Should P5s and G5s have their own divison?

[Ben]

I almost think they should. Let the p5s be fully in control in whatever they do and get more money and allow the G5s to actually try to play for a national title instead of having 98% them unrealistically playing for a national championship now.

[Inhogswetrust]

Heck I think the P5 should break completely away from the NCAA and start their own organization.

[NaturalStateReb]

No. 

If the P5 break away, then they'll have to play each other.  More home-and-homes, less home games, less wins, and less money.  No one's interested in that.

Plus, there's an antitrust lawsuit lurking in something like this.  What you're describing could look a lot like an anti-competitive cartel.

[Inhogswetrust]

No. 

If the P5 break away, then they'll have to play each other.  More home-and-homes, less home games, less wins, and less money.  No one's interested in that.

Plus, there's an antitrust lawsuit lurking in something like this.  What you're describing could look a lot like an anti-competitive cartel.

I respectfully disagree. I've heard a lot of talk on sports radio about how the P5 schools are scheduling more games against P5 schools and less against the g's. The money might even increase with more interest, better ticket sales as well as better TV ratings. As far as the anti-competitive angle I think it already is there. Why couldn't the teams left try to get more money for themselves. We have a cartel now. By having different organizations we wouldn't. As long as the P5 get the autonomy they desire and deserve I'm fine with it whether it be within the NCAA or not.

[Piggfoot]

Sure. go backwards to the old NFC and AFC days for a "College" superbowl at the end of the season.

[Ben]

I respectfully disagree. I've heard a lot of talk on sports radio about how the P5 schools are scheduling more games against P5 schools and less against the g's. The money might even increase with more interest, better ticket sales as well as better TV ratings. As far as the anti-competitive angle I think it already is there. Why couldn't the teams left try to get more money for themselves. We have a cartel now. By having different organizations we wouldn't. As long as the P5 get the autonomy they desire and deserve I'm fine with it whether it be within the NCAA or not.

i agree. Plus dont you think the p5s could still play the g5s to reduce playing each other? Pretty much like they do now along with fbs teams?

[chiefsfan]

i agree. Plus dont you think the p5s could still play the g5s to reduce playing each other? Pretty much like they do now along with fbs teams?

Doubtful.

If a split happened, the Top of G5, which would be the AAC, MWC, and the top teams out of the CUSA, MAC, and SBC would most likely turn around and file an anti-trust lawsuit.   That group would begin working together during that time, and would most likely agree to ban playing games against P5 opponents, or if they don't ban, it would be a gentlemen's type agreement.

Instead of getting home games against UAB, Nichols State, and Northern Illinois, teams like Arkansas would have to play Nebraska, Stanford, and Kansas State, and those would have to be home and home deals.  Meaning you now have P5 teams fighting for 6 home games.

Beyond that, you have serious questions about bowl eligibility as a large number of P5 schools rely on FCS and G5 opponents to help them earn 6 wins and a Bowl game.   A 7-5 Season for Arkansas with 3 SEC wins, turns into a 4-8 season, and coaches start losing jobs while fans become frustrated.

It would most likely destroy college football as everyone knows it. 

The split is something that works wonders for Alabama...But do any of you actually think Kentucky football would go along with such a plan?

[ricepig]

Doubtful.

If a split happened, the Top of G5, which would be the AAC, MWC, and the top teams out of the CUSA, MAC, and SBC would most likely turn around and file an anti-trust lawsuit.   That group would begin working together during that time, and would most likely agree to ban playing games against P5 opponents, or if they don't ban, it would be a gentlemen's type agreement.

Instead of getting home games against UAB, Nichols State, and Northern Illinois, teams like Arkansas would have to play Nebraska, Stanford, and Kansas State, and those would have to be home and home deals.  Meaning you now have P5 teams fighting for 6 home games.

Beyond that, you have serious questions about bowl eligibility as a large number of P5 schools rely on FCS and G5 opponents to help them earn 6 wins and a Bowl game.   A 7-5 Season for Arkansas with 3 SEC wins, turns into a 4-8 season, and coaches start losing jobs while fans become frustrated.

It would most likely destroy college football as everyone knows it. 

The split is something that works wonders for Alabama...But do any of you actually think Kentucky football would go along with such a plan?

Maybe, maybe not. How many G5's need the money games to keep their athletic programs afloat? They won't get ASU or So Miss to pay them $1mil to play, so it isn't that simple. And which group will have the largest TV package? I don't see a complete split, as the basketball tournament is too big and too much money, but there will be a split of sorts.

[chiefsfan]

I respectfully disagree. I've heard a lot of talk on sports radio about how the P5 schools are scheduling more games against P5 schools and less against the g's. The money might even increase with more interest, better ticket sales as well as better TV ratings. As far as the anti-competitive angle I think it already is there. Why couldn't the teams left try to get more money for themselves. We have a cartel now. By having different organizations we wouldn't. As long as the P5 get the autonomy they desire and deserve I'm fine with it whether it be within the NCAA or not.

Listening to Talk Radio would be kind of foolish.  Most Talk Radio jocks know nothing.

Most leagues are taking steps to dump FCS games.  What you are seeing is leagues like the SEC look to require 8 league games, no FCS, and one game against a major conference opponent.  That still leaves 3 games for SBC teams to schedule against G5 competition.  And every single P5 team is taking full advantage of those games.

As for the Anti Trust suit.  There's no guarantee it would work.  but it would probably be ugly either way. 

P5 and G5 just worked together to effectively eliminate any chance of FCS programs becoming a threat of stopping what either side wants to do.  The two will settle with that, and not go any further.

[ricepig]

Listening to Talk Radio would be kind of foolish.  Most Talk Radio jocks know nothing.

Most leagues are taking steps to dump FCS games.  What you are seeing is leagues like the SEC look to require 8 league games, no FCS, and one game against a major conference opponent.  That still leaves 3 games for SBC teams to schedule against G5 competition.  And every single P5 team is taking full advantage of those games.

As for the Anti Trust suit.  There's no guarantee it would work.  but it would probably be ugly either way. 

P5 and G5 just worked together to effectively eliminate any chance of FCS programs becoming a threat of stopping what either side wants to do.  The two will settle with that, and not go any further.

The SEC hasn't put a end to FCS games, Slive said it was an institutional decision, not a conference decision.

[chiefsfan]

Maybe, maybe not. How many G5's need the money games to keep their athletic programs afloat? They won't get ASU or So Miss to pay them $1mil to play, so it isn't that simple. And which group will have the largest TV package? I don't see a complete split, as the basketball tournament is too big and too much money, but there will be a split of sorts.

Numbers wise:

All 12 AAC
All 12 MWC
BYU
Navy
Army
NIU, Toledo, Ohio, Kent, and Ball state would all likely agree from the MAC
Marshall, Rice, MTSU, and WKU sign on from CUSA
Ark State, ULL, and Troy sign on from the SBC.

That's 38 out of 64 available programs who play either 1 money game or zero...and could afford to give up the cash for the P5 games.  TV revenues are low anyway, so no significant loss, as ESPN/FOX will still need Programming.

Now you have 26 programs left who would be willing to schedule P5.  Out of those 26, a decent number likely consider dropping down to FCS now that their reason for being FBS is gone.  The top of FCS, who doesn't need the Cash, then moves up to join the G5.

Throw in the probability that major conferences would limit how many G5 teams you could play to 1 or two.   Now you're looking at 20 G5 programs willing to play P5 teams, and roughly 50 P5 teams looking for games.  The numbers don't match up.

[chiefsfan]

The SEC hasn't put a end to FCS games, Slive said it was an institutional decision, not a conference decision.

You are right.  But would that continue in a split?

The one thing I will add that no one seems to ever point out, is that the G5 schools actually voted for the Stipends issues that caused this whole regovernance to begin with.  If I remember the numbers, all but 8-10 FBS programs supported stipends, and two or three of those were P5.

The issue was that almost every single FCS program universally voted the issue down, and since FCS and Non Football outnumber FBS...the move failed.

Despite the media's and Nick Saban's posturing.  This has never been about separating from the G5.  Its about separating from FCS.

[ricepig]

Numbers wise:

All 12 AAC
All 12 MWC
BYU
Navy
Army
NIU, Toledo, Ohio, Kent, and Ball state would all likely agree from the MAC
Marshall, Rice, MTSU, and WKU sign on from CUSA
Ark State, ULL, and Troy sign on from the SBC.

That's 38 out of 64 available programs who play either 1 money game or zero...and could afford to give up the cash for the P5 games.  TV revenues are low anyway, so no significant loss, as ESPN/FOX will still need Programming.

Now you have 26 programs left who would be willing to schedule P5.  Out of those 26, a decent number likely consider dropping down to FCS now that their reason for being FBS is gone.  The top of FCS, who doesn't need the Cash, then moves up to join the G5.

Throw in the probability that major conferences would limit how many G5 teams you could play to 1 or two.   Now you're looking at 20 G5 programs willing to play P5 teams, and roughly 50 P5 teams looking for games.  The numbers don't match up.

How do you know these schools can give up their money game, are they just going to raise the student athletic fees at these schools? ASU gets more revenue from one money game than from 6 home games, I'm sure they aren't alone.

[chiefsfan]

How do you know these schools can give up their money game, are they just going to raise the student athletic fees at these schools? ASU gets more revenue from one money game than from 6 home games, I'm sure they aren't alone.

ASU has said before that we'd prefer not playing money games at all.  We're willing if the Pay is amazing, and the game offers an increased exposure.  Its not a requirement to keep the program afloat.  We turn down far more guarantee offers than we accept.   Yes, we get more than we do off ticket sales, but we also have the lowest ticket prices in FBS football. With a 5 dollar price increase on tickets, we'd make up almost all of that cost.

That's generally true with many G5 programs.  Some of these have 30 plus million dollar budgets and sell 30K plus tickets to every game.  They can live without the 1 million dollars for that one money game.  Its the exposure that usually wins out with these things, but that exposure lowers significantly anyway if there was a split.

Programs like Eastern Michigan with zero attendance and a tiny budget would get eaten alive...but they would probably drop anyway if the split happened.

[newey-west]

I think that this P5/G5 split is arbitrary and stupid in some respects. 

For example, BYU ranked #28 in attendance last year (right behind Arkansas) and consistently has 60k in attendance despite a few 'bad' years.  However, for a number of reasons, P5 conferences won't add BYU...and if the split occurs then they are relegated to the ranks of teams like Arkansas State...even though BYU has a better football program than most of the teams currently in P5 leagues.

I think that schools need to operate in the black before new lines are drawn (here's a good link on the subject: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605980/Split-Division-I-when-its-out-of-the-red-says-BYU-coach-Bronco-Mendenhall.html?pg=all).  I also think that divisions should be based on quantitative factors such as attendance and APR (there are a large number of factors that can be used). 

Also, create a dynamic Division 1, rather than a static Division 1 by allowing schools to "drop" to the lower division when they aren't abiding by minimum standards.  This will motivate teams at the bottom  to improve (e.g., increase attendance or improve academics).

I'm obviously a BYU fan (I love the Hogs too), but I think that conference expansion and all of this P5/G5 talk has hurt college football fans in general.

[ricepig]

ASU has said before that we'd prefer not playing money games at all.  We're willing if the Pay is amazing, and the game offers an increased exposure.  Its not a requirement to keep the program afloat.  We turn down far more guarantee offers than we accept.   Yes, we get more than we do off ticket sales, but we also have the lowest ticket prices in FBS football. With a 5 dollar price increase on tickets, we'd make up almost all of that cost.

That's generally true with many G5 programs.  Some of these have 30 plus million dollar budgets and sell 30K plus tickets to every game.  They can live without the 1 million dollars for that one money game.  Its the exposure that usually wins out with these things, but that exposure lowers significantly anyway if there was a split.

Programs like Eastern Michigan with zero attendance and a tiny budget would get eaten alive...but they would probably drop anyway if the split happened.

Well, let me know when you, and these other teams you talk about, drop them, I'll believe it when I see it.

[lefty08]

Maybe, maybe not. How many G5's need the money games to keep their athletic programs afloat? They won't get ASU or So Miss to pay them $1mil to play, so it isn't that simple. And which group will have the largest TV package? I don't see a complete split, as the basketball tournament is too big and too much money, but there will be a split of sorts.

I dont think coaches would lose their jobs because of not winning as many games, expectations on coaches would be tempered to.match the scheduling. Lets face it, winning 8 games now with 4 OOC cupcakes isnt as impressive as winning 6 against all p5 teams. I welcome the change, although I strongly disagree on paying the players. I think the extra money should be put in a trust aquired only if you graduate or get drafted after your jr year. You go early and dont get drafted, u forfeit your money.

[Seminole Indian]

It is obvious from the new postseason playoff( which all but forces most FBS to stop playing FCS if the want to have a SOS strong enough to participate), to the Autonomy proposal that the P5's value the G5's and have no intention of dumping them. In fact they have gone out of their way to be more than fair in both.

Their feelings toward the other 22 Non-FBS Conferences is not as cozy.

To gain  control over a the few issues the non division 1 conferences opposed (which is what this autonomy proposal is all about) they have separated the 128 FBS schools from the other Division 1 Conferences in the proposal. Then they muscled the  votes to take control from the Non-FBS Conferences and left the G5's alone.

If the Autonomy Proposal passes as is, it will effectively separate the FBS Conferences from the other Division1 Conferences, not the P5 from G5. Each realizes they need the other. The other 22 Division1 Conferences, not so much, and that is being etched in stone.

[Inhogswetrust]

Doubtful.

If a split happened, the Top of G5, which would be the AAC, MWC, and the top teams out of the CUSA, MAC, and SBC would most likely turn around and file an anti-trust lawsuit.   That group would begin working together during that time, and would most likely agree to ban playing games against P5 opponents, or if they don't ban, it would be a gentlemen's type agreement.

Instead of getting home games against UAB, Nichols State, and Northern Illinois, teams like Arkansas would have to play Nebraska, Stanford, and Kansas State, and those would have to be home and home deals.  Meaning you now have P5 teams fighting for 6 home games.

Beyond that, you have serious questions about bowl eligibility as a large number of P5 schools rely on FCS and G5 opponents to help them earn 6 wins and a Bowl game.   A 7-5 Season for Arkansas with 3 SEC wins, turns into a 4-8 season, and coaches start losing jobs while fans become frustrated.

It would most likely destroy college football as everyone knows it. 

The split is something that works wonders for Alabama...But do any of you actually think Kentucky football would go along with such a plan?

SO let those little conferences AKA G5 file a damn suit. What difference does it make if they win. If they lose then take their medicine and ball and go play with themselves. Wait that's what you recommend they do by a "gentlemen's agreement". Hypocrisy and irony are funny sometimes. In other words it's OK for the little guys to play amongst themselves but not the big guys as long as the big guys pay the little guys. Funny. IF big teams coaches are all in the same boat then it shouldn't matter with them. Nobody said Kentucky had to schedule Southern Cal. They could easily schedule a lesser known P5 team yet still draw more interest and thus ticket sales and TV ratings. Your also making a big assumption that Arkansas will always not be able to compete better than they have the last two years. With your bowl scenario there are to damn many of them and some teams now shouldn't be in them anyway.

[Inhogswetrust]

Listening to Talk Radio would be kind of foolish.  Most Talk Radio jocks know nothing.

Most leagues are taking steps to dump FCS games.  What you are seeing is leagues like the SEC look to require 8 league games, no FCS, and one game against a major conference opponent.  That still leaves 3 games for SBC teams to schedule against G5 competition.  And every single P5 team is taking full advantage of those games.

As for the Anti Trust suit.  There's no guarantee it would work.  but it would probably be ugly either way. 

P5 and G5 just worked together to effectively eliminate any chance of FCS programs becoming a threat of stopping what either side wants to do.  The two will settle with that, and not go any further.

The talk radio jocks I listen too know more than you and I do about it. I'm not talking about shock jocks like cowherd and such. I don't listen to them. I'm talking about respected media that talk to coaches, AD's, conference admins, etc. and some are former players and coaches.

[Inhogswetrust]

Listening to Talk Radio would be kind of foolish.  Most Talk Radio jocks know nothing.

Most leagues are taking steps to dump FCS games.  What you are seeing is leagues like the SEC look to require 8 league games, no FCS, and one game against a major conference opponent.  That still leaves 3 games for SBC teams to schedule against G5 competition.  And every single P5 team is taking full advantage of those games.

As for the Anti Trust suit.  There's no guarantee it would work.  but it would probably be ugly either way. 

P5 and G5 just worked together to effectively eliminate any chance of FCS programs becoming a threat of stopping what either side wants to do.  The two will settle with that, and not go any further.

Then in your scenario the FCS should sue the P5 AND the G5. After all what's fair is fair.

[Inhogswetrust]

It is obvious from the new postseason playoff( which all but forces most FBS to stop playing FCS if the want to have a SOS strong enough to participate), to the Autonomy proposal that the P5's value the G5's and have no intention of dumping them. In fact they have gone out of their way to be more than fair in both.

Their feelings toward the other 22 Non-FBS Conferences is not as cozy.

To gain  control over a the few issues the non division 1 conferences opposed (which is what this autonomy proposal is all about) they have separated the 128 FBS schools from the other Division 1 Conferences in the proposal. Then they muscled the  votes to take control from the Non-FBS Conferences and left the G5's alone.

If the Autonomy Proposal passes as is, it will effectively separate the FBS Conferences from the other Division1 Conferences, not the P5 from G5. Each realizes they need the other. The other 22 Division1 Conferences, not so much, and that is being etched in stone.

The P5 doesn't "need" the G5 anymore than the G5 needs the FCS.

[Inhogswetrust]

ASU has said before that we'd prefer not playing money games at all.  We're willing if the Pay is amazing, and the game offers an increased exposure.  Its not a requirement to keep the program afloat.  We turn down far more guarantee offers than we accept.   Yes, we get more than we do off ticket sales, but we also have the lowest ticket prices in FBS football. With a 5 dollar price increase on tickets, we'd make up almost all of that cost.

That's generally true with many G5 programs.  Some of these have 30 plus million dollar budgets and sell 30K plus tickets to every game.  They can live without the 1 million dollars for that one money game.  Its the exposure that usually wins out with these things, but that exposure lowers significantly anyway if there was a split.

Programs like Eastern Michigan with zero attendance and a tiny budget would get eaten alive...but they would probably drop anyway if the split happened.

They say they prefer not playing money games at all YET they still do. Something is wrong. 

[Mike Irwin]

There will not be a split. The power conferences will be given autonomy (the right to vote on their own issues without allowing the mid majors to outvote them).

A good example is the proposed cost of attendance scholarship. It is a possible solution to the threat of a players union. Schools like Arkansas would be allowed to vote on what to include in such scholarships. The mid majors would not vote.

If they wanted to provide such scholarships they could. If they chose not to because of increased costs then they could continue to offer tuition, room & board scholarships. But they would no longer be able to tell the power conference schools what they can and cannot do.

Schools like Arkansas will continue to play schools like Nicholls St. There will be pressure within these power conferences for member institutions to play at least one nonconference game with a team from another power conference (Arkansas vs Texas Tech).

This is the way I think it will look in a few years but of course nothing is for certain. If the mid majors dig their heels in and pitch a fit then we might indeed see a complete breakaway of the big five from the NCAA.

[Inhogswetrust]

There will not be a split. The power conferences will be given autonomy (the right to vote on their own issues without allowing the mid majors to outvote them).

A good example is the proposed cost of attendance scholarship. It is a possible solution to the threat of a players union. Schools like Arkansas would be allowed to vote on what to include in such scholarships. The mid majors would not vote.

If they wanted to provide such scholarships they could. If they chose not to because of increased costs then they could continue to offer tuition, room & board scholarships. But they would no longer be able to tell the power conference schools what they can and cannot do.

Schools like Arkansas will continue to play schools like Nicholls St. There will be pressure within these power conferences for member institutions to play at least one nonconference game with a team from another power conference (Arkansas vs Texas Tech).

This is the way I think it will look in a few years but of course nothing is for certain. If the mid majors dig their heels in and pitch a fit then we might indeed see a complete breakaway of the big five from the NCAA.

Once again Mike you said it very well.

[Mike Irwin]

As for eliminating the so called "money games" some fans are being completely unrealistic. They want their favorite team to load up its schedule but they would be the first to bitch when that team goes 6-6.

I spent yesterday visiting with a number of Razorbacks from the Lou Holtz-Ken Hatfield era. Many of these guys are shot physically. Limping around with multiple knee surgeries and hip replacements. They worry about what they will be facing in the next 10-15 years. Alzheimers is the elephant in the room for these guys.

Yet many fans are demanding more games against tougher opponents.

Yeah, let's throw Okie State into this year's schedule along with Cal. Who wants go see them play Nicholls State and UAB?

IMO the money games need to stay for obvious reasons.

[Seminole Indian]

There will not be a split. The power conferences will be given autonomy (the right to vote on their own issues without allowing the mid majors to outvote them).
A good example is the proposed cost of attendance scholarship. It is a possible solution to the threat of a players union. Schools like Arkansas would be allowed to vote on what to include in such scholarships. The mid majors would not vote.

If they wanted to provide such scholarships they could. If they chose not to because of increased costs then they could continue to offer tuition, room & board scholarships. But they would no longer be able to tell the power conference schools what they can and cannot do.

Schools like Arkansas will continue to play schools like Nicholls St. There will be pressure within these power conferences for member institutions to play at least one nonconference game with a team from another power conference (Arkansas vs Texas Tech).

This is the way I think it will look in a few years but of course nothing is for certain. If the mid majors dig their heels in and pitch a fit then we might indeed see a complete breakaway of the big five from the NCAA.

The current Autonomy Proposal clearly defines what areas that the 5 power conferences will have autonomy. The P5's cannot arbitrarily add to the list of things they have autonomy over.

They are the same ones the P5's/G5's had already agreed on, but could not get the non-fbs conferences to support, thus necessitating this proposal.

The proposal also separates the 10 FBS Conferences from the other 22 Conferences, who do not have a seat at the FBS table, and reduces the non-fbs conferences voting strength.

If this proposal passes as is, the 10 FBS will for all intents and purposes be separated from the other 22 Division 1 Conferences who have stood in the way of changes that all the 10 FBS Conferences were in favor of.

The SBS Commissioner was asked what he likes about the proposal and he said 'everything'.

[ricepig]

The current Autonomy Proposal clearly defines what areas that the 5 power conferences will have autonomy. The P5's cannot arbitrarily add to the list of things they have autonomy over.

They are the same ones the P5's/G5's had already agreed on, but could not get the non-fbs conferences to support, thus necessitating this proposal.

The proposal also separates the 10 FBS Conferences from the other 22 Conferences, who do not have a seat at the FBS table, and reduces the non-fbs conferences voting strength.

If this proposal passes as is, the 10 FBS will for all intents and purposes be separated from the other 22 Division 1 Conferences who have stood in the way of changes that all the 10 FBS Conferences were in favor of.

The SBS Commissioner was asked what he likes about the proposal and he said 'everything'.

Yeah, it isn't like they can change the rules and regulations of the NCAA, oops, they are on voting. I wouldn't hang my hat on things staying this way, only if the P5 likes it.

And who cares what the "SBS" commissioner likes, most in the SBC don't "like" him.

[Seminole Indian]

As for eliminating the so called "money games" some fans are being completely unrealistic. They want their favorite team to load up its schedule but they would be the first to bitch when that team goes 6-6.

I spent yesterday visiting with a number of Razorbacks from the Lou Holtz-Ken Hatfield era. Many of these guys are shot physically. Limping around with multiple knee surgeries and hip replacements. They worry about what they will be facing in the next 10-15 years. Alzheimers is the elephant in the room for these guys.

Yet many fans are demanding more games against tougher opponents.

Yeah, let's throw Okie State into this year's schedule along with Cal. Who wants go see them play Nicholls State and UAB?

IMO the money games need to stay for obvious reasons.

The new post season selection process, which will emphasize SOS,  will force most FBS schools to stop scheduling FCS, and most have already made it known they will no longer schedule FCS teams.

The Alabama HC  squawked, but only because he said it was hard to get enough FBS schools to fill his schedule.

Games between FBS and FCS will be few and far between, and will take place only if an FBS school cannot schedule an FBS school.

[ricepig]

The new post season selection process, which will emphasize SOS,  will force most FBS schools to stop scheduling FCS, and most have already made it known they will no longer schedule FCS teams.

The Alabama HC  squawked, but only because he said it was hard to get enough FBS schools to fill his schedule.

Games between FBS and FCS will be few and far between, and will take place only if an FBS school cannot schedule an FBS school.

Only if it is perceived, or proven to cost a team in the playoffs, until then, business as usual for those schools that  schedule them.

[Seminole Indian]

Yeah, it isn't like they can change the rules and regulations of the NCAA, oops, they are on voting. I wouldn't hang my hat on things staying this way, only if the P5 likes it.

And who cares what the "SBS" commissioner likes, most in the SBC don't "like" him.

You need to read the proposal.

P5's have gone out of their way to take care of the G5's, both in the post season playoffs, and the autonomy proposal.

When the SEC Commissioner said he was just as interested in Idaho being successful, he knew he was telling the truth because he knew they were taking the G5's with them. He did not say he was just as interested in the FCS, because he knew they were out.

[Seminole Indian]

Only if it is perceived, or proven to cost a team in the playoffs, until then, business as usual for those schools that  schedule them.

Think most FBS schools that have been scheduling them have stopped.

[ricepig]

You need to read the proposal.

P5's have gone out of their way to take care of the G5's, both in the post season playoffs, and the autonomy proposal.

When the SEC Commissioner said he was just as interested in Idaho being successful, he knew he was telling the truth because he knew they were taking the G5's with them. He did not say he was just as interested in the FCS, because he knew they were out.

I've read it, I wouldn't mortgage my future on it if I was a G5, circumstances change all the time. If the P5 like it, then it cruises on.

[ricepig]

Think most FBS schools that have been scheduling them have stopped.

That's because their strength of schedule was hurt by them, i.e., weak conferences. If it hurts the others in the playoffs, they'll drop them.

[Seminole Indian]

I've read it, I wouldn't mortgage my future on it if I was a G5, circumstances change all the time. If the P5 like it, then it cruises on.

The 10 G5's know their place in the scheme of things, and the 22 non-fbs division 1 conferences are paying the price for forgetting theirs and getting in the big-boys way.

[Seminole Indian]

That's because their strength of schedule was hurt by them, i.e., weak conferences. If it hurts the others in the playoffs, they'll drop them.

Maybe a SEC team because of how strong the SEC is top to bottom, can play a FCS and still not worry about SOS hurting them, but the teams in the other P5 Conference are worried it will bite them.

[Inhogswetrust]

As for eliminating the so called "money games" some fans are being completely unrealistic. They want their favorite team to load up its schedule but they would be the first to bitch when that team goes 6-6.

I spent yesterday visiting with a number of Razorbacks from the Lou Holtz-Ken Hatfield era. Many of these guys are shot physically. Limping around with multiple knee surgeries and hip replacements. They worry about what they will be facing in the next 10-15 years. Alzheimers is the elephant in the room for these guys.

Yet many fans are demanding more games against tougher opponents.

Yeah, let's throw Okie State into this year's schedule along with Cal. Who wants go see them play Nicholls State and UAB?

IMO the money games need to stay for obvious reasons.

I don't believe that playing G5 opponents OR money games even against FCS teams kept those players from having more health issues. Some of the FBS G5 teams are damn near as good as some of the lower level P5 teams. Heck they even beat some of the P5 teams every year. Those health issues are a cumulative effect of ALL games and the total number of games imo. Besides some of the things they did back then to keep players playing was appalling.

[Inhogswetrust]

You need to read the proposal.

P5's have gone out of their way to take care of the G5's, both in the post season playoffs, and the autonomy proposal.

When the SEC Commissioner said he was just as interested in Idaho being successful, he knew he was telling the truth because he knew they were taking the G5's with them. He did not say he was just as interested in the FCS, because he knew they were out.

But in the current format and climate the P5 needs the G5 to get what they want. That may not be true in the future. Just because the marriage is good now and mutually beneficial doesn't mean it will in the future and there won't be a divorce. Think money. IF the money dynamics change then 10, 20 or 30 years from now it could all be different.

[Inhogswetrust]

The 10 G5's know their place in the scheme of things, and the 22 non-fbs division 1 conferences are paying the price for forgetting theirs and getting in the big-boys way.

Right now that is true. That could change. I don't see it changing in the near future but things do happen over time. Heck 20 or 30 years ago who would have thought we would even be talking about this type stuff today.

[Seminole Indian]

But in the current format and climate the P5 needs the G5 to get what they want. That may not be true in the future. Just because the marriage is good now and mutually beneficial doesn't mean it will in the future and there won't be a divorce. Think money. IF the money dynamics change then 10, 20 or 30 years from now it could all be different.

Not sure how the other G5 Conferences operate but the SBC has one rule.....when the SEC says jump you jump. As long as they don't forget that the SEC will have their back. Always has always will.

[Inhogswetrust]

Not sure how the other G5 Conferences operate but the SBC has one rule.....when the SEC says jump you jump. As long as they don't forget that the SEC will have their back. Always has always will.

If there is one thing in life that everyone needs to learn is NEVER say "always will". Perhaps at some point the SEC and other P5 conferences will decide they don't need to have their back. Not saying it will happen but you never know.............................. Remember that divorce word I mentioned in a different post.

[Dumb ole famrboy]

There will not be a split. The power conferences will be given autonomy (the right to vote on their own issues without allowing the mid majors to outvote them).

A good example is the proposed cost of attendance scholarship. It is a possible solution to the threat of a players union. Schools like Arkansas would be allowed to vote on what to include in such scholarships. The mid majors would not vote.

If they wanted to provide such scholarships they could. If they chose not to because of increased costs then they could continue to offer tuition, room & board scholarships. But they would no longer be able to tell the power conference schools what they can and cannot do.

Schools like Arkansas will continue to play schools like Nicholls St. There will be pressure within these power conferences for member institutions to play at least one nonconference game with a team from another power conference (Arkansas vs Texas Tech).

This is the way I think it will look in a few years but of course nothing is for certain. If the mid majors dig their heels in and pitch a fit then we might indeed see a complete breakaway of the big five from the NCAA.

At this point I am not sure a Players Union is much of a threat to the NCAA. The NLRB-Northwestern decision handed down earlier this year has been set aside due to the later ruling by the US Supreme Court that the NLRB was formed unconstitutionally. This puts the Northwestern football players back at square 1 with the NLRB. Just a little bit of legal delaying by Northwestern University plus the 2 year backlog of NLRB cases that now have to be reviewed due to the US Supreme Court ruling means more than likely the majority of Northwestern football players that petitioned the NRLB will no longer have standing. More than likely the will have graduated and are no longer a member of the football team.

[Seminole Indian]

If there is one thing in life that everyone needs to learn is NEVER say "always will". Perhaps at some point the SEC and other P5 conferences will decide they don't need to have their back. Not saying it will happen but you never know.............................. Remember that divorce word I mentioned in a different post.

As long as the SBC is 'value added' to the SEC they will have their back, always have always will. When asked by a reporter the 'why' for this cozy relationship the previous SBC Commissioner said 'because they pay the light bills".

Even on the stipend issue the SBC was the first non-aq conference to approve it, and the SEC Commissioner insisted the SBC Commissioner be the one to address the media first.

The SBC only exist because the SEC wants them to exist.

When the SBC was at risk of ULM not meeting the attendance requirements, and the SBC thus not meeting requirements to be a BCS Conference, Arkansas stepped in and saved both. When ASU fans blasted him for having some devious plan to hurt them FB simply told the media I did it to help them, and he did.

There is a reason the SEC Commissioner picked an SBC team as an example to say they want all the FBS schools to succeed.

As far as the other G5's, got this about CUSA off the CSNBBS.com board:

Asked then what he'd like C-USA and similar NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision leagues to be called moving forward, Banowsky said, "Call us the second five, and note there's 32 (conferences)."

Regardless of whatever labels and differences there are, Banowsky expects that "second five" leagues to be able to co-exist in major football like they always have with the big-money conferences -- the SEC, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC and Big Ten.

"Our five conferences and their five conferences have a lot of history together, and we've always found a way to get in a room and to be good listeners and work it out," Banowsky said Wednesday during C-USA football media day. "I also think having 60 schools together is just not enough for them to be able to have a base from which to operate. You need a bigger base."

The new College Football Playoff has the 10 FBS leagues contractually obligated for 12 years. That agreement guarantees a spot in one of the CFP's six bowl games for the highest-ranked team from among the mid-major leagues -- C-USA, the Sun Belt, MAC, Mountain West and American Athletic. That includes consideration for one of the national semifinal games.

"We are in a transition from conference realignment to system realignment," Banowsky said.

  "We're as well off as we've ever been. We've got a seat at the table if we just take care of business," said Marshall coach Doc Holliday, whose team is the C-USA preseason favorite. "Before, in the old BCS system, we didn't have a very good shot at getting that particular deal."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11255364/c-usa-britton-banowsky-says-second-5-conferences-relevant#comments

Looks like they know their place also, and it is at the FBS table.

[ricepig]

Not sure how the other G5 Conferences operate but the SBC has one rule.....when the SEC says jump you jump. As long as they don't forget that the SEC will have their back. Always has always will.

Wait, you say in one post that the SEC pays the bills, then earlier say they don't need them, it can't be both.

[Seminole Indian]

Wait, you say in one post that the SEC pays the bills, then earlier say they don't need them, it can't be both.

Actually yes it can be both , but it would be without a seat, and the perks that come from setting at the FBS table with the P5's.

[ricepig]

Actually yes it can be both , but it would be without a seat, and the perks that come from setting at the FBS table with the P5's.

Correct, but not in the scenario you've been painting. They will get along together as long as it is beneficial for the P5.

[Cinco de Hogo]

I can tell you right now I would take a NC ever 10 years in the P6 versus being a perennial 500 teal in P5.  Money makes very little difference to Arkansas and that is a proven fact.  Arkansas Razorback football is stronger than the greedy money grab going on right now.

[Hogfaniam]

I spent yesterday visiting with a number of Razorbacks from the Lou Holtz-Ken Hatfield era. Many of these guys are shot physically. Limping around with multiple knee surgeries and hip replacements. They worry about what they will be facing in the next 10-15 years. Alzheimers is the elephant in the room for these guys.

Was it all players that were broken down or just the ones that played the majority of minutes?

I smell a new thread could come out of this.  Should minutes be limited?  Would it matter 30 or 40 yrs latter, or has the damage already been done, even before they get to the college level?  What impact will the 12th regular season game have on today's players in 2044? 

Were there any regrets voiced?  Would they do it all again, knowing what they know now?

[Mike Irwin]

Was it all players that were broken down or just the ones that played the majority of minutes?

I smell a new thread could come out of this.  Should minutes be limited?  Would it matter 30 or 40 yrs latter, or has the damage already been done, even before they get to the college level?  What impact will the 12th regular season game have on today's players in 2044? 

Were there any regrets voiced?  Would they do it all again, knowing what they know now?

There was no one consensus except maybe for the need of a soft shell helmet and better rules and coaching to limit helmet to helmet contact. When you get in your mid to late 40's and you see how quickly some of these ex football players go from clear eyed guys who share great stories with you to somebody that doesn't know your name it scares the hell out of them.

[DeltaBoy]

Just like HS football and the lower college divisions that have playoffs already. Get them on TV and make Money.