I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

Quote:"It's not on the table yet, but that's the first thing that's going to have to asked," said West Virginia AD Shane Lyons, a member of the Transformation Committee. "With those Transformation Committee members, what are we looking for? Is it membership requirements? There is the differential between schools that make $175 million and those that make $4 million.

Quote:The Transformation Committee is co-chaired by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Ohio AD Julie Cromer. By its mere composition, the committee foreshadows a separation. Sankey is head of the nation's most powerful football conference. Cromer is AD of a MAC school, which plays some of its games on weeknights to maximize exposure.

Quote:"Anything that has Sankey in it would give me an indication that the divide will get greater," said a college sports consultant who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the situation. "Julie being at Ohio, I really like Julie. She's smart as hell. I would see her and Sankey clashing big time. I suspect that's the case, but Greg's going to win every time because he can. He's got the power."

Quote:There are current minimum standards for FBS membership, including (just to name a few): sports sponsorship (16), minimum scheduling requirements (60% of games vs. FBS, 5+ home games) and average attendance (15,000). Raising the attendance minimum to 30,000 would alone theoretically cause 56 schools (43%) to lose FBS membership based on 2019 averages.

Quote:MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, whose conference might be one of those impacted by a higher cost of doing business, is not deterred.

"I'm comfortable based on conversations I've had among the FBS commissioners and with Greg Sankey," he said. "I don't think people should overreact or underreact to anything. Whatever the outcome, we're well positioned. Deregulation is really interesting to talk about in the abstract but is wicked hard to do in reality."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

MAC well positioned with midweek games? Its pushing 50 years since the Division 1A/1AA split of 1978 a period with an unprecedented influx of money into college athletics.

I would have to think if its going to be a massive increase in scholarships and coaches allotted across all sports the MAC would prefer to stop playing the game and move down to FCS. What would be the point in helping to shape new standards if the MAC couldn't take advantage of them?

On coaches and scholarships I can see it going both ways with no maximum and a lower minimum requirement.

FBS minimum scholarship level could drop to 65 in FB and require only sponsoring 14 sports instead of 16.

I'm not sure about the super division stuff Dodd is throwing out there (30-60) or (80-100). The P5 have 69 teams and very few brands outside of that can add any value to the club.

The MAC isn’t going to FCS.

The B1G Ten actually needs the MAC for their buy games.

(01-14-2022 12:31 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  The MAC isn’t going to FCS.

The B1G Ten actually needs the MAC for their buy games.

B1G also pays for MAC officiating. I thought they had a really tight relationship at one point. B1G went to bat for the MAC during the 1A/1AA reclassification era.

Kevin Warren appears however to not care about the MAC pushing 5+1 over 6+6 while Sankey is working closely with a MAC AD (former Arkansas associate AD) at Ohio.

Ohio has 3 XII schools on its future home FB slate (Cincinnati, Iowa St, West Virginia) and I think they'd be one of the last MAC schools to agree to move down but the money disparity is becoming insane.

(01-13-2022 11:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

Quote:"It's not on the table yet, but that's the first thing that's going to have to asked," said West Virginia AD Shane Lyons, a member of the Transformation Committee. "With those Transformation Committee members, what are we looking for? Is it membership requirements? There is the differential between schools that make $175 million and those that make $4 million.

Quote:The Transformation Committee is co-chaired by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Ohio AD Julie Cromer. By its mere composition, the committee foreshadows a separation. Sankey is head of the nation's most powerful football conference. Cromer is AD of a MAC school, which plays some of its games on weeknights to maximize exposure.

Quote:"Anything that has Sankey in it would give me an indication that the divide will get greater," said a college sports consultant who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the situation. "Julie being at Ohio, I really like Julie. She's smart as hell. I would see her and Sankey clashing big time. I suspect that's the case, but Greg's going to win every time because he can. He's got the power."

Quote:There are current minimum standards for FBS membership, including (just to name a few): sports sponsorship (16), minimum scheduling requirements (60% of games vs. FBS, 5+ home games) and average attendance (15,000). Raising the attendance minimum to 30,000 would alone theoretically cause 56 schools (43%) to lose FBS membership based on 2019 averages.

Quote:MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, whose conference might be one of those impacted by a higher cost of doing business, is not deterred.

"I'm comfortable based on conversations I've had among the FBS commissioners and with Greg Sankey," he said. "I don't think people should overreact or underreact to anything. Whatever the outcome, we're well positioned. Deregulation is really interesting to talk about in the abstract but is wicked hard to do in reality."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

MAC well positioned with midweek games? Its pushing 50 years since the Division 1A/1AA split of 1978 a period with an unprecedented influx of money into college athletics.

I would have to think if its going to be a massive increase in scholarships and coaches allotted across all sports the MAC would prefer to stop playing the game and move down to FCS. What would be the point in helping to shape new standards if the MAC couldn't take advantage of them?

Based on a 30,000 threshold for attendance (2019) and future alignments,

Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Houston, and WSU miss the cut.

Boise State, Fresno State, East Carolina, Memphis, Navy, USF, Army and Notre Dame make the cut.

B12 will help attendance at Houston. The P12 might agree to send some fans to Pullman, and the SEC and ACC will finally be cleansed of the smarties.

ACC replaces Duke and Wake, with East Carolina and USF. The SEC replaces Vanderbilt with Memphis. B12 adds Boise State and Fresno State.

MW, AAC (which picks up Duke, Wake Forest, and Vanderbilt), CUSA (which adds UMass and UConn for football), MAC, and Sub Belt continue as present, perhaps with a real championship 60 schools, 16 teams, AQ for conference champions 5+11.

Or maybe the maximums for scholarships and player salaries are increased, and each conference is permitted to set its own minimums and maximums.

That 30,000 rule is just something Dodd has suggested. He also likes to suggest an 80+ program cut line in articles.

(01-14-2022 02:10 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That 30,000 rule is just something Dodd has suggested. He also likes to suggest an 80+ program cut line in articles.

You can't have it that way either. Sporting events are expensive, plus the schools like UConn, San Diego State and others can hit 30,000 before. I just don't think any schools will be moving to FCS. I do think the top 2 FBS G5 conferences will join the the 1A FBS, and conferences like MVFC form an all sports conference 1AA FBS plus the top FCS schools. Then you will see the top D2 and D3 schools move into 1A FCS and 1AA FCS.

(01-14-2022 02:10 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That 30,000 rule is just something Dodd has suggested. He also likes to suggest an 80+ program cut line in articles.

It is unlikely to be a limit on the number of programs. It will be a set of standards that only 80 or so schools are capable or willing to meet.

Arguably if you can't generate revenue from ticket sales, you are leaching off the television contracts.

(01-14-2022 03:37 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:10 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That 30,000 rule is just something Dodd has suggested. He also likes to suggest an 80+ program cut line in articles.

It is unlikely to be a limit on the number of programs. It will be a set of standards that only 80 or so schools are capable or willing to meet.

Arguably if you can't generate revenue from ticket sales, you are leaching off the television contracts.

What if the criteria is have a media deal worth 20 million per school or GTFO.

There is nothing the AAC can do about that one.

Case closed.

(01-13-2022 11:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

This whole argument about splitting the FBS should be seen for what it is - - part of a bogus attempt that some of the P5 universities are making so they won't have to compete so often with non-P5 FBS teams on an even playing field.

. . . .

The P5s who are pushing this bogus argument appear to have such disdain for those listening to them that they don't think their audience is astute enough to realize that the non-P5 schools have been becoming more - - not less - - competitive with P5 teams in recent years.

.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/lq...8_seasons/



.

G5 teams have won a higher and higher percentage of their games vs. P5 teams since 2013.

RAW DATA POSTED HERE (click on win counts at base of page):

Note - it takes some time to sort through all the pages of data.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpWjLAh...ayAGD/view

.

As the figure indicates, the G5 teams won twice as many games vs. P5 teams in 2020 than they won in 2013. However, only 1/5th as many P5 vs. non-P5 games were played in 2020, as compared with a typical season.

Therefore, it would make the most sense to combine the 2020 and 2021* data on G5 vs. P5 games.

When the 2020 and 2021 data are combined, the result is consistent with the data in the figure, with slightly more than twice as many G5 wins vs. P5 teams in 2020 and 2021 as there were in 2013.

*In 2021, "the Group-of-Five finished the season at 27-77 (25.9%) versus the Power 5."

https://www.g5gurus.com/2021-records-by-g5-conference/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What all this shows is that the argument that some P5 schools are trying to make is inconsistent with and indeed flies in the face of the data showing that the non-P5 teams have been becoming more and more competitive with the P5 teams with each passing year.

Since the non-P5 teams are becoming more competitive, the proposal to separate the P5 from the non-P5 teams makes far less sense now than it once did - - and even then, it made so little sense that the motion wasn't adopted.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The question thus arises: What are those P5 schools so afraid of?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

(01-14-2022 01:59 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 11:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

Quote:"It's not on the table yet, but that's the first thing that's going to have to asked," said West Virginia AD Shane Lyons, a member of the Transformation Committee. "With those Transformation Committee members, what are we looking for? Is it membership requirements? There is the differential between schools that make $175 million and those that make $4 million.

Quote:The Transformation Committee is co-chaired by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Ohio AD Julie Cromer. By its mere composition, the committee foreshadows a separation. Sankey is head of the nation's most powerful football conference. Cromer is AD of a MAC school, which plays some of its games on weeknights to maximize exposure.

Quote:"Anything that has Sankey in it would give me an indication that the divide will get greater," said a college sports consultant who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the situation. "Julie being at Ohio, I really like Julie. She's smart as hell. I would see her and Sankey clashing big time. I suspect that's the case, but Greg's going to win every time because he can. He's got the power."

Quote:There are current minimum standards for FBS membership, including (just to name a few): sports sponsorship (16), minimum scheduling requirements (60% of games vs. FBS, 5+ home games) and average attendance (15,000). Raising the attendance minimum to 30,000 would alone theoretically cause 56 schools (43%) to lose FBS membership based on 2019 averages.

Quote:MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, whose conference might be one of those impacted by a higher cost of doing business, is not deterred.

"I'm comfortable based on conversations I've had among the FBS commissioners and with Greg Sankey," he said. "I don't think people should overreact or underreact to anything. Whatever the outcome, we're well positioned. Deregulation is really interesting to talk about in the abstract but is wicked hard to do in reality."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

MAC well positioned with midweek games? Its pushing 50 years since the Division 1A/1AA split of 1978 a period with an unprecedented influx of money into college athletics.

I would have to think if its going to be a massive increase in scholarships and coaches allotted across all sports the MAC would prefer to stop playing the game and move down to FCS. What would be the point in helping to shape new standards if the MAC couldn't take advantage of them?

Based on a 30,000 threshold for attendance (2019) and future alignments,

Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Houston, and WSU miss the cut.

Boise State, Fresno State, East Carolina, Memphis, Navy, USF, Army and Notre Dame make the cut.

B12 will help attendance at Houston. The P12 might agree to send some fans to Pullman, and the SEC and ACC will finally be cleansed of the smarties.

ACC replaces Duke and Wake, with East Carolina and USF. The SEC replaces Vanderbilt with Memphis. B12 adds Boise State and Fresno State.

MW, AAC (which picks up Duke, Wake Forest, and Vanderbilt), CUSA (which adds UMass and UConn for football), MAC, and Sub Belt continue as present, perhaps with a real championship 60 schools, 16 teams, AQ for conference champions 5+11.

Or maybe the maximums for scholarships and player salaries are increased, and each conference is permitted to set its own minimums and maximums.

Nobody is going to set an attendance standard that doesn't keep all current P5 teams at the highest level. Neither are they going to set a standard that eliminates too many teams from consideration for OOC buy games. And I don't believe the Big Ten would support a threshold of 20K because that would eliminate 11 of the 12 MAC teams.

(01-14-2022 12:31 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  The MAC isn’t going to FCS.

The B1G Ten actually needs the MAC for their buy games.

You're assuming the current bowl eligibility rules. What's stopping the Autonomy 5 from changing them so that it becomes 6 wins and they don't care how many of them are FCS or make it that two of them can be FCS? They can make it 5 wins makes you bowl eligible if they wanted to. Besides, in 2021, only half of the Big Ten teams played an FCS team anyway. For Ohio State, Akron would become their FCS game. For Michigan, it would be Western Michigan. Penn State would probably not be able to play Ball State and Villanova in the same year assuming the current rules but again the A5 can change any rules if they want to.

(01-14-2022 04:38 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 11:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

This whole argument about splitting the FBS should be seen for what it is - - part of a bogus attempt that some of the P5 universities are making so they won't have to compete so often with non-P5 FBS teams on an even playing field.

. . . .

The P5s who are pushing this bogus argument appear to have such disdain for those listening to them that they don't think their audience is astute enough to realize that the non-P5 schools have been becoming more - - not less - - competitive with P5 teams in recent years.

.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/lq...8_seasons/



.

G5 teams have won a higher and higher percentage of their games vs. P5 teams since 2013.

RAW DATA POSTED HERE (click on win counts at base of page):

Note - it takes some time to sort through all the pages of data.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpWjLAh...ayAGD/view

.

As the figure indicates, the G5 teams won twice as many games vs. P5 teams in 2020 than they won in 2013. However, only 1/5th as many P5 vs. non-P5 games were played in 2020, as compared with a typical season.

Therefore, it would make the most sense to combine the 2020 and 2021* data on G5 vs. P5 games.

When the 2020 and 2021 data are combined, the result is consistent with the data in the figure, with slightly more than twice as many G5 wins vs. P5 teams in 2020 and 2021 as there were in 2013.

*In 2021, "the Group-of-Five finished the season at 27-77 (25.9%) versus the Power 5."

https://www.g5gurus.com/2021-records-by-g5-conference/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What all this shows is that the argument that some P5 schools are trying to make is inconsistent with and indeed flies in the face of the data showing that the non-P5 teams have been becoming more and more competitive with the P5 teams with each passing year.

Since the non-P5 teams are becoming more competitive, the proposal to separate the P5 from the non-P5 teams makes far less sense now than it once did - - and even then, it made so little sense that the motion wasn't adopted.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The question thus arises: What are those P5 schools so afraid of?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

In the last three normal (non-COVID) seasons, the MAC, CUSA, SBC and non-P5 indies have won 8, 8 and 6 games against P5 teams. That's 11% of the games played over that stretch. Those are the conferences/teams who would be at risk if a higher attendance standard were adopted. So the answer to your question is nothing.

(01-14-2022 01:59 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 11:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

Quote:"It's not on the table yet, but that's the first thing that's going to have to asked," said West Virginia AD Shane Lyons, a member of the Transformation Committee. "With those Transformation Committee members, what are we looking for? Is it membership requirements? There is the differential between schools that make $175 million and those that make $4 million.

Quote:The Transformation Committee is co-chaired by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Ohio AD Julie Cromer. By its mere composition, the committee foreshadows a separation. Sankey is head of the nation's most powerful football conference. Cromer is AD of a MAC school, which plays some of its games on weeknights to maximize exposure.

Quote:"Anything that has Sankey in it would give me an indication that the divide will get greater," said a college sports consultant who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the situation. "Julie being at Ohio, I really like Julie. She's smart as hell. I would see her and Sankey clashing big time. I suspect that's the case, but Greg's going to win every time because he can. He's got the power."

Quote:There are current minimum standards for FBS membership, including (just to name a few): sports sponsorship (16), minimum scheduling requirements (60% of games vs. FBS, 5+ home games) and average attendance (15,000). Raising the attendance minimum to 30,000 would alone theoretically cause 56 schools (43%) to lose FBS membership based on 2019 averages.

Quote:MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, whose conference might be one of those impacted by a higher cost of doing business, is not deterred.

"I'm comfortable based on conversations I've had among the FBS commissioners and with Greg Sankey," he said. "I don't think people should overreact or underreact to anything. Whatever the outcome, we're well positioned. Deregulation is really interesting to talk about in the abstract but is wicked hard to do in reality."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

MAC well positioned with midweek games? Its pushing 50 years since the Division 1A/1AA split of 1978 a period with an unprecedented influx of money into college athletics.

I would have to think if its going to be a massive increase in scholarships and coaches allotted across all sports the MAC would prefer to stop playing the game and move down to FCS. What would be the point in helping to shape new standards if the MAC couldn't take advantage of them?

Based on a 30,000 threshold for attendance (2019) and future alignments,

Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Houston, and WSU miss the cut.

Boise State, Fresno State, East Carolina, Memphis, Navy, USF, Army and Notre Dame make the cut.

B12 will help attendance at Houston. The P12 might agree to send some fans to Pullman, and the SEC and ACC will finally be cleansed of the smarties.

ACC replaces Duke and Wake, with East Carolina and USF. The SEC replaces Vanderbilt with Memphis. B12 adds Boise State and Fresno State.

MW, AAC (which picks up Duke, Wake Forest, and Vanderbilt), CUSA (which adds UMass and UConn for football), MAC, and Sub Belt continue as present, perhaps with a real championship 60 schools, 16 teams, AQ for conference champions 5+11.

Or maybe the maximums for scholarships and player salaries are increased, and each conference is permitted to set its own minimums and maximums.

That’s not how it works. If the majority of the conference satisfies the requirement, the whole conference is exempt.

Dennis is right to highlight this...the changing *D-I* constitution, which is different from the new NCAA constitution getting voted on next week, is the biggest issue that the rest of the college sports world isn't really grappling with right now.

Based on what I've been told, more membership divisions are more likely in non-football sports than football, but changing the membership benchmarks, I think, will almost certainly happen.

I don't think the MAC moves to "FCS" though. If there are new divisions...they will be completely new ones.

My thoughts on the Power 5/Autonomy 5: I don't think they really want to "exclude" anyone. They just want to make the rules, they want to be able to provide these things without the smaller schools saying we can't afford to do this. If the MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, etc. are OK with playing by the SEC/Big Ten, etc. rules, the Power 5 has no problem with letting them play. In other sports, does Division 1 really care if they are 350 or 500 schools? They'd let Wilkes University be a Division 1 school if they wanted. What they don't want is Wilkes University to say we can't afford to keep up so we want this rule to benefit us which would hurt Illinois and Penn State. Wilkes University doesn't want to (or can't afford to) play by the Division 1 rules/criteria so they're Division 3. Most of the Division 1 schools in men's basketball can't compete with the Big Ten or ACC but they don't care. In FBS, a lot of schools know they'll play in a bowl game every ten years if they're lucky but they don't care and the Pac 12/SEC don't care as long as they're in charge. The P5's statement to the G5's are simple, we make the rules and you can play, don't like them and you're out of here. If you're the MAC or C-USA, you don't like it but would you rather be Alabama's you know what or kick North Dakota State's you know what and make a lot less money? You know the answer to that. And the trend when it comes to the number of FBS schools vs. FCS schools I believe is growing, not falling.

(01-14-2022 08:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  My thoughts on the Power 5/Autonomy 5: I don't think they really want to "exclude" anyone. They just want to make the rules, they want to be able to provide these things without the smaller schools saying we can't afford to do this. If the MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, etc. are OK with playing by the SEC/Big Ten, etc. rules, the Power 5 has no problem with letting them play. In other sports, does Division 1 really care if they are 350 or 500 schools? They'd let Wilkes University be a Division 1 school if they wanted. What they don't want is Wilkes University to say we can't afford to keep up so we want this rule to benefit us which would hurt Illinois and Penn State. Wilkes University doesn't want to (or can't afford to) play by the Division 1 rules/criteria so they're Division 3. Most of the Division 1 schools in men's basketball can't compete with the Big Ten or ACC but they don't care. In FBS, a lot of schools know they'll play in a bowl game every ten years if they're lucky but they don't care and the Pac 12/SEC don't care as long as they're in charge. The P5's statement to the G5's are simple, we make the rules and you can play, don't like them and you're out of here. If you're the MAC or C-USA, you don't like it but would you rather be Alabama's you know what or kick North Dakota State's you know what and make a lot less money? You know the answer to that. And the trend when it comes to the number of FBS schools vs. FCS schools I believe is growing, not falling.

I agree about the P5. I don't think they care whatsoever about attendance requirements or any factor other than (1) whether a Division I school is fulfilling its scholarship obligations and (2) those other schools aren't imposing their own financial limitations on the P5. (Point #2 is where you see the P5 schools complaining about the lower resource schools in the OP article as opposed to arbitrary figures like attendance.) That's really what their autonomy status is all about - the P5 want to set their own standards and everyone else can choose to follow them or not.

It's really those just outside of the P5, such as the AAC and MWC schools, that would benefit the most from culling the bottom of the current FBS ranks. They're the ones that get a bump in status and prestige if FBS (or whatever we call the top level of football going forward) isn't as large but they're still a part of it.

(01-14-2022 04:38 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 11:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

This whole argument about splitting the FBS should be seen for what it is - - part of a bogus attempt that some of the P5 universities are making so they won't have to compete so often with non-P5 FBS teams on an even playing field.

. . . .

The P5s who are pushing this bogus argument appear to have such disdain for those listening to them that they don't think their audience is astute enough to realize that the non-P5 schools have been becoming more - - not less - - competitive with P5 teams in recent years.

.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/lq...8_seasons/



.

G5 teams have won a higher and higher percentage of their games vs. P5 teams since 2013.

RAW DATA POSTED HERE (click on win counts at base of page):

Note - it takes some time to sort through all the pages of data.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpWjLAh...ayAGD/view

.

As the figure indicates, the G5 teams won twice as many games vs. P5 teams in 2020 than they won in 2013. However, only 1/5th as many P5 vs. non-P5 games were played in 2020, as compared with a typical season.

Therefore, it would make the most sense to combine the 2020 and 2021* data on G5 vs. P5 games.

When the 2020 and 2021 data are combined, the result is consistent with the data in the figure, with slightly more than twice as many G5 wins vs. P5 teams in 2020 and 2021 as there were in 2013.

*In 2021, "the Group-of-Five finished the season at 27-77 (25.9%) versus the Power 5."

https://www.g5gurus.com/2021-records-by-g5-conference/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What all this shows is that the argument that some P5 schools are trying to make is inconsistent with and indeed flies in the face of the data showing that the non-P5 teams have been becoming more and more competitive with the P5 teams with each passing year.

Since the non-P5 teams are becoming more competitive, the proposal to separate the P5 from the non-P5 teams makes far less sense now than it once did - - and even then, it made so little sense that the motion wasn't adopted.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The question thus arises: What are those P5 schools so afraid of?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

What happens when BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, and UCF switch sides?

There may be selection bias (by the teams).

For example, what happens if a weaker Pac 12 school is booking OOC games? Would Virginia arrange a H-and-H with Oregon State? Probably not. It is a long flight out, few supporters will be able to follow the team. Few alumni live in Oregon and Virginia does not recruit the state. The next year, they may not sell out when Oregon State returns.

Maybe Oregon State books a money game against a Big Sky FCS opponent. Montana and Montana State are more attractive, and will charge more. Oregon State is stuck with maybe Eastern Washington or Portland State or Weber State.

So now Oregon State has to book a game against a Mountain West opponent. They will insist on Home-and-Home.

Meanwhile, Washington and USC are attractive opponents for B1G and B12 opponents who will fly halfway across the country to play them. It would be interesting to see the number of G5 home and away games by P5 school.

So the question is, is the perceived weakness of the G5 vs. P5 because they are played mostly at P5 stadiums; or is because weaker G5 schools can only get money games at P5 schools.

(01-14-2022 10:42 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 04:38 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 11:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I found a quite a number of interesting quotes in this article:

Quote:The elephant in the room in is a potential further division of the FBS. Which schools are going to make the cut, and which will be relegated to what has long been referred to as "Division IV"? While a splitting of FBS is not a certainty, it is more likely now than at any time since that last big division in 1978.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

This whole argument about splitting the FBS should be seen for what it is - - part of a bogus attempt that some of the P5 universities are making so they won't have to compete so often with non-P5 FBS teams on an even playing field.

. . . .

The P5s who are pushing this bogus argument appear to have such disdain for those listening to them that they don't think their audience is astute enough to realize that the non-P5 schools have been becoming more - - not less - - competitive with P5 teams in recent years.

.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/lq...8_seasons/



.

G5 teams have won a higher and higher percentage of their games vs. P5 teams since 2013.

RAW DATA POSTED HERE (click on win counts at base of page):

Note - it takes some time to sort through all the pages of data.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpWjLAh...ayAGD/view

.

As the figure indicates, the G5 teams won twice as many games vs. P5 teams in 2020 than they won in 2013. However, only 1/5th as many P5 vs. non-P5 games were played in 2020, as compared with a typical season.

Therefore, it would make the most sense to combine the 2020 and 2021* data on G5 vs. P5 games.

When the 2020 and 2021 data are combined, the result is consistent with the data in the figure, with slightly more than twice as many G5 wins vs. P5 teams in 2020 and 2021 as there were in 2013.

*In 2021, "the Group-of-Five finished the season at 27-77 (25.9%) versus the Power 5."

https://www.g5gurus.com/2021-records-by-g5-conference/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What all this shows is that the argument that some P5 schools are trying to make is inconsistent with and indeed flies in the face of the data showing that the non-P5 teams have been becoming more and more competitive with the P5 teams with each passing year.

Since the non-P5 teams are becoming more competitive, the proposal to separate the P5 from the non-P5 teams makes far less sense now than it once did - - and even then, it made so little sense that the motion wasn't adopted.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The question thus arises: What are those P5 schools so afraid of?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

What happens when BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, and UCF switch sides?

There may be selection bias (by the teams).

For example, what happens if a weaker Pac 12 school is booking OOC games? Would Virginia arrange a H-and-H with Oregon State? Probably not. It is a long flight out, few supporters will be able to follow the team. Few alumni live in Oregon and Virginia does not recruit the state. The next year, they may not sell out when Oregon State returns.

Maybe Oregon State books a money game against a Big Sky FCS opponent. Montana and Montana State are more attractive, and will charge more. Oregon State is stuck with maybe Eastern Washington or Portland State or Weber State.

So now Oregon State has to book a game against a Mountain West opponent. They will insist on Home-and-Home.

Meanwhile, Washington and USC are attractive opponents for B1G and B12 opponents who will fly halfway across the country to play them. It would be interesting to see the number of G5 home and away games by P5 school.

So the question is, is the perceived weakness of the G5 vs. P5 because they are played mostly at P5 stadiums; or is because weaker G5 schools can only get money games at P5 schools.

Interesting that you chose Virginia-Oregon State as your example.

Virginia has recently played home-away series with BYU(x2), Boise State, Oregon, and UCLA. '14 in Provo, '15 in Los Angeles, '16 in Eugene, '17 in Boise and '21 in Provo. They have a future series with Kansas.

While Oregon State generally does play a Big Sky FCS home game and a MWC home-away series, the Beavers have recent and upcoming home-away series with Minnesota, Purdue, Ole Miss, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State.

(01-14-2022 08:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 08:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  My thoughts on the Power 5/Autonomy 5: I don't think they really want to "exclude" anyone. They just want to make the rules, they want to be able to provide these things without the smaller schools saying we can't afford to do this. If the MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, etc. are OK with playing by the SEC/Big Ten, etc. rules, the Power 5 has no problem with letting them play. In other sports, does Division 1 really care if they are 350 or 500 schools? They'd let Wilkes University be a Division 1 school if they wanted. What they don't want is Wilkes University to say we can't afford to keep up so we want this rule to benefit us which would hurt Illinois and Penn State. Wilkes University doesn't want to (or can't afford to) play by the Division 1 rules/criteria so they're Division 3. Most of the Division 1 schools in men's basketball can't compete with the Big Ten or ACC but they don't care. In FBS, a lot of schools know they'll play in a bowl game every ten years if they're lucky but they don't care and the Pac 12/SEC don't care as long as they're in charge. The P5's statement to the G5's are simple, we make the rules and you can play, don't like them and you're out of here. If you're the MAC or C-USA, you don't like it but would you rather be Alabama's you know what or kick North Dakota State's you know what and make a lot less money? You know the answer to that. And the trend when it comes to the number of FBS schools vs. FCS schools I believe is growing, not falling.

I agree about the P5. I don't think they care whatsoever about attendance requirements or any factor other than (1) whether a Division I school is fulfilling its scholarship obligations and (2) those other schools aren't imposing their own financial limitations on the P5. (Point #2 is where you see the P5 schools complaining about the lower resource schools in the OP article as opposed to arbitrary figures like attendance.) That's really what their autonomy status is all about - the P5 want to set their own standards and everyone else can choose to follow them or not.

It's really those just outside of the P5, such as the AAC and MWC schools, that would benefit the most from culling the bottom of the current FBS ranks. They're the ones that get a bump in status and prestige if FBS (or whatever we call the top level of football going forward) isn't as large but they're still a part of it.

The MAC singularly could see the impetus to move to FCS. All of their members have been in a small corner of FBS for 25 years and could make an argument that revenues have topped out.

CUSA and SBC have a lot of newer FCS to FBS markets in growing demographics and less loyalty to their conference situation. They would probably elect to pay up to stay at the top level, aside from a few that might cry uncle.