This link was posted in another thread, but the discussion the OP started has focused more on the reduction of sports than the NA5 (G5) letter to the NCAA so I wanted to make some comments about that. The text of the letter is found at the bottom of the article along with a copy of the requested waivers.

Some things that stand out to me about the letter:

1) The letter is very broad in scope, seeking relief from NCAA requirements in basically all areas of athletics. I'm scratching my head thinking of an area that isn't covered. They even call for a moratorium on FCS rising to FBS, except for those already in the process.

This strikes me as opportunistic/premature. While C19 will surely have a big impact on budgets, we don't know the impact yet. It might be really large, or relatively small. For example, I was on a conference call with my university chancellor the other day, he was updating us on C19, and he mentioned that our school was getting about $6 million in stimulus money and that would be available shortly. So if things "return to normal" relatively soon, some schools might actually have more money than they would have. Of course things might be catastrophic as well. Point is, the NA5 are asking for basically "worst case scenario" relief when we don't know what the scenario will be.

2) Given the "P6" concept, I was a little surprised to see Aresco banding together with other NA5 conferences.

3) The commissioners characterize themselves as the "Non-Autonomous FBS Commissioners", which is the correct formal NCAA term for these conferences, G5 being short-hand. But it does remind us that these 5 conferences are formally distinct from the A5 conferences.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-budgets-ti...23901.html

(04-15-2020 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  1) The letter is very broad in scope, seeking relief from NCAA requirements in basically all areas of athletics. I'm scratching my head thinking of an area that isn't covered. They even call for a moratorium on FCS rising to FBS, except for those already in the process.

This strikes me as opportunistic/premature. While C19 will surely have a big impact on budgets, we don't know the impact yet. It might be really large, or relatively small. For example, I was on a conference call with my university chancellor the other day, he was updating us on C19, and he mentioned that our school was getting about $6 million in stimulus money and that would be available shortly. So if things "return to normal" relatively soon, some schools might actually have more money than they would have. Of course things might be catastrophic as well. Point is, the NA5 are asking for basically "worst case scenario" relief when we don't know what the scenario will be.

But would any stimulus money be used for athletics? I think not.

One angle on this is what will this do the AAC's waiver on having 12 for a CCG?

If they can get a waiver on that for 4 years they may never need to expand because by 2024 they'll be bumping up against the GOR and another round of realignment.

I already posted this article.

(04-15-2020 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This link was posted in another thread, but the discussion the OP started has focused more on the reduction of sports than the NA5 (G5) letter to the NCAA so I wanted to make some comments about that. The text of the letter is found at the bottom of the article along with a copy of the requested waivers.

Some things that stand out to me about the letter:

1) The letter is very broad in scope, seeking relief from NCAA requirements in basically all areas of athletics. I'm scratching my head thinking of an area that isn't covered. They even call for a moratorium on FCS rising to FBS, except for those already in the process.

This strikes me as opportunistic/premature. While C19 will surely have a big impact on budgets, we don't know the impact yet. It might be really large, or relatively small. For example, I was on a conference call with my university chancellor the other day, he was updating us on C19, and he mentioned that our school was getting about $6 million in stimulus money and that would be available shortly. So if things "return to normal" relatively soon, some schools might actually have more money than they would have. Of course things might be catastrophic as well. Point is, the NA5 are asking for basically "worst case scenario" relief when we don't know what the scenario will be.

2) Given the "P6" concept, I was a little surprised to see Aresco banding together with other NA5 conferences.

3) The commissioners characterize themselves as the "Non-Autonomous FBS Commissioners", which is the correct formal NCAA term for these conferences, G5 being short-hand. But it does remind us that these 5 conferences are formally distinct from the A5 conferences.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-budgets-ti...23901.html

P6 was never about money. You know better than that. P6 was about performance.

(04-15-2020 03:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I already posted this article.

Someone else posted it before both of us.

(04-15-2020 09:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 03:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I already posted this article.

Someone else posted it before both of us.

I’m posting it again below, for reference:

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-budgets-ti...23901.html

It really is this simple:
If you can't afford to be in the game, then you must get out.

No waivers, no "relief." It's time to realize that either you're in it at this level or you're not.

There are other levels of competition that might suit these conferences better.

(04-15-2020 07:31 PM)otown Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This link was posted in another thread, but the discussion the OP started has focused more on the reduction of sports than the NA5 (G5) letter to the NCAA so I wanted to make some comments about that. The text of the letter is found at the bottom of the article along with a copy of the requested waivers.

Some things that stand out to me about the letter:

1) The letter is very broad in scope, seeking relief from NCAA requirements in basically all areas of athletics. I'm scratching my head thinking of an area that isn't covered. They even call for a moratorium on FCS rising to FBS, except for those already in the process.

This strikes me as opportunistic/premature. While C19 will surely have a big impact on budgets, we don't know the impact yet. It might be really large, or relatively small. For example, I was on a conference call with my university chancellor the other day, he was updating us on C19, and he mentioned that our school was getting about $6 million in stimulus money and that would be available shortly. So if things "return to normal" relatively soon, some schools might actually have more money than they would have. Of course things might be catastrophic as well. Point is, the NA5 are asking for basically "worst case scenario" relief when we don't know what the scenario will be.

2) Given the "P6" concept, I was a little surprised to see Aresco banding together with other NA5 conferences.

3) The commissioners characterize themselves as the "Non-Autonomous FBS Commissioners", which is the correct formal NCAA term for these conferences, G5 being short-hand. But it does remind us that these 5 conferences are formally distinct from the A5 conferences.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-budgets-ti...23901.html

P6 was never about money. You know better than that. P6 was about performance.

The "P6" was delusional. And now everybody knows it.

(04-15-2020 09:40 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 07:31 PM)otown Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This link was posted in another thread, but the discussion the OP started has focused more on the reduction of sports than the NA5 (G5) letter to the NCAA so I wanted to make some comments about that. The text of the letter is found at the bottom of the article along with a copy of the requested waivers.

Some things that stand out to me about the letter:

1) The letter is very broad in scope, seeking relief from NCAA requirements in basically all areas of athletics. I'm scratching my head thinking of an area that isn't covered. They even call for a moratorium on FCS rising to FBS, except for those already in the process.

This strikes me as opportunistic/premature. While C19 will surely have a big impact on budgets, we don't know the impact yet. It might be really large, or relatively small. For example, I was on a conference call with my university chancellor the other day, he was updating us on C19, and he mentioned that our school was getting about $6 million in stimulus money and that would be available shortly. So if things "return to normal" relatively soon, some schools might actually have more money than they would have. Of course things might be catastrophic as well. Point is, the NA5 are asking for basically "worst case scenario" relief when we don't know what the scenario will be.

2) Given the "P6" concept, I was a little surprised to see Aresco banding together with other NA5 conferences.

3) The commissioners characterize themselves as the "Non-Autonomous FBS Commissioners", which is the correct formal NCAA term for these conferences, G5 being short-hand. But it does remind us that these 5 conferences are formally distinct from the A5 conferences.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-budgets-ti...23901.html

P6 was never about money. You know better than that. P6 was about performance.

The "P6" was delusional. And now everybody knows it.

Adding Tulsa and Tulane was one of their first mistake. They both do not scream P6 schools.

Tulsa opened the door for Wichita which is now going to open the door for St. Louis?

(04-15-2020 09:38 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  It really is this simple:
If you can't afford to be in the game, then you must get out.

No waivers, no "relief." It's time to realize that either you're in it at this level or you're not.

There are other levels of competition that might suit these conferences better.

I agree with that. There's no law of the universe that says there have to be 130 FBS athletic programs. The criteria are what they are, and they don't have an "well unless bad times strike" or something qualification to them. You're supposed to be institutionally strong enough to weather unexpected shocks, etc.

And the proposed freeze on FCS moving up, while allowing existing FBS to function at FCS levels - which means that FCS schools that CAN meet FBS criteria can't come up, while FBS schools that CANNOT meet FBS get a free pass to stay, is just sheer self-interested arrogance.

That's one reason I've never been sympathetic to G5 complaining about P5 holding them down. The G5 have the same domineering attitude towards those divisions below them.

(04-16-2020 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And the proposed freeze on FCS moving up, while allowing existing FBS to function at FCS levels - which means that FCS schools that CAN meet FBS criteria can't come up, while FBS schools that CANNOT meet FBS get a free pass to stay, is just sheer self-interested arrogance.

That's one reason I've never been sympathetic to G5 complaining about P5 holding them down. The G5 have the same domineering attitude towards those divisions below them.

Can you blame us though? We didn't move up just to be at the same level we moved up because we felt like we're above that. Of course we see the divisions below us as well, below us.

(04-16-2020 10:07 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-16-2020 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And the proposed freeze on FCS moving up, while allowing existing FBS to function at FCS levels - which means that FCS schools that CAN meet FBS criteria can't come up, while FBS schools that CANNOT meet FBS get a free pass to stay, is just sheer self-interested arrogance.

That's one reason I've never been sympathetic to G5 complaining about P5 holding them down. The G5 have the same domineering attitude towards those divisions below them.

Can you blame us though? We didn't move up just to be at the same level we moved up because we felt like we're above that. Of course we see the divisions below us as well, below us.

Not at all. But then that means one shouldn't whine about being treated the same way by those still above you, in this case the A5.

(04-16-2020 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 09:38 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  It really is this simple:
If you can't afford to be in the game, then you must get out.

No waivers, no "relief." It's time to realize that either you're in it at this level or you're not.

There are other levels of competition that might suit these conferences better.

I agree with that. There's no law of the universe that says there have to be 130 FBS athletic programs. The criteria are what they are, and they don't have an "well unless bad times strike" or something qualification to them. You're supposed to be institutionally strong enough to weather unexpected shocks, etc.

And the proposed freeze on FCS moving up, while allowing existing FBS to function at FCS levels - which means that FCS schools that CAN meet FBS criteria can't come up, while FBS schools that CANNOT meet FBS get a free pass to stay, is just sheer self-interested arrogance.

That's one reason I've never been sympathetic to G5 complaining about P5 holding them down. The G5 have the same domineering attitude towards those divisions below them.

Frankly, I can’t really tell where this is going. Some of the requests I understand as social distancing requirements and local edicts may stop the playing of games or limit crowd sizes. I get the idea of limiting schedules under these conditions may be necessary. But I don’t see what movement up to FBS has to do with anything (nor can I imagine any FCS school making that move in the current crisis). The only thing I can think is that the FCS to FBS moratorium was requested to stop schools from using the temporary suspension of the rules as a basis for being “qualified” to move up when they would not typically qualify.

(04-16-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2020 10:07 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-16-2020 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And the proposed freeze on FCS moving up, while allowing existing FBS to function at FCS levels - which means that FCS schools that CAN meet FBS criteria can't come up, while FBS schools that CANNOT meet FBS get a free pass to stay, is just sheer self-interested arrogance.

That's one reason I've never been sympathetic to G5 complaining about P5 holding them down. The G5 have the same domineering attitude towards those divisions below them.

Can you blame us though? We didn't move up just to be at the same level we moved up because we felt like we're above that. Of course we see the divisions below us as well, below us.

Not at all. But then that means one shouldn't whine about being treated the same way by those still above you, in this case the A5.

You that only those that can survive it should make it right? Well if the G5 schools can't survive this then what will happen to the schools below? From what I've read the cost of FCS isn't really all that much cheaper and most FCS schools rely on even greater subsidy percentages. I think D3 football schools might be okay since it would be more feasible for a big donor to save a program for a few million since obviously they're the cheapest programs to run.

(04-16-2020 02:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Tulsa opened the door for Wichita which is now going to open the door for St. Louis?

Tulsa shifted the power to the West teams, from being an old East Coast Big East.

(04-16-2020 10:41 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(04-16-2020 02:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Tulsa opened the door for Wichita which is now going to open the door for St. Louis?

Tulsa shifted the power to the West teams, from being an old East Coast Big East.

Tulsa was added to allow the AAC to sponsor a CCG at the time. At the time, Tulsa was the CUSA champ and had been a consistently winning football and basketball program in CUSA---despite having had little success in the WAC. It appeared they had found their footing. At the time, Tulsa seemed like a solid athletic program that represented a decent geographical fit with an attractive academic profile.

So. now the G5 wants to hold schools down that could help them now?

Jacksonville State =SBC shunned them
Eastern Kentucky=SBC shunned them
Lamar=SBC shunned them/WAC shunned them as well, they could have joined UTSA, UTA and Texas State at the same time.
James Madison=AAC/CUSA shunned them
North Alabama=hinting SBC/got ignored
Chattanooga=rejecting SBC
Missouri State=rejecting SBC
James Madison=rejecting SBC
Sam Houston State?
SFAU?
Northern Iowa?
Stony Brook?
Youngstown State=shunned by the MAC
Delaware State=shunned by everybody
Delaware=will follow JMU to FBS
Montana=rejected the WAC
Montana State=rejected the WAC
Portland State=rejected the WAC
Sacramento State=rejected the WAC
UC-Davis=rejected the WAC
Cal. Poly=rejected the WAC
Idaho=rejected by all FBS conferences
Liberty=shunned by all the conferences
New Mexico State=rejected by all the FBS conference
Northern Arizona=rejected the WAC


I might see some schools could be brought up if they are in key spots that could help in all sports. Missouri State, Jacksonville State, Chattanooga, Kennesaw State, North Alabama, Jackson State, Tennessee State, Youngstown State, Stony Brook, Illinois State, Indiana State, Southern Illinois, Saint Louis, VCU, Dayton, Gonzaga, Saint Mary's Long Beach State, Fullerton State etc all could fit in somewhere to help cut the cost of travel. One thing we should learn including all the FBS schools that we could get more pandemics that could disrupt the sports in the future that you have to reform all the conferences to make it were schools don't lose money to a point of dropping sports. I could see Central Oklahoma in the same conference with Tulsa.

(04-16-2020 01:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  So. now the G5 wants to hold schools down that could help them now?

Jacksonville State =SBC shunned them
Eastern Kentucky=SBC shunned them
Lamar=SBC shunned them/WAC shunned them as well, they could have joined UTSA, UTA and Texas State at the same time.
James Madison=AAC/CUSA shunned them
North Alabama=hinting SBC/got ignored
Chattanooga=rejecting SBC
Missouri State=rejecting SBC
James Madison=rejecting SBC
Sam Houston State?
SFAU?
Northern Iowa?
Stony Brook?
Youngstown State=shunned by the MAC
Delaware State=shunned by everybody
Delaware=will follow JMU to FBS
Montana=rejected the WAC
Montana State=rejected the WAC
Portland State=rejected the WAC
Sacramento State=rejected the WAC
UC-Davis=rejected the WAC
Cal. Poly=rejected the WAC
Idaho=rejected by all FBS conferences
Liberty=shunned by all the conferences
New Mexico State=rejected by all the FBS conference
Northern Arizona=rejected the WAC


I might see some schools could be brought up if they are in key spots that could help in all sports. Missouri State, Jacksonville State, Chattanooga, Kennesaw State, North Alabama, Jackson State, Tennessee State, Youngstown State, Stony Brook, Illinois State, Indiana State, Southern Illinois, Saint Louis, VCU, Dayton, Gonzaga, Saint Mary's Long Beach State, Fullerton State etc all could fit in somewhere to help cut the cost of travel. One thing we should learn including all the FBS schools that we could get more pandemics that could disrupt the sports in the future that you have to reform all the conferences to make it were schools don't lose money to a point of dropping sports. I could see Central Oklahoma in the same conference with Tulsa.

Maybe Im misreading it, but I think the freeze on moves ups is simply prevent FCS schools from taking advantage of the temporary relaxation of rules to claim they were "qualified" to move up because all the normal requirements were non-operative during the requested waiver period. They didnt want schools using the crisis as a back door way to move up. For instance---an FCS school with an average attendance of 3000 could try to move up on its own accord---claiming they didnt need to met the attendance requirements or possess a FBS conference invite during this waiver period.