is still technically considered Independent due to lack of a proper classification. BYU is a true Independent that might be able to maintain compliance with all new rules and in turn serve as propaganda for the P5 that they do not exclude anyone including true Independents. The third may be....ahem...Texas.

If Texas ever becomes a football indy, then IMO others would follow.

If UT leaves the Big 12, why would OU want to stay? OU could easily be a football indy. The Sooners wouldn't make as much indy money as UT, but they'd make a whole lot more than BYU.

That might be the start of the next trend. De-alignment. More football indies. Once you have a critical mass (at least 7 or 8) then it becomes easier for all of them. They can schedule each other for November games if need be, they can be a pool of teams that sells itself to bowl games just like conferences do.

Agree. If there are 6-8 solid Indys, then its not as hard to be an Indy. Currently, however, the rules are certainly written to make being in a conference better than being independent. So it actually could be better to be in a small 8 team conference and have 5 OOC games. The conference could even be organized so that its just a scheduling agreement and each team has its own media agreement. That's really not all that much different than being independent with only 6-8 other independents--but it gives you better access to the playoff, the access bowls, and to bowls in general.

If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

The ACC is giving Notre Dame a home for all non-football sports in exchange for ND playing each ACC football team once every three years. A conference might do the same for UT. Maybe even the Big 12.

Correct. If/when the timing is right, the ACC would do the same deal for Texas, and (IMHO) especially if both parties were willing to work something out with the LHN where the ACC got prime exposure on it.

There is no such thing as "prime" exposure on LHN.

With ESPN owning LHN outright and all ACC rights, working Texas into the ACC would be easy.

Having been to Austin, ACC games, Big 10 games, and SEC. From a fan culture standpoint, Texas is much more like the ACC than the Big 10 and more like the Big 10 than the SEC.

(08-03-2013 10:08 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 07:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 07:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 06:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If Texas ever becomes a football indy, then IMO others would follow.

If UT leaves the Big 12, why would OU want to stay? OU could easily be a football indy. The Sooners wouldn't make as much indy money as UT, but they'd make a whole lot more than BYU.

That might be the start of the next trend. De-alignment. More football indies. Once you have a critical mass (at least 7 or 8) then it becomes easier for all of them. They can schedule each other for November games if need be, they can be a pool of teams that sells itself to bowl games just like conferences do.

Agree. If there are 6-8 solid Indys, then its not as hard to be an Indy. Currently, however, the rules are certainly written to make being in a conference better than being independent. So it actually could be better to be in a small 8 team conference and have 5 OOC games. The conference could even be organized so that its just a scheduling agreement and each team has its own media agreement. That's really not all that much different than being independent with only 6-8 other independents--but it gives you better access to the playoff, the access bowls, and to bowls in general.

If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

The ACC is giving Notre Dame a home for all non-football sports in exchange for ND playing each ACC football team once every three years. A conference might do the same for UT. Maybe even the Big 12.

Correct. If/when the timing is right, the ACC would do the same deal for Texas, and (IMHO) especially if both parties were willing to work something out with the LHN where the ACC got prime exposure on it.

The ACC would do the deal simply due to all the open Bowl slots that would show up. Guess who will replace the Big 12 in the Sugar Bowl with the SEC? If Texas does that deal and brings two other schools with them to be full members in the ACC then the ACC is primed to grab some of the better bowl contracts that the Big 12 once had.

They won't really care all that much about exposure on the LHN when you compare the value of that versus other opportunities that will arise for them as being a part of the Big 4 rather than the Big 5.

(08-02-2013 07:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 06:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Notre Dame is still technically considered Independent due to lack of a proper classification. BYU is a true Independent that might be able to maintain compliance with all new rules and in turn serve as propaganda for the P5 that they do not exclude anyone including true Independents. The third may be....ahem...Texas.

If Texas ever becomes a football indy, then IMO others would follow.

If UT leaves the Big 12, why would OU want to stay? OU could easily be a football indy. The Sooners wouldn't make as much indy money as UT, but they'd make a whole lot more than BYU.

That might be the start of the next trend. De-alignment. More football indies. Once you have a critical mass (at least 7 or 8) then it becomes easier for all of them. They can schedule each other for November games if need be, they can be a pool of teams that sells itself to bowl games just like conferences do.

Agree. If there are 6-8 solid Indys, then its not as hard to be an Indy. Currently, however, the rules are certainly written to make being in a conference better than being independent. So it actually could be better to be in a small 8 team conference and have 5 OOC games. The conference could even be organized so that its just a scheduling agreement and each team has its own media agreement. That's really not all that much different than being independent with only 6-8 other independents--but it gives you better access to the playoff, the access bowls, and to bowls in general.

If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

do you honestly think that the Texas state legislature would allow Texas to go independent? they still control the purse strings

It is not true Independence that some of us are talking about. It is a similar deal to that of Notre Dame. It is not real independence. Texas would be able to go to all the ACC bowls, they would be able to take part in the National Tournament of Bowls. They would probably play 5 games against the ACC a year, maybe 6 if they bring along two other Texas schools with them. That means 6 to 7 games on their OOC schedule compared to the 3 they have now. Sounds pretty tempting to those folks in all actuality.

If they have a preserved game against Oklahoma and one against Texas Tech then that would be 4-5 OOC games they could schedule every year. Still more than they have now.

Say they bring Baylor and TCU with them to the ACC. Guaranteed game against Oklahoma, Tech and either both of Baylor/TCU or one of them. They have their matchups in the region covered. They wont have to take part in any conference championship or tournament that they seem to not like so much. Their brand and following will insure they get in to the National Tournament of 8 teams despite not being in a Conference Tournament/Championship.

Texas wants to become a National Entity. This kind of a deal gives them massive East Coast exposure and gives them more freedom with their scheduling.

How does that not fit what they are trying to do?

This philosophy underlying this article misses the point. The G5 simply would not be better off in a new division with its own playoff. There is no way that a G5 playoff would pay as much as the one Access Bowl/CFP slot that the group will be granted starting in 2014, I.e., $90 million/year. Also, the TV rights that these conferences earn depend significantly on their continued classification as FBS. Place them in a different division, and that value drops dramatically. The G5 will fight to stay with the P5.

(08-03-2013 10:34 AM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 07:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 06:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Notre Dame is still technically considered Independent due to lack of a proper classification. BYU is a true Independent that might be able to maintain compliance with all new rules and in turn serve as propaganda for the P5 that they do not exclude anyone including true Independents. The third may be....ahem...Texas.

If Texas ever becomes a football indy, then IMO others would follow.

If UT leaves the Big 12, why would OU want to stay? OU could easily be a football indy. The Sooners wouldn't make as much indy money as UT, but they'd make a whole lot more than BYU.

That might be the start of the next trend. De-alignment. More football indies. Once you have a critical mass (at least 7 or 8) then it becomes easier for all of them. They can schedule each other for November games if need be, they can be a pool of teams that sells itself to bowl games just like conferences do.

Agree. If there are 6-8 solid Indys, then its not as hard to be an Indy. Currently, however, the rules are certainly written to make being in a conference better than being independent. So it actually could be better to be in a small 8 team conference and have 5 OOC games. The conference could even be organized so that its just a scheduling agreement and each team has its own media agreement. That's really not all that much different than being independent with only 6-8 other independents--but it gives you better access to the playoff, the access bowls, and to bowls in general.

If there's a rule change where the minimum number of full members required is reduced to say 6 or so, then the smaller conference idea makes sense. But if not, then being at the bare minimum of FBS-dom seems like a bad idea IMO. With respect to Texas and to a smaller extent Oklahoma, where would their other teams go if they decided to pull the plug on Big 12 football and embark on independence?

do you honestly think that the Texas state legislature would allow Texas to go independent? they still control the purse strings

If it makes Texas more money, why would they care? Many are under the impression that Texas Tech and Baylor have tremendous political clout in Texas. They do not.

Back in 1993 when the SWC was breaking up, the original talks centered around a merger of the 2 confernces (16 total teams). However, Texas was against splitting the money that many ways. After a famous conversation with TV excutives, it was decided that Texas was the only real value in the SWC. So, while "merger talks" continied, a backroom deal was made to bring Texas into the Big-8. Texas A&M, the second most valuable school was made the travle partner for Texas. Those were to be the only teams taken by the Big-12.

In 1993, the governor of Texas was Ann Richards (Baylor grad) and the Lt Governor was Bob Bulloch (Texas Tech grad). Those are the two most powerful positions in Texas government (in fact, the Lt Governor is actually stronger in Texas). Once word of the split reached the capital building, those two hatched a plan to get their universities included. Purse strings and financial threats were made, and after some quick talks, everyone quickly came to the conclusion that adding Baylor and Tech were just part of the price that would have to be paid to get Texas.

That was then--today, the governor is Rick Perry (a Texas Aggie) and the Lt Gov is David Dehurst (Arizona grad that resides in Houston). The city of Houston currently wields a great deal of power in Austin---Lubbock and Waco--not so much. I will say Perry was born and raised in west Texas, so he might be somewhat sympathetic to Texas Tech issues--but the current governmental environment is nothing like it was in 1993.