(07-31-2015 09:20 PM)Volkmar Wrote: (07-31-2015 12:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (07-31-2015 12:28 PM)monarx Wrote: (07-31-2015 11:39 AM)Niner National Wrote: If other P5 conferences follow suit, wonder how many FCS programs will just fold since they won't have big paydays to help offset costs?
Will the P5 try to get away with only payday games with the G5 rather than home and homes now? That would be bad. This whole P5/G5 thing seems to basically be pushing everyone down a level. G5 is 1AA, 1AA is now D2, D2 is D3. I hate the money conferences.
Not necessarily. If P5 leagues mandate no I-AA games it provides us with leverage.
It's not feasible for every P5 team to only play P5 teams OOC. You can't do that without a central command structure that generates schedules across all five of those conferences. And when you have leagues and coaches with such disparate views from one P5 conference to the next there's no way they would ever be able to come to that type of agreement.
You see Big 10 and Pac 12 forming somewhat of an alliance as they think alike. You have the SEC and Big 12 that are more like-minded in their views on CFB and then you have the ACC who doesn't really know where or how it fits in.
It also would prevents schools on the bottom end of their respective conferences from ever having winning seasons, which would be bad for a lot of coaches marriages. Oh and the fan bases.
It may provide us with leverage in the short-term, but over the long haul, I'm inclined to agree with Niner right now in saying that we'll likely see a certain number of FCS programs die a slow death and fold. If that happens, it would also take some of our leverage away eventually because our G5 schools would have fewer programs below us, thereby effectively downgrading our own status overall.
Besides, what leverage? LOL Seriously, the P5 have all the money. We need them and their payouts more than they need us. For all we know, they may eventually decide to drop games against us also. After all, the reason they sought autonomy in the first place was to disassociate themselves from us. So while we might see some short-term benefits from playing more games against P5 opposition, I think that in the long term, the fewer D1 programs there are, the better it is for those at the top and the worse it is for those of us at the bottom. It's like class warfare. If the middle class shrinks, they lose power, and the difference between the haves and have-nots only becomes that much greater eventually. I hope I'm wrong, but those are my initial thoughts on it.
There are so many inaccuracies in this post I don't know where to begin. First, the autonomy issue. P5 sought autonomy from lower division schools such as DII and DIII and particularly lower division schools that didn't even play football that had an equal vote within the NCAA. It wasn't about C-USA, MWC, etc.
Second, you mention the money. How many of you are going to receive $1 million or better for a guarantee game this year. The I-AA schools get about $450K from a P5 program. The costs for guarantees against other I-A programs have skyrocketed because of the need to maintain SOS and also attempt to buy wins. So, no they very much need us just as much as we need them. I already addressed this when I said a)they would never be able to agree to the parameters of just scheduling only other P5 opponents OOC because of the difference of opinions between leagues; and b)it would prevent nearly half of all P5's from being able to reach a 7-win season. How many fan bases from the lower tier programs in the SEC, Big 10, etc going to accept never being able to have a winning season?
Also, to correct the Big 10 numbers it would actually be -5 this season if we just look at one year. If they added a ninth conf game this year with their seven games against I-AA opponents you get a delta of five. The Pac 12 already has a nine-game schedule and will play eight I-AA teams this year. In total, the P5 will play 53 games against I-AA schools this year with the ACC having the most with 16.
If every P5 went to a nine-game conference schedule and removed the ability to play I-AA teams this season that means they would have to find 12 additional games against the other five conferences. Now, the concern would be is if the other leagues go to nine-games (which they will) but still allow for playing I-AA teams. If that happens then yes that definitely hurts us. But as my original post to thread indicated I was making the point if the other leagues did what the Big 10 is going to do that it would provide us with additional leverage and that is absolutely a fact.
Further, if we take the numbers away and look at this a bit more subjectively, even if P5 conferences go to nine games and maintain their I-AA opponents there are number of causal effects that none of you who disagreeing with me are recognizing. First and foremost is it will become even more difficult to find the other two non-conference games creating competition as leagues attempt to improve their SOS for the playoff. This will only serve to drive up the amount of guarantees that we will receive from playing P5 opponents. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Further aiding this is I believe you will see the non-power conference such as ours follow suit going to a nine game schedule further reducing options and also creating an even greater supply and demand for finding non-conf opponents that will send guarantees into the multi-millions of dollars. We're only a couple of years from the first $3 million payout for scheduling a guarantee game. Florida has already broken the $2 million plateau for a game against Colorado St for a future game.
There is no doubt there is a further push to create a divide, so I'm not ignoring what's happening there but they can't achieve it from a scheduling strategy unless they just go to a 12-game conference schedule.
/
OT: Big Ten bans scheduling of FCS opponents
