[Mick]

- First off, here is a link to the ESPN article
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-schedules

- The article says that 46 percent (30 of 65) of the big-5 conference coaches would prefer a schedule consisting only of other big-5 teams. They call that a majority in the title. An earlier version of the story called that "A simple majority" and I see they have changed that now to "Many". It seems at least somebody at ESPN knows what the word majority means.

- 65 big-5 conference teams apparently includes the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends (there are 64 teams in the Big-5 conferences). That likely chaps BYU's hide.

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10316.msg93815#msg93815 date=1407424909]
While I generally favor stronger schedules, I think the Big Five-only idea seems a little incestuous. I think it's useful to play schools like BYU once in a while as a check on our own bs. And the occasional Appalachian State upset of Michigan is a good thing for college football.

- Just using your comment to make a point that playing Appalachian State et al. (FBS) is a different issue from playing BYU, SJS et al. (BCS - non-big 5 conference). Some conferences are moving toward not having FBS games, as far as I know there is no actual movement toward having Big 5 only schedules.

- I thought Bill Snyder's (Kansas State) comments were probably the most truthful.
"Kansas State's Bill Snyder was against it. Snyder's reasoning was that the Wildcats annually need seven home games because of the amount of money brought into the Manhattan, Kansas, community. By playing only Power Five opponents, Snyder said K-State would not be able to schedule seven home games each season."

- In another articles on ESPN Snyder wails about the professionalization and corruption of college sports, but in a sort of "this is terrible, but everyone is doing it so we must too" kind of way.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...k-sold-out

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

- Such a move have a brobdingnagian impact on our recent discussion of whether big time football was financially feasible/defensible at SJS or not. It would seem it would even further erode a difficult financial picture (70% of AD budget subsidized by student/state funds). In addition I would think it would lower the motivation to keep an expensive football team around (if you cannot even have a game against the big boys, can you keep up the illusion that you are one of them?)
[/quote]

I think the Big Five should play three Out-of-Big-Five conference opponents every year, and if they go 0-3 or 1-2 against those opponents, they should be relegated to lower leagues... :P

[Mick]

- First off, here is a link to the ESPN article
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-schedules

- The article says that 46 percent (30 of 65) of the big-5 conference coaches would prefer a schedule consisting only of other big-5 teams. They call that a majority in the title. An earlier version of the story called that "A simple majority" and I see they have changed that now to "Many". It seems at least somebody at ESPN knows what the word majority means.

- 65 big-5 conference teams apparently includes the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends (there are 64 teams in the Big-5 conferences). That likely chaps BYU's hide.

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10316.msg93815#msg93815 date=1407424909]
While I generally favor stronger schedules, I think the Big Five-only idea seems a little incestuous. I think it's useful to play schools like BYU once in a while as a check on our own bs. And the occasional Appalachian State upset of Michigan is a good thing for college football.

- Just using your comment to make a point that playing Appalachian State et al. (FBS) is a different issue from playing BYU, SJS et al. (BCS - non-big 5 conference). Some conferences are moving toward not having FBS games, as far as I know there is no actual movement toward having Big 5 only schedules.

- I thought Bill Snyder's (Kansas State) comments were probably the most truthful.
"Kansas State's Bill Snyder was against it. Snyder's reasoning was that the Wildcats annually need seven home games because of the amount of money brought into the Manhattan, Kansas, community. By playing only Power Five opponents, Snyder said K-State would not be able to schedule seven home games each season."

- In another articles on ESPN Snyder wails about the professionalization and corruption of college sports, but in a sort of "this is terrible, but everyone is doing it so we must too" kind of way.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...k-sold-out

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

- Such a move have a brobdingnagian impact on our recent discussion of whether big time football was financially feasible/defensible at SJS or not. It would seem it would even further erode a difficult financial picture (70% of AD budget subsidized by student/state funds). In addition I would think it would lower the motivation to keep an expensive football team around (if you cannot even have a game against the big boys, can you keep up the illusion that you are one of them?)
[/quote]

I think the Big Five should play three Out-of-Big-Five conference opponents every year, and if they go 0-3 or 1-2 against those opponents, they should be relegated to lower leagues... :P