(07-27-2013 12:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:36 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 07:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 06:36 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If they are only concerned about eliminating the SWAC, MEAC, etc. than that is already accomplished by the FCS and FBS designations, eh?

I think it has to be about getting rid of the G5. It's not a question of having a beef with us, but of just not wanting to share the money.

What money are they sharing with the G5? The main source of cash is the TV deal and after that bowl money from major bowls, the NCAA football money is peanuts compared to the others, is one million per team really worth it to the P5 to cut of G5, when they are already making 25M+ and cause scheduling problems? If we become the FCS, then the Big10 already won't play us as they do now, and soon SEC Pac 12 might join. Cutting of G5 just doesn't make sense but neither did the addition of Rutgers to Big10, so who knows you maybe right, but it is unlikely.

I was thinking of the 25% of the playoff money reserved for the G5.

That's only $87M or so, or $1.3M/school for the P5 if they so kept it. That doesn't seem like a lot to be worried about for them, especially when the P5 are looking at something like $8M-$10M per school when the contract bowl money is factored in. I don't think the litigation risk would justify that paltry increase to their revenue.

I don't see what the litigation risk would be. There's no constitutional or statutory right that would compel the P5 to include a particular G5 school or conference in an athletic association they want to start. And $1.3m is $1.3m. You can do something with that.

They currently have a signed contract to share a playoff with the G5. Why wouldn't there be litigation? I suspect that's a pretty easy case to win with large easily provable damages.

(07-27-2013 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:36 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 07:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 06:36 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  What money are they sharing with the G5? The main source of cash is the TV deal and after that bowl money from major bowls, the NCAA football money is peanuts compared to the others, is one million per team really worth it to the P5 to cut of G5, when they are already making 25M+ and cause scheduling problems? If we become the FCS, then the Big10 already won't play us as they do now, and soon SEC Pac 12 might join. Cutting of G5 just doesn't make sense but neither did the addition of Rutgers to Big10, so who knows you maybe right, but it is unlikely.

I was thinking of the 25% of the playoff money reserved for the G5.

That's only $87M or so, or $1.3M/school for the P5 if they so kept it. That doesn't seem like a lot to be worried about for them, especially when the P5 are looking at something like $8M-$10M per school when the contract bowl money is factored in. I don't think the litigation risk would justify that paltry increase to their revenue.

I don't see what the litigation risk would be. There's no constitutional or statutory right that would compel the P5 to include a particular G5 school or conference in an athletic association they want to start. And $1.3m is $1.3m. You can do something with that.

They currently have a signed contract to share a playoff with the G5. Why wouldn't there be litigation? I suspect that's a pretty easy case to win with large easily provable damages.

I was assuming that all current contracts would be honored. Obviously, if the P5 tried to do something that broke a contract with the G5 or any other institutions like TV networks (and the contracts themselves had no provisions that allow for early termination) then yes I agree with you, litigation would be likely and justified.