P5 get what they want...
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:43 am
http://www.yosefscabin.com/forum/
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.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.
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.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.
Wow! I guess under this new proposal winless teams would be eligible for 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.
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.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.
Big C,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. 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.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.
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"
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.WataugaMan wrote:Wow! I guess under this new proposal winless teams would be eligible for 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.
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.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.
It will still be better than staying in the old 1-AA.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.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.
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.AtlAppMan wrote: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.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.
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.AtlAppMan wrote: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.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.
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.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.