(05-22-2014 11:29 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:59 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:30 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Says the fan of a school that can’t get its athletic programs out from under the thumb of big brother.....

And one has nothing to do with the other. One of the problems with college sports today is that most of the G5 leaders aren't speaking out against what the P5 leaders are trying to do. Most of you are just willing to take it up the arse dry and hard from the P5 and do what it takes to be included. Most are afraid to ruffle the P5 feathers.

Many of a great leaders have fought battles most thought were pointless or a waste of time.

My point...... is that you have a MAJOR issue that you guys need to speak out and do something about that is just being dealt with and taking "it up the arse dry and hard"

Schools all over the country have spoken out against the system both old and new. Kusta was just a "little" more on the nose and less diplomatic than most.

You completely missed the point.

Have fun in CUSA!!!.....

Again, without making this personal and resorting to name calling one has nothing to do with the other. But since you are trying to compare the two, there are UAB leaders who have spoken out against the Alabama BOT. Second, UAB is an extension of the University of Alabama and not its own entity like the University of Houston. The major issues UAB has are internal and doesn't affect the college athletic landscape.

And I haven't missed the point. So what the Boise Prez wasn't diplomatic about what he said. Point is he said it. That's more than what most G5 leaders have done.

Now you enjoy your day sir!

If
1. a school's sports teams are winning consistently
2. football draws more than 40,000 for any home game,
3. the AD budget is more than $50,000,
4. the school does not demand special treatment, and
5. your name is not Notre Dame,

it is in a P5.

(05-22-2014 12:09 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Again, without making this personal and resorting to name calling one has nothing to do with the other. But since you are trying to compare the two, there are UAB leaders who have spoken out against the Alabama BOT. Second, UAB is an extension of the University of Alabama and not its own entity like the University of Houston. The major issues UAB has are internal and doesn't affect the college athletic landscape.

And I haven't missed the point. So what the Boise Prez wasn't diplomatic about what he said. Point is he said it. That's more than what most G5 leaders have done.

Now you enjoy your day sir!

No harm not slinging mud at you or name calling.

The point to further expand on is autonomy. UAB has no autonomy when it comes to athletics.

We have a similar system here in Texas under UT but each school has direct control over their own athletic programs. Schools like UTSA, UTEP, etc. call their own shots.

Now back to my correlation.... Your lack of autonomy and minimal (what you claim the rest of us have done at best) efforts to get this changed and in the public eye are related. It’s pretty much is a well that is the way things are attitude.

Of course I want UH at the highest level whatever that may be. I can wish schools like UAB good luck but that’s all you will get out of me. I hold no animosity towards your school. College football today is just a situation where its every man for himself. Everyone on the outside looking in is trying to get a lifeline.

Both are situations that need to be addressed and whatever is said be that Kustra or UAB little or nothing has been done. I compared the two because you portrayed us as standing by waiting for that "lifeline" when your own house isnt in order.

Hope that clears things up.

I see it as parties who have had enough of to much bull *hit forced down their throats and basically had enough of it.

Wonder if other AD's could be coming forth and express how they despicably feel towards the new situation at hand.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/21...ustra.html

Some more comments: One with working with the American conference.
“I don’t know why any university needs to do any more than that,” he said. “Like my conference commissioner, like my fellow presidents in the Mountain West, I’m very suspicious of what’s going on here. And so is the American conference, our old Big East conference — we’re talking more and more with them. I have a feeling we’re going to have a great partnership with the American conference over the years. And they feel the same way we do. This is all about trying to separate out the so-called resource five and leave everybody else in the dust.”

(05-22-2014 09:23 AM)Hymie Weiss Wrote:  I'm not asking them to redistribute their money. Let everyone make all they can, with just two on-field stipulations:

1. Expand the playoff so that a playoff birth can be earned on the field by any D1 program via winning their conference championship.

2. All D1 OOC scheduling contracts are 1-for-1. Period.

The P5 unwillingness to accept these to things is pure unadulterated greed.

Absolutely agree with you...I've had the same thoughts for years.

(05-22-2014 10:51 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Because almost half of those schools were grandfathered in their conf, without achieving basically anything in most of their 120 plus year football/athletic history...its sad that those schools are basically shutting out other "new" programs that have been able to do more with less ($$).

It's not sad, it's perfectly understandable: They don't want to share the money. And who on earth ever wants to share their money?

(05-22-2014 10:55 AM)HP-TBDPITL
Personally, [b' Wrote:  I have a big issue with the Big Ten/SEC, etc...acting like this new money is all theirs.[/b] When Boise has a top 10 team and garners big ratings and ECU puts 50K in their stadium, they are contributing to the eyeballs that watch college football too. This system is all new, its not your granddaddy's Rose Bowl from 1932 or whatever. There are plenty of schools that have put in the investment to play FBS football...many spending $100 mill or more that are not P5. Those investments need to be recognized in any competitive arena's.

If I invest $100 million in a new product and that product doesn't sell, am I entitled to have customers, well, just because I spent all that money on it? Would it be fair for the government to say "everyone has to go out and by this product, because we all need to recognize the $100m investment that was made". Of course that would be ridiculous.

The value of UCF's investment is currently $1.8m per year. The value of Michigan's investment is about $30m per year. That's what the media companies have judged it to be so that's what it is.

There are no free lunches out there in the world.

(05-22-2014 10:17 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  These are the most recent total revenues per team on USA Today. To give you some context, the revenue for a middling P5 team like WAKE FOREST is $48,830,266.

American Athletic Conference

01.) University of Connecticut - $63,374,981
02.) Southern Methodist University - $52,029,002
03.) University of South Florida - $45,102,784

I think that to calculate revenue fairly, you have to subtract out student fees. That's not "revenue", that's self-investment, a very different thing.

(05-22-2014 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:17 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  These are the most recent total revenues per team on USA Today. To give you some context, the revenue for a middling P5 team like WAKE FOREST is $48,830,266.

American Athletic Conference

01.) University of Connecticut - $63,374,981
02.) Southern Methodist University - $52,029,002
03.) University of South Florida - $45,102,784

I think that to calculate revenue fairly, you have to subtract out student fees. That's not "revenue", that's self-investment, a very different thing.

x2 -- Would love to see a revised chart where subsidies were subtracted

(05-22-2014 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:51 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Because almost half of those schools were grandfathered in their conf, without achieving basically anything in most of their 120 plus year football/athletic history...its sad that those schools are basically shutting out other "new" programs that have been able to do more with less ($$).

It's not sad, it's perfectly understandable: They don't want to share the money. And who on earth ever wants to share their money?

They may not want to share their money, but I firmly believe that by trying to divide the pie in fewer pieces, they will ruin college sports and to a certain extent interest will wain.

Part of what made college football interesting is the fact new names were making waves. Eliminate "everyone else" and watch fans/graduates of those schools stop paying attention.

Count me as one of those who will not pay much attention to the P5 or watch them on tv should my school not be included.

(05-22-2014 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:51 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Because almost half of those schools were grandfathered in their conf, without achieving basically anything in most of their 120 plus year football/athletic history...its sad that those schools are basically shutting out other "new" programs that have been able to do more with less ($$).

It's not sad, it's perfectly understandable: They don't want to share the money. And who on earth ever wants to share their money?

When you use your advantaged position in a market to create barriers to entry or prevent competition you are manipulating the market rather than competing. This is even worse when you collude with other major players in your market to exclude or suppress potential competition.

That can be unethical or illegal. But in college sports it can be just business as usual.

(05-22-2014 02:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:51 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Because almost half of those schools were grandfathered in their conf, without achieving basically anything in most of their 120 plus year football/athletic history...its sad that those schools are basically shutting out other "new" programs that have been able to do more with less ($$).

It's not sad, it's perfectly understandable: They don't want to share the money. And who on earth ever wants to share their money?

When you use your advantaged position in a market to create barriers to entry or prevent competition you are manipulating the market rather than competing. This is even worse when you collude with other major players in your market to exclude or suppress potential competition.

That can be unethical or illegal. But in college sports it can be just business as usual.

It's not really college football anymore. Paying players, 1 and dones etc. The top X amount of teams need to break off and become a farm system for the NFL/NBA. The rest of us can call it college football.

The amazing thing about this entire system is that there are really only a handful of teams that can actually compete at the highest level, even within P5 conferences themselves. I am talking 15-25 teams total, and they will remain the same 15-25 teams in perpetuity.

Wake Forest will cash checks all day long, but at the end of the day, I give a better chance of making the playoff to a Cincy/Boise/UCF/Fresno than I do to a bottom-dwelling P5 team.

Variety is the spice of life. At what point do even casual football fans get bored with seeing this title game every year - SEC team X vs. Ohio St/Oregon/Wisconsin/Texas/FSU/Oklahoma/Michigan/USC.

I mean, that is basically it. That is the entire list of schools that I give a real shot, year in and year out, for the title. Sure, every once in a while a Baylor or a Clemson may actually do it, but it hasn't happened yet.

Agreed. This P5/G5 thing is just removing a bit of the spontaneity in college sports.

(05-22-2014 02:45 PM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  The amazing thing about this entire system is that there are really only a handful of teams that can actually compete at the highest level, even within P5 conferences themselves. I am talking 15-25 teams total, and they will remain the same 15-25 teams in perpetuity.

Wake Forest will cash checks all day long, but at the end of the day, I give a better chance of making the playoff to a Cincy/Boise/UCF/Fresno than I do to a bottom-dwelling P5 team.

Variety is the spice of life. At what point do even casual football fans get bored with seeing this title game every year - SEC team X vs. Ohio St/Oregon/Wisconsin/Texas/FSU/Oklahoma/Michigan/USC.

I mean, that is basically it. That is the entire list of schools that I give a real shot, year in and year out, for the title. Sure, every once in a while a Baylor or a Clemson may actually do it, but it hasn't happened yet.

This is why I can't get into college football at nearly the level I am into the NFL.

Parity makes for a strong, compelling league.

College football is an oligarchy.

perfectly stated, and I couldn't agree more.

unfortunately, I live and work in ACC/SEC country, with few professional sports teams nearby, so college football/basketball is all anyone here talks about.

(05-22-2014 02:10 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:51 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Because almost half of those schools were grandfathered in their conf, without achieving basically anything in most of their 120 plus year football/athletic history...its sad that those schools are basically shutting out other "new" programs that have been able to do more with less ($$).

It's not sad, it's perfectly understandable: They don't want to share the money. And who on earth ever wants to share their money?

They may not want to share their money, but I firmly believe that by trying to divide the pie in fewer pieces, they will ruin college sports and to a certain extent interest will wain.

Part of what made college football interesting is the fact new names were making waves. Eliminate "everyone else" and watch fans/graduates of those schools stop paying attention.

Count me as one of those who will not pay much attention to the P5 or watch them on tv should my school not be included.

You have to remember that the old poll-and-bowl system that existed before the 1990s was much more tilted towards the power conferences than was the BCS or the new CFP. At worst, we'd be going back to the pre-1990s time period, which basically means the first 100+ years of college football.

And college football thrived during that time.

(05-22-2014 02:45 PM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Variety is the spice of life. At what point do even casual football fans get bored with seeing this title game every year - SEC team X vs. Ohio St/Oregon/Wisconsin/Texas/FSU/Oklahoma/Michigan/USC.

If history is any guide, never. Because really for the past 60 years, those 15-25 teams you are thinking of have totally dominated winning the titles. You have to go back to the 1950s and before, when schools like Army and the occasional Ivy schoolwere powers, to see a markedly different cast of characters.

In the past 50 years, the only schools to really crack the elite level are the three Florida schools - Miami, FSU, UF. Other than that, it's been the same crew my entire life, and yet fans have always lapped it up anyway.

(05-22-2014 09:05 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  I agree with the plutocracy piece. At least someone is said something, I loved Tulanes Scott Cowen came out blasting the BCS over a decade ago.

Actually that was the beginning of the end. It started the short term period that increasingly gave greater access to the non-BCS conferences. People like Roy Kramer and Tom Delany 'warned' everyone that they weren't going to sit back and give away even more access and money to conferences that had nothing to do with building college football into the multi-billion dollar business that the power conferences had developed over the last 60 years.

Most people laughed....but I guess they got the last laugh as they not only pulled back all the gains the non-BCS conferences had obtained but had the perfect opportunity to absorb the old BigEast and keep more money for themselves. This screwed the left over BigEast teams but also all the new AAC teams b/c they don't have now don't have a 6th BCS power conference to join.

Similarly, there were a lot of coaches who weren't crazy about playoffs b/c they knew that it would allow the bigger conferences the opportunity they need to completely take over college football and eliminate the smaller conferences. More over, this is why the initial foray into playoffs was only four teams. Slive and Delany understood that if they pushed for 8 or 16 teams there would be forced to give an automatic slot to non-BCS schools which would 'legitimize' the smaller schools and give them claim to the big dollars the playoffs will draw. IMO, once enough time passes and the G5 schools are completely marginalized to Division I-AA status the playoffs will expand to 8 to 16 teams. The power brokers played this game perfectly and they got their initial motivation due to good ol Scott Cowen.