(02-21-2017 02:11 PM)HHOOTter Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  [quote='p23570' pid='14109087' dateline='1487697561']
In state rivals should always play.

Would OU and OSU want to play Tulsa?

OU and OSU play Tulsa regularly but Tulsa is a little tiny private school with 5k students.

Tulsa/OkSt have agreed to a 2 for 1 F-ball series beginning in 2019.

OSU AD Mike Holder is on record that he’d like to play Tulsa every year
but Tulsa AD Derick Gregg has “reservations” about doing so.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/os...3a79c.html

Univ of Ok AD Joe Castiglione is open to playing a game in Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/tu...3c8c7.html

The “other” P5 school located w/n 2 hours of the Univ of Tulsa campus, them “Hawg-warts” will NEVER EVER play a F-ball game in Tulsa.

Tulsa does have difficulty scheduling other P5 teams in the area such as JayHacks, Mizzu, & K St mostly because Tulsa F-ball is competitive & might not look good for local area recruiting purposes to loose to good ‘ol TU.

Yep. I still remember when Tulsa beat Notre Dame. They have a solid program but struggle keeping a good coach.

It's actually pretty amazing that they are in the AAC in some ways.

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

Iowa and ISU even make it work with UNI.

If OSU, Iowa, and UNI can make it work then CU and CSU should be able t as well as an occasional CU VS AFA game every 5-10 years.

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

You can't equate P5 vs P5 rivals like ISU-Iowa, Clemson-SoCar, Louisville-Kentucky, and so on. BYU is a 'tweener, so their every year rivalry games with BSU and USU qualify as G5 vs G5. Utah is now somewhat irregular, and even so as a 'tweener its P5 vs P5. The point is ISU and Iowa have P5 media contracts even with conference networks, as do Clemson, South Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Pitt, Penn State, etc.

This is what catches Colorado State out, they don't have a media contract. They proof is in the scheduling. Colorado has lined up a 2nd P5 OOC in place of CSU. So it certainly isn't "fear" of CSU that has them scheduling Nebraska, Texas A&M, TCU, Minnesota, K State and Georgia Tech. P12 schools scheduling 11 P5 games pretty much dooms any G5 rivalry.

The reality is G5 and P5 as separating and they are scheduling each other less, and when they do the majority are now revenue games (yes I know some 2 for 1 and some manage to get home and home, especially certain "power" G5 schools). But the point of my comment is you cannot lump in-State P5 rivalries with G5 vs P5.

(02-21-2017 12:19 PM)p23570 Wrote:  In state rivals should always play.

More conference games (9/10) is not a good thing IMO as it takes away regional games like this because schools have so many requirements.

That being said CU is a sorry arse AD in general and this move doesn't surprise me as with all thier advantages they are barely a better program than CSU.

I like more conference games but I feel that rivalry games should be preserved as well. They are much more important than Colorado playing Tennessee in a meaningless game in August. That's why I wasn't interested in a pointless game like LSU-Wiscy which didn't live up to billing anyway.

(02-21-2017 01:00 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  This is garbage. So is the inability to schedule Utah-BYU.

Your example is even worse than CU-CSU since the Mormons played each other for decades in the same conference.

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

UCLA and Cal are both part of the same system so technically the state schools in the MWC would be the same situation as Colorado/CSU.

Texas State is G5.

In NY there is the SUNY system, what is the other?

(02-21-2017 05:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

You can't equate P5 vs P5 rivals like ISU-Iowa, Clemson-SoCar, Louisville-Kentucky, and so on. BYU is a 'tweener, so their every year rivalry games with BSU and USU qualify as G5 vs G5. Utah is now somewhat irregular, and even so as a 'tweener its P5 vs P5. The point is ISU and Iowa have P5 media contracts even with conference networks, as do Clemson, South Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Pitt, Penn State, etc.

This is what catches Colorado State out, they don't have a media contract. They proof is in the scheduling. Colorado has lined up a 2nd P5 OOC in place of CSU. So it certainly isn't "fear" of CSU that has them scheduling Nebraska, Texas A&M, TCU, Minnesota, K State and Georgia Tech. P12 schools scheduling 11 P5 games pretty much dooms any G5 rivalry.

The reality is G5 and P5 as separating and they are scheduling each other less, and when they do the majority are now revenue games (yes I know some 2 for 1 and some manage to get home and home, especially certain "power" G5 schools). But the point of my comment is you cannot lump in-State P5 rivalries with G5 vs P5.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

(02-21-2017 05:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

You can't equate P5 vs P5 rivals like ISU-Iowa, Clemson-SoCar, Louisville-Kentucky, and so on. BYU is a 'tweener, so their every year rivalry games with BSU and USU qualify as G5 vs G5. Utah is now somewhat irregular, and even so as a 'tweener its P5 vs P5. The point is ISU and Iowa have P5 media contracts even with conference networks, as do Clemson, South Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Pitt, Penn State, etc.

This is what catches Colorado State out, they don't have a media contract. They proof is in the scheduling. Colorado has lined up a 2nd P5 OOC in place of CSU. So it certainly isn't "fear" of CSU that has them scheduling Nebraska, Texas A&M, TCU, Minnesota, K State and Georgia Tech. P12 schools scheduling 11 P5 games pretty much dooms any G5 rivalry.

The reality is G5 and P5 as separating and they are scheduling each other less, and when they do the majority are now revenue games (yes I know some 2 for 1 and some manage to get home and home, especially certain "power" G5 schools). But the point of my comment is you cannot lump in-State P5 rivalries with G5 vs P5.

I'm guessing fans would be more interested in CSU than a game against Wake Forest.

(02-21-2017 02:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  While it's lamentable the G5 vs P5 games are vanishing, especially the old long playing annual rivalries (think Tulane-LSU, SJSU-Stanford, USU-Utah, Memphis-Ole Miss), it is the reality of more conference games and SoS that require a P5 OOC game, some schools playing two such.

Besides the aforementioned, what are some other P5 vs. G5 rivalries, or at least historical games?

The former SWC games
New Mexico-Arizona/Texas Tech
Tulane-Ole Miss
Tulsa-Arkansas/OU/OSU
Memphis-Tennessee (home and home in the 80's and 90's)
SDSU-UCLA (home and home in the 80's and 90's)
Temple-Pitt/Penn St.
Navy-Virginia/Pitt
UMass/UConn-BC
UTEP-Arizona/ASU
Army-Rutgers/BC/ND
Washington St.-Idaho

East Carolina -NC State/UNC
App State- Wake Forest
Southern Miss-Miss. State/Ole Miss
FIU/UCF/USF-Miami
Marshall-WVU
Memphis-Ole Miss
Middle Tennessee-Vandy
Houston-TAMU/Texas/Texas Tech
Navy-Maryland
UConn/Army-Syracuse
Air Force-Colorado/Notre Dame
Virginia Tech-East Carolina
Iowa State-Northern Iowa
SMU-Arkansas

(02-21-2017 05:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

UCLA and Cal are both part of the same system so technically the state schools in the MWC would be the same situation as Colorado/CSU.

Texas State is G5.

In NY there is the SUNY system, what is the other?

I think what he is referring to is that in teh SUNY system there are 4 schools that are essentially the most important (not always the best in every area but on the whole the most important). Those 4 are Buffalo, Binghamton, Stony Brook, and Albany.

Buffalo is FBS and Stony Brook and Albany are both FCS (Binghamton has no football).

The other main option is to look at CUNY (City University of NY) but they do not have any FCS football teams.

The last option is to go with NY's land grant school which is Cornell and that is also FCS but it is only partly public and mostly private so I do not think that is what he is talking about (many people do not know that Cornell is NY's land grant).

(02-21-2017 12:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:19 PM)p23570 Wrote:  In state rivals should always play.

More conference games (9/10) is not a good thing IMO as it takes away regional games like this because schools have so many requirements.

That being said CU is a sorry arse AD in general and this move doesn't surprise me as with all thier advantages they are barely a better program than CSU.

Would OU and OSU want to play Tulsa?

It's the same thing, really. CU is in a different world than CSU.

Besides which, nobody should "have to" play anyone.

OU and OSU play Tulsa regularly but Tulsa is a little tiny private school with 5k students.

Yes, OU and OSU play Tulsa. Although there are sometimes long lapses between games or series of three games, which are 2 for 1 deals. Actually Tulsa only has a little over 3,000 students, making it the smallest school in D1. OU has not played TU very much at all. IIRC they have only played 15 times since WWII.

Both OU and OSU insist on 2 for 1 deals, but I think there is more to it than that. OSU is in favor of playing every year, but they seem to make some demands that TU does not like.

Of course it is huge money maker for Tulsa, since OU and OSU fans usually fill the stadium with ticket prices anywhere from 2 to 10 times higher than other games regular ticket prices.

(02-21-2017 08:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 07:57 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Recruits pay attention to instate rivalry games.

Arkansas doesn't play Arkansas State unless forced to by some third party post-season event. Several years back the two met in the women's NIT and AState pounded the Hogs to a pulp. Immediately after that the two schools went head-to-head for three recruits and the Hogs signed all three.

I doubt Colorado's success or failure hinges on how well they recruit in-state and out-of-state, well if CU can't out-recruit CSU there, the problem isn't their non-conference scheduling.

Thank you for proving my point.

(02-21-2017 01:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  This is not news. It has been known for some time. When the P12 went to 9 games the game was doomed. This was the last of P5 vs G5 rivalries to die left, besides Navy vs ND (CSU should have looked at that model, home games for the P5 rotated with neutral site ... but it has a big money TV package)

The reality of P5 schools needing 6 home games and to preserve a neutrals site game for a P5 opponent with National TV and higher revenue, meant the Mile High game was an expensive luxury that costs Colorado at least $2m a year in lost revenue (look at the Kickoff games). Simply put the game doesn't work for them. CSU did not want to play the game in Boulder, and could not offer anywhere near enough money for the game to get played in Fort Collins, ruling out a home and home series. For Colorado, that frees up the possibility of neutral site 7th home game.

While it's lamentable the G5 vs P5 games are vanishing, especially the old long playing annual rivalries (think Tulane-LSU, SJSU-Stanford, USU-Utah, Memphis-Ole Miss), it is the reality of more conference games and SoS that require a P5 OOC game, some schools playing two such. There are only half as many P5 vs G5 matches as there were a decade ago. Future schedules show a little more erosion. Basically P5 want one or two home games against a P5 for the revenue they get with their conference network and the gate. CSU like all G5 (except the academies) lack the media contracts to make those games of much value.

I frankly think there will be another adjustment in the coming decade, as the SEC and ACC will eventually move to 9 games. That and SoS could see the number of G5 vs P5 drop from 125 or so today to as few as 65-70 around 2025.

If Colorado State crosses over to P5 the game could start up again, because they'd have a media contract. Yes it is hard for a G5 to get top players now. The NFL draft last year confirmed it, 90.4% of the 1st & 2nd round picks were from P5 schools, 80% of the 3rd round. G5 and FCS evenly split the other 6 players in the first two rounds, or about 5% each. Players coming out of HS are well aware of this, which is why the balance has been shifting even more to P5 (that and money which is making recruiting a more scientific WAG; still some guys are late bloomers or have other reasons to play in the lower level schools).

It is what it is.

To be fair, a decade ago, the 12 game schedule was relatively new. That was a golden age for nonconference play.

There used to have 8 conference games and 3 nonconference games. Then for about a decade we had 8 conference games and 4 nonconference games. Now the conferences have taken control over the extra game, so we're back to 3 nonconference games.

(02-21-2017 05:54 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 05:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

You can't equate P5 vs P5 rivals like ISU-Iowa, Clemson-SoCar, Louisville-Kentucky, and so on. BYU is a 'tweener, so their every year rivalry games with BSU and USU qualify as G5 vs G5. Utah is now somewhat irregular, and even so as a 'tweener its P5 vs P5. The point is ISU and Iowa have P5 media contracts even with conference networks, as do Clemson, South Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Pitt, Penn State, etc.

This is what catches Colorado State out, they don't have a media contract. They proof is in the scheduling. Colorado has lined up a 2nd P5 OOC in place of CSU. So it certainly isn't "fear" of CSU that has them scheduling Nebraska, Texas A&M, TCU, Minnesota, K State and Georgia Tech. P12 schools scheduling 11 P5 games pretty much dooms any G5 rivalry.

The reality is G5 and P5 as separating and they are scheduling each other less, and when they do the majority are now revenue games (yes I know some 2 for 1 and some manage to get home and home, especially certain "power" G5 schools). But the point of my comment is you cannot lump in-State P5 rivalries with G5 vs P5.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

I caught that. He uses the phrase "CSU doesn't have a media contract" or "School A has a media contract" a couple times. What is he trying to say specifically? Please elaborate on that OP.
Cheers!

(02-21-2017 01:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  This is not news. It has been known for some time. When the P12 went to 9 games the game was doomed. This was the last of P5 vs G5 rivalries to die left, besides Navy vs ND (CSU should have looked at that model, home games for the P5 rotated with neutral site ... but it has a big money TV package)

The reality of P5 schools needing 6 home games and to preserve a neutrals site game for a P5 opponent with National TV and higher revenue, meant the Mile High game was an expensive luxury that costs Colorado at least $2m a year in lost revenue (look at the Kickoff games). Simply put the game doesn't work for them. CSU did not want to play the game in Boulder, and could not offer anywhere near enough money for the game to get played in Fort Collins, ruling out a home and home series. For Colorado, that frees up the possibility of neutral site 7th home game.

While it's lamentable the G5 vs P5 games are vanishing, especially the old long playing annual rivalries (think Tulane-LSU, SJSU-Stanford, USU-Utah, Memphis-Ole Miss), it is the reality of more conference games and SoS that require a P5 OOC game, some schools playing two such. There are only half as many P5 vs G5 matches as there were a decade ago. Future schedules show a little more erosion. Basically P5 want one or two home games against a P5 for the revenue they get with their conference network and the gate. CSU like all G5 (except the academies) lack the media contracts to make those games of much value.

I frankly think there will be another adjustment in the coming decade, as the SEC and ACC will eventually move to 9 games. That and SoS could see the number of G5 vs P5 drop from 125 or so today to as few as 65-70 around 2025.

If Colorado State crosses over to P5 the game could start up again, because they'd have a media contract. Yes it is hard for a G5 to get top players now. The NFL draft last year confirmed it, 90.4% of the 1st & 2nd round picks were from P5 schools, 80% of the 3rd round. G5 and FCS evenly split the other 6 players in the first two rounds, or about 5% each. Players coming out of HS are well aware of this, which is why the balance has been shifting even more to P5 (that and money which is making recruiting a more scientific WAG; still some guys are late bloomers or have other reasons to play in the lower level schools).

It is what it is.

You say "media contract" 3 times. Please elaborate on that as I suspect there's something you are trying to say here about that subject.

Cheers!

(02-21-2017 06:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 02:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  While it's lamentable the G5 vs P5 games are vanishing, especially the old long playing annual rivalries (think Tulane-LSU, SJSU-Stanford, USU-Utah, Memphis-Ole Miss), it is the reality of more conference games and SoS that require a P5 OOC game, some schools playing two such.

Besides the aforementioned, what are some other P5 vs. G5 rivalries, or at least historical games?

The former SWC games
New Mexico-Arizona/Texas Tech
Tulane-Ole Miss
Tulsa-Arkansas/OU/OSU
Memphis-Tennessee (home and home in the 80's and 90's)
SDSU-UCLA (home and home in the 80's and 90's)
Temple-Pitt/Penn St.
Navy-Virginia/Pitt
UMass/UConn-BC
UTEP-Arizona/ASU
Army-Rutgers/BC/ND
Washington St.-Idaho

East Carolina -NC State/UNC
App State- Wake Forest
Southern Miss-Miss. State/Ole Miss
FIU/UCF/USF-Miami
Marshall-WVU
Memphis-Ole Miss
Middle Tennessee-Vandy
Houston-TAMU/Texas/Texas Tech
Navy-Maryland
UConn/Army-Syracuse
Air Force-Colorado/Notre Dame
Virginia Tech-East Carolina
Iowa State-Northern Iowa
SMU-Arkansas

The Cincy vs. Louisville rivalry goes waaaay back. Or it least it went way back.

(02-21-2017 07:12 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  I think what he is referring to is that in teh SUNY system there are 4 schools that are essentially the most important (not always the best in every area but on the whole the most important). Those 4 are Buffalo, Binghamton, Stony Brook, and Albany.

Buffalo is FBS and Stony Brook and Albany are both FCS (Binghamton has no football).

The other main option is to look at CUNY (City University of NY) but they do not have any FCS football teams.

The last option is to go with NY's land grant school which is Cornell and that is also FCS but it is only partly public and mostly private so I do not think that is what he is talking about (many people do not know that Cornell is NY's land grant).

Correct. SUNY officially designates four flagships, even though Buffalo is head and shoulders above the other three. CUNY, obviously by definition, is not a statewide system. Cornell has the agriculture, forestry, etc. programs due to history, and that won't change ... but very clearly can't be referred to, in whole, as New York's public flagship university.

New York's land-grant and overall higher education system is even more convoluted than California's. Every other state, there's a pretty clear line for one or two flagship campuses when it comes to public universities.

(02-21-2017 10:14 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 05:54 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 05:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it comes to states with dual-flagship public schools that both have FCS and/or FBS football teams, only Colorado and Utah have one in P5 and one in G5.

Granted, Utah's case is greatly complicated by BYU ... with Utah perhaps even trying to schedule Utah St so it can pretend like it can't schedule BYU.


Most states with dual's, they're in the same conference. Iowa's aren't, but they find a way to play every year. New Mexico's aren't, but play every year. Texas's now aren't, and they aren't playing. Pennsylvania's are sporadically playing. And the ones straddling the ACC-SEC are playing every year.

I don't consider Boise a flagship in Idaho. The case in Pennsylvania is also complicated ... with Pitt perhaps being or perhaps not being a public flagship for the state. I consider them one, but others may not. And I don't consider Temple one, though they might argue they're even moreso than Pitt.

I guess there's New York, as well, as the only one with a G5 and FCS. They play sporadically.

You can't equate P5 vs P5 rivals like ISU-Iowa, Clemson-SoCar, Louisville-Kentucky, and so on. BYU is a 'tweener, so their every year rivalry games with BSU and USU qualify as G5 vs G5. Utah is now somewhat irregular, and even so as a 'tweener its P5 vs P5. The point is ISU and Iowa have P5 media contracts even with conference networks, as do Clemson, South Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Pitt, Penn State, etc.

This is what catches Colorado State out, they don't have a media contract. They proof is in the scheduling. Colorado has lined up a 2nd P5 OOC in place of CSU. So it certainly isn't "fear" of CSU that has them scheduling Nebraska, Texas A&M, TCU, Minnesota, K State and Georgia Tech. P12 schools scheduling 11 P5 games pretty much dooms any G5 rivalry.

The reality is G5 and P5 as separating and they are scheduling each other less, and when they do the majority are now revenue games (yes I know some 2 for 1 and some manage to get home and home, especially certain "power" G5 schools). But the point of my comment is you cannot lump in-State P5 rivalries with G5 vs P5.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

I caught that. He uses the phrase "CSU doesn't have a media contract" or "School A has a media contract" a couple times. What is he trying to say specifically? Please elaborate on that OP.
Cheers!

Nothing but crickets from the OP on "CSU doesn't have a media contract"

Let me flip it.

Who is paying the media rights for this CSU-Colorado game? This is critical. Home games are in P12N for Colorado and they get a distribution based on it. Anemic at the moment for sure. Also home games they get gate, which is considerable, runs in the millions, like all P5. There is no pay for them in a road game.

The neutral site games you see P5 schools play, have big media contracts. When Houston played Oklahoma in Arlington that was on ABC. The Kickoff classics (two ACC vs SEC match-ups this year) they are carried on ESPN or ABC. When Navy plays Notre Dame in neutral site years (I believe "even" years) CBS pays, and when ND host NBC pays. These payouts run into the millions for each school.

The Mile High game doesn't fall into that category. It's not one of the dozen national TV neutral site games. This is what teh compensation and lack of National TV tie-in for CSU play a huge role in this series coming to an end. What they have is the CBSSN deal the MWC has, and it can be picked up or not for that 3rd tier cable network (it's not on the majority of people's packages). The Army-Navy game alone is worth half the annual MWC payout. Those Kickoff games and the other big name places (e.g., Landover, P12 in Australia/China), include extra paychecks. Mile Hgh is simply a legislature mandate game, none of the network money invested, or paid to the schools.

The reality is CSU doesn't have the network sponsorship to pay Colorado. And they don't carry enough national interest for that game to be sold to ABC or NBC or CBS or ESPN to prime time air. This makes no sense for Colorado. They need to clear $2-3m more per game than this one does. (The game works for CSU, who don;t have that requirement)

Colorado has the P12 contracts (ABC, CBS, P12N). Colorado State lacks those. This is why the game is doomed.

0.7 1.073M Colorado St.
Colorado MWC
Pac-12 7:55 PM ESPN