(12-16-2019 09:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:42 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:13 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  College presidents are by and large super liberal and a big fan of economics like this, except when it comes to college football

Then they turn into the Monopoly man

The could use the post season as a platform to make it more fair while continuing their "P" traditions.

Significantly more fair from where we stand today is an 5-1-2 with more champs given a shot and perhaps a rule where if a team goes undefeated they are guaranteed a spot in it to help the smaller independent and G4 schools.

lol, no chance in hell there's any undefeated rule. If you have the P5 champs rule- any major undefeated gets in.

There is more independents now then before with no playoff access at the moment.

I expect they'll get more under the next contract. Does that mean only more money or does it mean a lowered access point to the playoff?

In the last 30 years of football I believe its only happened one time; 2009 when both Boise St and TCU went undefeated. Therefore I don't see the big risk in including an undefeated rule as part of the next contract but it would make things more fair.

There's really no chance that those independents will get any more access. Also, since the 10 conferences run it, I don't see the money going up much for them....

There's going to be nothing in there to reward a team to schedule like **** to make a playoff.. Nothing. And that's what you are saying should happen. DOA.

I'm not saying its a scheduling reward but a scheduling protection.

Further there will be no 8 team playoff unless they make substantially more by doing so. There will be no bowl games hosting semifinals unless substantially more money is involved. If the NYD bowls are always a playoff game the value goes up and not flat IMO.

(12-16-2019 09:51 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:42 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:13 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The could use the post season as a platform to make it more fair while continuing their "P" traditions.

Significantly more fair from where we stand today is an 5-1-2 with more champs given a shot and perhaps a rule where if a team goes undefeated they are guaranteed a spot in it to help the smaller independent and G4 schools.

lol, no chance in hell there's any undefeated rule. If you have the P5 champs rule- any major undefeated gets in.

There is more independents now then before with no playoff access at the moment.

I expect they'll get more under the next contract. Does that mean only more money or does it mean a lowered access point to the playoff?

In the last 30 years of football I believe its only happened one time; 2009 when both Boise St and TCU went undefeated. Therefore I don't see the big risk in including an undefeated rule as part of the next contract but it would make things more fair.

There's really no chance that those independents will get any more access. Also, since the 10 conferences run it, I don't see the money going up much for them....

There's going to be nothing in there to reward a team to schedule like **** to make a playoff.. Nothing. And that's what you are saying should happen. DOA.

I'm not saying its a scheduling reward but a scheduling protection.

Further there will be no 8 team playoff unless they make substantially more by doing so. There will be no bowl games hosting semifinals unless substantially more money is involved. If the NYD bowls are always a playoff game the value goes up and not flat IMO.

It'd absolutly be a schedule reward. If you tell a team they go undefeated they make playoff- why in the hell would they schedule anyone remotely tough? That's insanity. And DOA.

The only way to make things "fair" in college football is to dramatically reduce the number of schools in each subdivision. MAC schools should not be competing against B1G schools except in exhibition games. As long as there are more than 32 or so schools in the top division, we will never have fairness. So we should just stop trying to create the illusion of greater fairness, because that's all it will be - an illusion.

(12-16-2019 09:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:51 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:42 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  lol, no chance in hell there's any undefeated rule. If you have the P5 champs rule- any major undefeated gets in.

There is more independents now then before with no playoff access at the moment.

I expect they'll get more under the next contract. Does that mean only more money or does it mean a lowered access point to the playoff?

In the last 30 years of football I believe its only happened one time; 2009 when both Boise St and TCU went undefeated. Therefore I don't see the big risk in including an undefeated rule as part of the next contract but it would make things more fair.

There's really no chance that those independents will get any more access. Also, since the 10 conferences run it, I don't see the money going up much for them....

There's going to be nothing in there to reward a team to schedule like **** to make a playoff.. Nothing. And that's what you are saying should happen. DOA.

I'm not saying its a scheduling reward but a scheduling protection.

Further there will be no 8 team playoff unless they make substantially more by doing so. There will be no bowl games hosting semifinals unless substantially more money is involved. If the NYD bowls are always a playoff game the value goes up and not flat IMO.

It'd absolutly be a schedule reward. If you tell a team they go undefeated they make playoff- why in the hell would they schedule anyone remotely tough? That's insanity. And DOA.

For UMass and NMSU any team on the schedule is tough. They need P5 paydays to foot the bills. I don't see them backing away from playing the P regardless of any theoretical rule.

BYU likewise needs the names for TV and so does Army.

AAC schedules up to secure the access bid at 1 or 2 losses. The G4 know they have their work cut out to compete with that so they won't schedule down.

So I don't see where it could be abused and if it was abused with 3 of these programs undefeated every year they could remove it from the next TV contract.

The share and share alike is a terrible idea. It will create another gold rush like we've seen in hoops with schools suddenly concluding Division II no longer fit their image when they realize much of the cost can be borne by Division I revenue sharing.

The undefeated rule ain't terrible as long as to be eligible a team plays exclusively FBS opponents and a conference title game (we had a team get eligible by playing NMSU home/home in one year this year, don't begrudge it because it's a creative solution but potential is there for an independent to snipe an undefeated year). If you can take 13 victories vs FBS competition you have literally done everything within your control to be the best.

If Alabama REALLY wants to shell out $2 million per pop to load up give weak FBS that's not going to have a huge impact. They've not lost a non-conference regular season game since November 17, 2007 and that was to ULM. But it might have a big impact if they lose a conference game that keeps them out of the SEC title game or they lose the SEC title game and have to rely on their resume to get in.

I don’t think the system I proposed can be gamed so easily. There would be no financial incentive to do it. Why would App. St. for example schedule a home and home with UMass vs getting a large pay day vs PSU or UNC. I think they make about $1m from those type of games.

Conversely if Ohio State tried to schedule lightly OOC, they would still need to go through their own conference plus the BigTen CG undefeated. 1 slip up from a weak schedule could have them left out of the playoffs if the committee starts comparing resumes between 1 loss teams.

(12-16-2019 12:06 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don’t think the system I proposed can be gamed so easily. There would be no financial incentive to do it. Why would App. St. for example schedule a home and home with UMass vs getting a large pay day vs PSU or UNC. I think they make about $1m from those type of games.

Conversely if Ohio State tried to schedule lightly OOC, they would still need to go through their own conference plus the BigTen CG undefeated. 1 slip up from a weak schedule could have them left out of the playoffs if the committee starts comparing resumes between 1 loss teams.

because the money/exposure from making the playoff would be worth tens of millions for App St.....

If everyone splits up the money from the post season equally (not including tickets sold through the school), then monetarily it would not be an advantage. A lot of times schools have to eat the cost of unsold tickets to these bowl games. The exposure is really the grand prize, but so what? If they went undefeated they earned it.

(12-16-2019 12:16 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If everyone splits up the money from the post season equally (not including tickets sold through the school), then monetarily it would not be an advantage. A lot of times schools have to eat the cost of unsold tickets to these bowl games. The exposure is really the grand prize, but so what? If they went undefeated they earned it.

there are a lot of huge advantages though. Look at this with Loyola Illinois making final 4 2 years ago-
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news...-trip.html

Donations to the school’s athletics programs boomed — growing 660 percent year over year between March 1 and April 2 of this year. Loyola declined to say exactly how much additional funding the school received. But clearly there was a lot more money in the department’s coffers at the end of the 2017-18 season than there was the previous season.
Beyond the athletics department, Loyola’s profile among prospective students also increased during March Madness this year. The school received 31 percent more requests for info about the school from March 1 through April 2 than it had gotten during that time frame last year.
And Loyola’s social media engagement skyrocketed during March Madness, growing 1,676 percent year over year. Website traffic also grew 91 percent year over year, and social media followers grew 34 percent during this year’s March Madness compared to a year ago.

Welcome to the New Way of Thinking.

Definition of "Fair": If the process produces misery for all participating it is "Fair". Since "Fair" is an impossible circumstance in a world filled with unique people the only possible baseline is when all suffer.

This way of thinking is, for those interested in broader application, just as ridiculous as trying to make all people equal. From the moment of birth nothing is equal. It never was, and never will be. Wisdom is found in accepting that fact and adapting to it. Therefore no competition is ever equal. In fact the sole purpose of competition is to highlight the differences.

How is it that any of these schools would suffer? They still keep their individual conference tv deals, gate revenue, merchandise, booster donations, etc. Those are things that will continue to separate the haves from the have nots.

(12-16-2019 12:51 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  How is it that any of these schools would suffer? They still keep their individual conference tv deals, gate revenue, merchandise, booster donations, etc. Those are things that will continue to separate the haves from the have nots.

Levels of athletic participation are usually base upon resources and the size of the institution. Groupings of such are widely accepted at the high school level. There are 7 such group distinctions in Alabama and I'm sure each state has their own.

Only in the NCAA will you find 128 different schools which are lumped together in spite of massive differences in size and resources. To force competition without regard to those distinctions harms not only the smallest but the largest, and not only the poorest but the wealthiest.

The smaller poorer schools (and small does not always mean poor) are forced to offer their athletes contests in which to play that are profoundly handicapped by these differences. As the service academies found weekly contests against larger heavier athletes leads to a disproportionate amount of injuries, not to mention the psychological and physical beat downs that are sure to come. For the larger more affluent schools contests with the small ones simply costs them a more valuable match with another larger school. It may pad their statistics and record, but almost always costs them revenue and some prestige.

The High School system is fairer and when a 2A county seat team wins the state championship the town is no less pleased than the city who had a school win the 6A championship. The kids feel just as proud, are exalted just as much, and their gratification is palpable.

Why shouldn't the FBS which has schools with enrollment from the 40,000 or larger range all the way down to the single digit in thousands not be separated? Why should a school of 7,000 with an athletic department that is subsidized by 70% be facing a school of 40,000 whose athletic department earned $200,000,000? To talk abut fairness in this is asinine on so many levels it boggles the imagination.

And I'm not even getting into the fact that the CFP pays what it does precisely because Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame, Washington, and Oklahoma have played in it.

If we had a season where Kansas State, Mississippi State, Wake Forest, Purdue, and Washington State were the 5 options for 4 slots what do you think the national audience would be for that CFP? And what do you think the advertisers would pay for that many small market schools being in the mix? I guarantee you it would be NET loss for ESPN after the guaranteed payouts were made.

So extrapolate that down to the lower 1/3rd of that 128 schools you wish to divide the cash and carefully explain to me how it is remotely fair to the top 32 schools whose national audience pays for the CFP to share all of that revenue equally with schools who in their own version of a CFP couldn't divide 5 million for each participant let alone 40 million?

The SEC and Big 10 earn what they earn because of their audience that they virtually guarantee to the advertisers non only week by week but year by year. The PAC and ACC make much less because they deliver less of an audience, especially when you look at the % of actual viewers vs potential viewers in each of those markets and it is the % of actual viewers compared to total possible viewers that generates higher advertising rates because it means that during events in the SEC you reach a much higher percentage of the actual households in the given area than anywhere else in the nation.

And that's just the beginning of the business considerations.

Now just drop that and look at the health issues of having a Coastal Carolina playing Ohio State or Alabama on a regular basis. They lack the depth, the sophistication of conditioning, and would be decimated by a schedule that included just 5 of the top 1/3 of the FBS.

If High Schools can see this and get it right then why in the Hell hasn't the NCAA where Division I football is concerned?

There shouldn't be 128 schools in this highest division. There should be minimally 3 divisions of schools grouped by size and revenue. There is nothing fair about this for anyone and all are hurt by it. The largest are hurt with the socialistic welfare arrangement of revenue distributions from the NCAA basketball tournament and smallest are hurt by it because of the disparity in competition (both physically and emotionally).

So trying to come up with any system which magically fits this massive group of inequitable schools into the same system is beyond stupid and yet we continue to try to do so. That by definition is insanity.

What you described sounds a lot like a conference where like minded, liked sized schools have banned together. You have games like that already, it’s called a conference championship game. You have bowl games like that as well like the Rose bowl. What the playoffs created was an illusion that anybody has a chance to participate and that’s simply not true. Either you drop the illusion and the P5s split off from the G5’s or you make some sort of criteria that gives everybody a way in.

(12-16-2019 02:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What you described sounds a lot like a conference where like minded, liked sized schools have banned together. You have games like that already, it’s called a conference championship game. You have bowl games like that as well like the Rose bowl. What the playoffs created was an illusion that anybody has a chance to participate and that’s simply not true. Either you drop the illusion and the P5s split off from the G5’s or you make some sort of criteria that gives everybody a way in.

I don't think there's much of an illusion at work. First, everyone interested in college football knows that the playoffs would consist of P5 teams. Second, interest in the CFP more generally is in no way predicated on the involvement of the G5. If the P5 separated from the G5, the CFP games would get the same money, ratings, etc.

Remember, FBS was never created to be a competitive 'league' as such. In fact, if FBS does have a foundational theme or value, it's that is was created to house the schools and conferences that did NOT want to participate in formal, NCAA sponsored playoffs.

So criticizing FBS for not having such a playoff system is misguided at best.

(12-16-2019 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What you described sounds a lot like a conference where like minded, liked sized schools have banned together. You have games like that already, it’s called a conference championship game. You have bowl games like that as well like the Rose bowl. What the playoffs created was an illusion that anybody has a chance to participate and that’s simply not true. Either you drop the illusion and the P5s split off from the G5’s or you make some sort of criteria that gives everybody a way in.

I don't think there's much of an illusion at work. First, everyone interested in college football knows that the playoffs would consist of P5 teams. Second, interest in the CFP more generally is in no way predicated on the involvement of the G5. If the P5 separated from the G5, the CFP games would get the same money, ratings, etc.

Remember, FBS was never created to be a competitive 'league' as such. In fact, if FBS does have a foundational theme or value, it's that is was created to house the schools and conferences that did NOT want to participate in formal, NCAA sponsored playoffs.

So criticizing FBS for not having such a playoff system is misguided at best.

The criticism of the NCAA's regulation of the FBS that is appropriate is over their lack of the enforcement of minimum attendance requirements and the relative ease with which they promote more bottom feeders.

(12-16-2019 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What you described sounds a lot like a conference where like minded, liked sized schools have banned together. You have games like that already, it’s called a conference championship game. You have bowl games like that as well like the Rose bowl. What the playoffs created was an illusion that anybody has a chance to participate and that’s simply not true. Either you drop the illusion and the P5s split off from the G5’s or you make some sort of criteria that gives everybody a way in.

I don't think there's much of an illusion at work. First, everyone interested in college football knows that the playoffs would consist of P5 teams. Second, interest in the CFP more generally is in no way predicated on the involvement of the G5. If the P5 separated from the G5, the CFP games would get the same money, ratings, etc.

Remember, FBS was never created to be a competitive 'league' as such. In fact, if FBS does have a foundational theme or value, it's that is was created to house the schools and conferences that did NOT want to participate in formal, NCAA sponsored playoffs.

So criticizing FBS for not having such a playoff system is misguided at best.

The criticism of the NCAA's regulation of the FBS that is appropriate is over their lack of the enforcement of minimum attendance requirements and the relative ease with which they promote more bottom feeders.

If the SEC and Big 10 really cared about it do you think it would be as it is?

The truth is the "bottom feeders" share from a capped pool. The addition of an FCS call-up reduces the share of the conference taking them and means essentially nothing if they are independent.

The P5 get more schools competing to take a one-shot game contract keeping the cost of those contracts from rising so much.

The powers that be are the 65 P5 schools and if they aren't demanding full compliance it isn't going to happen.

(12-16-2019 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What you described sounds a lot like a conference where like minded, liked sized schools have banned together. You have games like that already, it’s called a conference championship game. You have bowl games like that as well like the Rose bowl. What the playoffs created was an illusion that anybody has a chance to participate and that’s simply not true. Either you drop the illusion and the P5s split off from the G5’s or you make some sort of criteria that gives everybody a way in.

I don't think there's much of an illusion at work. First, everyone interested in college football knows that the playoffs would consist of P5 teams. Second, interest in the CFP more generally is in no way predicated on the involvement of the G5. If the P5 separated from the G5, the CFP games would get the same money, ratings, etc.

Remember, FBS was never created to be a competitive 'league' as such. In fact, if FBS does have a foundational theme or value, it's that is was created to house the schools and conferences that did NOT want to participate in formal, NCAA sponsored playoffs.

So criticizing FBS for not having such a playoff system is misguided at best.

The criticism of the NCAA's regulation of the FBS that is appropriate is over their lack of the enforcement of minimum attendance requirements and the relative ease with which they promote more bottom feeders.

If the SEC and Big 10 really cared about it do you think it would be as it is?

The truth is the "bottom feeders" share from a capped pool. The addition of an FCS call-up reduces the share of the conference taking them and means essentially nothing if they are independent.

The P5 get more schools competing to take a one-shot game contract keeping the cost of those contracts from rising so much.

The powers that be are the 65 P5 schools and if they aren't demanding full compliance it isn't going to happen.

Sorry, ain't buying it. The only thing that keeps buy games in progress is that the networks haven't paid us enough to stop doing them. They claim they want better match ups for ratings. Fine, then cover the 2 million dollar difference in the gate split between a buy game and a P5 game (which is more than amply made up in ad revenue for the network) and the P5 will quit scheduling them.

It's on its way so buckle up. In 10 years,15 at most, the buy games will likely be gone as the next generation of T.V. contracts are being signed.

But the money for the P5 will be in finding a way to wrest the NCAA basketball tournament away from the NCAA and placing under their own control whether that is by breakaway or simply a legal challenge as they did with UGa/OU for football. The much larger sums to be made from such a move is not lost on this current lot of AD's at the P5 level.

The only thing holding the status quo together is the time to assimilate the legal changes coming to college sports. Once they are comfortable with what will be happening there then the current lot of AD's will be ready, willing, and able to move on compliance if they staying, to focus on a new upper division if the NCAA is to remain the organizing body, or breaking away if it is not.

In the meantime demographic change will shrink the number of schools at the bottom of the present divide as state subsidies dry up, and that has already begun.

But in my mind there is no question about whether basketball becomes a more exclusive pool. Not as exclusive as football, but exclusive. I wouldn't be surprised to see consolidation to a P4 for football followed by a consolidation into 2 so called power conferences for basketball only schools. But either way the pool will be shrinking and the factors indicating this are many, not the least of which are the networks involved.

People have predicted a big school breakaway for 65 years, it and flying cars probably happen eventually

(12-16-2019 10:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  People have predicted a big school breakaway for 65 years, it and flying cars probably happen eventually

That's true. Flying cars are too hard to track in the age of terrorism. We could make them fly now, but not without rotors. I imagine that other than drones nothing is going to occupy air space other than transportation industry planes and the military. So the conditions are right.

Now as to a big school breakaway, the conditions are right. Subsidies to keep up athletic endeavors at small state schools will run into continued trouble. The shift demographically will close some, merge some, and retool others. Athletics will eventually shift to those schools who can afford it. The dividing line between the present P5 and the G5 is at the level of subsidy. No school in the P5 is subsidized at 25% or more and all schools in the G5 are subsidized at 25% or much, much more. I think the last time I looked it up there were only 4 P5 schools subsidized at 10% or more.

So the breakaway which will be fueled by changes in pay for play and image rights, and will also be fueled by the way basketball is controlled will take shape with the falling away of commitment to athletics at the lower end of the spectrum and by the semi-professionalism at the upper end.

I look for defections from the ranks of he current P5 as this more fully develops and most likely those will come from some of the privates. I expect a solidification of the standards that define the G5 both in terms of support and in terms of their lack of participation in heading the pay for play route.

Those distinctions will help define an acceptable and willful separation between divisions. One that will be understandable and will allow for tangible support for each. The G5 will remain more nostalgically like what we grew up with. The P5 will be highly marketable and will essentially run feeder programs for the NFL just on campus locations.

I think it will be healthy for both.

(12-16-2019 10:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  People have predicted a big school breakaway for 65 years, it and flying cars probably happen eventually

I don't see it happening. The P5 had one issue with the G5, the NCAA voting issue, and that was resolved 5-6 years ago.

What many who think a breakaway will happen fail to realize is that the P5 likes having the G5 'around' in the same division. Nick Saban may want P5 to play only other P5 but that's an extreme minority opinion.

University Presidents, ADs, and coaches all know that even though P5 fans grouse about Eastern Kentucky and UT-San Antonio on the schedule, what they really want is to see their team win, and for most P5 schools, more P5 games will mean more losses, which is bad for these decision-makers.

Look at the ACC this year: 4-9 vs other P5, 15-4 vs G5. That's a big difference.

That's why we still see FCS being scheduled even though everyone is on the record as being against it, etc.