http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/10/sports...asons.html

I used this as a response in another thread, but felt this would be a good discussion to remind the history of when D1 revamped and how some similarities revolve around the current/new changes in autonomy.

Major changes:
1. Football scholarships reduce from 95 to 85. Both 1-A and 1-AA
2. Basketball scholarship reduce from 15 to 13.
3. Practice time cut to 20 hrs/week (with certain exceptions) with 1 day off during the week.
4. New D1 requirement: 7 men sports and 7 women's (up from 6)

Notice the last paragraph, something things never change and will continue to be the same especially with the increase in money. However, the P5 got their autonomy now and that only puts more of a financial squeeze on the smaller schools.

So far, nothing that has been enacted via autonomy has forced a DI or FBS school to drop down in division or drop FBS football.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Another change like 91 (ie, reducing scholarship numbers in football and bball) would only serve to save schools some money.

(11-17-2015 10:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So far, nothing that has been enacted via autonomy has forced a DI or FBS school to drop down in division or drop FBS football.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Another change like 91 (ie, reducing scholarship numbers in football and bball) would only serve to save schools some money.

Nobody has implemented anything yet except allowing the food. Next season will start the whole COA..etc in full force.

But even then, everyone will try to keep up until they can't and when they can't keep up those schools will find themselves at a crossroads of where they should be.
This isn't going to happen overnight. It'll be 3 or 4 years down the road when everything is fully enacted.

The other point trying to make is the changes made in 1991 that brought more parity is regressing back a little that let the richer schools to offer much more than the little ones with the autonomy benefits.

No. There is no crossroad. None that results in dropping, anyway.

The only decisions that G5 will have to make is whether they will try to keep up with the *optional* changes enacted via autonomy, or not.

And not implementing them is a perfectly valid answer. It in no way forces them to drop.

(11-17-2015 10:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 10:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So far, nothing that has been enacted via autonomy has forced a DI or FBS school to drop down in division or drop FBS football.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Another change like 91 (ie, reducing scholarship numbers in football and bball) would only serve to save schools some money.

Nobody has implemented anything yet except allowing the food. Next season will start the whole COA..etc in full force.

But even then, everyone will try to keep up until they can't and when they can't keep up those schools will find themselves at a crossroads of where they should be.
This isn't going to happen overnight. It'll be 3 or 4 years down the road when everything is fully enacted.

The other point trying to make is the changes made in 1991 that brought more parity is regressing back a little that let the richer schools to offer much more than the little ones with the autonomy benefits.

Variance in COA fees depends on what a school charges in fees ect. beyond tuition.

Where I think the elite football schools are gaining an advantage is with the new playoff system having no automatic bids.

Autobids protects the little guy. The Northwestern, Syracuse or Utah that can't get blue chip players but can have a well coached team win a conference championship. They are at a disadvantage to 1 loss LSU because they don't have a Heisman contender.

We are regressing from the 90's idea of needing to play in a BCS conference to the 70's where a player had to go to a mega football school for a chance at a national title.

The problem I am seeing is that the TV Media sees that some of the G5 schools and some FCS schools are money making cash cows that they want into a P5 conference. The money demand is there for the conferences, but there are some schools still think they are in the old ways like the Big 10, for schools like the early 1900s. Many of the P5 schools were not around for long like Florida State. Many schools are older than they are in football not in a P5.

(11-17-2015 06:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem I am seeing is that the TV Media sees that some of the G5 schools and some FCS schools are money making cash cows that they want into a P5 conference. The money demand is there for the conferences, but there are some schools still think they are in the old ways like the Big 10, for schools like the early 1900s. Many of the P5 schools were not around for long like Florida State. Many schools are older than they are in football not in a P5.

What you are trying to say in David speak is some of the establishment like the B1G believes that G5/FCS schools aren't part of the club though they make $$$.

Heisman factories have been established since the time of John Heisman. For Florida State is was a combination of factors. Tallahassee is 155 miles from Gainesville. They became the state's #2 athletic school in a state with a massive demographic surge. It wasn't normal conditions that caused it.

Georgia Southern could go to 40,000 seats and within Georgia would be viewed as small time compared to UGA. 60,000 seats and they could get into the AAC. 80,000 seats and the ACC but they wouldn't have the brand of Clemson or Florida State on the recruiting trail.

It becomes so improbable for a G5 to make it to the top that you might as well forget about it.

Georgia Southern could be a good example for another reason. If the rumors are true that Stony Brook is gearing to make a huge move, all these years and work Southern has done in the sport could mean nothing, just because where Stony is located and a certain club they are in that GSU will never be.

It won't matter what work some of these schools put in for athletics. There's something ensuring their ceilings will never be higher than others.