Topic: Disband the Go5 Conferences and do what the big $ conferences won't do

[_sturt_]

- Every school is an independent.

- The 60-or-so schools who are part of the group sign a contract with a major provider, and as part of that contract, the network is given partial rights to schedule games as prescribed below...

1. Every school schedules three games on their own.

2. The network schedules every school to play within a four-team local scheduling pod, meaning that each school has three other schools that it plays every season.

3. The network schedules every school to play two other schools within their region that had similar records the previous season.

- Following those 8 games, the network has contractual rights to schedule the rest of the season for all teams, ostensibly scheduling the best against the best, making for some particularly good TV over the last month of the regular season.

[whf]

Now that's real college football there, hand our scheduling over to TV and let them have their own 60 team league.

[jt]

sturt, have you been hangin' out with Huggy? ;)

[_sturt_]

Ummmm... first, don't look now, but ESPN already is active in a whole lot of non-conference scheduling.

Second, who loses?

If this year you'd had the choice of Louisiana Tech playing Southern Miss and Central Florida playing Tulane on a November Saturday, when you could have had, instead Louisiana Tech playing Central Florida... and some TV interest/advertising dollars in that, given some possible bowl implications... why would you choose otherwise? Heck, even a Southern Miss/Tulane match-up would be more interesting for that matter.

If you want more TV money, and most of us surely do, you have to be willing to do some things differently than you're used to doing.

[BuyNtelos4]

Ummmm... first, don't look now, but ESPN already is active in a whole lot of non-conference scheduling.

Second, who loses?

If this year you'd had the choice of Louisiana Tech playing Southern Miss and Central Florida playing Tulane on a November Saturday, when you could have had, instead Louisiana Tech playing Central Florida... and some TV interest/advertising dollars in that, given some possible bowl implications... why would you choose otherwise? Heck, even a Southern Miss/Tulane match-up would be more interesting for that matter.

If you want more TV money, and most of us surely do, you have to be willing to do some things differently than you're used to doing.

The problem is, when Louisiana Tech is playing Central Florida on ESPNU, and you have Ohio State Michigan on ESPN, Alabama LSU on CBS, Oregon USC on ABC, Notre Dame versus whoever on NBC, the only part of Louisiana Tech and UCF people are going to see is what is aired on Sportscenter, viewership would have been much different than the original games you mentioned, other than UCF and La Tech may have a larger combined fanbase than Southern Miss and Tulane, but not by much.  Fanbases all over the country are blaming TV for all of the current problems, so let's let those who the majority believe caused all of this control it?  Also, how is the money split? It isn't fair for the top midmajor bringing in all of the TV dollars to get the same amount as Western Michigan, but nor is it for for Western Michigan not to be given an opportunity because ESPN scheduled them a bunch of crap games. 

Note:  I realize all of those AQ games would never be going on at the same time, but you get my point. 

[_sturt_]

The problem is, when Louisiana Tech is playing Central Florida on ESPNU, and you have Ohio State Michigan on ESPN, Alabama LSU on CBS, Oregon USC on ABC, Notre Dame versus whoever on NBC, the only part of Louisiana Tech and UCF people are going to see is what is aired on Sportscenter, viewership would have been much different than the original games you mentioned, other than UCF and La Tech may have a larger combined fanbase than Southern Miss and Tulane, but not by much.  Fanbases all over the country are blaming TV for all of the current problems, so let's let those who the majority believe caused all of this control it?  Also, how is the money split? It isn't fair for the top midmajor bringing in all of the TV dollars to get the same amount as Western Michigan, but nor (b) is it for for Western Michigan not to be given an opportunity because ESPN scheduled them a bunch of crap games.  

Note:  )(a) I realize all of those AQ games would never be going on at the same time, but you get my point.  

a) Actually, I think I get your point, but may I offer that you've chosen the wrong comparison?

Choice A... as is current... you could have the LaTech/USM and UCF/Tulane games up against all of those major games you indicated... and getting no sniff of TV.

Choice B... as is proposed... you could have LaTech/UCF against all of those major games you indicated... and because someone needs inventory, you get some TV.

What the big $ schools and their networks do is a constant... what you've got to do is innovate and improve on what you are currently doing in order to improve your revenue.

b) Western Michigan would have had 8 games to prove that they are among the viable candidates for some good TV match-ups in the last month of the season. There is equal opportunity to excel, and for us who believe in capitalism, that's all you can ask or expect... and in fact, that's what you want when you truly have a good team in a given year.

[_sturt_]

Per this Dennis Dodd offering...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/21414150/as-abandoned-big-east-crumbles-race-begins-to-be-power-conference-no-6

...seems I (already) wasn't the first to suggest something like this.

..."If I were one of the other five commissioners, I would get on the phone and band together," said one source close to the situation. "I would become an über-conference. Forget superconference. Let our current [TV] contracts lapse. That's the only way to take this one."

There are some advantages to this socialist approach. It's also scary. This might be exactly what the power conferences want. If those in the Group of Five are successful banding together, that might just be what the BCS conferences need to break away themselves -- from the Group of Five.

That's how Division I-AA (now FCS) was created in 1978, when the bottom half of Division I complained about revenue and exposure. I-AA was given its own playoff and not much else in terms of TV and money. The latest evolution may be upon us. Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick spoke openly last week about establishing a "Division 5." Currently, there are four football-playing divisions (FBS, FCS, Division II, Division III). "The [power conferences] don't give a [damn] about" the Group of Five, the same source added. "Fine -- be bigger and go."

These are no original thoughts. In fact, 14 months ago we were calling such a conference "Big Country." Conference USA and the Mountain West had been talking about it since 2010, the champions of the two leagues meeting in a play-in game for a BCS berth. As late as October 2011, the conferences had announced that had combined into "one large association."

A few days later a document surfaced that detailed a 28- to 32-team grouping that would combine the Mountain West, Conference USA and the Big East. The idea fell part as playoff talk grew. Still, you can see the proposed divisional lineups here.

If that sounds a lot like what the Big East attempted/is attempting to do, it should. The idea is there, to be populated by a new, bigger, unlabeled set of teams. In the future those schools will be chasing an automatic playoff bowl berth. If not in the national semifinals, the highest-rated champion from those -- as of now -- 64 Group of Five teams gets a spot in one of those access bowls. This time there is no BCS standard to achieve. Those outraged by Northern Illinois in the Orange will have to live with this future reality: If that champion is No. 37 Marshall, so be it.

There are few TV draws in the Group of Five. CBSSports.com once described a core of Air Force, Boise, SMU and Houston -- in a Big East model that spanned four time zones. One conference commissioner said he preferred his "autonomy."

Here's the other side: Aggregate the TV rights of some combination of those 64 schools into one. Add value to the package. Let's say there are four divisions of eight teams, all in the same "conference." The last couple of weeks of the season could be reserved for play-in games for that winner-take-all game to get to a playoff bowl.

It's been discussed -- 10 regular season games with the last two TBA for the Big Country playoffs. No extra games, no intrusion on finals, better content. And if there is one thing TV likes, it is more and better content. Look at the stir Northern Illinois created by merely qualifying for the Orange Bowl.

The labels, then, as we know them would be gone. No Big East. No real conferences below that Mendoza Line, just a lot of football socialism where the many would serve the one.

That one being No. 6. For now, that's all the name it needs.