menu
Logo
dark_mode
Logo
dark_mode
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Why Four Teams Dominate
Page: 2 of 3
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
P
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 12:46 PM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
I loathe anything in sports that requires voting/ranking/human judgment of the results. Turns football into figure skating and diving. I've long said the tournament should simply be a tournament of conference champions and the rankings can be burned to the ground. If you don't win your conference, then you don't get a chance at a national title, period. And if you feel certain conferences aren't deserving of a seat in that tournament, then put them in a more appropriate division.

Taking this further, you could disperse the Pac-12 and just make 4 mega Power conferences, then do the same for the non-power conferences and have 2 four team tournaments. Again, the key factor for me being just having conference champions go represent their conference at the national level and not worry about rankings.
What you're saying has merit. In basketball, some "P" teams -- and even a handful of the others -- have an incentive NOT to win their conference's tournament. If they're already guaranteed a slot in March Madness, not playing three or four games in as many days at their conference tourney means they're not as tired for the Dance. Losing in the semifinals doesn't hurt their seeding for the NCAA. Limiting the tourney to champs -- or maybe the top two teams in each conference -- would put more emphasis on the conference tourneys. In football, having two teams from the same conference doesn't make a lot of sense in a four-team playoff.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Last Edited: 1/12/2021 12:48:46 PM by Pataskala
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,734
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 1:35 PM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
I loathe anything in sports that requires voting/ranking/human judgment of the results. Turns football into figure skating and diving. I've long said the tournament should simply be a tournament of conference champions and the rankings can be burned to the ground. If you don't win your conference, then you don't get a chance at a national title, period. And if you feel certain conferences aren't deserving of a seat in that tournament, then put them in a more appropriate division.

Taking this further, you could disperse the Pac-12 and just make 4 mega Power conferences, then do the same for the non-power conferences and have 2 four team tournaments. Again, the key factor for me being just having conference champions go represent their conference at the national level and not worry about rankings.
What you're saying has merit. In basketball, some "P" teams -- and even a handful of the others -- have an incentive NOT to win their conference's tournament. If they're already guaranteed a slot in March Madness, not playing three or four games in as many days at their conference tourney means they're not as tired for the Dance. Losing in the semifinals doesn't hurt their seeding for the NCAA. Limiting the tourney to champs -- or maybe the top two teams in each conference -- would put more emphasis on the conference tourneys. In football, having two teams from the same conference doesn't make a lot of sense in a four-team playoff.
Well, except when teams from that conference have won 4 of 7 championships in this format and 12 of the last 20.

The SEC keeps proving they deserve multiple teams. Switching to a format that ensures the MAC gets to be involved has nothing to do with the best teams playing.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,860
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 1:56 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I loathe anything in sports that requires voting/ranking/human judgment of the results. Turns football into figure skating and diving. I've long said the tournament should simply be a tournament of conference champions and the rankings can be burned to the ground. If you don't win your conference, then you don't get a chance at a national title, period. And if you feel certain conferences aren't deserving of a seat in that tournament, then put them in a more appropriate division.

Taking this further, you could disperse the Pac-12 and just make 4 mega Power conferences, then do the same for the non-power conferences and have 2 four team tournaments. Again, the key factor for me being just having conference champions go represent their conference at the national level and not worry about rankings.
What you're saying has merit. In basketball, some "P" teams -- and even a handful of the others -- have an incentive NOT to win their conference's tournament. If they're already guaranteed a slot in March Madness, not playing three or four games in as many days at their conference tourney means they're not as tired for the Dance. Losing in the semifinals doesn't hurt their seeding for the NCAA. Limiting the tourney to champs -- or maybe the top two teams in each conference -- would put more emphasis on the conference tourneys. In football, having two teams from the same conference doesn't make a lot of sense in a four-team playoff.
Well, except when teams from that conference have won 4 of 7 championships in this format and 12 of the last 20.

The SEC keeps proving they deserve multiple teams. Switching to a format that ensures the MAC gets to be involved has nothing to do with the best teams playing.
BINGO!!!!
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,861
GC105
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 2:04 PM
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,734
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 2:15 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
This seems about right to me. At 16 teams, there's no viable way to put all G5 conference champs in, nor does it make sense to. They're simply not better than the teams they'd be replacing.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,861
GC105
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 2:55 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
This seems about right to me. At 16 teams, there's no viable way to put all G5 conference champs in, nor does it make sense to. They're simply not better than the teams they'd be replacing.
I more or less agree. Would love to see all conferences make it, but handing out the top seeds to Power conferences would then become the issue. Klatt has the conference champs plus the top G5 getting the top six seeds. This way you're not rewarding say Florida or Iowa State for losing 3 games. Instead, prove you belong.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,387
AS
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 3:16 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
This seems about right to me. At 16 teams, there's no viable way to put all G5 conference champs in, nor does it make sense to. They're simply not better than the teams they'd be replacing.
If we want to make sense of it then there were four SEC teams better than to$u this year based on comparative scores against Alabama - teams that got beat by less than 28 points.
Andrew Ruck
General User
Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 5,717
mail
Andrew Ruck
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 5:01 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
At 16 teams, there's no viable way to put all G5 conference champs in, nor does it make sense to. They're simply not better than the teams they'd be replacing.
Which is why I said just carve the non-power conferences out into a separate division/tournament. Why continue to pretend to be in the same division? Every league of anything on earth these days ends in some culminating chance at a title except for non-power D1 football teams.
Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,734
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 5:31 PM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
At 16 teams, there's no viable way to put all G5 conference champs in, nor does it make sense to. They're simply not better than the teams they'd be replacing.
Which is why I said just carve the non-power conferences out into a separate division/tournament. Why continue to pretend to be in the same division? Every league of anything on earth these days ends in some culminating chance at a title except for non-power D1 football teams.

At that point, why create a third division with so few schools? Why not just play at the FCS level?
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,387
AS
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 5:47 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
At 16 teams, there's no viable way to put all G5 conference champs in, nor does it make sense to. They're simply not better than the teams they'd be replacing.
Which is why I said just carve the non-power conferences out into a separate division/tournament. Why continue to pretend to be in the same division? Every league of anything on earth these days ends in some culminating chance at a title except for non-power D1 football teams.

At that point, why create a third division with so few schools? Why not just play at the FCS level?
Two divisions or three - as Andrew says - let's quit pretending.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,977
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 6:17 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
I think that this could be made to work. Going FCS, as some are advocating, would actually cost us money, as L.C., and others have documented. We are not pretending. I find statements to that effect somewhat disingenuous.
The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org
Last Edited: 1/12/2021 6:17:53 PM by OhioCatFan
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,734
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/12/2021 6:45 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
I think that this could be made to work. Going FCS, as some are advocating, would actually cost us money, as L.C., and others have documented. We are not pretending. I find statements to that effect somewhat disingenuous.
Do we lose money only if you assume the TV money goes away?
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,387
AS
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 8:47 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
I think that this could be made to work. Going FCS, as some are advocating, would actually cost us money, as L.C., and others have documented. We are not pretending. I find statements to that effect somewhat disingenuous.
Lose money? We are operating at a deficit now. Until someone can show actual verifiable figures, I for one will be skeptical of the claims that we will lose money. While we may bring in less money, costs will also be less so I'd like to see a net to net comparison.

At the end of the day though, unless the majority of the conference votes to make this move, I doubt if it will happen. Natural rivalries would be necessary for the 18 to 20K attendance we'd need like the top 1 AA schools get.
Last Edited: 1/13/2021 9:28:19 AM by Alan Swank
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,861
GC105
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 9:27 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
FWIW Fox Sports' Joel Klatt introduced a 14-team Playoff that I'm all for. He's tweaking the committee and bringing back some elements of the computer rankings from the BCS to take out the human bias.

-Remove conference divisions
-Minimum 9 conference games, minimum one Power 5 non-conference game
-Automatic bids to P5 champs and Best Group of Five
-Maximum 2 losses for Independents
-Top two seeds get a bye (just like the new NFL playoffs)
-First rounds at campus sites

This year based off the old BCS computers:

#1 Alabama

#8 Texas A&M/#9 Indiana

#5 Oklahoma/#12 Coastal Carolina

#4 Cincinnati/#13 Iowa State

-----

#2 Clemson

#7 Notre Dame/#10 Georgia

#6 Oregon/#11 Florida

#3 Ohio State/ #14 North Carolina

Still doesn't include every group of 5 conference, but this at least gives you a clearer picture. You can still get in.
I think that this could be made to work. Going FCS, as some are advocating, would actually cost us money, as L.C., and others have documented. We are not pretending. I find statements to that effect somewhat disingenuous.
Do we lose money only if you assume the TV money goes away?
I'd argue that if the MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA and Mountain West went the FCS, there would be plenty of TV money. You'd have to get all of them to buy in, which probably wouldn't happen.
Andrew Ruck
General User
Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 5,717
mail
Andrew Ruck
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 11:29 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
At that point, why create a third division with so few schools? Why not just play at the FCS level?
There are already 127 FCS teams, a move like this would push it to 200. similar situation would be created, most likely the formerly D1 team become dominant while the "legacy" FCS teams become that "no chance" group.

There is massive disparity in these programs in many ways, and with only a 12 game schedule...smaller more appropriately grouped divisions are needed.
Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,860
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 11:37 AM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
At that point, why create a third division with so few schools? Why not just play at the FCS level?
There are already 127 FCS teams, a move like this would push it to 200. similar situation would be created, most likely the formerly D1 team become dominant while the "legacy" FCS teams become that "no chance" group.

There is massive disparity in these programs in many ways, and with only a 12 game schedule...smaller more appropriately grouped divisions are needed.
FCS is basically any school that has DI basketball and competes at less than 85 football scholarships. The discrepancy between those 127 teams is arguably greater than the FBS schools as far as resources from top to bottom. The 127 FCS schools are not even remotely made to compete against each other. Just a place to park many schools who play DI basketball.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,387
AS
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 1:40 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
At that point, why create a third division with so few schools? Why not just play at the FCS level?
There are already 127 FCS teams, a move like this would push it to 200. similar situation would be created, most likely the formerly D1 team become dominant while the "legacy" FCS teams become that "no chance" group.

There is massive disparity in these programs in many ways, and with only a 12 game schedule...smaller more appropriately grouped divisions are needed.
FCS is basically any school that has DI basketball and competes at less than 85 football scholarships. The discrepancy between those 127 teams is arguably greater than the FBS schools as far as resources from top to bottom. The 127 FCS schools are not even remotely made to compete against each other. Just a place to park many schools who play DI basketball.
The discrepancy in resources is not a true statement. The difference between an Alabama or a to$u football budget and the lowest D 1 football school is much much greater than the difference between the highest and lowest 1 AA football schools. And whether they can compete or not, if they catch lightning in a bottle one year, they are in the tournament. Heck, for the schools outside those five conferences, they don't even have the bottle.
Last Edited: 1/13/2021 4:46:38 PM by Alan Swank
Bobcat1996
General User
B1996
Member Since: 1/2/2017
Post Count: 1,264
B1996
mail
Bobcat1996
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 2:21 PM
Did anyone ever think that maybe the schools in the MAC, Sun Belt, MWC and CUSA don't ever expect to win a national championship? They could have different aspirations. Football is so much different than basketball. Football doesn't have a league tournament at the end of the regular season where a team that ended up 10th in the league standings can get a seat in the NCAA tournament. The regular season is much more important in football. In basketball all teams have a second chance at the end of the regular season, no matter how poor your record is. That is what makes March Madness so fun to watch. It could be those conferences above are striving to win as many games as possible and be successful in a bowl game. Nothing wrong with that formula.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,861
GC105
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 2:42 PM
Bobcat1996 wrote:expand_more
Did anyone ever think that maybe the schools in the MAC, Sun Belt, MWC and CUSA don't ever expect to win a national championship? They could have different aspirations. Football is so much different than basketball. Football doesn't have a league tournament at the end of the regular season where a team that ended up 10th in the league standings can get a seat in the NCAA tournament. The regular season is much more important in football. In basketball all teams have a second chance at the end of the regular season, no matter how poor your record is. That is what makes March Madness so fun to watch. It could be those conferences above are striving to win as many games as possible and be successful in a bowl game. Nothing wrong with that formula.
You're implying that these conferences don't want to compete for championships in football and are just happy getting a check? I don't think that's necessarily the case, but as Bobcat Love pointed out there is a method to this madness. If these administrators and presidents play ball in the lower leagues and don't cause a fuss, they'll get a better chance at being a power conference job some day.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,734
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 3:00 PM
Bobcat1996 wrote:expand_more
Did anyone ever think that maybe the schools in the MAC, Sun Belt, MWC and CUSA don't ever expect to win a national championship? They could have different aspirations. Football is so much different than basketball. Football doesn't have a league tournament at the end of the regular season where a team that ended up 10th in the league standings can get a seat in the NCAA tournament. The regular season is much more important in football. In basketball all teams have a second chance at the end of the regular season, no matter how poor your record is. That is what makes March Madness so fun to watch. It could be those conferences above are striving to win as many games as possible and be successful in a bowl game. Nothing wrong with that formula.
I'm fine with this as the formula until you make your football coach the highest paid university employee. As soon as you do that, the formula you lay out makes no sense at all because you've found yourself in the worst possible situation. You're dumping money into something with a very low probability of return, and you're not even competing at a level that excites your alumni (which leads to donations) or fan base (which leads to revenue).

If the goal's essentially rah rah go team, play for the love of the game, amateurism is pure, that's all well and good. But you don't need to pay your football coach 2x the salary of the University President to do that. And paying your coach that much begs the question as to why you are, and what you're trying to achieve.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,860
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 9:13 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
At that point, why create a third division with so few schools? Why not just play at the FCS level?
There are already 127 FCS teams, a move like this would push it to 200. similar situation would be created, most likely the formerly D1 team become dominant while the "legacy" FCS teams become that "no chance" group.

There is massive disparity in these programs in many ways, and with only a 12 game schedule...smaller more appropriately grouped divisions are needed.
FCS is basically any school that has DI basketball and competes at less than 85 football scholarships. The discrepancy between those 127 teams is arguably greater than the FBS schools as far as resources from top to bottom. The 127 FCS schools are not even remotely made to compete against each other. Just a place to park many schools who play DI basketball.
The discrepancy in resources is not a true statement. The difference between an Alabama or a to$u football budget and the lowest D 1 football school is much much greater than the difference between the highest and lowest 1 AA football schools. And whether they can compete or not, if they catch lightning in a bottle one year, they are in the tournament. Heck, for the schools outside those five conferences, they don't even have the bottle.
minus the fact that some FCS are full scholarship and some FCS are ZERO scholarhip is a bigger difference than how many square feet the players lounge is and how many pool tables and XBox's Alabama has vs. OHIO. At the end of the day, Can I go to school for free or do I have to pay to be here. N. Dakota and S. Dakota fully funds their FCS programs and then some. Morehead State and Dayton do not. Yes, Bama may have 8 more pool tables and makes steak every night, with shrimp as a side meal. But the differnence between the Dakota's and actually being fed a meal vs. Dayton where you purchase each meal is radically a different time zone

The key disparity is how much scholarship money you giving! everything else is simply gravy!
Last Edited: 1/13/2021 9:14:33 PM by BillyTheCat
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,977
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 1/13/2021 11:55 PM
Good points BTC, especially the last one.
The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org
Bobcat1996
General User
B1996
Member Since: 1/2/2017
Post Count: 1,264
B1996
mail
Bobcat1996
mail
Posted: 1/14/2021 8:57 AM
Overall, the Big Ten prior to cuts had two coaches in the top-10 of pay, with Harbaugh leading the Big Ten and ranked No. 4 nationally. Five schools rank in the top-15, and nine rank in the top-25 (Penn State’s James Franklin and Purdue’s Jeff Brohm edge Minnesota’s P.J. Fleck to No. 26).

Pre-COVID-19 salary cut rankings:

Jim Harbaugh: $8,054,000
James Franklin: $6,700,000
Ryan Day: $5,748,264
Pat Fitzgerald: $5,218,658*
Mel Tucker: $5,057,000
Scott Frost: $5,000,000
Kirk Ferentz: $4,900,000
Jeff Brohm: $4,800,000
P.J. Fleck: $4,600,000
Paul Chryst: $4,250,000
Greg Schiano: $4,030,000
Love Smith: $4,000,000
Tom Allen: $3,770,000
Mike Locksley: $2,605,000
*Pat Fitzgerald’s salary prior to a voluntary pay-cut was unavailable. His salary figure represents post voluntary cut of undisclosed amount/percentage.


Interesting info from the above chart. Not sure what the University Presidents of Maryland or Rutgers get paid, but guessing Locksley and Schiano more than double that. Throw in Lovie Smith and Harbaugh also. Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois and as long as Harbaugh is still coaching in Ann Arbor have no shot at winning a national championship.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,615
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 1/14/2021 12:47 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The key disparity is how much scholarship money you giving! everything else is simply gravy!
Agreed. To put it in another way, a lot of the $ bama or o$u are spending beyond what Ohio is spending gets hit by the law of diminishing returns...
I've seen crazier things happen.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,734
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:07 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
The key disparity is how much scholarship money you giving! everything else is simply gravy!
Agreed. To put it in another way, a lot of the $ bama or o$u are spending beyond what Ohio is spending gets hit by the law of diminishing returns...
It seems like the return's pretty solid.
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 58
View Other Ohio Football Topics
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Saturday, October 17, 2026
chevron_right
Who's Online

There are 109 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

108 Guests
1 Registered User:
Ryan Carey