(07-19-2014 01:28 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 01:12 PM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  There is no national interest in Iowa (not to mention Iowa State) and the regional interest doesn't extend past the midwest. Iowa is a strong self-supporting institution, though, to its credit (Rutgers has to loot the taxpayers and students to stay athletically financially competitive).
Still, put Iowa in the MAC for a decade and see what happens to them.
And I could say the same thing about 2/3 of the P5. Switch conferences for USM and Miss State for 5 years (it wouldn't even take 10) and watch fortunes reverse. AAU institutions like Rice and Tulane are supposed to be servile to Miami and Wake Forest? Please.
Stop the condescension. Be honest about it. The water is carried by about 20 teams, none of which are Iowa or Rutgers.

Yup...though I wouldn't have been as blunt about Rutgers as that, but I agree. I would like to see Rutgers in ten years without the Big Ten distinction (or ACC if it ever came to it) once the UMDNJ thing had some time to really run under its new direction. Rutgers has the numbers to look like any other "big statey," but it's still transitioning from its private roots. The faculty span the gamut, and quite honestly, can you fault them if the school could have maybe been Patriot or Ivy-like?

There is also no guarantee UMD financially recovers. There's no guarantee any of its lost programs are restored. There's one projected to, but that's not the same thing.

Both of those schools are going to have to spend a lot more now.

Outside of the Big Ten, I'd also like to see what becomes of Louisville after Jurich. TCU isn't looking so swell as a major, either.

TCU didn't do that well in football W-L, but they were one of the pre-season favorites last year in the Big 12. Same this year. They made the college world series in baseball.

People keep debating whether this is good or bad for the G5 - but the fact is that the MWC, AAC, and Big East will favor the same things as the P5.

Even the most powerful school can't control the NCAA. So from a practical perspective it doesn't matter to UC whether our vote counts for 1/347th or 1/120th or 1/65th. Our attitude towards our athletic program is identical to most Big 10 schools so we know our interests will be well-represented anyways.

(07-19-2014 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  TCU didn't do that well in football W-L, but they were one of the pre-season favorites last year in the Big 12. Same this year. They made the college world series in baseball.

They're of no use if their fans don't show up. I know they have some good boosters down in those parts. There's a culture. But even before the embarrassing Kansas game last year, they had some good teams in the MWC who played in front of some empty seats. That it happened once given the rub, that's a red flag.

If baseball did play a part in their promotion, that's awesome, though schools like Rice and Fullerton are just out of luck, I guess.

(07-19-2014 02:50 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  TCU didn't do that well in football W-L, but they were one of the pre-season favorites last year in the Big 12. Same this year. They made the college world series in baseball.

They're of no use if their fans don't show up. I know they have some good boosters down in those parts. There's a culture. But even before the embarrassing Kansas game last year, they had some good teams in the MWC who played in front of some empty seats. That it happened once given the rub, that's a red flag.

If baseball did play a part in their promotion, that's awesome, though schools like Rice and Fullerton are just out of luck, I guess.

Their promotion was all about football. The baseball comment was in response to the comment that they weren't doing too well in the P5-they have had success in some sports.

(07-19-2014 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 10:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 10:35 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 09:25 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  There is a provision for moving shared governance issues to autonomous governance. Which leaves the door open to change things not yet mentioned or thought of.

Yes if a 60 percent majority (12) of the 20 presidents/chancellors (5 from P5, 5 from G5, 5 from FCS and 5 from DII), serving on the Board agree, and it has the support of 3 of the P5 Conferences, right?

Does not look like an easy road to add to the autonomous list to me. Where are the gremlins?

He has been predicting a full fledged D4 in August for almost a year. Unless this proposal fails to pass--D4 is dead. I will say Heinous has somewhat of a point if he believes it's a form of D4-Lite due to the P5's vastly in increased powers. That said, it's not the D4 that Hen1ous has been describing.

Wrong. I have been saying that they will get the power to create the rules that they need. The easiest way to refer to that is to just call it D4. It matters less that they don't have their own division, they got the power to create the rules they want and the slope towards having even more of that power in the future is now greased up.

Why are you trying to discredit me personally? I highly doubt you have been following me THAT closely that you remember my positions perfectly. Although it IS possible as I am one of the most, if not the most, steadfast of posters on this forum when it comes to sticking to what I think will happen despite how many people want to personally attack me for my opinions.

I didn't attack you personally. I find most of your posts interesting and thoughtful. I only remembered this position becuase it was very extreme and you have stuck with it consistently, even after the original NCAA proposal went through the first revision. Frankly, once the original autonomy proposal was revised to make all P5 rules "permissible", I didn't see autonomy as much of a threat. To me it's not the extra voting powers that will cause the issue--it's the big gap between G5 and P5 earnings. My great concern is this G5-P5 financial gap is growing--and it's growing at an accelerating rate.

Look, to a degree, I actually tend to agree with you. I think that if the financial chasm between the G5 and P5 continues to grow---a split of the FBS subdivision is inevitable. Where I disagreed was with your belief that it was coming as soon as this August (or anytime in the next 12 years). The new CFP agreement virtually precludes any G5-P5 split prior to that date.

I actually don't believe a divisional split Ever has to happen so long as the G5/FBS/FCS schools never pose too big of a roadblock on some of the issues in which they as it stands now must be "consulted" upon. As long as they continue to give way, such as they did with this, then there will be no divisional split because there wont be a need.

The divisional split idea is only necessary as long as there isn't cooperation. One way or another, the Majors are going to get what they want. They now have the leverage and you better believe that all the egg on the face thrown towards the NCAA as of late has been a part of producing that leverage by showing just how weak the NCAA is in governance. It is no coincidence that this is now all about autonomous governance that is all about "improving the conditions for the student athletes". If folks take a few steps back to look at the bigger picture, it becomes easier to see all the manipulations involved and how almost all of it ties together.

(07-19-2014 02:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  People keep debating whether this is good or bad for the G5 - but the fact is that the MWC, AAC, and Big East will favor the same things as the P5.

Even the most powerful school can't control the NCAA. So from a practical perspective it doesn't matter to UC whether our vote counts for 1/347th or 1/120th or 1/65th. Our attitude towards our athletic program is identical to most Big 10 schools so we know our interests will be well-represented anyways.

This is true as well and I still stand by my strong belief of us seeing a single mid-major rise above the rest with about 20 teams. Cincy will absolutely be at the top of that pack and will have a major hand in it's creation and whom is involved. While the Majors money will grow at a greater percentage, Cinci's pay days will grow too. That Mid Major conference will be providing a large bulk of OOC games that wont harm the SoS's of teams in major conferences. That is another reason why that single mid major will be organized after the new rules are put into place and after one of the major conferences disappears.

That creation will serve the purposes of the Majors quite well and in return the members of that Mid-Major will see a very special boon handed to them in regards to all these voting numbers and percentages. The adage "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours" applies here.

(07-19-2014 03:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 10:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 10:35 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Yes if a 60 percent majority (12) of the 20 presidents/chancellors (5 from P5, 5 from G5, 5 from FCS and 5 from DII), serving on the Board agree, and it has the support of 3 of the P5 Conferences, right?

Does not look like an easy road to add to the autonomous list to me. Where are the gremlins?

He has been predicting a full fledged D4 in August for almost a year. Unless this proposal fails to pass--D4 is dead. I will say Heinous has somewhat of a point if he believes it's a form of D4-Lite due to the P5's vastly in increased powers. That said, it's not the D4 that Hen1ous has been describing.

Wrong. I have been saying that they will get the power to create the rules that they need. The easiest way to refer to that is to just call it D4. It matters less that they don't have their own division, they got the power to create the rules they want and the slope towards having even more of that power in the future is now greased up.

Why are you trying to discredit me personally? I highly doubt you have been following me THAT closely that you remember my positions perfectly. Although it IS possible as I am one of the most, if not the most, steadfast of posters on this forum when it comes to sticking to what I think will happen despite how many people want to personally attack me for my opinions.

I didn't attack you personally. I find most of your posts interesting and thoughtful. I only remembered this position becuase it was very extreme and you have stuck with it consistently, even after the original NCAA proposal went through the first revision. Frankly, once the original autonomy proposal was revised to make all P5 rules "permissible", I didn't see autonomy as much of a threat. To me it's not the extra voting powers that will cause the issue--it's the big gap between G5 and P5 earnings. My great concern is this G5-P5 financial gap is growing--and it's growing at an accelerating rate.

Look, to a degree, I actually tend to agree with you. I think that if the financial chasm between the G5 and P5 continues to grow---a split of the FBS subdivision is inevitable. Where I disagreed was with your belief that it was coming as soon as this August (or anytime in the next 12 years). The new CFP agreement virtually precludes any G5-P5 split prior to that date.

I actually don't believe a divisional split Ever has to happen so long as the G5/FBS/FCS schools never pose too big of a roadblock on some of the issues in which they as it stands now must be "consulted" upon. As long as they continue to give way, such as they did with this, then there will be no divisional split because there wont be a need.

The divisional split idea is only necessary as long as there isn't cooperation. One way or another, the Majors are going to get what they want. They now have the leverage and you better believe that all the egg on the face thrown towards the NCAA as of late has been a part of producing that leverage by showing just how weak the NCAA is in governance. It is no coincidence that this is now all about autonomous governance that is all about "improving the conditions for the student athletes". If folks take a few steps back to look at the bigger picture, it becomes easier to see all the manipulations involved and how almost all of it ties together.

This post made a lot more since than some of your others, which may have gone over my head. Not 100% in agreement mind you.

You do mean sense!