CSNbbs

Good point -- but I think you'll agree that it has to be your champ with 0 or 1 losses + P5 wins, and the MWC & AAC champs have to be "down".

(02-20-2017 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Good point -- but I think you'll agree that it has to be your champ with 0 or 1 losses + P5 wins, and the MWC & AAC champs have to be "down".

I look at this as a Cinderella berth. If a G5 team has a break-out undefeated or nearly-undefeated season, that team should merit serious consideration for a top shelf bowl game, and that's what the automatic berth is for. Obviously, if more than one P5 schools has such a season, a choice will need to be made. That could favor the American or the Mountain West. On the other hand, things happen.

I remember the 2003 season. The MAC was completely on fire that year. Ben Roethlisberger led Miami to a 12-1 record. After the bowl games (including a Miami win over Louisville), Jeff Sagarin had them No. 5 overall. I think that team probably would have been in the conversation no matter what.

I take it then that you'd be in favor of the MAC continuing to compete for the Access Bowl slot, even if only winning it once every 5-10 seasons, as opposed to a four team "lower end G5 playoff" with the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA champs, guaranteed every season (and possible two MAC some seasons)?

(02-20-2017 05:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]I take it then that you'd be in favor of the MAC continuing to compete for the Access Bowl slot, even if only winning it once every 5-10 seasons, as opposed to a four team "lower end G5 playoff" with the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA champs, guaranteed every season (and possible two MAC some seasons)?

Wholeheartedly. A mid-major playoff is a terrible idea. If Northern Illinois wants to participate in a separate playoff system, they are welcome to move down to FCS. I personally want no part of that.

Yeah it seems like NIU's AD wants to participate in a "No ... no ... we're better than FCS!! ... but we want our own playoff, because we can never compete with the P5" playoff.

Quote:The bottom 10% of FBS is interchangable with the top 10% of FCS.

So the Top 13 is interchangeable with the Bottom 13 -- I agree. Makes it pretty darn Separate. :)

Quote:Yeah it seems like NIU's AD wants to participate in a "No ... no ... we're better than FCS!! ... but we want our own playoff, because we can never compete with the P5" playoff.

What he doesn't understand is that making a G5 Playoff *automatically without question* turns G5 --> Another D1 Division For Football.

Thinking short-sighted like he, a G5 Playoff by itself doesn't Bring Benefit -- it Makes Up for a LACK of benefit, not being in D1A/FBS anymore. So it's a "look at the bright side" sort of thing.

The only way I could see opting for a G5 Playoff is when it gets to the point that in all practicality & finances, the G5 is the same as it'd be if it were NON-FBS. THEN, I could see that. Problem is, that'd require P5 conferences to start having restrictions on scheduling G5 teams Just-The-Same as they do for D1AA/FCS teams right now, along with not guaranteeing a G5 team in any "BCS" bowl. How could this happen?

An 8-team playoff + P5 conference expansions filling up a bit more with G5 scheduling no-nos by the conferences. That would probably do it where the G5 then goes to be it's own division. With an 8-team playoff, good luck having an AUTO bid anymore. It'd go back to the olden days when there wasn't an AUTO bid, yet, there were *10* BCS teams going. With just 8 for a playoff -- wouldn't happen. Especially if P5 conferences were scooting out G5 teams from OOC scheduling like limiting it to 1 G5 a season and no FCSs.

In the end, it wouldn't be good for college football, so I don't think it's going to happen.

I think an 8-team playoff will end up quickly jumping to a 12-team playoff (which Would make a G5 Auto bid) -- because an 8-team playoff would make the other 2 bowls non-BCS-worthy, being on the outside. Nice bowls... and sure, they could have 1 of them have a G5 bid, and it'd be financially Nice, but, it'd be less $$. Hence, I think they'd do that for a few years and jump to a full 12-team playoff.

G5 Playoff is ONLY happening when the G5 becomes it's own D1 Football Division. It'll just be a by-product of that occurring, if/when it does. I hope not, and don't think it will, because although it sounds like a good idea for those who Love Big P5 Expanded Conferences... in the end, it will suck out Cinderella and take some air out, as less G5 football would be watched as well... and less G5 teams due to lack of funds, etc. Would be pretty messy.

We just saw the high water mark for the MAC. How many undefeated seasons has the confernce had in the last 10 years? I can't think of any so it's pretty safe to assume that last season was a really special season for WMU and not likely to happen with any frequency in the MAC.

Either Boise or the AAC will end up with that bowl spot most seasons if history serves as an indicator.

The MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA could probably do a playoff with bowl games and not really change much from the current system but it would give kids something to play for. I know I'd watch it.

(02-21-2017 12:29 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]We just saw the high water mark for the MAC. How many undefeated seasons has the confernce had in the last 10 years? I can't think of any so it's pretty safe to assume that last season was a really special season for WMU and not likely to happen with any frequency in the MAC.

A MAC school need not go undefeated to earn a New Year's Day bowl berth. Northern Illinois played in the 2013 Orange Bowl, despite a regular season loss.

Bottom line---if a G5 playoff is worth 160 million---then G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls should be able to get big money as well. That's the next logical step to take in looking for extra G5 income. If there is no "big" money for G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls (which I suspect would be the case), then that would be a HUGE indication that a G5 playoff would in fact NOT offer any real monetary windfall.

(02-22-2017 03:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line---if a G5 playoff is worth 160 million---then G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls should be able to get big money as well. That's the next logical step to take in looking for extra G5 income. If there is no "big" money for G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls (which I suspect would be the case), then that would be a HUGE indication that a G5 playoff would in fact NOT offer any real monetary windfall.

Well, if you assume that one day all P5 v G5 bowls will dry up, leaving only G5 v G5 opportunities for G5 teams that don't get the Access Bowl berth ... then in a perfect world wouldn't you still ask the CFP if they could rig it up so that the #2 through #5 G5 teams played, at least?

Meaning that all the G5 are still in the CFP, getting the same money.


Or are you not even interested in those matchups?

(02-22-2017 03:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2017 03:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line---if a G5 playoff is worth 160 million---then G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls should be able to get big money as well. That's the next logical step to take in looking for extra G5 income. If there is no "big" money for G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls (which I suspect would be the case), then that would be a HUGE indication that a G5 playoff would in fact NOT offer any real monetary windfall.

Well, if you assume that one day all P5 v G5 bowls will dry up, leaving only G5 v G5 opportunities for G5 teams that don't get the Access Bowl berth ... then in a perfect world wouldn't you still ask the CFP if they could rig it up so that the #2 through #5 G5 teams played, at least?

Meaning that all the G5 are still in the CFP, getting the same money.


Or are you not even interested in those matchups?

Im not sure I understand your question, but Im assuming the G5, in the absence of G5 vs P5 bowls, would likely gravitate towards some sort of G5 champ vs G5 champ bowl model that's generally similar to how the P5 used to be before the BCS/CFP.

(02-22-2017 03:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line---if a G5 playoff is worth 160 million---then G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls should be able to get big money as well. That's the next logical step to take in looking for extra G5 income. If there is no "big" money for G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls (which I suspect would be the case), then that would be a HUGE indication that a G5 playoff would in fact NOT offer any real monetary windfall.

I do note that the 2016 Las Vegas Bowl featuring SDSU v. Houston (not even a G5 champ) landed 3.74M viewers. That was by far the best pre-Christmas bowl viewership and outperformed plenty of P5-P5 post-Christmas bowl games, including the Stanford-UNC Sun Bowl and TCU-Georgia Liberty bowl.

(02-22-2017 04:48 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2017 03:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line---if a G5 playoff is worth 160 million---then G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls should be able to get big money as well. That's the next logical step to take in looking for extra G5 income. If there is no "big" money for G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls (which I suspect would be the case), then that would be a HUGE indication that a G5 playoff would in fact NOT offer any real monetary windfall.

I do note that the 2016 Las Vegas Bowl featuring SDSU v. Houston (not even a G5 champ) landed 3.74M viewers. That was by far the best pre-Christmas bowl viewership and outperformed plenty of P5-P5 post-Christmas bowl games, including the Stanford-UNC Sun Bowl and TCU-Georgia Liberty bowl.

Yup. That's why I have advocated for the G5 to band together and create a series of "champions bowls" that would serve as the guaranteed destinations for the G5 champs not going to the access bowls.

I see it as a 3 bowl series, with the #2 and #3 G5 champs facing off against the top two P5's not involved in a CFP sponsored bowl. The 3rd G5 bowl would feature #4G5 champs vs #5 G5 champ.

If UH vs SDSU can draw 3.5 million viewers---these proposed games should do pretty well. The key is youd need a network willing to invest enough money in the idea to coax the 2 needed P5 opponents. I'd even suggest simply partnering with the CFP to create the series (they could share in the profit and further insulate themselves from further law suits). The big key to me is this idea fits within the current CFP/bowl structure and does not create the image of two separate divisions within FBS.

(02-19-2017 03:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]Could a Group of 5 NIT type playoffs work? It could generate extra cash which could bring new teams up from FCS to FBS if this works out right. The new teams who can't be part of the CFP money pot yet could be in this playoffs.

Not really

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

All for G4 Playoff football.

Plenty of G4 schools spending hundreds of millions and they don't intend to voluntarily be demoted to Division II


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

G4???

Where do you guys come up with this. LOl. Last week it was a p-7 for BB.

H 11

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(02-20-2017 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2017 12:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2017 04:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2017 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]For the bolded, the fact is (at least in the Chicago area) is that a very large number of people DO eschew degrees from solid local schools for out-of-state P5 schools. It's not just a token amount, either - it's enough to have the state of Illinois be the #1 net exporter of college students in the entire country! Our local school districts will absolutely send more kids to Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Missouri than they will to Illinois State and the non-flagship in-state universities this year. We see the same thing with New Jersey and California students. Forget about the University of Michigan - look at the number of out-of-state kids from Illinois and New Jersey at places like Indiana or the number of California kids that are inundating Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State instead of going to their non-flagship in-state public universities (or even eschewing their in-state flagship options). Maybe it's not their football programs specifically, but there IS something about being a "major brand name" school that can attract students in a way that others can't.

Frank what your describing is the way the kids from high income families see things. You for example were someone from a higher socioeconomic background with your father a professor. Names and prestige is everything in higher socioeconomic circles.

I once worked with a project manager who said that he went to Utah State. He then said proudly that Utah State has one of the most conservative political science departments in the country. His decision was based on perceived political environment than anything else.

Middle class kids who are not part of the well to do establishment view schools differently.

Conservative campus
Liberal campus
School with the biggest parties
Climate
Highest female to male ratio
Scenery
High school friends
Girlfriends
Too far from home
Too close to home
Offers my major
Perceived strength of the major

I just don't think athletics are too high on the list for the middle class kid who's parents watch the Super Bowl and World Series and that's it. Unless they grew up in a P5 college town so they understood what it means to have that.

I think a lot of people in this thread are taking a narrow view of who is "high income", though. I'm NOT talking about the one-percenters at the tip-top of the income scale. It's easy to dismiss that group as not caring about tuition prices and being outliers that can "afford" to be frivolous.

Instead, I'm talking about, say, the top 25% of income households. They might be "only" 25% of the US population overall, but they're making up the plurality or even a majority of the households that live in large swaths of suburbs in large metro areas, and they further make up an even larger proportion of those that attend college overall. They're the "mass affluent", if you will (or who most would characterize as "upper middle class"). This is a very large group (if not the single largest group) of college "consumers" and they DO have the ability to shape the higher education market overall. This group cares about price (as they can't just pull $60,000 in tuition per year out of thin air), but they do care about prestige, as well, and they'll balance the two heavily. I think people here are underestimating how large this group is when looking at them as a proportion of the college population overall. This isn't anecdotal - people in suburban NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Dallas and other major metro areas pay out-of-state tuition for other schools at VERY high rates and these aren't the richest of the rich kids.

Once again, I'm not saying that sports is #1 on their list for a school. It's one factor of many. However, whether a school does have big-time sports or not certainly does have a material impact on the overall culture and atmosphere of a school and the group that I described certainly cares about that aspect.

It's no different than why cities want pro sports teams. Even though not everyone in a city might care about pro sports, the point is that's an indicator that you're in a "brand name city" when it has pro sports teams. (And once again, you can have the argument that it's wasteful to subsidize pro sports teams, and you might be right. However, mayors typically get rewarded when they attract new pro sports teams and they typically get punished when they lose them. Similarly, look at the heat applied to administrators at even low revenue schools like Idaho and UAB when they dared to drop football levels or even football entirely. People don't get fired for adding a football team, whether it's college or pro, but they certainly can get fired for losing one.)

This could apply to things outside of sports, too. For instance, I only go to the Lyric Opera of Chicago maybe once every year or two and it wouldn't be on my top 10 personal reasons why I like living in the Chicago area, but the mere fact that the Lyric Opera is here adds to the overall cultural landscape that makes the entire city attractive. Chicago would certainly survive without the opera, but it's one less differentiator in its total package of a cultural experience. Not every person can visit every museum, attraction, theater or sports team all of the time in their respective home cities, but that doesn't mean that any of those people would actually believe that their cities would be better off *without* them.

Once again, we can go back to the "correlation vs. causation" discussion and say that it's all just correlation... and I wouldn't disagree. However, big-time sports at a school does add to the TOTALITY of the experience at a college that is definitely different when it's not there. I can see it with the difference between Northwestern and University of Chicago grads that I work with every day. They basically go after the same types of students with the same types of grades and they're elite institutions that are only a few miles away from each other. Northwestern is hardly Michigan or Alabama in terms of a great sports campus, but you better believe that there's a huge difference in the school pride that Northwestern grads show compared to U of C grads and that translates into how much enthusiastically Northwestern alums help out their fellow alums compared to U of C alums. I think most Northwestern alums would say that being a Big Ten school was a net positive to their experience even if they weren't big sports fans (similar to Stanford, Duke, Vandy, etc.). It's a major differentiator for Northwestern in competing for top students against a place like U of C, Washington University in St. Louis and Ivy League schools.

Frank, I agree that many Illinois kids go to Iowa and Wisconsin etc and that many California kids go to Oregon, Arizona etc. Yes, they'd rather do this than go to a directional school in state or a lesser city state school. I couldn't agree more. My buddy from Chicago went to Arizona for his BA and New Mexico for his Masters. I remember him once saying he would have never gone to a school without football. However, he doesn't know what P5 and G5 is. He went to the schools he went to because they are big state flagship schools. He likes going to big college games in Texas due to the party/tail gate, he rarely even goes to the actual game anymore. He understands that Texas and A&M are big time and North Texas and UTSA are small fry. No middle class high school kid is going to college because of the "P5". They are going to schools that have both University and the name of a state in them minus direction, that have all the things that make college, college. Sports, fraternity and sorority houses, medical school, law school, bussiness school, dorms, on campus apartments, parties, fun and the name of a state on their diploma that they do not have to describe/explain to family friends and future employers.
Cheers!

Exactly. lol....Anyone thinking 17-18 year old kids are all making their college decisions based on academics and future earning don't know many 17-18 year kids. Some ARE very mature and no doubt make their decision based on academics and future earnings----but far more make their decision based on things like being fans of certain college sports teams, which schools are more "fun", where their friends are going, where their boyfriend/girlfriend is going, and any number of other even more silly reasons that would probably appall Frank the Tank. We don't let this age group drink for a reason.

I would agree with this statement 100% - if we were talking about over 10 - 20 years ago. A number of factors have changed from the time I made the decision on where I was going to college vs today. Consider: 1) The price has gone up way beyond the cost of inflation, 2) Simply getting any old degree no longer cuts it in the real world and 3) Mom and dad plus the states are no longer kicking in the amount of money they used to be able to as in the past (related to point 1). Let's say for the sake of argument that the majority of kids still think the way you stated in your points above. There is still mom and dad who are no longer willing to foot the bill simply because college campus life is a "right of passage". I know for my own children that there are certain majors that I will never fund. If my kids want to become engineers, scientists or even teachers - I'll fund that. But not a humanities/social science major that does not include an education degree to teach it to HS and/or MS kids. And most definitely any majors that have the word "studies" as part of the degree name.

Kids may not care about finances and geography; however, parents do. And in today's university climate - everything is much different. I would wager that most parents would prefer the right price over university athletics - or in general "campus atmosphere". The links I provided earlier are bearing that out.

(02-22-2017 11:00 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]Plenty of G4 schools spending hundreds of millions and they don't intend to voluntarily be demoted to Division II


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

no g-5 schools spend hundreds of millions on athletics. The budgets are typically 50m or less per year.