PonyFans.com

I think they bullshitting-but then June and all the rest of you "the schedules too haaaarrrddd" crowd will get your way. It would financially devastate the program but at least we wouldn't have to worry about getting blownout by the only teams our fans care about

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... -schedules

duh, everyone knew they wanted a monopoly worthy of John D. Rockefeller "competition is a sin".
That is the opposite of what we stand for, we need to carry the flag, and prevail.

one thing to consider is that ESPN and other networks are probably going to lower payments to non P5 schools if we don't have those attractive non-conference home tilts against P5 schools. Home team controls TV rights. Sometimes I think that's the main reason they sign non-P5 conferences along with to provide advertisements for their big games

Can we get paid any less?

Will the networks actually get more viewers if this comes to fruition? If my alma mater does not have a dog in the overall long term hunt, can't say that I am watching. Not interested. Maybe there are not enough of people like me in the nonP5 group to matter. Honestly don't know.

Oh yes

You don't think the AAC gets an extra kick when they get to schedule SMU v. Tech, SMU v Baylor, SMU v A&M or SMU v TCU? Those are the only games in Texas where they get ratings.

That's true. And yes, we did get paid a lot less over the past 20 years.

After reading the article, a couple of things stand out.

1) Interesting that ESPN had all of the P5 coaches up in Bristol. It tells you who is really pushing the P5 agenda and trying to eliminate the smaller schools. ESPN wants to turn College Football into a pro league that it can control.

2) Some of the coaches haven't really thought things through. I expected all of the big schools to be in the yes list, but the big 12 breakdown is interesting:

YES: Baylor's Art Briles, Kansas' Charlie Weis, Iowa State's Paul Rhoads, Oklahoma's Bob Stoops, Oklahoma State's Mike Gundy, West Virginia's Dana Holgorsen
NO: Kansas State's Bill Snyder, Texas' Charlie Strong, TCU's Gary Patterson, Texas Tech's Kliff Kingsbury

I expected smaller schools to be in the "NO" category in order to both schedule more home games and have a shot at being bowl eligible. Really interesting to see Texas in the No category. And Ohio State for that matter. Then again, Ohio State, Texas, and Florida State all typically have weak non-conference schedules to enhance the chance at a big run.

Baylor, Kansas, and Iowa State really haven't thought this thing through. The chance of being bowl eligible goes out the window for them a lot of years if they have a tough non-conference. Baylor wouldn't be as well regarded as they are today if they weren't putting 70 something up in their pre-season.

Stallion wrote:Oh yes

You don't think the AAC gets an extra kick when they get to schedule SMU v. Tech, SMU v Baylor, SMU v A&M or SMU v TCU? Those are the only games in Texas where they get ratings.

So you are saying that they will get more viewers by eliminating the nonP5 schools in their scheduling? It maybe so, I don't know the numbers. Evidently ESPN thinks they will get more viewers. To me you would want to broaden the pool of viewers, not cut it.

No I'm saying that a large part of the AAC TV contract is based on AAC teams playing home games with P5 teams. Home team controls TV rights. If the AAC loses this inventory of quality games then ESPN etc are going to pay the AAC less

I think SMU's days of playing football at the D1A level are numbered. I really think in 10-15 years there will be no more football on The Hilltop. Very sad.

I propose that all g5 fans boycott watching any game involving two p5 teams.

Note-these aren't exact numbers because I haven't calculated it but:

SMU v A&M in College Station
SEC network pays 1.5 Million per game

SMU v A&M in Dallas
AAC network pays $250,000 per game

ESPN gets a bargain with its AAC TV contract when SMU plays A&M in Dallas

That would be irrelevant. 1. G5 will lose a ton of fans by being 2nd tier. 2. We are all G5 because we don't have many fans

smusportspage wrote:Will the networks actually get more viewers if this comes to fruition? If my alma mater does not have a dog in the overall long term hunt, can't say that I am watching. Not interested. Maybe there are not enough of people like me in the nonP5 group to matter. Honestly don't know.

I agree with this sentiment. If SMU is permanently kicked out of the highest level of competition, with no games against P5 teams and no access to BCS/Access Bowls or the Playoff, I'm pretty sure that would be the end of my college football fandom. College sports are not like pro sports - I have a degree that reads "Southern Methodist University" - I can't just hop on the bandwagon of some random school with which I have no connection, and I doubt I'll be interested in rooting my team on to the JV squad championship.