I don't understand why Aresco and the AAC presidents/AD's aren't fighting this non stop and railing against this at the top of their lungs. It clearly negatively affects the AAC permanently.

I just don't get it. Silence is all we get.

WHY? At least say SOMETHING, rather than sit idly by as this is rammed through.

Please tell me what I am missing. Why are the powers than be in AAC not screaming at the top of their lungs.

(04-22-2014 08:55 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  "According to Sports Illustrated, 58 percent of the attendees at the NCAA's Division I Governance Dialogue seminar - a group made up mostly of schools outside the Big Five conferences - indicated support for autonomy in January."

If still true, that is a landslide vote and huge canyon for the G5 to attempt to crossover to the P5 side.

I beg to differ. If there are 341 D-I schools and you take away the 65 Cartel schools, that leaves 276. Now 42% apparently did not 'indicate support' so we can extrapolate that 116 schools do not support this "autonomy". 116 is much more than the current number of schools in the G5 (somewhere around 60).

So on top of the G5 schools, there are another 50 some-odd, who are not in support of this de-facto break-away by the P5. And from what little I know about politics and government, all they need is a little crack in the door, and a majority, to take an idea from 'good intentions' to a living he!!.

Vote away your relevance at your own peril. A weighting of 1x2 for the P5 to a 1x1 for the G5 vote ratio will do just that. I sure hope we aren't that stupid.

Why do I hear Slive every time I turn around on this topic, but I have yet to hear Aresco.

COME ON ARESCO. SPEAK OUT MAN.

(04-22-2014 10:20 AM)Pirate1 Wrote:  They will raise the scholarship limit from 85 to 105 and the only football being played will be in the p5.

Baloney. Memphis finished the 1963 season ranked 14th in the nation. There were NO scholarship limits back then and we were NEVER on TV. With the excellent TV exposure the AAC receives, there is no reason to be jumping off bridges.

(04-22-2014 10:18 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:15 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  No surprise. Just win and keep the pressure on them.

PS. Champion League semi finals begin today.

They won't feel any pressure. If we win they'll just ignore it.

Probably, but we might as well keep winning.

Who died and made Slive king, and why does he get to decide for the rest of D1.

(04-22-2014 11:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I don't understand why Aresco and the AAC presidents/AD's aren't fighting this non stop and railing against this at the top of their lungs. It clearly negatively affects the AAC permanently.

I just don't get it. Silence is all we get.

WHY? At least say SOMETHING, rather than sit idly by as this is rammed through.

Please tell me what I am missing. Why are the powers than be in AAC not screaming at the top of their lungs.

I'll tell you what's missing....Aresco is not following many fans and media's "sky is falling" mentality.

And he shouldn't, IMO...the change in the governance structure is basically the P5 saying to the rest that they are playing or planning to play at a different level. Aresco has clearly stated that the American will play at whatever level the P5 plays at. If they increase scholly's, the American will do it to.

What Aresco knows is that he has, for the most part, the best non P5 properties in his corner. He has less issues with competing with the P5 than the overwhelming majority of those other schools. And Aresco, again, for the most part, gets to choose which schools to add to his lot that WANT to try and be P5. The MWC may be in the same arena as well, however, they have less available options down the road. Air Force is holding them together by a thread at this point. Aresco is patient, much more patient than many more folks on this board. The gap is smaller for Aresco than everyone else...and he knows it.

That being said, I find the question to Slive fascinating, because, as someone mentioned, the BCS HAD to have a way of appearing to be fair...even though we knew it wasn't (as soon as the MWC met the criteria). Slive has been on the other side, he's a smart guy...he knows the deal. So, Slive, what are the variables that define a Power conference? Would it be winning BCS games? Winning the NCAA tourney?

That is what the media should be asking....not continuing to put the cart before the horse. Scholly limit changes? Paying players? Cutting out other FBS conferences? No one has mentioned that outside of "sensationalist" media and "sky is falling" fans.

I feel like I am reading another thread about some stupid 4-16 conference scenario or another crazy re-alignment scenario that many folks just throw out there without any possibility of it taking place.

(04-22-2014 11:27 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:33 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:05 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  If there is no mechanism through which additional conferences can earn their way into that subdivision then it is ludicrous that the AAC or any of its institutions should agree. Who cares if they threaten to leave, FEKKING GO. What is the difference in this reality and the P5 separating from the NCAA entirely? If the NCAA is pushing this agenda bc they're afraid of the split then Fek them too. If this is indeed the reality, the remaining G5/Bball D-1s should have the autonomy to create their own post seasons. If not LEAVE, wtf is the issue here? There is absolutely no reason to be passive and kowtow to the whims of the P5 if we're essentially excluded anyway. There are enough quality teams in enough markets to generate some dough, at least equivalent to what we make now. Further, creating our own governing body would allow us to create our own rules.

Our basketball tournament would have names like:

Memphis, UConn, Cincy, Temple, Wichita St, VCU, Gonzaga, Georgetown, Villanova, St. Marys, BYU, SDSU, UNLV, New Mexico, SMU, Tulsa, Houston, Charlotte, Marquette, St. Louis, Xavier, Creighton, etc. Thats a stout tournament.

A 48 team playoff for basketball. 16 team playoff for football.

What reason is there for remaining where we are?

You really don't want a split and we really don't want our own post season (unless you want to end up like FCS).

That said, this does seem to be a setup for a future new subdivision. Interesting that the article actually refers to it as a new subdivision. Its not officially, but the article is correct---it essentially is a new subdivision and will certainly be one some day. So perhaps the article is helpful in that it asks a question that has not yet been considered. What are the NCAA requirements to become a voting/autonomous equal of the P5? That needs to be part of this legislation. That language was part of the BCS and needs to be part of this proposed legislation.

Why dont I want a split or our own post season? If there is no way we can ever matriculate to that level, what is the point of staying? What is the difference? The Miami bowl? We would be much better served to strike out on our own and attempt to build our own brand. Much like the AFL.

It doesn't work that way. The AFL existed outside the control of the NFL. A G5 level playoff would exist under the umbrella of the NCAA--which recognizes the P5 as its top level of football. The general public cares a great deal about the top level of college football---always have. But the lower levels of football barely illicit a yawn. If the G5 left the top level of football their fan base, donation levels, attendance, media interest, and media money would all shrink to FCS levels. If the G5 split from the NCAA--maybe they could hope the AFL/NFL dynamic develops---but I suspect the G5 playoff would just be ignored the way the NFL ignores arena football.

So lets exist outside the NCAA. I'd rather die trying than do nothing. (I invoke the Brave Heart speech here). The NCAA can be the P5 sandbox and the D2s and D3s can live there too. At least threaten it unless standards are created to join that subdivision. How excited is Wake Forest, Boston College and Washington St going to be when they become the payoff games for Alabama?

Many of the G-5 and D-1 basketballers carry much more notoriety than the FCS. I'm not delusional, but I do think it would carry more interest than the FCS does currently. It would at least be lucrative enough to match what we have now and you get the added bonus of not being under the P5 boot.

The country isn't shrinking, there are very large, established schools outside the P5. There are and will continue to be plenty of fans of these other schools.

Actually, you wouldn't do that. IF--you wanted to follow a G5 break away strategy (which I think is nuts), then the best strategy would be to stay in the NCAA for Olympic sports (preserving your place in the NCAA tournament) and create your own "NCAA like" football organization. In other words, tis would be a football only G5 move. Personally, I don't think it would make any difference. Like I said, I think the public, press, and P5 would largely ignore the G5 organization and treat it much the same as the NFL treats Arena Football.

(04-22-2014 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Why do I hear Slive every time I turn around on this topic, but I have yet to hear Aresco.

COME ON ARESCO. SPEAK OUT MAN.

Because Aresco understands what you do not. He understands that being part of the top level of football along with the P5 is vastly superior to any other possible option that the AAC could muster. The way for the AAC to survive and thrive is to stay connectd with the P5 (even if we are treated as the annoying little brother thier mom makes them play with) and continue to grow our programs. When the AAC has an average attendance of 40K-50K a game---we will be a player and there will be a 6th power conference added. We just have to organically grow a power conference. Its the only viable option.

(04-22-2014 10:28 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:16 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:33 AM)Bull Wrote:  I still say this won't really work in the long term, you simply can't relegate the teams of the American to the status of the SBC/cUSA/MAC. Schools too big, too successful. If we end up 'tweener', get appropriate $$$, shots at BCS bowls, I can live with that. But no way are we completely relegated to the bottom. Aresco is crowing a bit, because this year really gave him significant ammo.

Wishful thinking. We have already been relegated to non-AQ status with regard to bowls, and now when this proposal passes, our inferior status...

Dude, I have you on ignore, but occasionally view one out of morbid curiosity. I didn't even read this post past the bolded line... No one is buying your anti-AAC stuff. 'Our inferior status'??
Our 'new' conference had a tremendous first year. I realize your a Big East guy and it's killing you... but seriously. Jumping the shark again.

To be fair, how is our status NOT inferior?

Yes, Bull has truly gone off the end.

(04-22-2014 12:56 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I don't understand why Aresco and the AAC presidents/AD's aren't fighting this non stop and railing against this at the top of their lungs. It clearly negatively affects the AAC permanently.

I just don't get it. Silence is all we get.

WHY? At least say SOMETHING, rather than sit idly by as this is rammed through.

Please tell me what I am missing. Why are the powers than be in AAC not screaming at the top of their lungs.

I'll tell you what's missing....Aresco is not following many fans and media's "sky is falling" mentality.

And he shouldn't, IMO...the change in the governance structure is basically the P5 saying to the rest that they are playing or planning to play at a different level. Aresco has clearly stated that the American will play at whatever level the P5 plays at. If they increase scholly's, the American will do it to.

Two problems with this. First, a change such as this will cost a lot more money, and the P5 schools have it while many of us simply do not.

Second, the reason that the P5 can't increase their schollies to 105 right now is because NCAA regulations forbid it. But with autonomy, they will be able to do it.

But despite Aresco's vow, we won't, at least not unilaterally, because the G5 will still be governed by the existing regime which limits schollies to 85, and that would include us. The autonomy would be for the P5, not us. We'd have to convince the rest of the G5 and NCAA to allow us to do what the P5 is doing, and good luck with that.

(04-22-2014 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Why do I hear Slive every time I turn around on this topic, but I have yet to hear Aresco.

COME ON ARESCO. SPEAK OUT MAN.

Because Aresco understands what you do not. He understands that being part of the top level of football along with the P5 is vastly superior to any other possible option that the AAC could muster. The way for the AAC to survive and thrive is to stay connectd with the P5 (even if we are treated as the annoying little brother thier mom makes them play with) and continue to grow our programs.

I agree that braking off entirely from the P5 is nuts, but IMO you underestimate what this 'autonomy' move involves. It DOES disconnect us from the P5 in a very important arena - governance.

Right now, we along with the rest of the G5 are a pesky little brother mommy makes the P5 play with. But autonomy would mean that mommy can't force the P5 to play with us anymore.

(04-22-2014 10:41 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:28 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:16 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:33 AM)Bull Wrote:  I still say this won't really work in the long term, you simply can't relegate the teams of the American to the status of the SBC/cUSA/MAC. Schools too big, too successful. If we end up 'tweener', get appropriate $$$, shots at BCS bowls, I can live with that. But no way are we completely relegated to the bottom. Aresco is crowing a bit, because this year really gave him significant ammo.

Wishful thinking. We have already been relegated to non-AQ status with regard to bowls, and now when this proposal passes, our inferior status...

Dude, I have you on ignore, but occasionally view one out of morbid curiosity. I didn't even read this post past the bolded line... No one is buying your anti-AAC stuff. 'Our inferior status'??
Our 'new' conference had a tremendous first year. I realize your a Big East guy and it's killing you... but seriously. Jumping the shark again.

To be fair, how is our status NOT inferior?

It depends on the metric you wish to use.

On any meaningful metric, the dust has already settled and cleared: The P5 are AQ with respect to the big bowls, and we are not. That means our status is inferior.

The P5 have massive media deals, and we do not. We are regarded as within the G5, not the P5. That dust is already settled and both mark our status as inferior.

Autonomy would add to those already massive marks of inferior status the formal imprimatur of the NCAA. It would be a bad thing for us, there's no denying it. It would mark us as even more inferior.

(04-22-2014 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Because Aresco understands what you do not. He understands that being part of the top level of football along with the P5 is vastly superior to any other possible option that the AAC could muster. The way for the AAC to survive and thrive is to stay connectd with the P5 (even if we are treated as the annoying little brother thier mom makes them play with) and continue to grow our programs. When the AAC has an average attendance of 40K-50K a game---we will be a player and there will be a 6th power conference added. We just have to organically grow a power conference. Its the only viable option.

Where, in any of these proposals, do you find ideas to help strengthen the G5? Where are the goals and incentives to help the non-P5 schools improve their lot. These proposals, as usual, are extremely one-sided. A fair process would include incentives for all participants (of the NCAA); I just don't see them. To me, the NCAA is looking out for the best interest of the P5 schools, under the guise of helping the student athlete.

Do you really think they will add a 6th conference? Given the history, they will invite away the stronger programs until you are sucking for air again, on the verge of collapse, and then proffer ever more debilitating legislation to consolidate their power. You say that the only way is to create the next power conference; what if that doesn't work. It didn't work for the MWC when they were argueably a 'BCS' conference; the P5 just changed the rules. Are we really supposed to just be that gullible?

If the G5 were united and were willing to separate if the P5 went too far....then the P5 wouldn't go too far.

(04-22-2014 02:14 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If the G5 were united and were willing to separate if the P5 went too far....then the P5 wouldn't go too far.

Just like the negotiations between the USA and Russia, there is a lot more we can do other than the 'nuclear' option. Strong opposition to the 4-2-1 voting model (as a UCF fan illustrates in a different thread) is a good start. A.) why are we being discounted so significantly and B.) why are our FBS issues being watered-down by the balance of the D-I schools? Answer: it's easy for the P5 to influence those schools with no skin in the game.

(04-22-2014 02:26 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:14 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If the G5 were united and were willing to separate if the P5 went too far....then the P5 wouldn't go too far.

Just like the negotiations between the USA and Russia, there is a lot more we can do other than the 'nuclear' option. Strong opposition to the 4-2-1 voting model (as a UCF fan illustrates in a different thread) is a good start. A.) why are we being discounted so significantly and B.) why are our FBS issues being watered-down by the balance of the D-I schools? Answer: it's easy for the P5 to influence those schools with no skin in the game.

Sure. Nuclear option is definitely a last resort. But we shouldn't be afraid of using it at the end game if no other choice.

(04-22-2014 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 12:56 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I don't understand why Aresco and the AAC presidents/AD's aren't fighting this non stop and railing against this at the top of their lungs. It clearly negatively affects the AAC permanently.

I just don't get it. Silence is all we get.

WHY? At least say SOMETHING, rather than sit idly by as this is rammed through.

Please tell me what I am missing. Why are the powers than be in AAC not screaming at the top of their lungs.

I'll tell you what's missing....Aresco is not following many fans and media's "sky is falling" mentality.

And he shouldn't, IMO...the change in the governance structure is basically the P5 saying to the rest that they are playing or planning to play at a different level. Aresco has clearly stated that the American will play at whatever level the P5 plays at. If they increase scholly's, the American will do it to.

Two problems with this. First, a change such as this will cost a lot more money, and the P5 schools have it while many of us simply do not.

Second, the reason that the P5 can't increase their schollies to 105 right now is because NCAA regulations forbid it. But with autonomy, they will be able to do it.

But despite Aresco's vow, we won't, at least not unilaterally, because the G5 will still be governed by the existing regime which limits schollies to 85, and that would include us. The autonomy would be for the P5, not us. We'd have to convince the rest of the G5 and NCAA to allow us to do what the P5 is doing, and good luck with that.

Wow...you clearly don't understand the changes in governance structure. The changes will not just apply to P5, they would apply to FBS. Slive and other P5 commishes have clearly stated that there is no D4 type proposal.

Again, I am constantly amazed at the sky is falling crowd....they just make stuff up and throw it against the wall to see what sticks...its somewhat the media's fault, because they do the same thing...inserting idiotic opinions or wild accusations into a relatively mild topic.

BTW, I have yet to see where the Big East will fit into this scenario....what's their take?

(04-22-2014 02:09 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Because Aresco understands what you do not. He understands that being part of the top level of football along with the P5 is vastly superior to any other possible option that the AAC could muster. The way for the AAC to survive and thrive is to stay connectd with the P5 (even if we are treated as the annoying little brother thier mom makes them play with) and continue to grow our programs. When the AAC has an average attendance of 40K-50K a game---we will be a player and there will be a 6th power conference added. We just have to organically grow a power conference. Its the only viable option.

Where, in any of these proposals, do you find ideas to help strengthen the G5? Where are the goals and incentives to help the non-P5 schools improve their lot. These proposals, as usual, are extremely one-sided. A fair process would include incentives for all participants (of the NCAA); I just don't see them. To me, the NCAA is looking out for the best interest of the P5 schools, under the guise of helping the student athlete.

Do you really think they will add a 6th conference? Given the history, they will invite away the stronger programs until you are sucking for air again, on the verge of collapse, and then proffer ever more debilitating legislation to consolidate their power. You say that the only way is to create the next power conference; what if that doesn't work. It didn't work for the MWC when they were argueably a 'BCS' conference; the P5 just changed the rules. Are we really supposed to just be that gullible?

There is nothing in the proposal that is helpful to the G5. However, being in the top level of football IS helpful to the G5. Yes, in the past the P5 simply added any schools that began to fortify a G5 conference. That said, there do not appear to be any slots open anymore. Left to its own devices, with no poaching, and given time, can a G5 conference develop organically into a power conference? That's an unanswered question---but power conferences are just collections of schools that mostly have large powerful fan bases. There is reason to believe that given time, exposure, and investment---a power conference (defined as a conference in which the schools have P5 like streams of revenue from media, donations, and ticket sales) can be grown organically. If you had a dozen BYU/ECU level attendance programs--my guess is networks would be quite willing to pay a buck or two for that conference media contract. Ticket sales alone at that level make a huge difference in athletic department revenue. Schools like LSU and Texas make way more off ticket sales than media.

(04-22-2014 02:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is nothing in the proposal that is helpful to the G5. However, being in the top level of football IS helpful to the G5. Yes, in the past the P5 simply added any schools that began to fortify a G5 conference. That said, there do not appear to be any slots open anymore. Left to its own devices, with no poaching, and given time, can a G5 conference develop organically into a power conference? That an unanswered question---but power conferences are just collections of schools that mostly have large powerful fan bases. There is reason to believe that given time, exposure, and investment---a power conference (defined as a conference in which the schools have P5 like streams of revenue from media, donations, and ticket sales) can be grown organically. If you had a dozen BYU/ECU level attendance programs--my guess is networks would be quite willing to pay a buck or two for that conference media contract. Ticket sales alone at that level make a huge difference in athletic department revenue. Schools like LSU and Texas make way more off ticket sales than media.

Say wha? Comeon Coog, you're usually one of my favorite reads but seriously; no more slots? Let's take a quick look at the P5 conferences: ACC = 14; BXII = 10; B1G = 12 PAC = 12; SEC = 14. What I see is a lot of variance between conferences and any type of collusion between them could bring a program up in a fiscal year.

Your scenario of organic growth to 'P' status flies in the face of everything we've EVER seen these conferences do. Just looking at this proposed legislation what becomes abundently clear is that Slive et. al. are looking to squeeze the G5 into irrelevance. 38.7% voting power for the P5's in their 4-2-1 model and 38.7% for all other D-I's including the FCS schools and look who is stuck in the middle, the G5 at 19.4%. They are chopping the knees out from under the G5 at every turn.

You may be able to continue to cobble together a relatively strong conference but the threat of the P5 ax will always be hanging over your head.