BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Division IV

Topic: Division IV

Author

Message

rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,597

Status: Offline

Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 9:11:11 AM

According to the Sports Ticker in today's The Record (sorry, can't post a link),Mike Slive, the Commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, is quoted as saying that if the Big Five conferences don't get the autonomy they want from the NCAA, the next step would be to move to "Division IV".

Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,209

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 11:36:26 AM

rpbobcat wrote:

Considering an article in today's Dispatch says that the SEC will distribute $20.9 million to each of it's schools this year excluding an additional $16.8 million of bowl revenue, it's probably time for the MAC to give up the pipe dream of playing at the D 1 level. The gap just keeps getting bigger and bigger and it's time to quit chasing these guys.

Tim Burke
General User

Member Since: 11/23/2004
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Post Count: 607

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 2:39:09 PM

Alan Swank wrote:

rpbobcat wrote:

Here is what I don't understand. There are more mid- and low-majors in Division I than high majors. How do the high majors get to control things in what is, presumably, an organization that makes decisions democratically? Why does the NCAA consistently make decisions that are contrary to the best interests of the majority of schools that constitute it?

That's something I've never really seen explained: how the NCAA actually works.

Ohio '99 EMU '00 USF '08(?)

perimeterpost
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 2:43:41 PM

Recently there's been a coordinated effort by the SEC to drive this narrative of P5 autonomy- along with these comments about D4, guys like Nick Saban have been quoted as saying he would prefer it if P5 teams only scheduled other P5 teams for non conference games. This wasn't some football coach spouting off random ideas, this was the CEO of Alabama Football, Inc, a subsidiary of SEC Inc., using planned talking points to drive a corporate agenda. The rich, greedy, "power" schools want more money and more power and are using empty threats to further strengthen their position.

This is the equivalent of the 1% threatening to not "create jobs" if their Bush era tax cuts were not extended. First off, rich people aren't "job creators", secondly, where are the jobs? But the threat worked, they got their tax cuts.

Here are some very telling numbers to keep in mind anytime you hear someone from the SEC pushing this threat about breaking away from the G5:

- The new, multi-year contract with ESPN is between ESPN and the Football Bowl Subdivision of the NCAA. It's for all of the FBS. Similar deals with MLB, NFL, etc. have the revenue distributed to all members under the contract evenly, but not college football. The terms P5 and G5 were created to create a systemic power imbalance- the rich teams will stay rich, but just as important, the poor teams will stay poor. As a result each P5 conference will receive roughly $50m/yr, vs $18m for G5 conferences. Remember this when the P5 complains about the G5's financial limitations preventing the P5 from doing what they want to do. Keeping half of the teams in the league poor is critical to the P5's long term success.

- The SEC has 14 teams that play 56 conference games and 56 non conference games. Here is a breakdown of their non conference schedule in 2014-

vs P5- 9 games
vs Non P5- 47 games

Away- 9 games
Home- 47 games.

- The 47 games vs the G5 and FCS account for 42% of all games played by the SEC. Anyone who tells you that they are in favor of trading those games against teams with HUGE financial disadvantages to games vs financially competitive opponents is a liar (Nick Saban).

- If the P5 only played other P5 teams their 56 non conference games would consist of 23 home and 23 away. There's no way the SEC will sacrifice the revenue that comes from playing an additional 19 home games, all in the name of autonomy. Not to mention the added travel costs of 19 more road games.

- By keeping half of their opponents systemically poor the P5 have been able to lie, cheat and steal their way to achieving every possible advantage to insure their success. Going autonomous with their own division will destroy the smoke and mirrors they've worked so hard to achieve.

- This is the 1% trying to claim that they can survive without a middle class. Don't believe them.

Last Edited: 5/31/2014 2:59:18 PM by perimeterpost

MY STATE. MY TEAM.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 3:00:27 PM

Alan Swank wrote:

What level would you suggest playing at?

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

colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,547

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 4:08:14 PM

perimeterpost wrote:

Watch em. You don't have a clue. What I mean is that they will get what they want, the P5 has the power to get what they want from the NCAA and the have nots need the draw that the big schools offer. If the big 5 can play the FCS schools now they can continue to play the G5 schools even as they get bigger and richer.

Last Edited: 5/31/2014 4:35:33 PM by colobobcat66

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,363

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 5:27:29 PM

Whether the Snobs continue to play non-Snob D1A schools will depend on the perception of the selection committee. Will the committee consider a win vs a traditionally good non-Snob school more favorably than a win over a lower tier, non-conference Snob school? If they don't, the Snob schools will likely stay within their clique and schedule only other Snob schools. If they do, then they'll continue to schedule schools like Boise, NIU and Fresno but ignore the rest. Getting a feel for the perception of the selection committee will take a few years, but probably sometime by early in the '20s we may see a real cutback or complete elimination of Snob vs non.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,209

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 6:13:51 PM

L.C. wrote:

Alan Swank wrote:

What level would you suggest playing at?

The level immediately below where the very rich are headed - a level that we can afford and that will still provide true entertainment value.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 6:27:16 PM

Pataskala wrote:

..... but probably sometime by early in the '20s we may see a real cutback or complete elimination of Snob vs non.

Perhaps, but consider the consequences. If they play no non-snob schools, the snob schools as a whole will average .500, meaning that half of them will have an under .500 record, and thus be bowl in-eligible. Last year

ACC - 14 teams, 11 went to bowls (5-6)
Big Tenfinity - 12 teams, 8 would have gone to bowls but PSU wasn't eligible (2-5)
Big Twelveten - 10 teams, 6 went to bowls (3-3)
PAC - 12 teams, 9 went to bowls (6-3)
SEC - 14 teams, 10 went to bowls (7-3)
Total - 62 teams, 44 would have gone to bowls

With no games against non-snob teams, only about 31 would have winning records rather than 44. I just don't see them willing to give up the extra wins they get by playing non-snob teams.

Last Edited: 5/31/2014 6:27:53 PM by L.C.

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

MonroeClassmate
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2010
Post Count: 2,165

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 7:12:14 PM

perimeterpost wrote:

. First off, rich people aren't "job creators"

Darn, I must have slept through those 8am classes in Copeland. PP, please instruct me on what I missed; how are jobs created?

colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,547

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 8:23:45 PM

MonroeClassmate wrote:

perimeterpost wrote:

. First off, rich people aren't "job creators"

Darn, I must have slept through those 8am classes in Copeland. PP, please instruct me on what I missed; how are jobs created?

by adding to government by some peoples calculation. Some people have to make everything about politics

Last Edited: 5/31/2014 8:24:40 PM by colobobcat66

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,363

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 9:54:57 PM

L.C. wrote:

Pataskala wrote:

..... but probably sometime by early in the '20s we may see a real cutback or complete elimination of Snob vs non.

Of course, you're assuming that a .500 record would still be needed to go to a bowl. After they get autonomy, I think all bets are off on that. If a bowl sponsor is willing to take a sub-500 team, I'm not sure the NCAA could or would stop them.

Plus, if they expand the playoff beyond four teams, they might have the playoff teams going to multiple bowls, such as using four of their lesser bowls as quarterfinals and two of their major bowls as semifinals.

Last Edited: 5/31/2014 9:59:40 PM by Pataskala

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,155

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 10:32:27 PM

While it's an unpopular position and many of my friends get upset about this opinion, I have to agree with Alan. I love football. I think Ohio can continue to have a fine, competitive football program. We just need to admit we can't continue to chase the Alabamas of the world.

Having a tier of programs just below the P5, with a national playoff, would be very interesting and create fan interest, IMO. If you watch the NFL draft, there are always numerous guys from below the P5 level getting drafted...even schools in what is now called Division II get guys drafted.

perimeterpost
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 10:35:14 PM

MonroeClassmate wrote:

perimeterpost wrote:

. First off, rich people aren't "job creators"

Darn, I must have slept through those 8am classes in Copeland. PP, please instruct me on what I missed; how are jobs created?

jobs are created when the demand for a company's products or services reaches a point that adding additional employees is required to meet the demands of the consumer and to capture lost earnings that exceeds the cost of the additional heads.

If there are not enough consumers with disposal income (i.e. a strong middle class) to purchase these goods and services then companies will sell less of their products, which in turn will generate less earnings, which will ultimately result in a reduction of jobs.

The economy is driven by consumers, not rich "job creators". A CEO that makes 400x what his average employee makes does not purchase 400x the milk and bread, or 400x the gasoline, or 400x the chipotle burritos. Our economy cannot sustain itself on the spending habits of the richest 1%. They do not create jobs. Period.

But what do I know, I was a Fine Arts major.

MY STATE. MY TEAM.

TWT
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,169

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 5/31/2014 10:42:24 PM

Alan Swank wrote:

L.C. wrote:

Alan Swank wrote:

What level would you suggest playing at?

The level immediately below where the very rich are headed - a level that we can afford and that will still provide true entertainment value.

Jeff McKinley has said in the past that we belong at a football level with the Appalachian State's and Georgia Southern's of the world and I tend to agree. They are traditional FCS powers but here is where the problem comes in; they have moved to FBS. With all of the top schools in FCS moving up the days of the ship has sailed for Ohio to move down to FCS, especially in light of how competitive we've been in the last 6-8 years within the MAC. Instead of us moving down the FCS has moved up. The percentage of money for the postseason we are getting isn't even with the money conferences by the ratio has dropped from 10:1 disparity to a 2:1 disparity. It has been said in politics that when the situation improves for the working class expectations rise which I understand but I think the MAC is making significant progress which shouldn't be ignored.

Last Edited: 6/1/2014 12:29:27 AM by TWT

Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086

cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,947

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 12:11:48 AM

perimeterpost wrote:

MonroeClassmate wrote:

perimeterpost wrote:

. First off, rich people aren't "job creators"

Darn, I must have slept through those 8am classes in Copeland. PP, please instruct me on what I missed; who are jobs created?

Not bad for a Fine Arts major - you are correct, consumers are job creators. It does not matter that I own a company, if no one wants my products/service, I produce no products, nor jobs.

What will be interesting in this situation is the power conferences need their broadcast partners to go along with it all, but the ESPN's, SportsSouth, etc. need the other conferences and teams to fill programming. They have a delicate play going forward.

RSBobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,437

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 1:17:43 AM

colobobcat66 wrote:

MonroeClassmate wrote:

perimeterpost wrote:

. First off, rich people aren't "job creators"

Darn, I must have slept through those 8am classes in Copeland. PP, please instruct me on what I missed; how are jobs created?

by adding to government by some peoples calculation. Some people have to make everything about politics

How are jobs created? By responses to market demand - and there are a wide array of potential "products and services" that can have "demand" (Economic and/or Social/Political). Some are typically best, or only addressed, by "government" (i.e. military, highway infrastructure, disaster relief, various social services, etc.). Some classes in Bentley or Carnegie (these days "Scripps") may have made this a little more apparent.

This is all about "politics" and "economics"! The initiatives of the P5 are simple political economics - the "jobs" to be protected, gained, and increased share of the total $ "pie".

Non P5 should just refuse to play 'em. The whole thing would collapse w/half having below 500 seasons!

RS Bobcat

The Optimist
General User

Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,591

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 8:10:20 AM

Edit: I don't want to derail this discussion about how government spending creates jobs with my rant against the NCAA. (sarcasm warning)

Last Edited: 6/1/2014 8:14:39 AM by The Optimist

I've seen crazier things happen.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 9:19:05 AM

perimeterpost wrote:

....jobs are created when the demand for a company's products or services reaches a point that adding additional employees is required to meet the demands of the consumer and to capture lost earnings that exceeds the cost of the additional heads. ...

And, where does the money come from to finance the investment required?

perimeterpost wrote:

...A CEO that makes 400x what his average employee makes does not purchase 400x the milk and bread, or 400x the gasoline, or 400x the chipotle burritos. ..

Of course, they spend far more than 400x as much on other goods that are "luxury" goods. If a person with 400x the income has net savings, he overall does not spend 400x as much, but there are wealthy people that spend more than thy make, too. In that case his spending is 400x as high, or more.

Overall, however, I am going to have to take issue with the premise that consumption creates jobs and wealth. One of the problems in our economy today is that much of our economic policy is based on the assumption that it does. As a result we continue to push consumers to spend, resulting is an ever-decreasing wealth for the country, and and ever increasing debt burden, not only at the governmental level, but at the personal level. Meanwhile we continue to export productive jobs overseas.

Here is an interesting old cartoon that explains a bit more about what creates wealth and what doesn't. Some consumption does add overall wealth and efficiency to the economy. Other spending removes wealth from the economy.Still other spending does neither, and simply stores it in another form. For example, buying a car so you don't have to walk to work adds to the efficiency of the economy. Buying a pink flamingo for your lawn removes wealth from the economy (yes, some people were employed to make the pink flamingo, and others to sell it, so not all the money used to purchase it is destroyed - some of it is recycled). Buying gold jewelry stores the wealth in another form.

Where I would tend to agree with you is that the nature of spending by the very wealthy, more of tends to be of the nature that removes wealth from the economy. On the other hand, they also tend to have a higher savings rate, and savings is necessary for investment, and money available for investment is something that is necessary for job creation..

Last Edited: 6/1/2014 9:47:45 AM by L.C.

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

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 9:25:41 AM

Uncle Wes wrote:

And there is the problem. As bad as the financial picture is for the bottom of the FBS, it is worse for the top of FCS, which is why so many FCS schools are trying to escape FCS. Going backward would be going to a worse situation, which is why no one is going that direction.

Now, if Ohio wanted to drop to Division II or III, I believe the economics there are notably better. As an example, consider U. Chicago. They used to be in the Big Ten. They chose to give up football entirely in 1946, but now have football again, but this time around they have been in Division III since 1973. To me FCS is a no-man's land between the viable extremes.

Last Edited: 6/1/2014 9:27:38 AM by L.C.

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

whocaresgobobcats
General User

Member Since: 8/29/2011
Post Count: 519

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 10:04:00 AM

Tim Burke wrote:

Alan Swank wrote:

rpbobcat wrote:

Fairly easy to explain. That's where all the money is.

perimeterpost
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 2:56:17 PM

L.C. wrote:

perimeterpost wrote:

And, where does the money come from to finance the investment required?

perimeterpost wrote:

...A CEO that makes 400x what his average employee makes does not purchase 400x the milk and bread, or 400x the gasoline, or 400x the chipotle burritos. ..

My comments were about the creation of jobs, not wealth. There's a difference. I'm not anti-wealth, I'm pro middle class. As it relates to football, I'm not anti-P5, I'm pro G5 with better opportunities to achieve their own success, without relying on the P5 for handouts.

Last Edited: 6/1/2014 2:56:58 PM by perimeterpost

MY STATE. MY TEAM.

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 3:07:29 PM

We are all Luddites now.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 4:24:14 PM

perimeterpost wrote:

When it comes to economics, I've given up supporting or opposing individual policies. That's pointless because people and parties are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of how wise or foolish their proposed policies are. Rhetoric and emotional appeals carry more weight these days than valid economic discussion because, sadly, few voters actually have even a basic understanding of economics, and that's probably true of most politicians as well.

While you are correct that jobs and wealth are different, wealth is strongly related to the quality of jobs. If the total wealth in the economy goes down, the quality of jobs goes down. If wealth rises, the quality of jobs goes up with it. If you decrease wealth (or fail to increase it), but then try to force the quality of jobs up by minimum wage increases, the quantity of jobs goes down.

Thus, you can only have a prosperous middle class with a rising standard of living if the overall wealth of the economy is rising. That's why I hate to see people proposing trying to create jobs via government action, or via consumption. Both are apt to decrease the overall wealth in the economy, and in the long run, do more harm than good. They may well temporarily create jobs, but over the long run, the quality of jobs will fall.

By the way, personally I think that the distribution wealth, something a lot of people focus on these days, is not really an important number at all. Instead what I think is important is the mobility between income groups. So long as you have a good number of people moving up, and moving down, all is good. If a person has a reasonable chance of going from the bottom 20% to the top 20%, and vice versa, then to me the economy is functioning in a reasonable way.

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

bornacatfan
General User

Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,716

Status: Offline

RE: Division IV

Posted: 6/1/2014 10:41:44 PM

C Money wrote:

We are all Luddites now.

What am I missing here? Wanting to understand how this fits.

Luddite (ˈlʌdaɪt)

— n
1.	any of the textile workers opposed to mechanization who rioted and organized machine-breaking between 1811 and 1816
2.	any opponent of industrial change or innovation

FASCINATING conversation BTW.

never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Winter comes and asks how you spent your summer.....

The game loves and rewards those who love and reward the game

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 108 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 270 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

269 Guests
1 Registered User:
	Ted Thompson

There are no other users looking at this page.