(07-17-2017 12:34 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 09:43 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  No matter what expansion happens, the power schools and CFP will say top 8 teams not conference champions. Thus ensuring they don't have to take a G5 champ and keeping the money. Just the reality of the situation.

Even as a G5 fan, I'm afraid you're right unless the G5 can pull off what Scott Cowen and the other G5 presidents pulled off to get the G5 into BCS bowls. That would definitely be the equalizer.

Had a brainstorm while contemplating the college football season vs the college basketball season. NCAA men's basketball has like a preseason NIT, and a lot of tournaments and conference challenge tournaments. If the G5 could do a football equivalent of this, while it would not necessarily guarantee the G5 a spot of at the CFP table, it would make G5 appearances a lot more common, IMO. Basically this, take Calhoun's idea, and instead of doing it at the end of the year, do it at the beginning. I'm sure some wouldn't go for it for various reasons, but I think at the same time, some teams would go for it, and it would bolster strength of schedule for those G5 challengers.

Not a bad idea, but it doesn't feasibly fit into the CFB scheduling model. If G5's want to get aggressive, they need to keep scheduling P5 teams as "away only" paycheck games. Houston--for example--with Oklahoma and Louisville on the schedule last year. Boise State has been shooting for this for the past decade. They need these SOS benchmarks regularly. They can't schedule FCS schools or non-conference G5 games. They need ALL P5 OOC games (as much as possible).

If they really want to be considered "equal"--as I hear all of you small school guys around clambering for--than they need to schedule UP...way UP. No excuses for beating 1 P5 school and then running the table against your weaker G5 counterparts and expecting a spot at the table (looking at you Western Michigan/Marshall/etc.)