(08-13-2013 11:14 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  So how do the P5 schedule games in the event of a messy divorce? They would have to fundamentally change to an "NFL model" if they couldn't load up the ooc schedule with MAC, C*USA, AAC, Sun Belt, and MWC schools, not to mention an occasional FCS school.

Perhaps more importantly, the home/away schedules would have to be even. ND, Ohio State, etc. couldn't have eight home games and four road games every year.

Do they really want to do that?

You just hit on a hot topic. This is the value that a proposed conference would have if it goes up to Division 1 with the big boys.

That is a value commodity for it to control. That commodity is the SoS value of their potential OOC games against the Majors. They will be the regional match ups of choice for many of the Majors who will want such games but wont want a major SoS hit from their ooc schedules.

That is why these schools in question will be very selective in who they let into their brand new country club. That is why they would be tossing around the idea of starting a new conference despite the cost of losing any NCAA credits that their old conferences have. The value of that new entity absolutely would outweigh the opportunity cost of creating it. At least that is the theory behind why they would create an entirely new conference entity.

(08-13-2013 11:15 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around.

Are there any links for that?

The linked article is primarily about a vote on a football playoff in the 1970s. However, the last third or so is about the then impending 1-A split with the notion that 81 schools would end up in 1-A. The Big 8 commissioner mentioned in the article will be a familiar name in this seemingly never ending discussion within the NCAA.

1-A Split

"Some of the football powers have threatened to pull out of the NCAA if decisions damaging their operations continue to be made, but this is interpreted as smoke."


Some things never change...

(08-13-2013 11:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:14 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  So how do the P5 schedule games in the event of a messy divorce? They would have to fundamentally change to an "NFL model" if they couldn't load up the ooc schedule with MAC, C*USA, AAC, Sun Belt, and MWC schools, not to mention an occasional FCS school.

Perhaps more importantly, the home/away schedules would have to be even. ND, Ohio State, etc. couldn't have eight home games and four road games every year.

Do they really want to do that?

You just hit on a hot topic. This is the value that a proposed conference would have if it goes up to Division 1 with the big boys.

That is a value commodity for it to control. That commodity is the SoS value of their potential OOC games against the Majors. They will be the regional match ups of choice for many of the Majors who will want such games but wont want a major SoS hit from their ooc schedules.

That is why these schools in question will be very selective in who they let into their brand new country club. That is why they would be tossing around the idea of starting a new conference despite the cost of losing any NCAA credits that their old conferences have. The value of that new entity absolutely would outweigh the opportunity cost of creating it. At least that is the theory behind why they would create an entirely new conference entity.

I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

(08-13-2013 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you go back and read newspaper reports around 1975 when Division IV was first being discussed, 60 to 80 were the numbers being bounced around. When we got I-A/I-AA instead it ended up being 105.

I suspect 60-70 is an opening bid.

The potential damages for a Sun Belt / MAC are pretty big. Compare their peanuts TV deals to what their neighbors in the OVC, Southern, Southland, Valley get for TV in football and it's a decent amount of money that merely having the FBS label brings. That's before considering the CFP revenue share and there's a lot more money there.

Rattle the saber, get the concessions you want and then declare everyone a big happy family again.

Well in 1982, they got down to 97 for 1 year before relenting and letting the rest of the MAC and Cincinnati back in. The CFA was around 85. I don't think P5 alone is viable. There are too many schools that would be shut out that don't have any significant gap between them and the bottom of the P5 competitively and financially (expenditures and revenues other than TV). They also have some political clout.

They would like to get rid of the Sun Belt and MAC again (note where all the examples come from), but I suspect they will settle for all of FBS and then pass rules to try to make it financially difficult for the Sun Belt, MAC and new CUSA schools to stay.

(08-13-2013 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:14 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  So how do the P5 schedule games in the event of a messy divorce? They would have to fundamentally change to an "NFL model" if they couldn't load up the ooc schedule with MAC, C*USA, AAC, Sun Belt, and MWC schools, not to mention an occasional FCS school.

Perhaps more importantly, the home/away schedules would have to be even. ND, Ohio State, etc. couldn't have eight home games and four road games every year.

Do they really want to do that?

You just hit on a hot topic. This is the value that a proposed conference would have if it goes up to Division 1 with the big boys.

That is a value commodity for it to control. That commodity is the SoS value of their potential OOC games against the Majors. They will be the regional match ups of choice for many of the Majors who will want such games but wont want a major SoS hit from their ooc schedules.

That is why these schools in question will be very selective in who they let into their brand new country club. That is why they would be tossing around the idea of starting a new conference despite the cost of losing any NCAA credits that their old conferences have. The value of that new entity absolutely would outweigh the opportunity cost of creating it. At least that is the theory behind why they would create an entirely new conference entity.

I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

(08-13-2013 11:18 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Great find, LIS.

I guess 81 is close to "60 to 80".

I'd be fascinated to know who those 81 were back in the days of President Gerald Ford. I'm positive it didn't include Utah. Louisville, Miami (FL), and AZ/AZState would've been on the fence.

Stumbled on that article looking for something else a few years ago. Best guess on the 81 members at the time the article was written, 1976:
ACC (8)
SEC (10)
Big Ten (10)
Big 8 (8)
SWC (8)
WAC (8)
PAC 8 (8)
Eastern Independents [BC, SU, RU, TU, PSU, PITT, WVU] (7)
Service Acadamies (3)
ND
Metro Conference Members that played football [UC, UL, GT, TU, MEM, FSU, VT, SC, USM] (9)
Miami

That gets you to 81.

(08-13-2013 11:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:14 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  So how do the P5 schedule games in the event of a messy divorce? They would have to fundamentally change to an "NFL model" if they couldn't load up the ooc schedule with MAC, C*USA, AAC, Sun Belt, and MWC schools, not to mention an occasional FCS school.

Perhaps more importantly, the home/away schedules would have to be even. ND, Ohio State, etc. couldn't have eight home games and four road games every year.

Do they really want to do that?

You just hit on a hot topic. This is the value that a proposed conference would have if it goes up to Division 1 with the big boys.

That is a value commodity for it to control. That commodity is the SoS value of their potential OOC games against the Majors. They will be the regional match ups of choice for many of the Majors who will want such games but wont want a major SoS hit from their ooc schedules.

That is why these schools in question will be very selective in who they let into their brand new country club. That is why they would be tossing around the idea of starting a new conference despite the cost of losing any NCAA credits that their old conferences have. The value of that new entity absolutely would outweigh the opportunity cost of creating it. At least that is the theory behind why they would create an entirely new conference entity.

I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

The D4 thing is going to happen in some for or another. Personally I think it will be a governance thing and not the breakaway that some people think.

The obstacles to overcome in a true breakaway are massive. The motivations for it are unclear and ill defined.

The existing contracts with the NCAA tournament and the new BCS/Playoff system are a big obstacle too. The only way a breakaway happens is if somebody sponsors it. What is ESPNS motivation here? No one has convinced me that it is in their interest for a breakaway to happen.

If the argument is that it is all about making more money for the P5, then the whole issue is the NCAA tournament and the fact that the NCAA keeps the majority of that money. If they're that unhappy with the NCAA, it seems like they would just fire Emmert and put their own puppet in charge.

If the argument is that it is about consolidating the market of content sellers, well the horse has left the barn. They all signed long term media deals, and the market has been consolidated already. The amount that the G5 get in TV is negligible, and not coming at the expense of the P5 anyway. So I find that argument unconvincing too.

(08-13-2013 11:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:14 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  So how do the P5 schedule games in the event of a messy divorce? They would have to fundamentally change to an "NFL model" if they couldn't load up the ooc schedule with MAC, C*USA, AAC, Sun Belt, and MWC schools, not to mention an occasional FCS school.

Perhaps more importantly, the home/away schedules would have to be even. ND, Ohio State, etc. couldn't have eight home games and four road games every year.

Do they really want to do that?

You just hit on a hot topic. This is the value that a proposed conference would have if it goes up to Division 1 with the big boys.

That is a value commodity for it to control. That commodity is the SoS value of their potential OOC games against the Majors. They will be the regional match ups of choice for many of the Majors who will want such games but wont want a major SoS hit from their ooc schedules.

That is why these schools in question will be very selective in who they let into their brand new country club. That is why they would be tossing around the idea of starting a new conference despite the cost of losing any NCAA credits that their old conferences have. The value of that new entity absolutely would outweigh the opportunity cost of creating it. At least that is the theory behind why they would create an entirely new conference entity.

I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

So if you boost how much that Tournament is worth and you cut down the pieces to be cut out of that pie, then that increases the value to those who still get a cut. That is how schools like Purdue eventually have to lean less upon how many home games they have. Going from 7 to 6 isn't such a big deal if all that lost revenue is made up elsewhere.

(08-13-2013 10:24 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I fully expect a "Mike Aldan is an ass" thread to be started by angry Eastern Michigan fans. Don't let me down.

Sorry, but there are only about 3,300 of them, so don't expect much.

someone else brought up a very good point about the home/away games ratio being affected.

michigan, ohio state, & penn state have large stadiums + a large amount of non revenue sports. those 3 schools literally cant afford to give up home games

(08-13-2013 11:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You just hit on a hot topic. This is the value that a proposed conference would have if it goes up to Division 1 with the big boys.

That is a value commodity for it to control. That commodity is the SoS value of their potential OOC games against the Majors. They will be the regional match ups of choice for many of the Majors who will want such games but wont want a major SoS hit from their ooc schedules.

That is why these schools in question will be very selective in who they let into their brand new country club. That is why they would be tossing around the idea of starting a new conference despite the cost of losing any NCAA credits that their old conferences have. The value of that new entity absolutely would outweigh the opportunity cost of creating it. At least that is the theory behind why they would create an entirely new conference entity.

I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

So if you boost how much that Tournament is worth and you cut down the pieces to be cut out of that pie, then that increases the value to those who still get a cut. That is how schools like Purdue eventually have to lean less upon how many home games they have. Going from 7 to 6 isn't such a big deal if all that lost revenue is made up elsewhere.

For the MAC it was chump change. And it will cost more to pay a P5 school to play at Purdue than it would've cost to bring in a MAC school.

(08-13-2013 11:21 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  1-A Split

"Some of the football powers have threatened to pull out of the NCAA if decisions damaging their operations continue to be made, but this is interpreted as smoke."


Some things never change...

Indeed, yes. Plus ça change...

(08-13-2013 11:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  someone else brought up a very good point about the home/away games ratio being affected.

michigan, ohio state, & penn state have large stadiums + a large amount of non revenue sports. those 3 schools literally cant afford to give up home games

What a crock of .

(08-13-2013 11:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  someone else brought up a very good point about the home/away games ratio being affected.

michigan, ohio state, & penn state have large stadiums + a large amount of non revenue sports. those 3 schools literally cant afford to give up home games

In a system much like the old traditional system of college football? I would say you would be absolutely correct.

With all the possibilities of change that could come with a new Division and the Majors in control of the rules for it? Making such absolute statements about what we absolutely do not have precedent for is not a great point to be made.

They can afford to give up a home game if that revenue can be made up somewhere else. That is standard business procedure. Cant get caught up in only one revenue stream. If a loss there can be made up by a similar gain elsewhere then all is well. THAT is a truth. I am not saying the numbers match up but the possibility is there with these Schools finally taking control of themselves instead of being held back in the Stone Age of college sports by schools that don't even participate.

The old rules don't necessarily apply.

(08-13-2013 11:44 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

So if you boost how much that Tournament is worth and you cut down the pieces to be cut out of that pie, then that increases the value to those who still get a cut. That is how schools like Purdue eventually have to lean less upon how many home games they have. Going from 7 to 6 isn't such a big deal if all that lost revenue is made up elsewhere.

For the MAC it was chump change. And it will cost more to pay a P5 school to play at Purdue than it would've cost to bring in a MAC school.

Not really, in this new system those schools will WANT those match ups. The cost will come in that they likely negotiate from a stronger position in order to get return home games.

This gatekeeper conference and its teams will be in the running to get into the National Tournament as well. They will NEED games against the Majors in order to have a chance at getting in with their SoS's.

(08-13-2013 11:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You just hit on a hot topic. This is the value that a proposed conference would have if it goes up to Division 1 with the big boys.

That is a value commodity for it to control. That commodity is the SoS value of their potential OOC games against the Majors. They will be the regional match ups of choice for many of the Majors who will want such games but wont want a major SoS hit from their ooc schedules.

That is why these schools in question will be very selective in who they let into their brand new country club. That is why they would be tossing around the idea of starting a new conference despite the cost of losing any NCAA credits that their old conferences have. The value of that new entity absolutely would outweigh the opportunity cost of creating it. At least that is the theory behind why they would create an entirely new conference entity.

I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

So if you boost how much that Tournament is worth and you cut down the pieces to be cut out of that pie, then that increases the value to those who still get a cut. That is how schools like Purdue eventually have to lean less upon how many home games they have. Going from 7 to 6 isn't such a big deal if all that lost revenue is made up elsewhere.

Cutting the G5 out of the playoff payout would add about a million a year in payout to each P5 schools payout. The P5 aren't going to breakaway over a million a year. And again, why would ESPN support this? They're the ones that own the rights to televise a lot of the G5 games, do they want to see that product destroyed and the overall college football tv market diminished?

(08-13-2013 11:48 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't understand. How does that make Purdue able to manage with only 6 home games when they've already said they can't do it now?

Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

So if you boost how much that Tournament is worth and you cut down the pieces to be cut out of that pie, then that increases the value to those who still get a cut. That is how schools like Purdue eventually have to lean less upon how many home games they have. Going from 7 to 6 isn't such a big deal if all that lost revenue is made up elsewhere.

Cutting the G5 out of the playoff payout would add about a million a year in payout to each P5 schools payout. The P5 aren't going to breakaway over a million a year. And again, why would ESPN support this? They're the ones that own the rights to televise a lot of the G5 games, do they want to see that product destroyed and the overall college football tv market diminished?

A million a year would definitely help offset the cost of losing a home game for the likes of Purdue and THAT is what we are talking about right? That is what we are talking about in the conversation that you added to with this post. In that regard you just helped my point.

In terms of ESPN, they may or may not like it but if the Major Conferences push it then ESPN will adapt.

(08-13-2013 10:27 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  then why hasn't FCS sued FBS?

membership in FBS is now invitation only

Not sure - maybe because they have left the invite at this point to the conferences. The NCAA doesn't currently have veto power if, say, the SunBelt wants to invite 15 more FCS schools.

(08-13-2013 11:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:48 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Probably about every third year they will have to manage with only 6 home games. In terms of not being able to manage? They are bluffing, they can. Perhaps it will be tight but college football under this new system will be more monetized than ever before. The Conference Tournament monetization. The increased value of every single regular season game due to the increased value of the post season. The increased size of the National Tournament which leads to more money being spread around.

The monetization of college football is about to skyrocket. People wonder how the Big Ten was making such huge estimations to the University of Maryland. Well we are finally beginning to see what these folks at the top have known about for quite some time.

Purdue will be fine with 6 home games some years.

What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

So if you boost how much that Tournament is worth and you cut down the pieces to be cut out of that pie, then that increases the value to those who still get a cut. That is how schools like Purdue eventually have to lean less upon how many home games they have. Going from 7 to 6 isn't such a big deal if all that lost revenue is made up elsewhere.

Cutting the G5 out of the playoff payout would add about a million a year in payout to each P5 schools payout. The P5 aren't going to breakaway over a million a year. And again, why would ESPN support this? They're the ones that own the rights to televise a lot of the G5 games, do they want to see that product destroyed and the overall college football tv market diminished?

A million a year would definitely help offset the cost of losing a home game for the likes of Purdue and THAT is what we are talking about right? That is what we are talking about in the conversation that you added to with this post. In that regard you just helped my point.

In terms of ESPN, they may or may not like it but if the Major Conferences push it then ESPN will adapt.

So Purdue et all are going to go to all the trouble to form a new exclusive division and the prize is being revenue neutral?