(08-07-2013 01:31 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 02:29 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I sure am glad Houston and ECU fans will have a chance to voice their opinions on this matter... thanks, Miko.

Really, D4 inclusion should be according to stringent entrance requirements on a per school basis, not the conference. If some member of a power conference cannot pass the minimal requirements or show over time that they are not meeting expectations, then it should be time to find a new home. Some basic requirements that I think should be present for D4 inclusion:

1) Considered a national university in terms of academics
2) Athletic Department supports itself financially without university general funds or mandatory student fees (discounts for students/faculty tickets and similar benefits are fine. I'm talking about a forced student fee even for students who despise athletics and will never attend or care about it.)
3) Will agree to uniform drug, behavior, and academic progress guidelines
4) Will provide full cost scholarships to all athletes on scholarship.
5) Will allow no penalty transfers to any athlete whose coach does not fulfill the term of their contract in order to take another coaching job at another D4 school. The only school they may NOT transfer to is the school where that coach is heading. If a coach fulfills his contract term, players cannot transfer without sitting a year. Time to make coaches take responsibility since presidents/AD's are too scared to write a decent contract.

So basically a division with about 2 dozen schools?

Every public school in NC has student athletics fees to some degree. Every single one.

I don't even know if that division would be that large.

(08-07-2013 01:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't even know if that division would be that large.

It certainly eliminates the ACC from consideration.

(08-07-2013 01:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 01:31 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 02:29 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I sure am glad Houston and ECU fans will have a chance to voice their opinions on this matter... thanks, Miko.

Really, D4 inclusion should be according to stringent entrance requirements on a per school basis, not the conference. If some member of a power conference cannot pass the minimal requirements or show over time that they are not meeting expectations, then it should be time to find a new home. Some basic requirements that I think should be present for D4 inclusion:

1) Considered a national university in terms of academics
2) Athletic Department supports itself financially without university general funds or mandatory student fees (discounts for students/faculty tickets and similar benefits are fine. I'm talking about a forced student fee even for students who despise athletics and will never attend or care about it.)
3) Will agree to uniform drug, behavior, and academic progress guidelines
4) Will provide full cost scholarships to all athletes on scholarship.
5) Will allow no penalty transfers to any athlete whose coach does not fulfill the term of their contract in order to take another coaching job at another D4 school. The only school they may NOT transfer to is the school where that coach is heading. If a coach fulfills his contract term, players cannot transfer without sitting a year. Time to make coaches take responsibility since presidents/AD's are too scared to write a decent contract.

So basically a division with about 2 dozen schools?

Every public school in NC has student athletics fees to some degree. Every single one.

I don't even know if that division would be that large.

Exactly.

The problem is that you have schools like Purdue or Washington State whose budgets would not even come close to balancing without their $20 million conference contracts. Then you have a school like UC that only gets a $3 million conference contract and must contribute $5-$10 million a year out of the general fund to compensate and remain competitive.

That's why as much as I'd like #2, it's not a realistic way to separate the "worthy" schools from the "unworthy" ones.

(08-06-2013 02:29 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I sure am glad Houston and ECU fans will have a chance to voice their opinions on this matter... thanks, Miko.

Really, D4 inclusion should be according to stringent entrance requirements on a per school basis, not the conference. If some member of a power conference cannot pass the minimal requirements or show over time that they are not meeting expectations, then it should be time to find a new home. Some basic requirements that I think should be present for D4 inclusion:

1) Considered a national university in terms of academics
2) Athletic Department supports itself financially without university general funds or mandatory student fees (discounts for students/faculty tickets and similar benefits are fine. I'm talking about a forced student fee even for students who despise athletics and will never attend or care about it.)
3) Will agree to uniform drug, behavior, and academic progress guidelines
4) Will provide full cost scholarships to all athletes on scholarship.
5) Will allow no penalty transfers to any athlete whose coach does not fulfill the term of their contract in order to take another coaching job at another D4 school. The only school they may NOT transfer to is the school where that coach is heading. If a coach fulfills his contract term, players cannot transfer without sitting a year. Time to make coaches take responsibility since presidents/AD's are too scared to write a decent contract.

I guess Oregon isn't a D4 school. Or Florida.

NO, AAC is nothing more than C-USA 2.0 they are a mid-major conference.

(08-07-2013 02:46 PM)Runner Wrote:  NO, AAC is nothing more than C-USA 2.0 they are a mid-major conference.

Let the hate flow through you. yes....

(08-07-2013 01:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 01:31 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 02:29 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I sure am glad Houston and ECU fans will have a chance to voice their opinions on this matter... thanks, Miko.

Really, D4 inclusion should be according to stringent entrance requirements on a per school basis, not the conference. If some member of a power conference cannot pass the minimal requirements or show over time that they are not meeting expectations, then it should be time to find a new home. Some basic requirements that I think should be present for D4 inclusion:

1) Considered a national university in terms of academics
2) Athletic Department supports itself financially without university general funds or mandatory student fees (discounts for students/faculty tickets and similar benefits are fine. I'm talking about a forced student fee even for students who despise athletics and will never attend or care about it.)
3) Will agree to uniform drug, behavior, and academic progress guidelines
4) Will provide full cost scholarships to all athletes on scholarship.
5) Will allow no penalty transfers to any athlete whose coach does not fulfill the term of their contract in order to take another coaching job at another D4 school. The only school they may NOT transfer to is the school where that coach is heading. If a coach fulfills his contract term, players cannot transfer without sitting a year. Time to make coaches take responsibility since presidents/AD's are too scared to write a decent contract.

So basically a division with about 2 dozen schools?

Every public school in NC has student athletics fees to some degree. Every single one.

I don't even know if that division would be that large.

It's safe to assume most schools have student athletic fee's. And I don't really understand what it has to do with sports classification.

Like someone else said I'm not sure what academics has to do with sports classification either. Sure it matters for conferences because you want to play schools your alumni, students, fans, and players can associate with. But no one would be forcing Cal Berkley to play ECU if they met the requirements.

I'm pretty sure the University of Alabama accepts people with a who have an 2.0 GPA and it's not considered a national university in terms of academics.

This isn't about establishing a moral high ground. This is about passing a set of guidelines for schools to meet in order to join the top division of college football. If the entire AAC meets those requirements, then the AAC will have earned its own place at the table. If not, then the AAC will likely break apart and individual schools will join on a case-by-case basis as independents.

There are no emotions involved in this process. The only question will be "what is the new standard?"

(08-07-2013 03:17 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  This isn't about establishing a moral high ground. This is about passing a set of guidelines for schools to meet in order to join the top division of college football. If the entire AAC meets those requirements, then the AAC will have earned its own place at the table. If not, then the AAC will likely break apart and individual schools will join on a case-by-case basis as independents.

There are no emotions involved in this process. The only question will be "what is the new standard?"

It's about setting completely arbitrary guidelines that will allow those currently in the power conferences to stay there, and possibly pick and choose a few others where convenient.

(08-07-2013 03:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 03:17 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  This isn't about establishing a moral high ground. This is about passing a set of guidelines for schools to meet in order to join the top division of college football. If the entire AAC meets those requirements, then the AAC will have earned its own place at the table. If not, then the AAC will likely break apart and individual schools will join on a case-by-case basis as independents.

There are no emotions involved in this process. The only question will be "what is the new standard?"

It's about setting completely arbitrary guidelines that will allow those currently in the power conferences to stay there, and possibly pick and choose a few others where convenient.

Let's find out what those requirements are before we judge. We have no idea about the specifics of what's to come.

You're probably right, but I cannot agree with nor refute those claims until more information is given.

This sounds childish to say but the system is so unfair it is disgusting. It is a cartel and there are a lot of lucky schools out there that got on the right buggy when buggies were pretty equal. Lets face it, would Washington State, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Purdue, Northwestern (and many more) be invited into a G5 conference today. Just think how the system would work with a little promotion and relegation built in?

(08-07-2013 09:06 PM)westophilia Wrote:  This sounds childish to say but the system is so unfair it is disgusting. It is a cartel and there are a lot of lucky schools out there that got on the right buggy when buggies were pretty equal. Lets face it, would Washington State, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Purdue, Northwestern (and many more) be invited into a G5 conference today. Just think how the system would work with a little promotion and relegation built in?

I don't believe that argument. If Boise was in Wash States position and came on in their stead would they be better than the Cougars? Maybe, but that just means someone else would have been a bottom dweller. It's not like everyone can be winners. You remove the losers from any conference and someone has to fill that void. Same results just different name. Then we would be here saying the same exact thing.

(08-07-2013 02:46 PM)Runner Wrote:  NO, AAC is nothing more than C-USA 2.0 they are a mid-major conference.

Great....Now we have to sit here and listen to FBS start ups telling us what we are and what we are not....

Since when have morals been apart of the thinking in the last 30 years? The integrity of this game died a long time ago sadly.

(08-07-2013 09:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:06 PM)westophilia Wrote:  This sounds childish to say but the system is so unfair it is disgusting. It is a cartel and there are a lot of lucky schools out there that got on the right buggy when buggies were pretty equal. Lets face it, would Washington State, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Purdue, Northwestern (and many more) be invited into a G5 conference today. Just think how the system would work with a little promotion and relegation built in?

I don't believe that argument. If Boise was in Wash States position and came on in their stead would they be better than the Cougars? Maybe, but that just means someone else would have been a bottom dweller. It's not like everyone can be winners. You remove the losers from any conference and someone has to fill that void. Same results just different name. Then we would be here saying the same exact thing.

In Boise's case they've been beating schools much better than the bottom-dwellers. Yet they are excluded. That's the part that's unfair. Also, some schools play 8 freaking home games and some play 5. That makes no sense either, except for financial sense. There's no competitive sense in it.

(08-07-2013 01:03 PM)KevinSmith Wrote:  Please note I am commenting here wholly from a general business of CFB perspective so there is no intent to disparage any teams currently in G5, but this is how I see things:

1. Moral obligation - of course not. This is business. Also, provided you operate within the bounds of the law, it's not amoral to cut out competition or make it hard/impossible for new ventures to become competitors. And, to me, that is what this is about.

2. The current Big 5 have every monetary incentive not to increase membership in their very lucrative venture, regardless of the bona fides of the proposed new entrants (or the lack thereof of some of the existing B5 members).

3. Every move the B5 have made since 1978 has been to limit the club to what they perceive as the deserving 65 or so teams. A few have droppped out (SMU and Houston of the old SWAC, Temple of original BCS Big East) and a few have been bumped up (Utah, TCU, Louisville) but basically the club membership has been pretty stable. Short of (a) a court settlement after protracted an antitrust litigation (i.e, multiple years and millions of dollars spent on both sides) or a team with irrefutable national cache - success on the field creating national TV draw status and locally success in the stands, which would facilitate increased TV payouts, I just don't see them wanting new members.

4. In any future realignment, I see a re-arranging of existing membership among current B5 perhaps with contraction from Big 5 to Big 4 and even one of the current Big 5 conferecne potentially being relegated to G5 in next round just like old Big East was picked clean of its FBS-value members (as B5 saw it) and then relegated. Perhaps 1 or 2 current G5 get bumped up in that round but it won't be more than that. Currently, club is 65 as of 2014. If contraction is 4x16 that's only 64 plus ND, which is still only 65. Could it go to 66, 67 or 68 sure; will it go to 90, 100, 120 - unlikely.

5. Follow the money.

Actually it is not business as these teams are all fundamentally non-profits not businesses.

The biggest issue is contractual in that they have an agreement with the other FBS conferences and if they split away they would be sued into oblivion.

The "moral" issue relates to the supposed mission of the NCAA which is to foster the participation in sports at the intercollegiate level. If they broke away then participation would fall as the revenue sports suck up an increasing amount of the pie. If they were to break away it would be interesting what their new 'Non-profit" mission would be.

(08-08-2013 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:06 PM)westophilia Wrote:  This sounds childish to say but the system is so unfair it is disgusting. It is a cartel and there are a lot of lucky schools out there that got on the right buggy when buggies were pretty equal. Lets face it, would Washington State, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Purdue, Northwestern (and many more) be invited into a G5 conference today. Just think how the system would work with a little promotion and relegation built in?

I don't believe that argument. If Boise was in Wash States position and came on in their stead would they be better than the Cougars? Maybe, but that just means someone else would have been a bottom dweller. It's not like everyone can be winners. You remove the losers from any conference and someone has to fill that void. Same results just different name. Then we would be here saying the same exact thing.

In Boise's case they've been beating schools much better than the bottom-dwellers. Yet they are excluded. That's the part that's unfair. Also, some schools play 8 freaking home games and some play 5. That makes no sense either, except for financial sense. There's no competitive sense in it.

Boise is beating these teams in their one big game a year. Would they be able to do that after playing Stanford and then going to USC the week after that big game?

(08-08-2013 02:45 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:06 PM)westophilia Wrote:  This sounds childish to say but the system is so unfair it is disgusting. It is a cartel and there are a lot of lucky schools out there that got on the right buggy when buggies were pretty equal. Lets face it, would Washington State, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Purdue, Northwestern (and many more) be invited into a G5 conference today. Just think how the system would work with a little promotion and relegation built in?

I don't believe that argument. If Boise was in Wash States position and came on in their stead would they be better than the Cougars? Maybe, but that just means someone else would have been a bottom dweller. It's not like everyone can be winners. You remove the losers from any conference and someone has to fill that void. Same results just different name. Then we would be here saying the same exact thing.

In Boise's case they've been beating schools much better than the bottom-dwellers. Yet they are excluded. That's the part that's unfair. Also, some schools play 8 freaking home games and some play 5. That makes no sense either, except for financial sense. There's no competitive sense in it.

Boise is beating these teams in their one big game a year. Would they be able to do that after playing Stanford and then going to USC the week after that big game?

What proof do we have they wouldn't? Some of the teams they play in conference are just as good as many of the teams in the PAC, especially if you aren't playing all the good teams in your conference in a given year.

I think the AAC will be included because it's good enough to be top tier. Yeah, Cincy and Navy aren't Alabama and Notre Dame, but they aren't in that category of school that 90% of fans haven't heard of. I'm referring to schools like the Sun Belt teams and recent CUSA additions. Those are the schools that the P5 wants to escape. Historically, they've tolerated Cincy, Temple, ECU, Navy, Tulane, etc. for long periods of time.

The undoing of Southern Miss, in my opinion, is that our ADs looked at rising schools like the Sun Belt schools as good potential rivals instead of humiliating associations to be avoided. It's pure administrative laziness. The Sun Belt made it easier for Giannini, Hammond, etc. to fill out our dance card each football season. It was obvious to me throughout the 1990s and 2000s that every new chickensh*t I-A team cheapened our own hard-won reputation, but our administration was completely unwilling to do anything to differentiate us from the SBC schools. And look what's happened: now we're basically in the Sun Belt, and we've got basically no shot at D4.

Moral obligation? WTF?!