Saban Says He's For Five Conferences

[Eagle1855]

“I’m for five conferences – everybody playing everybody in those five conferences,” the Alabama coach said Thursday night before speaking at a Crimson Caravan stop. “That’s what I’m for, so it might be 70 teams, and everybody’s got to play ’em. …”

....

“I mean, strength of schedule is important, but also, how about the fans? Don’t they want to see good games and all that?

“And the better the games – maybe you don’t have to win every game to be in the championship game. You know? The Giants won the Super Bowl, and what did they lose? Six or seven games a couple years ago? It’s called competition.”

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2013/05/see_what_nick_saban_thinks_of.html

[untjim1995]

This is really starting to gain some steam. IN two days, we have the Ohio State AD coming out with his views on this and now Saban is talking about it. Maybe its been out there from these people before, but the college football media is starting to report it more. I think they are in complete support of their view.

[Eagle1855]

I think it's going to happen. And I think we'll (obviously) be left out of the 70 or 80 (depending on 14- or 16-team conferences). There may be lawsuits as a result and state legislatures may block such initiatives. But to tell you the truth, I don't really care anymore. While I don't blame any university for "getting theirs", TV money has all but ruined college football. It has divided rivalries and ripped apart conferences. It's created an arms race for extravagant resources that could easily be scaled down and devoted to something more worthwhile (you know, like educating students). The whole thing just sucks.

Of course, I may be wrong, and that's okay: these are just my opinions. College football has been my favorite sport for as long as I can remember (sitting side-by-side with good ole faithful baseball). It's just getting harder and harder to rationalize what's going on in higher education and this "amateur" NCAA sport in an allegedly cash-strapped nation.

There's nothing like game day on a college campus - the tailgating, the pageantry, the pride, the memories - and that's about all I need anymore.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Eagle1855

[emmitt01]

Funny exchange betwen Saban and Stoops. I, for one, think Stoops is just begging for Big XII credibility.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-05-10/bob-stoops-sec-propaganda-big-12-nick-saban-alabama-national-championships

[drex]

Well, the dirty little secret is that football's lifespan may be shortenen considerably due to law suits for injuries and the reluctance of parents to let their boys play the game. The talent pool could be severely reduced, thus causing football to die a lingering death. I hate to see it happen, but it could.

[CMJ]

Well, the dirty little secret is that football's lifespan may be shortenen considerably due to law suits for injuries and the reluctance of parents to let their boys play the game. The talent pool could be severely reduced, thus causing football to die a lingering death. I hate to see it happen, but it could.

Could be, but I think we're quite awhile from that. However, boxing used to be a massive deal before it became thought of as more of a bloodsport.. Even when I was a kid, I'd say Mike Tyson was just as huge as any other athlete.

[cdizzle86]

They were just talking about this on ESPN. Spoke to Big 12 commissioner and he agreed that the SEC is the best, but that they also have teams that compete at a high level (Texas & OU). Then they got onto the topic of the Big 12 expanding, and who they should add....I bet you can guess who was left out of the discussion entirely. They mentioned SMU, Tulsa, Houston, and even possibly Cincy.

[Eagle1855]

They were just talking about this on ESPN. Spoke to Big 12 commissioner and he agreed that the SEC is the best, but that they also have teams that compete at a high level (Texas & OU). Then they got onto the topic of the Big 12 expanding, and who they should add....I bet you can guess who was left out of the discussion entirely. They mentioned SMU, Tulsa, Houston, and even possibly Cincy.

I think there's no chance of SMU nor Tulsa making it to the Big XII. Memphis, Cincy, and BYU, however, will likely be on their short-list.

Houston is a wildcard. And they're a good, strategic fit for the Big XII, but there are pride issues with other member schools.

We have zero shot at the Big XII. Our best bet would have been the Big East (Now AAC, which likely won't exist by 2016). Our academic profile isn't such that we'd be invited to a Big 10, Pac 12, nor the ACC. And our athletic profile isn't even on the SEC's radar.

In short, we're out of the equation no matter which variables you plug in.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Eagle1855

[meangreendork]

I think there's no chance of SMU nor Tulsa making it to the Big XII. Memphis, Cincy, and BYU, however, will likely be on their short-list.

Houston is a wildcard. And they're a good, strategic fit for the Big XII, but there are pride issues with other member schools.

We have zero shot at the Big XII. Our best bet would have been the Big East (Now AAC, which likely won't exist by 2016). Our academic profile isn't such that we'd be invited to a Big 10, Pac 12, nor the ACC. And our athletic profile isn't even on the SEC's radar.

In short, we're out of the equation no matter which variables you plug in.

I'd hate to see Tulsa miss out. I don't think SMU is worth adding, though. And us? We've got a ways to go.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Stoops, speaking about anything other than defense, is suspect...and, he's starting to lose credibility there.

As to the five conferences, I saw that I somewhat agree. The idea that you have to be perfect to win a championship is stupid. It's half or more of what has caused problems in getting a real national champion at the I-A/BCS or whatever you want to call it level,

This has led to the scheduling of FCS's. It's why some of the members of those five conferences are going to seven and eight home game schedules.

Everything is out of whack. The new playoff is a joke.

If no one will really challenge on antitrust grounds, and everybody is just going to accept certain conferences controlling who will be included in a national title picture, then just get to the end game.

Let there be five conferences of the biggest. My guess is, once that is decided, there will be some minor shuffling. Then, let the remaining 50-60 schools form conferences that makes sense regionally.

I hate to say this, but it's just the way it is now: We have to accept that the ship began sailing after OU and Georgia won their court case and Notre Dame saw the light of it and signed their own TV contract. Then, the major conferences hijacked the bowl with their Bowl Alliance, then BCS, and soon to be College Football Playoff.

We have to face the fact the we are not one of the chosen. When the ship began sailing, we were wasting time in I-AA. As the facilities arms race heated up in the 1990s, we stayed asleep, adding some high school bleachers to get to the NCAAs then 30,000 seat rule to jump back in to I-A.

We have a beautiful new stadium. Great. We can fill it the way Montana fills theirs.

We've had so many bad/indifferent leaders at NTSU/UNT. Their apathy hurt as much as joining conferences with commissioners who had no foresight.

The Five Conference Who Rule will be:

SEC

Big Ten

PAC 12

ACC

Big 12

That will leave everyone else to fend for themselves. Yes, that means even you, SMU and Houston. You, too, will be in the same boat with us - the unchosen and slow to act.

If this Five Conference thing really does happen, I so no reason why the remainders don't fall into line regionally and live with it. Have a playoff and get on with it. The charade must end. It will end painfully for dozens and dozens of programs. But, end it must, nonetheless.

Edited May 10, 2013 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[meangreener]

With the absurd amount of moveups, I don't even care what happens other than the W on Saturday. I knew this would come out ugly with everyone and their mother moving to FBS...it has hit a saturation point. Just worry about yourself, NT.

[Stan R]

Right fine Lonnie except that I don't think you can kick out 60 schools without them trying to band together and fight it. And there are some major political players in that list I'm sure as well. ESPN might not like it either, and may object to that change.

[meangreener]

Right fine Lonnie except that I don't think you can kick out 60 schools without them trying to band together and fight it. And there are some major political players in that list I'm sure as well. ESPN might not like it either, and may object to that change.

The reason I doubt this happens is you have a lot of schools that moved up and spent the money. If the big conferences try to break away, these schools (us) likely all band together and sue for antitrust. Together, we'd all hold a lot of clout. I don't even know. I for one think the FBS is a little oversaturated.

I think what should happen is let the D league go ahead and form their division. As long as we maintain a foot hold on the one playoff spot and are eligible to be ranked as well as schedule/play each other, go ahead. Who gives a flying f**k?

Edited May 10, 2013 by meangreener

[Eagle1855]

ESPN might not like it either, and may object to that change.

I feel like ESPN is driving the bus. They just gave the SEC an insane TV deal... and have lucrative deals with several other conferences as well as the Longhorns. I don't know why ESPN would care at all.

But I do think the anti-trust issues are valid. Though I'm not a lawyer.

[FirefightnRick]

...I bet you can guess who was left out of the discussion entirely..

Of course not because we are not a SQUEEKY WHEEL. No one greases a a quiet one.

Three years ago the SMU AD called a pressed conference and was screaming...even demanding... that SMU be given the next chance at the Big 12. And sure, people giggled a little but the Big East came calling shortly after. And now this. Who's laughing now?

SQUEEKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE!

Rick

[ragpicker]

I think it's going to happen. And I think we'll (obviously) be left out of the 70 or 80 (depending on 14- or 16-team conferences). There may be lawsuits as a result and state legislatures may block such initiatives. But to tell you the truth, I don't really care anymore. While I don't blame any university for "getting theirs", TV money has all but ruined college football. It has divided rivalries and ripped apart conferences. It's created an arms race for extravagant resources that could easily be scaled down and devoted to something more worthwhile (you know, like educating students). The whole thing just sucks.

Of course, I may be wrong, and that's okay: these are just my opinions. College football has been my favorite sport for as long as I can remember (sitting side-by-side with good ole faithful baseball). It's just getting harder and harder to rationalize what's going on in higher education and this "amateur" NCAA sport in an allegedly cash-strapped nation.

There's nothing like game day on a college campus - the tailgating, the pageantry, the pride, the memories - and that's about all I need anymore.

I cannot add a word to this post. It sums up my thoughts perfectly.

[GrayEagle]

Well, the dirty little secret is that football's lifespan may be shortenen considerably due to law suits for injuries and the reluctance of parents to let their boys play the game. The talent pool could be severely reduced, thus causing football to die a lingering death. I hate to see it happen, but it could.

As it stands today, what you say is a real possibility. However, it's hard for me to believe that a relatively light concussion-proof helmet won't be designed; perhaps similar to that of racecar drivers. Not only college football is at stake but another Junior Seau instance will put pro football under the microscope.

[drex]

Yeah, technology could save football's bacon...I hope so. As to the 'big boys' who want their own party, the remaining schools should begin to use the term 'college football' every chance they get and refer to the big boys as semi-pro, which is essentially what they are now. Suggested slogan--'At North Texas we play real college football with student athletes.'

[Texas Stranger]

As it stands today, what you say is a real possibility. However, it's hard for me to believe that a relatively light concussion-proof helmet won't be designed; perhaps similar to that of racecar drivers. Not only college football is at stake but another Junior Seau instance will put pro football under the microscope.

How the NFL has gone this long without a live-action death during a play (not counting heat stress or heart failure, more like trauma from contact) is astounding. Yes, technology has helped, but they've been ridiculously lucky. Reggie Brown is probably the closest they've been so far, but it will happen eventually. What then? Will fans shrug it off, thinking the players are assuming a known risk? The live-action death of Dale Earnhardt Sr didn't hurt NASCAR's popularity, it helped increase it (from tributes, etc).

[JesseMartin]

I have to think about the "what then?" issues. Not only would you have a lengthy antitrust case (which would likely prevent any movement during its decade or two of dragging-out, with dozens of schools AND states filing together, sending amicus briefs, and likely getting injunctions to continue as "normal" until the case reaches a gigantic freaking resolution), but after the dust settles, IF the power conferences get their way, what becomes of the rest? Does the rest of FBS get its own division (or become the new I-A), or do we all go back down with the FCS? If the FBS splits, and we don't get absorbed by FCS, do they become D-II, D2 becomes D3, etc?

I also have to assume that the coaches and ADs promoting this are speaking only of their preferences, and are given a long leash by their respective administrations due to the amount of on-the-field success they've had, and the media is pushing it because they've decided that that is what they prefer. But the fact is that if there is any movement on this, even the vast number of lawyers, politicians, and judges who went to those schools will have to put aside their school pride in favor of professionalism. None of them (at least none who knows what they are doing) wants to be embarrassed by an outcome that doesn't favor the conference their big-time football school is in. And the literal and figurative costs of attempting this would be more than any reasonable Regent, Chancellor, etc. would want to funnel into their conference's legal fund for the battle.

It sucks to admit it, but the current structure that already favors the power conferences but allows for mid-majors with great seasons and upset victories is far more exciting than a round-robin of semi-pros. And what if the UNTs or Balls Taters or MUTS of the new lower rung pull a bunch of upsets? They would still get left out, even if they had a great team worthy of vying for a playoff spot or national title.

That certainly sounds like antitrust to me, and it probably does to almost every University President and Board member in the nation. That's why we only hear this from coaches and ADs. We may even hear it from Conference Commissioners and ESPN anchors. But I suspect this will all settle eventually, one way or the other. If cooler heads prevail, they will not approach an exclusionary tactic that will cost them excessive legal battles and the labels that you guys already mentioned. The system in place, even with changes to allow for greater access by mid-majors, still favors them heavily. The risks involved in pressing for more exclusion far outweigh the benefits. If they don't know that already, then I guess we'll have to prove it to them when the courts become involved. I would suspect that a number of schools that would be lumped in with the power programs would probably object to having to deal with the legal battle as well, and we would probably only see a couple dozen or so actually fighting in favor of such a system.

But as with every North Texas season, so we go with this issue...I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Edited May 13, 2013 by JesseMartin

[untjim1995]

The issue with antitrust is that the schools that control most of the powers legislatively are from those AQ powers already. They control the statehouse, they represent their states in DC, and the networks pay for them. Schools like SMU, Tulane, Southern Miss, Central Florida, etc...don't have enough pull to get their interests protected against Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Florida State. Then, you look at schools like FIU, Arky State, ULL, and UNT and they have even less pull than the schools I mentioned above.

I actually am fine with a Super Conference forming--the d-league of NFL and NBA. Thats what they want and the money is behind that. Let the rest of us play each other on a more fair scale.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

The only school with balls enough to threaten a lawsuit was Utah - and, they were invited to the Pac-12...where they now suck.

[CMJ]

I think a better term to use would be mediocre since they're one game over .500 in football since joining.

[stebo]

I guess that I am in the minority in that I don't think the NCAA would let it happen. If the Big 5 tried to break away, they would be required to break away for all sports. They are still governed by the NCAA and that would mean they would break away from all the other NCAA championships for all other sports as well. Why would the NCAA let them keep their non revenue sports in its org and allow them to take the most marketable sport for TV (in terms of live entertainment - commercial time) to its own new group?

I just don't think these coaches are being realistic. They are thinking about this from a football only view and not looking at student athletes as equal. Who would measure Title IX compliance? Lawsuit. Where does everyone else go? Lawsuit.

Can I see DIV I - FBS getting a revamp of rules, including budget requirements? Yes, that I do see. The rules have actually been relaxed since we moved up and the stadium requirement has completely gone away. Any school can move up now if they have an admin that is willing to commit to the scholarships, or a student body willing to tax themselves, that should not be the benchmark. But there are schools in those big 5 conferences that do not compete with schools in the Gang of 5, or the Independents.

So revamp of rules? Yes. Overhaul and flush out the ULM's of the country? Yes. Break away from the NCAA and have the Big 5 sponsor their own women's volleyball? Nah. Won't happen. They need us and we need them. They will continue to toss crumbs at us and we will take it like we love the abuse. Either that or the Big 5 better start building an infrastructure for various rowing teams, gymnastics, and other non revenue sports.

Most of these quotes come from southern athletic directors or coaches. The teams in the north and west know the power of NCAA basketball and don't want to mess with it. They want competitive football and TV dollars but they want to be in the NCAA.

Edited May 15, 2013 by stebo

[untjim1995]

I guess that I am in the minority in that I don't think the NCAA would let it happen. If the Big 5 tried to break away, they would be required to break away for all sports. They are still governed by the NCAA and that would mean they would break away from all the other NCAA championships for all other sports as well. Why would the NCAA let them keep their non revenue sports in its org and allow them to take the most marketable sport for TV (in terms of live entertainment - commercial time) to its own new group?

I just don't think these coaches are being realistic. They are thinking about this from a football only view and not looking at student athletes as equal. Who would measure Title IX compliance? Lawsuit. Where does everyone else go? Lawsuit.

Can I see DIV I - FBS getting a revamp of rules, including budget requirements? Yes, that I do see. The rules have actually been relaxed since we moved up and the stadium requirement has completely gone away. Any school can move up now if they have an admin that is willing to commit to the scholarships, or a student body willing to tax themselves, that should not be the benchmark. But there are schools in those big 5 conferences that do not compete with schools in the Gang of 5, or the Independents.

So revamp of rules? Yes. Overhaul and flush out the ULM's of the country? Yes. Break away from the NCAA and have the Big 5 sponsor their own women's volleyball? Nah. Won't happen. They need us and we need them. They will continue to toss crumbs at us and we will take it like we love the abuse. Either that or the Big 5 better start building an infrastructure for various rowing teams, gymnastics, and other non revenue sports.

Most of these quotes come from southern athletic directors or coaches. The teams in the north and west know the power of NCAA basketball and don't want to mess with it. They want competitive football and TV dollars but they want to be in the NCAA.

Ohio State's AD basically stated similar views, as did Big Ten's Jim Delany recently. They aren't exactly southern...