(08-26-2013 11:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The whole D1-A/D1-B format discussed could make some sense because that would reduce the amount of schools in D1 back down to 170 or so making recruiting more competitive.

D1-A
B1G
ACC
PAC
SEC
B12
AAC/MWC (cream)

D1-B
BE
WCC
A10
MAC
SBC
AAC/MWC (leftovers)
CUSA

If the cutoff for D1-A is a budget of 40 million, I think schools in the MAC and SBC would accept D1-B placement because the basketball tournament is going to be super lucrative AND they wouldn't be forced to have to ramp up facilities or budget.

Once the new structure is in place hold out like Delaware to the MAC and James Madison to the SBC will be compelled to make moves to stay at the top level for other sports.

I don't know even in the MAC 40 Million may be attainable for a lot of Schools. The top end of the MAc is pushing what, 30 Million now?

There is no logical reason to structurally divide this group into A-B. That division happens on the field already.

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

When was the last time the best g5 school as an 8-4 unranked team?

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

(08-28-2013 02:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

(08-28-2013 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

There may be no need for a new division, but a new subdivision in Division one is needed. D-1 is pushing 350 schools. A top division of about 72, then another of 72 and the rest would address most concerns.

1. The top division is the one that runs it's own football playoff - and makes it's own football rules - pure and simple. Start it with the B-5, and start it with a cap of 72. The B-5 puts 65 teams in and they can add teams by a vote, and they can expand the cap with a vote of 75%. If the B-5 find 7 teams they want to pull up, they can. If they want to pull an entire league, they can. But they make their own football rules, and they can't expel a team in a league, only a league can expel a member.

2. The second division can also start with room for 72, and contain the G-5 and they have room to add or bring up 8 teams. Let them make their own football rules as well.

3. The remaining 200 or so stay out of the top levels of football.

(08-28-2013 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

ASF, while ESPN was thrilled that the 2013 OB drew a 6.5, you know as well as I that on the field performance and ratings are marginal concerns for the P5. Power is the cache that is coveted.

(08-28-2013 12:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

There may be no need for a new division, but a new subdivision in Division one is needed. D-1 is pushing 350 schools. A top division of about 72, then another of 72 and the rest would address most concerns.

1. The top division is the one that runs it's own football playoff - and makes it's own football rules - pure and simple. Start it with the B-5, and start it with a cap of 72. The B-5 puts 65 teams in and they can add teams by a vote, and they can expand the cap with a vote of 75%. If the B-5 find 7 teams they want to pull up, they can. If they want to pull an entire league, they can. But they make their own football rules, and they can't expel a team in a league, only a league can expel a member.

2. The second division can also start with room for 72, and contain the G-5 and they have room to add or bring up 8 teams. Let them make their own football rules as well.

3. The remaining 200 or so stay out of the top levels of football.

The first 72 would be right at a significant break in investment. I think the only trouble I see with your plan is in setting the next grouping also at 72. If you can find some stats on investment in athletics you may find that the next 48 or so actually represent the next definable break.

(08-28-2013 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='lumberpack4' pid='9639811' dateline='1377710548']
The first 72 would be right at a significant break in investment. I think the only trouble I see with your plan is in setting the next grouping also at 72. If you can find some stats on investment in athletics you may find that the next 48 or so is actually the next definable break.

I remain a skeptic of a break-away.

But if you want to dominate TV with the least revenue sharing 48 is about right.

I don't think a break is likely because:
#1. The presidents have shown little stomach for it. When they changed the standards for FBS and it created the potential for 20ish schools being relegated, they backed down and softened the rules (though I contend the estimates of 20-30 were high and it would have been 0 to 10 in practice).
#2. The presidents are very leery of overt moves that smack of over-commercializing or professionalizing the sport. A breakaway smells too much like it. It's one thing to look the other way while AD's spend money like crazy and create a de facto split. It's another matter to make the split de jure.
#3. The presidents when confronted with how the BCS designed to be essentially a closed loop commanded the commissioners and AD's to find a way to increase access and revenue distribution to the non-AQ.
#4. The CFP contract runs through 2025. The G5 have a decent argument that there is no substitute for specific performance. Having one CFP bowl slot occupied by a lower division team is bad for the CFP and a significant blow unless the G5 goes 0-14. If they can't get specific performance it starts looking like an even better anti-trust case and trebled the low end of damages would be $3 billion and could easily exceed that once you look past the market of post-season. You are looking at low-end damages of $50 million per P5 school. That's a significant risk for little reward.
#5. There is no reason for Fox nor ESPN to support reducing the size of FBS. Both have G5 content that has enhanced value because it is labeled the same division as the P5 and fills programming needs that the P5 don't want to fill. ESPN owns the rights to 9 (likely 10) of the lower tier bowl games. TV won't want it so there is little reason to buck them.

What is likely?
Obviously a change in governance.
Worth watching:
A change in the grace period to retain auto bids as well as changes in qualification for auto bids.
A change in the revenue distribution formula. Imagine cutting the money available for units in half. Right now the NCAA awards about 792 units (one per game played except the title game times six years). At roughly a quarter million per unit that's $198 million. Now imagine cutting the value of a unit to $125,000, taking that $99 million freed up and dividing the remainder based on historic rating so that a bottom league instead of receiving $1.5 million receives $1 million and a mid-pack 1 and done league is receiving $2.5 million. Suddenly a league that is on the bubble between $1 million and $2.5 million is turning its eyes on the top teams in the lower leagues.

If the Southern can raid a couple Big South and A-Sun leagues and make more money, they will and the issue becomes survival for the Big South and A-Sun. If the grace period is hard to invoke and you can't easily raid the D2 ranks to replace teams, then maybe the A-Sun and Big South merge and teams get left out or make the decision that low level Division I no longer makes sense.

The presidents that might not vote to kick out Houston Baptist sleep with no qualms if Houston Baptist "chooses" to walk away.

Michigan isn't going to kick out EMU. But if the day arrives that EMU says this game no longer makes sense for us, they don't care.

We saw this happen as Wichita State, Long Beach, Fullerton, and Pacific shut down football and had a period of FCS losing schools to dropping football.

If EMU chooses to not offer stipend and they are even less competitive and reach the conclusion it's time to stop, that's "just the market". If Houston Baptist concludes that it was one thing to offer 14 sports and not award full aid but another matter to offer 16 sports and 90% of the allowed aid and do so in an environment where there is even less NCAA revenue sharing and they make the decision to once again go Division II that's "just the market".

(08-28-2013 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

There may be no need for a new division, but a new subdivision in Division one is needed. D-1 is pushing 350 schools. A top division of about 72, then another of 72 and the rest would address most concerns.

1. The top division is the one that runs it's own football playoff - and makes it's own football rules - pure and simple. Start it with the B-5, and start it with a cap of 72. The B-5 puts 65 teams in and they can add teams by a vote, and they can expand the cap with a vote of 75%. If the B-5 find 7 teams they want to pull up, they can. If they want to pull an entire league, they can. But they make their own football rules, and they can't expel a team in a league, only a league can expel a member.

2. The second division can also start with room for 72, and contain the G-5 and they have room to add or bring up 8 teams. Let them make their own football rules as well.

3. The remaining 200 or so stay out of the top levels of football.

The first 72 would be right at a significant break in investment. I think the only trouble I see with your plan is in setting the next grouping also at 72. If you can find some stats on investment in athletics you may find that the next 48 or so actually represent the next definable break.

Investing a certain amount in California gets you less than investing a smaller amount in other areas of the country.

(08-29-2013 03:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

There may be no need for a new division, but a new subdivision in Division one is needed. D-1 is pushing 350 schools. A top division of about 72, then another of 72 and the rest would address most concerns.

1. The top division is the one that runs it's own football playoff - and makes it's own football rules - pure and simple. Start it with the B-5, and start it with a cap of 72. The B-5 puts 65 teams in and they can add teams by a vote, and they can expand the cap with a vote of 75%. If the B-5 find 7 teams they want to pull up, they can. If they want to pull an entire league, they can. But they make their own football rules, and they can't expel a team in a league, only a league can expel a member.

2. The second division can also start with room for 72, and contain the G-5 and they have room to add or bring up 8 teams. Let them make their own football rules as well.

3. The remaining 200 or so stay out of the top levels of football.

The first 72 would be right at a significant break in investment. I think the only trouble I see with your plan is in setting the next grouping also at 72. If you can find some stats on investment in athletics you may find that the next 48 or so actually represent the next definable break.

Investing a certain amount in California gets you less than investing a smaller amount in other areas of the country.

Now, there is truth that in different regions of the country the purchasing power of investment varies. But I do think there are four dozen plus G5 teams that invest a lot more than many of the others and I think there should be a distinction for that.

(08-29-2013 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 03:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

There may be no need for a new division, but a new subdivision in Division one is needed. D-1 is pushing 350 schools. A top division of about 72, then another of 72 and the rest would address most concerns.

1. The top division is the one that runs it's own football playoff - and makes it's own football rules - pure and simple. Start it with the B-5, and start it with a cap of 72. The B-5 puts 65 teams in and they can add teams by a vote, and they can expand the cap with a vote of 75%. If the B-5 find 7 teams they want to pull up, they can. If they want to pull an entire league, they can. But they make their own football rules, and they can't expel a team in a league, only a league can expel a member.

2. The second division can also start with room for 72, and contain the G-5 and they have room to add or bring up 8 teams. Let them make their own football rules as well.

3. The remaining 200 or so stay out of the top levels of football.

The first 72 would be right at a significant break in investment. I think the only trouble I see with your plan is in setting the next grouping also at 72. If you can find some stats on investment in athletics you may find that the next 48 or so actually represent the next definable break.

Investing a certain amount in California gets you less than investing a smaller amount in other areas of the country.

Now, there is truth that in different regions of the country the purchasing power of investment varies. But I do think there are four dozen plus G5 teams that invest a lot more than many of the others and I think there should be a distinction for that.

There is.

Large crowds.
Larger TV deals.
Better bowl agreements.
The resources to purchase game agreements where you don't travel to your opponent.
More wins and the resources to easily dump a bad hire if you aren't winning.

(08-28-2013 12:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 02:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

TV Rankings indicate otherwise..

Most years the BCS game with the Buster has not been the lowest rated BCS game.

There may be no need for a new division, but a new subdivision in Division one is needed. D-1 is pushing 350 schools. A top division of about 72, then another of 72 and the rest would address most concerns.

1. The top division is the one that runs it's own football playoff - and makes it's own football rules - pure and simple. Start it with the B-5, and start it with a cap of 72. The B-5 puts 65 teams in and they can add teams by a vote, and they can expand the cap with a vote of 75%. If the B-5 find 7 teams they want to pull up, they can. If they want to pull an entire league, they can. But they make their own football rules, and they can't expel a team in a league, only a league can expel a member.

2. The second division can also start with room for 72, and contain the G-5 and they have room to add or bring up 8 teams. Let them make their own football rules as well.

3. The remaining 200 or so stay out of the top levels of football.

What would really be the point of the "G5" division. They won't crown a true national champ--everyone will know the best team in the nation is the winner of the new D4. Once the G5 isn't competing for the true national championship, they will slowly slip to FCS levels of support and quality. Fan interest will die. Essentially, it's a death sentence to the G5 programs.

(08-30-2013 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What would really be the point of the "G5" division. They won't crown a true national champ--everyone will know the best team in the nation is the winner of the new D4. Once the G5 isn't competing for the true national championship, they will slowly slip to FCS levels of support and quality. Fan interest will die. Essentially, it's a death sentence to the G5 programs.

It's called conspiring to constrain the market.

Its called "We want a playoff but do NOT want to be the NCAA Tournament playoff where everybody that can afford 11 uniforms and a field demands to have an automatic bid and a cut of the money"

There has to be standards for participating conferences that are actually enforced

Where that line is drawn is up for debate but not the need for a new line

Interesting aside:

By the 2012 attendance data,

the P5 averages 62K a game

the G5 averages 21K a game

(08-30-2013 10:50 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its called "We want a playoff but do NOT want to be the NCAA Tournament playoff where everybody that can afford 11 uniforms and a field demands to have an automatic bid and a cut of the money"

There has to be standards for participating conferences that are actually enforced

Where that line is drawn is up for debate but not the need for a new line

Interesting aside:

By the 2012 attendance data,

the P5 averages 62K a game

the G5 averages 21K a game

I can't imagine an "everyone" in unless it was 12 or 16 team field and we are probably a decade and a half or more from that.

Next step will be 8. The P5 will each take a slot. There will be three at-large. The G5 will be assured one of the at-large spots if they are in the top 8.

No drama involved. Same basic game plan we've operated under since 1998.

Worst case scenario for P5 is a G5 is #8 and a P5 champ is worse than 8 someone rated #6 or #7 gets left out because of the low rated autobid P5 school.