(09-03-2018 06:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You do sound like ol' Bernie wanting to break up the banks. This is from his website:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

Actually, you might be going even farther than that. Bernie (as far as I know) hasn't proposed forcing people to use any particular bank. But you want the government to implement another college football playoff AND you want to force Ohio State and Alabama to participate in your playoff instead of having their own postseason -- because if the big boys aren't in this new playoff, it might as well be the FCS tournament, right?

I have not suggested "breaking up college football". Ive suggested some governmental regulation of a monopoly. Heck, you mention the banks. The banks are not even a monopoly and they are currently heavily regulated by the federal government. Im suggesting nothing more than some level of government regulation within the sport to get it cleaned up and to get it back to a more equitable system with respect to playoff access. As I previously stated---the P5 absolutely deserve to get a much bigger piece to the revenue. That should not change. Frankly, everyone knows the fans want a bigger playoff and everyone involved freely admits a bigger playoff with more open access will make more money. So, government interference wouldnt be a "free market" impairment here. On the other hand---whats currently happening is a monopoly is blocking the free market from operating normally.

Bernie Sanders says that the banks are legally a monopoly (most disagree) and he suggests more government regulation to fix it. You say that the FBS postseason is legally a monopoly (most disagree) and you suggest more government regulation to fix it.

There's no "monopoly". College football already has a Division I playoff tournament in which every conference that wants one has an autobid. The teams in FBS have freely chosen to not participate in that playoff system. Compare that to the NCAA D-I basketball tournament, where you actually do have a legitimate monopoly argument, because NCAA rules prohibit any team invited to their postseason tournament from participating in any other postseason tournament.

Even in FBS, there's no monopoly on national championships. Anyone who wants to declare themselves "national champions" and hang up a banner is free to do so, even when poll voters or BCS/CFP trophies say otherwise, like UCF did for last season, like Oklahoma State recently did for 1945, and like dozens of other schools have done going back at least to the 1930s. They freely chose to do that, and no "monopoly" prohibits it.

And, if you got your wish and the government mandated another Division I football playoff tournament, then Ohio State, Alabama, etc., should be able to freely choose to not participate in it, or to start their own postseason event, right? And, in a free market, the TV guys are free to choose which event to spend their money on, right?

There is really no legitimate similar alternative to FBS or the CFP. The NCAA tried the same thing in 1984 vs Oklahoma Board of Regents. When Oklahoma tried to sign a separate TV deal and break away from the NCAA's Tv deal---the NCAA was going to punish them by forbidding any NCAA team from scheduling games with Oklahoma. Oklahoma said that monopolistic because there was no reasonably similar alternative to playing teams in the NCAA. The NCAA pointed to the NAIA and said--"there is another similar collegiate sports association". But the courts said that was not a reasonably similar substitute. The CFP pointing to the far less watched and covered FCS post season as a reasonable alternative would probably suffer a similar fate in court.

Look---like it or not---government regulation is coming one way or another. Its already happening. Right now--its happening through the courts where the NCAA and the P5 have virtually no say in the manner that it is mandated. Title 9 and FCOA are examples of this. More lawsuits regarding concussions and player compensation are currently winding their way through the courts.

At least with government regulation, the legislation would be enacted via elected representatives that are reasonably responsive to lobbying efforts and get out the vote efforts.

You have it backwards. What you want is the same as what the NCAA was doing with TV rights before the Oklahoma case. You want to force the power programs to play in a playoff that you design for the benefit of your favorite team, instead of one that they designed. That's the same as Bernie Sanders breaking up big banks and then forcing everyone to put their money in the Bank of Bernie, which (as far as I know) is a step that even he isn't proposing.

Try explaining how you are going to force Ohio State, Alabama, etc. to play in this playoff that you want rather than one that they prefer. You haven't done that in this thread because it can't be done. The "bowl system" still exists because the powers-that-be wanted that instead of a March Madness-style playoff, and the CFP exists because the same powers wanted to "evolve" the system that way instead of creating a second NCAA Division I football playoff. The teams that are in FBS, including a large number that were in FCS not many years ago, have freely chosen to be in the non-playoff subdivision.

So, here we have yet another reason for government regulation. The courts are now saying NCAA "show cause" penalties against coaches violate state law. If the NCAA cannot enforce a penalty on coaches for rules violations---whats the point of NCAA enforcement?

http://footballscoop.com/news/california...state-law/

I kinda like Tim Brando's idea of having a college football czar who's job it is to protect the integrity of the sport of college football. Right now, nobody is doing that. The commissioners sort of handle that duty now---but they do from the stand point of what is best for their individual conferences. The idea would be to have someone without an allegiance to any given conference or group of teams---something similar to the NFL commissioner. Maybe somethign like that would work without government---but I think the game has outgrown the NCAA and the legal environment has become too complex for the NCAA. The governing power basically needs government power to properly investigate violations--not to mention giving it superior ability to protect the players and the integrity of the game. Trading government regulation for an anti-trust exemption (like baseball enjoys) to me seems like the best route going forward.

(09-02-2018 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The government is the only answer at this point. The NCAA is totally reliant on that March Madness money. The NCAA lives in fear of the P5 leaving the NCAA to create their own college sports regulatory body. Thus, the NCAA is never ever going to do anything that might offend the P5 or spur the P5 to create the NCAA's replacement.

Now come on dude, they cannot even balance a budget.

(09-05-2018 12:24 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(09-02-2018 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The government is the only answer at this point. The NCAA is totally reliant on that March Madness money. The NCAA lives in fear of the P5 leaving the NCAA to create their own college sports regulatory body. Thus, the NCAA is never ever going to do anything that might offend the P5 or spur the P5 to create the NCAA's replacement.

Now come on dude, they cannot even balance a budget.

And that's different from most intercollegiate athletic programs how? Until the last round of TV negotiations any college football program being in the black was a rarity. Difference is that people insist on electing people who provide at least as much government as they have now while paying less for it. Government hasn't had any recent windfalls of revenue.

The show cause case pretty much makes Attacks case.

The NCAA has dodged stretching the rules to go after UNC and Baylor because the NCAA tends to lose in court. They bluffed Penn State and Penn State signed off. The emails show that if Penn State hadn't agreed they knew they couldn't do anything that would withstand challenge.

You want an NCAA with teeth and the ability to actually deal with problems? You've got to give the NCAA anti-trust exemption and if you want anti-trust exemption you have to create protections for the member schools, the players, and the coaches.

(09-05-2018 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 06:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I have not suggested "breaking up college football". Ive suggested some governmental regulation of a monopoly. Heck, you mention the banks. The banks are not even a monopoly and they are currently heavily regulated by the federal government. Im suggesting nothing more than some level of government regulation within the sport to get it cleaned up and to get it back to a more equitable system with respect to playoff access. As I previously stated---the P5 absolutely deserve to get a much bigger piece to the revenue. That should not change. Frankly, everyone knows the fans want a bigger playoff and everyone involved freely admits a bigger playoff with more open access will make more money. So, government interference wouldnt be a "free market" impairment here. On the other hand---whats currently happening is a monopoly is blocking the free market from operating normally.

Bernie Sanders says that the banks are legally a monopoly (most disagree) and he suggests more government regulation to fix it. You say that the FBS postseason is legally a monopoly (most disagree) and you suggest more government regulation to fix it.

There's no "monopoly". College football already has a Division I playoff tournament in which every conference that wants one has an autobid. The teams in FBS have freely chosen to not participate in that playoff system. Compare that to the NCAA D-I basketball tournament, where you actually do have a legitimate monopoly argument, because NCAA rules prohibit any team invited to their postseason tournament from participating in any other postseason tournament.

Even in FBS, there's no monopoly on national championships. Anyone who wants to declare themselves "national champions" and hang up a banner is free to do so, even when poll voters or BCS/CFP trophies say otherwise, like UCF did for last season, like Oklahoma State recently did for 1945, and like dozens of other schools have done going back at least to the 1930s. They freely chose to do that, and no "monopoly" prohibits it.

And, if you got your wish and the government mandated another Division I football playoff tournament, then Ohio State, Alabama, etc., should be able to freely choose to not participate in it, or to start their own postseason event, right? And, in a free market, the TV guys are free to choose which event to spend their money on, right?

There is really no legitimate similar alternative to FBS or the CFP. The NCAA tried the same thing in 1984 vs Oklahoma Board of Regents. When Oklahoma tried to sign a separate TV deal and break away from the NCAA's Tv deal---the NCAA was going to punish them by forbidding any NCAA team from scheduling games with Oklahoma. Oklahoma said that monopolistic because there was no reasonably similar alternative to playing teams in the NCAA. The NCAA pointed to the NAIA and said--"there is another similar collegiate sports association". But the courts said that was not a reasonably similar substitute. The CFP pointing to the far less watched and covered FCS post season as a reasonable alternative would probably suffer a similar fate in court.

Look---like it or not---government regulation is coming one way or another. Its already happening. Right now--its happening through the courts where the NCAA and the P5 have virtually no say in the manner that it is mandated. Title 9 and FCOA are examples of this. More lawsuits regarding concussions and player compensation are currently winding their way through the courts.

At least with government regulation, the legislation would be enacted via elected representatives that are reasonably responsive to lobbying efforts and get out the vote efforts.

You have it backwards. What you want is the same as what the NCAA was doing with TV rights before the Oklahoma case. You want to force the power programs to play in a playoff that you design for the benefit of your favorite team, instead of one that they designed. That's the same as Bernie Sanders breaking up big banks and then forcing everyone to put their money in the Bank of Bernie, which (as far as I know) is a step that even he isn't proposing.

Try explaining how you are going to force Ohio State, Alabama, etc. to play in this playoff that you want rather than one that they prefer. You haven't done that in this thread because it can't be done. The "bowl system" still exists because the powers-that-be wanted that instead of a March Madness-style playoff, and the CFP exists because the same powers wanted to "evolve" the system that way instead of creating a second NCAA Division I football playoff. The teams that are in FBS, including a large number that were in FCS not many years ago, have freely chosen to be in the non-playoff subdivision.

So, here we have yet another reason for government regulation. The courts are now saying NCAA "show cause" penalties against coaches violate state law. If the NCAA cannot enforce a penalty on coaches for rules violations---whats the point of NCAA enforcement?

http://footballscoop.com/news/california...state-law/

I kinda like Tim Brando's idea of having a college football czar who's job it is to protect the integrity of the sport of college football. Right now, nobody is doing that. The commissioners sort of handle that duty now---but they do from the stand point of what is best for their individual conferences. The idea would be to have someone without an allegiance to any given conference or group of teams---something similar to the NFL commissioner. Maybe somethign like that would work without government---but I think the game has outgrown the NCAA and the legal environment has become too complex for the NCAA. The governing power basically needs government power to properly investigate violations--not to mention giving it superior ability to protect the players and the integrity of the game. Trading government regulation for an anti-trust exemption (like baseball enjoys) to me seems like the best route going forward.

I think the NCAA loses this. You can't penalize him without due process and the NCAA hardly matches legal due process.

(09-05-2018 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 06:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I have not suggested "breaking up college football". Ive suggested some governmental regulation of a monopoly. Heck, you mention the banks. The banks are not even a monopoly and they are currently heavily regulated by the federal government. Im suggesting nothing more than some level of government regulation within the sport to get it cleaned up and to get it back to a more equitable system with respect to playoff access. As I previously stated---the P5 absolutely deserve to get a much bigger piece to the revenue. That should not change. Frankly, everyone knows the fans want a bigger playoff and everyone involved freely admits a bigger playoff with more open access will make more money. So, government interference wouldnt be a "free market" impairment here. On the other hand---whats currently happening is a monopoly is blocking the free market from operating normally.

Bernie Sanders says that the banks are legally a monopoly (most disagree) and he suggests more government regulation to fix it. You say that the FBS postseason is legally a monopoly (most disagree) and you suggest more government regulation to fix it.

There's no "monopoly". College football already has a Division I playoff tournament in which every conference that wants one has an autobid. The teams in FBS have freely chosen to not participate in that playoff system. Compare that to the NCAA D-I basketball tournament, where you actually do have a legitimate monopoly argument, because NCAA rules prohibit any team invited to their postseason tournament from participating in any other postseason tournament.

Even in FBS, there's no monopoly on national championships. Anyone who wants to declare themselves "national champions" and hang up a banner is free to do so, even when poll voters or BCS/CFP trophies say otherwise, like UCF did for last season, like Oklahoma State recently did for 1945, and like dozens of other schools have done going back at least to the 1930s. They freely chose to do that, and no "monopoly" prohibits it.

And, if you got your wish and the government mandated another Division I football playoff tournament, then Ohio State, Alabama, etc., should be able to freely choose to not participate in it, or to start their own postseason event, right? And, in a free market, the TV guys are free to choose which event to spend their money on, right?

There is really no legitimate similar alternative to FBS or the CFP. The NCAA tried the same thing in 1984 vs Oklahoma Board of Regents. When Oklahoma tried to sign a separate TV deal and break away from the NCAA's Tv deal---the NCAA was going to punish them by forbidding any NCAA team from scheduling games with Oklahoma. Oklahoma said that monopolistic because there was no reasonably similar alternative to playing teams in the NCAA. The NCAA pointed to the NAIA and said--"there is another similar collegiate sports association". But the courts said that was not a reasonably similar substitute. The CFP pointing to the far less watched and covered FCS post season as a reasonable alternative would probably suffer a similar fate in court.

Look---like it or not---government regulation is coming one way or another. Its already happening. Right now--its happening through the courts where the NCAA and the P5 have virtually no say in the manner that it is mandated. Title 9 and FCOA are examples of this. More lawsuits regarding concussions and player compensation are currently winding their way through the courts.

At least with government regulation, the legislation would be enacted via elected representatives that are reasonably responsive to lobbying efforts and get out the vote efforts.

You have it backwards. What you want is the same as what the NCAA was doing with TV rights before the Oklahoma case. You want to force the power programs to play in a playoff that you design for the benefit of your favorite team, instead of one that they designed. That's the same as Bernie Sanders breaking up big banks and then forcing everyone to put their money in the Bank of Bernie, which (as far as I know) is a step that even he isn't proposing.

Try explaining how you are going to force Ohio State, Alabama, etc. to play in this playoff that you want rather than one that they prefer. You haven't done that in this thread because it can't be done. The "bowl system" still exists because the powers-that-be wanted that instead of a March Madness-style playoff, and the CFP exists because the same powers wanted to "evolve" the system that way instead of creating a second NCAA Division I football playoff. The teams that are in FBS, including a large number that were in FCS not many years ago, have freely chosen to be in the non-playoff subdivision.

So, here we have yet another reason for government regulation. The courts are now saying NCAA "show cause" penalties against coaches violate state law. If the NCAA cannot enforce a penalty on coaches for rules violations---whats the point of NCAA enforcement?

http://footballscoop.com/news/california...state-law/

No, again, you've got it backwards - that court ruling, if it means anything, likely means that neither the NCAA nor the government could force Ohio State, Alabama, and the other big kahunas to participate in your version of a playoff. There isn't going to be any "big time" college football playoff unless the big boys voluntarily choose to be part of it.

Which gets us to the thing that talks loudest: Money. If someone put over a billion dollars on the table (i.e., if they doubled or tripled the CFP money) and said, this money is the annual payment for the rights to a playoff, but only if it includes 16 or more teams including every FBS conference champ, and oh by the way we'll give 85% of this money to the big boys to persuade them to agree, then it would happen. Threats to make a longshot attempt to get Congress to pass laws that might not hold up in court don't talk very loudly. Money talks much louder than anything else.

(09-02-2018 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The government is the only answer at this point. The NCAA is totally reliant on that March Madness money. [b]The NCAA lives in fear of the P5 leaving the NCAA to create their own college sports regulatory body. Thus, the NCAA is never ever going to do anything that might offend the P5 or spur the P5 to create the NCAA's replacement.[/b]

EGGxactly!

(09-05-2018 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 06:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bernie Sanders says that the banks are legally a monopoly (most disagree) and he suggests more government regulation to fix it. You say that the FBS postseason is legally a monopoly (most disagree) and you suggest more government regulation to fix it.

There's no "monopoly". College football already has a Division I playoff tournament in which every conference that wants one has an autobid. The teams in FBS have freely chosen to not participate in that playoff system. Compare that to the NCAA D-I basketball tournament, where you actually do have a legitimate monopoly argument, because NCAA rules prohibit any team invited to their postseason tournament from participating in any other postseason tournament.

Even in FBS, there's no monopoly on national championships. Anyone who wants to declare themselves "national champions" and hang up a banner is free to do so, even when poll voters or BCS/CFP trophies say otherwise, like UCF did for last season, like Oklahoma State recently did for 1945, and like dozens of other schools have done going back at least to the 1930s. They freely chose to do that, and no "monopoly" prohibits it.

And, if you got your wish and the government mandated another Division I football playoff tournament, then Ohio State, Alabama, etc., should be able to freely choose to not participate in it, or to start their own postseason event, right? And, in a free market, the TV guys are free to choose which event to spend their money on, right?

There is really no legitimate similar alternative to FBS or the CFP. The NCAA tried the same thing in 1984 vs Oklahoma Board of Regents. When Oklahoma tried to sign a separate TV deal and break away from the NCAA's Tv deal---the NCAA was going to punish them by forbidding any NCAA team from scheduling games with Oklahoma. Oklahoma said that monopolistic because there was no reasonably similar alternative to playing teams in the NCAA. The NCAA pointed to the NAIA and said--"there is another similar collegiate sports association". But the courts said that was not a reasonably similar substitute. The CFP pointing to the far less watched and covered FCS post season as a reasonable alternative would probably suffer a similar fate in court.

Look---like it or not---government regulation is coming one way or another. Its already happening. Right now--its happening through the courts where the NCAA and the P5 have virtually no say in the manner that it is mandated. Title 9 and FCOA are examples of this. More lawsuits regarding concussions and player compensation are currently winding their way through the courts.

At least with government regulation, the legislation would be enacted via elected representatives that are reasonably responsive to lobbying efforts and get out the vote efforts.

You have it backwards. What you want is the same as what the NCAA was doing with TV rights before the Oklahoma case. You want to force the power programs to play in a playoff that you design for the benefit of your favorite team, instead of one that they designed. That's the same as Bernie Sanders breaking up big banks and then forcing everyone to put their money in the Bank of Bernie, which (as far as I know) is a step that even he isn't proposing.

Try explaining how you are going to force Ohio State, Alabama, etc. to play in this playoff that you want rather than one that they prefer. You haven't done that in this thread because it can't be done. The "bowl system" still exists because the powers-that-be wanted that instead of a March Madness-style playoff, and the CFP exists because the same powers wanted to "evolve" the system that way instead of creating a second NCAA Division I football playoff. The teams that are in FBS, including a large number that were in FCS not many years ago, have freely chosen to be in the non-playoff subdivision.

So, here we have yet another reason for government regulation. The courts are now saying NCAA "show cause" penalties against coaches violate state law. If the NCAA cannot enforce a penalty on coaches for rules violations---whats the point of NCAA enforcement?

http://footballscoop.com/news/california...state-law/

No, again, you've got it backwards - that court ruling, if it means anything, likely means that neither the NCAA nor the government could force Ohio State, Alabama, and the other big kahunas to participate in your version of a playoff. There isn't going to be any "big time" college football playoff unless the big boys voluntarily choose to be part of it.

Which gets us to the thing that talks loudest: Money. If someone put over a billion dollars on the table (i.e., if they doubled or tripled the CFP money) and said, this money is the annual payment for the rights to a playoff, but only if it includes 16 or more teams including every FBS conference champ, and oh by the way we'll give 85% of this money to the big boys to persuade them to agree, then it would happen. Threats to make a longshot attempt to get Congress to pass laws that might not hold up in court don't talk very loudly. Money talks much louder than anything else.

You seem to have tunnel vision on the playoff and P5---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. Its an NCAA issue---and I dont have it backwards. Its right there in print. The NCAA cant penalize a coach with a "show cause" penalty.
Basically, the NCAA cannot enforce that penalty on anyone (P5 or G5).

The NCAA's issues (as well as the playoff and the current governing structure of college athletics) are much bigger than the playoff or the P5/G5 issue. A sea of laws suits are on the horizon (player pay, Title 9, and most concerning---concussion/player heath suits). The issue I posted about coaches wasnt even on my radar screen. Basically, Ohio St or Liberty University can hire a "no cause" coach because the court has apparently found that the NCAA "no cause" penalties violate state law.

I already see where this is heading---I suspect firing/suspending coaches and suspending/cutting players based on allegations that have not been proven in a court of law are likely to be the next wave of law suits coming down the pike for the NCAA and their member schools. Without governmental authority, the NCAA is essentially becoming toothless and incapable of enforcement.

(09-05-2018 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 06:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is really no legitimate similar alternative to FBS or the CFP. The NCAA tried the same thing in 1984 vs Oklahoma Board of Regents. When Oklahoma tried to sign a separate TV deal and break away from the NCAA's Tv deal---the NCAA was going to punish them by forbidding any NCAA team from scheduling games with Oklahoma. Oklahoma said that monopolistic because there was no reasonably similar alternative to playing teams in the NCAA. The NCAA pointed to the NAIA and said--"there is another similar collegiate sports association". But the courts said that was not a reasonably similar substitute. The CFP pointing to the far less watched and covered FCS post season as a reasonable alternative would probably suffer a similar fate in court.

Look---like it or not---government regulation is coming one way or another. Its already happening. Right now--its happening through the courts where the NCAA and the P5 have virtually no say in the manner that it is mandated. Title 9 and FCOA are examples of this. More lawsuits regarding concussions and player compensation are currently winding their way through the courts.

At least with government regulation, the legislation would be enacted via elected representatives that are reasonably responsive to lobbying efforts and get out the vote efforts.

You have it backwards. What you want is the same as what the NCAA was doing with TV rights before the Oklahoma case. You want to force the power programs to play in a playoff that you design for the benefit of your favorite team, instead of one that they designed. That's the same as Bernie Sanders breaking up big banks and then forcing everyone to put their money in the Bank of Bernie, which (as far as I know) is a step that even he isn't proposing.

Try explaining how you are going to force Ohio State, Alabama, etc. to play in this playoff that you want rather than one that they prefer. You haven't done that in this thread because it can't be done. The "bowl system" still exists because the powers-that-be wanted that instead of a March Madness-style playoff, and the CFP exists because the same powers wanted to "evolve" the system that way instead of creating a second NCAA Division I football playoff. The teams that are in FBS, including a large number that were in FCS not many years ago, have freely chosen to be in the non-playoff subdivision.

So, here we have yet another reason for government regulation. The courts are now saying NCAA "show cause" penalties against coaches violate state law. If the NCAA cannot enforce a penalty on coaches for rules violations---whats the point of NCAA enforcement?

http://footballscoop.com/news/california...state-law/

No, again, you've got it backwards - that court ruling, if it means anything, likely means that neither the NCAA nor the government could force Ohio State, Alabama, and the other big kahunas to participate in your version of a playoff. There isn't going to be any "big time" college football playoff unless the big boys voluntarily choose to be part of it.

Which gets us to the thing that talks loudest: Money. If someone put over a billion dollars on the table (i.e., if they doubled or tripled the CFP money) and said, this money is the annual payment for the rights to a playoff, but only if it includes 16 or more teams including every FBS conference champ, and oh by the way we'll give 85% of this money to the big boys to persuade them to agree, then it would happen. Threats to make a longshot attempt to get Congress to pass laws that might not hold up in court don't talk very loudly. Money talks much louder than anything else.

You seem to have tunnel vision on the playoff and P5---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. Its an NCAA issue---and I dont have it backwards. Its right there in print. The NCAA cant penalize a coach with a "show cause" penalty.
Basically, the NCAA cannot enforce that penalty on anyone (P5 or G5).

If the NCAA can't enforce show cause penalties, why do you think the NCAA or the government could force CFB powers to participate in a football playoff that they don't want to participate in?

That's the question I keep raising. It still hasn't been answered.

All that has to happen for the NCAA to become the NAIA 2.0 is for the P5 to take their basketball teams and form their own postseason tournament. Without March Madness money (remember CBS going to commercial every 2 minutes?) the NCAA is bankrupt. Pure and simple.

That would have some enormous implications for FCS and conferences like the Atlantic Sun. The March Madness tournament also doubles down as welfare for the really really really small guy. There's no way in hell USC Upstate would be Division 1 right now without the Madness paycheck through the A-Sun. There's BILLIONS in money for the P5 if they ever wake up and throw the NCAA and the truly small conferences overboard.

(09-05-2018 04:14 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  All that has to happen for the NCAA to become the NAIA 2.0 is for the P5 to take their basketball teams and form their own postseason tournament. Without March Madness money (remember CBS going to commercial every 2 minutes?) the NCAA is bankrupt. Pure and simple.

That would have some enormous implications for FCS and conferences like the Atlantic Sun. The March Madness tournament also doubles down as welfare for the really really really small guy. There's no way in hell USC Upstate would be Division 1 right now without the Madness paycheck through the A-Sun. There's BILLIONS in money for the P5 if they ever wake up and throw the NCAA and the truly small conferences overboard.

I actually did a war game scenario for the Sun Belt years ago looking down the road at what could happen.

Well before the NCAA was sued by the NIT and then bought by the NIT I suggested that it made sense for the AQ leagues to align with the NIT with each being guaranteed a certain number of slots, if desired some other leagues of value could be given a smaller number of slots and the least valuable could play their way in via regional tournaments to avoid anti-trust issues.

Based on the numbers of the day applying a BCS style revenue distribution formula I concluded that leagues like the MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, Valley, WCC would find it to be revenue neutral. The bottom 8-12 conferences would likely be worse off and the then AQ leagues would see incredible increases in revenue.

The NCAA would be forced to rely on dues to operate which would make the NAIA more competitive trying to attract anyone outside the 150-180 schools doing phenomenal to just as well. Enforcement would likely mostly devolve back to conferences as had been the case in the past.

(09-05-2018 07:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Enforcement would likely mostly devolve back to conferences as had been the case in the past.

This is the only part I'd find to be a negative. You want people playing for the same title to play by the same rules. I could see the SEC immediately throwing away any minimums and going back to Jan Kemp style academics.

(09-05-2018 03:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 06:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You have it backwards. What you want is the same as what the NCAA was doing with TV rights before the Oklahoma case. You want to force the power programs to play in a playoff that you design for the benefit of your favorite team, instead of one that they designed. That's the same as Bernie Sanders breaking up big banks and then forcing everyone to put their money in the Bank of Bernie, which (as far as I know) is a step that even he isn't proposing.

Try explaining how you are going to force Ohio State, Alabama, etc. to play in this playoff that you want rather than one that they prefer. You haven't done that in this thread because it can't be done. The "bowl system" still exists because the powers-that-be wanted that instead of a March Madness-style playoff, and the CFP exists because the same powers wanted to "evolve" the system that way instead of creating a second NCAA Division I football playoff. The teams that are in FBS, including a large number that were in FCS not many years ago, have freely chosen to be in the non-playoff subdivision.

So, here we have yet another reason for government regulation. The courts are now saying NCAA "show cause" penalties against coaches violate state law. If the NCAA cannot enforce a penalty on coaches for rules violations---whats the point of NCAA enforcement?

http://footballscoop.com/news/california...state-law/

No, again, you've got it backwards - that court ruling, if it means anything, likely means that neither the NCAA nor the government could force Ohio State, Alabama, and the other big kahunas to participate in your version of a playoff. There isn't going to be any "big time" college football playoff unless the big boys voluntarily choose to be part of it.

Which gets us to the thing that talks loudest: Money. If someone put over a billion dollars on the table (i.e., if they doubled or tripled the CFP money) and said, this money is the annual payment for the rights to a playoff, but only if it includes 16 or more teams including every FBS conference champ, and oh by the way we'll give 85% of this money to the big boys to persuade them to agree, then it would happen. Threats to make a longshot attempt to get Congress to pass laws that might not hold up in court don't talk very loudly. Money talks much louder than anything else.

You seem to have tunnel vision on the playoff and P5---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. Its an NCAA issue---and I dont have it backwards. Its right there in print. The NCAA cant penalize a coach with a "show cause" penalty.
Basically, the NCAA cannot enforce that penalty on anyone (P5 or G5).

If the NCAA can't enforce show cause penalties, why do you think the NCAA or the government could force CFB powers to participate in a football playoff that they don't want to participate in?

That's the question I keep raising. It still hasn't been answered.

Its not been answered because its a straw man argument. Nobody has suggested that they could force Ohio St to play in a playoff. What Im suggesting is they would no longer be allowed to EXCLUDE 50% of the same division who WANT to have legitimate access to that playoff.

Granted---that may not be attractive to the P5. But---I do think alot of other aspects of an anti-trust exemption and regulation might be attractive. For instance, what if the anti-trust exemption came with federal protection from concussion suits--provided schools followed federally developed safety guidelines. Perhaps an investigative division with subpoena powers might drive far better rules compliance.

Such a massive change in the college sports would likely be a negotiated collaborative effort. Because they wield so much power, I suspect the P5 would be quite happy with the end product----and while the G5 might get some things they really like---I suspect they'd also get some things they dont.

(09-05-2018 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Nobody has suggested that they could force Ohio St to play in a playoff. What Im suggesting is they would no longer be allowed to EXCLUDE 50% of the same division who WANT to have legitimate access to that playoff.

Quote:Granted---that may not be attractive to the P5.

A playoff that you can't force Ohio State to play in is not the outcome you want. At least, I'm pretty sure that's not what your favorite team or anyone else in the G5 wants. You don't want a playoff that the P5 could "exclude" themselves from. Division I football already has one of those.

And as GTS suggested above, the P5 has enormous leverage, and that leverage protects the CFP. The NCAA's cash cow is March Madness. The NCAA's rule that any invited team must participate in the NCAA tournament and cannot participate in any other postseason tournament is absolutely, blatantly, 100 percent illegal. The NIT raised that issue in its lawsuit against the NCAA and the NCAA had to buy the NIT to make the lawsuit go away and avoid the demise of March Madness. Everyone knows that if the P5 (or anyone) sued the NCAA over that rule, the NCAA would lose and the P5 (or whomever) would be free to start their own basketball tournament that would eventually take the lion's share of the money and reduce the NCAA's revenue to something like what the NIT used to make after being crushed by the NCAA tournament.

Here's what the NCAA and its member schools know, but no one says publicly: As long as neither the NCAA nor anyone else tries to mess with the football powers' control of the FBS postseason, then the P5 has (without saying so out loud) agreed that they won't leave the NCAA or go to court to end March Madness. But as soon as anyone tries to mess with the FBS postseason, all bets are off.

(09-05-2018 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Nobody has suggested that they could force Ohio St to play in a playoff. What Im suggesting is they would no longer be allowed to EXCLUDE 50% of the same division who WANT to have legitimate access to that playoff.

So what if the A5 left the NCAA and set up their own organization with no G5?

Seems like Wedge is right and you are playing some semantics here. You want a situation where, if Ohio State is participating in a football playoff of some kind, schools like UCF and Troy and North Texas (G5) have to have access to it as well. If Ohio State doesn't like that and try to secede from it, you presumably would want to prevent it. So you are trying to force Ohio State to play in a playoff system, really, to associate athletically with schools they don't want to associate with*.

* Speaking hypothetically of course, because in reality Ohio State does want to associate with them athletically, otherwise they would have formed another organization by now. The A5 isn't going to leave the G5 because the A5 likes having the G5 around to win games against.

(09-06-2018 01:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Nobody has suggested that they could force Ohio St to play in a playoff. What Im suggesting is they would no longer be allowed to EXCLUDE 50% of the same division who WANT to have legitimate access to that playoff.

Quote:Granted---that may not be attractive to the P5.

A playoff that you can't force Ohio State to play in is not the outcome you want. At least, I'm pretty sure that's not what your favorite team or anyone else in the G5 wants. You don't want a playoff that the P5 could "exclude" themselves from. Division I football already has one of those.

And as GTS suggested above, the P5 has enormous leverage, and that leverage protects the CFP. The NCAA's cash cow is March Madness. The NCAA's rule that any invited team must participate in the NCAA tournament and cannot participate in any other postseason tournament is absolutely, blatantly, 100 percent illegal. The NIT raised that issue in its lawsuit against the NCAA and the NCAA had to buy the NIT to make the lawsuit go away and avoid the demise of March Madness. Everyone knows that if the P5 (or anyone) sued the NCAA over that rule, the NCAA would lose and the P5 (or whomever) would be free to start their own basketball tournament that would eventually take the lion's share of the money and reduce the NCAA's revenue to something like what the NIT used to make after being crushed by the NCAA tournament.

Here's what the NCAA and its member schools know, but no one says publicly: As long as neither the NCAA nor anyone else tries to mess with the football powers' control of the FBS postseason, then the P5 has (without saying so out loud) agreed that they won't leave the NCAA or go to court to end March Madness. But as soon as anyone tries to mess with the FBS postseason, all bets are off.

If I ever rose to power in collegiate athletics my FIRST order of business would be to sue the **** out of the NCAA for that. The NCAA is a morally bankrupt cartel of bureaucrats that increasingly have a political agenda. I wouldn't just take them down I'd thoroughly enjoy doing so.

(09-06-2018 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So what if the A5 left the NCAA and set up their own organization with no G5?

Seems like Wedge is right and you are playing some semantics here. You want a situation where, if Ohio State is participating in a football playoff of some kind, schools like UCF and Troy and North Texas (G5) have to have access to it as well. If they don't like that and try to secede from it, you presumably would want to prevent it. So you are trying to force Ohio State to play in a playoff system.

I don't think that would happen. I think quite a few conferences outside the P5 would come along for the ride. Some who don't even play football. In decreasing order of likelihood IMO:

New I-A:
- FBS Independents
- AAC
- MWC
- C-USA
- Sun Belt

New I-AA:
- Big East
- MAC
- SoCon
- CAA
- Atlantic 10
- WCC
- Big Sky



That's more than enough to have an ample supply of paycheck cupcakes in football and have all the basketball conferences with a realistic shot of more than one bid as well. I downgraded the MAC to I-AA because they have well documented attendance and revenue issues and then serious demographic problems on top of that.

Dead weight headed for NAIA:
- America East
- Ohio Valley
- MAAC
- MVC
- Summit
- WAC
- Big West
- Horizon
- A-Sun
- SWAC
- Northeast
- MEAC
- Big South
- Southland
- Patriot
- Ivy

(09-06-2018 11:00 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So what if the A5 left the NCAA and set up their own organization with no G5?

Seems like Wedge is right and you are playing some semantics here. You want a situation where, if Ohio State is participating in a football playoff of some kind, schools like UCF and Troy and North Texas (G5) have to have access to it as well. If they don't like that and try to secede from it, you presumably would want to prevent it. So you are trying to force Ohio State to play in a playoff system.

I don't think that would happen.

I don't think so either, and for the same reason - the A5 likes having the G5 around as cupcakes to pad the win total.

But we were talking hypothetically, as in "what if the G5 made a serious legal or legislative push to compel the A5 to create a playoff with guaranteed access to all Division I schools", also something that isn't going to happen.

IMO, these hypotheticals arise because of forum "cabin fever". E.g., some of these forums are filled with posters who hate the A5, think it is a major crime that UCF didn't make the playoffs, think UCF has every right to claim a national title, and that what happened with UCF last year exposed the fraudulent/farcical nature of the CFP. They think college football is "broken" unless G5 have guaranteed access to the playoffs.

Truth is, that is an echo-chamber effect. In reality, in the broader college football community, the "UCF situation" hasn't had any effect at all. There is essentially zero impetus in the sports media, among fans generally, or among the governing institutions to give the G5 a guaranteed spot in playoffs. The overwhelming mass of the college football community regards the CFP as the determinant of the national champion, and there is zero push there, or in the courts or congress, to open access to the G5. This past weekend, there was all kinds of talk on the various ESPN/CBS/FOX/NBC broadcasts of CFP implications of this game or that, about whether Alabama will repeat as national champs, etc. but zero talk about UCF and whether the playoffs are 'fair' to the G5. Nobody cares.

But if you are immersed in the culture of a forum where everyone is outraged like you are, it's easy to lose sight of that.

(09-06-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 11:00 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So what if the A5 left the NCAA and set up their own organization with no G5?

Seems like Wedge is right and you are playing some semantics here. You want a situation where, if Ohio State is participating in a football playoff of some kind, schools like UCF and Troy and North Texas (G5) have to have access to it as well. If they don't like that and try to secede from it, you presumably would want to prevent it. So you are trying to force Ohio State to play in a playoff system.

I don't think that would happen.

I don't think so either, and for the same reason - the A5 likes having the G5 around as cupcakes to pad the win total.

But we were talking hypothetically, as in "what if the G5 made a serious legal or legislative push to compel the A5 to create a playoff with guaranteed access to all Division I schools", also something that isn't going to happen.

IMO, these hypotheticals arise because of forum "cabin fever". E.g., some of these forums are filled with posters who hate the A5, think it is a major crime that UCF didn't make the playoffs, think UCF has every right to claim a national title, and that what happened with UCF last year exposed the fraudulent/farcical nature of the CFP. They think college football is "broken" unless G5 have guaranteed access to the playoffs.

Truth is, that is an echo-chamber effect. In reality, in the broader college football community, the "UCF situation" hasn't had any effect at all. There is essentially zero impetus in the sports media, among fans generally, or among the governing institutions to give the G5 a guaranteed spot in playoffs. The overwhelming mass of the college football community regards the CFP as the determinant of the national champion, and there is zero push there, or in the courts or congress, to open access to the G5. This past weekend, there was all kinds of talk on the various ESPN/CBS/FOX/NBC broadcasts of CFP implications of this game or that, about whether Alabama will repeat as national champs, etc. but zero talk about UCF and whether the playoffs are 'fair' to the G5. Nobody cares.

But if you are immersed in the culture of a forum where everyone is outraged like you are, it's easy to lose sight of that.

What everybody misses Quo, is that breakaway won't be started by the A5. They are the payees. It will be started by the payers. They are the ones who want every time slot to be ideally filled by two brands playing one another because they are the only ones with the myopic goal of maximizing the # of potential viewers. They see LSU/Miami numbers and want that every week for games mid afternoon and prime time at night. They'll put the Auburn/Vandy, Ohio State/Purdue games on the conference networks and do the Minnesota/Wisconsin and Miss State/Kentucky games at noon.

They are the ones who have been paying for consolidation. They are the ones setting up the opening week neutral site games. They are the ones who run the CFP, and they are the ones constantly pushing for more conference games among the A5.

It doesn't take a clairvoyant to see where we are headed. There will be fewer and fewer A5/G5-FCS games. The FCS games are going away. 10 conference games will be eventually here, and then the G5 will have been essentially manipulated out. With at most 1 A5 game on their schedules any formula that includes SOS will place them out of the CFP consideration which quite frankly it already does in practice if not in actual computations.

Who came up with the CFP formula? It sure as hell wasn't the A5! There is tremendous frustration among the fans of the G5 but it is misdirected. The A5 merely dances for the coins the networks toss. They have no agenda against the G5. The entities that have created the massive TV revenue gap between the G5 and A5, and who justify that gap by their metrics (ratings), and who write the checks, and who profit by more brand on brand games, they are the culprits. And when they push for more conference games exclusive to the A5 and use a SOS for CFP inclusion that is based on their SOS formula which is tied to the number of A5 games played, and that formula excludes the G5 based on the paucity of A5 games on their schedules, then you have the party who is truly responsible for the divide between the G5 and A5 within the FBS.

The issue for this board is that posters from the A5 are much easier to reach for the purposes of expressing hostility than are network executives. So just like with a dysfunctional family if the boss gives you a hard time at work, you scream at your spouse, who yells at the kids, who kick the dog. And none of it accomplishes a damned thing. Changing employers, or acknowledging your boss is a jerk and not taking it out on your spouse are your only productive options.

If the G5 want to protest they should boycott ESPN and FOX and ABC and CBS etc.

That is why I have great sympathy for their plight, but little tolerance for their misdirected hostility.

(09-06-2018 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What everybody misses Quo, is that breakaway won't be started by the A5. They are the payees. It will be started by the payers. They are the ones who want every time slot to be ideally filled by two brands playing one another because they are the only ones with the myopic goal of maximizing the # of potential viewers. They see LSU/Miami numbers and want that every week for games mid afternoon and prime time at night. They'll put the Auburn/Vandy, Ohio State/Purdue games on the conference networks and do the Minnesota/Wisconsin and Miss State/Kentucky games at noon.

They are the ones who have been paying for consolidation. They are the ones setting up the opening week neutral site games. They are the ones who run the CFP, and they are the ones constantly pushing for more conference games among the A5.

It doesn't take a clairvoyant to see where we are headed. There will be fewer and fewer A5/G5-FCS games. The FCS games are going away. 10 conference games will be eventually here, and then the G5 will have been essentially manipulated out. With at most 1 A5 game on their schedules any formula that includes SOS will place them out of the CFP consideration which quite frankly it already does in practice if not in actual computations.

Who came up with the CFP formula? It sure as hell wasn't the A5! There is tremendous frustration among the fans of the G5 but it is misdirected. The A5 merely dances for the coins the networks toss. They have no agenda against the G5. The entities that have created the massive TV revenue gap between the G5 and A5, and who justify that gap by their metrics (ratings), and who write the checks, and who profit by more brand on brand games, they are the culprits. And when they push for more conference games exclusive to the A5 and use a SOS for CFP inclusion that is based on their SOS formula which is tied to the number of A5 games played, and that formula excludes the G5 based on the paucity of A5 games on their schedules, then you have the party who is truly responsible for the divide between the G5 and A5 within the FBS.

The issue for this board is that posters from the A5 are much easier to reach for the purposes of expressing hostility than are network executives. So just like with a dysfunctional family if the boss gives you a hard time at work, you scream at your spouse, who yells at the kids, who kick the dog. And none of it accomplishes a damned thing. Changing employers, or acknowledging your boss is a jerk and not taking it out on your spouse are your only productive options.

If the G5 want to protest they should boycott ESPN and FOX and ABC and CBS etc.

That is why I have great sympathy for their plight, but little tolerance for their misdirected hostility.

I don't call Disney/ESPN Fuhrer Mickey for nothin'.