I doubt it would be an official rule just a philosophy.
The all P5 schedule would happen slowly gradually.
The BCS defined a separation then P5 more clearly.

The same for the P5 initiatives the expenses will grow.
Gradually pricing out most G5. They would never be able to do it overnight.

(08-07-2014 10:25 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  If the P5 are going to only play P5 schools then why are they still scheduling G5 schools 5 years out?

It is actually even further out than that. Virginia Tech has an eight year home-and-home series with East Carolina that runs through 2020. They have a seven year home-and-home series with Old Dominion that starts in 2017 and runs through 2025. I found it interesting that Frank Beamer was a yes vote.

This would never happen. Besides the future contract commitments, there are traditional matchups that would disappear. Colorado could never play Colorado State. Utah could never play BYU or Utah State. Notre Dame could never play Navy.

There are G5 schools that have play in large home stadiums that have attracted a slew of good P5 opponents. Memphis has UCLA, Ole Miss and Tennessee on their home schedule for 2017. Temple has Notre Dame and Penn State at home in 2015. UTSA has Arizona, Kansas State, Arizona State and Baylor at home over the next five years.

Boise State has future home games with Florida State in 2020, Oklahoma State in 2021 and Michigan State in 2022. If you really don't want to play G5 schools, then why schedule games on the road with them?

For now I don't see the p5 not playing the g5. Makes little sense and not practical. But I do see them avoid any FCS schools. That is what is likely to happen.

I almost wonder if some of these votes were coaches who thought they were asking about playing only FBS schools given the responses a few of them have given after hearing of the poll.

At what point do the state governments, who most are looking for money, look at the P5 schools and say. "Wow, look at how much money you are making. You obviously don't need all this money the state is giving to you. So we are reducing it."

(08-08-2014 11:05 AM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  At what point do the state governments, who most are looking for money, look at the P5 schools and say. "Wow, look at how much money you are making. You obviously don't need all this money the state is giving to you. So we are reducing it."

That isn't much of a problem given how the athletic and academic sides are often bifurcated.

This is probably just a ruse designed to be used a a bargaining chip for some other concession.

No way do I believe the P5 will stop playing G5. In fact, I believe some games will still be played with 1AA. Most P5 IMO will want more top rated G5 teams however for their power ratings and the price will be stronger.

(08-08-2014 10:49 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I almost wonder if some of these votes were coaches who thought they were asking about playing only FBS schools given the responses a few of them have given after hearing of the poll.

I was thinking the same thing.

alot of weird stuff being proposed by the P5 schools, last month the Commissioner for the Pac 10 proposed that the one year transfer rule be eliminated, and players be allowed to transfer and play immediately. That of course would never pass as both the FCS and G5 schools and some select P5 schools would vote it down, but it goes to show, that the P5 schools are testing the waters to see how much initial resistance they are going to get, and yes, I agree some of these proposals are being used as a potential bargaining chip, to try and get what they really want.

(08-08-2014 12:57 PM)moehler Wrote:  alot of weird stuff being proposed by the P5 schools, last month the Commissioner for the Pac 10 proposed that the one year transfer rule be eliminated, and players be allowed to transfer and play immediately. That of course would never pass as both the FCS and G5 schools and some select P5 schools would vote it down, but it goes to show, that the P5 schools are testing the waters to see how much initial resistance they are going to get, and yes, I agree some of these proposals are being used as a potential bargaining chip, to try and get what they really want.

We know that these guys push the envelopes at every opportunity, try to finesse every rule, and everything always turns into an arms race. I expect more of the same.

I'm interested to see whats going to happen in the next 2 years as more P5's limit their G5's and FCS matchups. You're going to end up with less bowl eligible P5's and more bowl eligible G5's and the Bowl system is going to freak out. Haha can't wait.

Money talks. bull**** walks.
That's about sums it up.

(08-08-2014 01:37 PM)TrueBlueAlum Wrote:  I'm interested to see whats going to happen in the next 2 years as more P5's limit their G5's and FCS matchups. You're going to end up with less bowl eligible P5's and more bowl eligible G5's and the Bowl system is going to freak out. Haha can't wait.

Just curious, what makes you think more P5's are going to limit their games against G5's(not counting the schools in conferences that are going to play more conference games).

(08-08-2014 02:33 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 01:37 PM)TrueBlueAlum Wrote:  I'm interested to see whats going to happen in the next 2 years as more P5's limit their G5's and FCS matchups. You're going to end up with less bowl eligible P5's and more bowl eligible G5's and the Bowl system is going to freak out. Haha can't wait.

Just curious, what makes you think more P5's are going to limit their games against G5's(not counting the schools in conferences that are going to play more conference games).

they might do that as a move to raise their strength of schedule rating..

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the poll was conducted by ESPN. In all likelihood they are a driving force behind this entire autonomy move. They know games which feature strictly P5 team will drive up the cost of advertising making them more $. As it is in most cases, it's all about the Benjamins.

(08-09-2014 08:25 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the poll was conducted by ESPN. In all likelihood they are a driving force behind this entire autonomy move. They know games which feature strictly P5 team will drive up the cost of advertising making them more $. As it is in most cases, it's all about the Benjamins.

Don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that they are a catalyst, but don't look for the P5s to stop playing G5s. Look for both to stop playing FCS.

(08-09-2014 08:25 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the poll was conducted by ESPN. In all likelihood they are a driving force behind this entire autonomy move. They know games which feature strictly P5 team will drive up the cost of advertising making them more $. As it is in most cases, it's all about the Benjamins.

That is really a short-sighted move for them. If they concentrate all of college football into one small cartel, there is absolutely no guarantee that that cartel will not screw them at some point in the future.

ESPN is essentially a service provider at this point. But the cartel is completely capable of establishing their own network infrastructures, making their own deals with cable companies, and hiring their own talking heads....if it become convenient to do so. A Delaney can always walk away from ESPN's table.

If that happens, where does ESPN turn for college football content? What other alternate college football does ESPN have as leverage?

They shouldn't let the G5 get too withered and decayed, because they just might need that content some day.

They have no intention of letting the G5 withered and decayed, and need all the content they can get.

They have forked over tons of $ for their P5 contracts, and want to maximize their profits for those games, and viewers and sponsors like big-on-big games. Just the way it is.

You see some P5 schools make these comments, then you see schools like NC State who last week announce 15 new games against G5 and FCS teams. EKU is playing them next year. They scheduled 8 FCS games out to 2023.