With the amount of P5 schools going down to "lesser" competition I would say yes, this is very interesting.
The CFP and conference networks have increased the gap a lot in a short period of time.
These conference networks don't get to show OOC road games.
That and the ability to buy games will make playing at a G5 school not worth the risk.
My guess in five years you won't hardly see a Mississippi ST play at a G5.
FBS teams used to play at FCS at one point and conferences banned it.
One of the key points is the G5 schools that are heavily subsidized with student fees and state funds. What happens if states start to adopt measures similar to those of Georiga and Virgina, wherein the amount of subsidies and/or student fees are capped or reduced? These things must be looked at by the G5 conferences moving forward, as the current configuration of the conferences may not be sustainable should certain programs see their funding reduced by 25% to 35%. With that being said, schools may want to start working through back doors to align themselves with similar schools regionally in case things start to implode.
Spending on athletics is going to have diminishing returns.
I mean, is a player really going to be willing to grayshirt or be a preferred walk-on at a Power 5 school when he can get a scholarship and FCOA at a G5 just because said P5 has a tropical aquarium in the weight room?
Watch out for an increase in the ceiling of scholarships for FBS. That's what could really hurt parity in college football.
(This post was last modified: 09-04-2016 09:54 AM by EigenEagle.)
(09-04-2016 10:29 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote: Will a player gray shirt or take a P5 preferred walk-on offer over a G5 full ride? Yes, happens every year.
Yes, but that gravitational pull isn't going to get greater because a P5 has 6-foot flat-screen televisions in every room of their athletic training facilities.
I read that this morning and chuckled to myself. ESPN writing an article about an inequity they helped create and sustain. It's like Democrats constantly harping about the poor conditions of the dependent classes they create and perpetuate. I guess it still "feels good" to acknowledge the "unfairness" of it all.
(09-04-2016 12:40 PM)Eagles Cliff Wrote: I read that this morning and chuckled to myself. ESPN writing an article about an inequity they helped create and sustain. It's like Democrats constantly harping about the poor conditions of the dependent classes they create and perpetuate. I guess it still "feels good" to acknowledge the "unfairness" of it all.
Thought the same thing when watching OTL this morning. It's like they're unaware they've created this mess.
(09-04-2016 12:40 PM)Eagles Cliff Wrote: I read that this morning and chuckled to myself. ESPN writing an article about an inequity they helped create and sustain. It's like Democrats constantly harping about the poor conditions of the dependent classes they create and perpetuate. I guess it still "feels good" to acknowledge the "unfairness" of it all.
Thought the same thing when watching OTL this morning. It's like they're unaware they've created this mess.
They are going to kill the Golden Goose.
I really do not give a ratsazz whether Alabama or Ohio State wins the National Championship anymore. I've even missed NC games recently. I am just not really a college football fan any longer. I root for A-State....I watch Sun Belt...I watch some G5.
I'm really not sure why they want to bet on building a little semi-pro league.
We need a forward looking group of commissioners for the G5 conferences that can work together the way the "Autonomy 5" have. They need to basically develop a collective bargaining arrangement in the areas of TV, scheduling, and overall marketing.
The problem most G5 schools have is that they only have 20,000 to 50,000 hardcore fans per school. The SEC probably averages 250,000 to 350,000 per school. Those numbers are then multiplied 2, 3, 4 times for casual fans. So no G5 conference delivers enough clout to be worth much to any network.
Develop a G5 only network with games on Tuesday through Saturday. Since all the G5s would be involved, no one conference would have the burden of absorbing all the week night games. You could have a 7:00 and 10:15 game each weeknight and a 12:00, 3:30, 7:00 and 10:30 game each Saturday. That's 12 nationally televised games each week. Just as important, all the between game talk and halftime shows are 100% G5 related.
Now you also have scheduling leverage. You can create games between the tops in the G5 conferences to create appeal, not unlike the bracket buster challenges in basketball. You also have a committee to formulate OOC scheduling as it relates to P5 games, control and maximize inventory and return and position for more home games.
Marketing - something along the lines "for the love of the game" to play off the anti "pro/farm league" sentiment people view college football as these days. Play it up with a lot of imagery from the 50s, 60s and 70s, nostalgia angle stuff.
Of course it would be a year around channel, so all the other sports are featured also. Now you are dealing with 63 schools, so you have an enormous potential customer base. I'd pay $10 a month for the channel, would you?
(09-05-2016 10:59 PM)SBEagle Wrote: This would separate us even more, IMHO.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I see your point.
But he put forth some good ideas.
A Nation wide network, supported by ESPN on their backbone - with their clout to force providers to either carry it on BASIC or not at all (the way they did locally with the SEC network) could mean a lot of revenue.
I'm normally against this approach as I believe that all sports networks should be allowed to be put on a spots tier - but if they aren't going to play by those rules - we shouldn't either.
I could see the possibility of leveraging network funds to help "buy" an away game from the P5 at least one per week for the network. Spread it out to a different G5 conference each week that faces a decent P5. This would increase demand for the network and providers would have to launch it to meet customer demand.
Of course, this entire situation could EASILY be resolved by ESPN simply marketing the G5. After all, some of us are I.E. "Their product". I can't understand why they wouldn't want to present their own contracted conferences in as positive a light as possible and create greater interest in games involving us.
People will watch what they are told is worth watching. It's only a big deal when promoted as such. If you take the Atlanta Falcons and the Denver broncos and have them play a game in Miami but only promote it a little and give it little TV coverage. Some people will still go. But promote it as the Super Bowl and you can't get in for 2,000 dollars and people pay a million bucks for a 30 second tv spot and it's viewed as the greatest game on the planet or the year. Same Players.... Marketing is at least 98% of it. They own the market.
1. Win more P5 games.....
2. See #1 winning draws eyeballs and butts in seats. If a former slightly above average I-AA team in Boise ID can become a national player so can any Belt team.
3. Win more OOC G5 games and NO FCS losses. We are not going to lead Sports Center beating Akron or Sav St but those wins get you into bowls.
4. Give more as a fan. Not just money wise but showing your support.
5.Get those friends you have that support "insert SEC team here" to come back to a game or two a year. Maybe one or two of them come back for good. GS gets 21K a home game if just half of those people eventually got one lost alumni back and or got a new sidewalk alumni to come that is a game changer as far as attendance.
Things that are overblown.
1. Facilities. An actual poll was taken of recruits most did not care at a certain point. Either they are nice or they are not.
2. Budget. You dont need a 190M budget to compete, but for Belt teams we all are not where we need to be. Wake and Vandy get all that ESPN and playoff money and they still suck as bad as any G5. All of our football teams probably make money it is the total athletic departments that do not. We just need to get to the point where we are not losing coaches to anyone but above average P5 teams and can provide our athletes with the max the NCAA allows.
(09-08-2016 08:31 AM)JCGSU Wrote: Things the G5 has to do to bring in more money
1. Win more P5 games.....
2. See #1 winning draws eyeballs and butts in seats. If a former slightly above average I-AA team in Boise ID can become a national player so can any Belt team.
3. Win more OOC G5 games and NO FCS losses. We are not going to lead Sports Center beating Akron or Sav St but those wins get you into bowls.
4. Give more as a fan. Not just money wise but showing your support.
5.Get those friends you have that support "insert SEC team here" to come back to a game or two a year. Maybe one or two of them come back for good. GS gets 21K a home game if just half of those people eventually got one lost alumni back and or got a new sidewalk alumni to come that is a game changer as far as attendance.
Things that are overblown.
1. Facilities. An actual poll was taken of recruits most did not care at a certain point. Either they are nice or they are not.
2. Budget. You dont need a 190M budget to compete, but for Belt teams we all are not where we need to be. Wake and Vandy get all that ESPN and playoff money and they still suck as bad as any G5. All of our football teams probably make money it is the total athletic departments that do not. We just need to get to the point where we are not losing coaches to anyone but above average P5 teams and can provide our athletes with the max the NCAA allows.
Yes, having the money to hold on to your entire coaching staff is huge.
/
Interesting article from ESPN this morning
