One of the big changes the past 10 years as far as attendance is concerned is the networks have full control of the start times. That hampers optimizing start times to maximize attendance and its a problem in both football and basketball. The top for Ohio attendance is likely in. Everything has been tried already with beer and concessions.

10 years ago was before the world of NIL where FBS was scholarship vs. scholarship. MAC as a rural league isn't as competitive that way as even the AAC which makes it easier to compete in. Also the sit out transfer rule made it more possible for basketball programs to build up depth but with free transfer Ohio is losing half its roster every year. Football its less of an issue and provides some space to retool.

The university should avoid big changes in staff as NIL evolves. If in fact Ohio is regulated down to low major status in a few years there would be no point of loading up on a football or basketball coach. NIL is not an exact science as of yet.

It would be great it someone can simplify these changes; what's the cost to Ohio?
This change could have devastating consequences to our sports programs.
I would like to see our AD articulate what this change will mean for Ohio.
Does anyone know when this change will go into effect?




71 BOBCAT

I don't think the MAC as of yet has a plan to opt-in or not.

Big Ten fans are used to having 7 home games most seasons. In order to do that they need 2 buy games most years from G% or FCS teams. If everyone in the B10 does that and they play 10 conference games then there will still be data on how much better (or at least very likely so) the B10 is than the G5 conferences but almost none in how it compares to the rest of the P5. At least, as far as there will be little direct data and only relative comparisons of how the P5 conferences performed against G5 as a whole. SEC and B10 fans expect to dominate playoff at large bids. If the expect that privilege then in my mind it is there job to earn it every year. Something probably won't square here. It might come down to the unspoken give us what we want, if we have earned it this year or not, or we'll get together and leave the NCAA.

It hasn't even been voted on. NCAA annual convention will be the first opportunity to vote on it -- that's in January. Probably a year from implementation if it's voted in.

The most likely reason that the big schools wouldn't vote for this is that they may have no interest in cutting the NCAA in on any of this. If they're effectively paying players directly, do they need a governing body to oversee them, or should they break off and form their own?

The talks of 50,000 and 60,000 expansions really gave me a giggle.

IF...and that's humongous if given the latest FBS news and amount of money it would take...Ohio were to expand or renovate Peden, I'd want them to do what Oregon State just did. It's a little over 35,000 with the ability to add standing room only. But this was more about quality than quantity.

https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/2023/08/oregon-state-s...

If the university dictated the start times instead of ESPN+ and could have the early season night games again maybe the numbers would return to the point to justify a small deck of 4,000 seats or so. Its not happening if Ohio has to play noon games in August.

No team who could get relegated would ever go for that, though it would be very entertaining.

They might, if the potential benefits were as big as the potential risks. There are plenty of P5 programs that have no real hope of breaking through the top in the current system. There are lots of schools like Kansas, Kansas State Colorado, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Baylor, Minnesota, Oregon State, Rutgers, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Virginia Tech, etc. may have had brighter pasts, but currently have no real path to break through to the top five. If a system is created that not only presents risks of them being relegated down, but also has potential paths for them to be elevated to elite circles, they might agree.