(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)moehler Wrote:  what he is not saying is that for the big 5 to have the control they desire they must be willing to destroy or atleast cripple G5 schools and the FCS, and to do it at whatever means necessary.

(08-11-2014 10:49 PM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  Quote in the New York Times/taken from AAC site

...Steve Patterson, the men’s athletic director at the University of Texas, was more ruthless in describing the Big 5’s decision to break from the group. The programs outside the Big 5 aren’t pulling their weight, he said.

“We are the ones making the money and carrying the liability,” Patterson said. “The others don’t make any money. Nobody wants to watch them on TV. I don’t accept the argument that you have to have total socialism."

He said if the Division I universities on the outside looking in want to make it to the level of the Big 5, they would have to invest more in their sports programs. Or, he offered, they could simply step aside.

“They could be the University of Chicago,” he said. “And hey, a lot of parents want to send their kids there.”

The problem there, if you happen to have a child who wants to play top-level college sports, is that the University of Chicago is Division III. It dropped big-time football in 1939, troubled by the sport’s corrupting influence on academics.

The scary thing is that Patterson was really hinting at what could be the future: The Big 5 will rule college sports. Other programs, unable to keep up, would face the choice of dropping down a division or eradicating nonrevenue sports to go all in on football and basketball....

(08-11-2014 10:49 PM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  Quote in the New York Times/taken from AAC site

“We are the ones making the money and carrying the liability,” Patterson said. “The others don’t make any money. Nobody wants to watch them on TV. I don’t accept the argument that you have to have total socialism."

(08-12-2014 08:03 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  Then there's that whole invite thing. I think several G5 programs would be national names if they had that giant conference and TV payout like some P5 have and have done nothing to little with.

Give Louisiana Indiana's Big 10 payout and schedule and they're a solid P5 program...same with stAte and any other program in the SBC that has good support.

(08-12-2014 07:48 AM)appfan89 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)moehler Wrote:  what he is not saying is that for the big 5 to have the control they desire they must be willing to destroy or atleast cripple G5 schools and the FCS, and to do it at whatever means necessary.

And that becomes collusion, a monopoly, anti-trust.... His remarks may come back to haunt him and the P5 if the Feds decide to step in.

(08-12-2014 08:17 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:03 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  Then there's that whole invite thing. I think several G5 programs would be national names if they had that giant conference and TV payout like some P5 have and have done nothing to little with.

Give Louisiana Indiana's Big 10 payout and schedule and they're a solid P5 program...same with stAte and any other program in the SBC that has good support.

In baseball and softball, no doubt. In football, not yet. Cajun Field needs to seat close to 50,000 and we'd need to average 40,000 per game in my view.

And fix basketball too.

(08-12-2014 09:42 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:17 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:03 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  Then there's that whole invite thing. I think several G5 programs would be national names if they had that giant conference and TV payout like some P5 have and have done nothing to little with.

Give Louisiana Indiana's Big 10 payout and schedule and they're a solid P5 program...same with stAte and any other program in the SBC that has good support.

In baseball and softball, no doubt. In football, not yet. Cajun Field needs to seat close to 50,000 and we'd need to average 40,000 per game in my view.

And fix basketball too.

Well, yeah, maybe not in just one year, but if any highly supported SBC team (GS, App, UL, stAte) were to have had those funds over the course of a few decades, then yeah, we would all be P5 material.

The system is not set up fairly to distribute money and resources. It is the equivalent of the Super Bowl winning team getting the first pick in the draft, and the last placed team getting the last pick not getting a pick in each round...no "snaking".

(08-12-2014 09:23 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  I find "socialism" to be a very odd accusation. Especially since the Texas's of the world not only owe a great deal of their massive budgets due to the backs of the taxpayers before they became "self sustaining" ™ but also because they are still ostensibly a public ******* institution.

I don't think he knows what that word means.

(08-12-2014 11:44 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:23 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  I find "socialism" to be a very odd accusation. Especially since the Texas's of the world not only owe a great deal of their massive budgets due to the backs of the taxpayers before they became "self sustaining" ™ but also because they are still ostensibly a public ******* institution.

I don't think he knows what that word means.

Same as these jacklegs who go to public supported schools, got loans subsidized by the government to go to school, then got a government backed loan to start their business, some tax breaks to expand their business, ship their raw materials and finished goods on railroads built with government subsidization, or highways built by the government or on airplanes that fly safely thanks government air traffic control and land on runways built by the government. Put their money in government insured banks, have affordable insurance on their property because of government funded police and fire protection, can pursue dead beat customers in the government's courts and use the power of the government to seize the deadbeat's assests to pay them back, communicate via government built or subsidized communication methods, and are able to get the checks on other banks or wired funds deposited via a clearinghouse scheme created by the government and the proudly proclaim to be self-made without any help from the government or anyone else.

All the P5 with the exception of some of the privates were built in a subsidized manner, most of the P5 remain subsidized to a degree and think because someone made a good decision in 1919 that they are geniuses for building what they have today.

(08-11-2014 10:49 PM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  Quote in the New York Times/taken from AAC site

...Steve Patterson, the men’s athletic director at the University of Texas, was more ruthless in describing the Big 5’s decision to break from the group. The programs outside the Big 5 aren’t pulling their weight, he said.

“We are the ones making the money and carrying the liability,” Patterson said. “The others don’t make any money. Nobody wants to watch them on TV. I don’t accept the argument that you have to have total socialism."

He said if the Division I universities on the outside looking in want to make it to the level of the Big 5, they would have to invest more in their sports programs. Or, he offered, they could simply step aside.

“They could be the University of Chicago,” he said. “And hey, a lot of parents want to send their kids there.”

The problem there, if you happen to have a child who wants to play top-level college sports, is that the University of Chicago is Division III. It dropped big-time football in 1939, troubled by the sport’s corrupting influence on academics.

The scary thing is that Patterson was really hinting at what could be the future: The Big 5 will rule college sports. Other programs, unable to keep up, would face the choice of dropping down a division or eradicating nonrevenue sports to go all in on football and basketball....