P5-G5 divide

[NT93]

1 hour ago, keith said:

The divide only deepens when "G5" schools do the marketing for "P5" schools.  We're self-regulating ourselves to a "lower" division.

[DentonLurker]

On 5/28/2023 at 7:28 AM, Mean Green 93-98 said:

"P5" and "G5" are arbitrary designations conjured by some media man/major conference lapboy.

There’s nothing arbitrary about how the P5-G5 distinction has been used though (especially looking at the playoffs). You can pretend it’s arbitrary, but I’m not going to. I see the distinctions in the way it all plays out.

This whole debate will go away soon enough because the SEC/Big 10 and potentially some variation of the schools left in the Big 12/PAC 12/ACC become some new division or league or “P3”.

[NT80]

13 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

This whole debate will go away soon enough because the SEC/Big 10 and potentially some variation of the schools left in the Big 12/PAC 12/ACC become some new division or league or “P3”.

Yes.  Some of the designations are media-driven groupings too.  Names and numbers....  Top 10, Top 25, Also Receiving Votes, Bottom 10, Bowl Eligible, etc.    

This brings up a continuing question:   Is future Conference Realignment good for us?   So far, I would say yes.  We have been backfill for openings in CUSA and AAC.   Further movement in a PAC12 demolition and more Big12 expansion could lure castoff schools into a conference with us, or us with them.  Could the AAC and MWC combine to become a Super Conference if others do?

[GrayEagle]

I don't have a clue what the qualifications are for P5 or G5 for that matter.  We were not allowed to stay in Division 1A because to be there you had to have a stadium that seats 30,000 with an average attendance of 17,000.  We met that criteria before we could return to 1A.  How many are in 1A that do not meet that criteria? In some cases teams (especially the MAC) do not have the stadium or the attendance to qualify.  There were several in CUSA that did not qualify.  Ditto for Sun Belt.  I don't really worry about the AAC; or at least I won't when Charlotte gets their new stadium.

Edited May 30, 2023 by GrayEagle

[NT80]

10 minutes ago, GrayEagle said:

I don't have a clue what the qualifications are for P5 or G5 for that matter.  We were not allowed to stay in Division 1A because to be there you had to have a stadium that seats 30,000 with an average attendance of 17,000.  We met that criteria before we could return to 1A.  How many are in 1A that do not meet that criteria.  In some cases teams (especially the MAC) do not have the stadium or the attendance to qualify.  There were several in CUSA that did not qualify.  Ditto for Sun Belt.  I don't really worry about the AAC; or at least I won't when Charlotte gets their new stadium.

NT could have used Texas Stadium to meet the stadium size requirement.  Some of our home games were played there in the late 70's and early 80's before 20K seat Fouts was expanded, but the paperwork didn't get submitted in time (President Hurley), so we were forced to drop to 1-AA.  

Here is the current requirements (an interesting read):

"The requirement began in 1978 when Division I split into what are now known as FBS (1-A) and FCS (1-AA). To keep together the schools that invest heavily in football, an FBS requirement was set with an average of 17,000 fans once every four years and a 30,000-seat stadium, among other requirements regarding scheduling, scholarships and other issues.

In 2002, the football oversight committee changed the requirements to what they are now: a 15,000-fan average, with no stadium size requirement."

https://theathletic.com/1070204/2019/07/11/college-football-ncaa-15000-attendance-rule/

[GrayEagle]

1 hour ago, NT80 said:

NT could have used Texas Stadium to meet the stadium size requirement.  Some of our home games were played there in the late 70's and early 80's before 20K seat Fouts was expanded, but the paperwork didn't get submitted in time (President Hurley), so we were forced to drop to 1-AA.  

Here is the current requirements (an interesting read):

"The requirement began in 1978 when Division I split into what are now known as FBS (1-A) and FCS (1-AA). To keep together the schools that invest heavily in football, an FBS requirement was set with an average of 17,000 fans once every four years and a 30,000-seat stadium, among other requirements regarding scheduling, scholarships and other issues.

In 2002, the football oversight committee changed the requirements to what they are now: a 15,000-fan average, with no stadium size requirement."

https://theathletic.com/1070204/2019/07/11/college-football-ncaa-15000-attendance-rule/

Thanks NT80.  I knew that Hurley took the money for expansion and spent it on adding faculty and building improvements, etc.  He said at the time that athletics would hate him.  But he did make a much better institution of learning and I am grateful.

I hadn't realized that they had lowered the attendance and did away with a stadium size requirement.  

[MrAlien]

Sorry but I dont feel the hype on this one, Cal is not a major football power, they dont play in the SEC or Big10, and there is no regional rivalry.  The only home game on the schedule that I might attend is the Memphis game, I think that could be a good rivalry for UNT long term. 

[wardly]

20 hours ago, GrayEagle said:

Thanks NT80.  I knew that Hurley took the money for expansion and spent it on adding faculty and building improvements, etc.  He said at the time that athletics would hate him.  But he did make a much better institution of learning and I am grateful.

I hadn't realized that they had lowered the attendance and did away with a stadium size requirement.  

What money? Athletics had no money.

[GrayEagle]

On 5/30/2023 at 6:56 PM, wardly said:

What money? Athletics had no money.

Are you saying that Athletics has never had a budget?  How did they operate?  Who paid the salaries?

Hurley took most of the money that had been previously budgeted for Athletics and spent it on improving the quality of education.

 

[wardly]

Yes they had a budget, but saying that Hurley took money from athletics would require some proof . I assume that you can provide it.

[Tom McKrackin]

36 minutes ago, wardly said:

Yes they had a budget, but saying that Hurley took money from athletics would require some proof . I assume that you can provide it.

You seem like a pretty smart guy, but any UNT fan with half a brain knows that Al Hurley didn't give two 5hitz about athletics.  He wanted the benefits of athletics without giving the department a dime.  So yes in that respect he took money that rightfully belonged to athletics.

[NT80]

1 hour ago, Tom McKrackin said:

You seem like a pretty smart guy, but any UNT fan with half a brain knows that Al Hurley didn't give two 5hitz about athletics.  He wanted the benefits of athletics without giving the department a dime.  So yes in that respect he took money that rightfully belonged to athletics.

Exactly.  We could have stayed in 1-A but Hurley took the cheap route and we dropped to 1-AA.  

[BigWillie]

On 5/30/2023 at 8:22 AM, MrAlien said:

Sorry but I dont feel the hype on this one, Cal is not a major football power, they dont play in the SEC or Big10, and there is no regional rivalry.  The only home game on the schedule that I might attend is the Memphis game, I think that could be a good rivalry for UNT long term. 

Would look good for us to beat them though.

[wardly]

13 hours ago, Tom McKrackin said:

You seem like a pretty smart guy, but any UNT fan with half a brain knows that Al Hurley didn't give two 5hitz about athletics.  He wanted the benefits of athletics without giving the department a dime.  So yes in that respect he took money that rightfully belonged to athletics.

You are absolutely correct in that academics was his priority and athletics was not a major concern nor perceived as a benefit. However you need to understand that a previous administration took money that belonged to academics and applied toward athletics. There were only so many beans in the pot and he used the resources that were available to him. I don't believe that your statement " rightfully belonged to athletics" is appropriate as it implies that departments within the university were somehow due an amount of the overall budget. The athletic department was bleeding money so it was probably a easy decision to curtail their spending and apply the money elsewhere.

[NT80]

1 hour ago, wardly said:

You are absolutely correct in that academics was his priority and athletics was not a major concern nor perceived as a benefit. However you need to understand that a previous administration took money that belonged to academics and applied toward athletics. There were only so many beans in the pot and he used the resources that were available to him. I don't believe that your statement " rightfully belonged to athletics" is appropriate as it implies that departments within the university were somehow due an amount of the overall budget. The athletic department was bleeding money so it was probably a easy decision to curtail their spending and apply the money elsewhere.

Do you have proof of that?  I doubt it was "taken money" as you suggest.   There was investment made in the direction of Athletics under C.C. Nolen.  Athletics raised the image of the University in the late 70's under Coach Fry to a level unseen before and modernized the department.  It was money well spent and most of it hard-earned with new donors and support that Fry found.  Willie Nelson, Bob Hope, and Rex Cauble were some of the supporters and donors then.  The student support, alumni support and outside University support was at an all-time high, as well as media attention to the program's success with football, men's basketball and men's soccer.   The SWC was seriously considering NT for admittance.  But we fell back to being meaningless when Fry and Nolen left.  Hurley sealed it dropping us to 1-AA until he was gone and replaced eventually by Dr. Pohl and RV with new vision of the facilities and program we have now. 

[JT Hammons]

16 hours ago, Tom McKrackin said:

You seem like a pretty smart guy, but any UNT fan with half a brain knows that Al Hurley didn't give two 5hitz about athletics.  He wanted the benefits of athletics without giving the department a dime.  So yes in that respect he took money that rightfully belonged to athletics.

I agree that he was not pro athletics, but I have a real problem with your disrespectful tone.  Al Hurley is probably the most important person in terms of the growth and success of this University in it's entire history.  NTSU was a downtrodden, financial disaster when Dr. Hurley took over.  I believe the grew from 19K to 27K in the time he was in charge and the growth we see today at 45K and growing is tied directly to his efforts.

Not to mention the guy was extremely loyal to UNT.  At one point in his tenure, the UNT System Board of Regents demanded that he accept a pay raise, though the institution lacked the funds for a more broadly shared increase in faculty pay. Hurley’s response was to donate the incremental compensation that he received back to UNT to fund scholarships for deserving students.

So please, show the man the respect he deserves.

[untphd]

He was in the position too long, he should have gone on to other things. 

[wardly]

7 hours ago, NT80 said:

Do you have proof of that?  I doubt it was "taken money" as you suggest.   There was investment made in the direction of Athletics under C.C. Nolen.  Athletics raised the image of the University in the late 70's under Coach Fry to a level unseen before and modernized the department.  It was money well spent and most of it hard-earned with new donors and support that Fry found.  Willie Nelson, Bob Hope, and Rex Cauble were some of the supporters and donors then.  The student support, alumni support and outside University support was at an all-time high, as well as media attention to the program's success with football, men's basketball and men's soccer.   The SWC was seriously considering NT for admittance.  But we fell back to being meaningless when Fry and Nolen left.  Hurley sealed it dropping us to 1-AA until he was gone and replaced eventually by Dr. Pohl and RV with new vision of the facilities and program we have now. 

Jitter Nolan transferred money illegally from a designated fund for a new music building to the athletic department. He was forced to resign in disgrace and came very close to having criminal charges filed against him. [Google it.] I don't know of any modernization under Fry except for the construction of a 3,000 sq. ft. athletic building which was the only dedicated athletic facility built at UNT since Fouts Field until R.V. arrived. I never heard of Nelson or Hope donating to our athletic department although Rex was arrested for drug trafficking. The average home attendance during Fry's tenure was 13,300, which is not exactly what the SWC was looking for.  Fry had an overall record of 40-23-3,basketball did well under Blakely  as did men's soccer . But no way in hell were we considered for admission to the SWC except in Hayden's mind.

[NT80]

2 hours ago, wardly said:

Jitter Nolan transferred money illegally from a designated fund for a new music building to the athletic department. He was forced to resign in disgrace and came very close to having criminal charges filed against him. [Google it.] I don't know of any modernization under Fry except for the construction of a 3,000 sq. ft. athletic building which was the only dedicated athletic facility built at UNT since Fouts Field until R.V. arrived. I never heard of Nelson or Hope donating to our athletic department although Rex was arrested for drug trafficking. The average home attendance during Fry's tenure was 13,300, which is not exactly what the SWC was looking for.  Fry had an overall record of 40-23-3,basketball did well under Blakely  as did men's soccer . But no way in hell were we considered for admission to the SWC except in Hayden's mind.

You do have a wild imagination, but not nearly enough knowledge, of what was going on in Athletics then if you don't know about Willie Nelson and Bob Hope at NT for Athletics.

"In 1972 when Fry arrived in Denton the football program was depressed and underfunded. He set to work raising money in creative ways—at one point receiving a large sum from the famous country singer Willie Nelson, who had agreed to play a benefit concert and signed over his fee to Fry and the program on the spot."

https://www.5thdowncfb.com/post/hayden-fry-classic-north-texas-mean-green-set-to-honor-legendary-head-coach-against-smu-mustangs

Bob Hope became a Mean Green Club member (with MG hat!) for his donation during part of this short film about Coach Fry leaving Smut to coach NT...

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1040494/m1/

Edited June 7, 2023 by NT80

[wardly]

I lived in Indianapolis from 1972 thru 1974 and until you posted this information was unaware of their Involvement, as you were regarding Nolan moving  money from designated funds to athletics, the terrible attendance average during Fry's tenure, and the absurd notion that the SWC was ever interested in extending UNT an invitation for membership. Perhaps a little weed from Willie?

[NT80]

7 hours ago, wardly said:

I lived in Indianapolis from 1972 thru 1974 and until you posted this information was unaware of their Involvement, as you were regarding Nolan moving  money from designated funds to athletics, the terrible attendance average during Fry's tenure, and the absurd notion that the SWC was ever interested in extending UNT an invitation for membership. Perhaps a little weed from Willie?

Your recall of events sounds a little "clouded" itself.   The SWC was a proposal.

[wardly]

1 hour ago, NT80 said:

Your recall of events sounds a little "clouded" itself.   The SWC was a proposal.

This is silly. I do appreciate the information given about Willy, Hope, and Rex, as I was completely unaware of their generosity. Regarding the SWC, I doubt any proposal for admittance came from them. It was Fry's dream, but with poor attendance and a lack of resources it just didn't happen.

[Arkstfan]

On 5/25/2023 at 4:47 PM, DentonLurker said:

Honestly, I think the fight against the P5-G5 distinction is a losing battle. If you break the P5-G5 naming convention, someone will come up with something new to distinguish the two groups.

AAC is dropping P6 because the the whole P5/G5 thing is becoming irrelevant.

In the BCS era, there wasn't much of a revenue difference between ACC, B1G, B12, P10, and SEC. Then you had Big East who was in the BCS club but the revenue gap between them and the rest of the AQ was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC. Then you had WAC then SBC and MAC.

Before that the revenue of ACC, Big 8, B1G, Pac-10, SEC, and SWC was about the same. Then you had the WAC, then you had MAC and Big West.

The market has changed that all up.

You've got B1G and SEC. Below them ACC. Then you have Big XII nipping at their heels with a who knows what happens with Pac-12. Then you've got a pile up with AAC, MWC, SBC all pretty close together, then MAC and CUSA 4.0 or 5.0 or whatever it is now ending at the bottom of the heap.Market forces have skimmed off the notable value of what was once called the G5. Outside of SDSU (who appears fairly likely to move P12), Boise State and arguably Memphis and UConn there just aren't schools that do much for value of the leagues making more money.

We've progressed from six schools being atop the heap in money to 5 to now two. From 55 in the top of the heap to 32 and probably no more 8-10 schools that could join them without a negative impact on revenue per school.

Karl Marx was right about the progression of unfettered capitalism in that more and more resources will be concentrated in fewer hands. So far he hasn't been proven right about what comes next. People tend to skip over Adam Smith's advice that the wealthy should be taxed in greater proportion to wealth so that the resources circulate rather than being hoarded.

The NFL probably never becomes what it is today if the owners hadn't agreed to turn all their TV rights over to the league. Each team made its own deal. The Giants and Redskins had very lucrative deals. Giants by virtue of being in the richest market and the Redskins had assembled a syndicated network that covered most of the south. Consolidation put teams on more equal financial footing as the war with the AFL started. It cleared the way to expansion in Dallas and Minnesota. The Tigers would have lost their TV in Minnesota and Skins feared Dallas would compete for southern markets.

Unless something changes it is inevitable media rights for SEC and B1G will continue to grow faster than any others and the "middle class" will shrink in comparison.

[NT80]

3 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

AAC is dropping P6 because the the whole P5/G5 thing is becoming irrelevant.

In the BCS era, there wasn't much of a revenue difference between ACC, B1G, B12, P10, and SEC. Then you had Big East who was in the BCS club but the revenue gap between them and the rest of the AQ was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC. Then you had WAC then SBC and MAC.

Before that the revenue of ACC, Big 8, B1G, Pac-10, SEC, and SWC was about the same. Then you had the WAC, then you had MAC and Big West.

The market has changed that all up.

You've got B1G and SEC. Below them ACC. Then you have Big XII nipping at their heels with a who knows what happens with Pac-12. Then you've got a pile up with AAC, MWC, SBC all pretty close together, then MAC and CUSA 4.0 or 5.0 or whatever it is now ending at the bottom of the heap.Market forces have skimmed off the notable value of what was once called the G5. Outside of SDSU (who appears fairly likely to move P12), Boise State and arguably Memphis and UConn there just aren't schools that do much for value of the leagues making more money.

We've progressed from six schools being atop the heap in money to 5 to now two. From 55 in the top of the heap to 32 and probably no more 8-10 schools that could join them without a negative impact on revenue per school.

Karl Marx was right about the progression of unfettered capitalism in that more and more resources will be concentrated in fewer hands. So far he hasn't been proven right about what comes next. People tend to skip over Adam Smith's advice that the wealthy should be taxed in greater proportion to wealth so that the resources circulate rather than being hoarded.

The NFL probably never becomes what it is today if the owners hadn't agreed to turn all their TV rights over to the league. Each team made its own deal. The Giants and Redskins had very lucrative deals. Giants by virtue of being in the richest market and the Redskins had assembled a syndicated network that covered most of the south. Consolidation put teams on more equal financial footing as the war with the AFL started. It cleared the way to expansion in Dallas and Minnesota. The Tigers would have lost their TV in Minnesota and Skins feared Dallas would compete for southern markets.

Unless something changes it is inevitable media rights for SEC and B1G will continue to grow faster than any others and the "middle class" will shrink in comparison.

Do your foresee the SEC, B1G, and perhaps some Big12/ACC combo breaking away to form their own league?  

The new CFP+ seems to keep access for lessor conferences for now, but Nick Saban of Alabama and some media have called for more strength of schedules...either with more in-conference games or scheduling only P5 programs, no more G5 and FCS games.  When our access to those P5 matchups goes away, I see a split happening.

[Mean Green 93-98]

34 minutes ago, NT80 said:

Do your foresee the SEC, B1G, and perhaps some Big12/ACC combo breaking away to form their own league?  

The new CFP+ seems to keep access for lessor conferences for now, but Nick Saban of Alabama and some media have called for more strength of schedules...either with more in-conference games or scheduling only P5 programs, no more G5 and FCS games.  When our access to those P5 matchups goes away, I see a split happening.

By "their own league," I assume you mean their own division, subdivision, or maybe even an association completely outside the NCAA?

I know you were specifically asking ArkStFan, but I personally don't see it.  There is still cachet in being able to call your team "national champions," and the more teams in their division/subdivision, the more impressive it appears.  And the way things are going right now with media rights, NIL, and all the other financial winds blowing more strongly at the SEC/B1G's back than ever, they are set up nicely to use competition from lesser conferences to their own advantage.