Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options

Topic:  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
Author
Message
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,104

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/11/2024 6:27:35 PM 
Bobcat Love wrote:
...Hell, one guy wanted to start negotiations by paying $1.5 Million to Ohio State. ...

Just to be clear, my opinion is that Ohio should play the game, as agreed, and use it as leverage to schedule other, future games, at a higher price. Since you didn't reply to me, I thought what you wanted was to pay the $1.5 million fee and walk away, but I was wrong. You apparently want something much worse.

BillyTheCat wrote:
And if you pulled option #1 you would never negotiate another contract to play anyone ever again and you’d be fired by the board before you got in your car.
...

I agree. If Ohio pulled that stunt, I can't imagine why anyone would ever schedule a game with them, and I doubt Cromer would survive the day as AD.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 1,938

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/11/2024 6:46:38 PM 
L.C. wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:
And if you pulled option #1 you would never negotiate another contract to play anyone ever again and you’d be fired by the board before you got in your car.
...

I agree. If Ohio pulled that stunt, I can't imagine why anyone would ever schedule a game with them, and I doubt Cromer would survive the day as AD.


She would probably lose the respect of coaches and players let alone lose the confidence and trust of every other AD as far as working with her in the future. She also probably doesn't have the money on hand to back out of the contract if OSU tells her to go right ahead. Of all the possibly out of touch with reality suggestions in this thread this one is likely the farthest out there
Back to Top
  
Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 1,938

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/11/2024 6:50:26 PM 
Bobcat1996 wrote:
If the Ohio Basketball team played 10 of 13 games non league vs power four teams the win loss record would be terrible. So why is the current administration asking the football program to play three power four teams in one season? In 2024 the football team is facing 50 percent power four non conference schedule. Some one tell me when the basketball program has ever played 50 percent power four non conference schedule?


I think getting home games with P5s is too good of an financial and exposure opportunity to pass up and we need the one payout game a year. It worked out to do that we ended up three P5s on the schedule. We have only had one losing season since 2008. With all the players we had transfer up this offseason and then the 2025 schedule I'll be pretty impressed with Albin if he can just avoid a second one.

Last Edited: 5/11/2024 7:03:50 PM by Victory
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,581

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/11/2024 7:06:26 PM 
Victory wrote:
L.C. wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:
And if you pulled option #1 you would never negotiate another contract to play anyone ever again and you’d be fired by the board before you got in your car.
...

I agree. If Ohio pulled that stunt, I can't imagine why anyone would ever schedule a game with them, and I doubt Cromer would survive the day as AD.


She would probably lose the respect of coaches and players let alone lose the confidence and trust of every other AD as far as working with her in the future. She also probably doesn't have the money on hand to back out of the contract if OSU tells her to go right ahead. Of all the possibly out of touch with reality suggestions in this thread this one is likely the farthest out there


Winner winner chicken dinner!
Back to Top
  
Bobcat1996
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2017
Post Count: 814

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/11/2024 8:25:54 PM 
Victory wrote:
Bobcat1996 wrote:
If the Ohio Basketball team played 10 of 13 games non league vs power four teams the win loss record would be terrible. So why is the current administration asking the football program to play three power four teams in one season? In 2024 the football team is facing 50 percent power four non conference schedule. Some one tell me when the basketball program has ever played 50 percent power four non conference schedule?


I think getting home games with P5s is too good of an financial and exposure opportunity to pass up and we need the one payout game a year. It worked out to do that we ended up three P5s on the schedule. We have only had one losing season since 2008. With all the players we had transfer up this offseason and then the 2025 schedule I'll be pretty impressed with Albin if he can just avoid a second one.


You just said it best. "We need the one payout game game a year." Bingo! Not play three power four schools in the same season in consecutive weeks. Once again, I ask, is Boals doing this in basketball? We all know the answer to that question?

Last Edited: 5/11/2024 8:28:01 PM by Bobcat1996
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 9:42:13 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Victory wrote:
L.C. wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:
And if you pulled option #1 you would never negotiate another contract to play anyone ever again and you’d be fired by the board before you got in your car.
...

I agree. If Ohio pulled that stunt, I can't imagine why anyone would ever schedule a game with them, and I doubt Cromer would survive the day as AD.


She would probably lose the respect of coaches and players let alone lose the confidence and trust of every other AD as far as working with her in the future. She also probably doesn't have the money on hand to back out of the contract if OSU tells her to go right ahead. Of all the possibly out of touch with reality suggestions in this thread this one is likely the farthest out there


Winner winner chicken dinner!


Leaders lead. Followers follow. Glad none of you were around to decide on great moments in history. Caveman thinking got our CFP share reduced to 9% of the total pool, split among the entire Group of 5. LOL. Keep it up - you people are pathetic, and it will continue diminishing with idiot fans/alums like ours leading the way. Gross.

We are playing a significantly under-valued game at the expense of our players, athletic department, and alumni. My comments stand. She should be on the phone with Ross Bjork or she should consider taking more punitive steps. Failure to do anything, is failure to successfully do her job.
Back to Top
  
M.D.W.S.T
General User



Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 1,882

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 10:30:26 AM 
Bobcat Love wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Victory wrote:
L.C. wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:
And if you pulled option #1 you would never negotiate another contract to play anyone ever again and you’d be fired by the board before you got in your car.
...

I agree. If Ohio pulled that stunt, I can't imagine why anyone would ever schedule a game with them, and I doubt Cromer would survive the day as AD.


She would probably lose the respect of coaches and players let alone lose the confidence and trust of every other AD as far as working with her in the future. She also probably doesn't have the money on hand to back out of the contract if OSU tells her to go right ahead. Of all the possibly out of touch with reality suggestions in this thread this one is likely the farthest out there


Winner winner chicken dinner!


Leaders lead. Followers follow. Glad none of you were around to decide on great moments in history. Caveman thinking got our CFP share reduced to 9% of the total pool, split among the entire Group of 5. LOL. Keep it up - you people are pathetic, and it will continue diminishing with idiot fans/alums like ours leading the way. Gross.

We are playing a significantly under-valued game at the expense of our players, athletic department, and alumni. My comments stand. She should be on the phone with Ross Bjork or she should consider taking more punitive steps. Failure to do anything, is failure to successfully do her job.


Your embarrassment tolerance must be extraordinary high.
Back to Top
  
Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 1,938

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 1:35:35 PM 
Bobcat Love wrote:

Leaders lead. Followers follow. Glad none of you were around to decide on great moments in history. Caveman thinking got our CFP share reduced to 9% of the total pool, split among the entire Group of 5. LOL. Keep it up - you people are pathetic, and it will continue diminishing with idiot fans/alums like ours leading the way. Gross.

We are playing a significantly under-valued game at the expense of our players, athletic department, and alumni. My comments stand. She should be on the phone with Ross Bjork or she should consider taking more punitive steps. Failure to do anything, is failure to successfully do her job.


This is great propaganda. We lionize those that take risks, and often we should, because they drive the human race. But there is a thing called survivorship bias where we only hear the stories where the risks turned out to the good. Those that crashed and burned rarely get the platform to tell their story. So, be careful about singing the praises of those risk-takers that it worked out for as always being the example we should follow.

But on top of that there are good risks and bad risks. What you want to be is a person that takes the good risks even if there is a high chance of failure. An entrepreneur may know that most new businesses fail but his expertise of the field and current environment may give him an edge and then even knowing that the odds are still not 50/50 in his favor that the payoff could turn out to be many times more than the cost than this worth the high odds of failure. The Apollo 11 astronauts knew there was probably a 20% or chance of a failure that would end the mission at best and cost them their lives at worst. To many that would be an unacceptable risk but to them an 80% chance of a legendary accomplishment was enough. But then there is the sort of risk that is locking myself into a cage filled with 15 untrained wild starving tigers for a week to show that it can be done. I often chastise those that aren't experts in their field for acting like they have to knowledge to contradict someone that is. I fully admit that I am not an expert in athletics administration, I suspect you aren't either, but I think in this case I don't have to be. I don't think have to be an expert on the behavior of tigers to make a good guess on how that cage experiment is a crazy bad risk. I think that the risk of your proposal, (and many of these are true even is OSU buckles under which I seriously doubt that they would) in my admittedly amateur opinion, is a high probability of the end of Cromer's career and Ohio University suffering humiliation in the media, no other schools wanting to deal with us in every sport, the MAC penalizing us, recruits decommitting, players transferring, coaches eventually quitting, and we lose a million plus dollars in a cancellation penalty. The potential gain is what? A few hundred thousand, maybe a million dollars?

Last Edited: 5/13/2024 2:49:24 PM by Victory
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 4:02:51 PM 
Victory wrote:
Bobcat Love wrote:

Leaders lead. Followers follow. Glad none of you were around to decide on great moments in history. Caveman thinking got our CFP share reduced to 9% of the total pool, split among the entire Group of 5. LOL. Keep it up - you people are pathetic, and it will continue diminishing with idiot fans/alums like ours leading the way. Gross.

We are playing a significantly under-valued game at the expense of our players, athletic department, and alumni. My comments stand. She should be on the phone with Ross Bjork or she should consider taking more punitive steps. Failure to do anything, is failure to successfully do her job.


This is great propaganda. We lionize those that take risks, and often we should, because they drive the human race. But there is a thing called survivorship bias where we only hear the stories where the risks turned out to the good. Those that crashed and burned rarely get the platform to tell their story. So, be careful about singing the praises of those risk-takers that it worked out for as always being the example we should follow.

But on top of that there are good risks and bad risks. What you want to be is a person that takes the good risks even if there is a high chance of failure. An entrepreneur may know that most new businesses fail but his expertise of the field and current environment may give him an edge and then even knowing that the odds are still not 50/50 in his favor that the payoff could turn out to be many times more than the cost than this worth the high odds of failure. The Apollo 11 astronauts knew there was probably a 20% or chance of a failure that would end the mission at best and cost them their lives at worst. To many that would be an unacceptable risk but to them an 80% chance of a legendary accomplishment was enough. But then there is the sort of risk that is locking myself into a cage filled with 15 untrained wild starving tigers for a week to show that it can be done. I often chastise those that aren't experts in their field for acting like they have to knowledge to contradict someone that is. I fully admit that I am not an expert in athletics administration, I suspect you aren't either, but I think in this case I don't have to be. I don't think have to be an expert on the behavior of tigers to make a good guess on how that cage experiment is a crazy bad risk. I think that the risk of your proposal, (and many of these are true even is OSU buckles under which I seriously doubt that they would) in my admittedly amateur opinion, is a high probability of the end of Cromer's career and Ohio University suffering humiliation in the media, no other schools wanting to deal with us in every sport, the MAC penalizing us, recruits decommitting, players transferring, coaches eventually quitting, and we lose a million plus dollars in a cancellation penalty. The potential gain is what? A few hundred thousand, maybe a million dollars?


Group of 5 is at 9% of the CFP Payout (as a GROUP)....and dwindling even further as realignment continues.

Either the people that work FOR US do their jobs, or we continue to get taken behind the woodshed.

Maybe I just speak for myself, but I would hold Cromer as a hero for actually using the stick instead of the carrot (vasoline) with Ohio State for once.....

Sometimes you are allowed to leave the pack. But when the 9% becomes ZERO, don't say I didn't warn you.

Funny that nobody is chastising Florida State and Clemson for breaking their ACC G of R contract....so it's good enough for the big guys (Where Cromer and her ilk want to work) but not good enough for Ohio?
Back to Top
  
Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 1,938

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 4:18:30 PM 
Bobcat Love wrote:

Group of 5 is at 9% of the CFP Payout (as a GROUP)....and dwindling even further as realignment continues.

Either the people that work FOR US do their jobs, or we continue to get taken behind the woodshed.

Maybe I just speak for myself, but I would hold Cromer as a hero for actually using the stick instead of the carrot (vasoline) with Ohio State for once.....

Sometimes you are allowed to leave the pack. But when the 9% becomes ZERO, don't say I didn't warn you.

Funny that nobody is chastising Florida State and Clemson for breaking their ACC G of R contract....so it's good enough for the big guys (Where Cromer and her ilk want to work) but not good enough for Ohio?

Nine percent might become zero. If we had more fans then we'd have more leverage. We have some fans so we have some leverage in asking for a 9% share. But if you start pulling the sort of stunt you are asking her to pull then you are making sure that the P4 is more willing to take the risk of leaving the G5 to fend for itself in getting that revenue. Maybe we are better off standing on our own and getting the revenue from our own playoff and it might be more than the 9% of the existing playoff. I don't think that G5 leaders think that is the case right now. Maybe we can still participate at 9% and still have a team in the existing playoff and make some additional cash with another playoff for everyone else. Maybe that might happen anyway. But what you are asking is losing the trust of all the other schools, probably not just the P5, and the potential media partners in whatever tactic you might want to take if the future. Getting more leverage for more money is about growing the fanbase and playing better football. Your proposal doesn't do that. Most of the other 2000 athletic programs in the country would love to have our contract with OSU. OSU has a much, much bigger fan base and many, many other options. Even if your tactic worked once, and I seriously doubt that it would, it has absolutely no hope of helping your negotiating position in the future. It is just a fast track to putting Ohio in the much, much bigger group of schools that aren't getting anything close to the money from 9%.

Last Edited: 5/13/2024 4:29:13 PM by Victory
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,346

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 4:23:43 PM 
Bobcat Love wrote:


Group of 5 is at 9% of the CFP Payout (as a GROUP)....and dwindling even further as realignment continues.


What's the case that the G5 adds more than 9% of the value to the CFP?

Bobcat Love wrote:


Sometimes you are allowed to leave the pack. But when the 9% becomes ZERO, don't say I didn't warn you.


You understand that basically everybody here recognizes the inevitable conclusion that the P5 and G5 break apart from each other, right? It's happening right in front of our eyes, the writing's on the wall for a complete and fundamental shift to the structure of NCAA football. Not only is nobody going to say you didn't warn then, but literally everybody beat you to the conclusion. You're the last one there, man. Read this board on the topic over the last 6 months.

But yeah, being a leader here is about begging the P5 for more money and not, say, trying to develop a business model that works without P5 welfare checks.




Last Edited: 5/13/2024 6:27:59 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,581

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 9:43:42 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Bobcat Love wrote:


Group of 5 is at 9% of the CFP Payout (as a GROUP)....and dwindling even further as realignment continues.


What's the case that the G5 adds more than 9% of the value to the CFP?

Bobcat Love wrote:


Sometimes you are allowed to leave the pack. But when the 9% becomes ZERO, don't say I didn't warn you.


You understand that basically everybody here recognizes the inevitable conclusion that the P5 and G5 break apart from each other, right? It's happening right in front of our eyes, the writing's on the wall for a complete and fundamental shift to the structure of NCAA football. Not only is nobody going to say you didn't warn then, but literally everybody beat you to the conclusion. You're the last one there, man. Read this board on the topic over the last 6 months.

But yeah, being a leader here is about begging the P5 for more money and not, say, trying to develop a business model that works without P5 welfare checks.






When there are 100+ other schools who refuse to die on the that hill and see $1.9 million as better than nothing, OHIO has no leverage, and won’t. Just like why the trucking industry is being gutted,too many people looking to get paid and don’t care about their neighborhood
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,581

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 10:13:12 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
[QUOTE=Bobcat Love]

Group of 5 is at 9% of the CFP Payout (as a GROUP)....and dwindling even further as realignment continues.


What's the case that the G5 adds more than 9% of the value to the CFP?

[QUOTE=Bobcat Love]

You have a study that shows this number? Willing to bet not much. But unless you got data and a study, I’ll go with 9% value.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,346

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 10:46:23 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:

You have a study that shows this number? Willing to bet not much. But unless you got data and a study, I’ll go with 9% value.


That's the question I'm asking.

Meanwhile, the NCAA and the conferences that actually matter to them are weeks away from agreeing to an annual revenue share model for players as part of the settlement for the lost anti-trust case. In addition to 2+ billion in back penalties.

And Bobcat Love thinks more revenue is due to the G5? To look at the eminent changes -- player revenue share, the P5 breaking away to form a"premier league" -- and come away thinking that the G5 is going to get more of the P5's money is hilariously misguided.

The G5 was propped up by P5 money for decades, and very soon that money is going to the players. Sooner we embrace that and make actual changes -- changes that aren't just about begging louder -- the better.

Last Edited: 5/13/2024 10:59:33 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/13/2024 10:56:49 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
[QUOTE=Bobcat Love]

Group of 5 is at 9% of the CFP Payout (as a GROUP)....and dwindling even further as realignment continues.


What's the case that the G5 adds more than 9% of the value to the CFP?

[QUOTE=Bobcat Love]

You have a study that shows this number? Willing to bet not much. But unless you got data and a study, I’ll go with 9% value.


Since a small % of you are critical thinkers, I will try and make this as simple as possible for the larger group who have had lobotomies. Do me a favor and open your pea-sized minds for 10 seconds and try and follow along with these basic concepts.

**We will use Ohio State as our example, but fill in any other P5 at your discretion.**

Every year, Ohio State wants 7 home games MINIMUM. They would prefer 8. If 9 of their 12 games are against Big 10 Teams (4 to 5 on the road depending on the year), they certainly do NOT want a schedule where 2 of their 3 Non Big 10 games are:

1. On the Road - for a variety of reasons, many are financial for the University, the City of Columbus, Texas De Brazil in the Arena District who is apparently going to sue Ohio if they pull out of the game.

2. Potential Losses affecting their CFP chances

If you take the P5 schools out of the equation, you have now created an entire new universe of "have nots" amongst the current P5 schools. Think Ohio State wants to be forced into a home and home with Kansas State because there is no Bowling Green available to schedule? Think they want to do a home and home with Colorado? Syracuse? SMU? With no Group of 5 (or other bootlickers) to schedule -> Ohio State gives up a home game and is now forced into a non conferece game that is not as easily winnable - in advance of their gauntlet of a Big 10 schedule.

On the flip side, do you think Kansas State is going to be happy when Ohio State calls and demands a non-returnable, buy game with them because Ohio State has no Ohio/BG/Miami/UMASS to fill the schedule? Think Colorado is going to like being the new Toledo/Akron/Buffalo? I guarantee a system where only Alabama and Ohio State play each other 12 times per year isn't going to last long.

I believe any Group of 5 school has leverage to change (and better) the system, either alone or together. Obviously the preference is banding together and telling the Power 5 assholes to shit in their hat - but the people that WORK FOR US refuse to do that. The people that supposedly WORK FOR US are beholden to their next jobs at Power 5 schools, and thus we deal with a constant conflict of interest. Look at all our Athletic Department alums (Virginia, Kansas, Maryland, Texas Tech....every Carpetbagger uses and abuses you people - and you love it and revel in getting cuckolded)

If you don't think those 2 non conference games against the Power 5 schools are worth the weight of the entire system crashing down on 80% of the Power 5 - then you need to re-think how you view the system. $1.9 Million? Ohio State would be smart to cut us a check for $5 Million minimum - and thus quiet the smartest guy in the room down.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat1996
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2017
Post Count: 814

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/14/2024 7:16:45 AM 
"If you don't think those 2 non conference games against the Power 5 schools are worth the weight of the entire system crashing down on 80% of the Power 5 - then you need to re-think how you view the system. $1.9 Million? Ohio State would be smart to cut us a check for $5 Million minimum - and thus quiet the smartest guy in the room down."

I like that way of thinking. Especially the last sentence.
Back to Top
  
M.D.W.S.T
General User



Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 1,882

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/14/2024 8:49:58 AM 
Bobcat Love wrote:
Victory wrote:
Bobcat Love wrote:

Leaders lead. Followers follow. Glad none of you were around to decide on great moments in history. Caveman thinking got our CFP share reduced to 9% of the total pool, split among the entire Group of 5. LOL. Keep it up - you people are pathetic, and it will continue diminishing with idiot fans/alums like ours leading the way. Gross.

We are playing a significantly under-valued game at the expense of our players, athletic department, and alumni. My comments stand. She should be on the phone with Ross Bjork or she should consider taking more punitive steps. Failure to do anything, is failure to successfully do her job.


This is great propaganda. We lionize those that take risks, and often we should, because they drive the human race. But there is a thing called survivorship bias where we only hear the stories where the risks turned out to the good. Those that crashed and burned rarely get the platform to tell their story. So, be careful about singing the praises of those risk-takers that it worked out for as always being the example we should follow.

But on top of that there are good risks and bad risks. What you want to be is a person that takes the good risks even if there is a high chance of failure. An entrepreneur may know that most new businesses fail but his expertise of the field and current environment may give him an edge and then even knowing that the odds are still not 50/50 in his favor that the payoff could turn out to be many times more than the cost than this worth the high odds of failure. The Apollo 11 astronauts knew there was probably a 20% or chance of a failure that would end the mission at best and cost them their lives at worst. To many that would be an unacceptable risk but to them an 80% chance of a legendary accomplishment was enough. But then there is the sort of risk that is locking myself into a cage filled with 15 untrained wild starving tigers for a week to show that it can be done. I often chastise those that aren't experts in their field for acting like they have to knowledge to contradict someone that is. I fully admit that I am not an expert in athletics administration, I suspect you aren't either, but I think in this case I don't have to be. I don't think have to be an expert on the behavior of tigers to make a good guess on how that cage experiment is a crazy bad risk. I think that the risk of your proposal, (and many of these are true even is OSU buckles under which I seriously doubt that they would) in my admittedly amateur opinion, is a high probability of the end of Cromer's career and Ohio University suffering humiliation in the media, no other schools wanting to deal with us in every sport, the MAC penalizing us, recruits decommitting, players transferring, coaches eventually quitting, and we lose a million plus dollars in a cancellation penalty. The potential gain is what? A few hundred thousand, maybe a million dollars?


Group of 5 is at 9% of the CFP Payout (as a GROUP)....and dwindling even further as realignment continues.

Either the people that work FOR US do their jobs, or we continue to get taken behind the woodshed.

Maybe I just speak for myself, but I would hold Cromer as a hero for actually using the stick instead of the carrot (vasoline) with Ohio State for once.....

Sometimes you are allowed to leave the pack. But when the 9% becomes ZERO, don't say I didn't warn you.

Funny that nobody is chastising Florida State and Clemson for breaking their ACC G of R contract....so it's good enough for the big guys (Where Cromer and her ilk want to work) but not good enough for Ohio?


I just can't even imagine what's going on here?

You have those thoughts... still wrote them out... presumably read it... and it still made sense to you?
Back to Top
  
Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 1,938

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/14/2024 1:15:20 PM 
I'm not really even sure how to respond here. I'd think some things would be obvious and they aren't. The non-obvious things I am not going to argue with. I MIGHT be possible to drive up the money for payout games. I have no idea here and, honestly, I am pretty sure that Bobcat Love doesn't either. But the way to do that is going to be with the G5 teams working together. OSU is not going to reward us to shut up Ohio if the pull the crazy stunt you referenced because they think that Ohio is the smartest one in the room. If anything their attitude would be punitive but I think, honestly, it would be closer to indifference and knowing that we can afford the losses less than them and are in their mind a small fish in a big pond that can be safely ignored in the future,

Maybe he G5 could make more money standing on its own and develop a model where they aren't dependent on P5 money. They haven't been able to do that this far. We can make guesses but, again, I don't think any of us really now. The fact that the people who spend their careers figuring this out haven't yet leads me to believe that it is unlikely that a few mostly uniformed fans on a message board, who may of may not be thinking with their hearts, can do it in a few posts. The real answer if it exists is probably difficult. But if the model is looking for ways to expand the "welfare checks" as Bobcat Love's is you better be careful how you do that. There are about 1600 other football programs that would be very, very happy to take a much, much lesser check than the one we are getting.

IMO, some of this this interesting, some of this is probably out of touch with reality, and a couple of comments that we have discussed extensively are really, really far off the deep end and frustrating even to try to discuss. I am not going to make another comment in this thread.
Back to Top
  
M.D.W.S.T
General User



Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 1,882

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/14/2024 1:53:15 PM 
Victory wrote:

IMO, some of this this interesting, some of this is probably out of touch with reality, and a couple of comments that we have discussed extensively are really, really far off the deep end and frustrating even to try to discuss. I am not going to make another comment in this thread.


I wish I was as strong as you. I just can't not take the bait. LOL. No matter how little it makes sense. I have to keep digging.

The whole argument that Ohio State NEEDS to play OU - bc they're scared to play the worst team in the Pac 12 - and thus NEEDS to pay us $5M just to show up is absolutely tremendous.

I don't know how he got there, but that level of detachment is unattainable for most.

Last Edited: 5/16/2024 9:24:42 AM by M.D.W.S.T
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,581

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/14/2024 11:33:28 PM 
Bobcat1996 wrote:
"If you don't think those 2 non conference games against the Power 5 schools are worth the weight of the entire system crashing down on 80% of the Power 5 - then you need to re-think how you view the system. $1.9 Million? Ohio State would be smart to cut us a check for $5 Million minimum - and thus quiet the smartest guy in the room down."

I like that way of thinking. Especially the last sentence.


Let’s boycott OHIO games until Julie realizes the mistake she is making. Hurt OHIO in the wallet
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,104

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/15/2024 4:12:45 PM 
The thing about this discussion is that no one here disagrees that OSU could pay more, nor that they benefit from these games. Similarly, no one here disagrees that Ohio has a contract with OSU, and that, if they choose to not honor it, they will have to pay the liquidated damages specified in the contract. Some think that OSU would back down if threatened. I don't, so I don't see any benefit to Ohio from threatening OSU. On the other hand, I do see a benefit from trying to get additional future games with a higher payout.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,581

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/15/2024 9:13:07 PM 
L.C. wrote:
The thing about this discussion is that no one here disagrees that OSU could pay more, nor that they benefit from these games. Similarly, no one here disagrees that Ohio has a contract with OSU, and that, if they choose to not honor it, they will have to pay the liquidated damages specified in the contract. Some think that OSU would back down if threatened. I don't, so I don't see any benefit to Ohio from threatening OSU. On the other hand, I do see a benefit from trying to get additional future games with a higher payout.


There are 18 or more schools who can pay that much, this ain’t about OSU, it’s about the model, and you ain’t breaking that cycle.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,104

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/16/2024 7:07:51 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
There are 18 or more schools who can pay that much, this ain’t about OSU, it’s about the model, and you ain’t breaking that cycle.

I don't see Ohio "breaking the cycle" on it's own. Perhaps they can lobby all the G5 schools to work together for some common goal. In the meantime, Ohio will need to play a money game every year, and sometimes more. A measure of performance of an AD is to compare what kind of deals they are able to get, compared to other G5 schools.

Over the last 20 years, Ohio has prioritized getting competitive games against weaker P5 schools, rather than prioritizing higher paydays. Ohio has also tried to prioritize occasionally getting home-home series with P5 schools. As a result, Ohio has played schools like Kansas on the road (where Ohio won), rather than playing at schools like Penn State (oh, wait, Ohio won there, too), and Ohio had the home and home with Iowa State (where Ohio went 1-1). Meanwhile, Kent State has played a lot of big payday games at football powers, and while I don't recall them winning any, they certainly got a lot of big checks.

What is the priority? Is it a priority to get some home and home deals? Is it a priority to play weaker P5 schools, where Ohio might win? Or, is the priority to get the biggest possible paycheck? Regardless of which is the priority, Ohio should still try to get the largest check possible within that context. If they are going to play at Ohio State, they should get as much as everyone else who plays at Ohio State. If they are going to agree to play at Kansas, they should get as much as everyone else who plays at Kansas. Even though the payday at Kansas will be a much smaller number, it does come with a significantly better chance of an Ohio win.

I'm not trying to either attack or defend any particular Ohio AD. I'm also not trying to attack or defend any particular set of priorities. If Ohio's payday at Ohio State is too small, my questions are who made that deal, and what can be done about it within the context of the already existing legal obligations?

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
M.D.W.S.T
General User



Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 1,882

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/16/2024 9:16:10 AM 
Bobcat Love wrote:

Ohio State would be smart to cut us a check for $5 Million minimum - and thus quiet the smartest guy in the room down.


This is like that South Park episode where Canada asks the United States for "more money". And everyone just stares at them confused.

"Other countries make lots of money. We want that money. Give us some of that internet money?!"


BL: Don't give me any of that fat cat fancy lip wiggling, we want more money! Breach of fiduciary duty!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeWn3Sso2RE

Last Edited: 5/16/2024 9:25:12 AM by M.D.W.S.T
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Group of 5 leaders discussing G5-only playoff, realignment as future options
   Posted: 5/16/2024 9:32:31 AM 
Interesting timing. Dave Clawson just took a dump on all the cuckolds on this thread.....he thanks you for your service.

Keep it up. Sad to say I share a degree with most of you idiots.....
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  76 - 100  of 103 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 208 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
208 Guests
0 Registered Users
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties