Here's what Big Ten football players want :

• A representative on each campus who can advocate for players during medical situations or other disputes. The representative would be hired by the CFBPA and serve an on-site role similar to the player representatives in professional sports unions.
• Funds from the conference to purchase medical insurance policies for former players that would cover the treatment of injuries from their college football careers.
• A to-be-determined percentage of media rights revenue for players.

Love it.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-benefits

My personal view is this is going to hurt EMU and the MAC as there will be no way for them to compete. But ultimately I agree with your points that it is the right thing to do for the players.

The problem here is not only will the MAC not be able to compete, but the lesser major conferences of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC-10 will not be able to compete with the Big Ten and SEC. That is a lot of fans that are going to be alienated once their team is no longer really in the mix. (ie, Washington, Syracuse, etc). Ultimately, I see revenue dropping for college athletics as an unintended consequence.

For me personally, if EMU does not really have a shot (however minuscule) of beating one of the Big Ten teams, I will hardly have interest in the Big Ten. I will still watch from time to time especially socially- but won’t follow any where near to the same extent. I am certain other’s (but not all or maybe even not most) have a similar perspective… we’ll see.

(07-25-2022 08:31 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  My personal view is this is going to hurt EMU and the MAC as there will be no way for them to compete. But ultimately I agree with your points that it is the right thing to do for the players.

The problem here is not only will the MAC not be able to compete, but the lesser major conferences of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC-10 will not be able to compete with the Big Ten and SEC. That is a lot of fans that are going to be alienated once their team is no longer really in the mix. (ie, Washington, Syracuse, etc). Ultimately, I see revenue dropping for college athletics as an unintended consequence.

For me personally, if EMU does not really have a shot (however minuscule) of beating one of the Big Ten teams, I will hardly have interest in the Big Ten. I will still watch from time to time especially socially- but won’t follow any where near to the same extent. I am certain other’s (but not all or maybe even not most) have a similar perspective… we’ll see.

Low-Key conferences only serve to help the NCAA not be fair to players. if players from all conferences banded together to negotiate together they could get a better deal. the rising tide would raise all ships - so to speak.

There will be two super conferences with crumbs for the rest of the schools.

(07-25-2022 08:51 AM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 08:31 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  My personal view is this is going to hurt EMU and the MAC as there will be no way for them to compete. But ultimately I agree with your points that it is the right thing to do for the players.

The problem here is not only will the MAC not be able to compete, but the lesser major conferences of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC-10 will not be able to compete with the Big Ten and SEC. That is a lot of fans that are going to be alienated once their team is no longer really in the mix. (ie, Washington, Syracuse, etc). Ultimately, I see revenue dropping for college athletics as an unintended consequence.

For me personally, if EMU does not really have a shot (however minuscule) of beating one of the Big Ten teams, I will hardly have interest in the Big Ten. I will still watch from time to time especially socially- but won’t follow any where near to the same extent. I am certain other’s (but not all or maybe even not most) have a similar perspective… we’ll see.

Low-Key conferences only serve to help the NCAA not be fair to players. if players from all conferences banded together to negotiate together they could get a better deal. the rising tide would raise all ships - so to speak.

I am not following your logic here. If true that Low-Key conferences are helping the NCAA take advantage of players, are you suggesting we disband low-key conferences or demote more formally to lower divisions?

(07-25-2022 04:21 PM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 08:51 AM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 08:31 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  My personal view is this is going to hurt EMU and the MAC as there will be no way for them to compete. But ultimately I agree with your points that it is the right thing to do for the players.

The problem here is not only will the MAC not be able to compete, but the lesser major conferences of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC-10 will not be able to compete with the Big Ten and SEC. That is a lot of fans that are going to be alienated once their team is no longer really in the mix. (ie, Washington, Syracuse, etc). Ultimately, I see revenue dropping for college athletics as an unintended consequence.

For me personally, if EMU does not really have a shot (however minuscule) of beating one of the Big Ten teams, I will hardly have interest in the Big Ten. I will still watch from time to time especially socially- but won’t follow any where near to the same extent. I am certain other’s (but not all or maybe even not most) have a similar perspective… we’ll see.

Low-Key conferences only serve to help the NCAA not be fair to players. if players from all conferences banded together to negotiate together they could get a better deal. the rising tide would raise all ships - so to speak.

I am not following your logic here. If true that Low-Key conferences are helping the NCAA take advantage of players, are you suggesting we disband low-key conferences or demote more formally to lower divisions?

Ramy, excellent points. Believe you're advocating for players to form a union and collectively bargain nationwide. That should dissipate somewhat the Big Ten and SEC's excessive power somewhat.

We’ve never been on the same plane as the P5 in football. It would make a lot of sense logistically and financially to combine the G5 with FCS, but egos would never allow it.

(07-25-2022 09:50 PM)holybovine Wrote:  We’ve never been on the same plane as the P5 in football. It would make a lot of sense logistically and financially to combine the G5 with FCS, but egos would never allow it.

I couldn't have said it any better! The smaller D1 schools couldn't compete before either! And, now it's not possible! When you've 80-115k fans attending games, the big boys take in more money in one week, then A MAC school will take in in eight seasons, They can pay players up to 15 million for a team! Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, USC, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas take in probably 20-25 million or more in one home game! E Michigan if they've 10k in fans at $20-25 dollars per ticket plus concessions, and parking, 250k-350k! Face value for Michigan-Ohio State tickets is $225 dollars, plus parking! Figure 110k fans! Mindboggling money!

(07-25-2022 07:47 PM)Miggy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 04:21 PM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 08:51 AM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 08:31 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  My personal view is this is going to hurt EMU and the MAC as there will be no way for them to compete. But ultimately I agree with your points that it is the right thing to do for the players.

The problem here is not only will the MAC not be able to compete, but the lesser major conferences of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC-10 will not be able to compete with the Big Ten and SEC. That is a lot of fans that are going to be alienated once their team is no longer really in the mix. (ie, Washington, Syracuse, etc). Ultimately, I see revenue dropping for college athletics as an unintended consequence.

For me personally, if EMU does not really have a shot (however minuscule) of beating one of the Big Ten teams, I will hardly have interest in the Big Ten. I will still watch from time to time especially socially- but won’t follow any where near to the same extent. I am certain other’s (but not all or maybe even not most) have a similar perspective… we’ll see.

Low-Key conferences only serve to help the NCAA not be fair to players. if players from all conferences banded together to negotiate together they could get a better deal. the rising tide would raise all ships - so to speak.

I am not following your logic here. If true that Low-Key conferences are helping the NCAA take advantage of players, are you suggesting we disband low-key conferences or demote more formally to lower divisions?

Ramy, excellent points. Believe you're advocating for players to form a union and collectively bargain nationwide. That should dissipate somewhat the Big Ten and SEC's excessive power somewhat.

i guess what im saying is that players collective bargaining power would be better served across the NCAA - or even just the power 5 - rather than being broken up into conferences. its sort of a pre-baked divide and conquer situation. and ultimately conference level player associations shouldnt be competing against each other. solidarity and so forth.

(07-25-2022 09:50 PM)holybovine Wrote:  We’ve never been on the same plane as the P5 in football. It would make a lot of sense logistically and financially to combine the G5 with FCS, but egos would never allow it.

Amen, Brother! And for better or for worse, NIL (and conference realignment) will force this to happen.

I was impressed with the MAC’s recent progress to “close the gap” as Creighton says. NIU 2013 Orange Bowl appearance, WMU 2017 Cotton Bowl appearance, and even EMU’s defeating a Big opponent 3 years in a row. These are all very impressive feats given the disparities. Nonethless, it was likely never going to gain traction beyond that. Now NIL ensures that it won’t and probably even reverses the gains. Might be for the best so the “egos” are forced to face reality. (Perfect term, btw. So thanks!)

(07-26-2022 10:45 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:50 PM)holybovine Wrote:  We’ve never been on the same plane as the P5 in football. It would make a lot of sense logistically and financially to combine the G5 with FCS, but egos would never allow it.

Amen, Brother! And for better or for worse, NIL (and conference realignment) will force this to happen.

I was impressed with the MAC’s recent progress to “close the gap” as Creighton says. NIU 2013 Orange Bowl appearance, WMU 2017 Cotton Bowl appearance, and even EMU’s defeating a Big opponent 3 years in a row. These are all very impressive feats given the disparities. Nonethless, it was likely never going to gain traction beyond that. Now NIL ensures that it won’t and probably even reverses the gains. Might be for the best so the “egos” are forced to face reality. (Perfect term, btw. So thanks!)

I've said it before, but there's essentially a finite amount of playing time across FBS. Alabama and Texas A&M can pay all they want for players but only so many can see the field.

G5 conferences like the MAC will continue to get decent players. Any player good enough to get NIL money also has dreams of playing in the NFL and they need playing time to do that. It won't take a brain surgeon to see that riding the bench for $10-20k in NIL money isn't going to make them millions after college.

The elite prospects were rarely committing to G5 schools anyway. P5 schools may snatch a few fringe prospects on NIL money who may otherwise have committed to G5 schools, but as a whole most players will find they want to be on the field. Might take them a 1-2 seasons to transfer down but I'd imagine they'll all continue to settle in the right spot for them. It's not the 1950's anymore where Michigan can offer every local talent and have them ride pine for 4 years. That's a good thing.

The product MAC schools put on the field should stay similar. Yes, I think G5 should compete more with FCS teams but I also think adding a bunch of them to FBS will dilute the G5 product. If you're spreading G5-level talent over 120 teams instead of 65 teams, the MAC is dead in the water. Teams like Delaware and Sam Houston have more resources than lower tier MAC schools.

(07-26-2022 12:45 PM)eastcoasteagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:45 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:50 PM)holybovine Wrote:  We’ve never been on the same plane as the P5 in football. It would make a lot of sense logistically and financially to combine the G5 with FCS, but egos would never allow it.

Amen, Brother! And for better or for worse, NIL (and conference realignment) will force this to happen.

I was impressed with the MAC’s recent progress to “close the gap” as Creighton says. NIU 2013 Orange Bowl appearance, WMU 2017 Cotton Bowl appearance, and even EMU’s defeating a Big opponent 3 years in a row. These are all very impressive feats given the disparities. Nonethless, it was likely never going to gain traction beyond that. Now NIL ensures that it won’t and probably even reverses the gains. Might be for the best so the “egos” are forced to face reality. (Perfect term, btw. So thanks!)

I've said it before, but there's essentially a finite amount of playing time across FBS. Alabama and Texas A&M can pay all they want for players but only so many can see the field.

G5 conferences like the MAC will continue to get decent players. Any player good enough to get NIL money also has dreams of playing in the NFL and they need playing time to do that. It won't take a brain surgeon to see that riding the bench for $10-20k in NIL money isn't going to make them millions after college.

The elite prospects were rarely committing to G5 schools anyway. P5 schools may snatch a few fringe prospects on NIL money who may otherwise have committed to G5 schools, but as a whole most players will find they want to be on the field. Might take them a 1-2 seasons to transfer down but I'd imagine they'll all continue to settle in the right spot for them. It's not the 1950's anymore where Michigan can offer every local talent and have them ride pine for 4 years. That's a good thing.

The product MAC schools put on the field should stay similar. Yes, I think G5 should compete more with FCS teams but I also think adding a bunch of them to FBS will dilute the G5 product. If you're spreading G5-level talent over 120 teams instead of 65 teams, the MAC is dead in the water. Teams like Delaware and Sam Houston have more resources than lower tier MAC schools.

You have some very valid points. There are some counter arguments as well, such as players now transferring up as well as down. And I still think NIL significantly increases the already existing divide. Regardless, I will agree with you that there will still be decent football being played at EMU somewhere in between the “major” FBS and the FCS… just a little closer to the FCS then before.

(07-27-2022 08:07 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 12:45 PM)eastcoasteagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:45 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:50 PM)holybovine Wrote:  We’ve never been on the same plane as the P5 in football. It would make a lot of sense logistically and financially to combine the G5 with FCS, but egos would never allow it.

Amen, Brother! And for better or for worse, NIL (and conference realignment) will force this to happen.

I was impressed with the MAC’s recent progress to “close the gap” as Creighton says. NIU 2013 Orange Bowl appearance, WMU 2017 Cotton Bowl appearance, and even EMU’s defeating a Big opponent 3 years in a row. These are all very impressive feats given the disparities. Nonethless, it was likely never going to gain traction beyond that. Now NIL ensures that it won’t and probably even reverses the gains. Might be for the best so the “egos” are forced to face reality. (Perfect term, btw. So thanks!)

I've said it before, but there's essentially a finite amount of playing time across FBS. Alabama and Texas A&M can pay all they want for players but only so many can see the field.

G5 conferences like the MAC will continue to get decent players. Any player good enough to get NIL money also has dreams of playing in the NFL and they need playing time to do that. It won't take a brain surgeon to see that riding the bench for $10-20k in NIL money isn't going to make them millions after college.

The elite prospects were rarely committing to G5 schools anyway. P5 schools may snatch a few fringe prospects on NIL money who may otherwise have committed to G5 schools, but as a whole most players will find they want to be on the field. Might take them a 1-2 seasons to transfer down but I'd imagine they'll all continue to settle in the right spot for them. It's not the 1950's anymore where Michigan can offer every local talent and have them ride pine for 4 years. That's a good thing.

The product MAC schools put on the field should stay similar. Yes, I think G5 should compete more with FCS teams but I also think adding a bunch of them to FBS will dilute the G5 product. If you're spreading G5-level talent over 120 teams instead of 65 teams, the MAC is dead in the water. Teams like Delaware and Sam Houston have more resources than lower tier MAC schools.

You have some very valid points. There are some counter arguments as well, such as players now transferring up as well as down. And I still think NIL significantly increases the already existing divide. Regardless, I will agree with you that there will still be decent football being played at EMU somewhere in between the “major” FBS and the FCS… just a little closer to the FCS then before.

Theres nothing stopping EMU and other G5 schools from raiding FCS and Div 2 for good players.