(09-06-2012 08:12 AM)cajunhawk Wrote:  Here is what you do...band together and demand equal footing. If they balk, you can bet your bottom dollar they will balk, separate from them. Go at it alone or join 1-AA. For too long the big boys have made a killing at our expense. Sure the payout for a money game is escalating to new, unseen heights but so are there profits. Let's see how they feel being unable to schedule downwards. There goes the "best regular season" in sports. Without us there is none of that. They need us. We don't need them.

What would our demands be? Easy. 6 home games 6 away games per year for every D-1A team. You play a Neutral site game, both teams lose one home game. No more money games. No more D-1AA games. Any games against 1-AA do not count. Expanded playoffs where every conference champion gets a birth in the playoffs. How D-1A can get away with having 120+ teams and the majority of teams having zero shot at playing for a national title is beyond me. I think these are fair demands...

You can't only include conference champs, look at Louisville last season. They shared the Big East title at 7-6 record, did they deserve to be over Alabama. If you include all conference champs, you would have to expand to atleast 16, and as far as D-IA, that is impossible to do. Just look at D-IAA, look at that mess and how is hasn't worked for how many years now???

I think for right now we are stuck with a 4 team playoff, it needs to be all atlarge bids. If a Boise St runs the table, they would get their shot. I'm not saying they are the only ones, but they are the best example. All the Mid-major schools must go undefeated to have a chance, period. Until we as a whole can do that, we are all just pissing into the wind.

(09-06-2012 08:26 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-06-2012 08:21 AM)cajunhawk Wrote:  

(09-06-2012 06:45 AM)panama Wrote:  Its a tough situation because the big boys feel like they need that tuneup game. The other side is that several schools balance their budget with that game. However the Savannah State situation is ridiculous. One thing is to balance the budget and give your kids the experience of playing in a I-A stadium. Another is to mismanage your department to the point where it is necessary to play Oklahoma State and Florida State in consecutive weeks. Yes, they have Florida State this week. They are not even an average FCS team. They are the last or second to last in Massey and Sagarin I believe. Those poor kids will be shellshocked by week through. How do ypu even have a Tuesday practice this week?

The NCAA has the problem of how do you legislate against the have nots making money. Tough call.

That should be an easy question to answer...they should not be in the business of making money. The whole reason our universities play sports is to market the university. Sports should be secondary to academics. The worm turned long ago on that. What you have now are these behemoths like Texas who have ungodly amounts of money...and nothing to do with it. When everything is already state of the art...what can you upgrade? Remember the statues they put up that everyone was making fun of...that's because of too much money and nothing to do with it. What's worse...they pay no taxes on all this money. They are all designated as non-profits. Texas pulled in...86.7 million in profit. No taxes. Doesn't that seem strange to you?

Extremely, but what to do? There is not going to be a redistribution of wealth in college football any more than there is in society. The fanbases of the halves such a Texas and Alabama have no problem with living on Mt Olympus while the Savannah States and Fresno State's fight for scraps. Heck, things are so out of whack that Alabama sees fit to crush UAB which should not even be a blip on their radar. It's an attitude of "I've won when I own the chess board".

I am not trying to start a politcal argument but it is documented that a conversation with President Obama and Speaker Boehner was as such....and of course slighly paraphrased......."I do not have to compromise, that is why they have elections.".........I am not promoting any political view here at all. This conversation took place after the election of 2008 when Boehner was not speaker. I am only saying it to point out that the "I have won when I own the chess board" or its "my ball" permeates everything in our society. Even our beloved college football.

(09-06-2012 10:49 AM)Usajags Wrote:  

(09-06-2012 08:12 AM)cajunhawk Wrote:  Here is what you do...band together and demand equal footing. If they balk, you can bet your bottom dollar they will balk, separate from them. Go at it alone or join 1-AA. For too long the big boys have made a killing at our expense. Sure the payout for a money game is escalating to new, unseen heights but so are there profits. Let's see how they feel being unable to schedule downwards. There goes the "best regular season" in sports. Without us there is none of that. They need us. We don't need them.

What would our demands be? Easy. 6 home games 6 away games per year for every D-1A team. You play a Neutral site game, both teams lose one home game. No more money games. No more D-1AA games. Any games against 1-AA do not count. Expanded playoffs where every conference champion gets a birth in the playoffs. How D-1A can get away with having 120+ teams and the majority of teams having zero shot at playing for a national title is beyond me. I think these are fair demands...

You can't only include conference champs, look at Louisville last season. They shared the Big East title at 7-6 record, did they deserve to be over Alabama. If you include all conference champs, you would have to expand to atleast 16, and as far as D-IA, that is impossible to do. Just look at D-IAA, look at that mess and how is hasn't worked for how many years now???

I think for right now we are stuck with a 4 team playoff, it needs to be all atlarge bids. If a Boise St runs the table, they would get their shot. I'm not saying they are the only ones, but they are the best example. All the Mid-major schools must go undefeated to have a chance, period. Until we as a whole can do that, we are all just pissing into the wind.

You meant to say...look at the 1-AA playoff and how well it works. If playoffs were "impossible"...how does 1-AA do it? Hell they actually just expanded their playoffs to include more teams. A 16 team playoff is not "impossible". The only major road block to any playoff has been and always will be...the bowls. That's why it's "impossible". Our conference presidents have been bought wholesale by the bowls and cutting them out of the loop at this stage of the game is going to be rough sledding. Even though bowls have become an obsolete, highly unfair practice that has become apparent to even the most gullible of football fan...they continue to exist. What we have in a four team playoff is a placation of sorts. "You got what you wanted, now sit down and shut up." The bowls got their assurance they will included in the new playoff deal. And the charade continues.

I was being very sarcastic with the playoffs not working comment. They could include bowls in the playoff scenario if they wanted. Right now there are to many bowls anyway. Rewarding a team that is .500 with a bowl is like playing a game and not keeping score. Everyone doesn't win or should they win. Bowls should be a reward for an outstanding season, not mediocraty. Conference champs and a few atlarge should get bowl invites. Not every team with 6 wins. They need to change that rule to say atleast 7 wins, the 6 win rule was put into place when teams played 11 games, now they play 13 games.

There won't be redistribution of the wealth.

The wealth comes from donations, sponsorships and ticket sales at each school.
Followed next by TV rights sold by each conference.
Followed next by NCAA money which is distributed in a six tier formula most of the tiers either equal to each conference or based on sport and scholarship money, then finally performance in the tournament which all leagues are assured participation in.
Then comes the bowl money.

No one is asking USC to share gate receipts, no one is asking Alabama to share donations, or Florida State to share sponsorships. No is asking the Big 10 to share their TV money nor the ACC to share NCAA Tournament units.

But it is reasonable when you declare that you are crowning the champion of the division's football that revenue from it be shared and that there be a legitimate way to participate in the championship and the highlighted games the lead up to it.

There is no need to walk away to FCS, but there is also no compelling reason to nod our head in agreement and sign a contract that doesn't provide a reasonable share of the money and doesn't provide a legitimate way to participate in the playoff or high focus games. Refusing to sign and letting it get settle elsewhere makes more sense.

When Cowen was busting the BCS' balls in the early part of the last decade, the MWC wanted no part of it. Sure, they took the rewards, but they didn't participate. Instead, they put together their own "plans" to expand the AQs to include them, and them only.
The same will be true this time, but with the BE mimicking the NWC. Whatever C-USA/MWC/Belt et al come up with to attack the other 5, the BE won't participate - instead, they will come up with their own plan which benefits them and them alone.
Also, the BE remains under a spell that they are going to get a TV deal that will net them 10MM per team annually. Maybe they will. But to my eyes, they are essentially C-USA, c. 2002 (at best - maybe not that good) and if I adjust that C-USA TV deal for inflation, it comes nowhere near their expectations.

BTW can you elaborate on your Option 1 in your piece? I don't understand what you're saying. Thanks.

If you threaten to take your ball home and leave if they don't do what you want they will laugh and say "go ahead and go". They don't need you. They like beating up on you but they certainly don't need you. Ever since the courts stripped the NCAA of its power to regulate the money football has become more and more of a market based system and they are the big fish and you the small. And with no regulatory power being brought to bear on them from an outside source (which here is the NCAA or the government in society) these big fish are free to use their resources to keep themselves afloat and to beat you to death.

It is the unfortunate truth that I dislike but it is what it is.

The "other 5" have made the decision to go it alone. If you thought the BCS was unfair, you ain't seen nothin yet. The "other 5" don't plan to share in the wealth at all if they can get away with it. They simply do not see it as their responsibility to ensure that every school that wants to field a D-I football program has the means to properly fund that program. Many schools in the SBC, MAC, MWC, and CUSA will struggle mightily to maintain a D-I football program. It's an uphill battle for many, and some simply won't make it.

(09-07-2012 06:58 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  If you threaten to take your ball home and leave if they don't do what you want they will laugh and say "go ahead and go". They don't need you. They like beating up on you but they certainly don't need you. Ever since the courts stripped the NCAA of its power to regulate the money football has become more and more of a market based system and they are the big fish and you the small. And with no regulatory power being brought to bear on them from an outside source (which here is the NCAA or the government in society) these big fish are free to use their resources to keep themselves afloat and to beat you to death.

It is the unfortunate truth that I dislike but it is what it is.

That's a defeatist attitude.

(09-07-2012 06:58 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  If you threaten to take your ball home and leave if they don't do what you want they will laugh and say "go ahead and go". They don't need you. They like beating up on you but they certainly don't need you. Ever since the courts stripped the NCAA of its power to regulate the money football has become more and more of a market based system and they are the big fish and you the small. And with no regulatory power being brought to bear on them from an outside source (which here is the NCAA or the government in society) these big fish are free to use their resources to keep themselves afloat and to beat you to death.

It is the unfortunate truth that I dislike but it is what it is.

The choices are simple. Take the pittance in money, take the only if X, Y, and Z happen access or:

Walk if you don't get something better.

The revenue share to the five non-rich leagues works out to less than half of the revenue from one money game per team. It works out to roughly 1% of the typical budget.

The poor five can walk without getting killed financially and the rich 5 will take a major hit in publicity. Remember what it was like before the fifth BCS bowl was added? The access point was be ranked 8 and it wasn't guaranteed. The money paid out was about 25% lower than the current deal.

What changed it? Scott Cowen pointed out it was BS. Congress started rumbling about getting involved and all of sudden there was a game added to make more money and more access available.

The media has hounded the BCS for the past few years on the excesses of the bowls and the lack of a playoff. Now we have a playoff coming and the Rich 5 want to roll back the cut of money to the poor 5 and cut access even though there will be far more money and more games.

If the poor 5 stand together with a legitimate threat to walk, they will get most of what they want because the presidents of the Rich 5 schools don't want Congressional scrutiny, they don't want DOJ scrutiny, and they don't want the press howling. There used to be six in the rich group but they picked the bones of the Big East to make it five.

If they poor 5 don't demand and get at least the same percentage of revenue as today and don't get at least the same access point and they don't walk they are fools. They should be demanding a larger percentage because the rights are going through the roof in part because of the ratings delivered to the BCS by the poor 5 and because they are proclaiming this a national championship playoff.

Start to walk, they will cave because they will no longer have the defense "but they signed the contract" when the anti-trust talk starts.

If the NCAA were to honestly enforce their own rules of what was required to maintain D-IA status there would be some contraction in the division. Unfortunately the NCAA is nothing but a figurehead with no real desire to enforce those rules. The NCAA is afraid as everyone else that the BCS conferences will tell them to take a hike and they will take their ball and play alone. The ACC, SEC, B1G, BIG XII and PAC 12 don't need or want the NCAA involved in their money.

(09-07-2012 09:22 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If the NCAA were to honestly enforce their own rules of what was required to maintain D-IA status there would be some contraction in the division. Unfortunately the NCAA is nothing but a figurehead with no real desire to enforce those rules. The NCAA is afraid as everyone else that the BCS conferences will tell them to take a hike and they will take their ball and play alone. The ACC, SEC, B1G, BIG XII and PAC 12 don't need or want the NCAA involved in their money.

The day is coming where the big, other, or whatever 5 will disassociate themselves from the NCAA. Once that happens, they'll write their own set of rules and the rest of the D-I schools will be left totally with no voice in how things are done.

(09-07-2012 04:51 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:22 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If the NCAA were to honestly enforce their own rules of what was required to maintain D-IA status there would be some contraction in the division. Unfortunately the NCAA is nothing but a figurehead with no real desire to enforce those rules. The NCAA is afraid as everyone else that the BCS conferences will tell them to take a hike and they will take their ball and play alone. The ACC, SEC, B1G, BIG XII and PAC 12 don't need or want the NCAA involved in their money.

The day is coming where the big, other, or whatever 5 will disassociate themselves from the NCAA. Once that happens, they'll write their own set of rules and the rest of the D-I schools will be left totally with no voice in how things are done.

For the past decade plus the Division Management Council and Boad of Directors have been a majority BCS AQ leagues on football issues. They already can write their own rules in football and with help of just a couple FBS leagues can do the same in all other matters.

That's what makes the exclusion of the Big East such a curious proposition - as there will be at least 127 schools in FBS by 2015, the BCS really needs at least 64 schools in the cartel to operate. Right now there are 2 leagues at 12, 2 with 14, and one at 10 for a total of 62, or 63 counting Notre Dame. Either the Big 10 needs to go to 14, or the Big 12 needs to go to at least 12 to get the majority back by 2015. It would be easier for the Big Ten to pick from the ACC and then the ACC refill from the Big East given the Big 12 just signed a TV deal.

We still have a shot at 4 x 16, but either the ACC or Big 12 would be toast - I don't think there's a reasonably likely configuration that works. It also leaves the BCS extremely vulnerable to expansion by the former non-AQ conferences.