The NCAA split between Universities and Colleges which led for some schools lost contact the big boys which the P5 are now kicking themselves. It was a wild wild west before the split when you did had 2 year schools in the same conferences with the 4 year schools.Big 10 may have gone after Johns Hopkins instead of Maryland, M.I.T., Case Western Reserve and some others who are AAU if they were in D1. We have some schools closed down now that were in the same conference with some big boys like St. Joseph's Indiana, Mount Ida, Kingfisher College, Phillips, College of Emporia, University of Kansas City and some others. The issue you see is that the P5 is actually hogging the spotlight while schools at the smallest levels are struggling to get noticed to attract students. The P5 are using sports as a weapon to attract students.

Well, TCU fans have some experience with this issue from all sides of the question because we've been up and down and all around throughout CFB history. The P5 v. G5 distinction is actually less onerous than was the original BCS construct that began in 1998. Then, although the BCS honks pretended that non-BCS teams were eligible for the newly-lucrative post-season, they weren't in actual practice until Tulane's Scott Cowan started squawking which led to the formation of the BCS Oversight Council with representatives from all conferences and, ultimately to the non-AQ AQ bid which at least gave some arguable access (despite different rules) to the non-BCS conferences (and the playoff money). Now, the G5 has an automatic bid to the NY6 which gives teams like UCF, Houston and Boise an annual chance to show their stuff and earn more money. Then, it was just assumed that the 1998 definitions would last in perpetuity, but more realignment, luck and actual football performance led to the eventual inclusion of Utah, Louisville and TCU. So now, there is at least a haphazard relegation/elevation system that depends on exogenous factors like the whims of Big10, SEC and ESPN execs but also at least somewhat on performance and fan support. Then, although Miami and Florida State had radically transformed the cfb landscape by effectively becoming bluebloods prior to the formation of the BCS, it was also assumed that it would be very difficult for other schools to duplicate that. Now, we've seen Clemson move into the ranks of bluebloods and Oregon got close with multiple CFP championship appearances and we've also seen schools like Nebraska (and arguably Miami) be relegated out. So there is movement between non-bluebloods and bluebloods too. The situation is now not entirely static and more malleable than generally assumed.

The money differential is large and growing wider so the window for elevation is small, but it isn't impossible. With luck, great coaching, sustained performance, continued fan support, great recruiting and a long-term commitment by a school's administration, schools like Boise, UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, BYU etc... (and maybe others we're not thinking of now) could all be elevated within the next few decades. And yes, schools like (ahem, TCU) could be relegated too (yet again). But even if we were, it wouldn't be the end of the world - Frog fans had a blast winning championships in the WAC, C-USA and the MWC and we might have done that in the Big East too. We went to and won the Rose Bowl as a non-AQ, we had 3 Top 10 AP finishes in the MWC and we've had 3 AP Top 10 finishes in the Big 12 as well. Wherever we are and may end up, we have fun and get into it with our opponents. Fans of G5 schools, in my view, shouldn't obsess so much about these structural variances and should focus more on having fun with their own teams and the conferences they are in now.

(06-12-2019 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  There's zero reason to split football. If there is a split, its because of basketball where the NCAA controls the money.

That's right. The NCAA doesn't just control the March Madness money. The NCAA siphons off an outrageous percentage of that money instead of giving it directly to the participating teams/conferences. This is how outrageous it is:

The current CBS/Turner TV contract pays the NCAA $10.8 billion over 15 seasons -- an average of $720 million per year.

For the 2019 tournament, for each "unit", the NCAA pays the team/conference that earned it $1.68 million spread out over 6 years -- meaning that the NCAA is making a ton of money on the interest accrued, when they should be paying the whole amount at once to the teams/conferences.

And even if the NCAA was paying each "unit" as a lump sum, it's not nearly enough money compared to how much the NCAA keeps. There are 134 units paid out, teams earn a unit for being in the tournament and one more for each game they win except the national final. That's 134 units, meaning that, even if the NCAA paid in a lump sum, they would be paying the participating teams/conferences a total of $225,120,000, or only about 31% of what the NCAA gets from CBS/Turner.

As I said, outrageous. And ripe for a breakaway, to get more money in the hands of the teams/conferences generating the value.

What would a fairer distribution look like? How about lump sum payments of $5 million for each team that makes the tournament but loses before the first Saturday/Sunday, and an additional $3 million for making it each round further, up to the final where each finalist would get $20 million. Sounds much better, right? Guess what, it's still not enough. That distribution would mean $526 million per year distributed to the participating teams/conferences, leaving the NCAA still withholding about $200 million per year.

I’m in no way defending the NCAA, but they also cover the costs for the teams and coaches to travel and stay in a hotel, along with the cheerleaders, dance team, and a 30 piece pep band.

(06-12-2019 10:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I doubt an actual separation is coming. The P5 already has an effective legislative separation with autonomy and they already had virtual full control of the post season CFP apparatus---so any need for an an actual separation is really largely eliminated.

Yes, for about 5 minutes back in 2013-2014, there was actual rumbling among the P5 about a real split, and that's when Aresco got all excited, saying his goal was to make sure that "when the split occurs we get taken with them" or whatever.

But the "autonomy" status, which as you mention is a formal, NCAA-recognized status, essentially killed that talk. It has worked the way the P5 hoped it would.

Nobody in the P5 has ever wanted to stop playing games versus the G5. To the contrary, they want to. They just didn't want the political possibility of their initiatives being blocked by the G5 or FCS in the NCAA committees.

(06-12-2019 09:44 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Does the creation of the P5 a new division essentially effect the G5 or FCS more.

The G5 is less relevant with no real chance of an national title.
The new second tier status is going to have a long term effect.
If and its likely none are promoted the ceiling has been lowered for these programs.New media deals seem to be mostly streaming weekday games.

There is also the mass migration of about 10 high potential FCS programs to G5 at the beginning of the decade.

10 teams equals 850 scholarships that have moved from FCS to FBS. Then another 25 FCS level guys who are walking on G5 instead of going the FCS route...another 250 players.

As much as recruiting is a zero sum game with the P5 signing 99% percent of the 4-5 star guys over the G5, the G5 has a firm delineation over FCS in recruiting.

If you go back to 1990, there was no power but it was the B1G, PAC and those in the CFA who were considered major. The BW and MAC were considered mid major. MAC I know didn't offer the full amount of scholarships at the time. But the MAC was considered to be on par with the D-1AA conferences though competing in D-1A rather than a tweener grouping.

At the beginning of the BA/BCS era there was a scramble to either get into an autobid conference or become an autobid conference which the BE, WAC-16 and CUSA all set out to do. The BE of course made it. The WAC-16 exploded and the MWC was formed to make another run at it. The six conferences who had the autobid by 1998 consolidated their recruiting advantages over the others.

That recruiting advantage resulted in a clear have/have not system and as more moved from D-1AA to D-1A to join the ranks of the have nots to the point where it became 5 conferences; MWC, WAC, MAC, CUSA, SBC then it started feeling like 2 levels. The first 4-5 years of the MWC they were not that far behind the PAC but today its like the distinction between the MAC and B1G. Having the ACC, SEC and B1G all at 14 teams makes a difference from a saturation standpoint. If the XII went 14 that would snuff out the AAC.

Clearly the turning point was in the early 90's before big money came into the structure and the conferences with an autobid to a big bowl game had an edge on recruiting. Even those who made the cut for say CUSA 1.0 like Tulane over Louisiana or Cincinnati over Miami.U had recruiting benefits by having a decent TV deal.

Its access to the major bowls first then secondarily TV. TV I'd argue isn't as important as it was in the 90's since very few were getting it but at the ABC/CBS level like the AAC is getting it still boosts recruiting. Now of course playoff access is a factor and based on SOS.

With the AAC having the TV of the P5 but not a realistic chance of a playoff does it leave the G5 as a whole worse than the non-BCS of the early 2000's when there wasn't realistic BCS access? Utah somehow did it on their own merit and UCF was close last year if not for the schedule to the playoff. I would then conclude largely there has been no material change from the non-BCS to G5 eras; the ratio of TV money from the top P5 to top G5 remains 5 to 1.

(06-12-2019 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Strongly disagree. The biggest name teams have always had the lion's share of media and casual fan attention, but everyone who has been following the sport for more than a few years knows that all of college football has far more access to media (and fans) today than ever.

Agreed.

In fact, with the exception of maybe a few schools (maybe Southern Miss or former Big East members like Uconn), you could argue that things have really never been better for the G5. Schools like Houston, UCF, and plenty of others are now getting decent money and can afford to pay coaches multi millions and build new facilities. They're also getting decent TV ratings and exposure and the G5 is guaranteed access to at least one NY6 bowl every year.

Sure in pure dollar amounts they are falling behind, but realistically after a certain point it becomes an issue of diminishing returns. And sure, the G5 is essentially locked out of the national championship but when has that not been the case?

(06-12-2019 03:44 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The Truce works well for both sides in which we pretend that two separate divisions are actually one division called FBS

Kent State gets to pretend that it’s at the same level as Ohio State for recruiting and promoting its athletics and Ohio State gets to count a win over Kent State as a worthy win that counts toward bowl eligibility.

Exactly.

There's a reason why schools like Coastal want to be FBS - it makes them a lot more money, they get a lot more exposure, and they get the prestige of saying they play at the same division as Clemson and South Carolina.

(06-13-2019 09:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Strongly disagree. The biggest name teams have always had the lion's share of media and casual fan attention, but everyone who has been following the sport for more than a few years knows that all of college football has far more access to media (and fans) today than ever.

Agreed.

In fact, with the exception of maybe a few schools (maybe Southern Miss or former Big East members like Uconn), you could argue that things have really never been better for the G5.

Thing HAVE never been better for "G5" level schools. E.g., had USF started its football program in 1977, not 1997, we probably would have made zero money and had zero TV appearances or bowl games in the first 20 years of our existence. We would have been completely invisible. I thank our lucky stars we started up right at the dawn of the BCS era.

G5 demands for more of this or more of that are just a classic case of "give them an inch and they will want a mile", or at least a yard. That's all.

For my part, I recognize that it was schools like Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Texas, and Alabama that built up the "college football brand" that is worth billions of dollars a year, and so I have zero problem with them keeping almost all of it. USF is trying to piggy-back off that, so I am grateful for whatever USF gets, beyond what we generate in our own stadium.

(06-13-2019 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Strongly disagree. The biggest name teams have always had the lion's share of media and casual fan attention, but everyone who has been following the sport for more than a few years knows that all of college football has far more access to media (and fans) today than ever.

Agreed.

In fact, with the exception of maybe a few schools (maybe Southern Miss or former Big East members like Uconn), you could argue that things have really never been better for the G5.

Thing HAVE never been better for "G5" level schools. E.g., had USF started its football program in 1977, not 1997, we probably would have made zero money and had zero TV appearances or bowl games in the first 20 years of our existence. We would have been completely invisible. I thank our lucky stars we started up right at the dawn of the BCS era.

G5 demands for more of this or more of that are just a classic case of "give them an inch and they will want a mile", or at least a yard. That's all.

For my part, I recognize that it was schools like Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Texas, and Alabama that built up the "college football brand" that is worth billions of dollars a year, and so I have zero problem with them keeping almost all of it. USF is trying to piggy-back off that, so I am grateful for whatever USF gets, beyond what we generate in our own stadium.

I dont know about that. The P5 has had virtually nothing to do with increased exposure for the G5. Its not like the P5 have any control over G5 television deals (or even care about those deals). The advent of 24 hour sports-centric cable networks (and now streaming services) drove increased exposure for the G5--not the P5. If not for a couple of P5 moves to make the BCS/CFP slightly more inclusive
(totally out of concern that there might be legislative action or antitrust litigation from the DOJ)---the P5 hasnt really done anything to aid in the increased exposure of the G5.

Now--the truth is---its not the P5's job to give the G5 a leg up. Its up to the G5 to build their own programs. However, I wouldnt agree that the G5 desire to have some realistic path to the playoff is a "give them an inch and they want a mile" situation. Ive said for a long time that if the G5 gets one slot in an expanded 8 team playoff---that would represent all the G5 needs to become a vibrant fully participating part of FBS. Frankly, I think that would end up being a very good thing for everyone as it would be very healthy for the sport because the 65 less developed members of the G5 represent the most likely driver of future growth for the college football fan base. Expanding that FBS fanbase---which is much smaller than the NFL fanbase---is how you maximize the future value of the CFP. I dont believe its a zero sum game.

(06-13-2019 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Strongly disagree. The biggest name teams have always had the lion's share of media and casual fan attention, but everyone who has been following the sport for more than a few years knows that all of college football has far more access to media (and fans) today than ever.

Agreed.

In fact, with the exception of maybe a few schools (maybe Southern Miss or former Big East members like Uconn), you could argue that things have really never been better for the G5.

Thing HAVE never been better for "G5" level schools. E.g., had USF started its football program in 1977, not 1997, we probably would have made zero money and had zero TV appearances or bowl games in the first 20 years of our existence. We would have been completely invisible. I thank our lucky stars we started up right at the dawn of the BCS era.

G5 demands for more of this or more of that are just a classic case of "give them an inch and they will want a mile", or at least a yard. That's all.

For my part, I recognize that it was schools like Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Texas, and Alabama that built up the "college football brand" that is worth billions of dollars a year, and so I have zero problem with them keeping almost all of it. USF is trying to piggy-back off that, so I am grateful for whatever USF gets, beyond what we generate in our own stadium.

Exactly.

USF gets millions in TV money and can afford to pay Charlie Strong over 2 million per year. They can realistically win 11 games, win the AAC, and then play a true blue blood school on New Years day in front of millions of fans. Neither of these would have been possible for a G5 school 25 years ago.

(06-12-2019 03:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't believe that we will see an actual separation. However, I understand the OP's point.

While it's true that there's more college football on TV than ever and even the fans of the smallest G5 programs have access to many (or even all) of their games nationally, we've seen many psychological studies in many walks of life where happiness is determine by your relative status with your peers as opposed to an improvement to the absolute status for yourself.

For instance, the average American today is better off than the average American 30 years ago in an absolute sense: we have access to technology that were barely a dream back then, housing is nicer, cars and other products are more efficient and much safer, etc.

However, virtually everyone measures their happiness in terms of their gains and losses compared to their peers. In an absolute sense, someone getting a 10% raise is an improvement. Yet, if that person's co-workers all receive a 25% raise, that person is generally unhappy. Psychologically, that person would actually be happier if they received a lower 5% raise and their co-workers didn't receive any raise at all. This is where psychology and human emotion are at odds with rational economic thinking.

Similarly, people have increasingly clustered in living by other people with similar demographics, particularly in terms of income and education. As a result, even the most affluent people in society (e.g. people that are in the top 5-10% of the income ladder )often don't feel that they're wealthy or even falling behind because they're comparing themselves to the people in their local towns and neighborhoods that are also at the top of the income ladder. They don't compare themselves to the overall population and say, "Wow! I'm fortunate to be in the top 10% of the richest country in the world!" Instead, they compare themselves to their similarly wealthy neighbors and say, "Man, we're falling behind everyone else that we know." "Keeping up with the Joneses" is a phrase because it's a very real and concrete phenomenon.

It's no different in college sports. Every G5 program is arguably better off today than a generation ago in an absolute sense (with maybe the exception of the old SWC and Big East members that got demoted), but the growth in the power and revenue of all of the P5 programs have been even greater, so the G5 has lost ground. It's very much a reflection of society overall where the gains at the top of the income spectrum have greatly outpaced those at the middle and lower levels of the income scale.

Well said
I do not think a real separation is wanted or will happen.
ESPN has listed top P5 rusher or receiver.
Their preseason shows ignore most of the P5 much less anything below that.
Fan bases are starting to only appreciate playoff spots at the top.
Instead of hyped up about a Rose Bowl its we should be in the playoff.
Everything below that is devalued .
Perception changes when ESPN and the like call your running back the best in the G5.
Obviously there has been a top tier for a time.
The BCS was step one in separating FBS P5 -G5 is step two.
There is no need for step three time and perception finish the job.
Programs can still be successful take Montana their combined football and basketball attendance would lead the MAC or SBC maybe CUSA.
The top MWC football programs SDSU, FSU and BSU might be satisfied with streaming games and an occasional Access Bowl .
As a whole I see the P5 gaining and the rest losing ground at a higher rate than before.
FCS might be fine they no their irrelevant to most or start feeling like D2.
G5 might start feeling like the old 1AA.
P5 =1A G5 = 1AA FCS = D2 D2= D2AA kinda thing

(06-13-2019 09:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Strongly disagree. The biggest name teams have always had the lion's share of media and casual fan attention, but everyone who has been following the sport for more than a few years knows that all of college football has far more access to media (and fans) today than ever.

Agreed.

In fact, with the exception of maybe a few schools (maybe Southern Miss or former Big East members like Uconn), you could argue that things have really never been better for the G5.

Thing HAVE never been better for "G5" level schools. E.g., had USF started its football program in 1977, not 1997, we probably would have made zero money and had zero TV appearances or bowl games in the first 20 years of our existence. We would have been completely invisible. I thank our lucky stars we started up right at the dawn of the BCS era.

G5 demands for more of this or more of that are just a classic case of "give them an inch and they will want a mile", or at least a yard. That's all.

For my part, I recognize that it was schools like Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Texas, and Alabama that built up the "college football brand" that is worth billions of dollars a year, and so I have zero problem with them keeping almost all of it. USF is trying to piggy-back off that, so I am grateful for whatever USF gets, beyond what we generate in our own stadium.

I dont know about that. The P5 has had virtually nothing to do with increased exposure for the G5. Its not like the P5 have any control over G5 television deals (or even care about those deals). The advent of 24 hour sports-centric cable networks (and now streaming services) drove increased exposure for the G5--not the P5.

I don't think it is a coincidence that it has been coincident (!) with the BCS that the G5 have received more exposure and everything else.

The BCS, for the first time, formally linked all the FBS conferences in a common structure. That gave the G5/Non-AQ leagues a "link" to the big-time that just hadn't existed before. Even with all the pro-AQ inequities, the non-AQ conferences were integrated into the same system for determining a champ.

Before then, they were just completely off the radar, regarded as not being in the same 'league' at all. And that was despite cable TV and deregulated conference TV deals being around for a good 10-15 years before that.

To me, it was thanks to that enhanced status within the BCS that G5 conferences began to attract more TV deals, more bowl ties, etc.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF REVENUE
DISTRIBUTION BY CONFERENCE 2017-18
Distributions:
American Athletic Conference $25,623,896
Atlantic Coast Conference $67,153,097
Big Ten Conference $68,871,187
Big 12 Conference $69,847,925
Conference USA $15,411,101
Mid-American Conference $16,815,366
Mountain West Conference $18,219,631
Pac-12 Conference $74,697,653
Southeastern Conference $88,144,099
Sun Belt Conference $14,006,835
Big Sky Conference $281,216
Big South Conference $281,216
Colonial Conference $281,216
Mid-Eastern Conference $281,216
Missouri Valley Conference $281,216
Ohio Valley Conference $281,216
Southern Conference $281,216
Southland Conference $281,216
Southwestern Athletic Conference $281,216
Brigham Young University $310,053
University of Massachusetts $310,053
Notre Dame University $2,813,182
U.S. Military Academy $310,053
TOTAL CFP DISTRIBUTION TO CONFERENCES $465,065,074

P5 conferences already have 80% of the revenue, totaling $368 million and change in 2017-2018. G5 conferences received just over $90 million. This is the contractual setup through the 2025 season and any change before then will find the G5 schools taking the P5 schools to court. After 2025, who knows what could happen, but the current system works well financially for the power conference schools and it is a definite improvement over the previous system for the G5 schools, with the possible exception of the AAC schools.