(08-25-2013 09:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-25-2013 08:44 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Wasn't talking to you, that was directed at the guy above me.

Like I said, Democrats will love to hear your "it's not fair they make more money than me so we need some wealth redistribution " argument

Perhaps the government should also start telling each of us whom we can associate with, whom we can do business with, whom we can or can't befriend and a multitude of other choices we take for granted every day. I mean, it's just not fair that I can make more friends than you right? It's not fair that I give all my business to certain particular businesses and not others of the same kind right?

The government has the right too because I use government funded services of all types thus they have the right to do all this when it comes to whom or what we associate with. Makes perfect sense now that I have had the fairness of it pointed out to me.

So, you don't want the government telling you what to do. Fine with me. I don't either.

But why do these universities expect special privileges from government when it's in their interests to do so? Non-profit status, special tax breaks, government funding, etc.

Let's just call it what it is. A minor league system of professional sports franchises. Let's treat them as what they are, i.e. profit making organizations. Let's pay the players and open the competition up to all comers. Let's have everyone earn their place at the trough rather than cow towing to a socialistic system that favors some and discriminates against others.

(08-25-2013 10:30 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Smaller conferences and universities/colleges do not deserve the same amount of money as the powerhouses. They have done nothing to warrant the same TV money as the powerhouses. They have done nothing warrant an even playoff money share, either.

They do, however, deserve an opportunity to play for the same championship (playoff access) - provided they meet minimum criteria for entry.

Exactly.

(08-26-2013 12:30 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-25-2013 10:30 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Smaller conferences and universities/colleges do not deserve the same amount of money as the powerhouses. They have done nothing to warrant the same TV money as the powerhouses. They have done nothing warrant an even playoff money share, either.

They do, however, deserve an opportunity to play for the same championship (playoff access) - provided they meet minimum criteria for entry.

Exactly.

Which shouldn't include attendance or athletic budget requirements.

good! then the slice of money all the FCS teams will be demanding when they join your no requirements D1 can come from the G5!

(08-26-2013 02:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  good! then the slice of money all the FCS teams will be demanding when they join your no requirements D1 can come from the G5!

We won't need to add any more FCS teams since the P5 will stop stealing G5 teams.

Im talking about when all of FCS decides to move up into your no attendance or budget requirements D1 and demanding their slice of the money. You can provide it.

(08-26-2013 11:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's the bottom line- your team can win as many games as Boise State but if you weren't fortunate enough to join the right country club before the invention of television then you can go pound sand because you don''t deserve an opportunity to have equal national exposure or a slice of the TV revenue pie.

Go get bent, you no good socialists, Boise State gets to split 27% of the FBS TV revenue while teams like Wake Forrest, Northwestern and Indiana get to split 72% of the pie because they earned it by being an uncompetitive punching bag for their conferences for decades. Padding the win totals of conference mates is more important than winning. Not fare to Boise State? Screw em. They should've had the foresight to joined the PAC12 in 1915. It's their own fault.

as one elitist said- who cares about winning?

and there you have the sorry state of college football.

Miami, FSU and Louisville all ascended from nowhere to P5 conferences. Hell, TCU even found their way back. So a method does exist, albeit torturous and convoluted path.

Furthermore, the dream of equal access died in 1984 with NCAA v OU BOR. Once football was taken out of the NCAA's hands, those 20 or so power teams could market themselves however they felt like. The profit engine those schools chose to use was conference affiliation.

You argue about the teams at the margins like Wake and Duke not being any different performance wise if CFB than Ohio and NIU and you're absolutely correct. But that only reinforces the fact that the top 20-30 have already included some fringe and/or marginal programs.

(08-26-2013 02:38 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 11:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's the bottom line- your team can win as many games as Boise State but if you weren't fortunate enough to join the right country club before the invention of television then you can go pound sand because you don''t deserve an opportunity to have equal national exposure or a slice of the TV revenue pie.

Go get bent, you no good socialists, Boise State gets to split 27% of the FBS TV revenue while teams like Wake Forrest, Northwestern and Indiana get to split 72% of the pie because they earned it by being an uncompetitive punching bag for their conferences for decades. Padding the win totals of conference mates is more important than winning. Not fare to Boise State? Screw em. They should've had the foresight to joined the PAC12 in 1915. It's their own fault.

as one elitist said- who cares about winning?

and there you have the sorry state of college football.

Miami, FSU and Louisville all ascended from nowhere to P5 conferences. Hell, TCU even found their way back. So a method does exist, albeit torturous and convoluted path.

Furthermore, the dream of equal access died in 1984 with NCAA v OU BOR. Once football was taken out of the NCAA's hands, those 20 or so power teams could market themselves however they felt like. The profit engine those schools chose to use was conference affiliation.

You argue about the teams at the margins like Wake and Duke not being any different performance wise if CFB than Ohio and NIU and you're absolutely correct. But that only reinforces the fact that the top 20-30 have already included some fringe and/or marginal programs.

Well, yes, but only those that are in their conference.

so...your argument is "its unfair they CHOSE to share with THEM instead of US!"

(08-26-2013 03:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  so...your argument is "its unfair they CHOSE to share with THEM instead of US!"

You can have whomever you want in your conference, I don't care about that.

(08-26-2013 12:28 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-25-2013 09:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-25-2013 08:44 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Wasn't talking to you, that was directed at the guy above me.

Like I said, Democrats will love to hear your "it's not fair they make more money than me so we need some wealth redistribution " argument

Perhaps the government should also start telling each of us whom we can associate with, whom we can do business with, whom we can or can't befriend and a multitude of other choices we take for granted every day. I mean, it's just not fair that I can make more friends than you right? It's not fair that I give all my business to certain particular businesses and not others of the same kind right?

The government has the right too because I use government funded services of all types thus they have the right to do all this when it comes to whom or what we associate with. Makes perfect sense now that I have had the fairness of it pointed out to me.

So, you don't want the government telling you what to do. Fine with me. I don't either.

But why do these universities expect special privileges from government when it's in their interests to do so? Non-profit status, special tax breaks, government funding, etc.

Let's just call it what it is. A minor league system of professional sports franchises. Let's treat them as what they are, i.e. profit making organizations. Let's pay the players and open the competition up to all comers. Let's have everyone earn their place at the trough rather than cow towing to a socialistic system that favors some and discriminates against others.

What? The amount of money these Universities deal with in other aspects of their being, it dwarfs the amount that they deal with in terms of athletic money. To judge them as not worthy of these special status's that they maintain based upon their activities in athletics, that is like acting the part of a horse that is wearing blinders. That does not represent the Big Picture for these Universities.

(08-26-2013 02:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  good! then the slice of money all the FCS teams will be demanding when they join your no requirements D1 can come from the G5!

Good joke.

Schools like Tulane, Houston, Temple, and SMU are not dumping hundreds of millions into their athletic facilities so they can play FCS programs. Schools like those four AAC outfits have a LOT to lose here.

Schools with proud academic traditions such as BYU and Rice will also have little tolerance for this as well.