ADVERTISEMENT

G5 Playoff

The only thing states could do is cut funding to the schools or possibly not allow it if legislature has that power. I think all these schools need to lose nonprofit status. Donations won’t be as plentiful if they are not tax write-offs. I also think if it gets to 30 or so it will be less profitable. If people wanted the NFL, they would just watch the NFL.

Why would they do that?

Do you guys really think that some state level politician is going to go to war with Big State U when they want to leave? Could you imaging trying to get reelected in Tennessee (or any other state) when you sabotaged the Vols attempt to get to a "better" conference?

I think a lot of you thinking that college football fans don't want this are misguided.

They do want this. The Alabamas/Ohio States/Oregons and their fans and boosters and big swingin' you-know-whats and the Network Execs don't want to be in a grouping with the G5. And there's a ton more of them with a lot deeper pockets than there are of us.

Their fan bases will pay and donate 10x more for a schedule that doesn't include any G5s. The TV ratings for every week (actually, every time slot) titanic matchups will dwarf anything that could involve the G5.

And there will be more of them. This "nationalization" of the sport isn't to make more Alabama fans in Alabama. It's to make more Alabama fans in New York. It's to NFL-ize the sport so that people who don't have a team jump on board and watch and buy merch. It's so that 10 years from the split everyone in America will have a "college" football team they support, geography/traditional connections/etc be damned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hop45
Why would they do that?

Do you guys really think that some state level politician is going to go to war with Big State U when they want to leave? Could you imaging trying to get reelected in Tennessee (or any other state) when you sabotaged the Vols attempt to get to a "better" conference?

I think a lot of you thinking that college football fans don't want this are misguided.

They do want this. The Alabamas/Ohio States/Oregons and their fans and boosters and big swingin' you-know-whats and the Network Execs don't want to be in a grouping with the G5. And there's a ton more of them with a lot deeper pockets than there are of us.

Their fan bases will pay and donate 10x more for a schedule that doesn't include any G5s. The TV ratings for every week (actually, every time slot) titanic matchups will dwarf anything that could involve the G5.

And there will be more of them. This "nationalization" of the sport isn't to make more Alabama fans in Alabama. It's to make more Alabama fans in New York. It's to NFL-ize the sport so that people who don't have a team jump on board and watch and buy merch. It's so that 10 years from the split everyone in America will have a "college" football team they support, geography/traditional connections/etc be damned.
Where did I say they would do that? I also think that some fans think they want that, but the end result will not be what they envision. We already have the NFL.
 
Where did I say they would do that? I also think that some fans think they want that, but the end result will not be what they envision. We already have the NFL.

This is what they envision: a slate of Oregon vs UGA at noon, followed by Alabama vs Texas at 3pm, and a nightcap of USC vs Ohio State. And a schedule like that every week.

And they're going to make a bazillion dollars and no one but us will ever pine for the days of cupcake weeks or top 25 G5 matchups or TCU in a playoff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hop45
I agree with Doug. I don't like it, but there is just too much money on the table.
 
It will depend on the legislation. The 2 proposed models (employee or the new model proposed in legislation/ supported by the CFPA) on the table for a break away include all the current B10 and SEC schools because both models include collective bargaining at the conference level.

I think several schools that would probably not be involved in the breakout will be because they were in the right place at the right time and are now along for the ride because they’ve been in the SEC/B10 and already part of the TV deal and revenue sharing model.

This is right and why its doomed to fail. There are too many deep pocketed universities left behind. That's a huge risk for the SEC and Big to take on. But it's also why they've grown to megasaurus conferences.

There are two paths of opportunity for them. 1) Invite even more schools into SEC and BIG to a point there aren't enough teams left with deep enough pockets to successfully intervene and contest. Or include an oversized Big 12 and/or ACC
 
You can cry and scream and pout and throw all the fits you want, but at the end of the day you have two choices.

1. Quit being a fan.

2. Roll with the punches.

Either one is fine, but you don't have a 3rd choice.

There is nothing in the world that is going to change this. You guys thinking Congress is going to step in and save us all are off your rocker. Half of the politicians in this country will be at those big P2 games kissing babies and waving for votes.


Personally, I'm coming around to a G5 separation. If anything, it was foolish for us to believe that the old blue bloods were ever going to allow little programs a seat at the table and a slice of the pie.

I think there is an appetite for "college" college football. Rivalries, traditions, regionalism, etc. You better believe that I am going to watch a G5 top 25 matchup between MT and, say Appy State, especially if it has a bearing on a playoff.
I chose option 1 several years ago.

I barely watched any football last season. Watched zero bowl games. Watched about half the college basketball that I normally do throughout the season and only because I was betting it. I didn't watch a single NCAA tournament game which would have been unthinkable 4-5 years ago.

By comparison, I used to watch college football every night it was played. Who remember's MACtion on Tuesday's? 3-4 screen's or tabs going on Saturdays, etc. You get the idea.

I still casually keep up with what MT is doing but that's really it. Pro sports have become much more entertaining as I've grown older. They are vastly superior now with the recent changes to college sports. Much better parity, salary caps, drafts, better players, players actually staying with organizations more than a year or two, the team with the deepest pockets can't just buy championships (except baseball, which i don't watch), etc. The overall structure of professional sports is just vastly superior to that of college sports in every possible way.

What gave college sports the advantage was the amateurism, watching players stick with a program for 4-5 years and develop into stars (or crash and burn) and then those same players come back years later and remain a part of the community, watching the little guy have a chance if they recruited right because big schools couldn't just steal all their players away with promises of big $$$$, etc.

I am not opposed to players getting paid. I am all for it actually. The problem is the transfer portal and the constant tampering and roster turnover. Every year you try to watch a team/program it's usually a whole new outfit of players. There's no such thing as competing for positions anymore. There's no such thing as coaches being tough on kids anymore. Coach isn't starting me ? Transfer. Coach said something mean to me ? Transfer. X University offering more money ? Goodbye!... Coaches now have to continue to recruit their rosters year in, year out. It's absolutely insane and uninteresting. It blows my mind people still find it entertaining when your whole OL or DL transfers out in the off season. Oh but don't worry, all our conference mates are in a terrible, unwinnable situation too!!

No thanks.
 
Last edited:
I am not opposed to players getting paid. I am all for it actually. The problem is the transfer portal and the constant tampering and roster turnover. Every year you try to watch a team/program it's usually a whole new outfit of players. There's no such thing as competing for positions anymore. There's no such thing as coaches being tough on kids anymore. Coach isn't starting me ? Transfer. Coach said something mean to me ? Transfer. X University offering more money ? Goodbye!... Coaches now have to continue to recruit their rosters year in, year out. It's absolutely insane and uninteresting. It blows my mind people still find it entertaining when your whole OL or DL transfers out in the off season. Oh but don't worry, all our conference mates are in a terrible, unwinnable situation too!!

No thanks.

To be completely honest, I couldn't possibly care less about the roster. I never did. I couldn't name you 5 guys off the 2019 roster. I don't think I could name you 1. I might not be able to name you 5 guys off of last years roster outside of the QB.

You could tell me that all 85 guys we have on the roster today will be swapped out on August 1st, and I'm still going to watch whoever is out there on the first game day.

College football has always been transient. If you are really into individual players for whatever reason, then, yeah, this sucks for you.

But I really don't see how this makes it all that different from before. Players always come in, they play, they go, they are replaced by a whole new crop. Rinse and repeat every 3-5 years. Instead, now it's every 2-3 years. Not the end of the world.

And again, I don't see why you downplay the fact that our competitors are in the same boat. If everyone in CUSA loses their 5 best players every year, then no one has really lost anything and the playing field is level.

You will still win or lose based on your coach's ability to coach and recruit.
 
To be completely honest, I couldn't possibly care less about the roster. I never did. I couldn't name you 5 guys off the 2019 roster. I don't think I could name you 1. I might not be able to name you 5 guys off of last years roster outside of the QB.

You could tell me that all 85 guys we have on the roster today will be swapped out on August 1st, and I'm still going to watch whoever is out there on the first game day.

College football has always been transient. If you are really into individual players for whatever reason, then, yeah, this sucks for you.

But I really don't see how this makes it all that different from before. Players always come in, they play, they go, they are replaced by a whole new crop. Rinse and repeat every 3-5 years. Instead, now it's every 2-3 years. Not the end of the world.

And again, I don't see why you downplay the fact that our competitors are in the same boat. If everyone in CUSA loses their 5 best players every year, then no one has really lost anything and the playing field is level.

You will still win or lose based on your coach's ability to coach and recruit.

You might look at it as 2-3 years vs. 3-5 years but it goes much deeper than that in my opinion.

I used to help run this site when it first launched. I followed recruiting fervently. I had connections with the coaching staff who would tell me who they were targeting and I would call those kids and their families and talk to them for sometimes a few minutes and sometimes a few hours. When we would secure a commitment, I would get a phone call and asked to keep it hush or do the exact opposite, call the kid and get a front page story on GoMiddle. I was knee deep in recruiting you could say, all while being a student. It was an exhilarating experience and so damn cool to watch those kids then come and develop over 4-5 years. Some flamed out, some became superstars, most became serviceable young men playing college ball and just enjoying the college life.

Kids used to sign and stay at one school for 4-5 years. The implications of this ran deep. They spent their entire college experience at MT (unless they left of course or went to grad school after, but rules were not friendly to those who left so it essentially never happened). Being here 4-5 years as a young adult gave them a great environment to become young men. And I shared this experience because I lived it too (Took me 5.5 years to get my Bachelors!). Often times, the players families would even become ingrained in the community. Many would move here, sometimes permanently, and many still live here to this very day going back to the early 2000's when I was in school. The players and their families really became a part of the community.

With signing day, you could get excited about the prospects because you figured in 2-3 years you would see the fruits of their labor. If you landed some great prospects, you could almost always keep them. See players like Kevin Byard, Richie James, Dwight Dasher, Jordan Ferguson, Reed Blankenship, and I'm sure many more I'm forgetting. If you had enough of these key players at the right time, you could really go on a run if you don't have a bone head coaching staff. Even still, we won many games with Stockstill as coach and those great players in spite of the coaching staff. You'll never see MT go on the road again and beat an SEC team like Missouri or ACC team like Miami. They will just steal all our players before we can become strong enough to do that.

Football now (and basketball) is just a bunch of hired mercenaries. Players no longer come to school to be a part of the culture and build a career/life. I can tell you with absolute certainty that players at MTSU used to look at the NFL as their next stepping stone. Even the back-up DB's thought they were going to "The league." I'll never forget riding home from a long night of drinking and one of the DB's in the back seat talking about how they were going to the NFL. They were barely 2nd string at the time (but did eventually start). Now, kids don't look as the next stepping stone as the NFL. They are looking for the Power 5 offer and the Power 5 money, then the NFL. I can't tell you this with absolute certainty, but my intuition tells me these kids are not coming to Murfreesboro anymore with a plan to be there 4-5 years while they prepare for their next phase. Staying in Murfreesboro is definitely not the plan anymore.

MTSU (and schools like it) are glorified JUCO's now. For me, it's not interesting watching the best players leave every off season. Losing our whole OL a few years ago was devastating. Losing our whole DL this off season WILL be devastating for this upcoming season, mark my words. I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that losing Jaylin Lane + our whole OL ended up costing Rick Stockstill his job (Silver lining, but still bad from a results perspective).

It's not interesting or fun to me when I see the Power 5's take all our best players and then dump their busts on us in the hopes that all they needed was a little playing time. Because history shows that is almost always not the case. They left X University because they sucked and they're not going to be good at MT either. I'm also not really interested in some washed up transfer from Georgia Tech either. I'd rather see someone we signed as a 2 star freshman who worked his ass off for 2-3 years win the starting job and shock the world. But now that player will just transfer if he becomes an all conference type of talent.

It all just feels so futile now. The gap has grown too large between the G5 and P5 in my opinion to hold my interest in the sport. If it still interests you, then enjoy yourself I guess. But for me, it's just not entertaining anymore. Pretty much every good player now sits on a Power 5 roster. G5's are not allowed to have them anymore, and if you do, you can only have them for 1 year.

They can kick rocks. Pro sports is more interesting to me now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MTTim
I 100% get that Wiley. Truly do. Part of feels that way. But at the same time, I don't.

I grew up a Cowboys fan. 3rd generation. But I have zero connection to them. I've never been to TX. Never even seen them in person. But boy do I get pissed when we lose.
I do have a connection to Middle because of that diploma above my desk I see everyday. Deep down it honestly doesn't matter to me who wears the jersey, as long as it has that MT on the helmet. They may not have a connection and use MT to make it to a Power school, but the wins they give me will still be mine when they leave. If we have a conf champ or CFP spot someday with a bought team, I don't care. Years later I'll still be able to say my school had that conf champ. I never knew any football players when I was on campus so it really isn't different now.
I feel the same about the Cowboys. I don't care who wears the star, as long as they win. My degree just makes me love MT more than my Cowboys.

I think this is how most of us are viewing this. Wins are wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hop45 and ewglenn
You might look at it as 2-3 years vs. 3-5 years but it goes much deeper than that in my opinion.

I used to help run this site when it first launched. I followed recruiting fervently. I had connections with the coaching staff who would tell me who they were targeting and I would call those kids and their families and talk to them for sometimes a few minutes and sometimes a few hours. When we would secure a commitment, I would get a phone call and asked to keep it hush or do the exact opposite, call the kid and get a front page story on GoMiddle. I was knee deep in recruiting you could say, all while being a student. It was an exhilarating experience and so damn cool to watch those kids then come and develop over 4-5 years. Some flamed out, some became superstars, most became serviceable young men playing college ball and just enjoying the college life.

Kids used to sign and stay at one school for 4-5 years. The implications of this ran deep. They spent their entire college experience at MT (unless they left of course or went to grad school after, but rules were not friendly to those who left so it essentially never happened). Being here 4-5 years as a young adult gave them a great environment to become young men. And I shared this experience because I lived it too (Took me 5.5 years to get my Bachelors!). Often times, the players families would even become ingrained in the community. Many would move here, sometimes permanently, and many still live here to this very day going back to the early 2000's when I was in school. The players and their families really became a part of the community.

With signing day, you could get excited about the prospects because you figured in 2-3 years you would see the fruits of their labor. If you landed some great prospects, you could almost always keep them. See players like Kevin Byard, Richie James, Dwight Dasher, Jordan Ferguson, Reed Blankenship, and I'm sure many more I'm forgetting. If you had enough of these key players at the right time, you could really go on a run if you don't have a bone head coaching staff. Even still, we won many games with Stockstill as coach and those great players in spite of the coaching staff. You'll never see MT go on the road again and beat an SEC team like Missouri or ACC team like Miami. They will just steal all our players before we can become strong enough to do that.

Football now (and basketball) is just a bunch of hired mercenaries. Players no longer come to school to be a part of the culture and build a career/life. I can tell you with absolute certainty that players at MTSU used to look at the NFL as their next stepping stone. Even the back-up DB's thought they were going to "The league." I'll never forget riding home from a long night of drinking and one of the DB's in the back seat talking about how they were going to the NFL. They were barely 2nd string at the time (but did eventually start). Now, kids don't look as the next stepping stone as the NFL. They are looking for the Power 5 offer and the Power 5 money, then the NFL. I can't tell you this with absolute certainty, but my intuition tells me these kids are not coming to Murfreesboro anymore with a plan to be there 4-5 years while they prepare for their next phase. Staying in Murfreesboro is definitely not the plan anymore.

MTSU (and schools like it) are glorified JUCO's now. For me, it's not interesting watching the best players leave every off season. Losing our whole OL a few years ago was devastating. Losing our whole DL this off season WILL be devastating for this upcoming season, mark my words. I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that losing Jaylin Lane + our whole OL ended up costing Rick Stockstill his job (Silver lining, but still bad from a results perspective).

It's not interesting or fun to me when I see the Power 5's take all our best players and then dump their busts on us in the hopes that all they needed was a little playing time. Because history shows that is almost always not the case. They left X University because they sucked and they're not going to be good at MT either. I'm also not really interested in some washed up transfer from Georgia Tech either. I'd rather see someone we signed as a 2 star freshman who worked his ass off for 2-3 years win the starting job and shock the world. But now that player will just transfer if he becomes an all conference type of talent.

It all just feels so futile now. The gap has grown too large between the G5 and P5 in my opinion to hold my interest in the sport. If it still interests you, then enjoy yourself I guess. But for me, it's just not entertaining anymore. Pretty much every good player now sits on a Power 5 roster. G5's are not allowed to have them anymore, and if you do, you can only have them for 1 year.

They can kick rocks. Pro sports is more interesting to me now.
I’m not a fan either of what the transfer portal and insane NIL money has done to my favorite sports activity, “college” football. Oddly enough though, my Memphis Tigers just signed the UT Vols starting linebacker, Elijah Herring (MBoro Riverdale) last week and immediately plugged a hole left at middle linebacker after a 2-year portal guy from Syracuse was drafted in the CFL’s first round in his home country. I guess the FedEx NIL money is already kicking in.
 
You might look at it as 2-3 years vs. 3-5 years but it goes much deeper than that in my opinion.

I used to help run this site when it first launched. I followed recruiting fervently. I had connections with the coaching staff who would tell me who they were targeting and I would call those kids and their families and talk to them for sometimes a few minutes and sometimes a few hours. When we would secure a commitment, I would get a phone call and asked to keep it hush or do the exact opposite, call the kid and get a front page story on GoMiddle. I was knee deep in recruiting you could say, all while being a student. It was an exhilarating experience and so damn cool to watch those kids then come and develop over 4-5 years. Some flamed out, some became superstars, most became serviceable young men playing college ball and just enjoying the college life.

Kids used to sign and stay at one school for 4-5 years. The implications of this ran deep. They spent their entire college experience at MT (unless they left of course or went to grad school after, but rules were not friendly to those who left so it essentially never happened). Being here 4-5 years as a young adult gave them a great environment to become young men. And I shared this experience because I lived it too (Took me 5.5 years to get my Bachelors!). Often times, the players families would even become ingrained in the community. Many would move here, sometimes permanently, and many still live here to this very day going back to the early 2000's when I was in school. The players and their families really became a part of the community.

With signing day, you could get excited about the prospects because you figured in 2-3 years you would see the fruits of their labor. If you landed some great prospects, you could almost always keep them. See players like Kevin Byard, Richie James, Dwight Dasher, Jordan Ferguson, Reed Blankenship, and I'm sure many more I'm forgetting. If you had enough of these key players at the right time, you could really go on a run if you don't have a bone head coaching staff. Even still, we won many games with Stockstill as coach and those great players in spite of the coaching staff. You'll never see MT go on the road again and beat an SEC team like Missouri or ACC team like Miami. They will just steal all our players before we can become strong enough to do that.

Football now (and basketball) is just a bunch of hired mercenaries. Players no longer come to school to be a part of the culture and build a career/life. I can tell you with absolute certainty that players at MTSU used to look at the NFL as their next stepping stone. Even the back-up DB's thought they were going to "The league." I'll never forget riding home from a long night of drinking and one of the DB's in the back seat talking about how they were going to the NFL. They were barely 2nd string at the time (but did eventually start). Now, kids don't look as the next stepping stone as the NFL. They are looking for the Power 5 offer and the Power 5 money, then the NFL. I can't tell you this with absolute certainty, but my intuition tells me these kids are not coming to Murfreesboro anymore with a plan to be there 4-5 years while they prepare for their next phase. Staying in Murfreesboro is definitely not the plan anymore.

MTSU (and schools like it) are glorified JUCO's now. For me, it's not interesting watching the best players leave every off season. Losing our whole OL a few years ago was devastating. Losing our whole DL this off season WILL be devastating for this upcoming season, mark my words. I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that losing Jaylin Lane + our whole OL ended up costing Rick Stockstill his job (Silver lining, but still bad from a results perspective).

It's not interesting or fun to me when I see the Power 5's take all our best players and then dump their busts on us in the hopes that all they needed was a little playing time. Because history shows that is almost always not the case. They left X University because they sucked and they're not going to be good at MT either. I'm also not really interested in some washed up transfer from Georgia Tech either. I'd rather see someone we signed as a 2 star freshman who worked his ass off for 2-3 years win the starting job and shock the world. But now that player will just transfer if he becomes an all conference type of talent.

It all just feels so futile now. The gap has grown too large between the G5 and P5 in my opinion to hold my interest in the sport. If it still interests you, then enjoy yourself I guess. But for me, it's just not entertaining anymore. Pretty much every good player now sits on a Power 5 roster. G5's are not allowed to have them anymore, and if you do, you can only have them for 1 year.

They can kick rocks. Pro sports is more interesting to me now.

I can't fault you for feeling this way even though I think you're wrong (and to be honest, I think you're being a bit melodramatic here and you'll be here in the game threads throughout the season, but we'll see).

I'm 46. I've been a fan since I was 16-ish. So, math wise, I've seen rosters turn over about 8 times in college. I've seen my favorite players get drafted by the pros, play their entire careers, retire, and go to the HoF. I never cared one bit about who these players are. To be honest, I have little in common with today's college kids - we might not even like each other if we met. But that never has nor will it ever stop me from pulling for MT. It's not about the players, it's about the school and program.

I do think the impending split of P and G level sucks. But, as I said above, there's 2 choices - quit being a fan, or find the bright side and make the best of it. After an honest self-appraisal, the former is not an option for me.

If the future means that Alabama and Tennessee go off and do their NFL-ish thing, so be it. If that means that we get our own top 25, with some name programs that I recognize, and a fun playoff tournament, nice regionally compact conferences with rivalries, I'm down with it. You're telling me we're headed to Appy State to play a top 10 match up in the playoffs and you're not going to be interested? I'm totally going to be there.

I will say that I do think this has lessened my enthusiasm for college football as a whole so I can get your point. I used to love college football - I'd be up for gameday, watching every game I could on TVs that were streaming back to back, and dozing watching the freaking WAC Hawaii game at 2am eastern.

Now, we're headed to NFL-lite and I just think we're losing something that was so special. Oh well, time for some golf in the mornings instead of gameday.

Now, I just love my teams (MT, UTk, and soon to be Memphis).
 
FedEx is a huge win for Memphis. I wish MT had a major donor like they do. I agree with everyone that’s said they will tune in regardless of who is in the jersey. It’s the MT on the side of the helmet that has my commitment.
 
I’m not a fan either of what the transfer portal and insane NIL money has done to my favorite sports activity, “college” football. Oddly enough though, my Memphis Tigers just signed the UT Vols starting linebacker, Elijah Herring (MBoro Riverdale) last week and immediately plugged a hole left at middle linebacker after a 2-year portal guy from Syracuse was drafted in the CFL’s first round in his home country. I guess the FedEx NIL money is already kicking in.

If MT wasn't mega-broke and actually stood a chance at retaining some of it's top talent I probably wouldn't have such a negative view of it all. But that's not the case. Our University is perennially broke and that's never going to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FranklinRaider315

I think it's less likely that B10/SEC actually cut schools.

I do think that eventually, a new entity - be it the superleague or whatever - will form and "invite" the top programs away into a 30-40 team mini-NFL.

With the impending ruling that athletes can be "employees", I'm not even sure there are P5 schools who really want to play that game. If you're Wake Forest or Iowa State or someone like that, can you really afford to run with the Alabama's and Ohio State's over the long term?

If there was a return to sanity alternative where the #'s could work, I would think some of those schools would have to seriously think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MidTennMtneer
Of course they would if they were getting equal revenue share. But they’re asked to take millions less than Ohio St or Alabama and still compete at the same level that’s the purest example of anticompetitive.

I finally had one person offer an example of how a mini NFL could happen with institutions that are non profit federally assisted. Which was the schools sell back the rights to a third party to use the name Alabama. Technically I guess that could skirt around the issue but would schools really whore themselves out that much to give up control of their most valuable property? For that reason I still don’t see any resolution to this outside of the courts. Maybe Congress and even that I could see being contested.
 
Of course they would if they were getting equal revenue share. But they’re asked to take millions less than Ohio St or Alabama and still compete at the same level that’s the purest example of anticompetitive.

I finally had one person offer an example of how a mini NFL could happen with institutions that are non profit federally assisted. Which was the schools sell back the rights to a third party to use the name Alabama. Technically I guess that could skirt around the issue but would schools really whore themselves out that much to give up control of their most valuable property? For that reason I still don’t see any resolution to this outside of the courts. Maybe Congress and even that I could see being contested.
I've seen that exact plan floated around several places.
Backed by private equity and I've seen some say even the NFL itself. They just lease the facilities to the new entity, get paid a heft licensing fee for the name, mascot, colors, etc, and the players are students of the university but employees of the league.

This would allow a revamp/work together on non-revenue sports and also allow schools to drop a womens sport if they desired and still be Title IX compliant, as they technically would not be funding football. So even more $ in the schools' pockets then.
 
Of course they would if they were getting equal revenue share. But they’re asked to take millions less than Ohio St or Alabama and still compete at the same level that’s the purest example of anticompetitive.

I finally had one person offer an example of how a mini NFL could happen with institutions that are non profit federally assisted. Which was the schools sell back the rights to a third party to use the name Alabama. Technically I guess that could skirt around the issue but would schools really whore themselves out that much to give up control of their most valuable property? For that reason I still don’t see any resolution to this outside of the courts. Maybe Congress and even that I could see being contested.

I think that would be some hail mary. I can't see the arguments that would work.

No one is being asked to take less. There's no legal right for any individual school to any slice of revenue that's generated by the larger schools/programs outside of the contractually obligated revenue sharing in a conference.

There's no legal mechanism that can compel Alabama to not seek a better conference arrangement and at the same time force Alabama to share it's revenue with competitors to its detriment. Alternatively, Alabama would have a pretty good case that they're not being allowed to sell their product in a competitive fair marketplace if they were somehow forced to remain in a weaker conference, for less $$$$s.

If suppose private equity came along, and offered a billion dollars a year to the top 30 schools, there's nothing that a Mississippi State can use to challenge it.

Legally, there's already a precedent for a tiered system of college athletics based on budget/revenue/etc. We've already seen schools leave weaker conference mates behind. It happened just last year to the Pac. It happened a long time ago when BYU left the WAC to go to the MWC and then go independent.

The only thing holding them together now are grant of rights (in the case of the ACC) and TV contracts (in the case of the SEC/B10). Absent that, it's a free for all.

What you would need is what they are seeking in English soccer - sort of an independent government appointed regulator or college football czar or something like that with the power to dictate the rules of the sport. But that's pretty antithetical to the system we have now.
 
..."All of the Group of 5 is in a wait-and-see mode, which is a precarious situation," one source told ESPN. "It is extremely tough to lead athletic departments, universities and conferences and plan for the future -- whether that be facilities, NIL, etc. -- when you have no seat at the table to make the rules that will impact you."

 
..."All of the Group of 5 is in a wait-and-see mode, which is a precarious situation," one source told ESPN. "It is extremely tough to lead athletic departments, universities and conferences and plan for the future -- whether that be facilities, NIL, etc. -- when you have no seat at the table to make the rules that will impact you."


This is where I think the split will happen.

There's about 10% of players that are worth a revenue split. They are the drivers, the guys that people tune in the to the TV to watch and make up the programs that the TV networks pay billions for.

The rest probably aren't worth the money they spend on the 'ship from a revenue generation standpoint. For example, outside of the college football framework, would anyone anywhere pay, say, 30K (guess-timated cost to attend UNCC for one year) to UNC-Charlotte's backup left guard for anything sports related? Nope.

"The prevailing sentiment is that leagues outside the power conferences named in the lawsuit, including basketball-forward leagues, will have the opportunity to opt into the same 22% revenue-share formula, which would be applied to their specific revenue."

There's simply no way for 85% of college football FBS/FCS to pay what it needs to pay to comply with this. Large #'s of these teams run in the red or from student subsidies. What is 22% of $0.00? Then you add in all the Title IX players who will want their slice.

It will literally bankrupt most of college football.

So, there's going to be some kind of new model that will allow those lower revenue teams to continue to play. We can speculate all day, but it's inevitable.
 


Maybe 3 D1 subdivisions coming?
I hate to say it but that is the only way this will work.

Part of the settlement is schools having the ability to opt out of the whole $30m thing. They still will owe roughly $10m a year for past players, but they can step away from future. There will be several Power schools that say no to that. At the same time as that article pointed out, there will be some current G5 teams that want in. Liberty? Memphis budget is $95m or so. Plus FedEx $. Mentioned SDSU is $103m. Heck. WVU is only $105m.

NDSU, right in line with us at $35m.

I'm not super crazy about it as I once was, but it is looking inevitable. I also worry this could actually reduce budgets for existing G5. Would TV deals stay the same or will a G5 playoff increase it? Will CFP $ disappear completely?

Like that other article said, pitiful to be affected by this but not have any say in the decision making. But by the same token if past G5 athletes sued, Lord knows we don't have the $ to pay them.
 
Ha. Schools aren't going to have to pay for past athletes. That's laughable. The NCAA could be sued (again) for limiting their NIL opportunities, but that's not necessarily the university's responsibility. It's like forcing former volunteers to be paid for their volunteer time after the fact.

One place Doug and I agree on is there's going to be a new world. I think where we splinter is how we get there and what that's going to look like. Regardless, this is all stupid nonsense and never should have happened. Why the NCAA didn't set up a fund to provide compensation after college for athletes name, image, and likeness is crazy to think about. No vision to see that as revenues increased what was going to happen. Instead of being in front of this the NCAA fell behind it and essentially ushered in the end of amateurism. Maybe that part was always inevitable, but they definitely dug their own hole and made this all much worse than it should have been.
 
....Documents specify, perhaps for the first time in writing, the total amount in back damages owed to athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) before the NCAA lifted NIL prohibitions in 2021.

The amount is $2.776 billion.

The NCAA is responsible for paying the amount over a 10-year period, roughly $277 million annually. About 60% of that will come from a reduction in distribution to its schools. The NCAA is responsible for closing the 40% gap through other means, such as reserves, other net incomes and a significant reduction in operating expenses of as much as $18 million annually......

 
....Documents specify, perhaps for the first time in writing, the total amount in back damages owed to athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) before the NCAA lifted NIL prohibitions in 2021.

The amount is $2.776 billion.

The NCAA is responsible for paying the amount over a 10-year period, roughly $277 million annually. About 60% of that will come from a reduction in distribution to its schools. The NCAA is responsible for closing the 40% gap through other means, such as reserves, other net incomes and a significant reduction in operating expenses of as much as $18 million annually......

so what does that breakdown look like 500 or 600 and athlete? They will have to pay all divisions especially since they control the championships at all divisions or you will have more lawsuits coming.
 
so what does that breakdown look like 500 or 600 and athlete? They will have to pay all divisions especially since they control the championships at all divisions or you will have more lawsuits coming.
The settlement revolves around 3 cases. House, which goes back to 2016 for 15k athletes. Hubbard which includes all athletes since April 2019. Carter includes all D1 athletes since December 2023 till case ruling/settlement, as well as all Power 5 basketball and soccer players since December 2019. So easily close to 20k players.

I haven't seen a breakdown per athlete. One would assume attorneys would take 20% minimum. Then the plaintiffs that brought the case would get the lion's share.

There are still so may questions as it wouldn't stop future suits unless they get anti-trust protection from Congress. They want this settled because the judge over the House case is the one that ruled in favor of Alston and started this. So the NCAA is likely to lose.

And the suits are only brought against P5 schools. Will G5 have to do the backpay too? They mention all D1. So FCS? Horizon League? WCC? Etc?
Of course we already do Alston payments and will 1000% opt out of the future payments.

When they say this will change the landscape they aren't kidding at all.
 
The settlement revolves around 3 cases. House, which goes back to 2016 for 15k athletes. Hubbard which includes all athletes since April 2019. Carter includes all D1 athletes since December 2023 till case ruling/settlement, as well as all Power 5 basketball and soccer players since December 2019. So easily close to 20k players.

I haven't seen a breakdown per athlete. One would assume attorneys would take 20% minimum. Then the plaintiffs that brought the case would get the lion's share.

There are still so may questions as it wouldn't stop future suits unless they get anti-trust protection from Congress. They want this settled because the judge over the House case is the one that ruled in favor of Alston and started this. So the NCAA is likely to lose.

And the suits are only brought against P5 schools. Will G5 have to do the backpay too? They mention all D1. So FCS? Horizon League? WCC? Etc?
Of course we already do Alston payments and will 1000% opt out of the future payments.

When they say this will change the landscape they aren't kidding at all.
If they say all D1, then it would have to include FCS football since its classified as D1, and all other sports are D1 at those institutions, or they will have future suits since they are able to get NIL. I wonder is a D2 athlete will sue since they're scholarship athletes as well.
 
So in the proposed settlement for the back pay, 40% will come from the Power leagues, with the other 60% coming from the rest of D1.

".....According to a source, one smaller non-power football league was told in the NCAA memo that it would be expected to pay more than $2.5 million per year to help cover the costs of the settlement. A source in that CCA22 league said that amount is approximately 25 percent of the annual NCAA revenue for the schools in the league....."


 
So in the proposed settlement for the back pay, 40% will come from the Power leagues, with the other 60% coming from the rest of D1.

".....According to a source, one smaller non-power football league was told in the NCAA memo that it would be expected to pay more than $2.5 million per year to help cover the costs of the settlement. A source in that CCA22 league said that amount is approximately 25 percent of the annual NCAA revenue for the schools in the league....."



The G5 is getting railroaded here.

Athletes in the G5 are over-compensated with room/board/tuition. G5 athletics is not a revenue maker. Ticket sales wouldn't even cover athlete 'ships at our level.

The guy who have been robbing the athletes are the P5 who have been making billions while compensating the athletes by the penny. And who is going to pay that back bill - well, the poors.
 
For context.
The ugly Urange up the road will pay $16.2m against their $202m budget. 8%. Half of what they pay their coaches.

We would pay the $7.13m against our $40m budget. 17.8%. (Our revenue jumped $5m since '22) That is more than we pay our coaches which is only $6.9m.

The G5s should be raising absolute holy hell over this. That is a HUGE hit to our budget.

 
Yes you’re right since we only got 9% of the playoff revenue. So they give us A fraction of the revenue and expect us to pay twice the penalty than what we received. That is some P5 math and some BS.
 
I don't understand all this backpay nonsense anyway.

Nobody forced these kids to play college football. It was an opportunity and they knew the rules and framework at the time when they signed their scholarship paperwork.

How/why are the courts allowing this ? I don't even understand how they have a case. The NCAA had rules and regulations at the time that were well established and didn't allow NIL/pay for play. The kids knew this when they willingly agreed to be a student athlete and participate in NCAA sports and activities.
 
And explain this one. I just read an article on the Big East. For the non football D1 conferences, the NCAA based what they will pay in the settlement on a formula using the earned credits from the bball tourney. So the Big East is being punished and paying more just because they are better as bball and have more credits.

As for the backpay reasoning...Alston and statute of limitations. That ruling stated "The court unanimously found the NCAA’s compensation rules violated the Sherman Act when they restricted non-cash education-related benefits such as post-eligibility undergraduate or graduate scholarships or tutoring, study-abroad expenses, and paid post-eligibility internships."

From what I gather, that case has a 4yr statute of limitation so Hubbard case is suing for those 4yrs. The House case uses the 4yrs from when it was filed and involves the restrictions of NIL payments. Carter case uses the 4yrs and revolves around media dollars being paid. All hinge on the NCAA violating the Sherman Act, which it was already ruled they did in the Alston case. So in the eyes of the court, the NCAA has already lost.

Not saying I agree with it because I agree with you all. They signed on with the rules at the time. But the law says they are entitled to what they are suing for, so I can't blame them.
The NCAA should've adapted years ago on their own.
 
I still don't understand why the NCAA isn't allowed to have it's own rules and enforcements.

If the NCAA didn't want NIL/pay for play, and the players signed their scholarship and agreed to those rules, then what's the problem ?

Sherman Act, Smermish Act, they signed for the scholarship and agreed to the framework and rules at the time. I don't like the courts getting involved with this. At all. This was a private contract with students and Universities and they knew the rules and framework up front. Scholarships ain't cheap.

Most D1 athletics departments are in the red without student fee and donation support and would collapse if they had to rely on program generated funds only. Most D1 athletes don't even generate the money they are ultimately compensated with in the long run. Especially on the women's side of things.


Every single day that passes and I'm alive on planet earth I grow more weary and angry towards the governments and courts that are supposed to serve the people.

America is the greatest country in the history of the world. From our rich resources, freedoms, diverse cultures, 50 states with their unique laws and landmarks, etc. You get the idea. Truly amazing.

As amazing as our country is, the governments and the grip they have on it could not be worse. I literally cannot put into words my disdain and blood boiling hatred towards the governments of this country. And it's such a shame because America is amazing. But my god, F these courts and governments that have poisoned it and weigh on it like a cancer. The Alston and future related rulings are overreach at its finest.

Just another reason to not watch anymore in my opinion. If I'm a G5 school I'm wondering if it's even worth it at this point. Like honestly, why bother ? Tell me one good reason a school like MT should continue to fund athletics. I'll be waiting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mtfblue
I'm still not sure what the big deal is that generates all this vitriol.

It's not your money. Some HS QB getting 8-million doesn't take one penny out of my bank account.

This is entertainment. It's supposed to be positive fun. If it's not, that's fine - the great thing about this country is that you can totally find something else to do. We have more entertainment opportunities any any human who ever lived in all of history.

All the complaining in the world isn't going to change anything.

My advice is to find some way to look at the bright side - personally, I do think a "G5" division could work and be a lot of fun - playoffs, regional rivalries, our own top 25, etc.
 
So athletic fees paid by students and taxpayer monies are not going to pay for this settlement?
 
So athletic fees paid by students and taxpayer monies are not going to pay for this settlement?
No. They wouldn't get by with that. It's paid for essentially by NCAA profit. As it stands now, they'll pay a chunk and the conferences/schools will pay the rest via their NCAA payments being reduced for 10yrs.
 
No. They wouldn't get by with that. It's paid for essentially by NCAA profit. As it stands now, they'll pay a chunk and the conferences/schools will pay the rest via their NCAA payments being reduced for 10yrs.
The students and taxpayers will eventually pay. If our budget is reduced by the NCAA then fees/taxes will go up to compensate.
I realize it's difficult to budget for NCAA payments but it will still create a burden for our university.
 
The students and taxpayers will eventually pay. If our budget is reduced by the NCAA then fees/taxes will go up to compensate.
I realize it's difficult to budget for NCAA payments but it will still create a burden for our university.
100% it will.

This is the settlement sent to the leagues and the non-football school counter. I'm trying to understand it, but don't. This says a 17% reduction in distribution, which is different than what I've seen floated around elsewhere and I mentioned above.

IAAA schools are those that play D1 basketball but are D2-3 in other sports. Right? FCS is of course D1 as well. There are 70 Autonomy schools, and 64 G5. I assume the below is based on schools when suits were filed. So doesn't include SMU as Autonomy along with recent jumps.

But anyway. This uses the formula I mentioned above. So the full $713k per year (7.13m over 10yrs) for us may be on the high end. But at the same time, we only sold $1.2m in tickets for '22. So we could lose half our ticket revenue or half of what we pay CDM. Easy to see how this can hurt schools. For 10yrs. As said above, over those 10yrs we essentially lose what we pay our coaches. So imagine one year of losing all salaries. Big hit.

We already have $8m in student fees. Wouldn't be surprised to see those go up a bit, ticket prices raise slightly, etc. It'll be made up on the back end for sure.

 
  • Like
Reactions: MTTim
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT