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

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

membership in FBS is now invitation only

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

I believe you are correct in this assertion and that is why I also believe that there will be atleast one other conference allowed up into D4. That way the heat is on that conference when it comes to who is allowed into D4 and who isn't. The Majors wont be telling anyone directly if they are in or out.

Parameters will be set for inclusion to D4 and I would be very surprised if they are not directed towards the conference more so than at individual schools. The exception being if a school wanted to be an Independent at D4. Example being BYU.

If a conference, lets say the AAC for example, wants to maintain status as a D4 conference then they will have to maintain a membership that keeps the conference's average attendance above a certain level. That puts all the responsibility on that conference and no one else.

It is sneaky but it legally defends the other conferences.

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

membership in FBS is now invitation only

It's invitation only NOW, but wasn't that way during the split in 1979. At that time, each school had the choice as to where they wanted to go.

(08-13-2013 11:45 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

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

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

What a crock of .

those 3 schools have 3 of the largest stadiums and make more per home game than any other school

ohio state fields 39 varsity teams compared to texas 18, oklahoma 19, alabama 21

so yeah, contrary to what you may think that statement is accurate

(08-13-2013 11:54 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

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

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

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

(08-13-2013 11:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  What National Tournament? And you're going to get more money by removing the fanbases of 70 schools?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claiming it will be revenue neutral would require a whole lot more analysis of the overall picture rather than this little sliver of it that we are discussing. We are just talking about one loss and one gain. There are other aspects to the overall equation.

(08-13-2013 11:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:54 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

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

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

(08-13-2013 11:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

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

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

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

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

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

Claiming it will be revenue neutral would require a whole lot more analysis of the overall picture rather than this little sliver of it that we are discussing. We are just talking about one loss and one gain. There are other aspects to the overall equation.

I agree. That was the aspect H1 focused on so that is what I responded too. But I don't see the economic advantage to separating in football. The p5 already have all the football money essentially.

Basketball is different because the P5 don't keep all the money. But also more complicated. There is less separation between the P5 and other conferences and if you kill the NCAA tournament, you kill the NCAA. If you break it, you own it, and then the P5 will have to create their own "NCAA" to run college sports.

I still think this is about governance, making their own rules, and enforcement. And I don't take Sabin and others at their word that they only want to play P5 because they annually schedule a bunch of cupcakes.

(08-13-2013 11:04 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Like I said, FBS is invitation only and yet FCS has not sued because they can't just move up because they want to.

The precedent has been established.

Do you know why that is?

When the split was made objective criteria were set for FCS and FBS. Each school was then forced to make their own decision regarding the level at which they wished to compete at based upon their individual abilities and financial limitations. In short, the schools in FCS actually chose FCS. Sure, most chose FCS because they really had little choice financially---but they were not told they could not compete at the FBS level because they didn't belong to the right conference.

So you are correct. The precedent HAS been established. The problem is, its not what you think it is.

(08-13-2013 11:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:54 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

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

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

(08-13-2013 11:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In my opinion the National Championship Tournament of four teams and three bowls will be expanded to eight teams and seven bowls. The current four team fiasco has increased the payouts BUT those payouts go to everyone in the FBS. If you cut some of those schools out then that money gets redistributed to a smaller number of schools. Yes the payouts weren't equal but it was no chump change amount of money going to the likes of the SBC or MAC or CUSA.

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

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

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

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

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

Claiming it will be revenue neutral would require a whole lot more analysis of the overall picture rather than this little sliver of it that we are discussing. We are just talking about one loss and one gain. There are other aspects to the overall equation.

Claiming it will NOT be revenue neutral also would require a whole lot more analysis of the overall picture.

(08-13-2013 12:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:04 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Like I said, FBS is invitation only and yet FCS has not sued because they can't just move up because they want to.

The precedent has been established.

Do you know why that is?

When the split was made objective criteria were set for FCS and FBS. Each school was then forced to make their own decision regarding the level at which they wished to compete at based upon their individual abilities and financial limitations. In short, the schools in FCS actually chose FCS. Sure, most chose FCS because they really had little choice financially---but they were not told they could not compete at the FBS level because they didn't belong to the right conference.

That's true. The FCS were the ones pushing for the invite only moveup rule.

(08-13-2013 10:50 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Well it seems coaches and AD's want the full P5 split,

You believe that? Athletic directors, maybe.. but coaches? Not a chance in you know what. (I think most coaches are paying lip service to their AD's).

You think coaches want to do away with "powder puff" games to see what they've got on their roster before getting into the meat of their schedules?

You might get a couple of loud mouths who think they shouldn't have to play the nobodies... but when they start getting clobbered because they didn't have "scrimmage" games against the lower non-P5's, and the fans start raising holy hell about going 6-6 or 7-5. Who do they think would be the first people shown the door? It definitely wouldn't be the AD's or the Presidents.

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

I suspect 60-70 is an opening bid.

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

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

Yup. Last week's meeting certainly seemed to reflect that thinking. Make some changes to the leadership structure and voting process, consolidate some power, but more or less keep the status quo as far as membership.

Besides, the cash cow here isn't the $87M the G5 is getting or the $3M that FCS is getting from the CFP - it's the $770M the NCAA men's basketball tournament is getting and having to share with 345+ schools. The more I read about this, the more likely it seems that the NCAA and its $560M endowment could end up funding this cost of attendance issue.

(08-13-2013 10:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I think they are foolish if:

1) They keep the NCAA
2) They only carry over 60-70 schools


If they want to do it properly they will leave the NCAA entirely, bring all of FBS with them, and bring along the best of FCS (SoCon, CAA, Big Sky). If you're worried about too many votes to "lesser" members give non-AQ schools a half vote.

I agree here GTS...

Big 10 should expand to 40, 4 divisions of 10
sec should expand to 24, 4 divisions of 6

64 teams

Geeze Louise, how many times do you have to hear the numbers before you believe that the P5 conferences are intentionally on the same page?
Fall of 2012 Barry Alvarez says 60 - 70. A few weeks later Nick Saban says 60 -70. Others follow with the same numbers and now Alden for the second time mentions 60 - 70. These numbers are not random. The two biggest breaks in the amount of money invested in sports by FBS teams is at 60 and 71. When these guys throw out the same numbers over and over again that tells you where the debate is still ongoing. Do we want 3 conferences of 20, 4 conferences of 16, or 4 conferences of 18, or a combination thereof. When I hear 60 to 70 by these guys I take them seriously. Since football drives the revenue stream and many of the big football schools are tired of smaller schools scooping them in revenue with basketball I don't doubt the potential for a breakaway for no other reason than what they see as an opportunity to grab more revenue in sports not named football by becoming more exclusionary. If they did this they of course would accommodate basketball conferences like the New Big East as they would need big name basketball programs to make such a move look credible.


Could the threat be to get concessions, maybe, but maybe not. They've tried that already a few times and it has not given them what they really wanted. And they are smart enough to realize that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a sign of insanity. The angle that they are serious this time needs to be considered too.

Expediency to arrive at a desired outcome can be a force to drive a breakaway too. When you consider that what the P5 are really asking for is so divergent with the rest of the NCAA compromise at this point seems to me to be counterproductive. Part of the driving force behind this is of course television interests as well. They want compelling games in all regions of the country and a viability of interest late into the season in all regions of the country. Stipends, increased scholarship limitations, and a limited pool of participants all help to achieve the competitive balance that is needed for the advertising goals to be met. An entity extraneous to the NCAA would be far easier to tweak to meet objectives and if it proved to be more profitable for the networks it would become more profitable for the schools as well. And since the days of strong state subsidies are drawing to a close the revenue increase is more important than ever before.

I'm not saying that a breakaway is going to happen, I'm just trying to draw attention to the facts that make that option far more likely than they were in the past and trying to point out that the numbers of 60 to 70 are not random at all. Those who are not willing to increase their spending to significant levels in order to produce a better sports product will not be included and those breaks happen around the 60th position and again at a lesser extent at or around the 71st. They've been giving us the same numbers for 2 plus years. It's not an accident.

(08-13-2013 12:02 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  I agree. That was the aspect H1 focused on so that is what I responded too. But I don't see the economic advantage to separating in football. The p5 already have all the football money essentially.

Basketball is different because the P5 don't keep all the money. But also more complicated. There is less separation between the P5 and other conferences and if you kill the NCAA tournament, you kill the NCAA. If you break it, you own it, and then the P5 will have to create their own "NCAA" to run college sports.

I still think this is about governance, making their own rules, and enforcement. And I don't take Sabin and others at their word that they only want to play P5 because they annually schedule a bunch of cupcakes.

What H1 is getting at (and what is honestly the single most compelling reason for the P5 to separate themselves) isn't simply the $1 million extra that would be redistributed under the current CFP.

The long-term play if there's a split is that the P5 can set up an 8-team playoff (and probably just slot the games using the traditional bowls) and keep 100% of that revenue and access without having to allow any non-power teams in. That gives the P5 complete control over what would be a MONSTER revenue generator (likely to be substantially more than NCAA Tournament) without having to split that money with the smaller leagues. Contrary to popular belief and platitudes, the P5 aren't opposed to a larger playoff system per se. What they don't want is an NCAA Tournament-style playoff system that includes *any* automatic access for the non-power schools (and I mean even just one shared CFP-style access spot, much less an auto-bid for every conference), but they do very much want auto bids for each power 5 champ in an 8-team scenario (as that simultaneously supercharges the value of all of those conferences' regular season TV rights on top of the larger postseason revenue). The only real way to do that is to be in a separate division so that they can set up a totally different postseason structure to suit their needs.

That's the long-term situation IF the P5 want to split off completely (which I'm not sure is really want they want to do in practicality).

If they do split I hope it's at 60/70. They'll find out later that they would have been better off without the split. It will take a while for them to recover (if they ever do) from the smaller viewing audiences.

Regardless of the number of teams in the top tier, here's to hoping that the Big12 uses the new division/split to do away with the 12 member requirement for a conference championship game!

As I have said from day 1, the talking point couldn't be more obvious. Always compare Texas to Texas State. The very biggest P5 school to the very smallest G5 school. If you must use someone else, use Alabama or Ohio State. Never, ever compare Washington St to Boise St. Or Wake Forest to Cincinnati. Or countless other examples, because they would make it too obvious that their point is 100% garbage.

(08-13-2013 01:05 PM)uccheese Wrote:  As I have said from day 1, the talking point couldn't be more obvious. Always compare Texas to Texas State. The very biggest P5 school to the very smallest G5 school. If you must use someone else, use Alabama or Ohio State. Never, ever compare Washington St to Boise St. Or Wake Forest to Cincinnati. Or countless other examples, because they would make it too obvious that their point is 100% garbage.

Exactly. It's easy to compare black to white, but not as easy to say where on the grayscale the line is drawn that clearly separates between the two.

Agree with Frank and I've said that for a while now: it's all about an expanded P5 playoff where Florida State doesn't have to sit at home while Florida International gets an automatic slot.

(08-13-2013 01:05 PM)uccheese Wrote:  As I have said from day 1, the talking point couldn't be more obvious. Always compare Texas to Texas State. The very biggest P5 school to the very smallest G5 school. If you must use someone else, use Alabama or Ohio State. Never, ever compare Washington St to Boise St. Or Wake Forest to Cincinnati. Or countless other examples, because they would make it too obvious that their point is 100% garbage.

while that is a very good point, but WF has lots of history are the G5 level whereas cincy doesnt. could that be a legitimate anti trust issue maybe.....

but schools like unc, duke, ncsu, vtech, & uva WANT wf, no disrespect to your team but the b10 doesnt want cincy and the rest of the g5 took several other schools or opted not to expand rather than take cincy.