Non-Key Tweets

[woomba]

It really is a devious plan, ain't it? Hiding behind "student-athlete welfare" to implement new rules changes that are too expensive for most non-P5 schools to follow. The early stages of the split are definitely here. 4 year scholarships, player stipends, full cost of tuition, increased health insurance for injured players, etc. There is zero chance that the majority of G5 schools (and a few grandfathered P5 schools too, I think) will be able to afford these.

I'm not sure if I would use the word devious - remember that the original $2000 stipend rule originally discussed around 2010 was inclusive of all D1 schools. That one got overturned by the larger voting bloc.

I think the larger schools blame the smaller schools for the situation escalating this far in the first place and now has broad support from both the ADs and the school presidents in pushing 'reform' even if they have to break up the current status quo.

 

[itgoeslike]

I'm not sure if I would use the word devious - remember that the original $2000 stipend rule originally discussed around 2010 was inclusive of all D1 schools. That one got overturned by the larger voting bloc.

I think the larger schools blame the smaller schools for the situation escalating this far in the first place and now has broad support from both the ADs and the school presidents in pushing 'reform' even if they have to break up the current status quo.

The idea of a 4-year scholarship is good one. However, at the same time, instead of sharing revenue more equally (like the NCAA basketball championship) the P5 are looking to put the lion's share in the hands of a few, select conferences/universities. They put the G5 schools on a low-revenue diet and then pretend to scratch their heads and wonder why all schools don't participate. If this was about education and student welfare, they would be going about this totally differently. The NCAA clearly needs to be reformed, but at least the majority of the revenue from the NCAA's is provided back to a large number of universities in various forms. Where will this profit from the Playoffs end up? What will it be put towards? Certainly not to the advancement of the "amateur"student athlete. You've got to be pretty naive to think otherwise.

 

[Dooley]

I'm not sure if I would use the word devious - remember that the original $2000 stipend rule originally discussed around 2010 was inclusive of all D1 schools. That one got overturned by the larger voting bloc.

I think the larger schools blame the smaller schools for the situation escalating this far in the first place and now has broad support from both the ADs and the school presidents in pushing 'reform' even if they have to break up the current status quo.

Using "student welfare" as a means to shrink the number of mouths to feed and make more money. And all of this isn't motivated by "what's best for the student athlete"...it's being motivated by lawsuits and threats of future lawsuits.

 

[Ldandy]

Not saying this as a shot against any team, but if the so called P5 Schools generate the overwhelming majority of revenue, doesn't it make sense that they should keep a proportionate amount of that money?

 

[Dooley]

Not saying this as a shot against any team, but if the so called P5 Schools generate the overwhelming majority of revenue, doesn't it make sense that they should keep a proportionate amount of that money?

Sure. But let's make sure that ALL of the schools that generate lots of revenue (i.e. UCONN) gets a piece of the pie too.

 

[TRest]

Not saying this as a shot against any team, but if the so called P5 Schools generate the overwhelming majority of revenue, doesn't it make sense that they should keep a proportionate amount of that money?

If it's in the best interests of student-athletes to receive all these additional benefits, why is it also in their best interests to limit these benefits to a handful of schools in division 1?

 

[woomba]

If it's in the best interests of student-athletes to receive all these additional benefits, why is it also in their best interests to limit these benefits to a handful of schools in division 1?

What limitation? It's the smaller schools themselves not opting to give them.

 

[noeynox]

Not saying this as a shot against any team, but if the so called P5 Schools generate the overwhelming majority of revenue, doesn't it make sense that they should keep a proportionate amount of that money?

How would that be in the best interest of the majority of the student athletes? How about leveling the playing field by spreading the wealth? No one is saying schools have to share their donations, but TV money and more specifically the money from the CFB playoff should be distributed in a manner similar to the NCAA tournament.

 

[Ldandy]

How would that be in the best interest of the majority of the student athletes? How about leveling the playing field by spreading the wealth? No one is saying schools have to share their donations, but TV money and more specifically the money from the CFB playoff should be distributed in a manner similar to the NCAA tournament.[

1)How would the creation of a new division help the majority of student athletes? Well for starters creating stipends for student athletes at 65 to however many total schools wanted to meet the standard would help thousands of kids. Schools mandating 4 year scholarships is another win for student athletes. Improved health benefits are another excellent benefit. Would all schools be able to do this? Obviously not, but if some can isn't it better than none being able to?

2)How about leveling the playing field by spreading the wealth? Define spreading the wealth. I have no problem with The P5 sharing with The G5 Teams. That said there is a fine line between sharing profits and providing welfare. America is still a free market. Value is determined by the consumer. If ad agencies, cable companies and tv networks saw the same value in The MAC, CUSA, MWC etc their games would be on national TV, and their media deals would rival those of the current P5. It just isn't the case. You could throw 100 million dollars at Akron tomorrow and it wouldn't begin to scratch the surface of competing with an OSU. They would still be a team with very limited interest.

3)The NCAA Basketball Tournament, and basketball in general for that matter, is a different animal altogether. First of all it features 68 teams and auto bids for 32 conferences. These teams' champions do not take away spots from the champions of the so called P5. The Football Tournament is currently at four teams, and IMO eventually 8. Parity does not exist in football like it does in basketball. It requires massive resources for facilities, recruiting, and coaching staffs. You need to build teams of 85 quality scholarship players brought in over multiple seasons, in order to be able to compete nationally.

In basketball, teams with limited resources like Butler or Creighton can compete with the right coach, system, and a handful of good players. You can also go from outhouse to penthouse just by adding 2-3 players to your roster in any given year like Kentucky has. This simply doesn't happen in football. I can't make an intellectually honest argument where the champion from the MWC, MAC, AAC etc should get into a 4 team playoff over champions of The B1G, SEC, ACC, Big 12 or PAC with equal records. They simply don't face the same level of competition.

At the end of the day the two sports are very different. In Bball nobody cares about the regular season, but everyone loves the drama of the tournament. We all love filling out brackets and cheering on early upsets. That said come final 4 time both TV and the general public want the name schools playing. In football the drama IS the regular season, followed by a handful of meh games added to the end. This is changing.

The playoff will be highly anticipated and likely contested 9 times out of 10 by teams strictly from the current P5. Will there be an occasional G5 Entrant like UCF, BYU, or Boise State? Certainly. However, when 90% of the time it is being contested among 5 conferences, shouldn't they receive the lion's share of the proceeds generated?

 

[whaler11]

That the Dude doesn't even have the slightest grasp on the BTN is tremendous. I guess his sources don't include Google.

 

[Dooley]

That the Dude doesn't even have the slightest grasp on the BTN is tremendous. I guess his sources don't include Google.

Google? I think The Dude is rocking the Yellow Pages.

 

[itgoeslike]

@Ldandy:

Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid.

1. More student athletes would benefit if the Playoff proceeds were divided among the 120 or so FBS teams. All the benefits you stipulated could be mandated by the FBS division and funded with the Playoff revenue. All of sudden we've doubled the number of students athletes that would be covered the full cost off attendance, insurance, etc. But, that's not what's happening, and it's by design.

2. The P5 are anything but free market. They simultaneously operate as a non-profit entity or as a for-profit entity, depending upon the advantage derived from each state, while partaking in exclusionary activity that would never be allowed in the business world. If anyone's receiving welfare, it's some of the schools that have been grandfathered in by association. For them, performance and budgets are irrelevant. The remaining FBS schools are the ones earning coin the old fashioned way. Part of me hopes this blows up into a pay-for-play free for all. Then we'll see if some of the so-called P5 will sink or swim.

3. Less parity is not an accident. In fact, the P5 is actively pursuing less parity. If a school like BYU or UCF is competing at higher level than some of the P5, why are those P5 members getting preferential payments? By putting schools within certain conferences in a position to offer benefits beyond others schools, they can consolidate talent. It's not an accident. It's by design. It is what it is, but let's not sugarcoat it.

The construct of this whole system appears to be going over your head. Based upon the metrics being employed and the committee makeup, a G5 team will Never be selected for the playoffs. With P5 conferences shutting out BYU (or any other G5 team), they will never have an RPI or visibility that will enable them to make it into the top 4. Never.

I'm sure at one point there was a movement to improve the welfare of student athletes. But it's been co-opted by old fashioned greed and will be milked for all it's worth.

 

[noeynox]

I was going to reply but @itgoeslike pretty much nailed it. It is okay for P5 Dregs like Iowa State or Washington State to have a one in a lifetime season and gain access to the playoff but not Miami of Ohio or Boise State? They have essentially created a new division within the current construct. There is a reason why Boise State can beat Oklahoma, Utah (when outside the P5) can beat Alabama, and UCF can beat Baylor. The reason is, there is more parity than the establishment wants you to believe.

We will see how this all shakes out. I've pretty much come to accept that college sports is going to be barely recognizable by the time this is all done.

 

[itgoeslike]

That the Dude doesn't even have the slightest grasp on the BTN is tremendous. I guess his sources don't include Google.

But in fairness he did say "don't quote me". That essentially provides him with complete immunity.

 

[itgoeslike]

I was going to reply but @itgoeslike pretty much nailed it. It is okay for P5 Dregs like Iowa State or Washington to have a one in a lifetime season and gain access to the playoff but not Miami of Ohio or Boise State? They have essentially created a new division within the current construct. There is a reason why Boise State can beat Oklahoma, Utah (when outside the P5) can beat Alabama, and UCF can beat Baylor. The reason is, there is more parity than the establishment wants you to believe.

We will see how this all shakes out. I've pretty much come to accept that college sports is going to be barely recognizable by the time this is all done.

I've accepted it too. It is what it is. But let's not pretend what it isn't. Also, for the record, I've enjoyed @Ldandy posts. I just don't happen to agree with him on this one.

 

[noeynox]

I have enjoyed his posts also. But he has clearly bought into the "the P5 is better than everyone else" bullcrap. And College Basketball is different, because the little guy is given the opportunity to pull off the upset. Something the P5 have no intention of allowing in football, unless it is a little guy from inside the P5. In 20 years, many touting the superiority of the P5 will be wising for these days.

 

[itgoeslike]

There are real differences between the 300+ Division 1 schools. But, they've already created a delineation between FBS and FCS. So, trying to argue that Oregon State, Mississippi State, Wake Forest and Iowa State are "different" than BYU, Navy, UConn, and Cincinnati is horse . It's really about empowering and enriching select conferences. The attempt to characterize this separation as an effort to improve the welfare of the student athlete is laughable.

 

[Ldandy]

@Ldandy:

Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid.

1. More student athletes would benefit if the Playoff proceeds were divided among the 120 or so FBS teams. All the benefits you stipulated could be mandated by the FBS division and funded with the Playoff revenue. All of sudden we've doubled the number of students athletes that would be covered the full cost off attendance, insurance, etc. But, that's not what's happening, and it's by design.

2. The P5 are anything but free market. They simultaneously operate as a non-profit entity or as a for-profit entity, depending upon the advantage derived from each state, while partaking in exclusionary activity that would never be allowed in the business world. If anyone's receiving welfare, it's some of the schools that have been grandfathered in by association. For them, performance and budgets are irrelevant. The remaining FBS schools are the ones earning coin the old fashioned way. Part of me hopes this blows up into a pay-for-play free for all. Then we'll see if some of the so-called P5 will sink or swim.

3. Less parity is not an accident. In fact, the P5 is actively pursuing less parity. If a school like BYU or UCF is competing at higher level than some of the P5, why are those P5 members getting preferential payments? By putting schools within certain conferences in a position to offer benefits beyond others schools, they can consolidate talent. It's not an accident. It's by design. It is what it is, but let's not sugarcoat it.

The construct of this whole system appears to be going over your head. Based upon the metrics being employed and the committee makeup, a G5 team will Never be selected for the playoffs. With P5 conferences shutting out BYU (or any other G5 team), they will never have an RPI or visibility that will enable them to make it into the top 4. Never.

I'm sure at one point there was a movement to improve the welfare of student athletes. But it's been co-opted by old fashioned greed and will be milked for all it's worth.

You make a lot of good points and I honestly don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote. I think the P5 will push things as far as they can, without drawing serious heat from the govt. Ultimately they will get the majority of what they want. Personally I don't like where everything is headed, but it is going there regardless of what I think. Where I disagree is on the G5 never getting a team in the tournament. It will not happen with any regularity, and it will take a Herculean effort when it does, but you will see an undefeated G5 Team make it in to the playoff at some point. If they don't than the exclusion that you are pointing out will be transparent to all. They won't set themselves up like that.

 

[whaler11]

If the playoff stays at four teams there is almost no way in hell that the G5 will ever have a representative.

 

[Ldandy]

I was going to reply but @itgoeslike pretty much nailed it. It is okay for P5 Dregs like Iowa State or Washington State to have a one in a lifetime season and gain access to the playoff but not Miami of Ohio or Boise State? They have essentially created a new division within the current construct. There is a reason why Boise State can beat Oklahoma, Utah (when outside the P5) can beat Alabama, and UCF can beat Baylor. The reason is, there is more parity than the establishment wants you to believe.

We will see how this all shakes out. I've pretty much come to accept that college sports is going to be barely recognizable by the time this is all done.

Like you said we all need to see how everything shakes out. The G5 Schools will not be kept out of anything IMO. They will however be handicapped by both their conference affiliation/sos, and the general public's own bias. They will likely need to be undefeated, have at least one quality ranked win OOC and then get some help elsewhere. Your example of WSU having a once in a lifetime season should have no bearing on the G5. If they go undefeated or 11-1, they potentially had to go through teams like Oregon, Stanford, and USC to do so. They would have earned their way in. If however they go 6-6, squeak into a conference title game and win it, they should not qualify over any other deserving team.

 

[Ldandy]

If the playoff stays at four teams there is almost no way in hell that the G5 will ever have a representative.

I agree. Representation will be a real rarity. However unlike The BCS Era where there were 2 teams selected to play for a championship, the opportunity to compete has doubled. Again it will take a lot of things breaking right, but opportunity exists. There was zero chance of a non P5 Team playing for the National Title over the last 10+ years.

 

[Ldandy]

I have enjoyed his posts also. But he has clearly bought into the "the P5 is better than everyone else" bullcrap. And College Basketball is different, because the little guy is given the opportunity to pull off the upset. Something the P5 have no intention of allowing in football, unless it is a little guy from inside the P5. In 20 years, many touting the superiority of the P5 will be wising for these days.

I have not bought into anything, besides the idea that those who generate the most dollars should keep the largest percentage of them. I don't believe any group of people are better than anyone else... Except for Pitt Fans. Every group of people and most animals are better than that collection. Basketball is different because it can be. The tournament is bigger and allows for a mix of teams like UK/UNC and Butler/George Washington to share the spotlight for a few rounds. That is basically it. While everyone loves the early upsets(unless it is your school going out.)they do not continue tuning in to these same schools when they advance to The Rd of 8 or 4. The ratings spell that out. The general public wants UK vs UCONN in the finals not Creighton vs Wichita State.

 

[kyleslamb]

I don't pretend to know anything about cable fees, but this seems incredibly off.

The Dude's numbers are way, way, way off.

Although this was as of 3-4 years ago, the guy responding to the Dude in the above tweets was far more accurate in his assessment. As of around 2010, the in-footprint average was about 90 cents per subscriber per month and the out-of-footprint average was about 10-15 cents. While each market differs based on provider and strength of market, the $3/$1.50 numbers are sheer nonsense.

My best guess: the BTN is probably getting between 50-75 cents with these latest rounds of deals in the NYC market. That's still a substantial amount of money when you consider 7 million households, 2 million in Jersey alone. But it's not the $3 figure that he's throwing out there.

 

[NickyNewark]

The Dude's numbers are way, way, way off.

Although this was as of 3-4 years ago, the guy responding to the Dude in the above tweets was far more accurate in his assessment. As of around 2010, the in-footprint average was about 90 cents per subscriber per month and the out-of-footprint average was about 10-15 cents. While each market differs based on provider and strength of market, the $3/$1.50 numbers are sheer nonsense.

My best guess: the BTN is probably getting between 50-75 cents with these latest rounds of deals in the NYC market. That's still a substantial amount of money when you consider 7 million households, 2 million in Jersey alone. But it's not the $3 figure that he's throwing out there.

As usual I feel comfortable with your figures/guesstimate as reasonable and you're reppin the B1G in an open honest way unlike some of the guilty ACC apologists who show up with their arrogant ways. One Va poster was so ridiculous as to say Temple would bring more value than RU to the ACC and reach up from Philly into the NYC metro environs!?! I mean I knew he was FOS from that 1st post!! What he was really doing was trying to stir up UConn followers into forgetting what the ACC did and divide our fanbases and believe it or not some bought a lot of his BS here(a VERY FEW)...Well anyway he was banned for awhile and I found him back on the Cuse board where I first confronted his biased lol!!

 

[pj]

Not saying this as a shot against any team, but if the so called P5 Schools generate the overwhelming majority of revenue, doesn't it make sense that they should keep a proportionate amount of that money?

The NCAA basketball tourney achieves that by distributing money in proportion to games played in the tourney.