I guess off the top of my head, one recurring thought is; what if these P5 schools up scholarship numbers up to say 120 per school (football)... Will that ultimately draw a kid away from a G5 conference--- maybe kid doesn't get as much-or any- playing time but gets the financial benefits.

This is why it is so good we got into FBS because as was predicted by many on here many years ago, there is about to be a new highest level of college football. The P5 will be the highest (I-A) with the rest of FBS essentially becoming a second tier (I-AA) to the P5,and the FCS essentially becoming D II. Glad we were able to get out.

YesAppCan wrote:I guess off the top of my head, one recurring thought is; what if these P5 schools up scholarship numbers up to say 120 per school (football)... Will that ultimately draw a kid away from a G5 conference--- maybe kid doesn't get as much-or any- playing time but gets the financial benefits.

It all comes down to whether a student athlete wants to be on a successful football team, or wants to actually play for one. If the goal is to go to college so you get noticed by the NFL, you have to actually play on the field to get recognized. The NFL doesnt draft backups.

But if a kid wants to collect rings and swag for not playing and being the 5th string quarterback, have at it.

It might be cool for a player to say they played for Baylor, Illinois, etc, until someone asks them who they are and the questioner responds with, "I've never heard of ya"

t4pizza wrote:This is why it is so good we got into FBS because as was predicted by many on here many years ago, there is about to be a new highest level of college football. The P5 will be the highest (I-A) with the rest of FBS essentially becoming a second tier (I-AA) to the P5,and the FCS essentially becoming D II. Glad we were able to get out.

There a little difference in that at least the second tier in the FBS is made up of more well known schools, which translates to money to divide, plus more coverage.

From ESPN.com ---

"Many of the Power Five conference coaches in college football told ESPN that they favor a schedule consisting of only Power Five opponents.

Of the 65 Power Five coaches from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and Notre Dame, 46 percent (30 coaches) favored playing exclusively Power Five opponents while 35 percent (23 coaches) were opposed. About 18.5 percent (12 coaches) were undecided.

The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.

The coaches, who were in Bristol, Connecticut, last month, were asked whether they would favor all Power Five conferences playing their respective conference schedules and then scheduling all nonconference games against other Power Five teams. Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.

WVAPPeer wrote:Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.

Wow! I guess under this new proposal winless teams would be eligible for a bowl.

WVAPPeer wrote:From ESPN.com ---

"Many of the Power Five conference coaches in college football told ESPN that they favor a schedule consisting of only Power Five opponents.

Of the 65 Power Five coaches from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and Notre Dame, 46 percent (30 coaches) favored playing exclusively Power Five opponents while 35 percent (23 coaches) were opposed. About 18.5 percent (12 coaches) were undecided.

The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.

The coaches, who were in Bristol, Connecticut, last month, were asked whether they would favor all Power Five conferences playing their respective conference schedules and then scheduling all nonconference games against other Power Five teams. Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.

Problem is, there is no way everybody in P5 can have 7 or more home games, .500 record or better, and only play P5 schedule. I am sorry but the numbers don't work out. Some of these guys say they want P5 schedule only but if they want it so bad then why are these same guys not scheduling only P5 today? They can go around saying it all day long like they want it but it ain't gonna happen because the formula doesn't work. So it is easy to say you want it when you know it won't happen. Makes you sound good without having to back it up. I can guarantee you right now that ALL SEC fans want 7 or more home games and a winning record, period, end of story.

bigCasu wrote:

YesAppCan wrote:I guess off the top of my head, one recurring thought is; what if these P5 schools up scholarship numbers up to say 120 per school (football)... Will that ultimately draw a kid away from a G5 conference--- maybe kid doesn't get as much-or any- playing time but gets the financial benefits.

It all comes down to whether a student athlete wants to be on a successful football team, or wants to actually play for one. If the goal is to go to college so you get noticed by the NFL, you have to actually play on the field to get recognized. The NFL doesnt draft backups.

But if a kid wants to collect rings and swag for not playing and being the 5th string quarterback, have at it.

It might be cool for a player to say they played for Baylor, Illinois, etc, until someone asks them who they are and the questioner responds with, "I've never heard of ya"

Big C,

Have to correct you here. Your statement about backups being drafted is not true. You can't be 3rd string and never get on the field and get drafted but you can be #2 on the depth chart and get drafted as long as you play or you are a star in practice who has a good pro day and/or all-star game performance.

USC backup QB Matt Cassel was taken in the 7th round. He backed up Matt Leinart his senior year.
Willie Parker, former UNC RB, had a good NFL career and he was a backup.
Also, LSU's #3 CB was drafted a couple years ago in like the 3rd or 4th round.
MIami has had a backup LB drafted.
In fact, one year USC had 4 rookie LBs starting in the NFL and they ran a 4-3 defense the previous year. Meaning, one of those LBs was a backup on their team. All 4 were drafted.
Arkansas had 2 RBs drafted in the first round one year. McFadden was the starter and the backup was Felix Jones.

I could go on and on to name more. It's not often and only happens at power schools where the starter is a top 50 draft pick but it has happened. NFL teams attend practices so they see backups.

I say that but Maine's backup RB Montell Owens was not drafted, however, he was signed by the Jaguars and was a Pro Bowl special teams player.

Watch Clemson this year. Their backup defensive ends are better than any end on our roster or any Sun Belt team roster. Just watch them. One of the backups is a senior and whenever he got on the field he stood out.

The issue here is do you want to possibly go from being a late round pick as a backup at USC or Miami or Florida State or do you want to play at a non power 5 school and start for 2, 3, or 4 years. I would rather play but some players rather get more benefits and play with 20 or 30 future NFL players on their team as opposed to just 2 or 3 on a team like ECU or App or UAB or Troy.

Bottom line is that if you are legit the NFL will find you, regardless of the level you play. A player is just as likely to get found at Newberry, Mars Hill, etc. as they are App State or USC simply because NFL teams have the resources and will find them. The reason it doesn't appear that way is because most of the talent just happens to attend the power 5 schools. Mars Hill doesn't attract the same quality of player as we do but if they develop a player into a better prospect, he will get drafted and/or make it and have a good career.

WataugaMan wrote:

WVAPPeer wrote:Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.

Wow! I guess under this new proposal winless teams would be eligible for a bowl.

Yes because instead of having Liberty, San Diego State, and ECU on UNC's non conference schedule they will be replaced with say South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Georgia. There won't be enough teams with winning records but they will lose the cupcake games and you will probably see a lot more 7-5 or 8-4 teams than you do now.

bigCasu wrote:It all comes down to whether a student athlete wants to be on a successful football team, or wants to actually play for one.

This assumes kids kids can tell where on the depth chart they are going to be when they are being recruited. They can't. And neither can the coaches or anyone else.

Almost all players expect to become starters. I doubt we have as single scholarship player on our roster who said to themselves: "I could go to Coastal Carolina and start or I could go to Appalachian and be 2nd or 3rd string. I guess I will go to app." Even most of our walk-on's have hopes of becoming a starter one day. And based on past experience that's not an impossible goal.

Well, at least we will set a record for the shortest stint in the top level of college athletics. Welcome back to the new 1-AA.

At least the third tier of college football isn't an option any longer.

rbarthle17 wrote:Well, at least we will set a record for the shortest stint in the top level of college athletics. Welcome back to the new 1-AA.

It will still be better than staying in the old 1-AA.

The truth of the matter is that we still have no idea what is really going to happen.

rbarthle17 wrote:Well, at least we will set a record for the shortest stint in the top level of college athletics. Welcome back to the new 1-AA.

The brightside is that before it matters much to us it will probably change again. This much "freedom" may have the P5 hanging themselves.

AtlAppMan wrote:

WVAPPeer wrote:From ESPN.com ---

"Many of the Power Five conference coaches in college football told ESPN that they favor a schedule consisting of only Power Five opponents.

Of the 65 Power Five coaches from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and Notre Dame, 46 percent (30 coaches) favored playing exclusively Power Five opponents while 35 percent (23 coaches) were opposed. About 18.5 percent (12 coaches) were undecided.

The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.

The coaches, who were in Bristol, Connecticut, last month, were asked whether they would favor all Power Five conferences playing their respective conference schedules and then scheduling all nonconference games against other Power Five teams. Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.

Problem is, there is no way everybody in P5 can have 7 or more home games, .500 record or better, and only play P5 schedule. I am sorry but the numbers don't work out. Some of these guys say they want P5 schedule only but if they want it so bad then why are these same guys not scheduling only P5 today? They can go around saying it all day long like they want it but it ain't gonna happen because the formula doesn't work. So it is easy to say you want it when you know it won't happen. Makes you sound good without having to back it up. I can guarantee you right now that ALL SEC fans want 7 or more home games and a winning record, period, end of story.

That's what I was thinking. If you take the total numbers of coaches (65), about half (30) know they would have a winning record and the remaining, either don't know (12) or expect they wouldn't (22). And that the problem getting this passed.

Here's the unquestionable quotation of the year from Wake president Nate Hatch. "This keeps Division I together. I'm thrilled that Division I and all its virtues can be maintained, and I think this is the pathway to do so." "All its virtues?" What shameful, unbridled hypocrisy! I think I need to throw up.

AtlAppMan wrote:

WVAPPeer wrote:From ESPN.com ---

"Many of the Power Five conference coaches in college football told ESPN that they favor a schedule consisting of only Power Five opponents.

Of the 65 Power Five coaches from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and Notre Dame, 46 percent (30 coaches) favored playing exclusively Power Five opponents while 35 percent (23 coaches) were opposed. About 18.5 percent (12 coaches) were undecided.

The Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC coaches favored playing all Power Five opponents, while the ACC coaches were against it by a 6-4 margin with four coaches undecided. Big Ten coaches were divided: Six each were for and against it, with two undecided.

The coaches, who were in Bristol, Connecticut, last month, were asked whether they would favor all Power Five conferences playing their respective conference schedules and then scheduling all nonconference games against other Power Five teams. Because of the tougher schedules under this hypothetical scenario, teams would not be required to reach six wins to play in a bowl.

Problem is, there is no way everybody in P5 can have 7 or more home games, .500 record or better, and only play P5 schedule. I am sorry but the numbers don't work out. Some of these guys say they want P5 schedule only but if they want it so bad then why are these same guys not scheduling only P5 today? They can go around saying it all day long like they want it but it ain't gonna happen because the formula doesn't work. So it is easy to say you want it when you know it won't happen. Makes you sound good without having to back it up. I can guarantee you right now that ALL SEC fans want 7 or more home games and a winning record, period, end of story.

I'm sure the coaches from the top half of the P5 would be in favor of it since their teams would get all of the benefits, but the rest of the P5 coaches would pay the price by winning 3 or 4 games a year. How many years would they last as head coaches if they could only produce 3 wins a year, and could only offer recruits/fans 5 home games a year? Let's not forget that in football AD's make the schedule not coaches.

The idea of teams being below .500 and going to bowls is nuts. That won't last if the fans of those schools don't travel to the games. Who brings more fans to the Belk Bowl; a 5 win GT team or a 9 win App State team?

asu66 wrote:Here's the unquestionable quotation of the year from Wake president Nate Hatch. "This keeps Division I together. I'm thrilled that Division I and all its virtues can be maintained, and I think this is the pathway to do so." "All its virtues?" What shameful, unbridled hypocrisy! I think I need to throw up.

They feel virtuous now that they can remove all of the NCAA rules they were all breaking. Every P5 school became a "clean" program yesterday.