(07-24-2014 09:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:05 AM)TruBlu Wrote:  Tulane replaced by LaTech
ECU replaced by ODU
Memphis replaced by MT
UCF replaced by FAU
Tulsa replaced by UTSA
SMU replaced by NT

I'd wager only two of those AAC teams would be favored in a five year football matchup with their replacement.

The seven programs that have withdrawn from C-USA this year or last year:
East Carolina
Houston
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa
UCF

The nine programs that have/will take their place:
Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Louisiana Tech
Middle Tennessee
North Texas
Old Dominion
Texas/San Antonio
Western Kentucky

Assume a full round-robin schedule (63 games) played on neutral fields with neutral refs and 50/50 crowd support. My honest guess is that the former C-USA teams would win about 70-75% of the games.

All I know is I saw my school play .500 bowl and still beat Tulane just last year. You guys aren't worthy of smack talking CUSA. Some others sure. But not fricken Tulane....

(07-24-2014 09:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:05 AM)TruBlu Wrote:  Tulane replaced by LaTech
ECU replaced by ODU
Memphis replaced by MT
UCF replaced by FAU
Tulsa replaced by UTSA
SMU replaced by NT

I'd wager only two of those AAC teams would be favored in a five year football matchup with their replacement.

The seven programs that have withdrawn from C-USA this year or last year:
East Carolina
Houston
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa
UCF

The nine programs that have/will take their place:
Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Louisiana Tech
Middle Tennessee
North Texas
Old Dominion
Texas/San Antonio
Western Kentucky

Assume a full round-robin schedule (63 games) played on neutral fields with neutral refs and 50/50 crowd support. My honest guess is that the former C-USA teams would win about 70-75% of the games.

Well we've never lost to any of the new schools.

(07-25-2014 12:10 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 09:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The seven programs that have withdrawn from C-USA this year or last year:
East Carolina
Houston
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa
UCF

The nine programs that have/will take their place:
Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Louisiana Tech
Middle Tennessee
North Texas
Old Dominion
Texas/San Antonio
Western Kentucky

Assume a full round-robin schedule (63 games) played on neutral fields with neutral refs and 50/50 crowd support. My honest guess is that the former C-USA teams would win about 70-75% of the games.

All I know is I saw my school play .500 bowl and still beat Tulane just last year. You guys aren't worthy of smack talking CUSA. Some others sure. But not fricken Tulane....

If you think my post was smack-talk, then you don't understand what smack-talk is.

I'm just saying football programs like East Carolina, Houston etc acting like they are above my school, I am cool with that. But if Memphis, Tulane etc fans get cocky, I mean FAU can compete with them. Beat Memphis in a bowl game in the last decade and just beat Tulane last year. I like to compare programs one on one. Don't get the fans that ride coattails when their school isn't a top tier one in that conference. (not calling you out as one who does this).

Personally I think that all G5 conferences are in the same 2nd tier. Some can be called better but it's like saying one Triple A team is better than the other. Really means very little in the grand scheme of things.

(07-25-2014 06:57 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:53 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:18 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 10:05 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Umm let's see.

Division one college football began the BCS football system. No non power program EVER played in the national championship. Non power programs eventually squeezed into BCS bowls because of computers. The media and the majority of fans complained when this happened.

Non power teams began to become a regular occurrence in BCS bowls and even started winning.

Conveniently NIU the computers helped place NIU in a BCS bowl game.

Shortly after the computers have been completely eliminated. And now we have an all human "selection committee" which includes Oliver Luck of all people.

On top of that guess which five conferences did not get an contract with a major bowl game?

And now the NCAA is about to vote on governance.

This all happened when teams like NIU started going to BCS bowls.

Sorry bud but I call it like I see it. I'm not saying NIU does not have a good football program but G5 teams will be lucky to even be in the same division as the power conferences next year. I'm also an Alabama fan so I can see both sides of this issue. G5 teams want a fair chance to compete and P5 teams plus the media want to see the best match ups possible.

The reality is that when teams like Ohio State play most G5 teams it's like watching an NFL team vs a High school football team. No one is winning in this current set up.

the reality is when teams like Ohio State play most G5 teams they always play at home. No one is winning in this current setup because the "P5" has engineered a contract that pays them $900 million more than the other 5 conferences in their league over the next 12 years. You want more exciting matchups, stop forcing half the league into a financial disadvantage so severe it can't provide a consistent threat.

As for NIU losing a game where they started the 4th quarter with a tie score- The precious Notre Dame is 0-4 in BCS Bowls with 3 of those losses by +28pts. If you want to ban a team from playing in the post season start with the one in South Bend.

As for voters deciding who gets the playoff games- why not have a system where every member of the league has a chance to play for a championship, you know, like every other sports league on the planet? The truth is for all of the tough talk from schools like your precious Alabama, you guys don't have the balls to level the playing field and allow the other half of the league to compete. The SEC is playing 47 of 56 OOC games vs non P5 teams and 47 of 56 OOC games are at home? COWARDS.

Now ask yourself why Ohio state has the ability to do this and why lesser programs agree. Because it's not an equal playing field no matter how you look at it.

Ohio State would probably be more receptive to playing at a G5 opponent if the G5 opponent could make it worth their while.

Looking at this:
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/tickets...ation.html
A single game ticket to any home game except VT and Michigan this year is $79. Ohio Stadium seats 102,329. $79 x 102,329 = $8,083,991. How many G5 opponents do you know that can do that?

Oh yeah, that's just ticket sales. It doesn't account for parking, concessions, etc.

You were saying?

and that is exactly why the P5 has engineered a grossly unfair revenue distribution between the Haves and the Have Nots, to keep the Have Nots so poor they have to give into Ohio State's (and other P5 teams) demand of playing pay for play games and not 1 for 1s.

Currently Ohio State plays 3 pay for plays against non P5s and 1 home and home with a weak P5 as their OOC opponents. That means they play 7 of 8 OOC games at home in a 2yr cycle at home.

If the P5 were ever to follow through on their BS bluff of only playing other P5s only, Ohio State would have to play all 1 for 1s which would mean 4 of 8 OOC games at home every two years instead of 7 of 8. 3 less home games would be a loss, by your numbers, of $24 million every two years in ticket revenue alone, PLUS the cost of 3 more road games.

This is why the P5 will never split from the G5 and also why they will never allow the G5 to have equal revenue distribution. And for that reason its critical that something be done about this corrupt system.

Nice rant dude. Exactly which revenue "distribution system" has the P5 engineered to be unfair?

And the loss wouldn't be $24 million because as the pricing difference of $110 for the VT game vs $79 for the Kent game shows. The VT game is bringing in an additional $3 million + in ticket revenue alone compared to the Kent game. Replace Kent with a VT level opponent, say Arizona State for argument's sake, and that's $3 million in additional revenue, plus a far greater chance of the game being on one of the national networks instead of the Big 10 Network.

(07-25-2014 11:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:57 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:53 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:18 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  the reality is when teams like Ohio State play most G5 teams they always play at home. No one is winning in this current setup because the "P5" has engineered a contract that pays them $900 million more than the other 5 conferences in their league over the next 12 years. You want more exciting matchups, stop forcing half the league into a financial disadvantage so severe it can't provide a consistent threat.

As for NIU losing a game where they started the 4th quarter with a tie score- The precious Notre Dame is 0-4 in BCS Bowls with 3 of those losses by +28pts. If you want to ban a team from playing in the post season start with the one in South Bend.

As for voters deciding who gets the playoff games- why not have a system where every member of the league has a chance to play for a championship, you know, like every other sports league on the planet? The truth is for all of the tough talk from schools like your precious Alabama, you guys don't have the balls to level the playing field and allow the other half of the league to compete. The SEC is playing 47 of 56 OOC games vs non P5 teams and 47 of 56 OOC games are at home? COWARDS.

Now ask yourself why Ohio state has the ability to do this and why lesser programs agree. Because it's not an equal playing field no matter how you look at it.

Ohio State would probably be more receptive to playing at a G5 opponent if the G5 opponent could make it worth their while.

Looking at this:
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/tickets...ation.html
A single game ticket to any home game except VT and Michigan this year is $79. Ohio Stadium seats 102,329. $79 x 102,329 = $8,083,991. How many G5 opponents do you know that can do that?

Oh yeah, that's just ticket sales. It doesn't account for parking, concessions, etc.

You were saying?

and that is exactly why the P5 has engineered a grossly unfair revenue distribution between the Haves and the Have Nots, to keep the Have Nots so poor they have to give into Ohio State's (and other P5 teams) demand of playing pay for play games and not 1 for 1s.

Currently Ohio State plays 3 pay for plays against non P5s and 1 home and home with a weak P5 as their OOC opponents. That means they play 7 of 8 OOC games at home in a 2yr cycle at home.

If the P5 were ever to follow through on their BS bluff of only playing other P5s only, Ohio State would have to play all 1 for 1s which would mean 4 of 8 OOC games at home every two years instead of 7 of 8. 3 less home games would be a loss, by your numbers, of $24 million every two years in ticket revenue alone, PLUS the cost of 3 more road games.

This is why the P5 will never split from the G5 and also why they will never allow the G5 to have equal revenue distribution. And for that reason its critical that something be done about this corrupt system.

Nice rant dude. Exactly which revenue "distribution system" has the P5 engineered to be unfair?

And the loss wouldn't be $24 million because as the pricing difference of $110 for the VT game vs $79 for the Kent game shows. The VT game is bringing in an additional $3 million + in ticket revenue alone compared to the Kent game. Replace Kent with a VT level opponent, say Arizona State for argument's sake, and that's $3 million in additional revenue, plus a far greater chance of the game being on one of the national networks instead of the Big 10 Network.

the revenue for the CFP contract between ESPN and FBS. The labels "P5" and "G5" were created so half of the members of the league could get more than 3X the revenue share as the other half.

There's no way Ohio State keeps 7 of 8 OOC games at home playing only other P5 teams, the lost ticket revenue and increased travel costs is significant.

Plus, by playing teams that have the financial means to be more competitive, and the additional games played away there is a guaranteed increase in losses. Suddenly all of these 4-0 P5 teams at the end of Sept are now 2-2 or 1-3 and the bandwagon portion of their fan bases will revolt. It's all a scam.

(07-26-2014 01:51 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 11:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:57 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:53 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Now ask yourself why Ohio state has the ability to do this and why lesser programs agree. Because it's not an equal playing field no matter how you look at it.

Ohio State would probably be more receptive to playing at a G5 opponent if the G5 opponent could make it worth their while.

Looking at this:
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/tickets...ation.html
A single game ticket to any home game except VT and Michigan this year is $79. Ohio Stadium seats 102,329. $79 x 102,329 = $8,083,991. How many G5 opponents do you know that can do that?

Oh yeah, that's just ticket sales. It doesn't account for parking, concessions, etc.

You were saying?

and that is exactly why the P5 has engineered a grossly unfair revenue distribution between the Haves and the Have Nots, to keep the Have Nots so poor they have to give into Ohio State's (and other P5 teams) demand of playing pay for play games and not 1 for 1s.

Currently Ohio State plays 3 pay for plays against non P5s and 1 home and home with a weak P5 as their OOC opponents. That means they play 7 of 8 OOC games at home in a 2yr cycle at home.

If the P5 were ever to follow through on their BS bluff of only playing other P5s only, Ohio State would have to play all 1 for 1s which would mean 4 of 8 OOC games at home every two years instead of 7 of 8. 3 less home games would be a loss, by your numbers, of $24 million every two years in ticket revenue alone, PLUS the cost of 3 more road games.

This is why the P5 will never split from the G5 and also why they will never allow the G5 to have equal revenue distribution. And for that reason its critical that something be done about this corrupt system.

Nice rant dude. Exactly which revenue "distribution system" has the P5 engineered to be unfair?

And the loss wouldn't be $24 million because as the pricing difference of $110 for the VT game vs $79 for the Kent game shows. The VT game is bringing in an additional $3 million + in ticket revenue alone compared to the Kent game. Replace Kent with a VT level opponent, say Arizona State for argument's sake, and that's $3 million in additional revenue, plus a far greater chance of the game being on one of the national networks instead of the Big 10 Network.

the revenue for the CFP contract between ESPN and FBS. The labels "P5" and "G5" were created so half of the members of the league could get more than 3X the revenue share as the other half.

There's no way Ohio State keeps 7 of 8 OOC games at home playing only other P5 teams, the lost ticket revenue and increased travel costs is significant.

Plus, by playing teams that have the financial means to be more competitive, and the additional games played away there is a guaranteed increase in losses. Suddenly all of these 4-0 P5 teams at the end of Sept are now 2-2 or 1-3 and the bandwagon portion of their fan bases will revolt. It's all a scam.

Taking each item one at the time

Quote:the revenue for the CFP contract between ESPN and FBS. The labels "P5" and "G5" were created so half of the members of the league could get more than 3X the revenue share as the other half.

Just so I get this right....you are saying the revenue from the playoff for the SEC should be the exact same as the MAC? If so, why?

Quote:There's no way Ohio State keeps 7 of 8 OOC games at home playing only other P5 teams, the lost ticket revenue and increased travel costs is significant.

There would be some lost revenue, but to say it would be significant is foolish. Like I listed above, better opponents would mean higher ticket prices, so some of the revenue loss would be negated by that, in addition it would most likely be a more desirable game for their media partners. More desirable games means more valuable games which means better leverage come media contract negotiation time.

Along with the better opponents you can also figure supply and demand to figure in on pricing. If you go from 7 or 8 games a year to 6 you create more of a demand for tickets since the supply is diminished. Even if you just raise the price of a ticket $10 you lessen the impact, especially since I already pointed out the fact you are replacing a dog game with one already more desirable and expensive ticket price wise.

Quote:Plus, by playing teams that have the financial means to be more competitive, and the additional games played away there is a guaranteed increase in losses. Suddenly all of these 4-0 P5 teams at the end of Sept are now 2-2 or 1-3 and the bandwagon portion of their fan bases will revolt. It's all a scam.

Maybe there will be some revolt initially as some spoiled fanbases are in unfamiliar positions, but in true nature fills a void fashion they would be balanced out by the people drawn to the now very competitive level of play overall. Conference and division races would come down to the final games of the season more often, and the playoff race would be even more compelling than it will be under the current system.

Plus if there were a complete split the P5 and G5 would individually draw all the revenue they earn on their own merits. You fail to factor that into your poverty fantasy for the P5.

(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Just so I get this right....you are saying the revenue from the playoff for the SEC should be the exact same as the MAC? If so, why?

Correct. For the same reason The Milwaukee Brewers receive the same share of revenue as the NY Yankees from the MLB. Or the same reason Northwestern receives the same revenue as Ohio State from the Big Ten. The MAC is as much a member of the Football Sub Division as the SEC.

Note that revenues specific to individual teams and/or individual conferences are not part of the revenue share. This only deals with revenue designate to the FBS.

(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  There would be some lost revenue, but to say it would be significant is foolish. Like I listed above, better opponents would mean higher ticket prices, so some of the revenue loss would be negated by that, in addition it would most likely be a more desirable game for their media partners. More desirable games means more valuable games which means better leverage come media contract negotiation time.

Along with the better opponents you can also figure supply and demand to figure in on pricing. If you go from 7 or 8 games a year to 6 you create more of a demand for tickets since the supply is diminished. Even if you just raise the price of a ticket $10 you lessen the impact, especially since I already pointed out the fact you are replacing a dog game with one already more desirable and expensive ticket price wise.

I don't see how you can subsidize the value of losing 300K tickets by raising prices.

(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Maybe there will be some revolt initially as some spoiled fanbases are in unfamiliar positions, but in true nature fills a void fashion they would be balanced out by the people drawn to the now very competitive level of play overall. Conference and division races would come down to the final games of the season more often, and the playoff race would be even more compelling than it will be under the current system.

Plus if there were a complete split the P5 and G5 would individually draw all the revenue they earn on their own merits. You fail to factor that into your poverty fantasy for the P5.

Bandwagon fans love to brag about winning national championships, if you're 1-3 in Sept that dream is over. Of course those fan bases will survive and be strong, but there will be a drop off.

If there was a split the G5 would go on virtually unchanged, its the P5 that would suffer.

(07-26-2014 08:12 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Just so I get this right....you are saying the revenue from the playoff for the SEC should be the exact same as the MAC? If so, why?

Correct. For the same reason The Milwaukee Brewers receive the same share of revenue as the NY Yankees from the MLB. Or the same reason Northwestern receives the same revenue as Ohio State from the Big Ten. The MAC is as much a member of the Football Sub Division as the SEC.

Note that revenues specific to individual teams and/or individual conferences are not part of the revenue share. This only deals with revenue designate to the FBS.

(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  There would be some lost revenue, but to say it would be significant is foolish. Like I listed above, better opponents would mean higher ticket prices, so some of the revenue loss would be negated by that, in addition it would most likely be a more desirable game for their media partners. More desirable games means more valuable games which means better leverage come media contract negotiation time.

Along with the better opponents you can also figure supply and demand to figure in on pricing. If you go from 7 or 8 games a year to 6 you create more of a demand for tickets since the supply is diminished. Even if you just raise the price of a ticket $10 you lessen the impact, especially since I already pointed out the fact you are replacing a dog game with one already more desirable and expensive ticket price wise.

I don't see how you can subsidize the value of losing 300K tickets by raising prices.

(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Maybe there will be some revolt initially as some spoiled fanbases are in unfamiliar positions, but in true nature fills a void fashion they would be balanced out by the people drawn to the now very competitive level of play overall. Conference and division races would come down to the final games of the season more often, and the playoff race would be even more compelling than it will be under the current system.

Plus if there were a complete split the P5 and G5 would individually draw all the revenue they earn on their own merits. You fail to factor that into your poverty fantasy for the P5.

Bandwagon fans love to brag about winning national championships, if you're 1-3 in Sept that dream is over. Of course those fan bases will survive and be strong, but there will be a drop off.

If there was a split the G5 would go on virtually unchanged, its the P5 that would suffer.

Again, let's go point by point

On point #1, the NCAA is not MLB, the NFL, NBA, or any other professional league. There is no master organization who collects the revenue from the TV partners and distributes it to the teams. The NCAA has absolutely nothing to do with the playoff, so being FBS doesn't matter. The college football playoff is comprised of all ten conferences and Notre Dame, which means that the G5 composes five of eleven voting members. BYU and Army have absolutely no say whatsoever in the operation of the playoff.

If it were indeed unfair then the MAC should say so. Let's see what the MAC representative had to say :

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...s/1762709/

Quote:The vote of the Presidential Oversight Committee last month at a BCS meeting in Denver was unanimous, according to Northern Illinois president John Peters, who represented the Mid-American Conference.

"We think it's fair," Peters said last month. "It does recognize that some conferences contribute more in a revenue way. … From my point of view for my conference, what it means is more."

Imagine that. Your conference thinks it is fair.

"What does he mean by some conferences contribute more revenue wise" you ask? Probably has something to do with this:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...r/1700455/

Quote:The smaller conferences known as the "Group of Five" – Big East, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West and Sun Belt – had pushed for addition of a seventh bowl beginning in 2014, when college football moves to a four-team playoff. The Big 12 and Pac-12 also were in favor of the extra bowl, which would have allowed a second guaranteed slot for those conferences' teams. But with little interest from potential TV partners, commissioners ultimately decided against the idea.

Little interest = wasn't going to bring enough money to be worth the trouble.

On concern #2, it's simple math. "How do you replace 300k of lost revenue?" You ask....simple, when you play an Arizona State instead of a Kent you increase your ticket price to surpass that deficit. In the case of Ohio State that's $3 a ticket. To overcome the 300k deficit you keep citing you charge $82 for the ticket to see the ASU game instead of the $79 you charge for Kent and you not only make up the $300k you are fascinated with, you make a $6987 profit. See how simple that is?


On point #3....perhaps in some cases as I illustrated above. But like I said in the previous post for everyone that goes down it means someone is going to go up, so as a whole it would balance out.

As for the G5 being unchanged, I find that really hard to believe since so many of the G5 programs are dependent on payday games just to keep their athletic departments afloat. What is Ohio going to do without the payday game? Increase the 66% budget subsidy you currently receive? How well do you think that is going to be received on campus?

As for the P5, I can't speak for anybody else but I imagine that Clemson will still put enough fans in the stands for our Orange and White game in the spring than could fit in Peden.

Of course after the G5 was voted down and it was finalized the G5 officials publicly supported the agreement, that's what members of the same group do. I'm guessing you don't have much business exp, this is biz 101 stuff.

Its not simple math because you're saying its 300k in lost revenue, but that's not what I said. Its 300k in lost tickets, or about $15m in loss revenue. HUGE difference.

Oh wow, so Clemson, after decades of national media support, has a bigger fans base than a school that played its first nationally televised game in 2005. That's amazing. This imbalance of funds creates this imbalance of coverage and support and then you turnaround and use it to justify the imbalance. Blame the poor for being poor.

(07-26-2014 12:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Of course after the G5 was voted down and it was finalized the G5 officials publicly supported the agreement, that's what members of the same group do. I'm guessing you don't have much business exp, this is biz 101 stuff.

Not really. My experience is in public safety where we say what we mean and mean what we say.

Quote: Its not simple math because you're saying its 300k in lost revenue, but that's not what I said. Its 300k in lost tickets, or about $15m in loss revenue. HUGE difference.

That was a mistake on my part, but between upping ticket prices from more desirable games, keeping the payout that goes to the G5 schools and the increase in media rights from more desirable content I think the P5 would survive with few difficulties.

Quote:Oh wow, so Clemson, after decades of national media support, has a bigger fans base than a school that played its first nationally televised game in 2005. That's amazing. This imbalance of funds creates this imbalance of coverage and support and then you turnaround and use it to justify the imbalance. Blame the poor for being poor.

Clemson has only really had the national media support since the 1980's, is still the smallest public school in the ACC, and the overall enrollment is smaller than Ohio. We don't have the huge alumni base, so we had to go out and earn our fanbase.
We made the decision in the 1930s we wanted to play athletics at the highest level when we created IPTAY, considered the model on which all college athletic booster clubs are based upon. At the time Clemson was about the same size as The Citadel, South Carolina's other all male military school. Then we decided to move from 6500 seat Riggs Field (still exists as home to our soccer programs) and built 20,500 seat Memorial stadium despite still being a small military school. In 1958 we expanded to 38k, in 1960 we went to 43k, and in 1978 we went to 53k. Note all of this is before we won the national title in 1981. Since then we have expanded five more times, and renovated even more. We didn't get handed a silver spoon, we earned everything we have. We could have done just like The Citadel and just go with the status quo. We would probably be right there with El Cid in the SoCon.

Maybe you should ask why your school opened Peden in 1929 and didn't bother to expand it until 57 years later. Why didn't your school decide your school decide to play at the highest level, instead choosing to associate with the second tier schools in your region? Up until the IA/IAA split the MAC was essentially the same as the SoCon. Maybe instead of blaming your current position on the P5 you should ask yourself why your school chose to play it cheap for 50+ years while schools like Clemson were investing in their future.

(07-27-2014 04:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 12:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I'm guessing you don't have much business exp, this is biz 101 stuff.

Not really. My experience is in public safety where we say what we mean and mean what we say.

You would need a translator to accompany you, if you ever had a 1:1 conversation with people like Swofford and Slive.

(07-27-2014 06:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 12:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I'm guessing you don't have much business exp, this is biz 101 stuff.

Not really. My experience is in public safety where we say what we mean and mean what we say.

You would need a translator to accompany you, if you ever had a 1:1 conversation with people like Swofford and Slive.

Maybe Slive.

I wouldn't jeopardize my reputation by being seen with a lying crook like Swofford unless it would be to kick him in the crotch to see if like most UNC grads he lacks balls.

(07-27-2014 04:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 12:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Of course after the G5 was voted down and it was finalized the G5 officials publicly supported the agreement, that's what members of the same group do. I'm guessing you don't have much business exp, this is biz 101 stuff.

Not really. My experience is in public safety where we say what we mean and mean what we say.

Quote: Its not simple math because you're saying its 300k in lost revenue, but that's not what I said. Its 300k in lost tickets, or about $15m in loss revenue. HUGE difference.

That was a mistake on my part, but between upping ticket prices from more desirable games, keeping the payout that goes to the G5 schools and the increase in media rights from more desirable content I think the P5 would survive with few difficulties.

Quote:Oh wow, so Clemson, after decades of national media support, has a bigger fans base than a school that played its first nationally televised game in 2005. That's amazing. This imbalance of funds creates this imbalance of coverage and support and then you turnaround and use it to justify the imbalance. Blame the poor for being poor.

Clemson has only really had the national media support since the 1980's, is still the smallest public school in the ACC, and the overall enrollment is smaller than Ohio. We don't have the huge alumni base, so we had to go out and earn our fanbase.
We made the decision in the 1930s we wanted to play athletics at the highest level when we created IPTAY, considered the model on which all college athletic booster clubs are based upon. At the time Clemson was about the same size as The Citadel, South Carolina's other all male military school. Then we decided to move from 6500 seat Riggs Field (still exists as home to our soccer programs) and built 20,500 seat Memorial stadium despite still being a small military school. In 1958 we expanded to 38k, in 1960 we went to 43k, and in 1978 we went to 53k. Note all of this is before we won the national title in 1981. Since then we have expanded five more times, and renovated even more. We didn't get handed a silver spoon, we earned everything we have. We could have done just like The Citadel and just go with the status quo. We would probably be right there with El Cid in the SoCon.

Maybe you should ask why your school opened Peden in 1929 and didn't bother to expand it until 57 years later. Why didn't your school decide your school decide to play at the highest level, instead choosing to associate with the second tier schools in your region? Up until the IA/IAA split the MAC was essentially the same as the SoCon. Maybe instead of blaming your current position on the P5 you should ask yourself why your school chose to play it cheap for 50+ years while schools like Clemson were investing in their future.

In Public Safety when managers get together and decide the plan of action do they walk out of the meeting room and sow dissent amongst the employees or do they speak with one unified voice so the company can move forward as planned? There's a time to state your opinion but once the decision has been made, whether you like it or not, you've got to step out and move forward. Common sense stuff.

That's a cute story. You ever wonder why there are 8 FBS programs in the state of Ohio (only TX has more) but only 1 P5 program? Do you think the 7 other schools haven't tried to grow? I won't get into the whole history but just know that its not an accident that one school in the state of Ohio has been allowed to thrive above all others.

(07-27-2014 08:31 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 12:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Of course after the G5 was voted down and it was finalized the G5 officials publicly supported the agreement, that's what members of the same group do. I'm guessing you don't have much business exp, this is biz 101 stuff.

Not really. My experience is in public safety where we say what we mean and mean what we say.

Quote: Its not simple math because you're saying its 300k in lost revenue, but that's not what I said. Its 300k in lost tickets, or about $15m in loss revenue. HUGE difference.

That was a mistake on my part, but between upping ticket prices from more desirable games, keeping the payout that goes to the G5 schools and the increase in media rights from more desirable content I think the P5 would survive with few difficulties.

Quote:Oh wow, so Clemson, after decades of national media support, has a bigger fans base than a school that played its first nationally televised game in 2005. That's amazing. This imbalance of funds creates this imbalance of coverage and support and then you turnaround and use it to justify the imbalance. Blame the poor for being poor.

Clemson has only really had the national media support since the 1980's, is still the smallest public school in the ACC, and the overall enrollment is smaller than Ohio. We don't have the huge alumni base, so we had to go out and earn our fanbase.
We made the decision in the 1930s we wanted to play athletics at the highest level when we created IPTAY, considered the model on which all college athletic booster clubs are based upon. At the time Clemson was about the same size as The Citadel, South Carolina's other all male military school. Then we decided to move from 6500 seat Riggs Field (still exists as home to our soccer programs) and built 20,500 seat Memorial stadium despite still being a small military school. In 1958 we expanded to 38k, in 1960 we went to 43k, and in 1978 we went to 53k. Note all of this is before we won the national title in 1981. Since then we have expanded five more times, and renovated even more. We didn't get handed a silver spoon, we earned everything we have. We could have done just like The Citadel and just go with the status quo. We would probably be right there with El Cid in the SoCon.

Maybe you should ask why your school opened Peden in 1929 and didn't bother to expand it until 57 years later. Why didn't your school decide your school decide to play at the highest level, instead choosing to associate with the second tier schools in your region? Up until the IA/IAA split the MAC was essentially the same as the SoCon. Maybe instead of blaming your current position on the P5 you should ask yourself why your school chose to play it cheap for 50+ years while schools like Clemson were investing in their future.

In Public Safety when managers get together and decide the plan of action do they walk out of the meeting room and sow dissent amongst the employees or do they speak with one unified voice so the company can move forward as planned? There's a time to state your opinion but once the decision has been made, whether you like it or not, you've got to step out and move forward. Common sense stuff.

When asked by my employees my personal feelings on a subject I tell them the truth. If I think the situation sucks then I say so, while acknowledging the fact that my opinion doesn't change the situation. When your crew puts their lives in your hand and you in theirs you learn quick that one of the quickest ways to lose that trust is by being dishonest.

Quote:That's a cute story. You ever wonder why there are 8 FBS programs in the state of Ohio (only TX has more) but only 1 P5 program? Do you think the 7 other schools haven't tried to grow? I won't get into the whole history but just know that its not an accident that one school in the state of Ohio has been allowed to thrive above all others.

Wah Wah Wah! Again with the "But the big evil boogeyman wouldn't let us!"

Was it Ohio State who kept Ohio University from forming a booster club until 2006? Seventy two years after Clemson led the way with IPTAY.

You think Ohio had it hard? From the day it opened it's doors Clemson had had to fight South Carolina for it's very existence. Clemson was founded by people upset that South Carolina College was directed more towards the gentry and ignoring the common people of South Carolina. South Carolina College and it's supporters fought toth and nail to prevent the state from accepting the behest of Thomas Greene Clemson's estate in his will. It was only after a populist wave winning in the election of 1888 that Clemson was born. It was only the fact that enough populists kept getting elected that Clemson wasn't shut down multiple times in the decades afterwards, even up until the 1960's and early 1970's when powerful South Carolina backing politicians like Speaker of the House Solomon Blatt fought to throw multiple roadblocks to Clemson opening extension campuses all over the state. If they would fight so hard to block us even existing what do you think they did when it came to athletics? They even required us to play the first 57 games of the series between the two school in Columbia. Don't think your school is the only one that had someone trying to keep them down. The only difference is we fought our way through it by taking matters into our own hands instead of submitting.