If they really want to stop the P5 schools from playing the G5 schools then what they need to do is get rid of pre-season rankings.

Ohio State started last season ranked #18 and opened with 4 straight OOC home games vs MiamiOH(4-8), UCF(10-4), Cal(3-9) and UAB(3-9). After going 4-0 at home against that murderer's row they actually moved UP 4 spots in the polls to #14.

If OSU had started the season unranked then there is no way they would have broke into the top 25 with that schedule. Once you're ranked it doesn't matter who you play, winning is all that matters to keep you ranked. Start everyone unranked and with zero votes and then let each team EARN their way into the rankings. Then maybe the P5 teams will start scheduling more 1x1 games with each other.

(05-10-2013 09:49 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  If they really want to stop the P5 schools from playing the G5 schools then what they need to do is get rid of pre-season rankings.

Ohio State started last season ranked #18 and opened with 4 straight OOC home games vs MiamiOH(4-8), UCF(10-4), Cal(3-9) and UAB(3-9). After going 4-0 at home against that murderer's row they actually moved UP 4 spots in the polls to #14.

If OSU had started the season unranked then there is no way they would have broke into the top 25 with that schedule. Once you're ranked it doesn't matter who you play, winning is all that matters to keep you ranked. Start everyone unranked and with zero votes and then let each team EARN their way into the rankings. Then maybe the P5 teams will start scheduling more 1x1 games with each other.

I think preseason polls are here to stay, as they provide exposure and consequential revenue for the media outlets.

(05-10-2013 09:49 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  If they really want to stop the P5 schools from playing the G5 schools then what they need to do is get rid of pre-season rankings.

Ohio State started last season ranked #18 and opened with 4 straight OOC home games vs MiamiOH(4-8), UCF(10-4), Cal(3-9) and UAB(3-9). After going 4-0 at home against that murderer's row they actually moved UP 4 spots in the polls to #14.

If OSU had started the season unranked then there is no way they would have broke into the top 25 with that schedule. Once you're ranked it doesn't matter who you play, winning is all that matters to keep you ranked. Start everyone unranked and with zero votes and then let each team EARN their way into the rankings. Then maybe the P5 teams will start scheduling more 1x1 games with each other.

You are 100% correct about the polls. Take Arkansas, last year, for example. Started top 10, then won only 3 (or 4?) games. There shouldn't be a poll until week 3 or 4 at the earliest. The preseason polls just give people slanted views about teams before they even play a single game.

(05-10-2013 02:11 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  You guys posting for lower tier teams aren't getting it... flagship, high academic state, and the brand name private schools would rather go 1-11 most years against peer institutions than scratch out 6-6 every year by competing with a mix of schools that have nothing except maybe proximity in common. The SMU comment earlier is spot on. I am a UK fan by familial affiliation, but I actually attended a small private school so I could play athletics (Lipscomb). I have no inclination that we "deserve" to play with the new Big East conference members. Do I hope we expand our boundaries and compete at the highest level possible? Of course, but only against peer institutions because that is where important collegial relationships are formed. Step back and think about a DIII school near your team. Do you care about playing them in sports? Generally, no. They may even be better academically, culturally, whatever, but they are probably not peers. Appalachian State over the last decade is a great example. Make a name for yourself. Own your peers.

Riiiiight

That's why they've scheduled that way since the beginning of time

College athletics is by no stretch of the imagination a merit system, if it were the ticks who suck the blood of the elites because they were in the right place 80 years ago would be kicked out.

PLEASE DON'T CLAIM TO HAVE INSIGHT when you say those schools would rather go 1-11 against "peers" when coaches have been fired for .500 records. Bill Curry won 10 games his final season at Alabama and was offered a contract with no raise and that removed his ability to hire and fire assistants.

The idea that presidents, AD's, and coaches prefer playing 12 "peers" and taking their lumps is supported by absolutely nothing that has taken in place in the real universe.

(05-10-2013 08:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously the non-P5 hate the idea because it cuts them off from a share of the money and attention the P5 create. They want a system that gives them an even bigger slice of said money and attention that they can't generate on their own.

Obviously the P5 could care less what they want.

But what the P5 will do us stay in the NCAA but in a seperate subdivision. That way only P5 teams will have access to their post season playoff and bowls but they can still schedule G5 teams like FCS teams are still scheduled today.

Except that ignores three real things.
1. Playing G5 will be dinged like playing FCS is now.
2. Reducing the number of top tier games in college football will face strict scrutiny from the courts.
3. Creating a standard that eliminates the G5 will require waivers and exceptions or eliminate a significant number of P5 schools if those schools aren't eliminated it will be like playing tee ball for the anti-trust lawyers.

(05-10-2013 02:11 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:28 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:41 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  This would straight up ruin college football even more. NCAA royally f***ed up by never having a playoff for CFB. Now all the greedy bastards running CFB are going to completely ruin a perfectly good thing. If they do go ahead with a separate division/association/whatever, say goodbye to CFB.

I think seperate divisions is the best ting that could happen to all of college football. Look at high schools, there are levels or divisions and they are all happy. Each level has their playoff champion and I never knew of a 4A high school state champion that was not just as happy as the 6A champion.

Sure the money and exposure would be differnet but all schools in the same division would be on the same level.

With all due respect and no offense intended, but Toledo is never going to be able to compete with Michigan. Yes you can say the same thing about SMU. That is just the way it is and it is not going to change.

And no Way that DII school Boise will ever amount to anything..

FWIW Toledo beat Michigan the last time the two teams played..

You guys posting for lower tier teams aren't getting it... flagship, high academic state, and the brand name private schools would rather go 1-11 most years against peer institutions than scratch out 6-6 every year by competing with a mix of schools that have nothing except maybe proximity in common. The SMU comment earlier is spot on. I am a UK fan by familial affiliation, but I actually attended a small private school so I could play athletics (Lipscomb). I have no inclination that we "deserve" to play with the new Big East conference members. Do I hope we expand our boundaries and compete at the highest level possible? Of course, but only against peer institutions because that is where important collegial relationships are formed. Step back and think about a DIII school near your team. Do you care about playing them in sports? Generally, no. They may even be better academically, culturally, whatever, but they are probably not peers. Appalachian State over the last decade is a great example. Make a name for yourself. Own your peers.

spoken like a true walmart fan... Don't you guys feel silly when people ask you if you attended or graduated from the school whose attire you're wearing?

as for your comment about DIII schools, what do you think SEC schools say when they play Kentucky football? c'mon now!

(05-10-2013 02:11 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:28 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:41 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  This would straight up ruin college football even more. NCAA royally f***ed up by never having a playoff for CFB. Now all the greedy bastards running CFB are going to completely ruin a perfectly good thing. If they do go ahead with a separate division/association/whatever, say goodbye to CFB.

I think seperate divisions is the best ting that could happen to all of college football. Look at high schools, there are levels or divisions and they are all happy. Each level has their playoff champion and I never knew of a 4A high school state champion that was not just as happy as the 6A champion.

Sure the money and exposure would be differnet but all schools in the same division would be on the same level.

With all due respect and no offense intended, but Toledo is never going to be able to compete with Michigan. Yes you can say the same thing about SMU. That is just the way it is and it is not going to change.

And no Way that DII school Boise will ever amount to anything..

FWIW Toledo beat Michigan the last time the two teams played..

You guys posting for lower tier teams aren't getting it... flagship, high academic state, and the brand name private schools would rather go 1-11 most years against peer institutions than scratch out 6-6 every year by competing with a mix of schools that have nothing except maybe proximity in common. The SMU comment earlier is spot on. I am a UK fan by familial affiliation, but I actually attended a small private school so I could play athletics (Lipscomb). I have no inclination that we "deserve" to play with the new Big East conference members. Do I hope we expand our boundaries and compete at the highest level possible? Of course, but only against peer institutions because that is where important collegial relationships are formed. Step back and think about a DIII school near your team. Do you care about playing them in sports? Generally, no. They may even be better academically, culturally, whatever, but they are probably not peers. Appalachian State over the last decade is a great example. Make a name for yourself. Own your peers.

Lol

First of all there are plenty of state flagship schools not in the gang of five. Second this would not work because you have a lot of schools in the middle. Who is to say that Kentucky has a better football program than Houston, ECU, or Boise? And even if you try to say something like playing in the new division requires a minimum 50k stadium your cutting out a whole lot of gang of five members. Even going by school size would not work because you will have scenarios like this, FIU has like 45k students and Duke has 14k, how is FIU considered a (small school)?

And even if you want to go academic are you really going to try and tell me schools like Tulane don't have as good as academics as schools like LSU?

Dont't get me wrong I'm all for keeping divisions balanced because it makes no sense having teams Alabama State in the SEC. However, you can't really divide schools by how much money they generate from TV without getting into some serious issues.

there are 8 FBS college football teams in the state of Ohio, no state in the union has more. Why should 7 of those schools be told to go F off because 1 has already laid claim to a golden ticket?

I think Congress will get involved if the Rich try to get richer at further expense of the Poor.

(05-10-2013 04:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 02:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 02:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:28 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:41 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  This would straight up ruin college football even more. NCAA royally f***ed up by never having a playoff for CFB. Now all the greedy bastards running CFB are going to completely ruin a perfectly good thing. If they do go ahead with a separate division/association/whatever, say goodbye to CFB.

I think seperate divisions is the best ting that could happen to all of college football. Look at high schools, there are levels or divisions and they are all happy. Each level has their playoff champion and I never knew of a 4A high school state champion that was not just as happy as the 6A champion.

Sure the money and exposure would be differnet but all schools in the same division would be on the same level.

With all due respect and no offense intended, but Toledo is never going to be able to compete with Michigan. Yes you can say the same thing about SMU. That is just the way it is and it is not going to change.

Sorry. I couldn't disagree more. College is not high school. If most SMU fans felt that way they would have stayed in CUSA. Every year, the FCS playoffs occur and nobody cares. I assure you-nobdy will care about the left behind playoff. The reason nobody will care is the team that wins is not the best team in college football. The winner would just be a team that beat a bunch of other former old-non AQ schools. The public reaction will be a collective yawn. Basically, nothing to see here. Everyone knows who won the NCAA tournament--but ask them who won the NIT and few have a clue. That's where the left behinds will be.

Personally, I wil watch little Big Boy football if that happens and may even lose interest in my own schools team. It just wouldn't be the game I grew up being a fan of. I just don't think I'd be interested anymore. I can't imagine TV would be crazy about a concept that alienates half the viewers.

The remaining NCAA would have to reform and rewrite the rule book. FCS and FBS would have to be changed. I would suggest a promotion/relegation system for all the remaining schools in the NCAA.

Basketball Div-I would have to be changed including the tourney.

It is true that it would initially have less interest but it would not be like the FCS/FBS divide because there would finally be separate governance.

One a semi-pro league...one a traditional college league. I would say that a new NCAA with promotion/relegation governing itself would have much more potential than an FCS governed from above does.

Personally I think the Big 5 would choose to maintain control even if they lose a few crumbs off the table to do it.

You could enact all that stuff and it wouldnt matter. The only winners here would be the fans of the big schools. The fan bases of half of the current FBS schools would be losers. The networks would watch early half thier audience dissapper (at worst) or become far less habitual watchers. Not usre what would happen to the left behinds, I guess they would be stuck in a quasi FCS world with 15K-20K crowds and minimal TV coverage as interest in this level of football wained.

The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams. Perhaps they go to six and include the MWC so they have geographic coverage.

Smaller schools make the major part of their small sports budgets by playing the big guys... The USM coach a few years ago made the comment on local TV that USM paid for their entire football program with four OOC road games against teams like Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and Nebraska. It's necessary.

(05-11-2013 12:24 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams.

Pro sports disproves that argument. Look at the NFL. Or MLB, or the NBA. None of them have teams that play their games in Nevada, or South Dakota, or Alaska, etc. You think they won't root for other teams? Go to Vegas during basketball season and see all the local fans wearing Lakers gear. And I bet you'll find a lot of Cowboys fans in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Broncos fans in Utah, Steelers fans in West Virginia, etc. You'll find St. Louis Cardinals baseball fans in many nearby states other than Missouri. These fans don't boycott NFL, MLB, or the NBA just because there isn't a team in their own state.

(05-11-2013 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:24 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams.

Pro sports disproves that argument. Look at the NFL. Or MLB, or the NBA. None of them have teams that play their games in Nevada, or South Dakota, or Alaska, etc. You think they won't root for other teams? Go to Vegas during basketball season and see all the local fans wearing Lakers gear. And I bet you'll find a lot of Cowboys fans in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Broncos fans in Utah, Steelers fans in West Virginia, etc. You'll find St. Louis Cardinals baseball fans in many nearby states other than Missouri. These fans don't boycott NFL, MLB, or the NBA just because there isn't a team in their own state.

Pro sports is not college sports. The people of Connecticut eagerly root for the Patriots, Giants, and Jets in the NFL without hesitation.

But if UConn is left out of a proposed exclusive NCAA FB "club", do you think UConn fans will suddenly root for Boston College or Syracuse? Not a chance in hell. They'll just tune out college football completely.

The same goes here in Texas. If SMU is left out, do you think SMU alumni will suddenly root for TCU or Baylor? eh .... no. They'll also tune out.

(05-11-2013 12:24 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 04:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 02:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 02:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:28 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I think seperate divisions is the best ting that could happen to all of college football. Look at high schools, there are levels or divisions and they are all happy. Each level has their playoff champion and I never knew of a 4A high school state champion that was not just as happy as the 6A champion.

Sure the money and exposure would be differnet but all schools in the same division would be on the same level.

With all due respect and no offense intended, but Toledo is never going to be able to compete with Michigan. Yes you can say the same thing about SMU. That is just the way it is and it is not going to change.

Sorry. I couldn't disagree more. College is not high school. If most SMU fans felt that way they would have stayed in CUSA. Every year, the FCS playoffs occur and nobody cares. I assure you-nobdy will care about the left behind playoff. The reason nobody will care is the team that wins is not the best team in college football. The winner would just be a team that beat a bunch of other former old-non AQ schools. The public reaction will be a collective yawn. Basically, nothing to see here. Everyone knows who won the NCAA tournament--but ask them who won the NIT and few have a clue. That's where the left behinds will be.

Personally, I wil watch little Big Boy football if that happens and may even lose interest in my own schools team. It just wouldn't be the game I grew up being a fan of. I just don't think I'd be interested anymore. I can't imagine TV would be crazy about a concept that alienates half the viewers.

The remaining NCAA would have to reform and rewrite the rule book. FCS and FBS would have to be changed. I would suggest a promotion/relegation system for all the remaining schools in the NCAA.

Basketball Div-I would have to be changed including the tourney.

It is true that it would initially have less interest but it would not be like the FCS/FBS divide because there would finally be separate governance.

One a semi-pro league...one a traditional college league. I would say that a new NCAA with promotion/relegation governing itself would have much more potential than an FCS governed from above does.

Personally I think the Big 5 would choose to maintain control even if they lose a few crumbs off the table to do it.

You could enact all that stuff and it wouldnt matter. The only winners here would be the fans of the big schools. The fan bases of half of the current FBS schools would be losers. The networks would watch early half thier audience dissapper (at worst) or become far less habitual watchers. Not usre what would happen to the left behinds, I guess they would be stuck in a quasi FCS world with 15K-20K crowds and minimal TV coverage as interest in this level of football wained.

The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams. Perhaps they go to six and include the MWC so they have geographic coverage.

Population and fanbase size are also important. The AAC deserves to be included, as well.

(05-11-2013 01:17 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:24 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams.

Pro sports disproves that argument. Look at the NFL. Or MLB, or the NBA. None of them have teams that play their games in Nevada, or South Dakota, or Alaska, etc. You think they won't root for other teams? Go to Vegas during basketball season and see all the local fans wearing Lakers gear. And I bet you'll find a lot of Cowboys fans in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Broncos fans in Utah, Steelers fans in West Virginia, etc. You'll find St. Louis Cardinals baseball fans in many nearby states other than Missouri. These fans don't boycott NFL, MLB, or the NBA just because there isn't a team in their own state.

Pro sports is not college sports. The people of Connecticut eagerly root for the Patriots, Giants, and Jets in the NFL without hesitation.

But if UConn is left out of a proposed exclusive NCAA FB "club", do you think UConn fans will suddenly root for Boston College or Syracuse? Not a chance in hell. They'll just tune out college football completely.

The same goes here in Texas. If SMU is left out, do you think SMU alumni will suddenly root for TCU or Baylor? eh .... no. They'll also tune out.

SMU was left out of the Big 12 more than 15 years ago. Even so, I bet that people in Texas with SMU ties, if they are college football fans, even if they were angry about SMU being left out, are watching Longhorn, Aggie, and/or Sooner games on TV, just like Western Michigan alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Spartans, Wolverines, or other Big Ten teams on TV, and Florida Atlantic alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Gators and Seminoles, even though their own alma maters are not in a "contract conference" and never will be.

(05-11-2013 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:17 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:24 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams.

Pro sports disproves that argument. Look at the NFL. Or MLB, or the NBA. None of them have teams that play their games in Nevada, or South Dakota, or Alaska, etc. You think they won't root for other teams? Go to Vegas during basketball season and see all the local fans wearing Lakers gear. And I bet you'll find a lot of Cowboys fans in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Broncos fans in Utah, Steelers fans in West Virginia, etc. You'll find St. Louis Cardinals baseball fans in many nearby states other than Missouri. These fans don't boycott NFL, MLB, or the NBA just because there isn't a team in their own state.

Pro sports is not college sports. The people of Connecticut eagerly root for the Patriots, Giants, and Jets in the NFL without hesitation.

But if UConn is left out of a proposed exclusive NCAA FB "club", do you think UConn fans will suddenly root for Boston College or Syracuse? Not a chance in hell. They'll just tune out college football completely.

The same goes here in Texas. If SMU is left out, do you think SMU alumni will suddenly root for TCU or Baylor? eh .... no. They'll also tune out.

SMU was left out of the Big 12 more than 15 years ago. Even so, I bet that people in Texas with SMU ties, if they are college football fans, even if they were angry about SMU being left out, are watching Longhorn, Aggie, and/or Sooner games on TV, just like Western Michigan alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Spartans, Wolverines, or other Big Ten teams on TV, and Florida Atlantic alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Gators and Seminoles, even though their own alma maters are not in a "contract conference" and never will be.

I occaisionally watch other B-12 teams--mainly because they are in the same subdivision as we are. I find I watch far more CUSA games and MW games than Big-12 games these days. So they may not totally abandon those broadcasts, but they may watch far less often and for less time when they do. Or--they may just take up golf or fishing on Saturdays. The audience is not nearly as captive as the the P-5 might think---and TV knows this.

The NFL ratings are FAR lower in non-NFL cities than in cities where a NFL team exists. Cut the crappiest 15 NFL teams (about half the league in other words) and I wonder what will happen to the NFL's total audience? This whole split concept is silly since TV money is what drives it and the P-5 get 90% of the available TV money. Anything that might significantly reduce the viewing audience is a non-starter. Now, a smaller more marginal reduction--say reducing FBS from 126 schools to say 100---that could maybe happen since the 80-100 is about the historic average size of college footballs top level. Even a less drastic reduction is going to affect audience size--but the order of magnitude is far smaller.

(05-11-2013 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:17 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:24 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The other problem is college football is concentrated in the eastern half of the country. You will disenfranchise entire states. The people in say Nevada will not be inclined to root for other teams.

Pro sports disproves that argument. Look at the NFL. Or MLB, or the NBA. None of them have teams that play their games in Nevada, or South Dakota, or Alaska, etc. You think they won't root for other teams? Go to Vegas during basketball season and see all the local fans wearing Lakers gear. And I bet you'll find a lot of Cowboys fans in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Broncos fans in Utah, Steelers fans in West Virginia, etc. You'll find St. Louis Cardinals baseball fans in many nearby states other than Missouri. These fans don't boycott NFL, MLB, or the NBA just because there isn't a team in their own state.

Pro sports is not college sports. The people of Connecticut eagerly root for the Patriots, Giants, and Jets in the NFL without hesitation.

But if UConn is left out of a proposed exclusive NCAA FB "club", do you think UConn fans will suddenly root for Boston College or Syracuse? Not a chance in hell. They'll just tune out college football completely.

The same goes here in Texas. If SMU is left out, do you think SMU alumni will suddenly root for TCU or Baylor? eh .... no. They'll also tune out.

SMU was left out of the Big 12 more than 15 years ago. Even so, I bet that people in Texas with SMU ties, if they are college football fans, even if they were angry about SMU being left out, are watching Longhorn, Aggie, and/or Sooner games on TV, just like Western Michigan alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Spartans, Wolverines, or other Big Ten teams on TV, and Florida Atlantic alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Gators and Seminoles, even though their own alma maters are not in a "contract conference" and never will be.

Few SMU fans that I know watch Texas, Texas A&M, or Oklahoma games on TV. But if there is a complete split in FBS, I don't think any SMU fans will watch college football again. They'll occasionally go to the SMU games and then watch the Dallas Cowboys. But they won't be watching the Longhorns, Aggies, or Sooners.

(05-11-2013 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  SMU was left out of the Big 12 more than 15 years ago. Even so, I bet that people in Texas with SMU ties, if they are college football fans, even if they were angry about SMU being left out, are watching Longhorn, Aggie, and/or Sooner games on TV, just like Western Michigan alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Spartans, Wolverines, or other Big Ten teams on TV, and Florida Atlantic alums who are CFB fans probably watch the Gators and Seminoles, even though their own alma maters are not in a "contract conference" and never will be.

Really bad comparison first getting left out of an FBS conference and getting left out of FBS are two different things. Second at that point in history there was no "BCS" and no lock out.

Some people, heck maybe even most people may tune in to some other team but a large percent will tune out of college football all together and just focus on their NFL teams.

And a large number of home games among the P5 will be lost. The average number of home games will be 6, I suspect 8 home games will almost *never* happen and 7 will be an exception for programs like Alabama and OSU.

Thats going to be between 70 and 140 lost games on the P5 TV contracts.

The AAC does NOT deserve to be included.

Neither does the MWC or SBC or any of the others.

As for the "we won't watch" we that's your loss.

Look at Montana and Delaware.

They aren't whining and crying that they aren't in the ACC or PAC (anymore)

Their fans aren't saying they won't support them if they aren't in the same playoff subdivision as Bama and Michigan are.

(05-10-2013 07:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, change of pace from the posts that I mostly scrolled right past.

Saban mentioned 70 schools. Doing the math that is six more than we have right now in the Power 5. Add two to the PAC and four to the Big 12 to have five conferences of 14? Just curious what folks think Saban is thinking, if anyone even caught that little tidbit.

He's thinking of the current 65 and the schools just missing the cut. Everyone has their own opinion of who that might be. In no particular order here's a baker's dozen:
Hawaii
San Diego St.
Boise St.
BYU
Houston
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
UConn
Cincinnati
New Mexico
UNLV
East Carolina

(05-10-2013 07:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, change of pace from the posts that I mostly scrolled right past.

Saban mentioned 70 schools. Doing the math that is six more than we have right now in the Power 5. Add two to the PAC and four to the Big 12 to have five conferences of 14? Just curious what folks think Saban is thinking, if anyone even caught that little tidbit.

Like I've said before, if there is a streamlining at the top level, I think it gets cut down to close to its modern era historical average of 80-100 schools. I figure around 90 is where it ends up. As an example, the current 5 power conferences (with the Big12 returning to 12) along with the MW and the AAC would be 90. You could come up with rules with criteria that exclude about 36 individual schools (realignment hell for the nonAQs) or you could make rules that include/exclude entire conferences (might leave out some deserving individual schools). Both methods have issues.

Think you are probably right about the 80-100. I think their preference would be for some of the bottom schools to move down on their own. Maybe the stipend breaks the bank for some of the MAC and Sun Belt schools.