Here's some more of this crap

Here’s another article on the destruction of college athletics.

Read on the CSN realignment board that Swofford hinted a vote about a new division could come as soon as next January. Will be interesting to see what happens. If there are lawsuits, I can see some of the bigger programs left behind (Cinci, USF, UCONN for example) being called up to keep those with a lot of pull from suing.

I think it’s naive of us to think that Division I FBS will be in 2015 what it is now. The “Power 5” have been planning this for quite a while.

This idea is so bad that I almost hope it comes to pass, because the schools who will be hurt the most by it deserve it for following along blindly in their greed.

Here is why I think it will not happen, at least as proposed:

The BCS schools need the rest of the FBS schools.


The ultimate answer is this - there is no NFL draft in college football, aka the great equalizer, the bringer of hope.

But I am getting ahead of myself. Let me build the argument.

  1. To schedule home games with a high probability of Ws.

Without those home games, the teams lose revenue opportunities. Yes, you can do NFL style scheduling, but each program will lose a net of 1-2 home dates per year in that system, which is about 10-15% of their gross revenues. That is due to the fact of schedule imbalances between high level teams and their guarantee game opponents who play as few as 5 home games per season. That’s a lot of lost revenue for a school like Alabama or TN. I am sure some commish, coach or AD thinks they can make it back on TV revenue though. We’ll see.

  1. the wins are necessary for two things A) to keep their teams “bowl eligible” (an increasingly ridiculous bar that gets lowered every few years, and B) To sell hope to the fanbase.

Scheduling a few low FBS or FCS games allows teams that go 2-6 or 1-7 in league to look respectable in the final tally, after they pad those records with some almost guaranteed home wins. Suddenly that 2-6 is 6-6 thanks to 4 patsies playing guarantee games, and better yet, suddenly a pretty mediocre team is “bowl eligible” - another revenue opportunity. Without those games, there will be teams that get drilled every year until their fanbases give up because they cannot take the misery of a decade or more of 2-10 records. And there’s no way for them to get back into the hunt because they are fighting the juggernaut of Alabama or Texas or Ohio State or Oregon.

Why? Because unlike the NFL, there is no draft to re-balance the teams and thereby keep hope alive every year.

The BCS schools will do two things, I think, to try to offset these issues:

  1. They’ll try to make some rule about allowing the scheduling of NCAA/FCS/D1/whatever teams anyway. This is where the Gang of 5 and FCS schools have to be smart and think long term instead of short and tell these guys to politely F off! Why? Because they want their cake and they want to eat it too. Either the Gang of 5/FCS teams are good enough to be in the same division or they are not. Collectively, if they refuse, the FBS schools have nowhere to go. Therein lies their leverage.

  2. The BCS schools could make rules opening the door to quasi college free agency - no bars to transfer rules. This would be their defacto draft. However, it is not in fact a draft and I am not sure they could effectively remain NCAA and allow this. I do think they will ultimately try it if their scheming to keep playing Gang of 5 patsies falls through.

Ultimately, the BCS schools need the Gang of 5 programs, and the smart mid to lower rung schools will figure that out if they havent already. Not having them effectivey surrenders all of the “power” in being in a power conference. You lose all leverage then all thats left over is you become the guarantee game for the top 2-3 teams in your league, every year. Congrats AD of North Carolina, you have effectively just substituted your program for Arkansas State, albeit for a bigger fee.

In the final analysis, notice that only the powerful among the power schools will actually benefit from this, and that is who is pushing it.

I think a compromise will be reached to keep a good chunk of the gang of 5 involved. Remember - it is all about money. They will get drug along somehow, and they’ll go, because it’s the better of two bad options. Not sure what the final form will look like, but it will be somehow inclusive, and be a revenue split that they can live with.

My $.02.

Believe that was a bit more than 2 cents, NA.

If I contributed something worth more than $.02 to the board for a change, then good on me.

Re-reading that, it occurs to me that the bowl organizers might fight this move too. Depends on how things play out. There is not much lower that you can lower the “bowl eligible” standard, so what happens when there are not enough eligible teams? Bowls go away? Do they then turn to the Gang of 5?

The gang of 5 schools need to say no to that as well.

I also think there has to be a path to move from a have not to a have - like TCU and the like. If that path is there then the chances of litigation are lower and the lower tier has at least a shot and making a move up.

I just hope we have enough vision to not be “left out” this time, what being left out actually means will determine how far the “BCS teams” take this with the break off.

Did Niner Nat’l call USF a bigger program? :))

[quote=“stonecoldken, post:9, topic:27980”]Did Niner Nat’l call USF a bigger program? :))[/quote]Well they do have some of the best attendance figures outside the power conference. They’re one of only three teams not in a P5 conference (excluding ND) that averages over 40,000 per game.

They are a bigger program. Sadly, for many years they were always in our conference and we almost always had better teams. Then, they started football and the rest is history.

IMO, the possibilities mentioned in this article look to be more realistic than any thing I remember seeing so far. It’s a little scary.

I think the big problem here is what it does to the NCAA tournament. If the break off into their own division in basketball as well then do the rest of D1 schools allow them to participate in the NCAA tourney? This could rip apart the greatest sporting event in the world. If they just form.a new top division for football this is just what happened in the past with FCS.

ESPN chimes in with their selfish take:

Under the current NCAA structure, fledgling FBS programs like Georgia State, Massachusetts, Old Dominion, South Alabama and Texas-San Antonio have as much power as traditional heavyweights like Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas and USC. Heck, every FCS, Division II and Division III football program -- and even the NCAA member institutions that don't even field football teams (hello, Albertus Magnus and Oswego State!) -- carry as much weight in making important decisions about football as the sport's power brokers. Under current NCAA rules, it's one vote for every school. And you don't even have to play football to decide whether an FBS team should have 85 or 100 football scholarships or whether the value of a scholarship should go beyond room, board, books and tuition. [b]College football's socialism[/b] is why it's about to become the "big five" against everybody else.
I agree that schools shouldn't have a say in sports that they don't participate in, but since when did democracy become socialism? If you're a member school of that sport at that level, you should have equal say/vote in determining setup/rules/etc. The B!tch 5 want to structurally turn the NCAA/college football into a caste system where they have all the say and the non-BCS minions have no say. They already are reaping most all of the rewards, and now they want to completely strip the second-tier schools from having anything. Makes me just hate them that much more.

If you play D-1 (FBS) football you should have an equal vote in all things D-1 (FBS) football. If you’re FCS, you don’t have a vote. If you’re D-2, you should not have a vote. Well, you have a vote, but only in terms of your own classification.

Agree with that, but the BCS schools are asking that they get more say than the non-BCS FBS schools concerning FBS football input. They already take in most of the money and have most of the say so with the way things are now.

The system within the NCAA is already “gamed” to provide the so-called Power 5 all of the money and power. They know an expanded playoff is coming and this is just an attempt by them to try to keep the Gang of 5 away from any potential benefits of participating in said playoff.

This article mentions us (conference USA) in the proposed new subdivision. Would you guys even want to be in? I can’t say I would. We’d be a sacrificial lamb for years to come. Plus, paying college players is about where I draw the line.

[quote=“ImfromClayton, post:17, topic:27980”]

This article mentions us (conference USA) in the proposed new subdivision. Would you guys even want to be in? I can’t say I would. We’d be a sacrificial lamb for years to come. Plus, paying college players is about where I draw the line.[/quote]

I would. I have very little interest in FCS and the likes.

[quote=“ImfromClayton, post:17, topic:27980”]

This article mentions us (conference USA) in the proposed new subdivision. Would you guys even want to be in? I can’t say I would. We’d be a sacrificial lamb for years to come. Plus, paying college players is about where I draw the line.[/quote]

Depends- what cut of that money do the CUSA and AAC schools receive? If it is a substantial improvement over our current (and possible future) revenues, then it may well be worth it, and also make player stipends affordable. Normally though, I have always been against paying athletes - however, it’s not my decision, and if the P5 conferences begin paying athletes, then we must too, or we will be next FCS or likely D2 as the difference in recruiting will become far to great. :-X

On a side note, how bad would Gonzo’s head explode if App moves to the Sunbelt just in time to see it relegated to the “New FCS”?

LOL That would be funny…