"Why we may be reaching a tipping point for the Power Five to break away from the FBS" Link

79tech

Varsity Lurker
Yes - interesting - but his reasoning was not what I expected. He seems to be playing off the dissatisfaction with the NCAA as the reason for a super conference as opposed to the pure economics. The facts are that economics (money) will lead the discussion for many programs. Not just the MAC but P5 programs are going to be hemorraging money if football isn't played (or is played without paying fans) and athletic directors are going to be looking at all possible sources to pay debt and budgets. This will include looking at revenue enhancements from a super conference. non-revenue sports becoming intramural without future scholarships, and begging state governments for autonomy to put fees on students. There are 8-10 schools (UGA, Alabama, LSU. Ohio St. Notre Dame. Texas, Oklahoma. Clemson and a few others that will be fine but many will be like Tech's athletic department - in dire straits if incming money dries up.
 

00Burdell

Dodd-Like
I dislike there NCAA as much as the next guy but I hope everyone trying to dismantle it realizes what is on the other side of that.

Here's a hint: the end of college football. I don't know what the answer is either but killing the NCAA probably isn't it.
 

JacketForLife

No more high school ball!
I dislike there NCAA as much as the next guy but I hope everyone trying to dismantle it realizes what is on the other side of that.

Here's a hint: the end of college football. I don't know what the answer is either but killing the NCAA probably isn't it.

Why would it end college football? Why would the schools give up their revenue makers? Makes no sense.
 

JacketForLife

No more high school ball!
I suspect once the NCAA loses jurisdiction, college football would immediately start paying players which would effectively kill off what we all think of as college football. Imagine the NFL with no salary cap.
I guess you’re for the exploitation of student athletes.

The NCAA is only has jurisdiction because the schools give it power.
 
Last edited:

00Burdell

Dodd-Like
I guess your for the exploitation of student athletes.

The NCAA is only has jurisdiction because the schools give it power.
All I said was essentially, "be careful what you wish for". I'm not against paying athletes in principle but I think its nuts that so many folks think that there will be no unintended consequences to paying football players. Think it through. Do you really think that's where it ends? Remember Title IX? Do you really think that the other athletes are just going to compete as amateurs while the football team are converted to employees of the University? And with no NCAA, there are no scholarship limits. How long do you think the sport of college football would last under those circumstances?

So you can poison the well or drag a red herring across the argument by suggesting that I'm against paying athletes but not only did I not say that, but you haven't even addressed my point that killing off the NCAA would kill off the sport. If you disagree, then explain why you disagree and we can debate and others can weigh in. So take the NCAA rule book, chuck it out the window and tell me what college athletics looks like after that.
 

daBuzz

Dodd-Like
All I said was essentially, "be careful what you wish for". I'm not against paying athletes in principle but I think its nuts that so many folks think that there will be no unintended consequences to paying football players. Think it through. Do you really think that's where it ends? Remember Title IX? Do you really think that the other athletes are just going to compete as amateurs while the football team are converted to employees of the University? And with no NCAA, there are no scholarship limits. How long do you think the sport of college football would last under those circumstances?

So you can poison the well or drag a red herring across the argument by suggesting that I'm against paying athletes but not only did I not say that, but you haven't even addressed my point that killing off the NCAA would kill off the sport. If you disagree, then explain why you disagree and we can debate and others can weigh in. So take the NCAA rule book, chuck it out the window and tell me what college athletics looks like after that.
I think it's nuts that you don't think football players are being paid today.

And WTF is up with the lack of editing in that article? Seriously, this is the best you can do CBS? There are at least 3 instances where there are missing words....even Microsoft Word probably caught those and you just published it without fixing them?

Edited to add:
And this statement is hilarious:
Remy graduated from LSU with honors, reaching second lieutenant in the Army
Assuming he went into the Army as an officer because of his college degree, that means he was never promoted. Because 2nd Lieutenant is the lowest officer rank there is in the Army.
 
Last edited:

RoanokeJacket

Varsity Lurker
When the NCAA goes away there will only be 4 good teams ever again. The rest will become Div III.
That's about the number that have a realistic shot at a national championship now. Okay, I exaggerated for a quip but it isn't more than 10. Think about it. If we ever get good and want to win a national championship we have to be better than Alabama, Clemson, LSU, and Ohio State all in the same year. At least one of those teams is going to have all their 4/5 stars in order every year. Then you also have to contend with the next tier not having their fluke good year the same year you do (UGA, Auburn, Oklahome, etc.). Sure, 1990 could happen again but it isn't "realistic". It is still fun to watch and root for us but we aren't playing the same game as the big 4 I listed right now.
 

Tampa Jacket

Flats Noob
That's about the number that have a realistic shot at a national championship now. Okay, I exaggerated for a quip but it isn't more than 10. Think about it. If we ever get good and want to win a national championship we have to be better than Alabama, Clemson, LSU, and Ohio State all in the same year. At least one of those teams is going to have all their 4/5 stars in order every year. Then you also have to contend with the next tier not having their fluke good year the same year you do (UGA, Auburn, Oklahome, etc.). Sure, 1990 could happen again but it isn't "realistic". It is still fun to watch and root for us but we aren't playing the same game as the big 4 I listed right now.
What are you talking about? In 2014 we were 3 points away from beating FSU in the ACCCG and fluke losses to Duke and UNC from making the CFB playoffs. And that was with nowhere near the talent Collins is bringing in. What are defeatist attitude. The ACC champion is going to make the college football playoffs. You’re crazy if you think that Clemson is going to continue to win forever. They have never been a football dynasty. Georgia Tech will be back in the ACCCG within 4-5 years.
 

JacketForLife

No more high school ball!
The southern football schools and colleges should secede from the NCAA and have their own governing body that treats players and everyone else with respect ($) while operating with common sense.
 

JacketForLife

No more high school ball!
That's about the number that have a realistic shot at a national championship now. Okay, I exaggerated for a quip but it isn't more than 10. Think about it. If we ever get good and want to win a national championship we have to be better than Alabama, Clemson, LSU, and Ohio State all in the same year. At least one of those teams is going to have all their 4/5 stars in order every year. Then you also have to contend with the next tier not having their fluke good year the same year you do (UGA, Auburn, Oklahome, etc.). Sure, 1990 could happen again but it isn't "realistic". It is still fun to watch and root for us but we aren't playing the same game as the big 4 I listed right now.

I don’t buy this at all.

Winning a national championship at GT is a do-able task, particularly because we have everything necessary to do so. That is the goal of course. We will be in the conversation by the time Collins is done. I’ve said before we have much more advantages than other schools and pretty much only lack “athlete degrees” or having a large graduating class YOY (Which adds up to bigger fan bases overtime), but it’s up to our leaders to utilize and market those advantages correctly while working to improve the disadvantages. We have those leaders now IMO and they are on the same page finally; I believe that the three have realized that they can take GT to a different level via football, a new era. They can create a legacy in the epicenter of college football. I speculate they will not jump to a “bigger job” if successful so long as we pay them their fair share of the winnings. I think everyone involved has realized that GT can do a Clemson type turnaround if given the support (ok, all those championships highly unlikely, but we can at least compete and be in the conversation). These are not new things to be talked about behind the scenes. Just look at the plan unfolding. Because we don’t have a giant student alumni, we need to leverage the fact that we are ATL personified- that’s probably number one besides actually winning games.

We are sitting on a powder keg of success that might only take a little bit to ignite. It’s hard to think of any other schools that are as primed as we are besides FSU.

TLDR: We have every capability to compete against your “big four” named consistently- so long as we can get it done on the field and do what we are supposed to in the upcoming seasons.
 

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
I for one applaud the demise of the hypocritical NCAA and the forced separation of college athletics and semi-pro sports teams sponsored by colleges and universities. Tear it all down.
Something better will emerge from the ashes.
 

TampaBayJacket

Dodd-Like
I really dont like the NCAA but I dislike a 65 team power five even more. I love watching teams from the WAC, MWC, AAC, etc. play the big boys from the P5 and compete. If the P5 breaks away, we might as well throw the rest of FBS into the FCS division. The P5 needs these smaller conference teams.
 

southendzoneBEE

Gailey-Like
Ban Hammer'd
I don't see why breaking off from the NCAA would kill college athletics. You think it'd turn into an anarchy or something? The president's and ADs would create a charter, rules, governing bodies. Wouldn't be that difficult to build a shadow NCAA.
 

00Burdell

Dodd-Like
I don't see why breaking off from the NCAA would kill college athletics. You think it'd turn into an anarchy or something? The president's and ADs would create a charter, rules, governing bodies. Wouldn't be that difficult to build a shadow NCAA.
Well I did point out two challenges. Paying players opens up a Title IX scenario where colleges might have to pay all athletes and not just the ones who play revenue sports. This may force athletic departments to choose to split into two groups - schools that pay all athletes and schools who pay no athletes. Secondly, removing the parity rules (85 scholly limit, etc) would allow the wealthier schools to dominate the less wealthy schools. Imagine Clemson and OSU, etc. with 120-man rosters - doesn't matter if they play or not - athletes would go there because Clemson and OSU, etc could pay much higher salaries to the football team which would make it impossible to recruit against them. And academic progress? Forget about it. The athletes are now employees and there is no NCAA to enforce academic requirements or admission standards. Of course, any debate which includes pointing out the problems of paying football players will be misinterpreted and mischaracterized as stubborn opposition to paying football players so there really isn't much point in having a discussion about it.
 

southendzoneBEE

Gailey-Like
Ban Hammer'd
Well I did point out two challenges. Paying players opens up a Title IX scenario where colleges might have to pay all athletes and not just the ones who play revenue sports. This may force athletic departments to choose to split into two groups - schools that pay all athletes and schools who pay no athletes. Secondly, removing the parity rules (85 scholly limit, etc) would allow the wealthier schools to dominate the less wealthy schools. Imagine Clemson and OSU, etc. with 120-man rosters - doesn't matter if they play or not - athletes would go there because Clemson and OSU, etc could pay much higher salaries to the football team which would make it impossible to recruit against them. And academic progress? Forget about it. The athletes are now employees and there is no NCAA to enforce academic requirements or admission standards. Of course, any debate which includes pointing out the problems of paying football players will be misinterpreted and mischaracterized as stubborn opposition to paying football players so there really isn't much point in having a discussion about it.
I don't see why they would have to pay players or why they couldn't stick to the same academic standards. What I'm saying is the NCAA would be replaced by a similar governing body, with rules etc
 
Top