The NCAA needs to implement the following changes-

1. Salary caps for coaches. ($1m/yr)
2. Equal TV revenue share for all FBS teams, regardless of conference.
3. Clear path for every team to win the national championship, without the help of forces off the field (media, polls, computers). An 8 team playoff consisting of the 10 conference champs (bottom 4 play play-in game) would be a good start.

Ohio State will always be bigger than MTSU, just as the NY Yankees will always be bigger than the FL Marlins. But that doesn't justify creating systemic inequities that insure that the smaller teams cannot grow and become more competitive.

or every professional sports league in the US.

In the pros a coach's salary is usually less than 5% of the player's payroll, no team can swoop in and offer a 5X increase in salary to a coach without the other team being able to match it. A coach's salary cap isn't needed. In college there is no player salary, its all coaches. A salary cap, for players or coaches, provides a more financially even playing field.

When ESPN bought the rights to the FBS playoffs for the next 12 years the terms P5 and G5 were invented so the payout could be split unevenly. Over the next 12 years the P5 will receive approx. $900 million MORE than the G5. The big schools can still have their conference TV deals and big donors and still be filthy rich, but there's no way the G5 can become more competitive with a -$900m disadvantage. And this really is where the evil shows through- the "P5" engineers the terms of the FBS agreement with ESPN that creates the $900 million gap and then complains that the G5 is holding them back because they can't keep up financially.

As for the playoffs, no doubt that the G5 schools would be under dogs but I'll take slim chance over no chance any day.

Coaches salaries in the NFL vary from 2-7 million or so, that's a lot of variation. Not like the FBS, but you wouldn't expect it to be as different based on the level of budget differences in FBS.
Equal tv pay for every conference, regardless of interest or quality of play-now that's a trophy for everyone for sure.
Why can't you admit that the value of the big boys teams versus the smaller schools are dramatically inherently different? We're talking about hundreds of schools playing college football, but If you look at attendence, income, quality of players, etc there are multiple levels. It is coming to the place where the haves and have nots should so obviously be separated because of these differences. I don't have any particular problem recognizing that one group is passing the other and the separation is increasing. I'm not saying it's good, but that's life. Trying to act like everything should be equal so the little guy has a chance to compete is just holding back the group that wants to move forward(towards professionalism). They're going to do it regardless.

I'm talking about equal pay for one TV contract, the one that is designated for the entire Football Sub Division. That's all 128 of us. The good and the bad. I'm not asking that the MACtion deal be the same as what the SEC gets. Why is it too much to suggest that every team within a group get an equal share of a contract that is designated for the entire group? Do conferences split TV contract revenue unevenly amongst their teams? Does the B1G network give Ohio State 3x what they give Purdue? You could certainly make a case that OSU is valued at 3x, so why do they share the money equally? We're not talking about "hundreds of schools", we're talking about 128 schools. The contract is for FBS only, not all of college football, FCS, DII and DIII are separate.

You say that one group is passing the other and, oh well, that's life. But that one group is receiving $900M MORE over the next 12 years, OF COURSE they are passing the other group. I'm not trying to act like everything should be equal, I'm saying every member of a group should be treated fairly. I'll go back to my MLB analogy- major league baseball has revenue sharing and salary caps, that doesn't stop the Yankees from being the Yankees or the Red Sox from being the Red Sox. They will always be the big dogs. But what it does mean is that teams like the Marlins, the Rockies and the Dbacks are able to compete and play for championships too. I don't understand why equitable division of revenue designated for the entire league is considered an unrealistic expectation.

And don't forget Title IX. Licensing revenues for a university affiliating with a pro club team would have to be enough to fund additional men's athletic scholarships to match the number of women's athletic scholarships. Thus far we've seen schools have to cut go the other route--cutting men's sports because schools can't fund the matching women's scholarships (R.I.P. Men's Track). It would be an interesting reversal--and I'm not sure that the economics would work out for more than a handful of football programs.

Note: I'm assuming women's programs wouldn't be further slashed to match men's, since my memory is that the NCAA requires a minimum number of sports to be sponsored. If that's not correct, obviously the math changes a bit.

The amount of money the have nots are getting is probably fair considering where they are in the pecking order and what they deserve based on interest. There aren't 128 teams playing at the highest level, and all this stuff happening is a step in separating along some sort of reasonable levels. Can we face the fact that there aren't 128 highest level programs? The pros have salary caps with salary requirements that require the teams to spend certain amounts to at least try be competitive. There's a reason that 8 teams have joined the FBS ranks the last few years, they want part of the money.
I know it's hard to accept the fact that Ohio is not one of the haves and we are getting left behind, but that is reality.

We are all in the SAME subdivision, until that changes I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that dividing the teams by conference affiliation and creating a $900million gap in payouts over the the next 12 years is fair.

Does Northwestern, the losingest program in FBS history, deserve to receive 3X the revenue of Boise State for a TV contract that runs from 2014-2026 for no other reason than having the dumb luck of joining the B1G way back in 1896? That's fair? Is Wake Forrest 3X more valuable today than Cincinnati?[/QUOTE
You've picked some good one to nominate for not being right. Have to agree with you on those, and there are some others as well. All I'm trying to say is that is already a separation within the group, go ahead and make it official instead if pretending we're all in the same division. If the haves are okay with the NW, wake Forrest, etc be treated like they belong today, I guess I'm okay with that decision.

Absolutely fantastic thread, seriously!  I'm no expert on college messageboards, but Bobcatattack must be the most erudite messageboard out there!  Great stuff Perimeterpost and Colobobcat!

I agree. The discussion here is always top notch (and in actual sentences). I came here out of curiosity a decade ago, and stayed because of the quality of the discussion.


That's why I called if semi-pro. If the courts say these are employees, and the Snob 5 are in it for the money, it seems to be a far reach to claim it is amateur in any way.

I just want to take a moment to revisit the point at which I came into this discussion this morning, the excerpt provided of a Gene Smith interview.  I think this tells us all we need to know about the direction this is going.

Gene Smith has proven that when the integrity of amateur competition is involved, he is not to be bothered by things like ethics, personal integrity, honesty and fair play. 

His thoughts are provided courtesy of the Dispatch, an organization (with various jointly owned media  appendages) that has likewise shown that they will do anything to profit from the money machine that is Ohio State football (and basketball to a lesser extent).

If this is the leadership in this debate, fughettaboutit.

Revisiting this point, I wonder if someone will petition the International Olympic Committee to rule on whether Snob-5 football players are "amateur" anymore, and thus, eligible to compete in the Olympics? I doubt Division I football players compete in the Olympics very often, so it would be a symbolic ruling more than a substantive one.

The IOC gave up the ghost on allowing pro athletes on Olympic teams long ago.  In 1992 Herschel Walker was on the US bobsled team while he was in pro football.  I don't think it's the IOC keeping football players out of the Olympics.  It's the Snob schools; they don't want the stars of their money sport off doing other things during spring and summer camps.