(04-12-2019 02:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Army
UMass.
Delaware
NDSU
South Dakota State
Montana
New Hampshire
Maine
URI

I added schools that are in states that do not have a team in FBS.

I would add Southern Mississippi, UTEP, UTSA, La. Tech, Troy, Georgia Southern, App. State, N. Illinois, Buffalo. Stony Brook, Marshall, and Eastern Washington. You do need some balance on the west side of the country. UC-Davis, Cal. Poly, N. Arizona, Montana State, Portland State, N. Texas, Lamar, Rice, and some others. Stopping at 100 is not good for football. It would cause more strain on the PAC 12 schools financially. That is why I think we do need to try and get the Big Sky and D2 west coast football schools to move up along with some RMAC and western Lone Star schools.

I get the argument, and you could maybe sell me on Umass,NDSU, SDSU, Delaware, and Montana. But no BYU, a school that is actually getting 50k+to games and has their own network?

(04-12-2019 11:55 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Until all the current media deals expire, there's no reason why the P5 conferences would ever agree to it, as the outcome would result in them taking a huge pay cut. In some scenarios you would be putting an in-state university on an equal playing field (ie. in Ohio Cincinnati would be getting the same media revenue as Ohio State, in Tennessee Memphis would be getting bumped out with the Vols, etc.)

Problem is, the same situation would prevail *after* all the media deals expire. I mean, if Arkansas is getting $45m a year and Ark-State is getting $1m a year under their current SEC and Sun Belt deals, and then both deals expire, do you think anyone at Arkansas is going to think "well OK, we are now both at $0 pending the new deal, so if Ark-State joins us in a new 100 team league and the deal is for $20m a school across the board, well we didn't take a pay cut because we were both at $0"?

That's ludicrous.

Beyond that, the other reason this 100-team league isn't happening is that the A5 has *zero* reason to jettison those other 30 schools, whereas they have a very good reason to keep them around: They serve as cannon-fodder to pad the record with wins. Yes, A5 fans *say* they want their OOC schedule to be LSU, Clemson, USC, and Michigan every year, but really that's only true if their school is beating those teams. If the choice is between going 0-4 vs that lineup and 4-0 vs Ark-State, Tulsa, Eastern Michigan, and FAMU, they'd really rather have the latter.

The current FBS is ideal for the A5 because they get the cannon fodder schools, and the cannon fodder are *paying* for the priviledge! The A5 shares very little money with the G5, and the G5 saddle themselves with debt and monstrous student fees for the right to lose games to the A5.

Why on earth would the A5 change that?

The notion that the entire AAC and the entire MWC get in automatically for no reason is dumb. Schools like SJSU, NM, Tulane, and SMU aren’t in the top 100 schools athletically even if they are in those conferences. The top 3 teams in CUSA and the Sun Belt could piddle paddle the lower half of both of those conferences.

Also I see a lot of schools getting tossed into the mix because of one or two good football seasons who are bottom of the barrel at other sports so is this just the top 100 football schools? If they’re splitting off like the NFL are these schools dropping all other sports and just focusing on football?

If this is an all sports split, I don’t see how you can say schools like App State and Western Michigan get in while schools like Villanova and Gonzaga get left out. It makes no sense.

(04-13-2019 08:03 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The notion that the entire AAC and the entire MWC get in automatically for no reason is dumb. Schools like SJSU, NM, Tulane, and SMU aren’t in the top 100 schools athletically even if they are in those conferences. The top 3 teams in CUSA and the Sun Belt could piddle paddle the lower half of both of those conferences.

Also I see a lot of schools getting tossed into the mix because of one or two good football seasons who are bottom of the barrel at other sports so is this just the top 100 football schools? If they’re splitting off like the NFL are these schools dropping all other sports and just focusing on football?

If this is an all sports split, I don’t see how you can say schools like App State and Western Michigan get in while schools like Villanova and Gonzaga get left out. It makes no sense.

What’s your budget size? That will give you an idea...also history and location are important.. TV sets are important

(04-12-2019 07:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why is CBS stirring THIS pot? What are they trying to gain by allowing this article to get pushed out?

Best question of the thread so far.

Perhaps they are making an attempt to float an alternate vision to what ESPN has turned college athletics into.

Show of hands, how many wish we weren’t in a $$$ arms race against each other?

TV and coaches are doing great, so are lots of others at some programs.

But, What do the presidents think? Is there a better model and can we get there from here?

I do know change is coming. What form will it take? This could be one option on the table.

And another network (oh, say CBS) could be poised to deliver the new model to a tv audience.

CBS who also has the SEC contract and could help smooth things over with the conference and keep SEC ensconced as the top conference, but within a new more equitable structure.

(04-12-2019 11:24 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-the-ncaa/

Dennis Dodd, in speaking with former Oregon AD Pat Kilkenny, argues that the top 100 football programs should break away from the NCAA and negotiate their own TV deal similar to the NFL. He specifically mentions the Power 5, Notre Dame, AAC, MWC and a handful of others that create their own grouping. Arguments for the model are that the current financial model simply does not work (many programs operate at an annual deficit), the equal exposure for all these top programs and it would allow all the programs to make more money. Arguments against would be for programs in the SEC/B1G to allow other conferences/programs to "catch up" financially and allow everyone on equal footing (when the market stipulated that their brands are more valuable than the competition) and that the rights to the content from all of these conferences would not be up for renegotiation until down the line.

If you go with the P5, Notre Dame, AAC and Mountain West, that leaves ELEVEN open slots - in theory - to get to 100.

Who would make the cut? Who would be relegated to secondary status?

He operates from the position that college athletics is profit driven. Sure making money is nice icing on your athletics cake. But the reality is that your athletic department is a marketing cost center. You're not supposed to make money. It's intended to promote the school and it's programs, get alumni and local citizens onto campus and sell the school name to the general public regionally and nationally.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I think it'll happen but it won't be 100 teams; it'll be way, way fewer. The cream of the P5 will leave the weaker P5 teams and the G5 behind.

Here's how to get down to 50: Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, West Virginia, Boston College, Louisville, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern.

Here's how to get down to 40: Arizona State, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Illinois.

Is any media company refusing to bid on a rights package because any of these teams aren't included?

Remember when the government was going to get involved because the Mountain West was given the cold shoulder in the BCS era? Yeah, I don’t see the top cutting down to 50, way too many issues there. I don’t see any of this happening.

(04-13-2019 09:22 AM)zibby Wrote:  I think it'll happen but it won't be 100 teams; it'll be way, way fewer. The cream of the P5 will leave the weaker P5 teams and the G5 behind.

Here's how to get down to 50: Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, West Virginia, Boston College, Louisville, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern.

Here's how to get down to 40: Arizona State, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Illinois.

Is any media company refusing to bid on a rights package because any of these teams aren't included?

I'll go one step further. Top 30 teams. 4 ten teams divisions based on geography. I will say that the media deal for that would be at least 75% of the current combined total of all media deals of all current conferences. This removes the scavengers like Purdue and Rutgers. Would this ever happen, NO, mainly due to politics........ but if we were really separating the programs that do the heavy lifting, this is what we would see.

(04-12-2019 07:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why is CBS stirring THIS pot? What are they trying to gain by allowing this article to get pushed out?

To get more readers.......

The Big 100

Pacific-9
Wash, Wash St, Ore, Ore St, Cal, Stan, USC, UCLA, Hawaii

Mountain-9
TT, Col, Ariz, Ariz St, Utah, BYU, Boise St, SDSU, UNLV

Western-9
New Mex, AFA, UTSA, UTEP, Wyoming, Tulsa, Nev, Col St., Fresno St

Central-9
Iowa St, Neb, Mizzou, Ark, Kan, Kan St, Ok, Ok St, Tex

New South-9
Miss St, Lou, TCU, Bay, Hou, Memphis, USF, UCF, S Car

North-9
Iowa, Minn, Wisc, ILL, Mich, Mich St, Ohio St, Pur, Indy

East-9
Notre Dame, Navy, Penn St, Pitt, Cuse, BC, WV, MD, Cincy

Atlantic-9
VA, VT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, Clem, GT, Miami, FL St

Southeast-9
FL, Ga, Aub, Bama, LSU, Tex A&M, Miss, Tenn, Ken

Northest-9
Rut, Temple, Army, NIU, Buffalo, NW, Uconn, Marshall, Toledo

Old South-10
Vandy, Wake, Tulane, ECU, S Miss, SMU, Old Dominion, UAB, Rice, N Tex

(04-13-2019 08:18 AM)pablowow Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 08:03 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The notion that the entire AAC and the entire MWC get in automatically for no reason is dumb. Schools like SJSU, NM, Tulane, and SMU aren’t in the top 100 schools athletically even if they are in those conferences. The top 3 teams in CUSA and the Sun Belt could piddle paddle the lower half of both of those conferences.

Also I see a lot of schools getting tossed into the mix because of one or two good football seasons who are bottom of the barrel at other sports so is this just the top 100 football schools? If they’re splitting off like the NFL are these schools dropping all other sports and just focusing on football?

If this is an all sports split, I don’t see how you can say schools like App State and Western Michigan get in while schools like Villanova and Gonzaga get left out. It makes no sense.

What’s your budget size? That will give you an idea...also history and location are important.. TV sets are important

That’s false. Budget size doesn’t mean as much as you think it does. Georgia Southern and App State have relatively small budgets compared to the rest of the FBS but were in the top 35% of FBS programs last season. Then there are schools with overinflated budgets who vastly underperform. Not to mention a lot of the times, schools with higher budgets (especially G5 schools) are up there because they’re gouging their students with athletic fees. Not because they have the donations and sponsorship that healthier programs have.

TV sets mean less and less every year. Eventually the amount of people purchasing subscriptions and tuning in will mean much much more than the potential TV sets in your area. It already sort of does.

(04-13-2019 09:56 AM)otown Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 09:22 AM)zibby Wrote:  I think it'll happen but it won't be 100 teams; it'll be way, way fewer. The cream of the P5 will leave the weaker P5 teams and the G5 behind.

Here's how to get down to 50: Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, West Virginia, Boston College, Louisville, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern.

Here's how to get down to 40: Arizona State, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Illinois.

Is any media company refusing to bid on a rights package because any of these teams aren't included?

I'll go one step further. Top 30 teams. 4 ten teams divisions based on geography. I will say that the media deal for that would be at least 75% of the current combined total of all media deals of all current conferences. This removes the scavengers like Purdue and Rutgers. Would this ever happen, NO, mainly due to politics........ but if we were really separating the programs that do the heavy lifting, this is what we would see.

I'll go one step more realistic: The sixty, or so, teams that comprise the P4 after 2024. It will not require the further break-up of any major conferences. There is no reason for the P4 to share the pie with 40 other schools, and the advertising footprint is as good as it can get.

(04-13-2019 09:56 AM)otown Wrote:  I'll go one step further. Top 30 teams. 4 ten teams divisions based on geography. I will say that the media deal for that would be at least 75% of the current combined total of all media deals of all current conferences. This removes the scavengers like Purdue and Rutgers. Would this ever happen, NO, mainly due to politics........ but if we were really separating the programs that do the heavy lifting, this is what we would see.

You have to remember, on this forum we live in a bubble, with everyone heavily invested in the intricacies of college football.

But ESPN and the other networks are not paying for the bubble, they are paying for a bigger market.

True story: Last fall, in late November I told my wife that I didn't want to go to a movie because I wanted to watch the USF - UCF football game.

My wife, a sophisticated 50 year old college graduate who has lived her entire life as upper middle class or above in Washington DC, Chicago, and Tokyo and has traveled around the world many times, asked "who is UCF"?

I explained UCF to her: 65,000 students, campus located 15 minutes from Disney World (she's been there many times), powerful football team that finished #7 last year and was in the top 10 as we spoke. Rival of USF in athletics, though professionally, I have respect for the UCF professors in my area, management and leadership in their college of business. She told me she had never heard of UCF at all in any way shape or form until right then.

In fairness, she had never heard of USF either until we met and I explained my alma mater to her, LOL.

In contrast, by sheer chance, I happened to be watching a game involving Purdue, and so I asked her who Purdue was.

She looked at me like I was a nut-case and said "everyone has heard of Purdue".

They aren't going anywhere I'm afraid.

(04-13-2019 08:03 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The notion that the entire AAC and the entire MWC get in automatically for no reason is dumb. Schools like SJSU, NM, Tulane, and SMU aren’t in the top 100 schools athletically even if they are in those conferences. The top 3 teams in CUSA and the Sun Belt could piddle paddle the lower half of both of those conferences.

Also I see a lot of schools getting tossed into the mix because of one or two good football seasons who are bottom of the barrel at other sports so is this just the top 100 football schools? If they’re splitting off like the NFL are these schools dropping all other sports and just focusing on football?

If this is an all sports split, I don’t see how you can say schools like App State and Western Michigan get in while schools like Villanova and Gonzaga get left out. It makes no sense.

What is your criteria? Last season's football record? In terms of budget, SMU is probably 2nd among the G5 and does quite well in non-rev sports. While down this year, they have been one of the top teams in the AAC in basketball in recent years. New Mexico historically has had top 10 basketball attendance, since the 60s. Tulane is in with any culling.

These teams made the AAC because they clearly are top 100. The MWC did have some geographic constraints.

(04-13-2019 09:59 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 07:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why is CBS stirring THIS pot? What are they trying to gain by allowing this article to get pushed out?

To get more readers.......

Dennis Dodd does like to troll. That's him, not CBS.

(04-13-2019 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 09:59 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 07:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why is CBS stirring THIS pot? What are they trying to gain by allowing this article to get pushed out?

To get more readers.......

Dennis Dodd does like to troll. That's him, not CBS.

Yes, some around here see the Entire Corporate Edifice behind the commentary of one columnist on the payroll. Most of the time, it's just his opinion, he's not speaking for Disney, etc.

(04-13-2019 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 09:56 AM)otown Wrote:  I'll go one step further. Top 30 teams. 4 ten teams divisions based on geography. I will say that the media deal for that would be at least 75% of the current combined total of all media deals of all current conferences. This removes the scavengers like Purdue and Rutgers. Would this ever happen, NO, mainly due to politics........ but if we were really separating the programs that do the heavy lifting, this is what we would see.

You have to remember, on this forum we live in a bubble, with everyone heavily invested in the intricacies of college football.

But ESPN and the other networks are not paying for the bubble, they are paying for a bigger market.

True story: Last fall, in late November I told my wife that I didn't want to go to a movie because I wanted to watch the USF - UCF football game.

My wife, a sophisticated 50 year old college graduate who has lived her entire life as upper middle class or above in Washington DC, Chicago, and Tokyo and has traveled around the world many times, asked "who is UCF"?

I explained UCF to her: 65,000 students, campus located 15 minutes from Disney World (she's been there many times), powerful football team that finished #7 last year and was in the top 10 as we spoke. Rival of USF in athletics, though professionally, I have respect for the UCF professors in my area, management and leadership in their college of business. She told me she had never heard of UCF at all in any way shape or form until right then.

In fairness, she had never heard of USF either until we met and I explained my alma mater to her, LOL.

In contrast, by sheer chance, I happened to be watching a game involving Purdue, and so I asked her who Purdue was.

She looked at me like I was a nut-case and said "everyone has heard of Purdue".

They aren't going anywhere I'm afraid.

some of the responses in this thread are just nonsense and show how little people know about the teams they comment on

Purdue would not be going anywhere from the top 100 in addition to what you said about many people knowing who they are

Purdue has an $85+ million dollar budget and they have not used a cent of university money or student fees since 2007 and that was $7,800 dollars in university funds and the prior year was $8,400 dollars and prior to that in 2005 it was $680,000

no one is going to kick Purdue out of their conference or the group of 100 so they can be with a bunch of schools that have spend $100 million in student/school funds over the last 5 or 6 years to pretend they are with the big boys

(04-12-2019 07:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why is CBS stirring THIS pot? What are they trying to gain by allowing this article to get pushed out?

It's a college football article in April. Aside for the hardcore fans who care about spring games, Dodd probably needs to justify why CBS shouldn't lay him off until August when everyone else starts caring again.

The whole premise of the article is silly. The big schools already get the lion's share of the football media money. Much of the money they don't get directly goes to help fund the support infrastructure they need to be Big Schools, including the conferences with "regular rivals" where beating them more than half the time retains some weight because of the various times in history they lost to them and it affected their final result and the teams that provide body bag scrimmages that they still include in the season ticket package and charge full price for on game day.

The only big pile of media money that they don't get such a large share of is the NCAA Tourney money, which funds much of the NCAA system.

Now that the NCAA has said, "for the FB governance issues you care badly enough about to threaten to breakaway, we will let you decide those", that Tourney money is the last big outstanding reward for a breakaway.

And while the media companies that pay for the Tourney would be quite happy for it to scale back from 68 to 64, they do like the content of 64.

But there's a trade-off between the number of games and the degree of difficulty getting into the tournament. Having 100 schools contend for 64 spots probably devalues the spots by more than they would like, and that would reduce the price they would be willing to pay.

So something more like 128 schools would be a lot more realistic than 100. 100 was mentioned (1) because it is a round number and (2) because it generates some "who gets left out" controversy.