Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by cmgoods, May 30, 2014.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...-structure-sec-spring-meetings/#ixzz33EtDxman
I'll be very very interested when this is voted on in August. The future of college football will be drastically changed either way, but especially if the Power 5 are forced to basically break from the small conferences.
Change absolutely has to happen.
Alabama and Troy are not peer football programs.
But in the current setup, the NCAA pretends that they are.
And since there are more Troys than Alabamas, the NCAA votes and rulings have historically favored the little guy.
This has resulted in more and more schools joining FBS in football and/or basketball because the money is there. Not that they earn it. But they get subsidies and bigger payouts from playing at the big schools by being in the FBS.
Finally, the P5 schools have said "Enough!". And since they control the money, we'll see the real Golden Rule in effect with the P5 schools getting their way.
Makes me feel dirty. I don't like this, but I would like it a lot less if I was a CSU fan, on the outside looking in.
I agree. I don't like it at all.
I don't like it BUT am glad CU's a PAC 12 member.
The lower division schools don't have much of a choice if the power schools decide to push it. As stated the alternative is to form a separate governing body and cut the others off entirely.
This would be very difficult for the schools that rely on basketball for their athletic identity and revenues. If the football powers separate they are likely to make it in all sports. At this point the question is would they allow the basketball schools to become a part or would those schools be left out.
The balance of fan interest lies in the major conferences so those left out would be relegated to secondary status, and money.
It's a lot easier to schedule a 12 game football season without non BCS schools in it than it would be to schedule a 30 game basketball season without those same schools. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, we and Utah are the only BCS schools in this time zone. If we can't schedule non BCS schools for basketball games, we are in a serious quandry.
I'm not sure why people "don't like it".
Is this a gut reaction based on a natural inclination to root for the little guy?
Or are there honest reasons why you think it is important that North Texas and Texas should be in the same NCAA football division with the same set of rules fitting both programs equally well?
We do have different governing rules for FCS and FBS. Different governing rules for D1 and D2 and D3.
I don't like it because it's another step away from amateur athletics, and one step closer to NFL - lite. I accept that college athletics is a business, but I don't have to like it.
Big boy college football being NFL Lite isn't something I've had to accept, because that is what it has always been. At least since the NFL came into existence. (Before that, colleges filled out their rosters with ringers by renting professional athletes to be some of the "amateur" players on their teams.)
It's a great system. The top 10% will go on to make fat paychecks for a few years in the NFL. Most of the rest at least got to be able to keep playing football beyond high school while getting a college degree in the bargain. Beats the hell out of a professional minor league where 90% of guys would have a 3-5 year career making less than half of what a fast food worker makes and then have no education to fall back on when it was over (see Minor League Baseball).
What I see these rules changes doing is that it will allow the programs with the resources to do more for the athletes that play for them. I don't know how that is a bad thing.
Who is Colorado going to beat, without minor conference teams on the schedule?
What happens when each college is given the green light to pay it's athletes whatever it deems necessary? That's the direction we're headed, I'm afraid. Just because we're included in this little group now, doesn't mean at some point in the future we won't see a group that consists of Alabama, Florida, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State and Southern Cal decide that they need to play by different rules than the rest of US. After all, they bring in the most money, right? You're saying that Troy and Alabama shouldn't be on the same level. Fine, I can see that logic. But in another 30 years, will the difference between CU and USC be the same as the difference between Troy and Alabama? Might be. What's being proposed is a progression of a bad trend, IMO.
Oklahoma. Just like we did all through the 90s.
The Buffs did have a nice run against OU --- 15 years ago.
Slippery slope arguments.
I don't worry so much about the hyper-elites deciding they want their own set of rules. There are just too few of them. All but Texas and Notre Dame have realized they make more money with a socialistic conference system than they ever could with their own independent deals. (And they may both be caving on that philosophy after looking at the numbers.)
I hear you acknowledging that both schools are due for a change of fortune.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just because it's a "slippery slope argument" doesn't invalidate it. It's a concern of mine. You asked why I don't like this, and that's my answer. And, seeing as we're already 2/3 of the way down that particular slope, I think it's valid. 60 years ago, there was no difference between Alabama and Army. Now there is. What's going to happen in another 60 years?
If it's a true slippery slope argument (chain of events that would follow is inevitable), then that does invalidate it as a logical fallacy.
But as a concern, I think expressing slippery slope cautions is useful. It helps make certain that reasonable people carry the day.
I'd also say that life is about change. In 60 years, a different setup for college football may very well make sense. The world changes and life marches on. Army isn't a national power. Florida State isn't an all-girl college. I'm ok with that. Maybe in 60 years we'll see the University of Beijing as a college football powerhouse. If I'm still alive, I'll be too old to care.
Do you not have any concerns about where CU might fit in to the college athletics landscape after all these changes are implemented? I don't see this as a positive thing for CU. At best, it's neutral, at worst, it's damaging. The best we can hope for is that we aren't impacted much at all.
Too few of them??
There are only 64 teams in the "Power 5" conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12). I'll add in Notre Dame to bring it to 65 teams.
Of that group - I would consider the following to be "hyper-elite":
That's 1/3 of the teams in the "Division IV" who are "hyper elite".
On top of that, there are probably quite a few more who could easily be considered "elite".
Iowa is hyper elite?
I don't think it hurts CU. Buffs are not at the bottom of BCS in terms of revenue and revenue potential. We're also located in a major growth state, which makes the future bright from that aspect. CU's never had a problem competing with the best when it had its house in order. And I believe that this is something that could very well lead to CU commanding a much bigger audience within the state and within border states of Wyoming and New Mexico since we'll be the big boy team from the region with clear demarcation.
$100 million in revenue = hyper elite.
I am starting to wonder about this as well. It will be interesting to see where things go after these current television deals expire. Are the "hyper-elites" as they have been called going to want to further consolidate their earning potential? That certainly seems to be the trend. Does USC really need a conference that includes Washington State or Oregon State taking an equal cut of the money? I am beginning to think this is all leading to some form of contraction which eventually ends up at a place where you are left with semi-pro style conferences. Those programs that have the alumni and resources to pay to play will survive. Those that don't will fall out of the "club".
Did you miss the thread where we posted the comps on Arkansas and CU?
btw -- damn, dude. You have a ridiculous midlands & south bias in your opinion on this. No USC even? South Carolina in there but not UCLA? No Penn State?
Against Big 10 teams, they only hold winning records against Indiana, Mich St, & NW.:huh: Their records against Michigan and Ohio St are simply brutal.
Separate names with a comma.