Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
Author Message
cleburneslim Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,280
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
I Root For: jax state
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-13-2017 05:10 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  No. We are FBS and that's the end of it.

I can take being unfairly excluded from our rightful place.....I cannot tolerate voluntarily accepting a 'separate but equal" system.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk



While ark st. May be fbs there is an ocean of difference between ark st and p5.
It also appears most of the g5 has found their rightful place the G5.
02-14-2017 08:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cleburneslim Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,280
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
I Root For: jax state
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
I do have a serious question though. How many years did the p5 guarentee the g5 playoff money. My guess is only till the current contract ends. So then what, the p5 split, another contract? I believe the p5 will split and take their money with them. The g5 will be forced to give up the welfare state many have come to love. It also seems stupid for many schools to spend an additional 10 mil per year in order to recieve 2 mil.

Its time the g5 becomes proactive rather than continue to suckle the p5 teat.
when the p5 does leave several g5 schools will move up, however the bulk of the g5 will be left behind.

Also wake up folks, the only reason this discussion is taking place is because the split has already occurred.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2017 08:36 AM by cleburneslim.)
02-14-2017 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,985
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 08:30 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  I do have a serious question though. How many years did the p5 guarentee the g5 playoff money. My guess is only till the current contract ends. So then what the p5 split, another contract? I believe the p5 will split and take their money with them and the g5 will be forced to give up the welfare state many have come to love. It also seemsstupid for many schools to spend an additional 10 mil per year in order to recieve 2 mil.

There is no basis for that opinion.

CFP money and access is what it is because the G5 would force a lawsuit if it wasn't.

07-coffee3
02-14-2017 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,643
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 08:24 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  
(02-13-2017 05:10 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  No. We are FBS and that's the end of it.

I can take being unfairly excluded from our rightful place.....I cannot tolerate voluntarily accepting a 'separate but equal" system.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk



While ark st. May be fbs there is an ocean of difference between ark st and p5.
It also appears most of the g5 has found their rightful place the G5.
If we all had the same playoff access...like you know...a sports league....then the gap would begin to narrow.

The P5/G5 gap is partially caused by post-season bias...so it can't be used as an excuse to maintain the bias.

Dozens of sports leagues manage to have post-season play without polls, beauty contests, or checking bank accounts. CFB can too.
02-14-2017 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ValleyBoy Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 1,882
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 41
I Root For: GaSo,Troy
Location: Alabama
Post: #45
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 05:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(02-13-2017 04:59 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  Just for fun, here's how a Group of Five playoff would have looked in 2016.

No. 1 Western Michigan vs. No. 8 Western Kentucky No. 3 Navy vs. No. 6 Houston
No. 4 South Florida vs. No. 5 San Diego State No. 2 Temple vs. No. 7 Boise State

BS No Sun Belt team in playoffs

That would have been awesome. I don't see anyone complaining about mid-major basketball polls and Bracketbuster series.

No one is saying that any team has to participate that doesn't want to. I'll leave it to ValleyBoy to post what the G5 tourney matchups would have been without AAC entrants.

First off I do not see a g5 playoff ever happening as long as there is not a total split off of the p5 from the g5.

Now if it did happen ( all g5 conference would have to agree), there would have to be some rules of how the 8 teams would be picked. With an 8 teams field I do not see any of the g5 conferences agreeing without one of the rules being at least 1 team from each of the g5 conferences. it does not matter who I think should make the field from the AAC because I would not be a member of the committee that made that decision. The make up of the committee that made that decision would also have to be decided on by all of the g5 conferences.
02-14-2017 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,502
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #46
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
If the idea behind a G5 playoff is to help narrow the budget gap with P5 schools, it's hard to see how it could.

Let's say for now that Frazier is correct, and such a playoff could bring $160 million a year. That's about $70 million more than G5 and independent schools received from the CFP this year. But, while each school would get a little more than $1 million more than it does now, each P5 school would get almost $1.5 million more by not having to give the G5 its $90 million share from the CFP.

That widens the gap, not narrows it. So the goal can't be to narrow the gap with the P5. It can only be to improve G5 budgets, and only marginally at that. Now Frazier's assumption of a $160 million payday comes into play. Many observers are skeptical of that number. G5 schools must decide whether the $90 million CFP bird in the hand is worth more or less than a $160 million bird in the bush that might never materialize.

College presidents in general aren't big risk takers. And this would be a huge risk.
02-14-2017 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,382
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 05:41 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  
(02-14-2017 12:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-13-2017 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-13-2017 04:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So quoting Dennis Dodd on twitter

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...obstacles/

A lot of interesting points about the financial realities of G5 FB. Frazier notes:

"It's the truth: We don't have an access [point] to the playoff," Frazier said. "The reality is when you say it publicly."

Frazier says 33 percent of his budget is balanced on the backs of student fees attached to tuition. While that's not rare at the mid-major level, it may not be sustainable.

"Right now, I'm not making any money. I'm paying money. I'm trying to figure out how to keep up with the Ohio States, the Michigans, and the Wisconsins, which is a pipe dream," he said.

From planet American:

"Zero interest in the concept," said Aresco, who has added on many occasions his belief the American is the sixth power conference.

(well 10 of 12 AAC members did apply to join the B12).

However reality probably best summed up here:

"The CFP does provide more to every Group of Five institution," Florida Atlantic AD Patrick Chun said. "The other reality is, I don't know if the Group of Five is that unified to get all five conference involved."

I think Frazier will get his wish, they'll talk about it. But I doubt his $160m valuation holds up. Networks will pay for P5 content, they will not pay for G5 (exception when one or two teams get hot, they'll pick up a game or two, like Houston this last year)

Fraziers whole problem is he is living in fantasy land. When the CFP deal was struck, the P5 was receiving a combined total of total of 1.1 billion a year from TV for their regular season rights. Their playoff was worth 470 million--or less than half the value of their total regular season.

My guess is that ratio would be a reasonable yard stick by which to measure the value of the G5 playoff. The G5 gets a combined 53 million a year for their regular season rights. Thus, their playoff would be worth around 25 million using the same ratio as the P5. That 160 million dollar figure is about as real as rock candy mountains and chocolate rivers.

My guess is you could get close to 25 million or more for a 3-bowl series of "Champions Bowls" pitting the G5 champs not in the access bowl against top selections from the P5 conferences not in a CFP sponsored bowl. The bowls would be owned by the G5 as a group.

#2 G5 champ vs highest P5 not in a CFP Bowl (4 million each)
#3 G5 champs vs 2ns highest P5 not in a CFP Bowl (4 million each)
#4 G5 champ vs #5 G5 champ (2 million each)

The rest of the TV rights money, ticket sales, and naming rights money is split evenly among the G5 schools.

That's more than most any non CFP bowl pays. The G5 vs P5 access bowls have commanded excellent audiences. Even the high level G5 vs G5 bowls have done pretty well (UH vs SDSU grabbed over 3.5 million viewers).

I think something like this that works within the existing FBS/CFP framework makes much more sense than any hair brained idea of a separate "playoff".

I think you are spot on about this. The G5 would be better trying to squeeze $50 million out of the networks to play P5 schools.

This way if you win your conference you are guaranteed in what would be perceived as a major bowl. The G5 would then need less of the lower tier bowl games.

Taking this year I could see interest in the MWC, AAC, CUSA, SBC champions against Top 20 P5 competition. People like novelty and Cinderella stories.
The AAC doesn't want anything to do with any of those scenarios. By any and all of the important matrix points the AAC is closer to the p5 than the g5,and that includes tv ratings. You will not see any nonsensical g5 coming together crap gaining any traction in the AAC, sorry. We haven't even had a chance to hit the open market for our second contract. The goal of the AAC is to be as close to the p5s as possible or bust. For anyone including Dodd whom continue to stare "10 of the 12 AAC SCHOOLS applied to the big12" . Well duh, what g5 program with a competent AD wouldn't try to take the fast track to financial security into any p5 conference 01-wingedeagle. Maybe the point should be that when the big12 thought about expanding they instinctively looked at the AAC's roster of programs first07-coffee3

Except the AAC would be completely in favor of a series of bowls with high payouts that gave G5 champs the opportunity to play high ranking P5 schools. That's completely in line with the stated AAC goals. That's completely different from a seperate playoff--which the AAC would have zero interest in.

I'm also of the opinion that one the first teams to drop down to FCS might be NIU. Frazier seems almost panicked when discussing NIUs financial plight.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2017 11:16 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-14-2017 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-13-2017 07:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  G5 fall into three categories. About 5 are spending to get in the P5. Cincy, Houston, BYU, and UConn (because of Basketball budget) are in that group. I left a 5th one open, even though nobody really qualifies. They are all running heavy "strategic" deficits, like Rutgers did in the hope of crossing over (BYU a different animal). These programs are throwing in excess of $100m in the next 6-7 years at it, above high mid-majors, but without any additional revenue to speak of (save UConn Basketball).

A second group spends high mid-major, about 75-85% of the bottom P5 schools (Washington State who are undre orders from the Pac-12 to pick it up). Schools like Boise State, Memphis, the directional Florida schools, SDSU, SMU, and a half dozen others fall into this category. The deficits run in the $15m range annually, Boise State does the best froma budget standpoint.

Most (I'd say roughly 35 schools) spend about $30m a year give or take $5m, and run a deficit of $10-15m made up in student fees or indirectly through tuition or tax money via institutional transfers. (Worst case is probably EMU)

There re around ten bottom budget schools that are closer to FCS, many in the SBC (ULM stands out).

NIU speaks for the ~35-40 schools in the middle and lower. Aresco speaks for the ~15-20 at the top (basically the AAC and half a dozen others).

Good summary of FBS, that I mostly agree with. At the very low end, you have ULM. They spend the exact same as the Southland Louisiana schools, just providing an extra 20 scholarship equivalencies of aid to players. Everything else about their program is the same as SELA, McNeese, etc.


There will never be a "hard" division of the current FBS. No need for it. The NCAA isn't interested in creating, making rules for, and administering a new sub-division for 40-50 schools (those 35 in FBS and perhaps 10-15 top FCS), with a separate championship tourney.

Currently it's a "soft" division, where people know the schools in FBS aren't homogeneous, but they're all under the same structure anyway. Like "low-major", "mid-major", "high-major" classification in DI MBB.


The best you can hope for is some kind of "firm" division. I don't know what that really amounts to. But it is certainly would only be for those 35-40 in the middle and bottom, as you describe.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2017 12:04 PM by MplsBison.)
02-14-2017 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,643
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 10:03 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  
(02-14-2017 05:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(02-13-2017 04:59 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  Just for fun, here's how a Group of Five playoff would have looked in 2016.

No. 1 Western Michigan vs. No. 8 Western Kentucky No. 3 Navy vs. No. 6 Houston
No. 4 South Florida vs. No. 5 San Diego State No. 2 Temple vs. No. 7 Boise State

BS No Sun Belt team in playoffs

That would have been awesome. I don't see anyone complaining about mid-major basketball polls and Bracketbuster series.

No one is saying that any team has to participate that doesn't want to. I'll leave it to ValleyBoy to post what the G5 tourney matchups would have been without AAC entrants.

First off I do not see a g5 playoff ever happening as long as there is not a total split off of the p5 from the g5.

Now if it did happen ( all g5 conference would have to agree), there would have to be some rules of how the 8 teams would be picked. With an 8 teams field I do not see any of the g5 conferences agreeing without one of the rules being at least 1 team from each of the g5 conferences. it does not matter who I think should make the field from the AAC because I would not be a member of the committee that made that decision. The make up of the committee that made that decision would also have to be decided on by all of the g5 conferences.

If there is ever an official P5 split then G5 needs to make sure it is an all-sports split. Would need to have a playoff and set up a commissioner so we could be a real sport. Rules would need to be changed to treat P5 like a business competitor rather than a ruler.
02-14-2017 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,985
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
The bottom 1/3 of D1 basketball schools are similar to the top 1/3 of D2 basketball. This is over 100 schools.

The bottom 10% of FBS is interchangable with the top 10% of FCS. We are only talking 10-15 schools who are borderline.

ULM may be not be far from McNeese traditionally one of the best FCS programs but is light years ahead of Houston Baptist.

There are not many G5 programs that arent a step up from even the top FCS programs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app
02-14-2017 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
Balderdash.

There are several G5 that are not a step up from NDSU and James Madison, to name two.
02-14-2017 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,194
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 341
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #52
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
NO. It is going away. It's a stupid idea. Join FCS if you want a playoff.

Cheers!
02-14-2017 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 12,188
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 345
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Balderdash.

There are several G5 that are not a step up from NDSU and James Madison, to name two.

I can think of a couple in the Big 10 who are not a step up from NDSU and James Madison either.

There are 70 schools in the G5. There are about 10-15 of them that would be better on a year to basis than 1/3 of the schools in a power conference. There are another 10-20 that would do just as well as that bottom 1/3. However, as is often mentioned by fans of P5 programs on this board that is meaningless, just as is your comparison.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2017 02:36 PM by CliftonAve.)
02-14-2017 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 10,297
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 413
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
There won't be a group of 5 playoff. However, there may actually be something similar that will come about in the future that will make a new subdivision out of necessity. The brutal honesty is that there are maybe 20 - 30 schools that can legitimately spend at the highest levels to compete. At least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the current P5 setup cannot effectively compete at the highest levels when you look at schools like Alabama, Michigan, OH State, Florida, Texas, and a handful of others and use those as a benchmark for AD spending...it's not sustainable. IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision. That's the first pass. Second pass, if you cannot spend at a minimum "X" amount of dollars, you have no business being in the highest subdivision. Applying a dual pass filter with these metrics, your ultimate slotting in the subdivisions SHOULD look quite different.

My school cannot compete at the highest levels and it's in a P5 conference. I do not WANT my school to compete at the highest levels. I would rather my school focus more efforts on the academic side AND MORE IMPORTANTLY focus on controlling costs so that tuition is more affordable to the state residents. We're beyond the fun and games at this point. College costs are too high, and playing college sports at the highest levels WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN A REVENUE NEUTRAL AD is morally repugnant in today's world. I no longer GAF if my school can go toe to toe with Ohio State if it means that the AD must be heavily subsidized to do so.
02-14-2017 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,725
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 474
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #55
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  There won't be a group of 5 playoff. However, there may actually be something similar that will come about in the future that will make a new subdivision out of necessity. The brutal honesty is that there are maybe 20 - 30 schools that can legitimately spend at the highest levels to compete. At least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the current P5 setup cannot effectively compete at the highest levels when you look at schools like Alabama, Michigan, OH State, Florida, Texas, and a handful of others and use those as a benchmark for AD spending...it's not sustainable. IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision. That's the first pass. Second pass, if you cannot spend at a minimum "X" amount of dollars, you have no business being in the highest subdivision. Applying a dual pass filter with these metrics, your ultimate slotting in the subdivisions SHOULD look quite different.

My school cannot compete at the highest levels and it's in a P5 conference. I do not WANT my school to compete at the highest levels. I would rather my school focus more efforts on the academic side AND MORE IMPORTANTLY focus on controlling costs so that tuition is more affordable to the state residents. We're beyond the fun and games at this point. College costs are too high, and playing college sports at the highest levels WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN A REVENUE NEUTRAL AD is morally repugnant in today's world. I no longer GAF if my school can go toe to toe with Ohio State if it means that the AD must be heavily subsidized to do so.

If your school is in a P5 conference (including Pitt), then its football and men's basketball programs are absolutely, 100% making a lot of money. Whether the rest of the athletic department is draining such money and/or there's a lot of creative accounting being employed to show $0 profit or a net loss is another matter.

It's not mutually exclusive for a school like Pitt to have a top level P5 athletic department while also improving academic standards. Once you get past the Ivy League-level schools, there's a pretty strong correlation between academic prestige and P5 membership. A P5 athletic department is also not a reason why tuition is going higher. Public schools everywhere (regardless of whether they are in the P5 or not) are getting little to no state funding these days and private schools have jacked up tuition rates to the point where it's literally funny money if you're attempting to pay out-of-pocket. Don't kid yourself - Pitt isn't going to be more affordable if it drops P5 sports. If anything, that reduces the national name brand of Pitt where they don't attract as many applications from quality students, which then reduces enrollments and then forces the school to squeeze more tuition dollars from its existing students.

I can point to my own home state of Illinois. It's not the University of Illinois (with its Big Ten athletic department) that's hurting due to a complete lack of state funding of higher education (literally) - they've just announced that they've received yet another record number of applications this year. Instead, it's the non-P5 public universities in the state that are getting hammered financially and facing declining enrollments. That's not to say that having P5 athletics is the reason why U of I isn't suffering the same fate as its other in-state brethren, but the point is that it certainly isn't hurting them at all whatsoever. Big Ten membership is a pretty significant plus for U of I in differentiating itself against other schools that are its local competitors, just as ACC membership is a pretty significant plus for Pitt as being a differentiator versus, say, Temple, Delaware or Miami of Ohio.
02-14-2017 05:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oliveandblue Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,126
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Balderdash.

There are several G5 that are not a step up from NDSU and James Madison, to name two.

Meh. Tulane has been junk against the FBS for a while now, and yet has NEVER lost to an FCS program - and several good FCS playoff teams are on that list.

I think people underestimate the difference in the two divisions.

NDSU - who is an outlier - would drop 5-6 games in the AAC.
02-14-2017 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,649
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 113
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 05:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  There won't be a group of 5 playoff. However, there may actually be something similar that will come about in the future that will make a new subdivision out of necessity. The brutal honesty is that there are maybe 20 - 30 schools that can legitimately spend at the highest levels to compete. At least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the current P5 setup cannot effectively compete at the highest levels when you look at schools like Alabama, Michigan, OH State, Florida, Texas, and a handful of others and use those as a benchmark for AD spending...it's not sustainable. IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision. That's the first pass. Second pass, if you cannot spend at a minimum "X" amount of dollars, you have no business being in the highest subdivision. Applying a dual pass filter with these metrics, your ultimate slotting in the subdivisions SHOULD look quite different.

My school cannot compete at the highest levels and it's in a P5 conference. I do not WANT my school to compete at the highest levels. I would rather my school focus more efforts on the academic side AND MORE IMPORTANTLY focus on controlling costs so that tuition is more affordable to the state residents. We're beyond the fun and games at this point. College costs are too high, and playing college sports at the highest levels WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN A REVENUE NEUTRAL AD is morally repugnant in today's world. I no longer GAF if my school can go toe to toe with Ohio State if it means that the AD must be heavily subsidized to do so.

If your school is in a P5 conference (including Pitt), then its football and men's basketball programs are absolutely, 100% making a lot of money. Whether the rest of the athletic department is draining such money and/or there's a lot of creative accounting being employed to show $0 profit or a net loss is another matter.

It's not mutually exclusive for a school like Pitt to have a top level P5 athletic department while also improving academic standards. Once you get past the Ivy League-level schools, there's a pretty strong correlation between academic prestige and P5 membership. A P5 athletic department is also not a reason why tuition is going higher. Public schools everywhere (regardless of whether they are in the P5 or not) are getting little to no state funding these days and private schools have jacked up tuition rates to the point where it's literally funny money if you're attempting to pay out-of-pocket. Don't kid yourself - Pitt isn't going to be more affordable if it drops P5 sports. If anything, that reduces the national name brand of Pitt where they don't attract as many applications from quality students, which then reduces enrollments and then forces the school to squeeze more tuition dollars from its existing students.

I can point to my own home state of Illinois. It's not the University of Illinois (with its Big Ten athletic department) that's hurting due to a complete lack of state funding of higher education (literally) - they've just announced that they've received yet another record number of applications this year. Instead, it's the non-P5 public universities in the state that are getting hammered financially and facing declining enrollments. That's not to say that having P5 athletics is the reason why U of I isn't suffering the same fate as its other in-state brethren, but the point is that it certainly isn't hurting them at all whatsoever. Big Ten membership is a pretty significant plus for U of I in differentiating itself against other schools that are its local competitors, just as ACC membership is a pretty significant plus for Pitt as being a differentiator versus, say, Temple, Delaware or Miami of Ohio.


California is struggling to be a P5 school as is. That is why I think the old ways of P5 and G5 will not work. The P5 have to realize if they want to save all their sports? They have be inclusive, and not inclusive.
02-14-2017 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,194
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 341
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #58
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  There won't be a group of 5 playoff. However, there may actually be something similar that will come about in the future that will make a new subdivision out of necessity. The brutal honesty is that there are maybe 20 - 30 schools that can legitimately spend at the highest levels to compete. At least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the current P5 setup cannot effectively compete at the highest levels when you look at schools like Alabama, Michigan, OH State, Florida, Texas, and a handful of others and use those as a benchmark for AD spending...it's not sustainable. IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision. That's the first pass. Second pass, if you cannot spend at a minimum "X" amount of dollars, you have no business being in the highest subdivision. Applying a dual pass filter with these metrics, your ultimate slotting in the subdivisions SHOULD look quite different.

My school cannot compete at the highest levels and it's in a P5 conference. I do not WANT my school to compete at the highest levels. I would rather my school focus more efforts on the academic side AND MORE IMPORTANTLY focus on controlling costs so that tuition is more affordable to the state residents. We're beyond the fun and games at this point. College costs are too high, and playing college sports at the highest levels WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN A REVENUE NEUTRAL AD is morally repugnant in today's world. I no longer GAF if my school can go toe to toe with Ohio State if it means that the AD must be heavily subsidized to do so.

Interesting Miko. There are posters on this board who believe they can use their athletic tv contract money to buy their way into academic prestige. There are Big 10 posters who think the sports money revenue they are collecting will allow themselves to buy their way into Ivy League status. I vehemently disagree with that idea. I think the Ivy's look down their noses at schools that give athletic scholarships and play big time sports.
Cheers!
02-14-2017 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
p23570
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #59
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  There won't be a group of 5 playoff. However, there may actually be something similar that will come about in the future that will make a new subdivision out of necessity. The brutal honesty is that there are maybe 20 - 30 schools that can legitimately spend at the highest levels to compete. At least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the current P5 setup cannot effectively compete at the highest levels when you look at schools like Alabama, Michigan, OH State, Florida, Texas, and a handful of others and use those as a benchmark for AD spending...it's not sustainable. IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision. That's the first pass. Second pass, if you cannot spend at a minimum "X" amount of dollars, you have no business being in the highest subdivision. Applying a dual pass filter with these metrics, your ultimate slotting in the subdivisions SHOULD look quite different.

My school cannot compete at the highest levels and it's in a P5 conference. I do not WANT my school to compete at the highest levels. I would rather my school focus more efforts on the academic side AND MORE IMPORTANTLY focus on controlling costs so that tuition is more affordable to the state residents. We're beyond the fun and games at this point. College costs are too high, and playing college sports at the highest levels WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN A REVENUE NEUTRAL AD is morally repugnant in today's world. I no longer GAF if my school can go toe to toe with Ohio State if it means that the AD must be heavily subsidized to do so.
I agree. That line is pretty much the p-5 g-5 break as far as generating income from ticket sales and donations.

Most of the schools added to the p-5 the last round are now the most subsidized AD's such at MAryland, Rutgers, and Utah. The schools with the ability to generate income with their AD are already in the p-5.

When you look at the NCAA AD finances and just follow the subsidy column you an pretty much see the p-5 g-5 break at about 25%.
02-14-2017 09:53 PM
Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 10,297
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 413
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-14-2017 05:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  There won't be a group of 5 playoff. However, there may actually be something similar that will come about in the future that will make a new subdivision out of necessity. The brutal honesty is that there are maybe 20 - 30 schools that can legitimately spend at the highest levels to compete. At least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the current P5 setup cannot effectively compete at the highest levels when you look at schools like Alabama, Michigan, OH State, Florida, Texas, and a handful of others and use those as a benchmark for AD spending...it's not sustainable. IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision. That's the first pass. Second pass, if you cannot spend at a minimum "X" amount of dollars, you have no business being in the highest subdivision. Applying a dual pass filter with these metrics, your ultimate slotting in the subdivisions SHOULD look quite different.

My school cannot compete at the highest levels and it's in a P5 conference. I do not WANT my school to compete at the highest levels. I would rather my school focus more efforts on the academic side AND MORE IMPORTANTLY focus on controlling costs so that tuition is more affordable to the state residents. We're beyond the fun and games at this point. College costs are too high, and playing college sports at the highest levels WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN A REVENUE NEUTRAL AD is morally repugnant in today's world. I no longer GAF if my school can go toe to toe with Ohio State if it means that the AD must be heavily subsidized to do so.

If your school is in a P5 conference (including Pitt), then its football and men's basketball programs are absolutely, 100% making a lot of money. Whether the rest of the athletic department is draining such money and/or there's a lot of creative accounting being employed to show $0 profit or a net loss is another matter.

It's not mutually exclusive for a school like Pitt to have a top level P5 athletic department while also improving academic standards. Once you get past the Ivy League-level schools, there's a pretty strong correlation between academic prestige and P5 membership. A P5 athletic department is also not a reason why tuition is going higher. Public schools everywhere (regardless of whether they are in the P5 or not) are getting little to no state funding these days and private schools have jacked up tuition rates to the point where it's literally funny money if you're attempting to pay out-of-pocket. Don't kid yourself - Pitt isn't going to be more affordable if it drops P5 sports. If anything, that reduces the national name brand of Pitt where they don't attract as many applications from quality students, which then reduces enrollments and then forces the school to squeeze more tuition dollars from its existing students.

I can point to my own home state of Illinois. It's not the University of Illinois (with its Big Ten athletic department) that's hurting due to a complete lack of state funding of higher education (literally) - they've just announced that they've received yet another record number of applications this year. Instead, it's the non-P5 public universities in the state that are getting hammered financially and facing declining enrollments. That's not to say that having P5 athletics is the reason why U of I isn't suffering the same fate as its other in-state brethren, but the point is that it certainly isn't hurting them at all whatsoever. Big Ten membership is a pretty significant plus for U of I in differentiating itself against other schools that are its local competitors, just as ACC membership is a pretty significant plus for Pitt as being a differentiator versus, say, Temple, Delaware or Miami of Ohio.

Correlation is not causation, Frank. Most schools are P5 today because they were the schools pushed strongly by the states sponsoring these land grant institutions over a hundred years ago. Of course the public schools that get the majority of the financing because they are - the official land grant state universities of choice by the state - they will have the higher ratings. They will have the resources that will get them the best equipment for their schools and the talented phD's to become professors. This in turn will provide the shot in the arm to become strong research centers. That will attract more dollars and more reputation and the cycle will continue. It's a self reinforcing positive feedback loop that was all made possible by significant seed money from the states originally. This doesn't account for the private P5 schools, but that's no biggie since my statements account for the vast majority of P5 schools.

Maybe decades ago before we had all of the info at our fingertips, college sports did act as THE primary marketing tool that prospective students had access to. This paradigm is no longer the dominant model. The best and brightest students are those who are discriminating shoppers who are carefully weighing the strength and weaknesses of various schools. If they are interested in polymer science, they'll choose the school strongest in polymer science that they can get into AND get scholarships to study at.

For the rest of us middle class types who are not rich enough for the Ivy's, not brilliant enough for the Ivy's or not poor enough for the Ivy's...we're choosing the overall best school that we can reasonably afford. Growing up in PA, I already knew I was either going to Pitt or PSU. I applied to both and was accepted to both. It wasn't college athletics that swayed me. These were the 2 best options available for a middle class kid who wants to study engineering. The other options either didn't offer what i was looking for, low quality or too expensive. Conference affiliation had nothing to do with it. For the VAST MAJORITY of people, the dominant state school is what they'll choose as their best available choice if they want access to as many options for degrees as possible. This is common knowledge for the majority of us. It has nothing to do with conference affiliation, and frankly it's stupid to make such an argument.
02-14-2017 09:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.