(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

(01-01-2016 11:39 AM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

That's because of the bias of the people who pick the college football rankongs

(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

(01-01-2016 12:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

Quite true. Both BSU and Houston would have to had zero losses to qualify in the BCS type bowls.
With the guarantee tie-in that allows the G5 conference to play for a Major Bowl without the need of perfection.
However, even the current setup does mean that the G5 won't be playing a P5 champ. BSU could have been setup to play TCU or Baylor last year. It didn't happen with the geography of BSU and AZ ranking, but it still possible in years with the Sugar and Rose hosting.

(01-01-2016 11:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:39 AM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

That's because of the bias of the people who pick the college football rankongs

Not really. Boise wouldn't have been close last year and Houston only was #15 this year in the BCS proxy ratings- using the components of the BCS. So they would have been out.

(01-01-2016 12:15 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:39 AM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

That's because of the bias of the people who pick the college football rankongs

Not really. Boise wouldn't have been close last year and Houston only was #15 this year in the BCS proxy ratings- using the components of the BCS. So they would have been out.

There was clearly bias when an 11-0 Marshall finally got in behind Boise in the low 20s. If this was the BCS era, they would have been top 15 by that time. The only thing holding them back was the committee of the college football rankings.

(01-01-2016 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The G5 Access spot in an NY6 bowl is billed as an improvement over the old BCS access for non-AQ because it is guaranteed rather than based on meeting criteria. But, it also has some significant drawbacks as well:

1) Less Exposure. In the CFP era, the great bulk of the New Year's spotlight is on the Playoff games. The other NY6 bowls get some shine but not like during the BCS era.

2) Lesser Bowls: The G5 champ is limited to three of the six bowls, and these are the lesser ones. The G5 team never gets to play in the higher-status Contract bowls, the Orange, Sugar, and Rose Bowls. Those three bowls have always been "major" and have the highest brand value. But the G5 rep gets stuck in the lesser-status Access bowls, with the Peach being particularly low-status as it has never been a major bowl.

In the BCS era, a non-AQ could play in any bowl. Hawaii and Utah played in the Sugar Bowl, NIU played in the Orange Bowl, TCU even played in the mighty Rose Bowl. But now, these bowls are off-limits to the G5 champ.

3) Opponent quality: Thanks to the CFP, the G5 champ will NEVER get to play a P5 Champ. The P5 Champs ALL play in either the playoff games or in a Contract bowl. This means that the G5 representative will always play some kind of P5 runner-up, which isn't as prestigious and doesn't allow the G5 a chance to prove itself.

In the BCS era, the non-AQ team that busted the BCS often got to play a P5 champ. TCU played B1G champ Wisconsin, UCF played Big 12 champ Baylor, Boise played Big 12 champ Oklahoma. NIU played ACC champ FSU. Those were real chances to prove your worth.

In contrast, Houston played the 3rd place ACC team yesterday. Not nearly as good an opportunity.

Lesser-status bowls, lesser exposure, lesser opponents = Ghetto "access".

(01-01-2016 12:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 12:15 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:39 AM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  except that in both of the 1st 2 years, Boise and Houston wouldn't have qualified for the BCS. not even really all that close.

That's because of the bias of the people who pick the college football rankongs

Not really. Boise wouldn't have been close last year and Houston only was #15 this year in the BCS proxy ratings- using the components of the BCS. So they would have been out.

There was clearly bias when an 11-0 Marshall finally got in behind Boise in the low 20s. If this was the BCS era, they would have been top 15 by that time. The only thing holding them back was the committee of the college football rankings.

Marshall would never have gotten in. Their computer numbers due to their putrid SOS would have killed them. Also remember they would have had to get top 12, and no way in hell that would have happened.

(01-01-2016 12:40 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 12:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 12:15 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:39 AM)Surbadger Wrote:  That's because of the bias of the people who pick the college football rankongs

Not really. Boise wouldn't have been close last year and Houston only was #15 this year in the BCS proxy ratings- using the components of the BCS. So they would have been out.

There was clearly bias when an 11-0 Marshall finally got in behind Boise in the low 20s. If this was the BCS era, they would have been top 15 by that time. The only thing holding them back was the committee of the college football rankings.

Marshall would never have gotten in. Their computer numbers due to their putrid SOS would have killed them. Also remember they would have had to get top 12, and no way in hell that would have happened.

Boise got in the Fiesta Bowl in '09 with a SOS ranked #96 and still won the bowl game.

The committee relies too much on SOS which hurts any G5 team.

(01-01-2016 11:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Not really. Boise wouldn't have been close last year and Houston only was #15 this year in the BCS proxy ratings- using the components of the BCS. So they would have been out.

(01-01-2016 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The G5 Access spot in an NY6 bowl is billed as an improvement over the old BCS access for non-AQ because it is guaranteed rather than based on meeting criteria. But, it also has some significant drawbacks as well:

1) Less Exposure. In the CFP era, the great bulk of the New Year's spotlight is on the Playoff games. The other NY6 bowls get some shine but not like during the BCS era.

2) Lesser Bowls: The G5 champ is limited to three of the six bowls, and these are the lesser ones. The G5 team never gets to play in the higher-status Contract bowls, the Orange, Sugar, and Rose Bowls. Those three bowls have always been "major" and have the highest brand value. But the G5 rep gets stuck in the lesser-status Access bowls, with the Peach being particularly low-status as it has never been a major bowl.

In the BCS era, a non-AQ could play in any bowl. Hawaii and Utah played in the Sugar Bowl, NIU played in the Orange Bowl, TCU even played in the mighty Rose Bowl. But now, these bowls are off-limits to the G5 champ.

3) Opponent quality: Thanks to the CFP, the G5 champ will NEVER get to play a P5 Champ. The P5 Champs ALL play in either the playoff games or in a Contract bowl. This means that the G5 representative will always play some kind of P5 runner-up, which isn't as prestigious and doesn't allow the G5 a chance to prove itself.

In the BCS era, the non-AQ team that busted the BCS often got to play a P5 champ. TCU played B1G champ Wisconsin, UCF played Big 12 champ Baylor, Boise played Big 12 champ Oklahoma. NIU played ACC champ FSU. Those were real chances to prove your worth.

In contrast, Houston played the 3rd place ACC team yesterday. Not nearly as good an opportunity.

Lesser-status bowls, lesser exposure, lesser opponents = Ghetto "access".

I disagree with your analysis, but not your conclusion. The autonomy enshrines a different status in the governing structure. The BE and CUSA and WAC (pre-split) actually had the same number of votes as the P5 in the old structure. The media emphasizes the P5 even more than they did BCS. The non-BCS wanted to get rid of the label, but it has become even more pronounced.

As for the bowl, they were always shut out of the championship game. Now they are guaranteed 1 out of 6 and they get a top 12 team. And the Cotton once was a premier bowl. The Fiesta at times was viewed as the premier bowl since they had more flexibility in who they scheduled. They got Miami and FSU and Notre Dame in the late 80s when they were the dominant programs. They may not have had the viewership and prestige of the Rose, but they had better matchups. The Sugar was the weakest of the Big 4 in the 90s. They were the one that had to migrate to New Year's Eve to get ratings. The Orange was diminished in prestige after the Big 8 joined the Big 12 and the Fiesta got their champ.

Now it is true they won't get a champ that often. But Houston got the champ from two years ago and a playoff team from last year. In the BCS era, when they did get in, they often got the weakest champ and didn't always get a champ:
Boise-OU Only the ACC champ WF was lower ranked than OU
Hawaii-UGA UGA was highly ranked, but was a conference runnerup
Utah-Alabama Alabama was highly ranked but was a conference runnerup
Boise-TCU They had to take two so they paired them against each other
TCU-Wisconsin TCU got the #3 champ but they didn't have a choice. TCU was the #3 team and would have made a playoff using BCS rankings
NIU-FSU FSU was a champ, but they were only #12. Only Big 10 champ Wisconsin, who got in with an upset, was lower ranked

As for UCF, they got an automatic bid, not the non-BCS. And they still played the #5 BCS champ.

So yes, there is a bigger perception gap, but not for the reasons you stated.

(01-01-2016 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The G5 Access spot in an NY6 bowl is billed as an improvement over the old BCS access for non-AQ because it is guaranteed rather than based on meeting criteria. But, it also has some significant drawbacks as well:

1) Less Exposure. In the CFP era, the great bulk of the New Year's spotlight is on the Playoff games. The other NY6 bowls get some shine but not like during the BCS era.

2) Lesser Bowls: The G5 champ is limited to three of the six bowls, and these are the lesser ones. The G5 team never gets to play in the higher-status Contract bowls, the Orange, Sugar, and Rose Bowls. Those three bowls have always been "major" and have the highest brand value. But the G5 rep gets stuck in the lesser-status Access bowls, with the Peach being particularly low-status as it has never been a major bowl.

In the BCS era, a non-AQ could play in any bowl. Hawaii and Utah played in the Sugar Bowl, NIU played in the Orange Bowl, TCU even played in the mighty Rose Bowl. But now, these bowls are off-limits to the G5 champ.

3) Opponent quality: Thanks to the CFP, the G5 champ will NEVER get to play a P5 Champ. The P5 Champs ALL play in either the playoff games or in a Contract bowl. This means that the G5 representative will always play some kind of P5 runner-up, which isn't as prestigious and doesn't allow the G5 a chance to prove itself.

In the BCS era, the non-AQ team that busted the BCS often got to play a P5 champ. TCU played B1G champ Wisconsin, UCF played Big 12 champ Baylor, Boise played Big 12 champ Oklahoma. NIU played ACC champ FSU. Those were real chances to prove your worth.

In contrast, Houston played the 3rd place ACC team yesterday. Not nearly as good an opportunity.

Lesser-status bowls, lesser exposure, lesser opponents = Ghetto "access".

(01-01-2016 11:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question, it is better to play in a major bowl than not play in one, and the G5 guarantee is an advantage over the old BCS.

But my point is that there is a price paid for that guarantee, namely that the G5 champ gets shunted off into one of the three lesser-status bowls, and they never get to face a P5 champ.

That's a big cost, IMO.

(01-01-2016 03:10 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 11:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question, it is better to play in a major bowl than not play in one, and the G5 guarantee is an advantage over the old BCS.

But my point is that there is a price paid for that guarantee, namely that the G5 champ gets shunted off into one of the three lesser-status bowls, and they never get to face a P5 champ.

That's a big cost, IMO.

That's better than nothing, the fact is these bowl committees don't want to be stuck with a Kent State or even a Boise. They are forced to take teams they otherwise wouldn't want to take if it was up to them. The only exception was Boise one year because the pickings were slim.

So be thankful because it used to be that Tulane, Boise and Marshall were relegated to the Liberty, Humanitarian/Potato, Motor City Bowl. Heck it used to be that Northern Illinois, Bowling Green, et al would go to no bowl.

(01-01-2016 03:08 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The G5 Access spot in an NY6 bowl is billed as an improvement over the old BCS access for non-AQ because it is guaranteed rather than based on meeting criteria. But, it also has some significant drawbacks as well:

1) Less Exposure. In the CFP era, the great bulk of the New Year's spotlight is on the Playoff games. The other NY6 bowls get some shine but not like during the BCS era.

2) Lesser Bowls: The G5 champ is limited to three of the six bowls, and these are the lesser ones. The G5 team never gets to play in the higher-status Contract bowls, the Orange, Sugar, and Rose Bowls. Those three bowls have always been "major" and have the highest brand value. But the G5 rep gets stuck in the lesser-status Access bowls, with the Peach being particularly low-status as it has never been a major bowl.

In the BCS era, a non-AQ could play in any bowl. Hawaii and Utah played in the Sugar Bowl, NIU played in the Orange Bowl, TCU even played in the mighty Rose Bowl. But now, these bowls are off-limits to the G5 champ.

3) Opponent quality: Thanks to the CFP, the G5 champ will NEVER get to play a P5 Champ. The P5 Champs ALL play in either the playoff games or in a Contract bowl. This means that the G5 representative will always play some kind of P5 runner-up, which isn't as prestigious and doesn't allow the G5 a chance to prove itself.

In the BCS era, the non-AQ team that busted the BCS often got to play a P5 champ. TCU played B1G champ Wisconsin, UCF played Big 12 champ Baylor, Boise played Big 12 champ Oklahoma. NIU played ACC champ FSU. Those were real chances to prove your worth.

In contrast, Houston played the 3rd place ACC team yesterday. Not nearly as good an opportunity.

Lesser-status bowls, lesser exposure, lesser opponents = Ghetto "access".

You're kidding right?

Houston got an excellent opponent, and a good stage to showcase themselves....FSU is a top brand in college football, won the NC 2 years ago and was in the playoff last year....