and it's going to destroy college football.

Apparently all the coaches from all P5 schools were recently polled if they would favor a system where P5 teams would play P5 teams exclusively. Out of conference schedules would be determined by a team's conference record the year before, similar to how the NFL schedules.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... -schedules


Some interesting tidbits from the article:

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.

Coaches from the Pac-12, which already play nine league games, was the biggest proponents of a Power Five exclusive schedule: seven in favor, one against and four undecided...Arizona's Rich Rodriguez, the lone dissenting Pac-12 coach, said "some of those [non-Power Five teams] are better than the so-called 'haves' [Power Five teams]."

Apparently Chris Petersen has had a serious change of heart. Hypocrite.

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

Wisconsin's Gary Andersen, Missouri's Gary Pinkel and Iowa's Kirk Ferentz also were against it.

Andersen, the former Utah State coach, and Pinkel, formerly at Toledo, wondered how the smaller schools could survive without playing the Power Five schools. Some smaller schools receive more than $1 million to play at a Power Five opponent.

"Where do teams like Utah State go to get a big game?" Andersen said..

Still love Gary!


I know there's *a ton* of hurdles to get past in order for this to happen, but I do believe where there's smoke there's fire.

Absolutely, we've been on this course for a while and it doesn't look good. Even when we were in our tough stretch we were at least Division 1-A which meant, theoretically, you could play for a national championship, which to me is so much better than being Weber State and having the chance of being the best of the little guys.

I'm afraid in 5 years we will be relegated to a similar status as Big Sky teams, no one cares about the minor leagues, and we will once again only have basketball to hang our hat on.

It is to bad because it will ruin college football if it happens, for everyone. The p5 turns into a minor league and g5 will be similar to the fcs schools. College athletics has turned to greed..etc. should have known a day like this would happen once schools started making and spending money like they have on coaches, facilities etc. I believe tv/espn is a big reason for the downfall.

Wait... did the SEC just say they want 6 game home schedules? I think the coaches can say this, but it's tough for the administration to pass up an extra home game and the dollars they bring in.

A classic case of trying to fix something that isn't broken. It's funny to think that most of these coaches put their time in at a G5 program and are still willing to shut them out, Kyle Whittingham included. If the sentiment is that prevalent among these coaches (who won't make the decision), the sentiment must be overwhelmingly in favor of such a proposal among Presidents and ADs.

I won't be surprised if the Courts don't end up making the ultimate decision on this.

This sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem.

Full wrote:Wait... did the SEC just say they want 6 game home schedules? I think the coaches can say this, but it's tough for the administration to pass up an extra home game and the dollars they bring in.

A couple different thoughts on this. Either the money from breaking away and creating exclusivity is so great that they are willing to give up that 7th home game. OR once the split happens, the p5 schools start doing "pre-season" games to get their 7th home game?

I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

ProvoAggie wrote:

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

Ahem.......Utah.

JonnyCienPesos wrote:A classic case of trying to fix something that isn't broken. It's funny to think that most of these coaches put their time in at a G5 program and are still willing to shut them out, Kyle Whittingham included. If the sentiment is that prevalent among these coaches (who won't make the decision), the sentiment must be overwhelmingly in favor of such a proposal among Presidents and ADs.

I won't be surprised if the Courts don't end up making the ultimate decision on this.

funny how some coaches forget where they came from. Ole Whittingham had better think about what he wishes for. Coach Pete too, I just lost respect for those two. For me it's kinda hard not to hope that both of them fall on their Asses.

ProvoAggie wrote:

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

This doesn't explain why the guy pushing this the most is Nick Saban. It's all about the $$$$ they think they'll get.

It's obvious Nick Saban is being used as the puppet in all this untraditional, nonsense.

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

I'm with you. We only have one P5 game on the schedule pretty much from here on out anyways now that Utah is scared to come to Logan. The smaller schools can cut some of the olympic sports to help make up for the lost revenue.

In the end though I think the P5 schools are trying to bully the NCAA into giving in to the P5 demands and will win out, but still be a part of FBS.

ag4fr wrote:Unfortunately College Football has sold out for the money.

The P5 teams talk a good game but... when it really comes down to it, there are many more P5 teams like Utah, Texas Tech, and Tennessee have been recently than there are Alabama and Auburn and Oregon.

The business model is that by snagging 3 to 4 easier wins OOC with games mostly at home (unfair advantage) and against G5 teams with fewer resources (another unfair advantage) and then winning a few conference games, they can manage to get to a bowl game, keep the fans and alums interested, make a ton of money from BCS and TV contracts, and nobody gets hurt.

It's one thing to respond to a poll, but when it comes right down to it, many of the P5 are not going to upset their apple carts. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

If playing at UT is such an unfair advantage for the Vols, why did Utah State agree to it?

Unless we are going to switch college football to a socialist model, there will be teams that will have more and teams that have less.

#redistributionofwealth; #supplyanddemandeconomics

madmaxvol wrote:

ag4fr wrote:Unfortunately College Football has sold out for the money.

The P5 teams talk a good game but... when it really comes down to it, there are many more P5 teams like Utah, Texas Tech, and Tennessee have been recently than there are Alabama and Auburn and Oregon.

The business model is that by snagging 3 to 4 easier wins OOC with games mostly at home (unfair advantage) and against G5 teams with fewer resources (another unfair advantage) and then winning a few conference games, they can manage to get to a bowl game, keep the fans and alums interested, make a ton of money from BCS and TV contracts, and nobody gets hurt.

It's one thing to respond to a poll, but when it comes right down to it, many of the P5 are not going to upset their apple carts. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

If playing at UT is such an unfair advantage for the Vols, why did Utah State agree to it?

Unless we are going to switch college football to a socialist model, there will be teams that will have more and teams that have less.

#redistributionofwealth; #supplyanddemandeconomics

I have to agree with MadMax here. USU football wouldn't exist without big paycheck games.

aceofspadeskb wrote:

madmaxvol wrote:

ag4fr wrote:Unfortunately College Football has sold out for the money.

The P5 teams talk a good game but... when it really comes down to it, there are many more P5 teams like Utah, Texas Tech, and Tennessee have been recently than there are Alabama and Auburn and Oregon.

The business model is that by snagging 3 to 4 easier wins OOC with games mostly at home (unfair advantage) and against G5 teams with fewer resources (another unfair advantage) and then winning a few conference games, they can manage to get to a bowl game, keep the fans and alums interested, make a ton of money from BCS and TV contracts, and nobody gets hurt.

It's one thing to respond to a poll, but when it comes right down to it, many of the P5 are not going to upset their apple carts. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

If playing at UT is such an unfair advantage for the Vols, why did Utah State agree to it?

Unless we are going to switch college football to a socialist model, there will be teams that will have more and teams that have less.

#redistributionofwealth; #supplyanddemandeconomics

I have to agree with MadMax here. USU football wouldn't exist without big paycheck games.

That is one of the reasons that I am against a P5 only schedule. UT makes enough to be profitable on its own...but many non-P5 teams are not (Utah State not being one of them). A South Alabama or a Western Kentucky rely highly on P5 games to supplement their budgets. UT makes a lot of money by having the extra home game. With that extra money, they can provide a monetary incentive for non-P5 teams to come to Knoxville.

So many want to use the free-market argument here, but forget that we are dealing with government institutions. Not all the same rules apply with college athletics as they do to Google, Chrysler, etc.

This sounds like a horrible idea, it destroys the potential for interesting games (see ours coming up) and limits exposure for up and coming schools. They need to quit trying to add more rules and changes.

I didn't read down all of the post so I apologize if this has been mentioned. Lets face it. It won't be long until the "P5" is just minor league football. Just because your in a conference doesn't me you can compete in it. This is a joke and will destroy they best game on earth.

As I've watched this. I've wondered when if we were to beat Tennessee. Also some other G5 schools pull off some big wins this year or even put big scares into the big boys. How that would effect things. As in could it speed up the process of them separating?

Sr. Tubastank wrote:I didn't read down all of the post so I apologize if this has been mentioned. Lets face it. It won't be long until the "P5" is just minor league football. Just because your in a conference doesn't me you can compete in it. This is a joke and will destroy they best game on earth.

Truth. That makes me wonder what will happen to those program's non-profit (ha!) status. Will the programs and athletes have to start paying taxes? I hope so, if they truly become a minor league.

I don't care about minor league baseball and I won't care about a P5-only division of college football. I am already turning all of my interest to the NFL. College football is becoming a farm league.

So it begins:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... onferences

P5 "autonomy" is allowed.

Areas that will not fall under the autonomy umbrella include postseason tournaments, transfer policies, scholarship limits, signing day and rules governing on-field play

ag4fr wrote:

madmaxvol wrote:

ag4fr wrote:Unfortunately College Football has sold out for the money.

The P5 teams talk a good game but... when it really comes down to it, there are many more P5 teams like Utah, Texas Tech, and Tennessee have been recently than there are Alabama and Auburn and Oregon.

The business model is that by snagging 3 to 4 easier wins OOC with games mostly at home (unfair advantage) and against G5 teams with fewer resources (another unfair advantage) and then winning a few conference games, they can manage to get to a bowl game, keep the fans and alums interested, make a ton of money from BCS and TV contracts, and nobody gets hurt.

It's one thing to respond to a poll, but when it comes right down to it, many of the P5 are not going to upset their apple carts. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

If playing at UT is such an unfair advantage for the Vols, why did Utah State agree to it?

Unless we are going to switch college football to a socialist model, there will be teams that will have more and teams that have less.

#redistributionofwealth; #supplyanddemandeconomics

The G5 teams seek exposure and a $$. The P5 teams need W's. Plain and simple.

I'm not talking unfair in terms of capitalism vs. socialism, I'm saying the odds are stacked against the G5 teams as they go on the road and play all of these games against the larger conference teams that have loads of TV and BCS money coming in.

Look at your own team's performance over the past 3 years.

Winning percentage against P5 teams = 0.192 (26 games)
Winning percentage against G5 and FCS teams = 1.000 (10 games)

Right now, logging 5-7 records, UT is "on the cusp" of breaking into going to and winning some bowl games. If you only play P5 teams and let's say you do a little better and improve your winning percentage against P5 up to 0.25 to 0.33 (3-4 wins per season) how are the Tennessee fans going to respond?

The Coach and AD are not going to be at UT very long. That's all I'm saying.

But it's not going to happen. When it comes to an actual vote, many P5 schools are going to be running for cover. It's posturing in order to gain (more) leverage.

First, (although it may seem hypocritical), I've never been in favor of playing FCS teams. Until they started playing them a few years ago, UT had never scheduled D-1A/FCS team since the designations had been changed. I believe that FBS teams should only play FBS teams.

UT's record lately has been a function of the product they put on the field. Look at where they were in the mid to late 90's...UT went (P-5/G-5/FCS):

1995 - 9-1/ 2-0/ 0-0: OOC games - East Carolina, Oklahoma St., Southern Miss, Ohio St.
1996 - 8-1/1-1/ 0-0: OOC games - UNLV, UCLA, Memphis, Northwestern
1997 - 10-2/1-0/0-0: OOC games - Texas Tech, UCLA, Southern Miss, Nebraska
1998 - 11-0/2-0/0-0: OOC games - Syracuse, Houston, UAB, Florida St.
1999 - 7-3/2-0/0-0: OOC games - Wyoming, Memphis, Notre Dame, Nebraska

Over that 5 year stretch UT's winning % was: 86% vs. P5, 89% vs. G5 and did not play any FCS teams

The UT (Dooley) coach and AD (Hamilton) were fired because of the product they put on the field, even with the non-P5 and FCS teams they scheduled. If you aren't doing a good job of fielding a quality product, you shouldn't be able to hide it behind a weak schedule. The past 3 years have been the worst in UT football history...if UT had an all P5 schedule, perhaps they would have made the change sooner.

ag4fr wrote:College Football is, quite simply, an oligarchy, where a small group of power brokers control the business.

With the infusion of huge TV money from the BCS and the Conference TV packages, the nature of "the game outside of the game" has changed and it has turned to an all-out money and power grab.

The student-athletes are now being exploited significantly for the financial gain of the schools with little return compensation coming back to the athletes.

But... the worm is beginning to turn. Lawsuits and organization of the student-athletes into unions is coming. That is not necessarily a good thing, but it is going to change things. And if it pulls back some of the power that the has been held by the P5 Athletic Departments and gives it to the student-athletes, I don't think it hurts the fans or student athletes in the G5 or lower levels.

I believe that some of the things that the P5 teams are trying to do is in order to prevent unions from forming. Granting them autonomy included issues (according to the article) such as: more student aid per year, more years on scholarships and extended health insurance. These are among the issues that the Northwestern players were arguing for when they sought collective bargaining power.

sam tingey wrote:So it begins:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... onferences

P5 "autonomy" is allowed.

Areas that will not fall under the autonomy umbrella include postseason tournaments, transfer policies, scholarship limits, signing day and rules governing on-field play

Pit in my stomach.

JonnyCienPesos wrote:

ProvoAggie wrote:

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

Ahem.......Utah.

There is a ton of willfully ignoring the benefits of autonomy going on in this thread.

Postiez wrote:

JonnyCienPesos wrote:

ProvoAggie wrote:

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

Ahem.......Utah.

There is a ton of willfully ignoring the benefits of autonomy going on in this thread.

What are the benefits for USU then? Enlighten us please.

Postiez wrote:

JonnyCienPesos wrote:

ProvoAggie wrote:

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

Ahem.......Utah.

There is a ton of willfully ignoring the benefits of autonomy going on in this thread.

How does P5 autonomy benefit USU?

Postiez wrote:

JonnyCienPesos wrote:

ProvoAggie wrote:

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

Ahem.......Utah.

There is a ton of willfully ignoring the benefits of autonomy going on in this thread.

There is no ignoring it at all. The *only* clear benefit is money. The P5 boys get to split much more of the money among themselves. That's it.

If this happens (which I don't think it will - it is all for bargaining leverage) Utah will average 3 wins a season. USU may stay in the 8 to 11 range. Have fun.

aggieaggie wrote:

Postiez wrote:

JonnyCienPesos wrote:

ProvoAggie wrote:

Mr. Sneelock wrote:I will say this. I am an Aggie, and will always be an Aggie. I will support our team no matter what happens. If that means watching us play our peers in a lower division, so be it. I just don't understand what exclusively playing P-5 teams would accomplish for them. What is the point?

They wouldn't have to risk losing to the little guys anymore. In all reality, a good chunk of the teams in P5 conferences have no business being there and they'll have a rude awakening when they can't schedule weaker teams to get their 3 or 4 wins a season anymore.

Ahem.......Utah.

There is a ton of willfully ignoring the benefits of autonomy going on in this thread.

What are the benefits for USU then? Enlighten us please.

I am in the opinion that changes should reflect what most benefits student athletes, not what most benefits a school/program...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... power.html des news on the change. has some more commentary

Do you guys think a move like splitting P5 from G5 might hurt the P5? Greed, strikes things like that seem to turn a lot of people off. I know that for me I wouldn't follow it anymore or support it in anyway. Just a thought.

Remember when education was first? Why don't they just start Minor League Football. Then any student athlete that wants an actual education can choose one or the other