The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-04-2018 09:06 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think the bigger issue is that we can agree that Ohio State is Niedermeyer, Notre Dame is Marmelard, and Louisville is "Chip" (Kevin Bacon).

So are you saying Pitino and Petrino were often heard "Thank you sir may I have another."

There's something to be said for uncertainty or ambiguity or whatever. Frankly, I liked it more when there were stable regional conferences of long standing and a relatively few high-profile bowl games pitting one conference champ against another. At least somebody from my conference would be represented, and I and other folks could debate afterward about mythical matchups to our hearts' content. It's something like the pleasure we get dreaming about what one could do with an obscenely large lottery jackpot, all the while knowing that the actual odds of our winning are infinitesimally small.

My interest in college ball relates primarily to my Alma Mater, its fortunes, and those of its conference mates. If Alabama slugs it out again with Clemson, and if I have no kinship with either of those schools or the conferences they represent, why should I give a damn about the outcome? It has no more meaning for me than the results of a high school matchup on any Friday night in South Dakota or Vermont.

(11-04-2018 07:03 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Have any of you thought about the eventual "end game" of this whole thing? Because I have.

If the "g5" doesn't get a team into the CFP, when the next CFP contract negotiation comes down the argument will be to exclude the "g5" from access AND monetary compensation. I guarantee it. There is a monetary advantage to keep the "g5" out of the CFP, because it sets the case for the "P" conferences to keep ALL the money from the CFP and exclude the "g" conferences from even factoring into the CFP format.

Think about it for a moment... The BCS got busted, not mainly because of the Big East, but because of the regular fashion the BCS was "busted" by non BCS programs. Boise State, Hawai'i, Northern Illinois... TCU and Utah got welcomed into the club. But the door got shut on everyone else. After 8 years of no "g" programs "busting" into the CFP, then they can say, "See, 'those type of people' don't belong over here and why are we sharing 'our' hard earned money with them?" And with the "Autonomy" setting, we can't do anything about it.

As UC fans, we should welcome this. With cutting the non-P5 conferences out of consideration and compensation, there will have to be clear criteria for separation or there will have to be a separate division. When this happens, they will not have the ability to deny newcomers unless they want to deal with a massive lawsuit that will likely result in student athlete compensation and the ability to share in licensing.

(11-04-2018 10:21 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-04-2018 07:03 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Have any of you thought about the eventual "end game" of this whole thing? Because I have.

If the "g5" doesn't get a team into the CFP, when the next CFP contract negotiation comes down the argument will be to exclude the "g5" from access AND monetary compensation. I guarantee it. There is a monetary advantage to keep the "g5" out of the CFP, because it sets the case for the "P" conferences to keep ALL the money from the CFP and exclude the "g" conferences from even factoring into the CFP format.

Think about it for a moment... The BCS got busted, not mainly because of the Big East, but because of the regular fashion the BCS was "busted" by non BCS programs. Boise State, Hawai'i, Northern Illinois... TCU and Utah got welcomed into the club. But the door got shut on everyone else. After 8 years of no "g" programs "busting" into the CFP, then they can say, "See, 'those type of people' don't belong over here and why are we sharing 'our' hard earned money with them?" And with the "Autonomy" setting, we can't do anything about it.

As UC fans, we should welcome this. With cutting the non-P5 conferences out of consideration and compensation, there will have to be clear criteria for separation or there will have to be a separate division. When this happens, they will not have the ability to deny newcomers unless they want to deal with a massive lawsuit that will likely result in student athlete compensation and the ability to share in licensing.

I agree. I still believe the end game is actually a more inclusive playoff that results in a larger revenue gap. As long as access is fair and revenue is earned through merit and market forces I think most will ok this. Whether that is one G5 are all conferences get a bid we are likely going down that road.

(11-04-2018 10:21 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-04-2018 07:03 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Have any of you thought about the eventual "end game" of this whole thing? Because I have.

If the "g5" doesn't get a team into the CFP, when the next CFP contract negotiation comes down the argument will be to exclude the "g5" from access AND monetary compensation. I guarantee it. There is a monetary advantage to keep the "g5" out of the CFP, because it sets the case for the "P" conferences to keep ALL the money from the CFP and exclude the "g" conferences from even factoring into the CFP format.

Think about it for a moment... The BCS got busted, not mainly because of the Big East, but because of the regular fashion the BCS was "busted" by non BCS programs. Boise State, Hawai'i, Northern Illinois... TCU and Utah got welcomed into the club. But the door got shut on everyone else. After 8 years of no "g" programs "busting" into the CFP, then they can say, "See, 'those type of people' don't belong over here and why are we sharing 'our' hard earned money with them?" And with the "Autonomy" setting, we can't do anything about it.

As UC fans, we should welcome this. With cutting the non-P5 conferences out of consideration and compensation, there will have to be clear criteria for separation or there will have to be a separate division. When this happens, they will not have the ability to deny newcomers unless they want to deal with a massive lawsuit that will likely result in student athlete compensation and the ability to share in licensing.

The anti-trust angle has always been fool's gold. Just because the Boise president or some Utah politician says it doesn't mean that it has any firm legal foundation. There still is freedom of association in this country. If the Ohio States and USCs of the world choose to associate with the Indianas and Vanderbilts but not the UCs and Boises of the world, that's their choice. We have no more of an inalienable right to be a part of it than we do to be a part of the Ivy League or the AAU.

The only way that anti-trust (which pretty much has not been enforced at all in this country since the late 70s) and collusion would come into play would be if the P5 conferences used their market power and business relationships to hinder the G5 playoff such as pressuring stadiums and networks to not do business, and they won't do that because they don't have to do that. Deep down inside the G5 schools know that, and their bean counters have probably made it quite clear that there's no market for our product and it's best to take what we're given. Again, having a product that few people are interested in while others have a product that is in high demand does not mean that the former is the victim of anti-trust actions by the latter.