(07-21-2020 01:52 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 01:22 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 10:17 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's time. COVID is going to accelerate the split because the financial impact will be exaggerated. Division 1 has gotten bloated again and the power conferences are going to want a bigger share of the pie.

From a college football perspective the current FBS model needs to be scrap period. No more SEC, B1G, and blah blah blah. Since 1970 only 22 teams have won a national championship in football:

LSU, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St, FSU, Auburn, Florida. Texas, USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, Notre Dame, Penn St, Pitt, BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, & Georgia.

You can create a FBS I Division just from those teams with the exception of BYU, Colorado, Tennessee, Nebraska, Ga Tech, and Pitt. Replace those teams with Oregon & Wisconsin and that's a solid 18 team conference that consistently place in the Top 20 of college football recruiting and either wins or compete for NC's.

Then you create and FBS II, FBS III and FBS IV with provisions for being able to move up to another division or down a division based off a 5 year performance model.

My point history shows there are only about 20 teams that can recruit high ranking classes and compete for a NC and these teams need to be in the same conference, division, or whatever.

With the bolded above, do you mean promotion/relegation or that each level can and will eventually be differently sized?

It could be both. Each FBS conference will need to have a criteria set to maintain FBS I, II, III, & IV status. If a team from FBS II can meet the criteria of FBS I over a five year period (just using 5 yrs as an example) then said team would be eligible for consideration into FBS I. And if a program doesn't meet the criteria of one of the four FBS conferences then they would be moved to the FCS.

And each division would have a national championship game.

It becomes impossible for the Elite 18 to all to have the nice-and-shiny win-loss records and the high rankings needed to continue to draw fans and attract recruits if they all play each other year in and year out.

There definitely needs to be a place at the table in the structure for schools like Oregon State, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Kansas and Illinois; let alone Nebraska, Pitt, Colorado and Tennessee.

(07-21-2020 03:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  It becomes impossible for the Elite 18 to all to have the nice-and-shiny win-loss records and the high rankings needed to continue to draw fans and attract recruits if they all play each other year in and year out.

There definitely needs to be a place at the table in the structure for schools like Oregon State, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Kansas and Illinois; let alone Nebraska, Pitt, Colorado and Tennessee.

In my scenario everyone would be at the table of some kind if your program is deserving. The nice and shiny win-loss records would become irrelevant and eliminate buy games to pad your record. If you proclaim to be the best then you should play the best. You're not going to be expected to go undefeated playing equal competition every week. A 11-1 or 10-2 record in this conference would still be respected and worthy of playing for a national championship. And 18 doesn't have to be a solid number. If 20-25 teams are worthy of FBS I status then they can be included.

And the FBS II would still be able to make money as well as FBS III and IV.

From another thread:

quo vadis Wrote:
EDIT: The "Cinderellas" do contribute something, collectively, to March Madness. It's impossible to determine just exactly how much, or what would happen to general sports fan interest if the big dogs were seen to be mercilessly cutting the smaller-budget schools out of the tournament.

*******************************************************************

(Yesterday 08:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:
It's always possible that the power conferences breaking away would break the romance of the tournament, and lose a lot of the audience. Which is part of the reason it hasn't happened.

That's the thing the P5 do know that many around here do not. A P5-only tournament would not draw as many fans as the current version. The fans, particularly casual fans, are very attracted to the David vs Goliath matchups and possible upsets. Nothing but Illinois vs LSU, UCLA vs NC State, and Texas vs Ohio State would be a dull blur to many.

*******************************************************************

(Today 10:17AM) ken d Wrote:
That's true. But you don't need to have 350+ schools in D-I, and 32 autobids for conference champions to have Cinderellas. That's going too far.

I have proposed in the past a change in the tournament structure that I believe would also result in a lot of schools opting out of D-I.

My proposal would give 40 schools from the six power conferences (the P5 plus the Big East) bids to the tournament, based first on their conference regular season records (primarily, schools with a .500 or better record in conference play).

The other 26 conferences would get an autobid for their champion plus 22 at-large bids into the first round (played during the week of the P6 conference tournaments). The top 24 seeds (based on a composite ranking using NET, BPI, Sagarin, Massey and KenPom ratings) would host the bottom 24 seeds on their home court. There would be six such games each on Tuesday through Friday. The winners of these first round games would complete the 64 team field, which would then be seeded using those same rankings.

The 48 schools in this first round would each get $50K - the hosts to cover the expenses of gameday, and the visitors to cover their travel costs. Any additional revenue received from ticket sales or media contracts, if any, would be divided equally among the participants. Any shortfall would be paid out of the revenues of the 64 team tourney. Only the 64 schools that qualify for the second round would share in the net revenue from that tournament.

The majority of these 26 conferences would rarely see Round Two. That would take away much of the incentive for their members to stay in D-I with the additional expense that membership requires. I wouldn't be surprised if D-I membership shrinks by one third if this proposal were adopted. And if it did, there would still be more D-I schools than there were 40 years ago.

(07-20-2020 03:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 10:17 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's time. COVID is going to accelerate the split because the financial impact will be exaggerated. Division 1 has gotten bloated again and the power conferences are going to want a bigger share of the pie.

The power conferences already receive the lion's share of the Football revenue pie. After all, the majority of football revenue is media contracts with individual P5 conferences, and they intrinsically receive 100% of that. Those are five pies, of different sizes, but each conference gets 100% of their pie.

The next big pie is the CFP / NY6 Bowl game money, and they get well over 5/6 of that.

Kicking any given number of teams out of Division 1 doesn't change that.

And the NCAA takes 70% of the NCAA Tourney money ... changing the membership of Division 1 is only going to change the Tourney money going to the Power conferences by a marginal amount.

If the P5 wants to take a much bigger slice of the pie, they need to breakaway from the NCAA, and take however many schools they need to take with them to have a "National College Basketball Championship" that eclipses the NCAA tournament and grabs the lion share of the revenue for themselves.

The proposal here is that the P5 should push through a controversial, wrenching change in pursuit of what amounts to pocket change for the P5 conferences. It's a non-starter.

This.

The only reason to do anything like this is money, and the OP idea will never happen because it doesn't deliver big money to the folks that theoretically would be "forcing" this split.

The only large-enough pot of money is the March Madness TV money, and what would need to happen -- to provide enough money to motivate a split or reorganization -- is for the power conferences to either (1) leave the NCAA and starting their own tournament where they decide how to split the revenue, or (2) get an NCAA rule change that would distribute nearly all of the MM money directly to the participating teams based on how many games that team plays in the tournament.

(07-21-2020 01:22 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 10:17 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's time. COVID is going to accelerate the split because the financial impact will be exaggerated. Division 1 has gotten bloated again and the power conferences are going to want a bigger share of the pie.

From a college football perspective the current FBS model needs to be scrap period. No more SEC, B1G, and blah blah blah. Since 1970 only 22 teams have won a national championship in football:

LSU, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St, FSU, Auburn, Florida. Texas, USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, Notre Dame, Penn St, Pitt, BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, & Georgia.

You can create a FBS I Division just from those teams with the exception of BYU, Colorado, Tennessee, Nebraska, Ga Tech, and Pitt. Replace those teams with Oregon & Wisconsin and that's a solid 18 team conference that consistently place in the Top 20 of college football recruiting and either wins or compete for NC's.

Then you create and FBS II, FBS III and FBS IV with provisions for being able to move up to another division or down a division based off a 5 year performance model.

My point history shows there are only about 20 teams that can recruit high ranking classes and compete for a NC and these teams need to be in the same conference, division, or whatever.

That's a conference that will average about five losses per team per season. How many five loss teams do you think would be ranked in the Top 20? Conference games are a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser.

(07-21-2020 08:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 01:22 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 10:17 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's time. COVID is going to accelerate the split because the financial impact will be exaggerated. Division 1 has gotten bloated again and the power conferences are going to want a bigger share of the pie.

From a college football perspective the current FBS model needs to be scrap period. No more SEC, B1G, and blah blah blah. Since 1970 only 22 teams have won a national championship in football:

LSU, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St, FSU, Auburn, Florida. Texas, USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, Notre Dame, Penn St, Pitt, BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, & Georgia.

You can create a FBS I Division just from those teams with the exception of BYU, Colorado, Tennessee, Nebraska, Ga Tech, and Pitt. Replace those teams with Oregon & Wisconsin and that's a solid 18 team conference that consistently place in the Top 20 of college football recruiting and either wins or compete for NC's.

Then you create and FBS II, FBS III and FBS IV with provisions for being able to move up to another division or down a division based off a 5 year performance model.

My point history shows there are only about 20 teams that can recruit high ranking classes and compete for a NC and these teams need to be in the same conference, division, or whatever.

That's a conference that will average about five losses per team per season. How many five loss teams do you think would be ranked in the Top 20? Conference games are a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser.

So first off five losses per team would not be the case. Second, you wouldn't need rankings. Rankings is one of several problems with college football. There are ways to determine playoff teams without rankings.

People say there will be four super conferences in college football eventually. I'm good with that as long as the conferences are separating the haves from the have nots. Just because Vandy plays in the SEC doesn't mean they should be getting 65 million a year when a school like Boise is barely getting 5 million but plays better football.

You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

(07-21-2020 08:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that the NCAA takes 70% of the NCAAT money. I agree that somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% goes into the pool that is distributed based on tournament participation. But that's not the only pool funded by the tournament, and P5 schools also receive the bulk of the distributions from these other funds.

P5 schools certainly do not receive the majority of the grant in aid fund ... it is pro-rata up to 150 FTE, then maxes out, so Go5 schools would be receiving as much per institution as P5 schools and scholarship FCS schools nearly as much, while NFS schools would still each be receiving a substantial percentage of the maximum distribution, so the majority would go to non-P5 schools.

The ~30% is based on the P5 share of the other funds roughly offsetting the amount of the Basketball Units that go to non-P5 schools.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(07-21-2020 09:03 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

All too many observe that the current system is broken then proposed to fix it with a new system that starts out nearly as badly broken and which is likely to evolve over time to be just as broken as the current system, responding to the same pressures and incentives that led to the current broken system.

(07-22-2020 04:35 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 08:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that the NCAA takes 70% of the NCAAT money. I agree that somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% goes into the pool that is distributed based on tournament participation. But that's not the only pool funded by the tournament, and P5 schools also receive the bulk of the distributions from these other funds.

P5 schools certainly do not receive the majority of the grant in aid fund ... it is pro-rata up to 150 FTE, then maxes out, so Go5 schools would be receiving as much per institution as P5 schools and scholarship FCS schools nearly as much, while NFS schools would still each be receiving a substantial percentage of the maximum distribution, so the majority would go to non-P5 schools.

The ~30% is based on the P5 share of the other funds roughly offsetting the amount of the Basketball Units that go to non-P5 schools.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(07-21-2020 09:03 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

All too many observe that the current system is broken then proposed to fix it with a new system that starts out nearly as badly broken and which is likely to evolve over time to be just as broken as the current system, responding to the same pressures and incentives that led to the current broken system.

I rather someone observe something is broke and provide suggestions on how to fix it than not do anything at all. And how do you know a new idea will start off bad if you haven't tried it? It's your opinion that's a bad idea and you probably don't like change anyway.

You can be afraid of change if it can improve a product.

(07-21-2020 03:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  It becomes impossible for the Elite 18 to all to have the nice-and-shiny win-loss records and the high rankings needed to continue to draw fans and attract recruits if they all play each other year in and year out.

Correct. Brands erode when they're always losing. Now, you have eroding brands playing few games against geographical/traditional rivals their fans care about -- a double whammy.

Not to mention contraction is terrible for any big-time sport (which is why it never happens). Taking big-time college football away from everyone but 18 fan bases would be catastrophic for the sport.

(07-21-2020 09:03 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 08:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 01:22 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 10:17 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's time. COVID is going to accelerate the split because the financial impact will be exaggerated. Division 1 has gotten bloated again and the power conferences are going to want a bigger share of the pie.

From a college football perspective the current FBS model needs to be scrap period. No more SEC, B1G, and blah blah blah. Since 1970 only 22 teams have won a national championship in football:

LSU, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St, FSU, Auburn, Florida. Texas, USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, Notre Dame, Penn St, Pitt, BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, & Georgia.

You can create a FBS I Division just from those teams with the exception of BYU, Colorado, Tennessee, Nebraska, Ga Tech, and Pitt. Replace those teams with Oregon & Wisconsin and that's a solid 18 team conference that consistently place in the Top 20 of college football recruiting and either wins or compete for NC's.

Then you create and FBS II, FBS III and FBS IV with provisions for being able to move up to another division or down a division based off a 5 year performance model.

My point history shows there are only about 20 teams that can recruit high ranking classes and compete for a NC and these teams need to be in the same conference, division, or whatever.

That's a conference that will average about five losses per team per season. How many five loss teams do you think would be ranked in the Top 20? Conference games are a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser.

So first off five losses per team would not be the case. Second, you wouldn't need rankings. Rankings is one of several problems with college football. There are ways to determine playoff teams without rankings.

People say there will be four super conferences in college football eventually. I'm good with that as long as the conferences are separating the haves from the have nots. Just because Vandy plays in the SEC doesn't mean they should be getting 65 million a year when a school like Boise is barely getting 5 million but plays better football.

You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

The whole point of creating an elite conference is to maximize the number of games that are of great interest to a media partner, and therefore more valuable. If each of these teams play 10 such games a year, plus two buy games, then by definition they will average five losses every year.

(07-22-2020 09:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:03 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 08:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 01:22 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 10:17 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's time. COVID is going to accelerate the split because the financial impact will be exaggerated. Division 1 has gotten bloated again and the power conferences are going to want a bigger share of the pie.

From a college football perspective the current FBS model needs to be scrap period. No more SEC, B1G, and blah blah blah. Since 1970 only 22 teams have won a national championship in football:

LSU, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St, FSU, Auburn, Florida. Texas, USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, Notre Dame, Penn St, Pitt, BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, & Georgia.

You can create a FBS I Division just from those teams with the exception of BYU, Colorado, Tennessee, Nebraska, Ga Tech, and Pitt. Replace those teams with Oregon & Wisconsin and that's a solid 18 team conference that consistently place in the Top 20 of college football recruiting and either wins or compete for NC's.

Then you create and FBS II, FBS III and FBS IV with provisions for being able to move up to another division or down a division based off a 5 year performance model.

My point history shows there are only about 20 teams that can recruit high ranking classes and compete for a NC and these teams need to be in the same conference, division, or whatever.

That's a conference that will average about five losses per team per season. How many five loss teams do you think would be ranked in the Top 20? Conference games are a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser.

So first off five losses per team would not be the case. Second, you wouldn't need rankings. Rankings is one of several problems with college football. There are ways to determine playoff teams without rankings.

People say there will be four super conferences in college football eventually. I'm good with that as long as the conferences are separating the haves from the have nots. Just because Vandy plays in the SEC doesn't mean they should be getting 65 million a year when a school like Boise is barely getting 5 million but plays better football.

You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

The whole point of creating an elite conference is to maximize the number of games that are of great interest to a media partner, and therefore more valuable. If each of these teams play 10 such games a year, plus two buy games, then by definition they will average five losses every year.

Even if the losses would be average for such a conference it doesn't mean every team would have 5 losses. I'm sure you could apply your theory to the NFL as well.

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:03 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 08:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 01:22 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  From a college football perspective the current FBS model needs to be scrap period. No more SEC, B1G, and blah blah blah. Since 1970 only 22 teams have won a national championship in football:

LSU, Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St, FSU, Auburn, Florida. Texas, USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, Notre Dame, Penn St, Pitt, BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, & Georgia.

You can create a FBS I Division just from those teams with the exception of BYU, Colorado, Tennessee, Nebraska, Ga Tech, and Pitt. Replace those teams with Oregon & Wisconsin and that's a solid 18 team conference that consistently place in the Top 20 of college football recruiting and either wins or compete for NC's.

Then you create and FBS II, FBS III and FBS IV with provisions for being able to move up to another division or down a division based off a 5 year performance model.

My point history shows there are only about 20 teams that can recruit high ranking classes and compete for a NC and these teams need to be in the same conference, division, or whatever.

That's a conference that will average about five losses per team per season. How many five loss teams do you think would be ranked in the Top 20? Conference games are a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser.

So first off five losses per team would not be the case. Second, you wouldn't need rankings. Rankings is one of several problems with college football. There are ways to determine playoff teams without rankings.

People say there will be four super conferences in college football eventually. I'm good with that as long as the conferences are separating the haves from the have nots. Just because Vandy plays in the SEC doesn't mean they should be getting 65 million a year when a school like Boise is barely getting 5 million but plays better football.

You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

The whole point of creating an elite conference is to maximize the number of games that are of great interest to a media partner, and therefore more valuable. If each of these teams play 10 such games a year, plus two buy games, then by definition they will average five losses every year.

Even if the losses would be average for such a conference it doesn't mean every team would have 5 losses. I'm sure you could apply your theory to the NFL as well.

It's not a "theory". That's what an average is. That's why I used the term, rather than saying that every team would have five losses. And that's a lot more than the fans of those schools are accustomed to losing.

I could see some of the logic I guess.
The teams or schools picked is does not make sense .
Not that the current set up always does.
Lets take NDSU I say they belong super successful since moving up.
Solid support of 18k for football 3k for basketball.

Why are they more deserving than Weber St ?
Sixteen NCAA tournaments ranked as 51st all time basketball program.
Basketball averages 6k and football I think 13k new stadium renovation just completed. Or Montana 24k for football 10 basketball tournament appearances 4500 attendance basketball. Or Toledo and Ohio in the MAC. The problem is the bottom of the conferences I guess and maybe a few bottom conferences. What is it like a couple million a year in payment to lower D1 conferences? Does that really cost that much versus the interest it generates ?

If you really wanted to save money
The two FCS games counting this year would continue.
Allow D2 schools to compete in more D1 sports like three no football or basketball.
Allow football only conferences to tighten up olympic sports .
The reason we have far flung conferences is football fix that.
NDSU is in a pretty nice close fitting ten team conference with St Thomas joining.
You could easily put together an eight team football only FBS.
Reducing travel for non revenue sports is how you reduce cost.
A Big South program does not receive much money from the NCAA.
They have produced one national title in baseball and two FBS members .

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:03 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 08:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  That's a conference that will average about five losses per team per season. How many five loss teams do you think would be ranked in the Top 20? Conference games are a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser.

So first off five losses per team would not be the case. Second, you wouldn't need rankings. Rankings is one of several problems with college football. There are ways to determine playoff teams without rankings.

People say there will be four super conferences in college football eventually. I'm good with that as long as the conferences are separating the haves from the have nots. Just because Vandy plays in the SEC doesn't mean they should be getting 65 million a year when a school like Boise is barely getting 5 million but plays better football.

You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

The whole point of creating an elite conference is to maximize the number of games that are of great interest to a media partner, and therefore more valuable. If each of these teams play 10 such games a year, plus two buy games, then by definition they will average five losses every year.

Even if the losses would be average for such a conference it doesn't mean every team would have 5 losses. I'm sure you could apply your theory to the NFL as well.

It's not a "theory". That's what an average is. That's why I used the term, rather than saying that every team would have five losses. And that's a lot more than the fans of those schools are accustomed to losing.

Ok whatever. My point is the champion of that conference isn't going to have 5 losses and the worst team will probably have more than 5 losses. Guess what? They'll have to deal with it. Again that's another issue with college football, fans are not use to this or that so therefore it is a bad idea.

You know what's bad? Teams like Vandy, Kansas, Georgia Tech and others getting 35 to 65 million a year in revenue just for being in a conference although their performance on the field or the court isn't worthy of that money. But schools like UCF, Boise, Cincinnati and other deserving programs get left out in the cold even though they are better programs.

I'm not saying my plan is perfect but I will say eventually there will be a separation of the P-5 and G-5 and what will happen to a UCF, Boise, BYU, Houston of SDSU if and when they are left behind?

(07-22-2020 02:25 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:03 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  So first off five losses per team would not be the case. Second, you wouldn't need rankings. Rankings is one of several problems with college football. There are ways to determine playoff teams without rankings.

People say there will be four super conferences in college football eventually. I'm good with that as long as the conferences are separating the haves from the have nots. Just because Vandy plays in the SEC doesn't mean they should be getting 65 million a year when a school like Boise is barely getting 5 million but plays better football.

You guys are content with this broken system, I'm not. It needs to be fixed.

The whole point of creating an elite conference is to maximize the number of games that are of great interest to a media partner, and therefore more valuable. If each of these teams play 10 such games a year, plus two buy games, then by definition they will average five losses every year.

Even if the losses would be average for such a conference it doesn't mean every team would have 5 losses. I'm sure you could apply your theory to the NFL as well.

It's not a "theory". That's what an average is. That's why I used the term, rather than saying that every team would have five losses. And that's a lot more than the fans of those schools are accustomed to losing.

Ok whatever. My point is the champion of that conference isn't going to have 5 losses and the worst team will probably have more than 5 losses. Guess what? They'll have to deal with it. Again that's another issue with college football, fans are not use to this or that so therefore it is a bad idea.

You know what's bad? Teams like Vandy, Kansas, Georgia Tech and others getting 35 to 65 million a year in revenue just for being in a conference although their performance on the field or the court isn't worthy of that money. But schools like UCF, Boise, Cincinnati and other deserving programs get left out in the cold even though they are better programs.

I'm not saying my plan is perfect but I will say eventually there will be a separation of the P-5 and G-5 and what will happen to a UCF, Boise, BYU, Houston of SDSU if and when they are left behind?

To be honest, I don't think there will be a separation of the P5 from the G5. I think its a symbiotic arrangement and will stay that way. At least I hope it will.